State refuses to let parents pay more property taxes to fund education.

[hkem1]

If you are not a Wall Street Journal subscriber then you can copy & paste
"
Parents in School District Hit by Cuts Want to Pay More, but State Won't Allow It" and search it using Google. Then click on the first non-Google news link to see the full story.

Also, I think copy and pasting
"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704329104576138983726581672.html" that will work as well.

Tax Complaint: Too Low - WSJ.com

Michelle Trouv? wants to pay more taxes to support her local schools. The state of Kansas won't let her, and the resulting standoff has pit parents in affluent districts against those in the state's poorer towns.

Ms. Trouv? and other parents came up with a solution: Put a property-tax increase dedicated to school funding on the ballot. Voters in her school district have approved several in recent years and Ms. Trouv? is confident they would do so again, if given the chance.

But Kansas is one of a handful of states that limit how much money local school districts can raise from property taxes?a restriction to ensure a rough parity in spending across the state.


The Shawnee Mission School District has hit that cap, so there won't be a vote on a tax increase this year. Instead, the district will shut three schools and make millions of dollars in additional cuts because of state funding cuts.

Ms. Trouv? and other parents have filed a civil-rights suit in federal court, claiming Kansas has denied them the fundamental right to use their property as they see fit, including paying higher taxes on it for better schools.

But courts in Kansas and across the U.S. have repeatedly held that states have an obligation to ensure equity?or at least, get as close as possible?at public schools. "The state should provide the same level of education to all students," said Sherriene Jones-Sontag, a spokeswoman for the governor.

Since the 1970s, nearly every state has been hit with lawsuits from activists and families of students in low-income districts alleging inequities in public education. Several?Texas, Vermont and Kansas among them?responded by capping how much districts could raise through property taxes or by mandating that money generated in affluent towns be shared with lower-income districts.

The Texas Supreme Court struck down the cap there in 2005, though it has since been revived somewhat in a different formulation. In Kansas, state courts have upheld the principle of a cap, saying it serves to reduce disparities among districts.

Parents in the Shawnee Mission district say Kansas needs to set a floor?a minimum standard for all schools. But they question any benefit from setting a financial ceiling. If their citizens are willing to tax themselves to restore fourth-grade violin lessons or Chinese classes or the middle-school track team, they ask, why should anyone object?

Even with the current cap, he said, wealthy districts can offer students more extras because they don't need to spend as much on such basic services as after-school tutoring for children who are behind in English because they were raised speaking a different language at home.

If richer suburban districts were allowed to widen their financial advantages, Mr. Cunningham said, "those who have, will have more." His students, he said, may never be able to catch up.

I am sympathetic to the state's interest of trying to narrow the gap between wealthy districts and poorer districts, but I think there are better alternatives than bringing down the top districts to the lower districts levels.

In Texas I liked the intent of the Robin Hood laws which took money from wealthier districts and spread it to poorer districts to help narrow the gap.

That is fundamentally different though than just saying a wealthy district cannot choose to pay more in taxes to support its schools.

 

[scooterbug44]

If these folks want to spend more of their money on their schools, there are many ways to do so without raising taxes on everyone.

Donations, buying ads in school publications, sponsorships, volunteering to reduce non-essential staffing costs, etc.

Frankly, I'm not so sure about her claim that everyone who lives there will go along with the tax increase - my guess is many seniors already struggling to pay bills would say no to some of the extras she wants to fund.

 

[hkem1]

Frankly, I'm not so sure about her claim that everyone who lives there will go along with the tax increase - my guess is many seniors already struggling to pay bills would say no to some of the extras she wants to fund.

When I began to read the article, I assumed that was the rationale behind the law and it seemed valid. But then I read what Kansas sees as the motive for the law:

But Kansas is one of a handful of states that limit how much money local school districts can raise from property taxes?a restriction to ensure a rough parity in spending across the state.

If this law is designed to ensure that seniors don't have to pay outrageously high property taxes, then fine, go with it.

But if the point is to somehow improve education across the state as they say, I think they are severely misguided.

 

[scooterbug44]

The law has nothing to do with seniors - it has much to do with trying to keep a standard/equality for schools.

If the voters are willing, I say let them raise taxes - but spread that money to all the schools in the state.

No doubt they could all use more money.

 

[Douglas the Intrepid]

Walton County schools are significantly better then most of the state's while utilizing the same resources. Under this rationale, I guess they better start firing the better teachers here to achieve standardized equality with the rest of the state then. Utterly ridiculous. If property owners wish to pay higher taxes to raise the standards for their local schools and children, more power to them. The concept of bringing school systems down to a lower standard for equality's sake is disturbing at best. I don't see what is stopping these parent's from just donating extra funds to the school instead of worrying so much about the taxation end of things...

 

[beachmouse]

Nice strawman there, Douglas.

Many more states than Texas and Kansas have faced long,lengthy, and frequently ugly legal action over that kind of school funding issues, and by the time the state supreme courts ruled on the matter and the extremely expensive legal bills are paid, the state typically ends up with a system that makes no one happy, but that most stakeholders find to be tolerable/acceptable. And very few people involved in education funding want to go through that whole expensive legal process again, so the funding systems that are passed by legislatures and held up in courts tend to be more or less fixed in place.

 

[hkem1]

I don't see what is stopping these parent's from just donating extra funds to the school instead of worrying so much about the taxation end of things...

I wish the article had explained this because I was left wondering the same thing.

 

[scooterbug44]

Frankly, I find this whole thing weird and sort of disturbing. First impression is this lady needs more stuff to do. Second impression is that intentionally keeping the funding for schools low IN ANY WAY is F-ed up.

Considering the time period these decisions/laws are dating from I can see why it happened, but I still think distribution (at least to a certain percentage) solves that issue.

As far as donations etc. - noone ever stopped certain parents or local businesses from donating stuff to my schools. Some did it anonymously to lower the prices for stuff like warm up jackets so all the team members could buy it, some donated equipment, some found "deals", some had their names on buildings.

Raise your hand if you went to a public school and knew exactly which local businesses to hit up when you had to sell advertising for something or find donations.

Hint - they usually weren't part of a chain and they probably were some of the few businesses in town that employed high school students.