[charwalker]

In the late 90s my state moved from local property taxes funding local schools to paying into 1 state fund and paying back out per student, along with base funding for each district and what the district could levy in their county. It was a massive boost for most districts but a major loss for my district. We went from 2 art teachers, 2 music teachers, 2 PE teachers, and a guy who did ceramics across schools to 1 art teacher and 1 PE teacher. Since then, more cuts have dropped quality even further.

This is a warning as much as a boon. When re-allocating funding more equitably, be sure to not let the process stop there and call it success. Monitor and respond to outcomes like boosting funding to equip all schools with the right set of arts and opportunities for their students even if 1 school in town is artsy and the other technical but students can go to either. Be prepared (and have a community that is up) for raising taxes to cover these costs. Recognize that well educated and employed kids today will be paying your medicare and social security (if you or those programs make it far enough). When these kids are growing the stocks your retirement is invested into you'll want them to have had the opportunities your tax dollars can provide.

I like paying for schools because I don't like living in a national of stupid people and the more smart people out there able to leverage their talent and abilities via remote or on site work the better we will all be. Maybe that means the FAANG employee living in Iowa needs to make 95% of their downtown Seattle counterpart, maybe not. There is a balance to be found to increase opportunity without depressing existing and future talent too.