jib71

Indeed. The only problem with this type of school funding is that the villagers will eventually run out of someone else's money. (Apologies to Margaret Thatcher, milk snatcher).

I once visited a rural school which had two classrooms for each year group - each with a capacity of 40 kids. Once upon a time, it was pretty full. However, by the mid 1990s it had been reduced to about 20 kids total. This particular village (population 2,000) continued to host 3 nursery schools, 3 elementary schools, 1 junior high school, a school bus, and one school meals kitchen. Each school had an apartment block to accommodate the teachers, since it was in a "remote" location. (However, the construction of several expensive tunnels meant that it was actually only 30 minutes drive from the nearest city).

When I expressed the opinion that it might be more responsible to consolidate these facilities and bus kids to school, I was told that such a heinous plan would spell death for the community (which also boasted 2 swimming pools, 1 newly dug spa, at least 3 community centres and 3 all-weather gateball courses for the elderly). Did the 2,000 residents pay for all that from their own taxes? I think not ...

Somehow the largesse didn't convince young couples that they had a future in the village. All young people moved out as soon as they got married - even the ones who were employed at the 40-person strong yakuba (town hall). Rather than living on the farms they'd grown up on, they all wanted to move to a crummy apartment in the next city and commute in.

The village has now been subsumed into two or three neighbouring towns.