National data published by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) showed that K-12 enrollments in 40 states dropped by an average of 3.8% or almost 1.5 million students between 2019 and 2024.
Various factors, including fewer births, domestic and international migrations, and increased competition from non-public schools drove these declines. NCES’ latest projections forecast an additional loss of 2.6 million students nationwide by 2031.
My June newsletter reviewed the 10 states whose K-12 enrollments increased or remained flat between 2019 and 2024: North Dakota, Delaware, Idaho, South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, South Dakota, Nebraska, Florida, and Utah.
Overall, public schools haven’t experienced a sustained enrollment decline of this caliber since the 1970s and ‘80s when student counts dropped by 14% or approximately 6.5 million students, American Enterprise Institute scholar Mark Perry explained. It was nearly two decades before public school enrollments fully rebounded to 45.9 million students in 1997. The primary cause of the decrease was the baby bust, when births dropped to 65 births per 1,000 women in 1984 compared to the 20th century’s peak of 123 births per 1,000 women in 1957.
In the current enrollment crash, some of the most populous states, New York, California, Illinois, and Michigan, accounted for nearly half of the national decline in student counts, with public schools in these states enrolling 738,000 fewer students in 2024 than in 2019. While these losses are significant, on average, they amount to a 5.4% decrease in these states’ overall enrollments. This is about two percentage points lower than the average decline in the 10 states whose public school enrollments contracted the most during this period. For example, student counts in West Virginia, Hawaii, and New Hampshire dropped by 8.1%, 7.7%, and 7.4%, respectively (see Table 1).
Table 1 ranks the 40 states that lost students between 2019 and 2024 by the extent to which their public school enrollments contracted, from most to least. It also shows how compounding factors, such as declining birth rates, net outbound migration, and inbound international migration, can help explain why states’ public school enrollments have plummeted.
Table 1: Enrollment losses between Fall 2019 and Fall 2024 in 40 states
A common factor driving lower enrollment in all 40 states with decreases from 2019 to 2024 is a decrease in births leading up to this period. Birth rates dropped by 6.8% on average in 2019 compared to 2014 in these states. The most significant declines occurred in eight states, where the number of births decreased by more than 10%, with the largest drop in Wyoming, which experienced a -14.7% change in that period.
Obviously, overall, fewer births mean that the corresponding kindergarten cohorts of 2019 and 2024 will reflect lower enrollments because there are fewer children. For example, in states where enrollments dropped by 3% or more between 2019 and 2024, the number of births for the kindergarten cohorts of those school years (2014 and 2019) dropped by 7.7% on average. By contrast, in states where enrollments dropped by less than 3%, the number of births only dropped by 5.4% on average.
However, births aren’t the only factor affecting K-12 enrollments–new residents via migration can counterbalance local enrollment losses. U.S. Census Bureau data from April 2020 to July 2024 indicated that while new residents weren’t sufficient to reverse declining enrollment trends, they likely softened them.
For example, in the 16 states where enrollment losses were lower—less than 3%—the general population increased on net by 2.5% on average, more than double the average net population change in states with higher enrollment losses.
In some states, international migration has backfilled declines in their domestic populations. For instance, 22 states experienced a net loss due to outbound migration, but 15 of them, including Arizona, Maryland, and New Jersey, reversed this trend as movers from abroad entered at higher rates than outbound domestic movers.
Unfortunately, the exact effect of domestic and international migration on school populations isn’t clear because the Census Bureau’s published reports don’t disaggregate school-aged children.
Yet the data suggests that states must receive a significant increase in new residents to reverse declining birth rates and local enrollments. For example, in states where enrollments increased or remained flat, the general population’s net increase was 5.6% on average.
Nonetheless, this is no guarantee that a large influx of new residents will fully reverse lower student counts, as illustrated by North Carolina and Arizona, where large population increases failed to stop enrollment declines.
Another factor impacting public school enrollments is increased competition from non-public schools and homeschooling. While NCES has yet to release non-public school enrollment data later than the 2021-22 school year, U.S. Census Bureau estimates based on its Current Population Survey indicated that private school enrollments increased by nearly 12% nationwide in 2024 compared to 2019.
Similarly, driven in part by the COVID-19 pandemic, Johns Hopkins University reported that, between 2019 and 2024, homeschooling increased at an average rate of about 5% annually.
Moreover, it’s easier than ever for students to exit the public school system as 17 states, including Texas and Florida, have launched universal private school scholarship programs since 2021.
Yet, even in states that have no private school choice programs, such as California and New York, non-public school enrollments have increased. Altogether, this means that public schools face a more competitive education marketplace.
While lower births, migration, and increased competition can partially explain states’ declining enrollments, some losses remain unexplained. Stanford University’s Thomas Dee found that changing demographics or transitions to private or homeschools didn’t account for about one-third of the 1.2 million students who exited public schools after the pandemic.
Even though the decline in students isn’t fully explicable, it doesn’t change the fact that lower student counts are here to stay for the near-term future. These losses mean that school districts across the nation will need to rightsize, a painful but necessary process. Accordingly, state policymakers should adopt public school policies that best serve the remaining students and encourage fiscal responsibility, especially in states where enrollments are dropping.
One way to do this is by eliminating declining-enrollment provisions that base education funding on outdated student counts–effectively paying for “ghost students” who are no longer enrolled in public schools. For example, Missouri uses the highest enrollment count of the current or previous two school years for funding purposes. This methodology inflated Missouri’s enrollments by nearly 45,000 students during the 2021-22 school year.
States do this to make school district budgets more predictable, but these policies are both costly and unnecessary. Reason Foundation estimated that, during the 2021-22 school year, Missouri spent $197 million on its declining-enrollment provision alone. Public schools in many states–and all private schools–manage their budgets without getting funding for ghost students.
Oklahoma provides a model for reform. In 2021, lawmakers reformed the state’s declining-enrollment provision to base funding on more recent student counts. While they didn’t eliminate the policy, the number of ghost students was reduced from more than 55,000 in the 2020-21 school year to about 3,800 during the 2022-23 school year, a 93% reduction that saved taxpayers an estimated $184 million.
As school districts adjust to a new reality of smaller student cohorts and increased competition, reforms like these will encourage them to adapt and be effective stewards of public resources.
From the states
Michigan lawmakers change the state’s funding formula, while Connecticut and Idaho policymakers grapple with staffing costs amidst enrollment declines.
Michigan lawmakers passed the state’s education budget, sending $19.8 billion to school districts. This is a $1 billion reduction compared to last year, but districts’ per-pupil funding still increased $250. The budget also tweaked the state funding formula so students categorized as at-risk now receive a weighted amount, according to Michigan Advance.
Since 2006, the number of Connecticut children identified as in need of special education services has increased by 39% as of the 2025-26 school year. Special education students now account for one in five of public school students despite enrollment dropping by 14% during that time. According to Mark Palmieri, the co-executive director of The Center for Children with Special Needs, this increase could be due, in part, to broadened definitions of disabilities and lessened cultural stigma surrounding diagnoses, the CT Insider reported. Increased identification also means increased education costs. While the Connecticut legislature increased funding and state oversight last year, a 2025 report by the state Department of Education indicated that many districts struggle to retain special education staff, especially for students with the highest needs, and resolve complaints.
At least five Idaho school districts have announced plans to cut teaching and administrative staff due to declining enrollment. After the state legislature didn’t increase education funding, districts have no choice but to rightsize as student counts fall. In particular, lawmakers’ decision to keep districts’ discretionary funds flat has been a key driver of staffing cuts.
What to watch
Four states have opted out of the federal tax-credit scholarship.
In June, Oregon Gov. Tine Kotek announced that the state would not participate in the federal tax-credit scholarship program, joining Arizona, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. To date, 31 states have announced intentions to participate in the federal tax-credit scholarship program. Set to launch in 2027, the new law allows individual taxpayers to contribute up to $1,700 annually to an approved scholarship-granting organization. Scholarship recipients may use these funds to cover approved education expenses, such as private school tuition, tutoring, or school uniforms. The map below shows the states that have announced decisions to participate in the program.
Figure 1: States that have announced decisions to participate in the federal tax-credit scholarship program
The latest from Reason Foundation
The propulsive growth of non-teaching schoolstaff
While losing 34% of its students, LAUSD’s spending on compensation increased by $1.7 billion
New LAUSD superintendent must tackle runaway spending, declining enrollment
Recommended reading
The strategies leaders need to deal with plummeting school enrollment
Cara Candal at Governing
“The most obvious reason is also the simplest: Americans are having fewer children. Our organization, ExcelinEd, compiled data from the National Center for Health Statistics to break down birth rates between the peak year of 2007 and 2023. As a whole, our country had 719,248 fewer births in 2023 than it had in 2007, a decrease of nearly 17 percent. This will translate to potentially 719,248 fewer students walking into their first day of kindergarten in 2028, well below the replacement rate for maintaining classroom sizes.”
Microschools are booming. Will they have the funds to grow?
Frederick Hess interviews Allison Serafin at ‘Rick Hess on Education’ Substack
Allison: It means many applicants were not yet ready to take on debt, not that they were unserious. Starting a business is hard. So, I was not shocked that many applicants came in before their financial models, enrollment assumptions, or repayment plans were airtight. We decided to build a screening process that does not just reject people. It routes them to the right support at the right time. If the financial model is not ready, we point them to a budgeting tool we built for that exact purpose. If the facility is not secured, we route them to a space-readiness tool. The goal is to build a pipeline, not a wall.”
Do school closures save money?
Alicia Anderson at Fordham Institute
“Tough choices lie ahead, and voters should keep leaders accountable rather than sending tax dollars toward poorly maintained, empty buildings where costs will rise as student enrollment continues to fall. Pearman’s findings suggest that conditions in California hindered financial savings from closing schools, but do not support the conclusion that closing schools doesn’t save money in an era of demographic decline. Instead, his analysis underscores the need for a holistic understanding of the factors impacting school budgets—from statehouse on down—and a policy approach that looks at both revenue production and cost reduction. Leaders should take heed quickly: Kicking the can further down the road leaves bigger problems for affected communities, while wise decisions today provide an opportunity to build out improved programs that are right-sized and tailored to the children they serve.”