> Public schools get their money from taxes. They are also 
> available to
> everyone (rich or poor). In my state, the government 
> spends $9000 per
> student per year on public education[1]. If I decide to 
> send my child to a
> private school, I would essentially pay twice: I have to 
> forfeit my right to
> the $9000 that my taxes went toward, plus I have to pay 
> the private school
> fees.

> Does this not seem unfair to you?

Yes. But ...
.
Please allow me one comment.
It's a comment. A contribution to the general discussion. 
It's not meant to define my point of view or even to argue 
one way or the other. So ...

Everything has consequences. Some are less obvious than 
others. Some are more imagined than actual, but others are 
more actual than imagined. Finding out which is which is 
sometimes costly if you find out too late.

If some people decide to forgo the $9000 allotted to them 
and do something else instead some of the consequences 
SHOULD be that there are fewer students per teacher in the 
public schools and more $ per student to spend. This should 
be good for those still there. Whether it actually helps is 
besides the point.

BUT if you take away $9000 for every pupil who opts out then 
the impact on the public schools will almost certainly be 
negative. Each student increment removed comes off the 
cream, the discretionary spending, the "maybe this year we 
can xxx". it does not come off the base load, maintenance 
etc. Given enough losses if comes off the teaching staff and 
sooner or later off the number of public schools available. 
These losses will to a first approximation often represent 
loss of benefit to those who remain.

If you consider that your education taxes go to pay for 
"public education" then the fewer who use a certain $ amount 
then the more per head and the more the country *should* 
benefit. Thos placing their children in private schools are 
helping the country get ahead on both counts :-). OR should 
be if the system worked as it ought.

Also, in time if there was eg a 10% reduction in required 
public education positions then the government would, of 
course, reduce the tax costs accordingly, wouldn't it ? :-) 
(VB :-) in fact).

The above are not meant to be argued for or against or meant 
to be reasons why things ought or ought not be done. just 
comments to add perspective, or muddy the waters, take your 
pick.


            Russell


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist