Younger millennials and older Gen-Zs have faced criticism for their financial choices. A common retort from some boomers is that spending on items like avocado toast prevents them from buying homes. However, from 2015 to 2025, housing prices in America nearly doubled, along with a significant increase in mortgage rates. For example, a $175,000 starter home in 2015 with an $835 monthly mortgage payment grew into a $350,000 home with a $2,259 monthly payment by 2025. Clearly, the issue extends beyond trivial purchases like avocado toast.
An analogous situation occurs in the debate over education policy, where critics argue that school choice programs bankrupt states. ProPublica highlighted Arizona’s choice program, suggesting it severely strains the state budget. However, choice programs in most states account for a mere 0.7% of total expenditures. Even in states with universal choice programs, spending is only slightly higher at 1.3%.
If these programs were causing budgetary problems, their expenditures would need to grow disproportionately, which is not the case. Furthermore, they would need to result in all costs with no savings, which is also inaccurate. Choice programs remain a minor part of the budget.
Arizona, with the most extensive school choice program per capita, spent $882 million on it, representing only 8% of its total K-12 spending, 5.4% of general fund spending, and slightly over 1% of all state spending. If budget issues arise, they stem from the other 99% of expenditures. In fiscal 2025, Arizona had 1.1 million students in K-12 public schools and 85,000 in choice programs. Public schools received $15.9 billion from various sources, while the choice program educated 7.6% of students using 5.5% of the allocated funds, indicating cost savings rather than additional expenses.
From 2015 to 2025, per-pupil spending nationwide increased from $13,000 to $19,000, a 31% rise. Accounting for inflation, spending still grew by 7%. Traditional public schools served most students, so budget increases cannot be attributed to choice spending.
“Where has the money gone?”
Data reveals intriguing trends. The Phoenix Elementary School District lost 39% of its students over the past seven years but increased its staff by 5%, according to the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University. This staff growth was entirely non-teaching roles, while the number of teachers fell by 7%. This pattern is seen nationwide. Denver Public Schools lost 2% of its students yet added 3% more staff. Chicago’s student numbers dropped by 10%, yet staff increased by 20%. Even in financially responsible regions like Miami-Dade, the student population fell by 5% while staff numbers rose by 1%.
Supporters of the current education model often blame school choice for public school budget issues. Yet, just as young people’s home-buying struggles cannot be solely attributed to avocado toast consumption, budget problems in education systems are not solely due to school choice programs. These programs are not the budget drains some claim them to be.
Dr. Michael McShane is Director of National Research at EdChoice, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting a K–12 education system that empowers families to choose the best schooling environment for their children.
Leave a Reply