5 ms·

200k sounds wrong. I have my children in private school and it costs about $25k each per year. Assuming that the private school is profitable, to get to $200k

200k sounds wrong. I have my children in private school and it costs about $25k each per year. Assuming that the private school is profitable, to get to $200k would need a lot of explanation. Sure, amortization of the mortgage for school grounds, etc, but that won't make up the difference.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago
$200k over twelve years, or ballpark of $16k/yr. Quick Google research says that this is on the higher end of public school expenditure levels, but not unheard of.
- npunt 10y ago
  Typically schools get between $4-8k/pupil/yr. Rich neighborhoods get more, owing to the greater property taxes collected and the ratio of local/state/federal (approx 50/43/7 in CA). Rich ones have a lot of other resource advantages but that's a discussion for another place. Critically, there's an big economies of scale advantage in schools relative to homeschooling. Resource specialization has advantages. Just spitballing, I'd imagine the curve would show it's at least 2-3x cheaper to provide an equivalent education to a student at a mid-sized school relative to a student in a 5-student homeschool environment, and probably 5x+ for single student - obviously depends on the parent's earning capacity and skill as a teacher. The argument for homeschooling is almost never about cost though, due in part to this enormous disadvantage.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    > Rich neighborhoods get more, owing to the greater property taxes collected and the ratio of local/state/federal (approx 50/43/7 in CA). Usually not. School funding is not allocated at the "neighborhood" level but instead the county level. There is almost no difference between per student funding between the richest and poorest counties: http://hechingerreport.org/the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-schools-grew-44-percent-over-a-decade http://hechingerreport.org/the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-sch... ("I keep specifying 'state' and 'local' funding because the picture gets more complicated when you factor in federal funding. Once you do, almost all of the funding gaps disappear."). You can argue that poorer students should get more funding than richer ones to help equalize other gaps. I'm not sure I agree with that. Most of that money would go to middle class teachers and administrators. I bet those kids would be better off if you just wrote them a check (or put the money in a trust fund that would then pay them an extra couple of hundred dollars every month for the rest of their lives).
    - npunt 10y ago
      You're partially right, depending on laws around allocation schools in rich neighborhoods may not get more money. But they often do, and by a lot. There are also differences at the neighborhood level. We see that in California quite a bit. > A yawning gulf separates even school districts serving students from similar demographic backgrounds. For example, in 2009-10, the latest data available, per-pupil revenue was $14,076 in Palo Alto versus $7,679 in Milpitas, both unified districts serving K-12 students. But clearly, affluence counts: In San Mateo County, the Woodside elementary district took in $18,894 per student, while Millbrae elementary got $7,362 per student. [1] The latter example is a 2.5x difference in funding, within the same county. This is in part due to some local support in Woodside [2] but its more than just that. The gaps are huge. I disagree about not equalizing gaps, because there's one scarce resource here that isn't even discussed: quality teachers. By default, quality teachers are more likely to want to work in nicer communities, and we don't need to compound that by offering to pay them less (sometimes far less) to work in underprivileged schools. Meanwhile, giving undereducated kids money instead of education is a great way to fulfill the old adage 'a fool and their money are soon parted'. [1] http://www.mercurynews.com/2012/02/26/some-california-schools-get-twice-the-funding-and-more-of-others/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2012/02/26/some-california-school... [2] http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2015/12/01/woodside-elementary-is-a-district-with-resources http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2015/12/01/woodside-elementa...
      - rayiner 10y ago
        The California situation seems totally bizarre. Where I grew up (D.C. suburbs), the situation is exactly the opposite: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/report-finds-wide-disparities-in-local-per-pupil-spending-dc-charters-spend-most/2014/10/14/f8b94b8c-53cd-11e4-ba4b-f6333e2c0453_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/report-finds-... ("Petrilli said the study found that Arlington and Fairfax counties spent more money to serve students who attended schools with a high percentage of students who are eligible for free and reduced-price meals, a federal indicator of poverty. Other districts did not, he said."). Similar where I live now in Maryland: https://conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/2016/04/26/chart-shows-marylands-school-funding-per-student https://conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/2016/04/26/chart-shows-.... Baltimore City, among the poorest, spends the second most. Surrounding Baltimore County, which is much wealthier, spends substantially less. Montgomery County, the richest in the state and a suburb of D.C., spends about the same as Prince Georges County, a much lower income county next door.
- pfarnsworth 10y ago
  At first I thought you meant for the entire education, but primary school is not 12 years. So I thought you meant per year. Even covering primary school, your figure of $200k is off. If you meant all of schooling, including middle and high school, then it's closer.
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    Yeah, I meant grades 1-12, forgot that middle and high school is called "secondary schooling". My bad.
rayiner 10y ago
The average public school in the United States spends $11,000 to $12,000 per student per year. Assuming a modest 4% return on investments, that adds up to just about $200,000 in thirteen years (K-12).

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

$200k over twelve years, or ballpark of $16k/yr. Quick Google research says that this is on the higher end of public school expenditure levels, but not unheard of.

npunt 10y ago
Typically schools get between $4-8k/pupil/yr. Rich neighborhoods get more, owing to the greater property taxes collected and the ratio of local/state/federal (approx 50/43/7 in CA). Rich ones have a lot of other resource advantages but that's a discussion for another place. Critically, there's an big economies of scale advantage in schools relative to homeschooling. Resource specialization has advantages. Just spitballing, I'd imagine the curve would show it's at least 2-3x cheaper to provide an equivalent education to a student at a mid-sized school relative to a student in a 5-student homeschool environment, and probably 5x+ for single student - obviously depends on the parent's earning capacity and skill as a teacher. The argument for homeschooling is almost never about cost though, due in part to this enormous disadvantage.
- rayiner 10y ago
  > Rich neighborhoods get more, owing to the greater property taxes collected and the ratio of local/state/federal (approx 50/43/7 in CA). Usually not. School funding is not allocated at the "neighborhood" level but instead the county level. There is almost no difference between per student funding between the richest and poorest counties: http://hechingerreport.org/the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-schools-grew-44-percent-over-a-decade http://hechingerreport.org/the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-sch... ("I keep specifying 'state' and 'local' funding because the picture gets more complicated when you factor in federal funding. Once you do, almost all of the funding gaps disappear."). You can argue that poorer students should get more funding than richer ones to help equalize other gaps. I'm not sure I agree with that. Most of that money would go to middle class teachers and administrators. I bet those kids would be better off if you just wrote them a check (or put the money in a trust fund that would then pay them an extra couple of hundred dollars every month for the rest of their lives).
  - npunt 10y ago
    You're partially right, depending on laws around allocation schools in rich neighborhoods may not get more money. But they often do, and by a lot. There are also differences at the neighborhood level. We see that in California quite a bit. > A yawning gulf separates even school districts serving students from similar demographic backgrounds. For example, in 2009-10, the latest data available, per-pupil revenue was $14,076 in Palo Alto versus $7,679 in Milpitas, both unified districts serving K-12 students. But clearly, affluence counts: In San Mateo County, the Woodside elementary district took in $18,894 per student, while Millbrae elementary got $7,362 per student. [1] The latter example is a 2.5x difference in funding, within the same county. This is in part due to some local support in Woodside [2] but its more than just that. The gaps are huge. I disagree about not equalizing gaps, because there's one scarce resource here that isn't even discussed: quality teachers. By default, quality teachers are more likely to want to work in nicer communities, and we don't need to compound that by offering to pay them less (sometimes far less) to work in underprivileged schools. Meanwhile, giving undereducated kids money instead of education is a great way to fulfill the old adage 'a fool and their money are soon parted'. [1] http://www.mercurynews.com/2012/02/26/some-california-schools-get-twice-the-funding-and-more-of-others/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2012/02/26/some-california-school... [2] http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2015/12/01/woodside-elementary-is-a-district-with-resources http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2015/12/01/woodside-elementa...
    - rayiner 10y ago
      The California situation seems totally bizarre. Where I grew up (D.C. suburbs), the situation is exactly the opposite: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/report-finds-wide-disparities-in-local-per-pupil-spending-dc-charters-spend-most/2014/10/14/f8b94b8c-53cd-11e4-ba4b-f6333e2c0453_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/report-finds-... ("Petrilli said the study found that Arlington and Fairfax counties spent more money to serve students who attended schools with a high percentage of students who are eligible for free and reduced-price meals, a federal indicator of poverty. Other districts did not, he said."). Similar where I live now in Maryland: https://conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/2016/04/26/chart-shows-marylands-school-funding-per-student https://conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/2016/04/26/chart-shows-.... Baltimore City, among the poorest, spends the second most. Surrounding Baltimore County, which is much wealthier, spends substantially less. Montgomery County, the richest in the state and a suburb of D.C., spends about the same as Prince Georges County, a much lower income county next door.
pfarnsworth 10y ago
At first I thought you meant for the entire education, but primary school is not 12 years. So I thought you meant per year. Even covering primary school, your figure of $200k is off. If you meant all of schooling, including middle and high school, then it's closer.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  Yeah, I meant grades 1-12, forgot that middle and high school is called "secondary schooling". My bad.

rayiner 10y ago

The average public school in the United States spends $11,000 to $12,000 per student per year. Assuming a modest 4% return on investments, that adds up to just about $200,000 in thirteen years (K-12).