On Mar 16, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Vitaliy wrote: > And I don't think pouring more money in a system that's > inefficient is a good idea anyway. Depends on where the inefficiencies are compared to where the added money goes. The stereotype is that a lot of the inefficiency is at relatively high administrative levels. > >> (at least here, the most common complaint about the schools is >> that they are obviously under-funded; large classes, old books in >> bad condition, lack of supplies, etc. Other areas may have other >> problems.) > > Do you know how much money the schools in your area get per child, > per year? I imagine the cost of books is a small fraction of that > money, which means the schools have misplaced priorities. Well, there's "california" in general, and then there's the individual regions. Thanks to the multi-million dollar homes in the area, my particular schools are in the "the current state budget cuts won't affect us very much because so little of our budget comes from the state in the first place", but within 50 miles you can find districts talking about laying off significant percentages of the teaching force, districts in bankruptcy, etc, etc. I SUSPECT that the main "inefficiency" in California comes from facilities and real- estate issues: maintaining buildings/etc at a "going rate" for construction/etc based on double-digit year-to-year real-estate appreciation on tax revenue "frozen" at much lower increase rates. A thorny issue. (by the way, we have people talking about the housing prices as a sort of special version of education tax. Want good schools? Either you pay big $$$ for your house, or you could pay $20k/year for a private school and live in a house that's $20k/y cheaper. Assuming you manage to get in to the private school. And don't mind subjecting your kids to a bay-area-style commute getting to and from school each day... BillW -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist