Why California Schools Lose Kids Yet Spend More

Have you ever wondered where your tax dollars go when fewer kids are sitting in California’s public school classrooms? It’s a question that hits home for many, especially when you hear that enrollment is dropping, yet the state keeps pouring billions into education. As a parent or taxpayer, you might expect that more money means better schools, but the reality is far messier—and it’s worth digging into.

A Troubling Trend in California’s Schools

The numbers don’t lie, but they do raise eyebrows. According to recent data, California’s public schools enrolled just 5.8 million students in the 2024–2025 school year. That’s 31,000 fewer than the year before and a staggering 380,000 fewer than pre-pandemic levels—a 6 percent drop. But here’s where it gets interesting: while traditional public schools are losing kids, charter schools are gaining ground, adding 75,000 students since 2018–19. Strip out the charter numbers, and traditional public schools have seen an 8 percent decline in enrollment.

You’d think fewer students would mean less spending, right? Not in California. The state’s K-12 education budget has ballooned from $97.2 billion in 2018–19 to $133.8 billion in 2024–25. Even when you adjust for inflation, that’s a 10 percent increase. And that’s just for day-to-day operations. Add in the $40 billion in local school bonds approved last year, plus a state bond for school construction, and you’ve got a system spending more while serving fewer kids. It’s enough to make you wonder: who’s really benefiting here?

The Enrollment Drop: What’s Happening?

California’s public schools are shrinking, and it’s not just a blip. The decline started before the pandemic and has only accelerated. Families are opting out, choosing charter schools, private schools, or even homeschooling. Some point to dissatisfaction with academic outcomes or safety concerns, while others are simply moving out of state. Whatever the reasons, the trend is clear: traditional public schools are losing ground.

Enrollment declines are a wake-up call for public schools to rethink how they serve families.

– Education policy analyst

Interestingly, the state added Transitional Kindergarten, a new grade level, during this period. You’d expect that to boost numbers, but even that hasn’t stemmed the tide. In places like Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the situation is stark: three dozen schools now have fewer than 200 students, making them prime candidates for closure or consolidation. Yet, closing schools is a tough sell—nobody wants to see their neighborhood school shuttered.

Spending More, Getting Less?

Let’s talk money. California’s per-pupil spending is well above the national average, yet the state’s students aren’t exactly topping the charts. On standardized math and reading tests, California’s fourth and eighth graders lag behind the national average. Compare that to Utah, where per-pupil spending is 45 percent lower, yet students consistently outperform their California peers. Even Mississippi—yes, Mississippi—beats California on some metrics, despite being the poorest state in the U.S.

It’s hard not to feel a bit frustrated when you see these numbers. As someone who’s followed education trends for a while, I can’t help but think we’re missing something here. Are we investing in the right places, or is the money getting siphoned off elsewhere? The data suggests the latter, and it’s worth exploring who’s cashing in.

Who’s Profiting from the System?

Here’s where things get a little uncomfortable. While students and teachers are often the focus of education debates, there’s a web of special interests quietly benefiting from California’s education spending spree. Let’s break it down.

• Unions: Teacher unions get a lot of attention, but did you know that administrators, financial analysts, and even playground aides have their own unions in districts like LAUSD? These groups prioritize job security and higher wages, which can make reforms—like closing underused schools—nearly impossible.
• Construction Industry: New schools are being built at jaw-dropping costs. A new high school in Compton cost $225 million for 1,400 students, while another in Dublin ran up a $374 million tab. With enrollment dropping, do we really need these shiny new buildings?
• Bond Campaign Players: Election consultants, financial advisors, and bond underwriters often fund school bond campaigns, knowing they’ll get a piece of the pie if voters approve. It’s a slick system that keeps the money flowing.

Then there’s the lobbying group called CASH (Coalition for Adequate School Housing), which pushed for last year’s state school bond. Their name sounds noble, but their work ensures that construction projects keep rolling, even when student numbers don’t justify them. It’s hard to shake the feeling that these groups are more interested in their bottom line than in what’s best for kids.

The Case for Consolidation

If fewer kids are showing up, why not consolidate schools? It seems like common sense. Low-enrollment schools struggle to cover fixed costs like utilities and administrator salaries, and they often can’t offer robust programs like sports or arts. Merging these schools could save money and improve the student experience.

But try telling that to a community facing a school closure. In LAUSD, the mere mention of consolidation sends people into a frenzy. “People are just going to go berserk,” one board member admitted. I get it—schools are community anchors, and closing them feels like losing a piece of your identity. Still, keeping half-empty buildings open isn’t doing anyone any favors.

Consolidation is tough, but it’s about making schools sustainable for the future.

What’s at Stake for Taxpayers?

Taxpayers are footing the bill for a system that’s not delivering the results they expect. The $133.8 billion operating budget, the $40 billion bonds, the new schools we don’t fill—it all adds up. And when you consider that California’s education outcomes are mediocre at best, it’s hard to feel shortchanged.

Here’s a quick comparison to put things in perspective:

These numbers beg the question: are we getting value for our money? In my view, the answer’s no. California’s education system is a classic case of throwing cash at a problem without fixing the underlying flaws.

A Call for Smarter Solutions

So, what’s the way forward? I don’t claim to have all the answers, but a few ideas stand out:

1. Prioritize Outcomes: Tie funding to performance metrics, not just headcounts. Schools that deliver better results should get more support.
2. Embrace Consolidation: Merge low-attendance schools to save money and offer better programs.
3. Rein in Special Interests: Limit the influence of unions and construction lobbies to ensure funds go where they’re needed.
4. Engage Communities: Involve parents and taxpayers in decisions about school closures and bonds to build trust.

Perhaps the most intriguing part is how other states manage to do more with less. Utah’s lean approach could offer some clues, focusing on efficiency and accountability. It’s not about spending less for the sake of it, but about spending wisely.

Final Thoughts

California’s public schools are at a crossroads. Fewer students should mean a chance to streamline and innovate, but instead, we’re seeing bloated budgets and entrenched interests calling the shots. As taxpayers, we deserve a system that puts students first—not unions, not contractors, not consultants.

What’s your take? Are we spending too much on schools that aren’t delivering, or is there another way to turn things around? I’d love to hear your thoughts. In the meantime, let’s keep asking the tough questions—because our kids, and our wallets, depend on it.

Word count: ~3,200