Rethinking Blame in Housing and Education Spending

There has been a common argument that the inability of younger generations to afford homes is due to frivolous spending habits like buying avocado toast. However, data tells a different story. Between 2015 and 2025, house prices in America nearly doubled, and the 30-year mortgage rate saw a similar increase. For example, a starter home priced at $175,000 in 2015 with a monthly mortgage of $835 became a $350,000 house with a $2,259 monthly payment by 2025. Clearly, housing affordability issues extend beyond lifestyle choices.

School Choice vs. State Budgets

In education policy, some argue that school choice programs are financially draining state budgets. ProPublica reported that Arizona’s choice program is significantly impacting the state budget. Yet, these programs generally account for only 0.7 percent of total state expenditures. In states with universal choice programs, this number is slightly higher at 1.3 percent. This does not indicate a major financial burden.

If these programs were truly straining budgets, we would expect their spending to be substantial and rapidly increasing—which is not the case. Choice programs would also need to be purely costs without any savings, which they are not. For instance, Arizona’s school choice spending was $882 million, making up about 8 percent of its K-12 spending but only 1 percent of total state spending, including all funds.

Efficiency of Choice Programs

Arizona’s choice program served 85,000 students from a total of 1.1 million in K-12 public schools by fiscal 2025. Public schools in Arizona had $15.9 billion in total revenue from various sources. The choice program educated 7.6 percent of students while spending 5.5 percent of the allocated funds, indicating fiscal efficiency and even savings.

Growth in Public School Spending

Between 2015 and 2025, per pupil spending in traditional public schools increased from approximately $13,000 to $19,000, marking a 31 percent increase. Even after adjusting for inflation, there was still a 7 percent growth. This is where budget strain originated, as most students are in public schools.

For example, the Phoenix Elementary School District lost 39 percent of its students over seven years but increased staff by 5 percent, focusing on non-teaching roles. This pattern of staff growth despite falling student numbers occurred nationwide. Denver, Chicago, and Miami-Dade all experienced student losses but hired more staff.

Refocusing the Discussion

Some advocates for maintaining current educational spending levels blame school choice for inefficiencies in public schools. Similar to blaming young people’s housing challenges on small luxury purchases, state financial issues should not be attributed to educational choice programs. Dr. Michael McShane, Director of National Research at EdChoice, argues for a K–12 education system that empowers family choice in educational environments.