>> 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].

>> Does this not seem unfair to you?

> Yes. But ...
>
> Please allow me one comment.
>
> 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.

> BUT if you take away $9000 for every pupil who opts out then 
> the impact on the public schools will almost certainly be 
> negative.

California spent $8,067 per student in 2005 [1].

I believe, in California, that if a student is absent (due to
illness, truancy, going to private school... whatever) their
school's funds allocation is reduced by that portion that the
student did not attend.  In other words, the funds actually
disbursed are based on _daily_ attendance figures.  Makes it
hard to budget for the year when the schools don't know what
funds will actually arrive.

The local schools had a push to get students to attend -- no
matter how sick or un-interested in classes -- since income
was based strictly on each day's head count.

But then I recently heard that California is 43rd (out of 50)
in school spending.  Cuts are currently proposed to deal with
state budget issues.  Primary school students don't vote and
the parents of public school students (I think) are less likely
to lobby, so guess who gets shorted.

Poor education is just 40+ years of stupid electorate. <sigh>
Maybe the US politicians do want easily led sheeple.

[Our son went through the public school system and, even though
 he's now in college, we are still doing fund raising for them.]

						Lee Jones

[1] http://dailybruin.com/news/2007/jun/04/state_spends_less_pupils/

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