I am very much against there being rich school districts and poor school districts. Your property taxes are not levied to pay for YOUR children's education. They are levied because as a society we have decided that we all benefit from all our citizens being well educated. What about the many property owners in every district who have no children in the local schools? What do we care what children are educated with our tax money?
I have to say, I agree.
I have been a homeowner for seven years now, and directly pay property taxes. Before than, when I rented, property taxes were reflected in my cost of rent.
I don't have kids, and don't plan to. However, I have never begrudged one cent of my taxes going to schools. I have never voted against a funding referendum to raise my property taxes for schools (and unless my local school board goes off the total deep end in what they're asking for, I never will!). I may not see a direct benefit to my household for my tax dollars going to education, I know that I indirectly benefit from kids in my area getting a good education. Not only is it cheaper in the long run (e.g, see the above post from Nova about the cost of prison), it's also just the right thing to do.
I do have concerns, that I see in my state, about different districts having different levels of resources to educate kids. I was lucky--my parents lived in a good school district that had the ability to offer tons of extracurricular activities, lots of AP classes, etc (because of AP credits, my freshman year of college I was actually considered a sophomore, which gave me a huge edge in things like being able to sign up for classes earlier, etc.). I wish all kids in my state had access to the resources that I did as a high school student. I'm starting to veer off topic, but there has to be a better way to finance education than through local property taxes.