[Leica] Re: Subsidies to private schools

[LRZeitlin@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/15/03 12:44:31 PM, klw.51@comcast.net writes:

<< In my state (Michigan) schools are paid per student enrolled, and 
most of the money comes from the state. Therefore students lost to 
vouchers or private schools by any means takes money directly from 
the public school. As you said the private schools do cheery pick and 
often they are only K-6 or K-8 schools, leaving the the more 
expensive 9-12 students to the public schools.

Your statement about teacher salaries is VERY misleading. Most 
teachers I know spend a great dceal more than 6 hours on the job. 
Grading papers, planning lessons, filling out misc. paperwork and 
dealing with parents takes many more hours. Most teachers that I know 
also spend The 2 summer months working on curriculum committees and 
attending school to enhance their skills. >>

You have made part of my point. It is the State and local communities that 
decide how funds are allocated to public education, not the Federal government. 
The funds generally come from three sources, property taxes, the state general 
revenue fund raised by income and use taxes, and, recently, statewide 
lotteries. Michigan is to be complimented on funding public education largely out of 
general revenues since the tax load is spread more evenly. Still, those taxes 
are paid for life by parents whose children attend both public and private 
schools. Other states, including my own, New York, rely on property taxes as the 
primary source of revenue. The state suppliments these taxes on a per pupil 
basis to equalize expenditure between richer and poorer communities, but these 
state payments amount to less than 25% of the budget of even the poorer 
districts. Some affluent districts receive no state aid at all.

I have never heard of a state or school district authorizing a voucher of 
more than $1000 per pupil to assist private education. There may well be one, but 
not near my district. The per pupil cost of education in my district is close 
to $12,000 a year, the majority paid for by property taxes. This is half the 
cost of tuition in an Ivy League university and a good deal more than the 
tuition in most state colleges. It is also more than the tuition at most private 
secondary schools and about triple that of tuition in parochial schools. Logic 
says that it would be more economical to close the public education system 
down and sell off the properties, using education funding to pay the tuition of 
all students in the private school of their choice. But of course the NEA and 
the AFT would condemn the practice as leading to the collapse of Western 
civilization.

As far as teacher's salaries, I notice you didn't quibble about the amount, 
just the working hours. Teacher's pay and benefits have escalated dramatically 
since the dark days of the '50s. In addition to long paid vacations, teachers 
get full medical benefits and very generous state secured retirement programs. 
Most also have job tenure, essentially meaning that they cannot get fired 
unless they sexually assault their colleagues at high noon in the town square. 
Removing a tenured teacher for cause in my state takes an average of three years 
of litigation and costs a school district an average of $500,000 in fees and 
settlements. Admittedly some teachers work more than six hours a day and some 
get drunk at lunch. There are good and bad eggs in every profession. Summer 
training is laudable but additional educational degrees are usually compensated 
by salary increases.

I spent 32 years in the bowels of the education system, both secondary and 
university level and know whereof I speak. But I used a Leica to photograph all 
school events so that makes me a good person.

Larry Z
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html