they aren't using, much like a homeowner may do in the winter or summer at extreme temps. Our guest bedroom stays mostly cold during the winter months, we cut off all heat to it if nobody is in it.
If i understand it right, depending on the head count of public school students present, funding is provided for that number. Excluding any other guidelines or requirements, etc., basically a reference to the number of students recorded in a district, etc..
So, if you remove them to private schooling or voucher elsewhere, that count of students is reduced if they attended public system. So how is it that this really works for the public school system as offered by or any other Governor? :
The populace is still taxed to support the school district they're in BUT the other costs, etc. that any school district faces are lost. Take for example energy cost, it still costs just as much to heat a building for 400 vs 450 students. Those 50 students could very well be a tipping point to include aspects of any associated costs. Building don't get smaller and as found here locally, once a school district shrinks, it tends to reduce open schools building or eliminate them. Then, they see the cost saving if they build new and become more centralized. BUT, in the meantime real saving aren't being made as bonds, etc. are pushed for this or that to include any new taxes, etc..
So, having that in mind, if I save on a personal income tax, but turn around and pay higher school taxes, did I really escape any reduced taxes or public funding burdens. This is not give and take, its bait and switch, IMHO.
Here, roughly 75% of my real estate taxes goes to the school district, yet 1-2% pays for the whole park system.
yet another 2-3% takes for special needs for seniors, etc.. I realize the school system is more expensive but it never gets reduced and any costs related to bonds or special tax votes remain on the books for yrs., as you may know it takes a long time to repay building new schools, like 30-40yrs.. But NOOOOO! it offered by like it increases only $20-40 per household per $100K of value per yr.. yeah, but what about next yrs. issues or problems. geeessss
I may not be a "tea party member" but I'm sure looking at less coffee nowadays. wink-wink,notch-notch -----Willy aka -taxpayer