[sepositus]

This completely ignores the problem. I shouldn't have to sell my house and move to go to a school I can drive my kids to.

But, to answer your confusion, the median house price almost doubles in this area. So it's economically infeasible.

[sightbroke]

I wonder if there is a correlation with higher priced homes and improved school districts?

[sepositus]

I'm not immediately aware of any studies, but I would be shocked if there wasn't a correlation. Low-income families have a higher probability of raising children in a dysfunctional home who then become a burden on the local school district. Respectable teachers then flee these schools for better opportunities. This part isn't conjecture, as I'm recounting personal testimonies of teachers who have come and gone from my town. Whether this is a widespread issue, or how much of the problem it represents, I cannot confirm.

[sightbroke]

So perhaps raise your income so you can afford to move to a better district?

[sepositus]

Doesn't that feel a bit disingenuous? It sounds like you might be coming from a very privileged background and haven't been placed in a similar situation that is primarily outside of your control. It also seems to suggest that I haven't spent my years as a parent trying to do the best for my children (i.e., raising my income).

Besides all that, it seems like you simply disagree with the fact that this is a problem at all. If that's the case, we can agree to disagree.

[sightbroke]

First, I was trying to give you suggestions that may help you in your personal situation.

Secondly, I am confused as to what you think should be done. Because it appears that you do not like paying a lot of tax money but expect there to be affordable quality education available?

I mean, if you want more educational options available in your area then presumably that means the government at some level (local, county, state, federal) would have to pay for it which means an increase in taxes (for someone at least).

Third, you did say "Low-income families have a higher probability of raising children in a dysfunctional home who then become a burden on the local school district. " So it seems fair to suggest that you should consider raising the level of your income to meet your desired needs.

Fourth, in all fairness I don't have children so I am not sure why I should have to pay any tax what-so-ever for your child to receive a poor education.

[sepositus]

> Secondly, I am confused as to what you think should be done. Because it appears that you do not like paying a lot of tax money but expect there to be affordable quality education available?

I shouldn't be locked into a specific school based on where I live. If there's a school 20 miles away that I think would be a better fit for my children, I should be able to take them there. Basically, I'm arguing for a free market.

[D13Fd]

> I don't have children so I am not sure why I should have to pay any tax what-so-ever for your child to receive a poor education.

Because it’s a shared societal good, like government, roads, policing, defense, energy infrastructure, and many other things. An uneducated populace would burden everyone.

Beyond that, unless you went exclusively to private school, you also benefited from the system and it’s not unfair for you to now contribute.

[MengerSponge]

Many American school districts are funded by property taxes, and access to higher quality schools is valuable. It follows that communities with more desirable schools would also have more desirable housing.

[tbrownaw]

> Many American school districts are funded by property taxes

This is a red herring. Local taxes are not the only source of funding, and state / federal finding is deliberately allocated in a way that makes up the difference. Or iirc often more than makes up the difference.