Cities in Crisis

[niwell]

All you have to do is look at some of the threads in other sections of SSP to see this in action. Staunch urbanists who are now having kids talk about potentially moving to inner-ring suburbs for when the kids reach school age. Staying in the often means a private school which is obviously beyond the means of most.

On the flipside here in Toronto I have coworkers who are struggling with options to stay in the city with kids simply because of the cost of upsized housing.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

^ I would generally agree that smaller cities are often better places to live, assuming one is okay with the reduced scope of the job market and reduced shopping/entertainment options. Cheaper cost of living and easier transportation.

Kingston is one of the better ones, IMO, because it also offers a good transit system, a fairly rare thing in the smaller cities.

Putting on my homer hat: Kingston also has a distinct advantage over many other smaller cities in that the reduced shopping/entertainment options (which is certainly a reality) is somewhat mitigated by proximity to Toronto/Montreal/Ottawa. We spend about a weekend a month in either Toronto or Montreal. It provides easy opportunity to try new restaurants and shops.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

Actually I think this was one of his more coherent and significant observations, although it is dated now and there tends not to be much depth to what he writes or talks about.

Back in the 1970's, 80's, and 90's, most of North America was hostile toward gay people, so their presence was a sign that either a given city was relatively tolerant of social diversity or at least had residents who were rich and powerful enough that they didn't have to conform rigidly to social norms. In those days, out gay males were a rich, urban demographic.

There was also a theory about gay people as a stepping stone in the gentrification of neighbourhoods. Theoretically, because gay men had fewer kids they were willing to move to areas with marginal schools, thereby improving them and paving the way for straight couples with children. I think this theory is a US-centric and weirdly ignorant toward gay people, but then again it fits the reality of traditional gay neighbourhoods in a bunch of Canadian cities.

Also, back when people had significantly more kids than today on average for various good reasons (mostly, less environmentally conscious, less selfish, less YOLO, less peer pressure and family pressure, higher costs, etc.), the disposable income gap between the average gay couple and the average hetero couple was certainly larger than it is now.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not as much as you might think. There is a huge difference in school quality sometimes.

It's a lot more than you guys think and the difference really depends on which state you're talking about. The point of my comment was really directed at 1cos who tends to make crazy unsubstantiated statements about the U.S. often based on his own biases and/or urban myths. Here are some figures which of course vary by state and with time. They clearly show that funding of public schools in the U.S. is not just a municipal responsibility.
______________

Federal Government Provides Some Funding

At the national level, the federal government primarily provides funds for public schools through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act -- or ESEA. Now known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 -- NCLB -- the federal awards go to schools that serve low-income families, provide textbooks and fund school libraries. Some of the federal money also goes to state education agencies. The state education agencies can then determine where the funds are needed most. Even though the federal government does contribute a significant amount of money, it is less than other public school funding sources. For example, in the 2011-2013 school year, about 10.8 percent of the funding for public schools came from the federal government, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Aside from NCLB funds, the federal government provides public schools with money for disabled students through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and for low-cost or free lunches through the National School Lunch Program.

State and District Tax Dollars Help, Too

The largest percentage of money that public schools receive comes from the states, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Some states, such as Nevada and Alabama, contribute enough finds to cover at least half of the schools' annual budget, while others, such as Vermont and Hawaii, offer up to 90 percent, notes the Center for Public Education. Some states use money generated from taxes on alcohol, tobacco, sales, motor vehicles, minerals or utilities to raise funds to support schools. Local school districts and municipalities also contribute to funding their schools, through property taxes.

Source: http://classroom.synonym.com/governm...s-8062322.html

The article lists the sources they use at the bottom of the article.

On a national level, states fund something like 43.5% of public education on average which is the highest source of funding for public schools. Local funding is second highest which is a far cry from the 100% implied by 1overcos. On a national level funding/student in the U.S. is apparently tied for first spot. Lack of money isn't the issue! The problem is the distribution of funds. Some states are very good at distributing funds to help level playing the field but others are not. Education is a state responsibility since it is not specifically given to the feds in under the constitution.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

On a national level, states fund something like 43.5% of public education on average which is the highest source of funding for public schools. Local funding is second highest which is a far cry from the 100% implied by 1overcos. .

Less than half is still a far cry from the 75-100% of funding that generally comes from provincial governments for public schools in Canada. Can't you see how this can make a big difference in terms of a level playing field? School boards in Canada also tend to be larger than U.S. school districts, and so they tend to encompass a wider range of income levels and wealth. So even the portion that does comes from local property taxes is less likely to be disproportionately low due to a school board's area being mostly poor. In cases where there is a discrepancy, often provincial governments will do a "top up".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

others, such as Vermont and Hawaii, offer up to 90 percent,.

These happen to be two of the states with the *least* problematic gaps between rich and poor, and have almost no issues with blighted inner cities.

[1overcosc]

I realize that my wording in the post made it sound like I was suggesting that 100% of school funding in the US is local. That's not what I meant to say, what I meant to say is that local funding is a significant chunk of money, which creates the discrepancies. I'm in a time zone way ahead of you guys for the summer, I get tired

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Less than half is still a far cry from the 75-100% of funding that generally comes from provincial governments for public schools in Canada. Can't you see how this can make a big difference in terms of a level playing field? School boards in Canada also tend to be larger than U.S. school districts, and so they tend to encompass a wider range of income levels and wealth. So even the portion that does comes from local property taxes is less likely to be disproportionately low due to a school board's area being mostly poor. In cases where there is a discrepancy, often provincial governments will do a "top up".

Where are you getting this 75-100% figure from? A province collecting the education portion of property taxes does not make it provincial taxes.

What makes you think if a province provides the bulk of funding to a school board that will result in a level playing field?

If you do a bit of research you'll see the amalgamation of school boards that happened in Canada 20 years ago or so did not lead to better results. Bigger is not necessarily better. Chicago Public Schools is the fourth largest school district in the U.S. with 396K students but it is rated as the one of the worst in the nation. Funding per student doesn't appear to be an issue and neither is class size. There's a lot more to success than a level playing field.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Acajack

These happen to be two of the states with the *least* problematic gaps between rich and poor, and have almost no issues with blighted inner cities.

What does that have to do with the source of funding?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I realize that my wording in the post made it sound like I was suggesting that 100% of school funding in the US is local. That's not what I meant to say, what I meant to say is that local funding is a significant chunk of money, which creates the discrepancies. I'm in a time zone way ahead of you guys for the summer, I get tired

And local funding is a significant chunk in Canada for the majority of students?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

And local funding is a significant chunk in Canada for the majority of students?

In Ontario, local funding is 0%. Schools are funded entirely by the province here. The province has a formula which determines how much money each school board should have based on the number of pupils the school board has, with some adjustments for factors like population density.

There is a local property mechanism, however, the province simply deducts local revenues from each school board's funding allocation, so it makes literally zero difference to a school board's budget how much it collects in local tax revenue.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

What does that have to do with the source of funding?

If the source of funding is mostly local, then that means poorer areas with smaller tax bases can't fund their schools as much, which means that poorer areas end up with significantly worse schools.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

What does that have to do with the source of funding?

It's weird that you'd be arguing about this. Unless it leads to some bullshit race science or something.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by niwell

It's weird that you'd be arguing about this. Unless it leads to some bullshit race science or something.

Huh? WTF are you talking about? I'm pointing out the misrepresentation of facts made some people here. Your comment is totally uncalled for and inappropriate.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Huh? WTF are you talking about? I'm pointing out the misrepresentation of facts made some people here. Your comment is totally uncalled for and inappropriate.

Because you are ignoring context. Intentionally, I assume. Acajack's comment was on point.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

In Ontario, local funding is 0%. Schools are funded entirely by the province here. The province has a formula which determines how much money each school board should have based on the number of pupils the school board has, with some adjustments for factors like population density.

There is a local property mechanism, however, the province simply deducts local revenues from each school board's funding allocation, so it makes literally zero difference to a school board's budget how much it collects in local tax revenue.

Still, all schools in Toronto have fundraising events in their communities. Some raise 5K a year. Others raise 50K a year. It doesn't seem like a lot compared to the overall school's budget but, this 100% goes towards having extras in the classroom. There is a discernible difference visiting a school in a wealthy/rich district to a lower to middle class district.

Of course, this is nothing like the US. Toronto just didn't have school districts in my day. You could go where ever you wanted.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by niwell

Because you are ignoring context. Intentionally, I assume. Acajack's comment was on point.

How am I ignoring context? Acajack's comment was not on point if you consider the facts.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Still, all schools in Toronto have fundraising events in their communities. Some raise 5K a year. Others raise 50K a year. It doesn't seem like a lot compared to the overall school's budget but, this 100% goes towards having extras in the classroom. There is a discernible difference visiting a school in a wealthy/rich district to a lower to middle class district.

Of course, this is nothing like the US. Toronto just didn't have school districts in my day. You could go where ever you wanted.

I posted an article when that fundraising issue was brought up and some schools in Toronto average $900/student per year. That's a lot of money.

Anyway, the 0% local funding figure is complete nonsense. This is from the Ontario government's finance site.

What is property tax?

Property tax is a levy based on the assessed value of property.

Property tax has two components: a municipal portion and an education portion.
•The rates for the municipal portion of the tax are established by each municipality. •In a two-tiered municipality, a component of the rate is set by the upper-tier and a component is set by the lower-tier municipality.

•The rates for the education portion of the tax are established by the Minister of Finance and help to fund the elementary and secondary education system in Ontario. Education tax rates are set in Ontario Regulation 400/98 under the Education Act, and are available at https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/980400.

Source: http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/tax/pt/index.html

Just because the province collects the money and then redistributes it under the guise of leveling the playing field for all doesn't mean local funding isn't paying for a significant percentage of education. When Alberta started doing this I remember there being a huge outcry from Edmonton and Calgary because they were able to finance all of their needs from their portion of property taxes and the ability to raise rates on their own. Ever since Ralph changed the system (I believe Alberta was the first to do this--~1993?) school boards in Edmonton and Calgary have had budget issues of one form or another. I wouldn't be surprised if the same happened in Ontario when the government there took over control.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I posted an article when that fundraising issue was brought up and some schools in Toronto average $900/student per year. That's a lot of money.

Considering that government funding is about $11,000 per student per year, $900 is pretty small.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I posted an article when that fundraising issue was brought up and some schools in Toronto average $900/student per year. That's a lot of money.

Anyway, the 0% local funding figure is complete nonsense. This is from the Ontario government's finance site.

What is property tax?

Property tax is a levy based on the assessed value of property.

Property tax has two components: a municipal portion and an education portion.
•The rates for the municipal portion of the tax are established by each municipality. •In a two-tiered municipality, a component of the rate is set by the upper-tier and a component is set by the lower-tier municipality.

•The rates for the education portion of the tax are established by the Minister of Finance and help to fund the elementary and secondary education system in Ontario. Education tax rates are set in Ontario Regulation 400/98 under the Education Act, and are available at https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/980400.

Source: http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/tax/pt/index.html

Just because the province collects the money and then redistributes it under the guise of leveling the playing field for all doesn't mean local funding isn't paying for a significant percentage of education. When Alberta started doing this I remember there being a huge outcry from Edmonton and Calgary because they were able to finance all of their needs from their portion of property taxes and the ability to raise rates on their own. Ever since Ralph changed the system (I believe Alberta was the first to do this--~1993?) school boards in Edmonton and Calgary have had budget issues of one form or another. I wouldn't be surprised if the same happened in Ontario when the government there took over control.

I actually work for the division that regulates education tax, although I don't work with it directly. Provincial funding by way of school boards is by FAR (VERY FAR) the largest component of funding in Ontario and ensures that all schools receive equal funding. And FYI because of education tax freezes most of the funding in Ontario comes from the CRF. EDU property tax accounts for something like 30% of total education funding, down from well over half when it was instituted.