Bernie Sanders has a bold, simple idea for improving public education

[n2doc]

by Dylan Matthews

At Monday night's Brown & Black Democratic Presidential Forum in Iowa, Bernie Sanders came out in favor of a massive change in the way the US funds schools:

"One of the things that I have always believed is that, in terms of education, we have to break our dependency on the property tax, because what happens is the wealthiest suburbs can in fact have great schools but poor, inner-city schools cannot. So I think we need equality in terms of how we fund education, and to make sure the federal government plays an active role to make sure that those schools who need it the most get the funds that they deserve."

Bernie's right: The property tax system of funding schools is inherently regressive, granting fewer resources to poorer towns with lower property values and more to rich towns with high property values. Federalizing funding of public schools — or at least moving further in that direction — would be a huge boon for both economic and racial equality. It would make our tax system much more progressive and protect schools from cuts during recessions. And done right, it can improve school quality while maintaining a degree of local autonomy.

Nationwide, state and local governments spend 15 percent less per pupil on poor school districts, which get $9,270 per student, than on rich districts, which get $10,721. This isn't true in every state. Twenty-three states, including major ones like California and Florida, provide more spending to poor districts. That's as it should be. Quality education in high-poverty areas costs more money than quality education in affluent areas, not least because of greater numbers of special education students and students for whom English isn't a first language.

But in 23 other states, poorer districts are shafted, and in three states funding is essentially equal, which isn't good enough. In Pennsylvania, the worst offender, the poorest districts get a whopping 33.5 percent less per pupil.

And this really harms poor kids. A study last year by Northwestern's C. Kirabo Jackson and Claudia Persico and Berkeley's Rucker Johnson examined court-ordered increases in education funding and found that a 10 percent per-pupil boost for poor children led to 9.5 percent higher wages and a 6.8 percentage point reduction in poverty as adults. The natural corollary to that is that lower school spending means less pay and more poverty as adults. And while efforts to equalize funding that "level down" funding in rich districts can have bad effects, there's plenty of research suggesting that good funding equalization plans can improve academic performance for disadvantaged students.

more

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/12/10756080/bernie-sanders-education-equality

[wendylaroux]

1. So pathetic this

is not done here already.

Bernie is looking out for all of us.

[Proserpina]

2. President Sanders will make all the difference in the world

at home and abroad

[Sienna86]

3. Very important topic. He really gets it.

I see this tax issue at work in my state. Poorer districts have much less to offer their students; wealthier districts spend one million on a new AstroTurf football field. It's not right.

[azmom]

4. Bernie always strikes at the root

Of problems. He is going to make an amazing president.

[Betty Karlson]

5. The reason Sanders talks so much about wealth disparity, is that so many problems

are connected to wealth disparity, and so many solutions are based on reduction of wealth disparity.