LarryAllen wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:53 pm
HomerJ wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:19 pm
LarryAllen wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:30 am
We are in a very high net income area but still give $500 per kid to our school district foundation. It's for music, arts, sports, etc.
So weird. Our public school in the low-income Midwest somehow manages to have music, arts, and sports without parents donating extra money.
There are many different possible reasons for this. Some negative about where you live and some negative about where I live. For me, I would rather live where I live and pay the extra money... that is, extra money on top of our high taxes. You are happy in your low-income midwest and that's great. The world going round....
I think I understand it better after reading this post
rcjchicity wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:54 pm
We also live in Chicago, and my kids aren't in school yet, but we paid great attention to schools when buying our house. Even though CPS is a huge school system, the neighborhood elementary school system makes the variances in schools hyper-local. The wealth of the specific neighborhood makes a tremendous difference in the amenities available to the kids. A school like Bell, Blaine or Nettlehorst, in high income neighborhoods with lots of parental involvement in/donations to the "Friends of ..." groups, can have much better playground areas and extra-curriculars, for example.
The virtuous/vicious cycle aspect of this really can exacerbate inequality in what should nominally be equivalent schools within the same school district. Wealthy kids go to Bell -> the parents donate a lot to make the school nice -> test scores are high in this socioeconomic group -> more people want to go there, driving up property values in the neighborhood -> the student population demographic gets wealthier -> rinse and repeat...
Looks like some states have tried to even out all schools by sharing tax money equally among all schools. So then the parents step up and pay even more to their particular school to make it nicer.
In MY state, local property taxes pay for local schools. So the more expensive areas have the nicer schools. Since I live in one of the higher income suburbs around a major city in that low-income state, our schools are pretty nice. We certainly have all the extra programs and activities most of you have to pay extra for.
I don't know how good or bad the other school districts are in my state. Maybe much worse in the rural areas, maybe the same (since less students), I don't know.
Sounds like both methods have problems with inequality.
All I know is our taxes pay for everything in my district. Which I vastly prefer. I always wondered why people would pay for private school. Seems smarter to use that money to buy a more expensive house in a good public school district. You get to enjoy a nicer house, and later on, you can sell it, and get most/all of the money back.
But it sounds like in SOME states, you have to buy the more expensive house, AND donate thousands of dollars a year to get a good public school.
I would absolutely hate that system. In that case, it might indeed be smarter to live somewhere cheaper and pay for private school.
This has been an interesting eye-opening thread.