Quote:
Originally Posted by Beestie
If the bad school costs 100,000 per year to operate and there are 100 kids in it than the cost per kid is 1,000. Removing one child from the school does not reduce the cost of operating that school by 1,000. Teacher salaries don't drop, fixing the roof isn't any cheaper, running the school bus isn't any cheaper, the light bill doesn't drop, etc. ......
|
Actually, that is not true here. In California, the schools are given money based on the head count. If a school has a high drop-out or truant rate, the funding is cut according to the population change. At this time, many schools have flat-out lied on their reporting in order to avoid having their funding cut to the point that they would not even be able to continue operating.
When I was a kid in North Carolina many years ago, the schools were funded by property taxes collected in the districts they served. As a result, the more wealthy suburbs had fantastic schools, the urban areas had strong support, and the rural areas (of which there were a lot more in those days) did not have good facilities and children often had to be on a school bus for an hour coming and going. Not to mention that until the mid-1960s we were segregated. In my time, the education system of North Carolina was considered one of the best in the nation, now it is considered at the very bottom of the list. What happened? The Feds took over, to make everything fair and legal. Before, some areas had considerably better advantages. Now, everybody has equally crappy facilities and not enough funding no matter where you live. It is hard to imagine how the situation could be made worse, but the Republican brainstorm to use tax credits for the rich to send their kids to private schools, further reducing the inadequate funding to public schools, would definitely do it.