Do schools still get paid for children that don't attend?

[Climbing Rose]

If a child doesn't attend a gov't school, because the child is privately educated elsewhere-- what happens to the money that the gov't school would have gotten if the child attended?

Does the gov't school get it anyway?  Does the federal gov't just keep it?

Does it vary by state?

I am just wondering about this.  I think the idea that homeschoolers 'cost' the gov't school district money is very odd.  What about people that move out of the district, or send their children to private school, or had only three children instead of five? 

The whole gov't school funding issue seems so complicated, as far as where the money goes, vouchers, charter schools, etc.  But it just doesn't seem right that gov't schools think that people privately educating children somehow costs the gov't money.... when the people are just living their own life and not asking the gov't for anything.  The gov't isn't entitled to benefit from children just because they live near them.  I'm pretty tired so I hope this is making sense... =)

So do gov't schools receive money for children that learn elsewhere?

[zinemama]

Originally Posted by Climbing Rose 

But it just doesn't seem right that gov't schools think that people privately educating children somehow costs the gov't money.... when the people are just living their own life and not asking the gov't for anything. 

What makes you think that public school administrators think this?

[moominmamma]

It probably depends on the country, state/province and/or school district you live in.

Where I live there is educational funding decided upon by the provincial government. School districts get funded based on a per capita sum per enrolled student, and schools get a similar dispensation from the school district. If an eligible student doesn't attend, the district and the school don't get per capita funding on that student's behalf. The "extra" 5K or whatever theoretically ends up left over in the provincial government's budget surplus, but the reality is that they're running a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars and constantly adjusting funding for things like amortized infrastructure costs, consultant contracts, equalizing funds for rural and under-serviced areas, special education and ESL programs, and so on. So it's not like somebody's getting a bunch of extra money on behalf of your homeschooled student. 

Like, if I decide not to stop for a latté on the way home from a dentist appointment, it's not like my dh can say, at the end of the year, "So where's the $3.25 you didn't spend on that latté on November 7th?" It's just rolled in with the rest of the family budget. It wasn't really ever separate money designated in the budget for "latté, on the way home from November dentist appointment." Just as the government doesn't have a line-item for "Miranda's 8-year-old, 3rd grade schooling costs."

Edited to add: Sometimes, when enrolment is fluctuating, it can be tempting to think "Oh, if those 15 homeschoolers were in school, we'd have 15 more students and that would add 15 x $5k to the education budget, and we'd have enough money to keep this lovely primary school open." But I don't know any school administrators or school board members who think that simplistically. They realize that it would cost lots of additional money to educate those 15 homeschoolers. They might have to hire a new teacher. They'd need more books, more computers, another special education consultant, more soccer balls, a larger washroom, more desks, lockers, library books. 

Miranda

[Daffodil]

Originally Posted by Climbing Rose 

If a child doesn't attend a gov't school, because the child is privately educated elsewhere-- what happens to the money that the gov't school would have gotten if the child attended?

The school doesn't get it, so it's available to be spent on something else.  Keeping your child out of school doesn't cost the government money, but it can cost the individual school.  That's because the funding brought in by one additional student will generally be more than the expense of educating an additional student.  Let's say the school gets $10,000 for each child.  (In my state, the funding formula isn't quite as simple as that, but funding does generally depend on student numbers.)  Adding one more student doesn't cost the school $10,000.  In most cases, it costs almost nothing.  It doesn't change building maintenance costs or mean hiring an additional teacher.  At least it usually doesn't.  But what if that one additional student pushes the student/teacher ratio up to the point where the school needs to hire another teacher for that grade?  Or what if that student has very expensive special education needs?  There are times when one or a few extra students may cost the school more than they bring in.  But in general, having more students is better for the school, because there are fixed costs like building maintenance that don't change with student numbers, and other costs like teacher salaries that don't change unless there are big fluctuations in numbers, and a school with more students is getting more money from the state and so is better able to cover those costs.

[Climbing Rose]

Thanks, I am seeing how it comes together.

I have just heard the weirdest arguments against homeschooling lately, and the idea that HSer are 'costing' the gov't money seemed a little strange somehow.

I guess the gov't schools cost HSers money too, in property and other taxes... 

It's weird how when the gov't gets involved, even NOT using a service can be seen as 'costing' something.  =P

For the record, I am not saying all gov't shools think that way or anything.  I didn't word my OP very well.  I have a teething little one and am not at my best.  =)

[bandgeek]

I think some people see it as "taking money away" if you don't enroll your kids.  But the money is only needed if your children are attending!  If your children aren't attending, it's that much less money the school needs to operate on.  It's not entirely that simple of course, but overall, the less students a school has, the less money it needs to operate.  I think because most of the money doesn't go directly to each individual student, but to larger things like new buildings, programs, etc it's seen as taking a chunk away from those expenses.  If your kids went (and all the other homeschoolers went), they might have money for a new gym...that sort of thing.

I know when I had my dd enrolled in the homebound program (she's SN and cannot attend school) they sent out teachers with NO supplies...nothing.  The schools get more for SN kids and these teachers were operating on nothing.  They were buying stuff from goodwill out of their own money.  I didn't feel the least bit guilty pulling her from the system.  It's not my concern if they were taking every penny and spending it elsewhere.  My dd wasn't getting what she needed.