Debunking Myths: The Real Impact of School Choice Programs

The debate around housing affordability often includes dismissive remarks regarding young people’s spending habits, such as buying avocado toast. Yet, from 2015 to 2025, housing prices in America nearly doubled, as did the 30-year mortgage rates. A $175,000 starter home with an $835 monthly mortgage payment in 2015 became a $350,000 house with a $2,259 monthly mortgage payment ten years later. Clearly, the problem extends beyond lifestyle choices.

This scenario mirrors ongoing discussions in education policy. Critics of school choice programs claim they deplete state budgets. An article in ProPublica labeled Arizona’s choice program as detrimental to the state’s finances. However, school choice-related expenses make up just 0.7 percent of total state expenditures. In states with universal choice programs, this figure rises slightly to about 1.3 percent.

If choice programs were causing financial woes, their financial footprint would be disproportionately large and fast-growing. Yet, this is not the case. Additionally, such programs account for minimal costs while also providing savings. They occupy a minuscule portion of state budgets. For example, Arizona, which has the largest per capita choice program, allocated only $882 million to it. This represents about 8 percent of its K-12 spending, 5.4 percent of general fund spending, and merely 1 percent of total spending across all public services.

In 2025, Arizona had 1.1 million students in K-12 public schools while 85,000 were in the choice program. Public schools in Arizona received $15.9 billion from local, state, and federal sources. The choice program serviced 7.6 percent of students with just 5.5 percent of taxpayer money, demonstrating financial efficiency rather than wastefulness.

“If a state is going bankrupt, it isn’t because of 1 percent of its spending. It is because of the other 99 percent.”

Rising education costs primarily stem from traditional public school spending. Nationwide, per pupil spending increased from $13,000 in 2015 to $19,000 in 2025, a 31 percent rise. After adjusting for inflation, the growth remains around 7 percent.

Consider the Phoenix Elementary School District. It lost 39 percent of its students over seven years but increased staff by 5 percent, with the growth entirely in non-teaching roles. Teacher numbers dropped by 7 percent. Similar patterns were seen in Denver, Chicago, and Miami-Dade, where staffing increases contrasted with student declines.

Some defenders of the current educational system blame financial strains on school choice, rather than scrutinizing inefficiencies in public schools. Just as young people’s financial choices are not solely responsible for housing issues, education choice programs should not be scapegoated for state budget troubles.

Dr. Michael McShane is the Director of National Research at EdChoice, a nonprofit seeking an education system that allows families to choose the best schooling environment for their children.