"homeschooling takes money away from public school"

[ProfessorPlum]

This seems to be a common assertion held by many at DU, and also a subtle argument against homeschooling. The idea being that school districts get money from the state based on enrollment.

Now, obviously there are economies of scale at work here - you can add one child to a school system for not too much cost, and get the full benefit of one child's worth of state money . . . but if you add many, the number of dollars spent per child eventually has to go down, as you work with a fixed tax base.

On average, what are the "costs" to public schools of having fewer kids in them? Homeschooling would have the same effect as kids in private school - the local school system still gets the tax dollars, but don't have to provide services for those kids (we still get the benefit of having kids in our communities educated for those dollars).

So, here is my question: has anyone actually run the numbers? Am I "hurting" my local school district financially by teaching my kids at home? (On the surface of it, this argument makes no sense to me - I'm still paying full property school taxes, but now they don't have to provide any service to my kids - I would think that would be an economic boon to them).

[LeftyMom]

1. It's bushite math assuming all that extra money will come from somewhere

The objection seems to be that the per-pupil spending system is flawed. Now, one can respond to that problem by:

O a) working to reform the school funding system

O b) helping schools find other sources of funding

O c) volunteering at the local school

O d) bitching about homeschoolers on DU

It's an illogical argument. Assuming the amount of tax taken in is finite, if the 3% of school-aged kids (or whatever the number is today) were enrolled in public school next year, all that would happen is that the per-pupil reimbursement would be reduced.

In states wehere the per-pupil distribution is set at a fixed level, the schools would recieve a little extra enrollment money. However, since the states are all strapped for cash these days that money would almost certainly be diverted from another part of the education budget or from health care for the indigent or something.

Of course, the schools would come out better for the deal, because we all know homeschooled kids don't need gifted classes or special ed or sports or books in the library any of that expensive stuff. Nope, they're gonna sit down and shut up and make our kids money, muhahaha. We might even chain 'em up like foster kids in Florida. After all, who cares about what's best for them, when our kids might score an extra box of crayons or even a four square ball out of the deal. :evilgrin:

The math doesn't work. They're hoping to make the pie higher. ;)

[GoddessOfGuinness]

2. It hurts the school system when you

take your gentle, intelligent child out, because it lowers your local school's test average and raises the bully quotient.

When my older boy was attending public school, I took to heart the idea that if you didn't like the system, you needed to change it. I knocked myself out volunteering for various events, and offered suggestions and solutions to problems that were for the most part poo-pooed without giving them so much as a thought.

In the end, I had to face the facts. I could keep my child in the school, which offered a mediocre education, and a decidedly negative social experience, and hope that my hard work would make the school system better over the course of 12 years. Or I could bail out and give my child a chance to be involved in a system that couldn't be worse.

[ProfessorPlum]

4. Thinking about doing that is what made our decision too

We thought we could fight and fight and still the kids would be in a mediocre system . . . and we'd still have to teach them at home. Or, we could use our energy where it could really do some good. I'd still like to see the system improved, but I think we (and society at large) is getting a lot of bang for our work with our kids.

[mopinko]

3. it's a stupid argument

full of holes. bs.

[Book Lover]

5. Bogus two ways to Tuesday

Homeschooling a child has the same effect on a district as that child going to private school; so will these detractors claim the authority to shut down all private schools? Also, my school district offers lesson plans, etc to homschooling families; that money *is* going to the school from the state, so no loss there for the schools either.

I wish these people would take their energy and move it to making brick and mortar schools better, rather than bashing people who take their kids out of a broken system.

[mzmolly]

6. I've heard it lowers the student/teacher ratio.

;) And, that's a plus for the kids in Public School. I think my district gets funding based upon who is eligible to attend school, not who is registered? And ... we still pay the same amount of property taxes regardless, right?

[ProfessorPlum]

7. That's my take on it.

Exactly.

Edit to add: it would break my heart to harm public schools through my actions. They've been good to me my whole life.

[Pacifist Patriot]

8. It's a short-sighted argument and I hate to see it trotted out here....

at DU. I prefer to think of Democrats as people who ponder a dilemma from all angles before jumping to conclusions. Alas, that isn't 100% applicable. ;) Some people will jump all over the lack of seat money but don't take it a step further and acknowledge that an unenrolled child is also not resulting in any cost to the system. As well as the private school situation mentioned. Homeschoolers seem to get the brunt of the accusation despite the same result by private school children.

The way funding works differs by state and school system. In my county, we have what are called "census days." On those days the homeroom attendance is used to determine the number of present students. There are five of these days and the number is averaged to determine enrollment. So if a student is sick, late because of an appointment or otherwise absent they don't count. The school gets a certain amount of dollars per so it's called "seat money." The balance of funding is derived by dividing out the tax base.

At present, the funding equation in my county would enable a handful of homeschooled children to re-enroll but if a decent percentage decided to enroll the increase in "seat money" would not cover the added cost to the school system. If a substantial percentage decided to enroll, it would cripple our school system. We do not have the infrastructure necessary. New schools would have to be built, more teachers hired, etc. This is probably one reason why my school system is accommodating to homeschoolers. They know they are better off financially if we stay away.

I have always thought the irony would be astounding if some of the most vocal opponents to homeschooling because of the financial issue had kids who were absent on census days and so therefore their kid didn't get the school any money but the school was absorbing the cost of educating them. Too bad there is no way to know. LOL!

[ray of light]

9. No. You still pay school taxes. AND

They don't have to pay a teacher to watch your kid too. Where they may think they lose money is that the tax base is "x" and for each student in school the state gets an additional amount "y". From that they get the total budget.

BUT if you and 30 people are NOT homeschooling in your district, then theoretically that is one less teacher they need to hire.

But, I homeschooled for years and I still payed my taxes to the school district.

[youthere]

10. In our state, the school gets money

for students registered. Since my kids are still registered but receiving "alternate" instruction the school still gets money for each of my three kids-that AREN'T there. I'm also a homeowner in this district so I support the school with my property taxes and with my shopping dollars for "sales tax levies" that support school building projects. That argument is bullshit pure and simple-at least in this state it is.