AHC: Texas is a liberal state.

Alright, even families where parents have "good" jobs, often are working 60 hours a week to afford a home in a "good" school district.

And they're perfectly set up to be against those on welfare, against those perceived as trying less hard, etc, etc.

I mean, for the family with the "good" jobs, it seems like their whole life situation should be working, but it's not quite working.

With the parent(s) working long hours, more money on eating out and other similar expenses. Less time for fighting with the cell phone company and shopping for a better deal. Not really enough time to review a potential mutual fund three times and zen it. Maybe only time to review it once or twice.

And maybe, actually somewhat over-extended for this "good" school district. And of course less time with the family.

If this issue of rich school-poor school was solved in the 1970s, you avoid a big, big source of upper middle-class resentment.
 
Here's a November 2015 article from Money magazine entitled:

"You probably can't afford to live near good schools"

(will say address is invalid)
http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/19/real_estate/neighborhoods-good-schools-affordable/

=========

In his autobiography, Texas Gov. Dolph Briscoe from the '70s said one of his regrets from his time in office was that he never really got started with education reform.

In the '70s, Texas lost court cases because poor school districts weren't giving an equal enough education.

In around the early '80s(?), the Texas legislature experimented with various complex formulas to transfer money from rich districts to poor ones, the news media deemed these "Robin Hood" plans.

And it's a goofy system, how are you going to have anything approaching equal education when it rests on local property taxes which are going to vary widely? And it's a nationwide problem where families over-extend in order to live in "good" districts.

But, Texas might actually have the money to solve it.
 
Last edited:
Top