How can we Better fund Utah Schools?
by Lakshan Lingam
In the United States, many of our nation’s public school districts are funded by local property taxes. By redistributing property taxes from high and low-value housing districts more evenly across our school districts, we can begin to develop a more equitable educational system for all students regardless of their socioeconomic status. Property taxes in housing districts of high poverty are not as high as affluent housing districts. Therefore, school districts that are located in areas of low-high poverty do not receive as much funding as school districts found in more affluent housing districts. High poverty housing districts collect less in property tax due to lower home values, while more affluent housing districts are better able to fund their surrounding schools and districts because their homes are of higher value. Through the use of local property taxes in funding our public school districts, we have developed an educational system that heavily relies on a funding model that promotes inequality in school funding. In the state of Utah, funding for our schools come from three sources, local income taxes, local property taxes, and funding allocated by the federal government. Since property taxes vary by location, it is difficult to fund our school districts equally and effectively by only utilizing property taxes from homes that are within a given public school district. By redistributing local property taxes in the state of Utah more evenly across our school districts, we are better able to develop a fairer educational system for all students regardless of their socioeconomic status.
In the article, Good School, Rich School; Bad School, Poor School, published in the Atlantic, Alana Samuels states, “—inequality between wealthy and poorer districts continue to exist. That’s often because education is paid for with the amount of money available in a district, which doesn’t necessarily equal the amount of money required to adequately teach students.” According to Samuels, the federal government, on average, provides only about 8 to 9 percent of school budgets on the national level. Much of this federal funding is put towards programs such as free and reduced breakfast and lunch programs and Head Start, a program that provides a more comprehensive childhood education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to those children and families who are considered low-income. When the funding model utilizing property taxes to fund our public schools was first adopted, the model did not immediately lead to much inequality in the funding of our public schools. Funding our public school districts through local property tax distribution will not provide students with an equal education across socioeconomic brackets. We must find a more equitable way to distribute property tax if we mean to provide students belonging to housing districts of poverty, a fair education that is comparable to the education received by students who live in housing districts of higher value.
In an attempt to better understand how funding inequality impacts the quality of various school districts in Utah, I chose three school districts that are located in various socioeconomic districts and tax rate brackets and compared them against each other. Provo School District, the lowest funded district of my chosen three, consists of thirteen elementary schools, two middle schools, and three middle schools. The average tax rate in Utah County is 0.615%. Many of Provo School District’s surrounding housing districts consist of high-value homes providing sufficient property tax income making it possible to fund their public school districts effectively. Although Provo School District does generate enough property tax income to fund its’ schools effectively, in-district funding inequality is still present. Though the quality of Provo School District’s schools and facilities surpass other Utah school districts because property tax income is sufficient enough to provide each school in the district adequately. Salt Lake City School District consists of twenty-seven elementary schools, five middle schools, five high schools, three charter schools, and three community learning centers. The average tax rate in Salt Lake County is 0.750%, higher than that of Provo and Park City. Despite this, Salt Lake City School District is not able to generate enough property tax income to fund the sheer number of schools in the district because surrounding housing districts are of low value. Park City School District, the highest funded school district of my chosen three, consists of four elementary schools, two middle schools, three high schools, and one community learning center. The average tax rate in Summit country 0.463%. Park City School District is able to generate more than enough funding for its public school districts due surrounding housing districts being of extremely high-value.
The redistribution of local property taxes in the state of Utah more evenly across our school districts, we are better able to develop an educational system based largely in economic quality and equity for all students regardless of their socioeconomic status. By redistributing property taxes more evenly across the state, we are better able to provide students belonging to low and high poverty housing districts an education comparable to that of students that belong to affluent housing districts. In the state of Utah, Park City School District generates more property tax income than all other districts, providing the district with the means to spend more per student than any other district in the state. It is near impossible to fund our public school districts equally and effectively by utilizing property taxes from homes that are within only that given district. By redistributing local property taxes more evenly across our public school district, we can begin developing a more equitable educational system for all students regardless of their socioeconomic status.
In the article, Good School, Rich School; Bad School, Poor School, published in the Atlantic, Alana Samuels states, “—inequality between wealthy and poorer districts continue to exist. That’s often because education is paid for with the amount of money available in a district, which doesn’t necessarily equal the amount of money required to adequately teach students.” According to Samuels, the federal government, on average, provides only about 8 to 9 percent of school budgets on the national level. Much of this federal funding is put towards programs such as free and reduced breakfast and lunch programs and Head Start, a program that provides a more comprehensive childhood education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to those children and families who are considered low-income. When the funding model utilizing property taxes to fund our public schools was first adopted, the model did not immediately lead to much inequality in the funding of our public schools. Funding our public school districts through local property tax distribution will not provide students with an equal education across socioeconomic brackets. We must find a more equitable way to distribute property tax if we mean to provide students belonging to housing districts of poverty, a fair education that is comparable to the education received by students who live in housing districts of higher value.
In an attempt to better understand how funding inequality impacts the quality of various school districts in Utah, I chose three school districts that are located in various socioeconomic districts and tax rate brackets and compared them against each other. Provo School District, the lowest funded district of my chosen three, consists of thirteen elementary schools, two middle schools, and three middle schools. The average tax rate in Utah County is 0.615%. Many of Provo School District’s surrounding housing districts consist of high-value homes providing sufficient property tax income making it possible to fund their public school districts effectively. Although Provo School District does generate enough property tax income to fund its’ schools effectively, in-district funding inequality is still present. Though the quality of Provo School District’s schools and facilities surpass other Utah school districts because property tax income is sufficient enough to provide each school in the district adequately. Salt Lake City School District consists of twenty-seven elementary schools, five middle schools, five high schools, three charter schools, and three community learning centers. The average tax rate in Salt Lake County is 0.750%, higher than that of Provo and Park City. Despite this, Salt Lake City School District is not able to generate enough property tax income to fund the sheer number of schools in the district because surrounding housing districts are of low value. Park City School District, the highest funded school district of my chosen three, consists of four elementary schools, two middle schools, three high schools, and one community learning center. The average tax rate in Summit country 0.463%. Park City School District is able to generate more than enough funding for its public school districts due surrounding housing districts being of extremely high-value.
The redistribution of local property taxes in the state of Utah more evenly across our school districts, we are better able to develop an educational system based largely in economic quality and equity for all students regardless of their socioeconomic status. By redistributing property taxes more evenly across the state, we are better able to provide students belonging to low and high poverty housing districts an education comparable to that of students that belong to affluent housing districts. In the state of Utah, Park City School District generates more property tax income than all other districts, providing the district with the means to spend more per student than any other district in the state. It is near impossible to fund our public school districts equally and effectively by utilizing property taxes from homes that are within only that given district. By redistributing local property taxes more evenly across our public school district, we can begin developing a more equitable educational system for all students regardless of their socioeconomic status.
Sources:
Semuels, Alana. “Good School, Rich School; Bad School, Poor School.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 25 Aug. 2016, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/
Stuart, Elizabeth. “Legislature Looking into How to Equalize Tax Funding between Rich and Poor School Districts.” DeseretNews.com, Deseret News, 25 Oct. 2010, www.deseretnews.com/article/700076111/Legislature-looking-into-how-to-equalize-tax-funding-between-rich-and-poor-school-districts.html
Turner, Cory. “Why America's Schools Have A Money Problem.” NPR, NPR, 18 Apr. 2016, www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474256366/why americas-schools-have-a-money-problem
“Utah Property Tax Calculator.” SmartAsset, smartasset.com/taxes/utah-property-tax-calculator
Wood, Benjamin. “We're No. 51: Utah Last Again for per-Student Spending.” The Salt Lake Tribune, The Salt Lake Tribune, 2 June 2015, archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2579711&itype=CMSID
Stuart, Elizabeth. “Legislature Looking into How to Equalize Tax Funding between Rich and Poor School Districts.” DeseretNews.com, Deseret News, 25 Oct. 2010, www.deseretnews.com/article/700076111/Legislature-looking-into-how-to-equalize-tax-funding-between-rich-and-poor-school-districts.html
Turner, Cory. “Why America's Schools Have A Money Problem.” NPR, NPR, 18 Apr. 2016, www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474256366/why americas-schools-have-a-money-problem
“Utah Property Tax Calculator.” SmartAsset, smartasset.com/taxes/utah-property-tax-calculator
Wood, Benjamin. “We're No. 51: Utah Last Again for per-Student Spending.” The Salt Lake Tribune, The Salt Lake Tribune, 2 June 2015, archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2579711&itype=CMSID