Argh.

For the love of god, this is not a question of which type of education is cheaper or which is more expensive, nor has it ever been. Ok?

If you wanted to get serious, and totalled up the cost of buildings, land, environmental impact studies, school buses, insurance, equipment, desks, chairs, cafeteria equipment, gynasium equipment, sports fields, zillions of administrators, assistants and secretaries for these administrators, office equipment, endless faxes and memos back and forth between administrators, and everything else that goes into public school, it would absolutely dwarf the cost of home schooling or even the ABSURD and false postulate that a parent who home schools has sacrificed potential income from working.

But that is not the issue. This has never been a comparison of which type of education is more expensive, for the sake of knowing which was more expensive.

I am begging you not to make me say that 100 more times.

The comparison of money spent per child is relevant because it clearly illuminates the fact that the amount of money being spent on each child is NOT THE DETERMINING FACTOR in whether or not he/she gets a good education.

Furthermore, the statistic is the amount of money actually spent PER CHILD PER ANNUM on things like supplies, transportation, teaching materials, etc. Capital costs, buildings, and that sort of thing are paid for in an entirely different manner.

The point is not: Ha Ha! Public school costs more, therefore it sucks!

The point is: They already spend 10 times as much per kid at public school than someone spends on a home schooled kid, and the home schooled kids get a better education. Thus, the problem is not the amount of money being spent on each kid, but something else. Maybe we should diagnose and address that something else, and stop begging for more money to throw down a hole.

Here is an analogy:

Imagine a guy named Bob who does not enjoy watching television. His friend Joe says "Hey, the reason you don't like television is because you don't have an HDTV." So Bob tosses his $500 TV, and buys a $5,000 HDTV. Turns out, Bob doesn't like watching TV any more than he did before (and maybe he enjoys it less, because his HDTV is more complicated to use and setup). Then Joe comes along and says "Oh, well, hmmmm. I know. I bet you'd enjoy TV more if you got a $10,000 plasma HDTV."

The important part of the story is not which TV is more expensive or even which TV is better. What is important is the absurdity of Joe's latest suggestion. If going from a $500 TV to $5,000 TV had no positive effect on how much Bob enjoyed TV, it is pretty stupid to assume a $10,000 TV will have a positive effect.