No. You don't pay the difference. You pay the sum of your tax liability (for public education) plus the additional cost of private school. This is patently unfair, as my child is not a "load" on the public school system.

Whether one with no children (either in private or public school) should be required to fund public education is a different, debatable question.

A few minutes after I posted that, I was reflecting on it and I thought to myself, "you know strantor, I bet that's going to be quoted in bold font." It wasn't technically accurate. If private schools were partially subsidized it would be, but they aren't that I'm aware of. What I should have said was "you pay a premium."

Everyone who pays taxes pays for something that they would be upset about if they knew about it, and everyone who pays taxes pays for something that doesn't directly benefit them. Can't make everybody happy. This isn't a defense of the government or the tax code; I think it's rotten to the core, but just a thought. No matter how good the system is, you can't make everybody happy, and you can't be fair to everyone. There's just too many people with too many conflicting interests.

I am trying lately (most of the time) to not focus on the bad (like that I'm paying double for child care ) and focus on the good (that I can almost afford a better education for my daughter). This helps my stress level a lot more than seeking the truth.

 

Aha! And your tax form states that exactly $4k will go to public schools? That sounds kinda high. But then again, I don't know the Greek equivalent to compare, or even if it is published.

First off, it has to be stated that how things are funded, and to what degree, is primarily a state issue, so things vary all over the place.

Historically, public schools were primarily funded by local taxes so that local communities were responsible for, and had a dominant say in, their local school system. Commonly the primary funding was through property taxes and, in most places, you get a property tax statement that is a public document and that splits out exactly how much of your property tax went to various purposes.

I just went and looked at mine and noted that the amount I paid to the school district was slightly more than ten times the amount I paid for law enforcement and that it was slightly under 50% of the total tax bill.

While everything has its pros and cons, having school funding come from the community and come from primarily a single source, such as property taxes, lets people know what the system is costing them. It also makes the system much more accountable. When my parents decided to move from one county to another when I was half way through kindergarten it was because the district we were in didn't expect kids to even know the entire alphabet until 2nd grade. The school district we moved to had kids reading books midway through kindergarten (and boy did I have some catch up to do!). After first grade they opened up a new elementary school near my house and it was based on the "new" open-concept fad that had bsically ruined the district we moved from. Back then there wasn't any choice in which school your kids went to -- they went to the school that served your neighborhood, end of story. So my dad went to the school board and made it clear that we had moved to this city and this neighboorhood specifically to get me into a traditional school and, if necessary, we would move again (and he wasn't kidding, I remember going and looking at a couple of houses that my parents were considering under the assumption that we would have to move). The school board listened to him, talked amongst themselves, and granted a waiver for me.

Today, at least here, it's hard to tell where the money comes from because it is so diluted. The state pays a huge fraction of it.

In the present budget, per the state's data, the Public School Finance Act -- which basically took over the funding of schools and made it very difficult for communities to financially support their local schools because they would simply lose state-support in the name of keeping everyone equal -- the public school districts will receive $5.5 billion of which $3.55 billion comes from state taxes and $1.85 billion come from property taxes. The remaining $0.1 billion comes from mostly vehicle property taxes.

Once federal funds are included, school districts received (in FY12) an average of $8300/pupil, which varied from $8100 for the bulk of the schools to $9800 for the worst performing schools. To show the "leveling" effect, the best performing schools were in districts that paid, on average, over $500 more in property taxes, yet their schools received total funding that was more than $500 less than the worst schools, and that was before taking into account the $1400/pupil more that the worst schools received in federal money than the top schools.

As has been the case every time I have checked over the years, the top performing schools achieve superior results on about 80% of the funding that the poorest performing schools get. So the argument that we have to spend yet more taxpayer money on education is hard to back up. So whatever the problems are that keeps the poorest schools always performing poorly, more money isn't going to address it, just like it hasn't addressed it for the last forty years. That's not to say that those problems can't be identified and addressed -- and some school districts and states have done a pretty credible job of doing so -- only that just throwing more money at those schools isn't going to do much.

 

My experience has been that good students thrive in whatever environment they find themselves in. Bad students cannot succeed in any environment, and the mediocre may or may not respond to any particular approach.

I was never able to justify the expense. Two of my three children graduated from High School. One of those two graduated from college with significant credit card (>18% per annum) debt, but now at age 31 is doing OK and working off the debt. I'm unconvinced that it was a good investment.

I think for many -- possibly an overwhelming majority -- of students going to college is NOT a good investment. It is, naturally, a strong function of the degree/major and the student's aptitude/motivation. But with the strong message that students just have to get a college education -- coupled with an unwillingness to point out that not every college education is going to make them more marketable in the workforce plus easy access to grants and loans -- results in students going $50k to $100k or more into debt for fluffy degrees that hardly anyone has every gotten a job with. And when they can't get a job, they get talked into going further in debt to get a graduate degree in another fluffy major!

Now, if paying $100k to "explore yourself" or to enjoy the "college experience" is that valuable to you, then I'm not gonna tell you you're nuts. But I'm also not going to be too sympathetic when you want your student loan debt to be forgiven (which means paid off by the taxpayers).

Similarly, if paying $100k to get the education that you need to pursue a career you are passionate about but that you know isn't going to ever payback the cost (and which you might well make less than in many fields that don't "require" a college degree), then more power to you. Again, don't expect sympathy from me when you can't pay your loan off.

But if you choose your degree/major with some care, you can most definitely find programs that will likely return handsomely on the investment, particularly if you do so with the concurrent requirement that it has to be in something that you truly have an interest in.

 

There was a thread last year about some home schooled kids who went to college in their early teens, and in that thread I think I expressed my disgust with the public school system. My wife and I bought some home school books and to give home schooling a try over the summer. It didn't work out. So I enrolled my daughter in private school.

I sounds like you may have found a good school. Not all public schools are losers and not all private schools are winners, so a lot of research needs to go into the decision. But it sounds like your daughter is getting thoroughly engaged and wasn't before. That is a huge fraction of the battle.

We were looking to move up to Golden this summer and actually had a contract on a nice house. It wasn't until we were under contract that I looked into the neighborhood school (things in the housing market were so crazy that you pretty much had to make an offer on first showing otherwise it would be undercontract by the end of the day). The school only had 25% of students performing at grade level in 3rd grade compared to a statewide average of about 75% and several other area schools being around 90%.

I went over to the school to see if they could explain what was going on that might account for such poor results in a way that would leave me comfortable putting my child there. The door was locked (summer break, so not surprising) so I rang the bell. I could see into the office and there were a handful of people who all looked up at me and then went back to what they were doing. I rang the bell again and this time only one person briefly looked up. As far as I was concerned, my questions were answered. Fortunately, we had an opportunity to terminate the contract and, despite loving the house, did so.

We wish we could keep her right where she is, which is a charter school. She was writing cursive at the end of kindergarten and, having just started first grade, is reading pretty nicely and is starting to get basic addition and some subtraction down. And the things she has learned about nature and science is amazing. Don't know how much history she's learned yet.

We looked at a couple private schools around here and they seemed to be in the $600 to $900 range. Oddly, but I've gotten used to it, the one we liked best was at the lower end of the cost range and the one we didn't like at all was the most expensive (and we made a point of evaluating the schools before we knew the cost).

 

Even though class sizes are larger than some private schools I think you do receive a quality education when the staff is quality.

And with that qualifier, you get what we see today. Pockets of excellence amist the sea of mediocre performance.
I went to parochical school for the from 1 - 8. I spent the last four years in public school, well, five years because I had to repeat the 10th grade to gain access to the Vocational Technical High School in the county. My dad and I argued about that for about a year, but he eventually came to my side of the arguement. He wanted me to apprentice under him in radio/tv repair. I did major in radio/tv repair but only held one summer job as a service tech, visiting all those homes. My junior/senior year I gained employement doing preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance and engineering the evening shift at a local radio station. Then it was off to the military.


Onward to the tax question ... In areas where local taxes are collected for public schools, we know that portion of the taxes that go to the education. Other entities also contribute to the education system that we will never know the portion we pay. The link illustrates the cost per student for the various states, it does not breakdown the costs by entities, federal, state, and local.

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/dat...9,5,50-52,6-9/false/133,38,35,18,17/any/11678

While doing some research, I believe the funding is almost 50-50 between state and county funding for education. The federal government dishes out grants.

Attached is the formula used by the Department of Education for funding schools ....

 

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/dat...9,5,50-52,6-9/false/133,38,35,18,17/any/11678

While doing some research, I believe the funding is almost 50-50 between state and county funding for education. The federal government dishes out grants.

Attached is the formula used by the Department of Education for funding schools ....

In looking at the U.S. composite numbers, in the five years from 2006 to 2010, school funding increased by 19%. Over that same period of time, CPI has only gone up 8.2%. So we are still increasing education funding, per student, at more than twice the rate of inflation.

The 50-50 mix is probably a pretty good swag, lacking better information about a specific state. Here it is right at 2:1 state:county.

 

Department of education state and federal research how much money is

Spent just at that level. You would be amazed at the amount of debate

and number of people in rule making. The salaries of these do nothing

committee people. The snail pace of one rule ,going from person to

person committee to committee. You want to know where the lottery

money goes ,to there retirement benefits. You know what that the government

is about ,ensuring pension funds. Average amount of salaries at this level $200,000.00

to $600,000.00. this is before you get to the class room level and maintenance cost.

These costs are never discussed at county level.

 

@WBan ,You are not the average parent ,that you are able to buy where you have

a good school. Most people do not have that choice. Its nice that you have the time

to search for a good place to live. Any other factors on finding a good home.

How about finding the best school on Mars ,maybe you will get a strange look from

inside.

 

Is there some intended slight that you feel you just must always make by misspelling my username? It's not a very difficult one to get right, but I don't think I've ever seen you do it. I've never understood how people think that mispronouncing or making a joke out of someone's name reveals some deep, profound, intellect rather than the juvenile mentality it really reveals. But, be that as it may.

If you mean that I am not the average parent because, clearly, I care about the quality of my daughter's education and am willing to forego other things to achieve it, then you are very possibly correct. The "average" parent doesn't seem to really care.

I'm not much better able to buy where there is a good school than most people. When my parents made their choice my dad was the sole breadwinner (had been and remained so from their marriage until my mom's death) and he never made more than $15/hr his entire life. He and my mom made a choice to place a high value on school quality and a lower value on other things. The entire time I was growing up we had a total of four cars, none of them less than five years old when purchased. The neighborhood I grew up in was, at best, lower middle class. After my mom had a massive stroke when I was in second grade we never went on a family vacation again until after my mom's death ten years later. I learned to love getting clothes from relatives at Christmas and birthdays because we could seldom afford to buy any. I didn't work for spending money when I was in high school because I had to come home every day and take care of my mother.

My wife and I are willing to make the similar choices. Right now my car is 15 years old with 166k miles and my wife's is 14 years old with 200k miles. We haven't taken a vacation since our honeymoon, except for one overnight trip to an instate destination. We don't have cable TV or high-speed internet (though that we probably would have if it were available where we live) or anything beyond basic phone service (no caller ID, no call waiting, no nothing). We don't have air conditioning. We don't have a home theater. We've gone out to see less than one movie per year since we've been married. We splurged and celebrated the end of the summer by going and bowling a single game.

We are looking to move not because we can, but because I currently live 60 miles one way from home and don't get to see my wife and daughter except on weekends (and this weekend that didn't even happen) because I'm renting a room from a friend.

I would love to move to within walking distance of work, but I can't because the home prices are too high. In looking for affordable homes and for good schools, we expanded the search for up to twenty miles from work. In researching the schools, it became apparent that there really wasn't much correlation between home prices and quality of schools. In fact, I was shocked to discover that the neighborhood schools in some parts of town with very high housing prices were ranked very low. Similarly, most of the best ranked schools were in areas that were middle of the road or lower in terms of housing prices. What did correlate is that the number of homes available in areas with highly ranked schools was considerably less than in other areas, so clearly school quality was having an impact, but not enough to drive a significant increase in price (at least on the west side of the Denver Metro area).

 

Loosewire hardly ever spells anyones name right (including mine), I wouldn't worry about it.

 

Well, he does it on purpose, and, yes, misspelling names on purpose is offending in some cultures.

 

Oh, I certainly don't get worked up about it. I would only possibly do that in the case of someone whose opinion I respect. But that doesn't mean I won't call someone on it.

 

@ Georacer, I don't misspell on purpose ,I look back and forward and still get it wrong

sometimes. With WBahn ,I have done W-Bond.....like in James Bond . Sometimes I

see something that is poet like and will say it. Some of it is being Loosewire ,I hope

you understand ,sometimes for my good you edit me. That a good thing.

Sunday Morning Coming Down. Please answer so I know where I stand .

 

I know that you use the poetic license all the time and in good will. But still, the names are still misspelled and someone was bound to take offense at it, even if they don't always admit it.

That, of course, doesn't mean that I order you to spell the names correctly. It's not in my power to do that.

 

Goosewire?

Probably funnier here in Australia because "goose" is a term used for someone who clowns around and amuses people...

 

You silly goose.

American slang.

 

I haven't been around lately, but sometimes I think there is a connection between the haves and the have nots.

I see some who have good teachers, with no money to show for their efforts, living on the good they have provided, (Helping the Poor and the Rich)

Then I see some teachers (Union) who don't care, either they can't or won't provide good academic value. (Affecting both poor and rich)

Between those you have some who either by circumstance ( Wealthy or not ) "children who without vision or want" Don't care or want an education.

Leaving only those who will survive, regardless of any circumstance. The rich will provide in most cases, the poor sink to the bottomless pit of (wens) they became, eventually infesting others to become like them.

I don't have the answer but, for those who can see, the how, the why and the who, might come up with something better than our current public school system.

Don't forget the "Student" who just wants to get by for the moment, caring little about how they will support themselves in the future, they might have a chance as long as someone finds something they value and provide the kind of education that will fulfill them.

But, I doubt they will avoid "Gang or abusive misguided children who become lost in their environment" looking for a way out, and finding none, only to abuse others as they have been abused.

 

In looking at the U.S. composite numbers, in the five years from 2006 to 2010, school funding increased by 19%. Over that same period of time, CPI has only gone up 8.2%. So we are still increasing education funding, per student, at more than twice the rate of inflation.

The 50-50 mix is probably a pretty good swag, lacking better information about a specific state. Here it is right at 2:1 state:county.

I'd be interested in similar figures showing funding vs CPI from 2001. The signing of the "No child left behind" act. IMHO, this law has made the cost of providing public education increase dramatically. I have close experience. When you went to school, can you imagine two or three classrooms where the student to teacher ration is under 2? My classroom ratio was 31.

No political response intended.
O

 

I'd be interested in similar figures showing funding vs CPI from 2001. The signing of the "No child left behind" act. IMHO, this law has made the cost of providing public education increase dramatically. I have close experience. When you went to school, can you imagine two or three classrooms where the student to teacher ration is under 2? My classroom ratio was 31.

No political response intended.
O

I don't think he was supposing the 2:1 relationship between student and teacher.

It was referring to student cost vs inflation.

 

No. I meant that as a result of that act, we now have classrooms with a 2:1 ratio of students to adults (teachers and paras). Other costs have directly increased as well. I am not saying that the entire increase of education costs are attributable to passage of this law (healthcare costs and public pensions are two other contributing factors that come to mind). I am saying and have direct experience that the "No child left behind" act has cost us dearly. That experience includes elementary schools with several classrooms with a 2:1 student to adult ratio.