Thats my point exactly! if the child is not going to the public school then why should the public school get that money? the money follows the kid. if the kid does not choose to go to the public school why should the public school get the money, it should go to the school that the kid attends. Technically speaking the money doesn't belong to either school the money belongs to the kid.<quoted text>
Of course they take money away from the public schools. If a district has 4000 students and 100 go to charter schools do you think that the money the district pays to the charter school is offset by cuts in the school district? Of course not. Say you have 24 students in a class and 2 go to charter school. The public school still has to expend the same resources to educate the remaining 22 as it did for the 24. There is no cooresponding reduction in staff or overhead. It's like an airplane. It costs as much to fly a full plane as one that is half full.
If you have been a cable subsriber for 30 years and all of a sudden you cancel your subscription and buy dish network,you stop paying cable and now dish network gets paid; but cable should not run around claiming that dish took thier money, the money belongs to the consumer and you may spend it as you wish.
As the public schools loose enrollment, they must reduce thier expenses or they will be in trouble. If more students leave they must reduce staff and or close school buildings, or they will continue to finacial difficultles.
Charters do not take money from public schools, they take students, and the money follows the students. If you have less students, spend less money and you will not have a problem.