So you could lower housing prices a lot more effectively by convincing kids in the area to goof off more and not take school seriously.
but it's not a causal effect - or at least, it's a lot more complicated than a simple causal effect.
School performance is affected by budget, which is paid via taxation, as well as resources available from the parents' contributions. Poorer neighbourhoods will obviously have parents contribute less, even if the taxation is the same (which, is highly unlikely as well).
The cumulative effect is that poorer people receive a poorer education, which compounds over generations, and causing a negative feedback loop.
It is a causal effect since parents with more resources (higher paying jobs, higher levels of education, more connections/resources) will be living in higher value housing.
It's really simple. Kids tend to be like their parents. Parents who raise kids well have a strong preference to be among their own kind. The parent who sits down at night to check homework is nothing like the parent who interrupts homework in favor of entertainment. The parent who enforces discipline is nothing like the parent who lets kids run in gangs.
Families are in a bidding war to be with other families that prioritize education. Families without those values will bid lower, and thus be excluded.
Thats probably 10% of it. The socioecomic status and drive of the parents is probably 75% of it. If you bring in low SES people / low drive people into a successful school district its common sense the school will be worse off handling their children. So as a home owner you have lost some piece (albeit potentially small) of the good school district you paid for when you bought your house, and your indirectly having them to subsidize other peoples children, but as in articles like this, misrepresenting the data and hoping that they dont realize their having the value of their assets chipped away at in the name of social welfare.
>The cumulative effect is that poorer people receive a poorer education, which compounds over generations, and causing a negative feedback loop.
I agree and it would actually make some sense for the well off with good school districts to carry out such programs to lift other people out of poverty. but when you see articles like this that are so thoroughly dishonest about true cost, it makes sense you would outright reject it because they aren't going to acknowledge you are even giving something up. and if thats their perspective, then they can go as far as they want with it, so your are better off not giving an inch.
It has everything to do with parents. High property price is the price of admission of having your kids with other people willing and Able to pay.
See charter schools as a good example. They do not select by ability and they don’t spend that much.. but you DO have to bother to show up(enter the lottery) this is too much to ask for A LOT of parent though. No amount of spending on schools will fix that.