Just some things to think about...
... only about 30 percent of households have school-aged children...
Continuing from our previous posts earlier in this thread... Where would you have the 70% of your local population move to, who are households without school-aged children (empty-nesters, grandparents, childless couples, etc)? No matter where they live, they are in someone's public school district. Why not allow them to stay in the community which they helped to build up through their tax dollars over the years?
... Since there are so few children, it shouldn't cost very much to give them a high-quality education.
This sounds like a point in favor of the opposition; The 70% of your local population without school-age children who are not voting to increase tax levies, may say this.
... the State has basically not increased funding at all over the years for education
In the scenario you indicated, as baby boomers and their echo-boom of children age, there may be a smaller number of pupils in many districts nationwide... which may often indicate the same number of tax dollars is being utilized to educate fewer pupils... therefore there are more dollars available per pupil.
... despite rising costs...
There are fixed costs and variable costs. Looking at a particular district's budget, attending school board meetings, and examining your State's Department of Education data found online may be ways to identify and analyze costs.
