Home SchoolingFollow

Because each individual school gets funded based on the headcount of their students per-day. That's the "bread and butter" of public school funding. They get additional funds if they meet requirements for various programs and whatnot, but the bulk of their budget is based on student headcount.



It is a problem at a state level. If say 250,000 children are homeschooled in California, that 250,000 kids times whatever the per-diem headcount funds are that the public schools in California *don't* receive in funding. That's a boatload of money. You'd think it wouldn't matter since they wouldn't have to pay to educate those kids (no cost), but that's not really how those managing school funds look at it. As with most budget based systems, they want a bigger budget if they can get it. There's a designed in "slop" factor in the headcount numbers. It's designed to pay not just for that seat in a classroom, but also some portion of the overhead needed for other programs the schools want to run.

The reality in our public schools is that if the system can cram more kids into each school, that's simply seen as more cash they can use. In a state like California, where our public school systems are teetering on the edge of not receiving enough funds already (largely due to illegal immigrant populations, but that's a whole different ball of wax), every single "legal" kid that could attend school but isn't hurt. Badly. They want that money, and if passing laws placing increasingly difficult requirements on parents trying to homeschool helps them get it, then that's what they'll do.




Yeah. You'd think so. But that's not the way funding is handled. At least not in California. The tax dollars are collected, but we're so overbudget in this state, that education has to compete with everything else. That headcount number is critical to school systems. There's a reason they punish students for having too many sick days. And it's not out of some kind of desire to make sure the kids get the best education they can. It's because they loose funding each day that kid is out sick.

Yeah. You'd think so. But that's not the way funding is handled. At least not in California. The tax dollars are collected, but we're so overbudget in this state, that education has to compete with everything else. That headcount number is critical to school systems.

Nope.

The federal taxes funneled to states for education is based on census data. The actual state funds that are budgeted to each school are based on the attendance at that school.

This is why California is so screwed. We don't get as much federal funds as we should get due to the fact that more kids attend public schools then the census data would indicate. This means that the individual schools have to compete with each other for more funds.

I agree that you'd think they'd not want the homeschooled kids, since that only adds to classload, but each and every school sees this differently. They're not looking at the total amount in the fund. They're looking at how much they get out of that fund. And every single one of them wants/needs more then they're getting. Thus, to them, if they can get those home schooled kids enrolled in public school instead, they get more funds.


Yeah. It's screwed up. I know this. Everyone knows this. But it doesn't change the fact that this is the motivation for trying to prevent home schooling in this state.

Do you really think that posing that question would trip him up, and make him say "Oh, wait, gee, I didn't mean for it to apply to your OWN religion!"

Because if you thought that, your understanding is poor. Well, your understanding is poor anyway, but specifically in this regard.

That's *exactly* what Smash means. He believes that a parent teaching his own religion to his/her own child is a violation of the child's "right" not to be forced into a specific religious belief.


This is correct. In fact I think it's tantamount to child abuse.

The financial incentive is at the individual school/district level Smash. How many times do I have to explain the same thing.

A single school's budget out of the state fund is based on attendance. Thus, every single school in the state has an incentive to move kids out of homeschooling and into their school.

Yes. It's counterproductive in the broad sense, but each school is fighting for their piece of that fund. So each one will take a course of action that is negative for the whole, but positive for them. It happens all the time...

Well, I won't debate the funding thing much because it seems that California is unusally extreme in its state control of educational funding whereas Illinois takes the opposite approach and receives a vast majority of its funding from local taxes. Since the two are on far different ends of the spectrum, the result is that California schools are twice as dependant on state funding as those here in the Land of Lincoln.

I looked around and saw a California Funding FAQ (PDF) which says that, in regards to CA schools,

What can I say? You guys need to work your school funding better or something

Edited, Mar 14th 2008 8:17pm by Jophiel

You realize that Smash is in a minority in his opinion, right? Hell, I'd imagine he's even in the minority on this liberal infested board.

Oh yeah. I know that. But it's not uncommon for Smash to say something on a subject like this, I get what he's really talking about. You and maybe a handful of other people get it. But a whole bunch of people nod their heads and agree with him because he's stated his opposition vaguely enough that it *could* mean he's just opposing some sort of religious intrusion, when he's actually endorsing oppression of religious freedom.


I've just seen this happen often enough that I'll take an opportunity to make sure his real positions are clarified when I can get em...

I am neither in government, nor can I "bear fruit"... ;)

In that case, I'm off to Washington DC to talk to the cherry trees.

This isn't you advocating something politically?


Or are you making some kind of distinction between what you believe is right and will argue and attempt to convince people is right (on this forum, and presumably in person when possible), and what you'd actively pursue in some sort of "official" political capacity?

That's a pretty fine distinction, since as far as I know, you have no actual influence on politics beyond swaying people to your own views. How should I avoid confusing your "personal beliefs" with what you "advocate for politically", when at least in the context of this forum, they are one and the same?