Advertise here: Contact FM.

Mass Expulsions
April 5, 2005 8:46 AM Subscribe

300+ High Schoolers ExpelledYou don't go to school here, you live too far away...
posted by AMWKE (178 comments total)

Not a first-class post, but here goes. Fuck 'em. If I read it correctly they don't live in the district where they say they live. Tough shit. I live in a suburb of Philadelphia, i.e. my township shares a border with Philly. Because Philly schools mostly suck, and our school district is good, lots of parents/students lie about where they live. My taxes are already way too high, I'm sure not gonna pay for students who don't live in the district. We employ a 'detective' for like 60K per year to chase these thieves down. Y'know what? He's worth every penny.
posted by fixedgear at 8:52 AM on April 5, 2005

The people who live in the district (or own property in the disctrict) pay the taxes that fund the district. If you really want your kid to go to school X, you could live near school X. When you have kids it's prudent to consider the surrounding school when choosing where to buy a home.

But it is interesting to wonder - why is this particular school district so desirable? What could the other districts learn & emulate?
posted by raedyn at 8:53 AM on April 5, 2005

Is this news? Bay Area schools have had districting problems for as long as I can remember. This does seem a little extreme, but well within the rights of the school district.
posted by muddgirl at 8:56 AM on April 5, 2005

While I agree completely that the school is acting correctly in moving out those who do not live in the district, I think they could have handled it better. They could have sent out a notice earlier, perhaps in at the end of the fall semester last year, telling the parents of these children that they need to find new schools, instead of just kicking them out all of a sudden.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:58 AM on April 5, 2005

Yeah, those fucking kids deserve whatever's coming to them! Enjoy losing all your friends, SUCKERS! Aaaaahahaha!
posted by Hildago at 8:59 AM on April 5, 2005

Hildago: "Yeah, those fucking kids deserve whatever's coming to them! Enjoy losing all your friends, SUCKERS! Aaaaahahaha!"

Ha, that made my day.
posted by Plutor at 9:02 AM on April 5, 2005

When I was in high school there were several kids who would lie about where they lived to attend a school that they thought would more likely lead to an athletic scholarship. It is the same principle, I guess, but sports-driven and on a much smaller scale.
posted by flarbuse at 9:10 AM on April 5, 2005

The part about this that was wrong, if I read that correctly, is that the district has been aware of this for a long time. This should have been dealt with in the past. And, my guess is that they have been getting state money for these kids, which they will now keep.
posted by HuronBob at 9:11 AM on April 5, 2005

Fuck 'em... Tough shit... My taxes are already way too high...

So fixedgear is the product of one of these desirable school systems?
posted by R. Mutt at 9:15 AM on April 5, 2005

Couple things: First off, I really hate pages that don't let you hit "back" to get out of 'em. For some reason, it seems to be mostly TV news sources.

Second off, this should be an incentive for parents to try to work harder at making their local schools better. That much effort in getting their kids to appear like they go to the right school could probably be spent better on their neighborhood.

Third, y'know, these are a bunch of kids. Thieves? What the fuck, you suburban asshole. Oh no! Your money might educate the wrong child! Wouldn't want one'a them city kids accidently sneakin' in! 60k? You couldn't spend that on, say, books or anything that might reduce the impact those kids have? No, better to punish them! You don't have any civic obligation past your little enclave in the township? Selfish fucking bastard.
posted by klangklangston at 9:16 AM on April 5, 2005

April? What, it would have killed them to wait until the end of the school year? Don't most schools end in about two months or less anyway?

Yeah, kick them out for next year, but it just seems needlessly cold to do it so close to the end of the year, especially if they've known for a while.
Seems like it could also be a potential academic disaster for the kids. How will they take a final at school A when they spent all year learning the curriculum of school B?
posted by Kellydamnit at 9:18 AM on April 5, 2005

I can't believe that people here are blaming the families who tried to make the best out a shitty funding situation. It isn't as simple as "buy a house there, you idiots": houses in good school districts cost many times more than comparable houses elsewhere, and not everyone can afford one.

Rather than being apalled that someone would lie to get into a good school, maybe we ought to direct our outrage at a school system that ties funding to very local formulas, thereby guaranteeing that wealthier children have even more advantages.

In California, this is particularly bad, or at least it was when I was a kid. My mother scrimped and begged scholarships to get me into private schools because outside of very wealthy districts, California public schools are awful, and there was no way we'd be able to move into a good district, not even if we rented.

Anyway, this is one reason why I am unlikely to have kids unless I start making a lot more money.

On preview: Klang, though working on one's local school is an ideal solution, I think it's hard to convince people to embark on a decade-long project when their kids need a school now.
posted by dame at 9:21 AM on April 5, 2005

raedyn, sometimes people can't move to areas with good schools because they simply can't afford to. Do we tell those people sucks to be you? fixedgear seems to think yes. I'd say no, because that's a stupid way to run a society. Well, unless you want to fuck the poor more than they already get fucked.
posted by chunking express at 9:22 AM on April 5, 2005

I'm with klangklangstan. The real problem here is that the schools where these kids are from are so inferior that they feel compelled to lie and cross large distances in order to go to a better school. And kicking the kids out midyear is just cruel. Come on, you remember being a kid, don't you? Being with your friends was everything.

The whole "my tax money, so only my kids get it" argument is a great demonstration of the way that extreme localism is sometimes used to justify elitism.

I visited schools in Winnetka, north of Chicago, where a home costs easily a million dollars and they have some of the best public schools in the country.
1) Parents of kids in special ed sometimes suck it up and buy the million dollar house just to get into the district.
2) The children of the school's teachers aren't allowed in/
3) I don't fault them for spending a lot to get good schools. But there's this great collective ethos of educational excellence that refuses to include kids who live only a few minutes away in Chicago. And a lot of that is racism. But in any case it seems like any society that pretends to want to be egalitarian should not have to think twice about giving every single child an equally good education.
posted by mai at 9:25 AM on April 5, 2005

Obvious answer:

At least wait until the end of the semester, send a notice home, and make it clear that the kids aren't allowed to re-enroll. Send out information about where kids should enroll, and make sure everyone's at least taken care of on a basic level. You don't just kick the kids out of school in the middle of their semester because: one... it isn't the kids' fault, and two, it's just juvenile and counter-productive.
posted by odinsdream at 9:26 AM on April 5, 2005

right on dame
posted by mai at 9:26 AM on April 5, 2005

So fixedgear is the product of one of these desirable school systems?

No, Philly school district and state university, but thanks for asking.

I can't stay any longer, this suburban asshole has to go back to work to earn money to pay taxes so other folks kids can go to school in my district.

BTW, I'd love to fire that detective and spend the money on books, but that just ain't gonna happen. Theft of services, y'know.
posted by fixedgear at 9:27 AM on April 5, 2005

What dame said. I am one of those parents: I lied to get my daughter into one of the very few decent Baltimore public schools. Lied & pulled strings & borrowed a friend's ex-mother-in-law's electric bill so she could get something resembling a real education. There was no way I could afford to live in that neighborhood and my local school was a dismal, terrifying place. Am I proud of it? No. Would I do it again? In a heartbeat.
posted by mygothlaundry at 9:33 AM on April 5, 2005

The people who live in the district (or own property in the district) pay the taxes that fund the district.

Which is why the system is so fucked up in the first place. dame gets it. Equal opportunity, my ass.

Second off, this should be an incentive for parents to try to work harder at making their local schools better.

Any suggestions for a full-time employed parent? I'm serious. I'm not one, but I figure I'd be spending all my extra time with my kid(s) in one way or another. I agree with you in principle, but with the huge bureaucracy of public education involved, what's a good way to improve a bad school (if you don't have any money to give)? Donating time is a great idea, but not always as feasible.

Anyway, this is one reason why I am unlikely to have kids unless I start making a lot more money.

My thoughts exactly, though I worry about health care more. One alternative is moving to another country, but that's also prohibitively expensive (among any other personal cons).

And a lot of that is racism.

Which is also the reason we have suburbs in the first place.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:36 AM on April 5, 2005

Fixedgear, I pay taxes so that other folks' kids can go to school, and you know, I don't really have a problem with it, seeing as a well-educated populace benefits everyone. If our country(wo)men were better educated, maybe we'd have a better government and more equitable school funding formulas.

By the way, if anyone wants to see how tenaciously states hew to unfair formulas, check out the whole nonsense with New York State battling New York City kids, even though it was ruled that the city schools can't even produce an adequate eighth grade education. I can't remeber what it's called though. Anyone out there remember?
posted by dame at 9:37 AM on April 5, 2005

At first I thought the article said Sunnydale, and I thought that the kids were maybe better off not going there.

I have been hearing a lot lately about how suburban parents choose where to live based on the school district and how even among a group of pretty good school districts, parents will spend tens of thousands of dollars more to live in a comparable house in a marginally better district. So, in addition to wanting what's best for their kids, there's also an element of parental hysteria at play, because some of those kids may very well end up going to their home school which is still ok, but not quite as good as the one they ended up in. And I think most kids would just as soon go to the school nearest them, so it's probably more the parents who are pushing them into the wrong district.

Educational funding is complicated, and at least some of it comes from the state on a per pupil basis, so when more kids show up at one district, then the people who live in that district aren't footing the entire bill.

I understand what people are saying about needing a solution now and not in ten years. I think, though, that it's regrettable that the same parents who are concerned about the solution today won't continue to work so that in ten years, kids everywhere can get a decent education. Instead, ten years from now, they'll be whining about their property taxes and encouraging school administrators to get rid of the kids who don't live in the right area. And voting against funding initiatives.
posted by anapestic at 9:39 AM on April 5, 2005

While fixedgear has a point, albeit poorly expressed, socialist ideals of "everyone should get the same education" are like most facets of socialism -- good in theory, terrible in practice.

I would have loved to go to one of those top tier, blue-blood east-coast private high schools where everyone learns a lot and gets into a nice high-end school and has nice funding for everything in the process. I cannot because my parents could not afford to send me there by any means. Similarly, these kids cannot afford to go to the better schools and must make due with what they have.

Is this right? No. There needs to be a better way to educate children that doesn't revolve around which class socio-economic class you belong to. Lying about where you live is akin to me forging checks to get into a nice private school. The parents pay higher taxes and these unfortnuate people do not.

This is more indicative of a larger problem with the educational system across the country. I think the answer may be magnet/charter schools which, if I am correct, are quasi-public institutions where inner-city kids have to be admitted into based on academic performance. To those kids who are academically challenged in a poor neighborhood, sorry to say, tough. I'd love to see top notch education for everyone but I also don't want to spend 80% of my income to go towards it. Economic constraints are real and there's no ignoring it.

If anyone has an idea to create good schools all around that isn't an extreme burden to society, you'd probably be one of the 21st centuries greatest minds.
posted by geoff. at 9:41 AM on April 5, 2005

As someone who went to one of the "priveleged" schools---in Texas of all places---this was a problem, though often it was dealt with over the summer, rather than 2 months before end of the year.

Having said that, and as much as I would love every child, no matter what income level, to get the same quality education, it isn't going to happen by trying to shove every child into the few good schools. That will simply drag down those schools to a mediocre level, which is perhaps, what people subconciously want.

In Texas, they instituted what was politely called the "Robin Hood Plan," to transfer money (i.e. taxes) from wealthy school districts, like mine, to poorer school districts. The problem is, of course, that taking $5M out of one school district, and giving it to 5,000 does nothing for those 5,000 school districts. It simply tries to drag everyone down to mediocrity.

Money doesn't buy good schools, but being poor usually means they suck. It's a nasty cycle. Parents who get a good education make more money, and often recognize that education as a big contributor, and therefore place a large emphasis on the quality of their children's education. That is the number one factor in good schools. Money is the tool, but parental involvement and emphasis is the key. Unfortunately, those who haven't had the advantage are unlikely to have the time/experience to place that emphasis and therefore they end up in a perpetual cycle.
posted by petrilli at 9:41 AM on April 5, 2005

Good for you mygothlaundry. I think civil disobedience in pursuit of equal education is a good thing.
posted by R. Mutt at 9:44 AM on April 5, 2005

Yeah, geoff, because those socialists in Europe do such a poor job educating their kids, way worse than we do. Geez I hate it when people use "realism" as an excuse to not give a shit because it doesn't effect them.

Look, even if you made all school funding nationally distributed (so that every school in the country got the same amount per pupil), wealthy schools would still have advantages, but it would get a little closer to being fair. And people with more money paying more taxes? Oh no! That's like the worstest thing ever.
posted by dame at 9:46 AM on April 5, 2005

A better story that addresses some of the issues raised in this thread:

``We're taking a gentle course,' said Polly Bove, deputy superintendent. ``We'll call them in between classes and call home to let parents know what's going on.' Even after three or four phone calls over the past several weeks and four letters warning parents of their child's possible removal, she said, ``We expect to hear from people who will say they didn't think we meant it.'..... Fremont Union's funding does not increase along with enrollment, as it does in districts that rely on per-student funding based on attendance.
posted by Floydd at 9:47 AM on April 5, 2005

affect
posted by dame at 9:48 AM on April 5, 2005

socialist ideals of "everyone should get the same education" are like most facets of socialism -- good in theory, terrible in practice.

It's always striking how the people who have the least experience with "socialism" bitch about it the most.
posted by clevershark at 9:50 AM on April 5, 2005

<heavy accent>
"In Soviet Russia, You Expel The Schools!"
</heavy accent>

hehe.
posted by mystyk at 9:59 AM on April 5, 2005

It's always striking how the people who have the least experience with "socialism" bitch about it the most.

It'd be nice to read the comments of those who have extensive experience with socialism, but the dead and the starving tend to lack web access.
posted by trharlan at 9:59 AM on April 5, 2005

I can't believe that people here are blaming the families who tried to make the best out a shitty funding situation.

When I was young, I lived two blocks outside of a shitty urban school district that my mom had taught in when I was a toddler. We had moved primarily because of the schools, my folks said, and made sacrifices to do it.

In 5th grade my best freind had a single mother (I learned much later that this was because his dad was in prison). They lived in a condo park inside our district with the mom's boyfreind, who I remember as distinctly creepy (he used to call and harass the mom after they'd split, I remember it interrupting supper at their place once) although we had fun jumping up and down on his waterbed. When they split, they moved to an apartment in a crappy neighborhood, but he kept attending our school. I'd play at their apartment, but was sworn to secrecy. By junior high, they had been found out and he was in the city school system. FWIW, he went to a vo-tech high school, graduated valedictorian and went on to study engineering. He did much better than I did, and I didn't have his problems.

Maybe the school district is just doing it's job. And maybe these people are scamming a bit. But at least they're scamming for something worthwhile.
posted by jonmc at 10:00 AM on April 5, 2005

An educator's first priority should be to the students. While kicking the students out may be perfectly legitimate, the timing is not. The school will have little or no added expenses in serving these students through the rest of the academic year. I doubt they are laying off teachers now that the students are gone.
posted by caddis at 10:04 AM on April 5, 2005

Better simple answer:

Send the kids home with a tuition bill. If these schools are so desirable, then their parents can pay to send them there.

Start taking application for out-of-district tuition students now for fall enrollment. They might not turn an actual profit on these kids, but they can at least cover the expenses. This way they can also limit the number of these enrollees.

(Don't tell me this can't be done. I have seen it done.)
posted by ilsa at 10:05 AM on April 5, 2005

Selfish fucking bastard.

spoken like a clueless, ignorant dolt.
posted by quonsar at 10:11 AM on April 5, 2005

It'd be nice to read the comments of those who have extensive experience with socialism, but the dead and the starving tend to lack web access.

This thread is a litmus test.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:12 AM on April 5, 2005

In Canada, or in BC at least, districts are fairly large in size and all schools receive basically the same funding. As a result, any differences in school quality come down to school culture: a combination of leadership (principal), staff, and students.

Within my district there are five high schools. One's reknown for its sports program and broad social spectrum; another for its fine arts program and the snobbery of the students; and so on.

In the end, most kids end up with the same basic education, with their performance mainly determined by their own self-motivation. It's not like one school has thirty-year-old books and rats, and another has the latest technowizardry and doctorate-level teachers.

I don't see too many dead and starving up here in our semi-socialist Canada, but I'm willing to go along with the ruse if it keeps the likes of trharlan and geoff out of the country.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:13 AM on April 5, 2005

I feel bad for the kids who are kicked out, but maybe it will give their parents the needed incentive to wrest control of their school budgets from the teacher unions where they live.

The north Edison schools where I live in New Jersey are well-regarded, but we're surrounded by districts which are somewhat to very much less well-ranked. The School Board not only employs an investigator, but will actually pay you a bounty for each interloper you expose to the authorities if it leads to an expulsion.
posted by MattD at 10:14 AM on April 5, 2005

It'd be nice to read the comments of those who have extensive experience with socialism, but the dead and the starving tend to lack web access

yeah they're all dead and starving in the nordic countries. holland, too. can't you smell that smell?
posted by quonsar at 10:15 AM on April 5, 2005

Parents who get a good education make more money, and often recognize that education as a big contributor, and therefore place a large emphasis on the quality of their children's education. That is the number one factor in good schools.

What we really need to figure out is how to synthesize this idea into a liquid that can be dumped in to local water supplies.

Fuddy duddy that I am, every time I see a Civic with $15,000 worth of mods on it rolling by, all I can think of to say to the young man behind the wheel is "You could get a good education at a state college with the money you spent on your car".
posted by Scoo at 10:16 AM on April 5, 2005

So what I'm hearing in this discussion suggests that US school districts are quite small and localized. I get the impression they are much smaller than the disctricts in Canada. Here, entire cities have the same school board. (this varies somewhat from province to province as Education is under Provincial jurisdiction) Even big cities like Toronto have only one public school board. So the rich / poor thing becomes less of an issue, because all the neighbourhoods good & bad pay into the same pool. Maybe the answer would be (at least in part) bigger school boards?

Unless I'm missing something. Which is entirely possible.

(On preview, basically what FFF said)
posted by raedyn at 10:18 AM on April 5, 2005

In Canada, or in BC at least, districts are fairly large in size and all schools receive basically the same funding.

I remember this sort of expulsion thing happening in Ontario, but then around 97 or so the Tories changed things so that provincial taxes funded schools, not local property taxes.

The idea of local property taxes funding schools always seemed odd to me.
posted by bobo123 at 10:22 AM on April 5, 2005

The School Board not only employs an investigator, but will actually pay you a bounty for each interloper you expose to the authorities if it leads to an expulsion.

I can understand investigating, but the "bounty" is a bit much and smacks of McCarthy style "turn in your freinds," tactics to me.

A better solution to eceryone's aggravation is to find a better way to fund public schools more equitably. I can hear the complaints about ceding control of local schools to the federal government and agree somewhat, but the inequities are too stark to be countenanced.
posted by jonmc at 10:22 AM on April 5, 2005

Sounds like a few hundred children got Left Behind.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:23 AM on April 5, 2005

The School Board not only employs an investigator, but will actually pay you a bounty for each interloper you expose to the authorities if it leads to an expulsion.

Rewarding snitching from kindergarden to old age. America, I salute you.

And yeah, it's obviously the teachers' unions screwing things up. Those assholes, wanting to educate people's children and actually get a reasonable living for it. I hate them, those teachers.
posted by dame at 10:24 AM on April 5, 2005

When I see this I think, too fucking bad. You get the society, schools, and infrastructure that you agree is worth your efforts and tax monies and the work your elected officials put forth for those things. It isn't an abstraction.
posted by docpops at 10:25 AM on April 5, 2005

The idea of local property taxes funding schools always seemed odd to me.

Current school funding models are a direct consequence of suburban white flight between the 50s and 70s. What are left are underfunded, underperforming schools in poorer rural and urban areas. Nothing to see here, move along, etc.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:27 AM on April 5, 2005

In my High School I spent one of my periods Senior Year as a Teacher's Assistant to one of the Vice Principals and I remember this sort of thing coming up a lot.

What was creepy about it, though, was the totally sadistic pleasure the Vice Principal got out of kicking these kids out. He'd giggle and try to joke with me about it before he called one of the kids down to his office.

"These kids, their parents are trying to cheat the system and we caught 'em. We're gonna send them packing. They have no idea this is coming! Wait'll they get here!"

It was pretty twisted. Of course he used to joke with his Secretary about what a flip-flopping, terrorist hugging, intern banger (He read it on Drudge! Must be true!) John Kerry was.

Not to say that all Republicans feed their souls on the pain and anguish of others, but, y'know, I hear the GOP may finally give the rub to the Grundy/Grodd ticket in '08.

Their platform is "Solomon Grundy SMASH Funding For Arts!"
posted by StopMakingSense at 10:28 AM on April 5, 2005

You don't have to cede control of the schools, jon, just put the funding in a national pot.

And to the Canadians, there are some big districts & some small. But funding is tied to local property taxes (as noted above), which is where the problem is. In fact, California had great public schools until it artifically limited property taxes with Proposition 13. Now sending your kid to public school in most Cali districts is tantamount to child abuse.

On preview: You know the problem with that line of thought, docpops, is that you don't get what *you* deserve, but what all the asshats around you deserve.
posted by dame at 10:29 AM on April 5, 2005

Current school funding models are a direct consequence of suburban white flight between the 50s and 70s.

And white flight was, at least, in some degree, due to decaying neglected cities that, by the seventies, people had good reason to want to leave.

I don't discount that racial and other animosities played a part, too, but to put it all on that is to oversimplify.

You don't have to cede control of the schools, jon, just put the funding in a national pot.

He who controls the pursestrings controls everything, generally speaking.
posted by jonmc at 10:33 AM on April 5, 2005

dame,

I totally agree with you. I vacillate between utter despair and a deep cynical rage at the stupid choices we make as a society. The cynical rage tends to win more and more. I live in a reasonably urbane Oregon community that thinks taxes are the devil's work but expects schools to be on a par with something out of Little House On The Prairie. I just can't seem to give a shit anymore if those same people watch their kids grow up to be fry cooks. It is sad for the ones caught in the middle.
posted by docpops at 10:38 AM on April 5, 2005

I do not want to get involved in any sort of argument but would ask of those who have commented, how many of you actually pay property taxes that fund your school district?
and: this quote bothers me"renting post office boxes for $500 a month," --at that rate you could move into the district rather than having your kid cheat to get into the system. 6 thou for a PO box? wow. no need to raise the price on stamps then.
posted by Postroad at 10:42 AM on April 5, 2005

He who controls the pursestrings controls everything, generally speaking.

Less so, though, if the disbursement is $Q/ per pupil, regardless. It is really having discretion in allocation that makes your very accurate point true.

And white flight was, at least, in some degree, due to decaying neglected cities that, by the seventies, people had good reason to want to leave.

But the cities were neglected because of white and wealthy people moving to the suburbs, a move made appealing because the federal, state, and municipal governments encouraged it via vast road subsidies, racist lending and mortgage policies, etc. It is a bit of a vicious circle, and racism wasn't the only thing, but it was a good part.

And fair enough, docpops.
posted by dame at 10:47 AM on April 5, 2005

For the rest of the world:

Yes, the U.S. really does allow its school systems to be paid for by local entities. In practice, this means that when white people get rich, they move out to gated and otherwise heavily segregated suburbs, put their own people in power in local government, and then pump large amounts of money into only educating their own kids. And when the other schools inevitably decline, because the tax base shrinks while their population increases, they make damn sure the undesirables don't get educated in their special schools.

Yeah, I know it sounds short-sighted and backwards, but that's the way it works here.
posted by norm at 10:47 AM on April 5, 2005

I'll echo fff and raedyn: Ottawa has four boards, English, English Catholic ("separate"), French, French Catholic---separate Catholic schools are constitutionally guaranteed in Canada. Each receives funding from the province based on the number of students enrolled. Also every school has maximum and minimum allowable floor spaces per student, a cause of a great deal of inner-city/suburban friction.

My sister-in-law teaches elementary in one of the poorest districts in Ottawa. According to her, the major difference between her school and those of the more wealthy neighborhoods is lack of parental involvement. She has some heartbreaking stories: 6-year olds having to get themselves up, dressed, fed, and lunch made because mom, a heroin junkie, was regularly too stoned to get out of bed until after 6PM. But that kid, once she got to school got the same education the kids in my sister's get in one of the wealthiest parts of the city. In fact, the underprivileged kids arguably get more---her school started a breakfast and lunch program, paid for by the parents where possible, by the board if necessary, so at least those six-year olds would get two meals a day.

Good schools are possible, but fragmented districts are the wrong way to do it.
posted by bonehead at 10:50 AM on April 5, 2005

But the cities were neglected because of white and wealthy people moving to the suburbs, a move made appealing because the federal, state, and municipal governments encouraged it via vast road subsidies, racist lending and mortgage policies, etc. It is a bit of a vicious circle, and racism wasn't the only thing, but it was a good part.

By the seventies, even the non-wealthy whites were moving out, which had the effect of removing the urban middle class that stabilized the cities and overcrowding many older suburbs with sprawl to the point that it almost defeats the purpose of leaving the city.
posted by jonmc at 10:51 AM on April 5, 2005

Gak: my sister's kids get
posted by bonehead at 10:52 AM on April 5, 2005

You don't have to cede control of the schools, jon, just put the funding in a national pot.

introduction to reality 101:

6 = 12 / 2
6 * 2 = 12

national funding = national control
national control = national funding
posted by quonsar at 10:53 AM on April 5, 2005

Of course, fff, you could live where I lived where the school system was so well set up I had an over 1 hour bus ride to a school so well funded they could afford to hire someone to clean the mouse balls on the computer terminals, could afford $100,000 T1 based BBSes (with about 20 users in the database), but they couldn't afford enough slinkys to teach wave propagation in physics class. [By well funded, I mean STUPIDLY funded].

Let's not forget about the teacher's strike during which teacher's decided their retirement funds were more important than a 22 students-per-classrom ratio (a decrease from the over 30 students-per-classroom ratio we had). Yes, unlike some of the teachers, I actually spent the time to read the changes proposed by the government to our school system. They were all very sane. Of course anything is sane went put against how money was spent prior.

The neat thing is the cost of education and quality of education are *completely* unrelated. *Completely*. A good teacher can do as well with a textbook, chalkboard, chalk, pens, paper and imagination as they can do with all the extra-expensive props in the world. The only thing expense can add is incentive for disinterested kids to learn, which is nice, but if someone is truly not interested in learning all the geegaws in the world aren't going to make them learn.

I say this having tested both sides of the coin, expensive (private school costing over $10k a year) and "free" (county run school). The private school, being desparately underfunded (odd, but true: Think cost of loan, cost to have under 16 kids in a class, etc and you'll understand) reliably produced more highly educated graduates with far less resources than the public school (enough money, no loan [80 year old building], larger class sizes). The difference is the teachers in the private school were more motivated, whereas poor administration of funds in particular, and poor administration in general had burnt out the teachers in public schools.

All that being said, I enjoyed my public education more, since I tend to learn best when teaching myself, and the lack of discipline meant I could skip classes that I already understood.

I'd welcome trharlan and geoff into Canada in a heartbeat.
posted by shepd at 10:56 AM on April 5, 2005

national funding = national control
national control = national funding

at the risk of major derail, let me acknowledge the elephant in the room: the Republican Party. For years and years, the GOP didn't even recognize the legitimacy of the national "Department of Education" because education was supposed to be a state function. This is because the GOP is run by and for the same suburban white people that LIKE the system where they can concentrate their tax base to educate few (their) children. Nationalization means fairness, and this would be bad for their prime constituency.
posted by norm at 10:58 AM on April 5, 2005

In many schools, local control means teaching intelligent design and not teaching sexual education.
posted by caddis at 11:01 AM on April 5, 2005

There is a ton of research showing that houses are more expensive in "better" school districts. for example .
Look here on Google Scholar for tons of academic articles.
Eg: "In both district- and school-level analyses, we find that per-pupil expenditures and test scores have similar impacts on house values. However, unlike the district-level results, the school-level results imply that individuals respond to the racial composition of schools when choosing a home." [PDF]

Also see scholarly work on Social Returns to Education for quantitative estimates of how a better educated populace can benefit society as a whole.
posted by cushie at 11:05 AM on April 5, 2005

Yeah, kick them out for next year, but it just seems needlessly cold to do it so close to the end of the year, especially if they've known for a while.

Is it conceivable that they kicked the kids out before the end of the school year to send a message of "you might THINK you're getting away with it, but if any of you parents are considering doing this in the future, look at how we'll let your kids come here until just before they advance/graduate, then cut 'em off at the knees -- so they have to repeat the grade again in YOUR school!"

I mean, that's what happens to these kids, right? If they're kicked out of school A before the final grade, they can't just walk into school B and graduate (or advance to the next grade) automatically, can they?

If not, then I strongly believe it was done in this fashion as a deterrent to future attempts, and these kids get to be the collateral damage.
posted by davejay at 11:07 AM on April 5, 2005

At least wait until the end of the semester, send a notice home, and make it clear that the kids aren't allowed to re-enroll. Send out information about where kids should enroll,

First they let the seniors breaking the rule stay. Why now for the rest?
"We've heard of parents renting apartments for two months, moving clothes into other people's homes, renting post office boxes for $500 a month," Rowley said.
Because now is when they can prove the residents listed are not true today. You reap what you sew. Plus this will start a future precedent in that, if you are found out near the end of the year -- You still will receive the boot, no ifs and buts; So Don’t Try It.

As a home owner that pays a specifically "school tax" each year that is 3 times more than my city’s property tax, you may want to reconsider your thinking if you think this is not fair.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:08 AM on April 5, 2005

In many schools, local control means teaching intelligent design and not teaching sexual education.

Yeah, but the way this is going, national control might mean the same thing...
posted by davejay at 11:08 AM on April 5, 2005

In many schools, local control means teaching intelligent design and not teaching sexual education.

Which is why my sons are not going to public school where I live, in GA. I'll happily drive a used car and eschew a wall sized TV if I must to keep them in private school.
posted by Scoo at 11:09 AM on April 5, 2005

how many of you actually pay property taxes that fund your school district? - Postroad.

I pay property taxes. And when I was a renter, my rent dollars paid property taxes (if you wanna argue that point, explain to me why my rent went up when property taxes went up). Unless you are living for free (ie: with Mom & Dad who pay taxes) or in a box, you pay property taxes. So what's your point?
posted by raedyn at 11:09 AM on April 5, 2005

rraedyn, you didn't pay property taxes the owner of your apartment did. How he paid them is his business not yours to claim.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:13 AM on April 5, 2005

In many schools, local control means teaching intelligent design and not teaching sexual education. - caddis

In the US, national control over this currently would mean no sex ed and 'intelligent design' being taught in the entire country.
posted by raedyn at 11:13 AM on April 5, 2005

At first I thought the article said Sunnydale, and I thought that the kids were maybe better off not going there.

Cuz' you know hellmouths are teh suck, especially now that Buffy's gone.

My rural MO district growing up was adjacent to one of the richest school districts in the St. Louis metro area. They (the rich district) had encountered this problem a lot, so they instituted the tuition system that ilsa alluded to. In a matter of a year their "illegal" problem went away...

A lot of wealthier districts "buy" athletes by allowing them to attend without residency and either waiving tuition or giving them scholarships...
posted by schyler523 at 11:14 AM on April 5, 2005

raedyn, you didn't pay property taxes the owner of your apartment did. How he paid them is his business not yours to claim. - thomcatspike

And yet, the cost of propety taxes directly affects the amount of rent I paid. And as a tennant I have the same right to appeal the assessment on the property (which determines the amount of taxes collected) as the owner does, because I have a direct financial interest in the tax amounts charged to the account.

The landlord can deduct the property tax he pays from his income. The income he gets from his tennant. So he's paying the taxes with 'free money' he got from the tennant. No, the tennant's name isn't on the check to the municipality (usually), but it's coming out of his/her pocket, have no doubt.
posted by raedyn at 11:21 AM on April 5, 2005

how many of you actually pay property taxes that fund your school district?

Everybody who lives in the district pays property tax, and you know that full well. About the only relevant possible exception might be students in dorms, if the school doesn't pay tax on that property.

For renters it's admittedly part of the rent, but you'd have to be Captain Naive Idiot from Planet Moron in the Galaxy of Stupidia to think that somehow it's the property owners who virtuously pay those taxes without passing the costs on to their slothful, refuse-to-better-themselves residents.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:21 AM on April 5, 2005

(if you wanna argue that point, explain to me why my rent went up when property taxes went up).
raedyn, sorry about the misspell earlier.
Explanation. Did you pay all the utilities. Insurance coverage for fire & ect., water & grounds keeping are usually paid by the apartment company. There is up keep which rises each year with the cost of living going up year. Buy a home and you will only see yourself saving money years down the road when your monthly payment is below the standard from everyone else.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:24 AM on April 5, 2005

Stayed tuned for my opinion.
posted by Witty at 11:24 AM on April 5, 2005

Galaxy of Stupidia to think that somehow it's the property owners who virtuously pay those taxes
Call me Galaxy of Stupida then. Still say you didn't pay them. Do you tell your boss he has a job because he has you to boss around?
posted by thomcatspike at 11:26 AM on April 5, 2005

There is so much wrong with fixedgear's arrogant posts that i don't know where to begin. Dame, very eloquently put -- thank you. Let me say this to all the breed of privilege that wants only only to teach their little ones: This is, in my opinion, about the worst case of injustice we've got going in this country. sending those other folks' kids to schools where the teacher turnaround is the highest, where facilities aren't kept up, where text books are old, that's your idea of an equitable society? if you don't want to send your child to a school where crimes are prevalent, where the teachers are more occupied with keeping the kids in line than teaching, how can you so easily send ANY other child to get their education there? families in lower socioeconomic areas pay a disproportionately higher amount of their wages on schools, too. so don't pull that I'VE GOT TO GO EARN A LIVING crap. i want my kids to succeed but never due to an unfair advantage. finally, and i've got to go earn my damn living too, guess what? the schools in tough areas aren't often receptive to hearing from parents or getting help from them. go figure -- more of that prejudice that says 'we're educated, you've got problems, your kids are troublemakers'.
posted by banjotwang at 11:28 AM on April 5, 2005

excuse the he's in my comments, as I' don't know your apartment owner or boss. I'm thinking of the people who owned my apartment and are my current boss.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:29 AM on April 5, 2005

In Saskatchewan, way more Education funding comes from property taxes than it does elsewhere in Canada (though there are provincial enrollment-based grants). So people complain to the City that their taxes are so much higher than their friends elsewhere in the country. Problem is, although the City collects the property taxes, they have no authority over the Education portion (the school board is a taxing authority that doesn’t answer to the City). So taxpayers get all riled up to pay this bill to the City, but more of the money is going to the School Board than is going to the City, and when you compare the municipal portion of taxes, our province compares very favourably to other jurisdictions.

The issues do vary from jurisdiction from jurisdiction because they have unique funding formulas in various places.

/rant

disclaimer: I work in a property tax office, so I’m well versed in the issues – at least locally – and I’m more invested in these topics than I might be otherwise. I have to politely correct or tolerate ignorant people all day everyday so when I have the chance to blow off steam outside of work, I sometimes go overboard
posted by raedyn at 11:30 AM on April 5, 2005

I still am not convinced that a system could not be set up to make the pool of available money national, while preventing the federal government from setting a national curriculum. It would take a lot of political will, but so would changing anything, so we're already in imaginary land here.* You could say that any school under the aegis of a local public school board counts for that locality's total and that the government may not take curriculum into account. Or you could do what private schools do and have a nonpartisan board to accredit schools.

By the seventies, even the non-wealthy whites were moving out, which had the effect of removing the urban middle class that stabilized the cities and overcrowding many older suburbs with sprawl to the point that it almost defeats the purpose of leaving the city.

You're right, jon. And blaming those who left at the end would be like blaming the kids stuck in crappy schools for trying to get something better.

And TCS, paying rent is paying property taxes. Pretending that the landlord is plling the property tax money out of some imaginary pot that is totally unrelated to the rent pot is so inane that you could go advocate for Social Security reform with that kind of logic.

*Not to mention, there is nothing wrong with working things out ideally and then changing them when they run into this "reality" to which you are so unimaginatively attached. That's the entire point of having a brain: you can imagine things that do not actually exist. Jeebus.
posted by dame at 11:30 AM on April 5, 2005

The difference is the teachers in the private school were more motivated, whereas poor administration of funds in particular, and poor administration in general had burnt out the teachers in public schools

Horseshit. The primary difference between private and public schools is a simple selection effect. Decent private schools* are full of students whose parents care about education, read to them at night, keep them on their homework, and so on, so their kids were likely to do well in any school they were plunked down into.

*ie, not a segregation school or a fundie no-evolution school
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:32 AM on April 5, 2005

thomcatspike, who cares whether the tenant or owner directly pays the taxes? The taxes increase the cost of renting and thus give renters and property owners alike a stake in how those taxes are spent.
posted by caddis at 11:36 AM on April 5, 2005

To amplify raedyn's point yet again, in many parts of Canada, including both Ontario and BC, rental properties are taxed commercial rates rather than residential. Property taxes on rental properties are typically double those of self-owned residential, so renters in effect subsidise the property owner's kids.
posted by bonehead at 11:37 AM on April 5, 2005

Call me Galaxy of Stupida then. Still say you didn't pay them

Okay then, but that is a damn dumb thing to think. It's like thinking that you don't pay the sales tax on a movie ticket or a gallon of gas just because the price listed includes it.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:40 AM on April 5, 2005

I would so pay $5 for mefi username Captain Naive Idiot from Planet Moron in the Galaxy of Stupidia if it weren't too long.
posted by jewzilla at 11:44 AM on April 5, 2005

Oh, and if you don't like paying those taxes now, wait until your kids have graduated and you are still paying the taxes for the schools. You do that because it is a public good to have an educated populace.
posted by caddis at 11:45 AM on April 5, 2005

Many debates would be more productive if they acknowledged the elephant in the room. In this case, the "elephant" is that schools don't work if they lack the mechanism to minimize the number of children of (educationally) incompetent families.

Private school tuition is one way to do that, district boundaries which correspond to higher rents and home prices is another. The only truly egalitarian way to do it is school choice, and not the bastardized charter school version either, where schools are compelled to admit students based upon lottery, but one where schools are free to evaluate family fitness and to impose academic and behavioral standards for admission and retention.
posted by MattD at 11:46 AM on April 5, 2005

So he's paying the taxes with 'free money' he got from the tennant. No, the tennant's name isn't on the check to the municipality (usually), but it's coming out of his/her pocket, have no doubt.

Your are in Canada so for you I don't know. This post is in the US, and again say renters don't pay property taxes unless they have a receipt stating it from the owner.

I like how up above you put down the owner saying “receiving free money” which tells me your opinion is bent. Plus you do not know where the owner received the money to pay their property taxes unless the owner shows you all their finances. Your pinpointing the owner's income to the property you live on and not also looking that they may have other businesses that contribute money to pay that land’s property tax.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:46 AM on April 5, 2005

the owner shows you all their finances Income.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:50 AM on April 5, 2005

finances was suppose to be scratched out.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:51 AM on April 5, 2005

MattD, on what basis would one evaluate "educationally incompetent" families? I can't think of a single way that would not be horribly, brutally unfair and counterproductive.
posted by jeffmshaw at 11:55 AM on April 5, 2005

It's like thinking that you don't pay the sales tax on a movie ticket or a gallon of gas just because the price listed includes it..
What….? So are you saying if you live in city A and go to city B to see a movie your child can also go to city B’s school. Since you contribute to city B's school taxes by buying a movie ticket in that city?
posted by thomcatspike at 11:55 AM on April 5, 2005

Caddis hits the nail on the head: "You do that because it is a public good to have an educated populace."

It would be interesting to hear what the right-wing don't-tax-me libertarians would propose as a realistic model for how their neighborhood would look if the public schools were uniformly as bad as they are in, e.g., Watts.
posted by felix at 11:56 AM on April 5, 2005

So are you saying if you live in city A and go to city B to see a movie your child can also go to city B’s school. Since you contribute to city B's school taxes by buying a movie ticket in that city?

No, he's just saying that you just paid taxes to city B.
posted by dame at 11:57 AM on April 5, 2005

As someone who lives in Sunnyvale, who pays property taxes to support the Fremont Union High Schoool District, and who chose to move here in part because of the school district, I have a very personal interest in the story. My own opinion on this action by the school district is conflicted, but I'll add a couple facts that might be relevant.

1: The quality of school districts in the Bay Area varies wildly, but I think it's a mistake to assume that the people trying to get their kids into school here are poor, or come from places where the school district is terrible. Many of the cities mentioned in the article where the dismissed kids come from have decent, if not stellar school districts.

2: State and federal funding for schools has just evaporated in California over the last few years. The district has been on the brink of major layoffs, narrowly averted by the passage of an additional parcel tax.

3: The cost of housing in the Bay Area in general, and in Sunnyvale in particular, is astronomical. A three bedroom, 1200sf condominium is currently going for $490,000. Rents have been dropping, but are still around $2,100 per month for a two bedroom apartment.
posted by tudlio at 11:59 AM on April 5, 2005

I like how up above you put down the owner saying “receiving free money” which tells me your opinion is bent. - thomcatspike

You misunderstood my point. I may have phrased it badly. I'm not claiming all income a landlord gets is free. Far from it. But a landlord can deduct the property tax he pays from his income, and not pay any taxes on it. I have never heard of a landlord that didn't raise rent when taxes went up. Because they need that money. To pay taxes.

Generally, residential renters do not directly pay the taxes on a property. (But they can, if that's their arrangement. We'll take payment from anyone.) But commercial renters often have it written into their lease that they pay amount X per square foot for rent, plus an amount equal to the property taxes. That tax amount chnages as the taxes amount changes.

****

But I'm a property owner, not a renter or a landlord. I don't have kids in school. I pay more property tax money towards Education than I pay for all my municipal services (garbage pick up, roads, snow clearing, parks, police, fire service, libraries, etc - All services I value highly and use every single day). I am happy to pay this money towards educating other people's kids so long as they all get an equal shot at a good education. I know that I'd rather have the generations behind me be well educated than not.
posted by raedyn at 12:03 PM on April 5, 2005

But a landlord can deduct the property tax he pays from his income
Don't forget the owner is deducted taxes on the income from renter paying them rent too.
I'm in the same boat as you, having no children and feel it's my civic duty to contribute:)
posted by thomcatspike at 12:19 PM on April 5, 2005

And TCS, paying rent is paying property taxes. Pretending that the landlord is plling the property tax money out of some imaginary pot that is totally unrelated to the rent pot is so inane that you could go advocate for Social Security reform with that kind of logic.

People do take a loss renting out a property; Knowing that the land's worth will appreciate. Like a business, most companies do not turn a profit at its initial start and take several years to do so. Unless you have a receipt or you live in Canada, still say no. Otherwise you could deduct it and would be penalized it if is not paid.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:31 PM on April 5, 2005

trharlan: It'd be nice to read the comments of those who have extensive experience with socialism, but the dead and the starving tend to lack web access.

I'd argue that, my internet access seems to work just fine and it's been a while since I missed a meal.

thomcatspike rraedyn, you didn't pay property taxes the owner of your apartment did. How he paid them is his business not yours to claim.

I suppose if hot water is included in my rent I'm not "paying" for hot water either? Geez just becasue everything isn't line itemed doesn't mean your not paying. When I get a combo meal from the local burger joint I'm paying for the cup they give me even though it isn't on the menu.
posted by Mitheral at 12:36 PM on April 5, 2005

tcs-- I don't know what the worth is trying to communicate with you, as your posts seems to indicate that you are semi-literate at best. However, please note that money is fungible, which means that your bizarre insistence that property tax is not being paid by renters makes no logical sense. Of course it is, because every dollar that goes into a landlord's pocket is going to the same place where the property tax is being paid from.

MattD-- please note that education is a right under our political system, and the argument that schools should just refuse to take the undesireables is downright repugnant. Perhaps if our politicians would understand that not every student is named Tommy or Filbert and comes from the home of John and Jane Suburban Campaign Donator they would do such things as, say, fund multilingual education or otherwise equip lower-income or immigrant communities with educational strategies that actually worked.

School choice is a red herring, designed as a political strategy to defeat desegregation. The real elephant in the room is the idea that selfishness has a political party and it controls America these days.
posted by norm at 12:44 PM on April 5, 2005

Your are in Canada so for you I don't know. This post is in the US, and again say renters don't pay property taxes unless they have a receipt stating it from the owner. posted by thomcatspike

thomcatspike, most states in the U.S. offer a renter's property tax rebate for renters who qualify. The rationale behind this rebate is that a percentage of rent is considered to be the renter’s share of property taxes. Therefore renters pay property taxes, it's included in their rent. Google renter's property tax rebate for more information.
posted by Floydd at 12:48 PM on April 5, 2005

well, this is the middle of april, so perhaps it's the end of the school year.

it seems pretty harsh to boot someone a couple weeks before finals.
posted by delmoi at 12:51 PM on April 5, 2005

For renters it's admittedly part of the rent, but you'd have to be Captain Naive Idiot from Planet Moron in the Galaxy of Stupidia to think that somehow it's the property owners who virtuously pay those taxes without passing the costs on to their slothful, refuse-to-better-themselves residents.

Say, does the school tax for the rental unit go to the district in which the unit is located, or the district in which the property owner is located? If the latter, it's yet another way the poor get screwed.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:54 PM on April 5, 2005

You get the society, schools, and infrastructure that you agree is worth your efforts and tax monies and the work your elected officials put forth for those things.

Damn those high schoolers for voting so irresponsibly.

On another note, I just can't believe anyone would try to claim that renters don't pay for local education because they don't pay the property taxes directly. Landlords pass the cost on to the renters; the difference is that the renters don't get a tax deduction for the property taxes, and the landlords do, so the renters are really paying more. Trying to make an argument based on such a technicality is the worst sort of logic.
posted by anapestic at 12:55 PM on April 5, 2005

I suppose if hot water is included in my rent I'm not "paying" for hot water either? I hope you have hot water since it is included in your rent.

Floydd, had that in California, Texas has no state income tax.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:56 PM on April 5, 2005

delmoi, usually 1st or 2nd week in June was the school year’s end, yet some public schools run all year.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:58 PM on April 5, 2005

The only truly egalitarian way to do it is school choice, and not the bastardized charter school version either, where schools are compelled to admit students based upon lottery, but one where schools are free to evaluate family fitness and to impose academic and behavioral standards for admission and retention.

Why, I believe that is already done. See: private schools.

The only families fit for the school in GlenOakes are those that can volunteer six hours a week and pay $1000 for school supplies; if you can meet that standard, you'd best head over to Eastside Tracks, where they'll take damn near anyone.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:00 PM on April 5, 2005

Let me add my porcine voice lesson here - renters in fact may be considered to pay MORE property taxes, albiet indirectly, since most municipalities have homestead exemptions for your primary residence.

So if Joe Slumlord owns the house he lives in and an identical house across the street that you live in. He is assessed $10 property taxes on each home, however he is credited $2 for the one he is living in. So when he figures our what to charge you in rent he's also trying to offset $10, not $8.
posted by phearlez at 1:05 PM on April 5, 2005

c/can meet/can't meet/. D-oh.

Does it strike anyone here that the USA is broken? The school system doesn't work well, the electoral system isn't working at all, freedoms are being constrained like mad, senators are acting like ganglife wannabes, the debt is crippling, the prisons are overflowing with people who didn't actually hurt anone's property or person...

It's a disaster of a country these days.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:06 PM on April 5, 2005

caddis writes "You do that because it is a public good to have an educated populace."

Thank you caddis, this is exactly right. I wish that this was a truth universally acknowledged, but of course the opposite is true. The drive is always to lower taxes, because there is no concept, or such a limited concept, of public good that sending less money to the government is the only thing that qualifies. To the extent that taxes are sent, the GOP, in particular, is interested in voucher programs that remove money from the public pot so that religious schools can be funded with tax-payer dollars.

Still, somehow that seems preferable to the kind of social Darwinism advocated by MattD. I hope the handbooks for evaluating 'family fitness' are well written and easy to understand, or people might get the wrong idea about what constitutes an '(educationally) incompetent family.' I'm pretty sure I have the wrong idea about it.
posted by OmieWise at 1:08 PM on April 5, 2005

Say, does the school tax for the rental unit go to the district in which the unit is located, or the district in which the property owner is located? If the latter, it's yet another way the poor get screwed. - five fresh fish

Property tax dollars go to the taxing authorities that have jurisdiction over that property. Simply put: the money goes where the property is located.
posted by raedyn at 1:11 PM on April 5, 2005

So TCS, what is your point about taxes anyway? How does it relate to the school issue here?
posted by caddis at 1:25 PM on April 5, 2005

remove money from the public pot so that religious schools can be funded with tax-payer dollars.
If it works this way, you will be happy to know your control over what they teach will happen. Why some religious schools pay taxes.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:25 PM on April 5, 2005

In re the renters do [not] pay property taxes debate:
Here in the great Hoosier state I am allowed to deduct from my state income tax a certain percentage of my rent (up to a fixed value) as a credit for paying property taxes. In this case it would seem fairly cut and dried that the renter is in-fact paying property taxes--much like the customer pays sales taxes. In both cases the government is merely using a convenient proxy to collect the money.
posted by Fezboy! at 1:27 PM on April 5, 2005

It's a disaster of a country these days.

Yes, and you had the luck not to be born here. Hurrah.
posted by dame at 1:49 PM on April 5, 2005

My google-fu fails me, so I don't have a cite, however I read in a soc of ed paper, that wealthier districts (where property values are higher) generally pay lower property tax rates than less wealthy districts. The result of course is that despite their lower taxes, wealthier districts collect much more money. After all

.5% of 200K = $1000
.3% of 500K = $1500

So no, wealthier districts do not have better schools because their property taxes are just so high (Boo-HOO! Imagine those suffering souls being forced to pay for their share of the costs having a civilization!).

And of course, even if they were paying more, it's a little unclear to me why I should care if the kid benefiting from my taxes lives next door or on the next block or on the other side of the country.
posted by duck at 1:56 PM on April 5, 2005

I know that when I rent official properties in Ontario, I have to tick a little box indicating whether I want the property taxes paid to the separate or public school boards. I take that as a pretty strong indication that as a renter, I'm assumed to be paying for the property taxes.
posted by jacquilynne at 2:03 PM on April 5, 2005

So TCS, what is your point about taxes anyway? How does it relate to the school issue here?
I did not bring it up, you have to go comments above mine to find it. Thought the same when OmieWise commented; The drive is always to lower taxes.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:04 PM on April 5, 2005

There is too much local control of school funding in the US.

A good state would require that the same amount of money be spent on every student in the state schools. It would allow no local tax money to go into them (increase state taxes accordingly) and would make sure extra stuff isn't slipped in as gifts from rich local organizations.

If people want to improve funding for just one school, they should be sending their kids to private schools.
posted by pracowity at 2:06 PM on April 5, 2005

And of course, even if they were paying more, it's a little unclear to me why I should care if the kid benefiting from my taxes lives next door or on the next block or on the other side of the country.

I would agree with this, but the system in place in the US (and from what's reported here California specifically) forces local school districts to be defensive of their funding, since they are not getting extra funding for students outside of their aegis who manage to get themselves enrolled by hook or by crook. Therefore, the outsider students are harming the ostensible mission of the school district.

This is a very unfortunate consequence of the current system that causes school districts to jealously guard their resources and creates a false us/them dichotomy that harms everyone and obstructs the ultimate goal of providing a good education for all.
posted by ursus_comiter at 2:24 PM on April 5, 2005

Duck:

To the people that live in the wealthier areas, and have the more valuable homes - even when they pay the lower rate, they still feel that they're being unfairly taxed because they are paying more dollars.

To use your numbers for the moment:
They don't care if they're paying a 66% lower tax rate than the people in less desirable areas. They only see that they're paying 50% more dollars. They want the lower tax bill. (Everyone wants a lower tax bill.) They don't want to live in the neighbourhoods where their tax bill would be lower, but they want to pay the same as the people in the crappy neighbourhoods. Or less.

The theory behind propety taxation and income taxation is an ad valorem tax. (ad valorem = according to value) They measure the value of your property, or the value of your income, to arrive at an approximate (admittedly imperfect) measure of your ability to pay. Not everyone feels this is a fair way to tax. This is, however, the current system, and municipalities and school boards have no way to change this. It's in the jurisdiction of the States and Provinces (in North America at least - I wonder how they do it in Europe?).
posted by raedyn at 2:24 PM on April 5, 2005

They don't care if they're paying a 66% lower tax rate than the people in less desirable areas. They only see that they're paying 50% more dollars. They want the lower tax bill.

They can have one. All they have to do is move to a cheaper house. They'll save money on their mortages, too.
posted by duck at 2:27 PM on April 5, 2005

They can have one [a lower tax bill]. All they have to do is move to a cheaper house. They'll save money on their mortages, too. - duck

ROTFLMAO (and I don't say that lightly)
I 100% agree with you. And I've honest to goodness told people that when they are in the tax office complaining about their taxes. Part of the cost of a big fancy house is a big tax bill, big electricity bill, big watering-the-lawn bill, etc.

They reallyreallyreally don't like to hear that. Their heads just about explode. They pound their fists and froth at the mouth and yell at me. A lot. They "have to" live in the nicer neighbourhoods "for the children". Well what about the children who grow up in the crappier neighbourhoods because their parents don't have a choice of how fancy a neighbourhood they move to? The wealthy people choose to live in expensive areas. The poor don't have a choice. (The wealthy people, for the most part, honestly believe that poor people are all just lazy and choose to live how they do).

The weirdest part is some of the people in the wealthy areas really can't afford it. Often, when they say they can't afford a tax increase, they mean it. Not with the lifestyle they're paying for. They have bigger mortgages, fancier cars, blahblahblah. Ostensibly rich people with relatively massive incomes and plenty of assests are usually relying heavily on credit and are doing almost as much of a balancing act as the poor people are. These people have their power cut off and their houses taken away as much as the poor people do.

I have less sympathy for the wealthy broke people's plight though, because they often got themselves there. They could have made different choices and be on more solid ground. On a personal level, I chose not to maximize the amount of mortgage that my lender would give me (less than half of what we 'qualified' for) so that I would live more comfortably and with more "extra's", and be better equipped to deal with the inevitable unexpected financial situations. When my taxes doubled this year, it wasn't a crisis. If I had maxed out my borrowing and gotten a bigger house in a fancier area, this would have been a Big Deal. Others could make the same choice, they just don't. That's their perogotive. But you know when you buy that big expensive house that it comes with a big expensive tax bill. That's part of the trade-off for all the things you like about the place.

I might have gotten a little off-topic here. Sorry. I just see all this stuff every day and I can't get over my amazement.
posted by raedyn at 2:50 PM on April 5, 2005

I would so pay $5 for mefi username Captain Naive Idiot from Planet Moron in the Galaxy of Stupidia if it weren't too long.
posted by jewzilla

Amigo, if you'd give up jewzilla for that, you'd deserve it.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:52 PM on April 5, 2005

What dame said way up top. And what about district waivers? Don't they have those in California? (my mother got us waivers for a better system in the Bronx decades ago) I hope the schools are at least going case-by-case--what if a kid lists the (divorced) father's house but lives with the mother elsewhere?

I think these kids and their parents are/were very smart, and i bet they were a credit to those schools. (and what someone else said about getting funding per student from the govt. too)

The glaring inequalities of our schools is appalling (and housing costs in the best districts are skyhigh and undoable for most Americans). Either switch to a statewide/nationwide funding system or deal with these kids sneaking in. They've already learned a valuable lesson about this country--one that will help them in the future. The school district is way wrong and should let them all stay.
posted by amberglow at 3:01 PM on April 5, 2005

"Worth every penny?" Seriously, fixedgear- do you like, eat babies?

Mmm, babies.

What Dame said way up the thread is true, an educated populace is good for everyone. Another way to say it might be 'a rising tide lifts all boats.' Why do I have to be the Dutch boy with his finger in the dike? We have no children, so we're paying now and forever. But that is ok, we bought this house knowing that it was in a good school district and that would help the resale value. But we can't subsidize everyone. My first ring suburb is hardly a gated community; I could throw a rock from my house back into the city.

I'm already paying wage taxes in the city of Philadelphia but receiving no services and no representation. The people in DC like that so much that they put it on their license plate. Oh yeah, the city is the economic engine that drives the region, I should just suck it up, right? I'm already paying towards their education, see?

Quick recap: City, township, county, state, federal. That seems to be enough. I sympathize with the plight of these poor students, but they should lobby their legislators, no attend school illegally on my nickel.

Is stealing software OK, How about bread? It's the same.

Mmmmmm, babies.
posted by fixedgear at 3:15 PM on April 5, 2005

I'm already paying wage taxes in the city of Philadelphia but receiving no services and no representation.

You're receiving services every single day you're in Philly, whether for work or play. You're using the transit system, streetlights, trash collection, cops, firemen, infrastructure, etc...
posted by amberglow at 3:21 PM on April 5, 2005

I pay property taxes. I'm part owner of a giant-ass co-op, and we pay a lot in taxes (but more in water charges. Who knew water was so damn expensive in Michigan?)

MattD: Sure, we could set up a system that keeps underachievers out of public schools. And since everyone knows that the Bell Curve is based on solid social science, we can use it as a predictor of success. Can I get a little Randy Newman? "We're just keepin' the niggers down..."
Great system! Let's try that immediately!

Fixed: And you never, ever go to Philly either, right? Because that's the only way you avoid using any services in Philly. Oh, wait, you were just being a hyperbolic tool...
posted by klangklangston at 3:30 PM on April 5, 2005

I find it amazing how many people think it's OK to commit fraud if it gets your kid into a better school.
posted by oaf at 4:05 PM on April 5, 2005

I find it amazing how many people think it's OK to commit fraud if it gets your kid into a better school.
I find it amazing that people don't get that getting the best possible education for your children (and all children) is vitally important, and this is one way to make that happen. It improves their lives, and chances of getting into college, and gives them a better headstart, on the whole, than just putting them into the local schools, many of which aren't that good.
posted by amberglow at 4:13 PM on April 5, 2005

getting the best possible education for your children (and all children) is vitally important

Right, and there are legal ways to do it. Committing fraud is still wrong. Getting your child into a better school district next door is not an excuse.
posted by oaf at 4:36 PM on April 5, 2005

Oaf: I find it amazing how many people here are willing to jaywalk to get their kids into a better school.
posted by klangklangston at 4:47 PM on April 5, 2005

Amberglow I'm with you about children receiving a better education. I’m very fortunate a stepfather felt this way about me. There is a fine line being crossed though. What is the difference here and cheating on a SAT score in order to gain entrance at a better college? How far can you go committing a wrong and still have it be ethically right?

Local schools -- what happens when everyone at the local schools attend other districts' schools. Which in turn burdens the local children's education. By the classes being over crowded which will lessen the teacher's time to each individual student by having a larger class.
If you can't think of the local children, you can now see why we are here in this post.

The solution...wish I had something better to add than stopping the round about way that expelled these children. If it was food we could all share but education takes teacher’s time which is limited in a day by class size.

Class size may be the big problem in the districts these children came from. So making a new problem in a well running school district is ok?
posted by thomcatspike at 4:53 PM on April 5, 2005

Klang: Can't get through the day without at least one juicy rationalization? You say jaywalk, I say felony.
posted by fixedgear at 5:07 PM on April 5, 2005

Boston Latin School, the country's oldest public school (1635), and the most difficult of the three Boston public "exam schools" to get into, has recently had to deal a> with students who get accepted, matriculated, but were later discovered to be from suburbs outside the city.

Alums of the school include Arthur Fielder, Ben Franklin, Charles Bulfinch, Cotton Mather, George Santayana, John Hancock, Leonard Bernstein, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Sam Adams … and John King of CNN News!
posted by ericb at 5:13 PM on April 5, 2005

oops ... misplaced HTML tag.
posted by ericb at 5:14 PM on April 5, 2005

thomcat, the local schools--that these kids aren't going to--definitely need to be improved (but that's a funding issue, not because of these kids going elsewhere--it's a small percentage overall), and many cities have changed to a citywide district, where students compete to get into the better or more specialized highschools. It's a better solution, but it still doesn't help those kids not accepted in those better schools stuck in the local schools.

We have to find a way to make all schools better and then there'll be no need for this cheating to get a better education. It's more common than people may be aware of, and sadly, justified, given the current incredibly unequal allocation of funds and resources.
posted by amberglow at 5:24 PM on April 5, 2005

A request for clarification:

Menino has asked Payzant to figure out how to monitor where students in the three schools live, including hiring a team of investigators to do home visits during evenings and weekends.

That quote, from ericb's link about Boston Latin, make it sound as though family's are being 'caught' maintaining a legitimate address in the district, but don't actually live in it. That is, a family who lived in District A sending their kids to District B would be illegal, even if the family actually did actually have an (unused) residence in, and presumably pay taxes to, District B.

Am I misinterpreting something? I had always assumed that a simply owning/leasing a residential property would be sufficient to establish 'residency' for the purpose of schooling.
posted by kickingtheground at 6:21 PM on April 5, 2005

What sort of moral message do you give to a kid when you tell him to lie about where he lives so that he can go to a school to which he otherwise is not entitled to attend? While I have some problems with the way this particular situation was handled, and with how school funding is handled in general, involving your kid in a fraud probably does more harm than good for most kids. "Just remember son, the ends justify the means."
posted by caddis at 6:30 PM on April 5, 2005

What sort of moral message do you give to a kid when you tell him to lie about where he lives so that he can go to a school to which he otherwise is not entitled to attend?
You teach him that the real world is an unfair place full of people who get better services and educations simply because of their zipcodes and who their parents are/do/earn, and that since you couldn't give them those advantages, you gave them smarts, and ingenuity. Lying about where you live is worth it if you can get a better education, and will pay off.

Are you really comparing a parent who does this to someone who commits a real crime? Get real. Or change society so that these inequities no longer exist. As long as they do, they'll be ways to buck the system--a deeply flawed system.
posted by amberglow at 7:01 PM on April 5, 2005

"You do that because it is a public good to have an educated populace."

Okay. So where's my educated populace, dammit?
posted by kindall at 7:06 PM on April 5, 2005

kindall, my man, it's not in the government's interest to have an educated populace, since an educated populace of any persuasion would be calling for their heads. And the government are the people in charge of education.

See the connection?
posted by jonmc at 7:24 PM on April 5, 2005

Fixed: Why don't you go ahead and look up the California criminal code on this one, chinstrap? Tell me if they've committed a felony.
Oh, wait, that "fraud" bullshit was for cheap rhetorical points. You didn't actually mean, well, fraud. You meant "getting away with breaking school district rules on residency."

Caddis: I will have no problem teaching my children that there are good laws and bad laws, and that an informed citizen can make their own decisions with regard to those laws. Oh, and that legislation does not imply morality, which quite a few people here seem to forget with alarming regularity.
posted by klangklangston at 7:32 PM on April 5, 2005

Good laws and bad laws, who decides? Tommy lives in school district A which is a fine district, but not quite as fine as school district B. Both are better than most school districts in the country, but B is a cut above A. (That may be the situation in the article by the way.) Mommy really wants Tommy to go to Princeton, not Rutgers (a very fine school by the way). Mommy tells Tommy to lie about his address using his aunt's address in school district B. Tommy goes to Princeton. Tommy takes a job at Enron upon graduation. Don't forget, the ends justify the means. Let's see about electricity rates in CA.
posted by caddis at 8:35 PM on April 5, 2005

Actually, caddis, from what I came to understand when I was applying to schools, it actually helps to go to a good but not great school as you won't get questions about whether you can handle it but will avoid competing with so many kids from your own school.
posted by dame at 9:29 PM on April 5, 2005

Who decides? Well, the individual about to break those laws decides. And as long as we're tossing out hypotheticals, Caddis (since the Enron was totally apropos), there's a kid who could pass for white who is technically assigned to a "colored" school in the '50s south. He decides to lie, and goes to a white school in order to get a better education, and ends up being a successful member of society and a role model despite having lied in an unjust system. You'd rather he stayed in squallor?
I'm just sayin', Caddis, that straw is easy to find to stuff these men with. And I believe that there are plenty of times when the ends justify the means, and there are some times when they don't. I tend to assess that based on a harm:reward system. You seem to think that any deviation from rules instantly sets a kid up to scam millions from stockholders, as if there's some sort of inevitable determinism that grips their lives. I make no bones about arguing from utility, and I tend to see more utility in these kids getting the best possible education than I do in herding them based on where they live (something they have no control over).
While when utilitarianism gets dogmatic, it's meaningless, I can't see a doctrinaire obedience to bureacrats as anything but a hollow (if "principled") stand.
posted by klangklangston at 9:35 PM on April 5, 2005

Klang decides. Case closed. No, I meant fraud: "A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain."
posted by fixedgear at 2:46 AM on April 6, 2005

Wait, you mean other people's kids are going to school on my dime??

I own a home, but I don't have kids and never will. Why am I paying for public education at all? I don't really see a difference between my own situation and the guy who insists that his tax dollars stay within his own district to benefit his own children. Both stances are trying to minimize taxes while maximizing returns.

Of course, "...a well-educated populace benefits everyone". It would seem obvious, then, that keeping the shitty schools shitty is not in the greater public interest.

I tend to vote for what I feel is best for the country, not necessarily what's (immediately) best for me, like a lot of bleeding heart liberals, I'd imagine. But I swear this country is making a cynic out of me...
posted by LordSludge at 3:02 AM on April 6, 2005

Fixed: When you can back that up with a legal citation, you're more than welcome to twist your panties into a fraud knot. Until then, I'm going to say that the lack of felony charges (indeed, the lack of any charges) kind of implies a lack of law to back you up.
Kinda like how copyright infringement isn't theft, this isn't fraud.

LordSludge: So that the people who care for your dodering ass in old age have a better grasp on how to keep you alive? So that new workers can earn more cash, to pay pensions and social security? Because you're not a selfish prick and are able to do good for others without demanding a reward?
posted by klangklangston at 6:34 AM on April 6, 2005

Wait, you mean other people's kids are going to school on my dime??
Yup--every single public school student in the US is going to school partly on your taxpaying dime. The rest of the funding is local. We just had a big court decision about how NY state has shortchanged our city for billions and for years and years out of its proportionate share in federal and state funding (your dime).
posted by amberglow at 6:58 AM on April 6, 2005

klangklangston:

(Wasn't this an episode of The Simpsons, in which I play mean old Mr. Burns?)

But can't my money be better spent on, say, health care for myself? I mean, my dollars are being spent *primarily* to improve the future quality of life for others' children. Their effect on me is nearly (but not totally) negligible and really isn't the point of my taxation. What obligation do I have to educate other people's children? I think fixedgear put it best: "Fuck 'em."

/devil's advocate
posted by LordSludge at 7:02 AM on April 6, 2005

I would add that school is what you make it. Sure, there are poor schools with bad teachers, but there are wealthy schools with bad teachers, and vice versa. I went to a poor rural school in Central Illinois back in the late 1980s- early 1990s. We didn't have any computers until my senior year of high school. I also went to a state college. Granted, that was a while ago. I still feel I got a good education; maybe not as good as someone who went to a fancy private school, but good nonetheless. I liked going to school and learning.

It comes down to caring--if the parents don't care, the kids don't care, no matter how good or bad the school is. Poverty, drugs, &etc are the social ills that must be addressed before schools will turn around, IMHO.
posted by cass at 7:31 AM on April 6, 2005

You know, maybe it's just my granola-crunching Canadian-ness but I can't believe that anyone would be so selfish and penny pinching as to complain about the portion of property tax that goes toward education.

A quick review of the my city's web site reveals to me that the $2300 or so that I pay each year in property tax goes toward (in descending order):

-Education
-Public safety and security (police, fire, ambulance, 9-1-1, by-law)
-Public transit
-General services and administration
-Pay-as-you-go payments
-Employment and financial assistance
-Debt charges
-Roads, sidewalks, traffic operations
-Social housing
-Arts, culture, heritage, community grants
-Recreation, childcare
-Garbage collection, disposal, recycling
-Libraries
-Health and long-term care
-Development services and planning
-Infrastructure services
-Conservation authorities

The education component of my yearly property tax equals approximately $530. Divided over 12 months of the year that's about $44 a month.

$44 a month for fuck's sake.
posted by melimelo at 8:24 AM on April 6, 2005

A rising tide lifts all boats.

The only people that benefit by shunning public health, public education, and etcetera are the small minority of people who are wealthy.

Wealthy does not equal "own big homes." Wealthy means "have excellent cash flow capacity." Which is to say the ability to purchase the health and education they desire, without harming their lifestyle.

Everyone else -- and I'll warrant that means you -- is better off when the costs of such services are shared among everyone. You want your neighbours to do quite well, because their success directly affects your life vis a vis quality of neighbourhood, safety of neighbourhood, quality of kids your kids grow up with, stuff like that.

Very few of us are an island unto ourselves.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:31 AM on April 6, 2005

$44 a month for fuck's sake.

School taxes are $2998 (USD). Add $1277 for property taxes. We get seperate bills.

So just the school portion is $250,

$250 a month, for fuck's sake. Kind of different now, melimelo?
posted by fixedgear at 8:56 AM on April 6, 2005

At the Chatham School District mill rate of 26.973, that payment means that your house is being taxed on a worth of $1,111,482. If your taxes are like Michigan's, that means that you're only assessed mills on half the value of the property, making your house worth over $2 million.
So $250 a month doesn't seem like a hardship.
posted by klangklangston at 9:29 AM on April 6, 2005

You know, maybe it's just my granola-crunching Canadian-ness but I can't believe that anyone would be so selfish and penny pinching as to complain about the portion of property tax that goes toward education. - melimelo

You have obviously never worked in a tax office. Not all Canadians are "granola-crunching" as you describe it. No matter what you do, somebody is gona whine, complain and bitch about it. Even when their taxes go down they complain. If they don't like what you tell them, they'll go to the Mayor to tattle on you.* When you tell them that even City Council can't change rule X because it's Provincial Law, they still want me to waive it for them. *sigh* I'm reasonably well-paid, but there are days were it isn't enough.

* Someone actually complained to the Mayor about me because I smiled to much at them. That's what I get for being friendly, I guess.
posted by raedyn at 9:46 AM on April 6, 2005

err... klangklangston.... you moved a decimal place somehwere in your calulations. The simplest property tax formulas (and the Cheltenham Township Website is a little broken, so I can't figure out if there's anymore to their formula or not) are:

(taxable assessment) x (mill rate)
1000

(I hope that displays correctly)
So umm.. his home's assessed value is closer to 1/10th of what you estimated - approximately $111,000. But we don't have a lot of confidence in that because not all areas tax the entire assessment (as klang pointed out) etc etc. Besides, it's really not any of our business. But let's not go throwing around crazy numbers and jumping to conclusions.
posted by raedyn at 10:05 AM on April 6, 2005

$44 a month for fuck's sake.
Mine is over $200 a month.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:51 PM on April 6, 2005

$250 per month? That is cheap. Quit your bellyachin'. That is probably what you would pay on an unimproved lot in our area, not that there are any of those left.
posted by caddis at 8:59 PM on April 6, 2005

After slogging through all of these comments, I thought I would weigh in with a few of my thoughts:

1. I agree that the expulsion in the last few months of a school year seems harsh. However, it also appears that there was adequate warning. For the kids' sakes I would let them finish the year.
2. The rule breaking should not be condoned. The fix is to petition your government, i.e., seek to change the funding rules or the school choice, vouchers, etc. What, the majority does not want to change? Well, this is a democracy after all.
3. We already undertake a substantial redistribution of wealth in this country on many levels, tax credits, social security, Medicaid, etc. At some point, enough is enough. You can quibble about this only involving a few students. But that is only the current situation. Where to draw the line? Well it was already drawn and then exceeded. All I hear is quibbling about where to draw the line, which is at best a never ending debate.
4. Here in IL we depend heavily on property taxes. I belive the school portion of my taxes runs about $8,000 year (and we still contribute to the schools in kind, eg., buying books, etc). Some of us vote to increase school taxing because it helps our kids, our community and our housing investments (us). Ok, I am fortunate to be able to move into a good school district, but that is also the result of having undertaken the necessary effort many years ago to slog through school, paying for school, doing the right things in life (e.g., stay away from drugs, etc.). By allowing these divisions in society, we provide a basis for upward mobility and thus goals for someof us to strive to (i.e., a reward for all of my (and my family’s) efforts is to live in my community and to have my children have some advantages I did not). This is not a punishment, a put down or pulling up of the ladder of any sort.
5. I believe there are several studies that detail the mobility between the economic tiers in the US. I believe one was put out by the University of Michigan. The amount of that mobility is staggering. I find all of the discussion above to fail to consider this mobility and the need to foster it through the availability of goals such as how to improve the life of future generations of your family. Just like the many other aspects of our culture I hear a "Where's mine?" and "I want mine now!" attitude from those who think immediacy of want (not need) supports the law breaking.
6. In the interest of full disclosure, I am fairly conservative when it comes to economics, like taxes, but fairly liberal socially. But, the charity is voluntary (and directed to those interests which are fulfilling to me and my family), not mandatory as would be the case in national funding, etc
7. Regarding the arguments that X amount is a pitiful extra amount to pay, or that we should simply increase taxes a little, ignores the basic trend of ever increasing taxing demands. When will it stop? I believe that it is tantamount to slavery to require someone to hand over more half of the result of their labor, no matter how much they make. Can we take away some of their accumulated wealth? Sure, but this will impact incentives that have been demonstrated as very helpful to a vibrant capitalist system. I see the anti-tax rant more as a continual effort to prevent runaway taxation than to prevent what could be argued to be a minimal extra amount to school, feed or cloth a few others. There will always be a desire for more taxation because it is great to suck the money away from someone else to pay for your desires/utopia which is not necessarily shared by all.
8. Finally, another rant/point. I favor local funding due to the local control by the community it provides. It is hard enough to influence schools (for example, fire an incompetent teacher). I don't mind the extra cost of local administration (IL has the largest number of govermental entitiies) But, then, we are a highly-school involved family.

Cheers
posted by Capt. Bligh at 9:27 PM on April 6, 2005

Well done, Capt. Bligh.
posted by fixedgear at 1:45 AM on April 7, 2005

Bligh, I mutiny thus: 1) Yes, they should have been able to finish the school year.
2) No, we live in a representative republic, which exists to protect the rights of minorities, not a democracy.
3) Wealth is consistently redistributed upwards in this country, not downwards. That's what profit is.
4) Ah, I had forgotten that the poor are poor because they deserve it, and the rich are rich because they deserve it. What can I say to a Calvinist? (I'll leave aside the fact that a functioning society requires many goals, not all of them ones that pay dividends).
5) Bullshit. Cite those studies, buddy, or have 'em declared irrelevant. There's actually been a decrease in class mobility since WWII.
6) You're conservative about the cash you have? How is it better for you to hoard and maintain a rigged system than for others who wish to achieve that to subvert a rigged system?
7) Yes, Scandinavians are slaves, horrible brutish slaves. As for your capitalism argument, sounds like you need to read Adam Smith again and check out his ideas about unregulated capitalism.
8) I have no problem with that.
posted by klangklangston at 7:23 AM on April 7, 2005

klangklangston:

Will do some searching tonight when I have more time. Today, like just about every other work day, I am busy laboring away (except, of course for the few minutes to track this post).

One item, though, regarding your comment that we live in a representative republic that exists to protect the rights of minorities... I disagree. Show me a citation to that effect. We do protect individual rights via the Bill of Rights and minorities in some respects, e.g., via the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. But the nation was not founded for the purpose you suggest. Rather, as set forth in the preamble of the Constitution, our form of government was formed to in order to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." You might try to fit protection of minorities into that list, but it better be a pretty strong shoehorn.

Finally, I am only quibbling with your statement. I do think minority groups (not limited to race, etc.) need protections against the potential tyrannies of majorities.
posted by Capt. Bligh at 9:40 AM on April 7, 2005

You guys are reporting hellishly high tax rates. $8000 a year? To your city? That's crazy.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:55 AM on April 7, 2005

OK. I peeked at this post again today.

A compilation of mine from various Lake County IL Assessor office web pages:

_____________
Illinois has over 6,000 units of local government who use property taxes. Of these, 102 are the county governments. The others fall into four categories: 1) townships - 1,530; 2) municipalities - 1,276; 3) school districts - 998; and 4) special purpose districts (e.g., libraries, fire protection) - 2,107.
Property taxes are raised, spent, and distributed locally. They finance a major part of the services provided by local governmental units which benefit citizens and their property. The largest share of taxes goes to school districts, generally 65% of each tax bill.

The governing board of each taxing unit determines how much money is needed to operate during the coming year and how much must be raised from the property taxes. The amount to be raised from property taxes is the levy which, after being approved by the governing board, is certified to the County Clerk no later than the last Tuesday in December.

Tax levies are made for the various activities of government. Money is allocated separately for each levy by spending account or "fund". The fund structure is the framework within which the financial decisions of local governmental units are made. Governmental bodies are entitled by State statute to use a number of funds. These could include a corporate (or general) fund, a bonds and interest fund and other specialized funds, such as a fire protection fund, a library fund or a street and bridge fund.

How do levies affect tax rates?

Levies are made in dollar amounts. In order to raise the money requested in levies, County Clerks must calculate numbers which, when multiplied by the total equalized value (the tax base), will yield the amount of the levy. This number is the tax rate. Property tax rates are, however, subject to limits set by the State Legislature. The applicable limit depends on the type of governmental unit and the type of fund. If the rate necessary to raise the amount of the levy is greater than the maximum legal rate, the maximum legal rate is applied and the amount of money raised is less than the levy. In some cases the tax rate limits may be modified by referendum

_________________________-

Me:

Also, assessments are 0.3333% of market value.

The actual tax rate will depend on the list of local levies for things such as schools, village goverment, township, forest preserves, and all of their pension plans, etc.

There is some relief for seniors and those of limited income.

Since I do not have my tax bill handy, from the US Commerce Department the following is provided for my village:

_____________
Tax Structure
Property tax rates per $100 assessed valuation.
Valuation is 33.3% of real property except in Cook
County where commercial property is assessed at
38% and industrial property is assessed at 36%.

Property Tax Rates
Year 2002 Total Property Tax Rates Total Sales Tax Rate 6.50%
City 0.5150% For Two Previous Years Utility Tax On
County 0.5020% 2001 2000 Electricity 0.00%
School 5.1830% 7.2680% 7.2710% Natural Gas 0.00%
Other(s) 0.9930% Telephone 0.00%
Total 7.1930% Water 0.00%

_______________
Me again:

The info above is garbled, but the total tax rate ends up being about 7.27 percent.
A $500K market value property (average to low for around here) then can expect a tax bill of a little over $12k per year.

So yes, $8,000 is realistic, and low in my book. But then, the income tax rate is only a flat 3%.

Now back to the rock pile.
posted by Capt. Bligh at 12:22 PM on April 7, 2005

$250 per month? That is cheap. Quit your bellyachin'. That is probably what you would pay on an unimproved lot in our area, not that there are any of those left.
I did not belly ache. Just showing there was an arithmetic error regarding a $2M property comment above. If I was belly aching I would tell how my taxes had almost doubled in two years or from the time of my purchase.
Also, you are in Canada, so quit comparing me to your Canadian living about a post in the USA.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:41 PM on April 7, 2005

Maybe you were commenting back about a comment above mine. So apologize if so.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:46 PM on April 7, 2005

Bligh: The role of government is to protect rights in a Liberal system. Read your Locke (especially 2nd Treatise), your Rousseau and your Mill (oh, and the Federalist papers). Seriously, I don't have time to give you citations, but you seem to have missed civics in high school.
(Or, to put it another way: Why isn't the US a straight democracy? Why do we have a constitution? Why do we limit the powers of government?)
posted by klangklangston at 12:51 PM on April 7, 2005

Why do we limit the powers of government?

I believe you mean "why did we."

Seriously, though, a bit of a sidetrack, but I think you're mistaken about what high school kids actually learn. I went to a nice public high school. Not the best in the county, but far from the worst. I took a lot of AP and honors classes. I didn't read Locke, Rousseau, or the Federalist papers until college. I read them because I sought them out. It is quite reasonable to think that half, or more, of the adults in this country think Rousseau is a type of cheese.

Civics for me (1997ish) was a speech by a local state legislator about how important they are and why it is great that they bring pork back to our area, volunteer work at a public institution (I stamped book cards at the local library for a month), and filling out voter registration cards.
Civics isn't "what government is, how it works, and why it does the things it does." nowadays it's more like "How to be a happy little cog in the machine that is our government. now sit down and shut the hell up, we have to teach this to you ungrateful seniors."
posted by Kellydamnit at 1:26 PM on April 7, 2005

klangklangston:

Maybe our quibbling is over semantics. Maybe not.

I still say that the US government was not formed for the purpose of protecting minorities, or any other group (e.g. Virginians). Rather it was to provide a government of limited and separated powers, in support of the goals listed in the preamble. The form of government was chosen to do away with royal prerogatives and lack of representation in the decision making, and to ensure local government controls. The personal rights that are protected are individual rights (minorities of one, I suppose) and state government "rights."

You might also read up on some Constitutional law, if you have not already done so. The Constitution nowhere provides for (1) who or what entity enforces the individual rights (courts?,the executive branch?, states?, federal government?) or (2) who or what entity interprets the Constitution. The US S Ct merely asserted that it necessarily had the later responsibility in Marbury v. Madison. But, as you may recall, that was almost challenged by Nixon, and there are rumblings even today about challenging this role.

That US S Ct case law has established a way for protecting "suspect classes" in discrimination cases under the 11th and 14th Amendments does not mean the government was formed for the purpose or protecting minority groups per se either. That body of law developed as a way to provide that protection.

Finally, the Constitution itself can be amended over the objection of a minority. It is nice that enough of us want accommodate and protect those who might not otherwise have the ability to protect themselves, and that changing the Constitution is so hurdle laden.

Cheers.
posted by Capt. Bligh at 1:47 PM on April 7, 2005

Bligh: I hate to do this, but no, you're wrong. It's a) not semantics, and b) basic polisci.
Ok. I'm having a hard time even starting with this. First off, we have a government because people enter into an argreement to give up some of their rights in order to have more equal protection of the ones they still hold. That's why instead of killing anyone who takes my property, it's adjudicated to a court.
The goal of democracies is equality under that law (see: Pericles, Spartan constitution, pre-40 Dictators Athenian constitution). Under a democracy, the majority of the people (demos) decides what rights will be protected (though the Greeks didn't really have "rights").
At its worst, this leads to mob justice. But democracy is predicated upon the idea that each person is inherently equal, and a true democracy requires each person be equal in pretty much every way.
There are problems with pure democracy, though. See: The Crito. There are no inherent rights to the individual that the group is obligated to respect. If torturing your children serves the group, then that's OK.
The other side of this is liberalism. Liberalism is a line of thought spawned during the Enlightenment, and one of its major philosophers was John Locke. Locke, borrowing from Hobbes, hypothesized on the state of nature, and what led people to form governments. He is one of the first proponents of rights, and defines them as coming from God (Natural rights. One of the biggest arguements within poli-philosophy is whether or not rights are social or natural. If they're natural, you have to believe in God, or they're hollow. If they're social, then they're a construct, and we can decide that you have no rights by not protecting them).
So, minority rights refer to individual and minority group rights. They include things like speech, thought, property and privacy ("life, liberty and property" are where Locke anchors all of his, and property was very much a minority right that needed protection at the outset of our country, at least in the eyes of our founders). But to say that the founders didn't base this country on minority rights is like saying that they created the constitution without ever reading Locke- an astoundingly ignorant argument.
In America, we have what is called a "liberal democracy." It is not a democracy, first off, it is a representative republic. A federal republic. And the government is charged with defending the rights of the people (either find it in the preamble to the constitution or in Federalist papers).
If you want to see what democracy looks like without any minority rights concerns, check out Rousseau's Social Contract.
God, do a google search, read the Second Treatise on Government, then the Social Contract, then the Declaration of Independence then the Constitution. Then I'll talk to you. I'm hungry and have a migrane now.
posted by klangklangston at 5:51 PM on April 7, 2005

The U of M study I was thinking about is the Panel Study on Income Dynamics. This study has studied income dynamics since 1968 of what now is about 38,000 individuals and 8,000 families.

The homepage is available here:

An overview is available here:

Although I cannot point to the exact data, it is my recollection that although a very small percentage of poor remained at the bottom of the ladder, and a larger, but still very small portion of the richest remained at the top of the ladder, there is a great deal of mobility by the others.
posted by Capt. Bligh at 9:17 PM on April 7, 2005

I don't know what I did wrong.

Here is the homepage:

http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/

Here is the overview page:

http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Guide/ug/intro.html#ORIGIN%20OF%20THE%20PSID
posted by Capt. Bligh at 9:21 PM on April 7, 2005

klangklangston:

It is plain we are quibbling over semantics, and yes I have read most of the works you cited.

I used the term democracy generically, you seem to want to confine it to "pure" democracy. The difference is irrelevant in any event. By the way, a republic is not different than a democracy. It is a generic term for a government without a monarchy, i.e., it is one subject to laws, and in the best scenario, the will of those eligible to voite.

Regarding, the purpose of government, we also are quibbiling because we are using terms differently.

The social contract and government are separable in my mind. The government is a vehicle for maintaining the contract. However, I don't think we ever implemented (at least initially) the ideal social contract. After all, the US permitted slavery. Women and non-landowners could not vote. The "general" will therefore was a particular will of only a portion of the populace.

However, I do agree, if this is really what you are tyring to say, that our government was structured to apply laws equally (thus everyone was equal under the law). It is in this context that the anti-descriminatation review case law is relevant. But to say the purspose of the government in 1776 (you used the word "formed") was to protect minorities against the general will seems to me to be a stretch.
posted by Capt. Bligh at 10:00 PM on April 7, 2005

Bligh: No, really, a republic and a democracy are different things. That's why you can have republics that are still controlled by nobility (as Machiavelli agitated for). Have you read The Republic, by Plato? Philosopher kings are not the Demos.
Where the problem lies is that I study this stuff and you don't, and there are terms which mean specific things within the discipline of political science. Kinda like how "margin of error" has a concrete meaning within social sciences, and it's infuriating to hear it used when refering to polls without that concrete meaning.
Further, you've adopted an odd, ahistorical framing that is simply at odds with the very fundement of American governmental thought. Discussing this with you is like trying to talk about systemic biases in election structures with someone who thinks that vote only means preference, and doesn't connote a specific set of meanings.

You've also managed to misread the argument: Our government was not formed to protect against the "general will," but rather Rousseau's conception of government is democracy without minority rights protection, which requires an infallible "general will." The problem with that is that while Rousseau's conception of government has its advantages (a stronger sense of communal responsibility) interpreting the "general will" is under the auspices of a government made of people. It's the same problem you get when you try to institute Plato's Republic (which, you might note, is emphatically not a democracy) or Augustine's City of God. But the French conception of government is very much based on the ideas espoused by Rousseau, while America is more Lockian. The difference can be seen most clearly in the French debates over the elimination of the hijab in schools (here, we rely on the minority right of freedom of religion, there they rely on the general will of society with regard to the issue).

But Jesus, Bligh, y'know: You don't teach French to a pig. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Read the Second Treatise and the Social Contract. Hell, throw in "On Liberty" by Mill (even though it's post-American revolution/constitution, it's one of the best books ever to sum up the arguments over liberalism. Mill's beliefs fed the general conception of liberty and government pretty much until the cold war, and maybe even up through Nixon). I'd be happy to talk about them with you, though I'm by no means an authoritative expert. Until then, I can't bear watching you driving nails with a monkeywrench any further.
posted by klangklangston at 11:02 PM on April 7, 2005

I am not in Canada. I am in Jersey.
posted by caddis at 1:30 AM on April 8, 2005

klangklangston:

I never said this:

Our government was not formed to protect against the "general will," Please go back and read what I wrote.

I concede that I am using some terms more loosely than you as a polisci stickler might, perhaps even colloquially.

But the thrust of item 2 of my initial post remains:

2. The rule breaking should not be condoned. The fix is to petition your government, i.e., seek to change the funding rules or the school choice, vouchers, etc. What, the majority does not want to change? Well, [ (absent a violation of certain guarranteed rights) this is a country where the will of the majority (even if it is only expressed approximately via proxy) is how such decisions are made.

Also, "profit" is a voluntary (or at least mostly voluntary) redistribution of wealth, effected by the market. The items I mentioned are mostly involuntary, or at least not done without a law requiring it (a decision made for the greater good?).

Cheers.
posted by Capt. Bligh at 6:23 AM on April 8, 2005

Bligh: You don't protect against the general will. You protect against interpretations of the general will. Just like you don't protect against wisdom, you protect against interpretations of what is wisdom. Read the Social Contract.
ARRRRRRRRRGH.
If the government creates illegitimate laws, then, yes, the first attempt should be to change them. But if there are attempts to change them that are blocked by the government, then the law may be ignored legitimately.
posted by klangklangston at 8:51 AM on April 8, 2005

« Older The mission of delocator.net... | Scrolling LED Belt Buckles.... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Mass Expulsions April 5, 2005 8:46 AM Subscribe

Mass Expulsions
April 5, 2005 8:46 AM Subscribe