Public schools are supposed to be funded by public tax dollars, right?
It turns out that many wealthy school districts or town-run schools within larger districts, especially in California, regularly garner significant funds from private donations. For example, in Hillsborough, CA, public funds spread to a total of $13,500 in spending per student, but private donations count for an additional $2,300 per student, a sizable chunk of the overall percentage. That extra money has allowed for class-size reductions, more librarians, more art and music teachers, and Smart technology in every classroom. The problem, of course, is that poorer school districts cannot afford anything in the way of additional private donations to schools.
Rob Reich, associate professor of political science at Stanford and co-director of the Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, has penned a recent article in the New York Times that describes this curious situation. His point is not to condemn wealthy parents; it is only natural for parents to want to give money to support their own children’s education, especially when they do have extra money to do so. The real complicating issue is that wealthy school districts that encourage wealthy parents to give funds for schools are taking advantage of a tax loophole structure in California.
The private funds given for education currently count as charitable donations, which then allow parents to receive tax write-offs, which in turn decrease the amount that can be taxed, meaning ultimately that there is less money to be spread around equally to poorer parts of California which are funded entirely by public funds.
So, in the end, rich students win. Poor students lose, yet again. And as long as tax laws stay the way they currently are, the government of California is complicit in this situation.
Below are Reich’s recommendations to amend this situation:
There is still a lot we can do to improve this upside-down system of charity. First, wealthy school foundations like Hillsborough’s should honor the equality-promoting standards released by the National Commission on Civic Investment in Public Education. At a minimum, this would require private giving to be aggregated across schools and shared equally with the entire school district. More ambitiously, it would channel private giving to support poor districts.
Second, because the root cause of inadequate school financing is ultimately political, not philanthropic, donors and school foundations should support political reforms. A movement is afoot in California to amend the property-tax slashing Proposition 13 to require fair market value taxation of commercial real estate, which would raise tax revenues. In effect, by asking parents to donate, the Hillsborough Schools Foundation encourages them to work around the obstacle of Prop 13 rather than confronting the problems it creates directly. It would be better if the foundation organized parents in support of amending Prop 13.
Finally, Congress should differentiate or eliminate charitable status for local education foundations. If a foundation raises money for a district with a high percentage of children eligible for free lunch, it could offer a double deduction; for a district below the average in per-pupil spending, the standard deduction; for a district with few poor children and higher than average per-pupil spending, no deduction. If private giving to public schools exacerbates inequalities, then at the very least we should stop subsidizing such behavior with tax dollars.
The problem is not with America’s parents but with its policies. At a time of rising inequality, school foundations must shrink — not widen — the gap between rich and poor.
The question for those concerned about public education remains, how can states and districts channel public funds equitably without making taxpayers in wealthy districts feel that their tax dollars are being ill-spent? This will most likely remain a permanent question, but the suggestions given by Reich at least seem to provide a sensible, level playing field.
For more information, please visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/opinion/not-very-giving.html?_r=0
