We Need to Rethink Education Funding Mechanisms
The Jordan District School Board recently reviewed the results of a survey of its residents to determine whether it should ask voters to approve a $120 million bond. The bond would fund $20 million field houses at each of the district’s six high schools. Supporters cite several reasons for the proposal, including giving students more access to facilities at times other than late at night or early in the morning, and encouraging students to remain in district schools rather than transferring to schools that have already built field houses and prioritized athletics.
The survey found that more than half of respondents would support or somewhat support moving forward with the bond, despite it resulting in an increase of nearly $100 per year on the property tax bill of every resident in the district. The bond would be paid off over 16 years, meaning the total cost for each household would be about $1,600—for a field house they will likely never use.
During the recent legislative session of the Utah Legislature, I was often asked what could be done about property taxes and why they are so high. This example from the Jordan School Board highlights one of the fundamental problems with our property tax system.
Local school boards across the state have little incentive to stretch each dollar when they have access to multiple funding streams.
Let me explain. Your local school board controls the largest portion of your property tax bill, but it does so through multiple property tax levies. One levy funds general student needs, another covers materials and staff, and yet another can be used to repay bonds—traditionally for constructing buildings. An additional levy exists for ongoing maintenance and smaller capital needs.
The problem with having multiple levies is that they reduce pressure on school boards, and the staff they oversee, to maximize efficiency. Instead, each levy is treated as a separate “bucket,” rather than part of a unified funding strategy.
In contrast, Utah’s charter schools, which are public schools funded by taxpayer dollars, are generally given a single lump sum of funding and expected to cover facilities, pay teachers and staff, and operate a quality school. Charter school leaders must weigh trade-offs directly. If they consider building a field house, they must also consider how that decision affects teacher pay, class sizes, and other core priorities. This structure naturally creates pressure to stretch each dollar and prioritize student outcomes over “nice-to-have” projects.
There is no comparable pressure on district school boards.
This is an issue the Legislature needs to examine. It will not be an easy conversation. School funding, especially property tax funding, is complex and layered. Still, we need a serious discussion about how to encourage local school boards to focus more on student outcomes and less on non-essential projects like field houses.
For those who know me, you know I love sports. I play regularly, and my children are involved in local teams. I don’t have a favorite show to stream, if I turn on the TV, it’s to watch a sporting event. I understand the tremendous value sports can provide: increased student engagement, improved self-esteem, and better physical health, among other benefits.
That said, our current funding structure allows the Jordan School Board, and likely other school boards, to lose sight of what taxpayers ultimately want schools to accomplish: preparing our children to be the leaders and creators of tomorrow. That cannot happen if the primary focus is not on academic success and the effective use of every dollar to achieve it.
I don’t know how voters will respond to Jordan’s proposal if it reaches the ballot in November. In the meantime, we will continue working with the Legislature to explore new approaches to school funding—ones that ensure both district and charter schools have strong incentives to steward taxpayer dollars carefully and use them as efficiently and effectively as possible.