Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for the 74 newsletter
In April, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that the 50 states and Washington, D.C. collected $1 trillion in federal, state and local revenue for K-12 public education in the 2023-24 school year.
One. Trillion. Dollar.
This is a remarkable milestone. And while it doesn’t tell the whole story — it only represents revenues, not expenses — it does address five trends that help explain where K-12 funding stands today.
Table of Contents
More money, fewer students
On an inflation-adjusted basis, schools had 22% more money available to them in 2023-2024 than a decade earlier. One-off aid funds from the federal government played a role, so that federal revenue recorded the largest percentage increase (+65%). However, schools rely much more heavily on state and local funding, and those revenues also increased by 18% each. Meanwhile, schools served around 500,000 fewer students, a decline of 1.1%.
In other words, schools serve fewer students with significantly more money than they did a decade ago.
The national averages hide large differences between states
In the 2023-24 school year, public schools spent an average of $17,619 per student. But there were huge differences: Places like New York and the District of Columbia spent more than $30,000 per student, while states like Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma and Mississippi spent closer to $11,000 or $12,000 per child.
Source: Census Bureau’s annual survey of school system finances
These numbers don’t take into account differences in the cost of living, but they do reflect actual differences in what public education looks like in different parts of the country. As an example, consider how staffing levels vary across states. In Vermont, schools employ one full-time employee for every 4.3 students. Maine, Connecticut, DC, New Hampshire and Wyoming all have similar ratios. There are now an average of 11.3 students per staff member in a school in Utah. Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Alabama and California are also at the lower end of the workforce. This all means that students have very different experiences with public schools depending on where they live.
Staffing déjà vu: Districts are hiring 118,000 additional employees and serving 135,000 fewer children
States have not followed the same path in the last decade. Real per-pupil school spending increased in 47 of 50 states and the District of Columbia, led by increases of 65% in California, 49% in New Mexico and 46% in Hawaii. On the other hand, real per-pupil spending fell 13% in Alaska, 6% in Montana and 1% in Wyoming.
Where does the money go? Not on teacher salaries
Education is labor-intensive, and teachers are by far the largest group of workers. But as I’ve written before, increased spending doesn’t line teachers’ pockets. According to the NEA Rankings and Estimates report, public school teachers earned an average salary of $72,030 in the 2023-24 school year. A decade earlier, they earned $56,610. That’s a nominal increase of almost $16,000, but in real, inflation-adjusted terms it represents a decrease of about $2,500. In other words, teachers have, on average, less purchasing power today than they did a decade ago.
Source: Census Bureau’s annual survey of school system finances And NEA Rankings and Estimates
Why? Because counties employ more workers who receive more expensive benefits
As I and others have written, schools employ more people than they once did. They have more teachers and many more teaching assistants, principals, deputy principals, guidance counselors and student support staff. Metaphorically speaking, schools have gradually divided their cake into smaller and smaller pieces.
Beyond salaries, each of these employees also needs health insurance and retirement benefits, and these, too, have been increasing rapidly. In 2023-24, schools spent $197 billion on employee benefits. Put another way, for every $1,000 a school spent on salaries, it also paid $438 in benefits. These trends may explain why districts with rising labor costs are not increasing the take-home pay of their workers.
Within states and districts, spending is more progressive than expected
The biggest differences in school spending are between states (see above), and wealthier states tend to spend more. But within states and districts, schools that serve higher-need students tend to receive more funding. One research summary estimated: “Black and Hispanic students receive $487 and $266 more per student, respectively, than white students, and.” [free- and reduced-price lunch] Students receive $355 more than non-FRL students.”
Interactive: School Spending vs. Teacher Salaries – See trends in 8,900 districts
The National Comprehensive Center’s School Spending and Outcomes Snapshot tool allows users to view school-level spending numbers for their communities. As an example, I focused on elementary schools in Atlanta. In the table below, each bar represents a school, and schools are color-coded based on the percentage of economically disadvantaged students they serve, with green representing higher income and red representing lower income. Schools are organized from left to right by lower to higher spending levels.
Atlanta exemplifies the national pattern. With the exception of some charter schools, higher poverty elementary schools generally receive more funding per student than lower poverty schools.
Source: Snapshot of school spending and outcomes from the National Comprehensive Center
Of course, it doesn’t tell us how much money is spent How the money has been spent. Nationally, researchers found that low-income and black students have more staff available to educate them, but that staff tend to be less experienced and therefore lower paid.
It’s unclear whether having more, lower-paid staff is better or worse for students than having fewer, better-paid teachers, but policymakers need to understand the underlying trends to avoid costly mistakes. For example, when New York State tried to impose a class size cap on the city of New York, the teachers union claimed that “priority would be given to schools with higher poverty rates” – but researchers found that these schools already had the smallest class sizes. Therefore, meeting the new statewide cap would require shifting resources toward wealthier schools, which would cost up to $1.9 billion.
Crossing the trillion-dollar threshold presents an opportunity to ask harder questions than whether schools simply need more money. Enrollment is declining, spending has increased significantly, and staffing levels have increased, but teacher salaries are stagnant and student outcomes remain inconsistent. The next decade of school funding will depend on whether policymakers can address these competing challenges.
Have you used this article in your work?
We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting helps educators, researchers and policymakers. Tell us how
https://www.the74million.org/article/americas-trillion-dollar-school-system-5-trends-explain-where-the-money-goes/
