Originally posted by Aristotle
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.
I asked about how this figure was arrived at earlier. There doesn't seem to be a reference anywhere. I found a site where a figure called "Average Cost per Student" is arrived at by dividing the operating budget by the projected enrollment. Some of the things I rattled off may not be in the projected operating budget, but it includes a whole lot of things of the general sort I was describing I feel sure. Some of the things I rattled off are actually in your list correcting me.

So I'm not sure how I was ever supposed to know how this stat was arrived at. All I ever said about it at the beginning that started this is that it was rather opaque to me. I still don't know how it was arrived at. It doesn't tell me much.

Look at the stat right with it in your original post. Even in home school, there is a point of diminishing returns on spending. That's common sense. But the performance aspect of it that you bring up could be something as simple as that the kids that are home schooled have smart, involved parents. Who home schools if they know they can't teach their kids what they need to know? So you could well be pulling your sample from the kids who would be doing better overall in public schools as well. Still ends up saying little about exactly what needs to be done to make public schools better with or without extra money.

Somewhere burried in the body of my last reply I agreed though that simply throwing money at the problem without looking to see where it is going and why is not a good idea. Spend money smart, I think was my actualy phrase.