Nathan Hoffman is the Senior Legislative Director for the Foundation for Florida's Future.
Florida’s public school districts are serving fewer students today than they were just a few years ago. At the same time, they are spending substantially more money per student than before.
That reality may surprise some observers. In recent years, critics of educational choice have argued that Florida’s growing menu of education options is draining resources from traditional public schools. But a new report by economist Dr. Ben Scafidi finds that inflation-adjusted funding for Florida public schools has increased significantly since 2019, even as district enrollment has declined.
The report, Where Did the Money Go? Changes in Expenditures Per Student, Staffing, and Average Teacher Salaries in Florida Public Schools 2020 to 2026, analyzes expenditures, staffing, teacher salary and enrollment data from the Florida Department of Education. Its findings raise important questions for policymakers and taxpayers about how school districts are allocating resources and whether those decisions align with the priorities of parents, teachers and communities—as well as shifting enrollment realities.
Between the 2019-20 and 2024-25 school years, inflation-adjusted expenditures in Florida public schools increased by nearly $3.1 billion statewide. During roughly the same period, district enrollment fell by nearly 76,000 students.
As a result, real current expenditures per student increased by 11.9%, rising from $12,226 per student to $13,680 per student. The report notes that this increase represents approximately $1,454 more per student, or about $29,080 in additional resources for a classroom of 20 students.
The report also notes that the state and districts budgeted more than $1 billion in additional funding for public schools in the 2025-26 school year, suggesting that per-pupil resources may have increased even further beyond the years analyzed.
The central finding is clear: Florida’s public school districts are operating with more inflation-adjusted resources per student than they were before the universal expansion of educational choice.
The report’s title frames the central question.
If districts had nearly 12% more inflation-adjusted current funding per student, how were those resources used?
The data suggest that districts largely prioritized increases in staffing outside the classroom rather than increasing teacher compensation.
Between 2020 and 2026:
The report acknowledges that districts may have legitimate reasons for expanding some support services, particularly mental health personnel, given recent legislation requiring such prioritization. Nevertheless, the broader staffing trends reveal that increases in non-teaching personnel outpaced changes in enrollment and teacher staffing, in some cases drastically so.
Perhaps the report’s most notable finding involves teacher compensation.
Florida districts increased teacher salaries in nominal dollars during this period, with average teacher pay rising from about $49,269 to nearly $57,900. However, those increases did not keep pace with inflation. As a result, average teacher salaries declined by 4.8% in real terms between 2020 and 2026.
In other words, districts received significantly more inflation-adjusted resources per student, yet the average teacher’s purchasing power declined.
For policymakers concerned about teacher recruitment and retention, this finding deserves attention. While state leaders have invested heavily in K-12 education, including teacher pay raises, the report suggests that local spending decisions play a significant role in determining whether additional funding ultimately reaches classrooms and educators.
It’s clear from the data that teachers are not benefiting from increased spending while staffing in three other categories of employees are on the rise.
Growth in the “Administrators” category far exceeds growth among “Counselors, Social Workers & Psychologists” and “All Other Staff.” We can look at what types of jobs are included in each of those categories to get a better understanding of where districts are prioritizing spending.
The growth in employees classified as administrators merits a conversation about what appears to be a disconnect between state funding increases for students and hiring priorities at the district level.
Student enrollment is on the decline, yet we have seen an almost 10% increase in district employees classified as administrators. We also see increases in school counselors, social workers and other staff, though at lesser levels that may be explained by recent legislative mandates.
The only place we don’t see an increase? Teachers, whose ranks are declining even faster than the percentage decline in student enrollment.
Schools are first and foremost places of learning, and you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone to disagree with the fact that the most important employees in schools are classroom teachers. If policymakers focus on anything in this report, it should be the gap between the employment of teachers and the employment of every other type of school employee—in particular, those at the top.
Another important takeaway is that these outcomes were not universal.
The report identifies several districts that increased teacher salaries above inflation despite facing increases in English language learner populations and students with disabilities.
These districts include Calhoun, Charlotte, Collier, Gadsden, Glades, Hamilton, Indian River, Lee, Madison, Marion, Monroe, Pinellas, Santa Rosa, Sarasota and Walton counties.
That finding suggests local decision-making matters. Districts facing similar demographic and operational challenges produced different results, indicating that spending priorities can influence whether additional resources are directed toward teacher compensation or other staffing categories.
The report also places staffing decisions in the context of changing student populations.
While overall district enrollment declined, the percentage of English language learner students increased from 10.1% to 12.4%, and the percentage of students with disabilities increased from 14.5% to 16.3%. During the same period, the percentage of low-income students declined from 53.8% to 48.2%.
These shifts may help explain some staffing decisions, particularly increases in specialized support services. At the same time, the report argues that demographic changes alone do not fully explain why many districts expanded administrative and support staffing while teacher salaries failed to keep pace with inflation.
The report does not suggest that Florida public schools lack resources. In fact, it finds that most districts received substantial increases in inflation-adjusted funding per student during a period of declining enrollment.
Instead, the report raises a different question: How should districts prioritize those resources?
As Florida policymakers continue to debate school funding, teacher pay, educational choice and student outcomes, this research offers a valuable reminder that funding levels are only part of the conversation. Equally important is how those resources are allocated once they reach local districts.
For taxpayers, parents, educators and lawmakers, that question deserves careful attention. The data show that Florida is investing more money than ever in public education. The challenge now is ensuring those investments are aligned with the needs of students and the educators who serve them.
