Via RedState, I came across this Wall Street Journal editorial (subscriber link) which comments on Governor Rell’s plan to raise the income tax to support education:
Governor Rell says a tax increase is necessary to fund more education spending. But Connecticut already spends more money per student on public schools than all but three states. According to the latest Census data, which is from the 2004 school year, Connecticut’s per-pupil spending is $10,788, or more than 30% above the national average of $8,287. In such urban districts as New Haven and Hartford, the state is spending well over $13,000 per student, and the state’s teachers are among the highest paid in the nation.
All of which suggests that Connecticut’s problem isn’t too little education spending so much as how current expenditures are being used. For instance, public charter schools in the state, such as New Haven’s Amistad Academy and Bridgeport’s Bridge Academy, spend thousands of dollars less per-pupil than surrounding traditional public schools. Yet student test scores in math and reading far surpass those of neighboring schools and often match the scores of students in wealthier towns such as Greenwich. Perhaps money isn’t what really matters in education achievement.
That last sentence is, I think, key. While ensuring a supply of skilled teachers, adequate facilities, and good programs is useful, I’ve been under the impression that the single-most important aspect in ensuring a good education is parental and community support.
In some towns in Connecticut, plus with the charter schools, you have families who have made a conscious choice that education is important. Naturally, students will thrive in such an environment.
Contrast that to neighboring communities where the solution seems to be government throwing money at the problem, while the community seems to not really care.
Maybe I’m being too harsh with that assessment from my armchair. But it is what I think.
I would be remiss, however, if I didn’t note that part of the Governor’s plan is for the increased taxes being used to support education to reduce the property tax burden on homeowners in the towns across the state. If the state chips in more, the towns don’t have to chip in quite so much.
Sounds like a decent idea.
Of course, I wouldn’t hold my breath on towns actually carrying out the property tax reduction implied by the Governor’s idea. Either it will be too politically sensitive to reduce flow of the property tax - to - school pipeline, or towns will find something else to waste the tax money on.