By Katie Kelton, CCC, Bankrate.com

When it comes to back-to-school shopping, some of us might think fondly of new backpacks and the scent of fresh pencils. But Bankrate’s 2025 Back-to-School Shopping Survey shows others might simply see dollar signs.

Related Articles

Want to retire abroad? Here’s what to consider first

Researchers forecast what Trump’s bill will mean for patients: Debt and delayed care

4 ways to become your own consumer advocate

Americans haven’t saved for retirement. These states are creating automatic savings plans

The CFPB is still standing … barely. But is it doing anything?

Stubborn inflation continues to change how nearly 1 in 3 back-to-school shoppers (30%) shop, but that percentage has trended down in recent years, perhaps indicating Americans have become more accustomed to paying higher prices.

Ronda Sunderhaus, Bankrate senior account manager in Charlotte, North Carolina, has lengthy back-to-school shopping lists for her three kids. In addition to school supplies, they buy several new outfits, backpacks and lunch boxes — “Those never seem to last when you pack lunch every day of the week,” she says.

That’s why her family looks for deals and compares prices together.

“I involve (my kids) in price comparison and decision-making when it comes to clothes, shoes and backpacks, too,” she says.

One category they can skimp on is electronics. “Because my kids are younger, the only ‘technology’ needs they have are generally headphones,” she explains. “I usually opt for a low-cost pair, since kids are prone to losing or breaking things, and replace annually.”

Almost half of shoppers (49%) plan to employ money-saving strategies this fall, from finding cheaper brands to budgeting to buying less.

“The cumulative effects of higher prices and high interest rates are still weighing on many households,” says Ted Rossman, Bankrate senior industry analyst. “Tariff concerns are also significantly impacting consumer sentiment.”

Bankrate’s key insights on back-to-school shopping

Today’s prices have nearly 1 in 3 back-to-school shoppers rethinking how they shop. Thirty percent of shoppers say they’re changing how they shop due to inflation. That’s down from 41% in 2022 and 32% in 2024, perhaps indicating that Americans are adjusting to higher price tags.
Compared to 2022, a smaller percentage of back-to-school shoppers feel financially strained for the upcoming school year. Twenty percent of shoppers (down from 31% in 2022) say they’ll feel a strain on their budget, and another 11% (down from 26% in 2022) feel pressured to spend more than they’re comfortable with.
Half of back-to-school shoppers are using money-saving strategies this season. Forty-nine percent of shoppers have taken or plan to take action — buy cheaper brands, look for deals, budget or buy fewer supplies — for the upcoming school year.

Inflation continues to plague back-to-school shoppers, but less so than in years past

Nearly 1 in 3 back-to-school shoppers (30%) say inflation is changing how they shop. That’s down from 32% in 2024 and 41% in 2022, during peak inflation.

Inflation is currently at 2.4%, well below the 9% peak in June 2022, but prices are still 23.7% higher than they were before the pandemic. However, our polling shows this is becoming less of an issue for shoppers. While the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t specifically track the price of school supplies, we can look at the prices of a few similar categories this year (as of May 2025) versus last year.

Stationery, stationery supplies and gift wrap are 4.7% more expensive than last year.

Boys’ apparel is 2.1% more expensive, but girls’ apparel is 1.3% cheaper.

Computers, peripherals and smart home assistance are 3.5% cheaper. But computer software and accessories are 6.1% more expensive.

Educational books and supplies are 9.4% more expensive.

One in 5 shoppers (20%) say these costs will or are straining their budgets, which is down from 31% in 2022. And around 1 in 10 shoppers (11%) feel pressured to spend more than they’re comfortable with, which is down from 26% in 2022.

More millennials and Gen Zers are back-to-school shopping than older generations Overall, more than 1 in 3 U.S. adults (36%) are back-to-school shopping this year — for themselves or for a child. That includes nearly half of millennials (ages 29-44; 49%) and Gen Zers (ages 18-28; 44%). Only 1 in 3 Gen Xers (ages 45-60; 33%) and around 1 in 5 boomers (ages 61-79; 21%) are back-to-school shopping.
Most back-to-school shoppers won’t take on debt this season Six percent of shoppers plan to take on debt for back-to-school shopping this year. “We do not worry about the start of school debt, but know many families do,” Sunderhaus says.

Nearly half of Americans (46%) have credit card debt, according to Bankrate’s 2025 Credit Card Debt Report. But nearly half of those debtors (45%) say it’s because of emergency expenses, like car repairs or medical bills. Armed with a budget and money-saving strategies, it’s possible to avoid debt this back-to-school season.

Nearly half of shoppers plan to use money-saving methods

Alene Laney, a personal finance writer in Provo, Utah, and mom of five, finds creative ways to save on back-to-school shopping. Their local public schools provide supplies, but her family is still on the hook for new school clothes, technology, backpacks and so on.

“I try to keep costs as low as possible, and the extra expenses come from a monthly budget category for essential home items,” Laney says.

She’s among nearly half of back-to-school shoppers (49%) who are employing one or more of these money-saving strategies in 2025.

1 in 5 will buy cheaper brands

Twenty percent of back-to-school shoppers say they bought or will buy cheaper brands than usual, down from 35% in 2022.

Try opting for generic versions of your kids’ favorite brands or comparing prices between stores to trim down your budget. “I buy cheaper brands for the things that don’t matter (paper, binders, scissors),” Sunderhaus says. “I also price compare between in-store deals (Target, Walmart) and Amazon online. I usually find that highlighters, expo markers, and ironically, glue sticks in bulk and then divided among my kids, are cheaper via Amazon.”

1 in 5 will look for deals

Twenty percent also have or plan to find more deals and coupons than in the past. But that’s down from 47% in 2022.

With five kids, it’s important for Laney and her kids to buy things that will last without breaking the bank. “I don’t go for the cheapest brands — I try to get the highest quality for the lowest price,” she explains. “For that, I’m a big Costco fan. I also shop all the discount stores like TJ Maxx, Ross, Marshall’s and Burlington Coat Factory.”

Nearly 1 in 5 will budget for back-to-school

Eighteen percent already did or plan to set money aside and/or budget for back-to-school shopping, which is down from 33% in 2022.

Budgeting prevents impulse buying, which is a weakness for many Americans. And it helps you identify other categories where you might be able to spend less this season, so there’s enough money to go around. You could also start saving up for back-to-school shopping a couple of months in advance.

About 1 in 6 will buy fewer school supplies

Sixteen percent are buying fewer school supplies than in previous years due to the cost, compared to 36% in 2022.

“Consider asking your child’s teacher what’s essential on day one versus what can wait until later in the year,” Rossman says. Your kids may not need everything on the list right away. They might also be able to use last year’s backpack, folders, pens and pencils and more.

5 ways to save money this back-to-school season

Once summer camps are over and schools start sending emails again, here are a few lessons to help you shop affordably for back-to-school.

Set a budget. With a monthly budget that fluctuates by season, you can plan ahead for back-to-school spending by pulling money from other everyday categories. For example, if you budget $500 for school supplies, you might be able to cut $200 from your family’s dining out budget, $200 from entertainment and another $100 by skipping pricey snacks and only buying in bulk that month.
Make a shopping list. With a list in hand — that you actually stick to — you won’t get sucked into buying more than you need or what your kids throw in the cart. Base the list on your budget and recommendations from the school, but also look for ways to reuse supplies from last year.
Stack discounts. Try “combining a rewards credit card with store promotions, online shopping portals and/or card-linked offers,” Rossman advises. Those small savings can add up for a big shopping list.
Include your kids in the process. Back-to-school shopping is a way to teach your kids about budgeting while minimizing bickering over what to buy. “I make my elementary kids responsible for holding onto their list in the store and marking off what we have as we go,” Sunderhaus says. “We also talk about the brands and prices of the items they are picking out.” When her 6-year-old wanted a video game-themed pencil box, he chose to compromise for a more affordable lunch box.
Shop secondhand. Thrifting clothes and supplies, when possible, can help you get lower prices while helping the environment. Laney and her kids often shop secondhand and re-wear items. “I’m always surprised at the high quality of clothes I can get secondhand,” she says. “We’re happy to wear hand-me-downs or yard sale treasures.”

Methodology: Bankrate commissioned YouGov Plc to conduct the survey. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2,616 adults, of which 914 have or will do back-to-school shopping this year. Fieldwork was undertaken between June 2-4, 2025. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all US adults (aged 18+).

©2025 Bankrate.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Educators, parents, librarians, lifelong learners and anyone else interested in teaching children about diversity are invited to the launch of the Native American Lives book series at 6:30 p.m. Monday at Minnesota Humanities Center, 987 E. Ivy Ave., St. Paul.

The free program will introduce the first four books in the series that is a partnership between Lerner Publishing Group and Minnesota Humanities Center with funding from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. Written for middle-grade readers, the biography series features Dakota and Ojibwe leaders and changemakers who were pivotal to Minnesota and the United States. Co-editors are award-winning former Minneapolis poet laureate Heid E. Erdrich and Minnesota poet laureate Gwen Nell Westerman.

The books to be launched are: “Carnie Cavender Schommer: Dakota Language Teacher” and “Ella Cora Deloria: Dakota Language Protector” both by Diane Wilson; “Charles Albert Bender: National Baseball Hall of Fame Pitcher” by Kade Ferris, and “Peggy Flanagan: Lieutenant Governor” by Jessica Engel King and Tashia Hart. There will also be an announcement of at least eight more titles in the series to be published through 2026.

Speakers at the event will be Heid Erdrich and Diane Wilson. There will be time to meet the authors and editors, connect with community partners, and buy books. Educators will learn about opportunities to bring the books into classrooms, including book giveaways, mini-grants and professional development. Registration information: registrations@mnhum.org.

Related Articles

What’s hot (Nine Inch Nails, Benson Boone) and not (Linkin Park, the Offspring) at local arenas this month

Readers and Writers: Romance, mystery and food musings make great summer reading

Skywatch: Good news and bad in the August night sky

Literary calendar: From Denmark to Minnesota, these authors bring science fiction, thrillers

Fringe review: Fun in theory, ‘Ping Prov’ is imperfect in front of an audience

Trivia quiz: What do Japan’s Fermentation Research Institute, Secretary of Agriculture Earl “Rusty” Butz and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan have in common?

Answer: Each, in their way, helped foster America’s widespread adoption of high fructose corn syrup, the sweetener that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has vowed to ban.

The country’s dependence on corn syrup is the product of historical events that look like raw material for a Thomas Pynchon novel. They’re stranger than fiction — and they help explain the backlash Kennedy’s crusade will face, given the financial ripple effects expected across the many industries involved in getting food and beverages onto grocery store shelves.

Unlike conventional corn syrup, a form of glucose derived from starch that has been around for over 200 years, high fructose corn syrup wasn’t developed until after World War II, when scientists in Japan began tinkering with the grain, hoping to transmogrify this staple into new products.

They discovered that an enzyme produced by bacteria, glucose isomerase, could convert ordinary dent corn into a high-octane sweetener. In 1971, the chemist Yoshiyuki Takasaki, working in Chiba City, Japan, patented the process.

None of this would have mattered had not Butz, a profane member of President Richard Nixon’s administration, decided to overturn decades of agricultural policy, setting the stage for high fructose corn syrup to make its debut.

Butz hated New Deal agricultural programs, which stabilized prices by paying farmers to limit the acreage under cultivation. He wanted to foster consolidation and boost production, and he frequently warned farmers to “get big or get out” — telling them to plant from “fence row to fence row.”

He had important allies, most notably Dwayne Andreas, head of the food-processing company Archer-Daniels-Midlands Co. Andreas was a famously corrupt and secretive businessman who once quipped to Wall Street analysts that “getting information from me is like frisking a seal.” Andreas helped convince Nixon that Butz’s pursuit of overproduction was the way to go.

Ordinary farmers reasonably asked: What if they raised too much wheat and corn and prices collapsed? There wasn’t enough domestic demand to absorb the predicted surplus. Butz and Andreas hit upon an unexpected buyer in 1971: the Soviet Union, which had suffered crop failures and desperately needed grain to feed livestock.

The purchase led to a formal trade agreement, and the Soviets began buying billions of dollars’ worth of corn and other grains. By 1972, they bought upward of a quarter of the entire harvest. Corn prices tripled, fueling a planting frenzy in the American Heartland.

At first, the soaring price meant that high fructose corn syrup remained a curiosity. The year 1974, though, changed everything. Sugar prices increased fivefold, thanks to bad harvests, a surge in Soviet imports (again) and other disruptions. This sugar high, combined with declining corn prices — partly because President Gerald Ford scaled back sales to the Soviets — led to a glut of the crop.

Andreas, desperate to find an outlet for the surplus, now began building facilities to perform the alchemy of converting surplus corn into high fructose syrup. His plan was simple: Pitch the sweetener as a cheap alternative to cane sugar.

One of the first adopters was jam and jelly maker JM Smucker Co. Its CEO, Paul Smucker, told the Wall Street Journal in 1976 that ADM and its competitors “couldn’t have picked a better time to come on stream with new capacity.” Smucker insisted the sugar substitute was better than the real thing: “High fructose has the little extra we’ve been seeking to enhance the flavor of the product.”

While Smucker believed the ultra-processed ingredient had a certain je ne sais quoi, others were more skeptical — particularly after sugar prices began to fall, making the traditional sweetener more competitive. At the same time, corn prices climbed, thanks to the resumption of shipments to the Soviet Union. ADM’s experiment to find new outlets for surplus corn (a strategy that also included ethanol production) was in danger.

The Soviets, oddly enough, saved the day. After they invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, President Jimmy Carter slapped a grain embargo on the Soviet Union, ending all corn shipments. Prices tumbled, suddenly making high fructose corn syrup a much cheaper alternative. In response, Coca-Cola Co. made the momentous decision to replace some of its reliance on cane sugar with the new sweetener in 1980.

This was great news for ADM, but Andreas wasn’t taking any chances. Over the next year, he orchestrated the passage of a clever act of agricultural protectionism in Congress. Rather than subsidizing corn production (too obvious!), he instead funded a secret campaign to prop up domestic cane sugar growers, and by extension, the price of sugar.

Related Articles

David Brooks: The crucial issue of the 21st Century

Lisa Jarvis: The most valuable menopause fitness hack

Elizabeth Shackelford: Burning down America’s best tool for peace and prosperity

Ara Torosian: I fled persecution in Iran. ICE enforcement here today reminds me of Tehran

Noah Feldman: Congress is surrendering its last real power

His gambit led to the passage of federal legislation in 1981 that restricted sugar imports, guaranteeing that Americans would pay significantly more for the stuff than most nations around the world. Most critics of the legislation have assumed that this was a sop to domestic sugar interests, never realizing the role that ADM and Big Corn played in the legislation.

By the mid-1980s, most soft drink manufacturers had made the switch to high fructose corn syrup, as did a growing number of food companies. Consumption of the new sweetener kept increasing until about 2005, when it peaked. It has declined, however modestly, since that time.

Now RFK Jr. wants to get rid of it altogether. It’s a laudable goal, perhaps, though it’s not clear whether cane sugar is all that much healthier. Still, if he wants to have a shot at succeeding, an awareness of the decades of machinations that led to its ubiquity in our food supply is a good place to start.

Stephen Mihm, a professor of history at the University of Georgia, is coauthor of “Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance.”

Edward Lotterman

The week has been interesting. An early jobs indicator showed stronger growth in July than June. The first estimate of output in the April-to-June quarter showed an annual increase rate of 3.0%, up from the first quarter, but driven paradoxically by declining imports. The increase in the price index for “personal consumption expenditures” that some prefer to the CPI as an inflation measure was up 2.6% on a 12-month-earlier basis, but near 3% if you annualize rates of the last couple of months.

And then a meeting of the Federal Reserve’s policy-making Open-Market Committee saw two of the seven members of the Board of Governors dissent from the recommendation of Chair Jerome Powell. This is highly unprecedented, to put it mildly, but had been telegraphed so far in advance by the dissenters that it had little effect on markets.

We live in interesting times, to put it mildly.  As President Donald Trump announced a blizzard of trade-threat changes on the eve of his Aug. 1 deadline, one precept is essential. Don’t count your chickens – or trade war victories – before they actually materialize.

Ignoring that basic wisdom tends to result in fang marks on one’s posterior parts. This is especially true in economics where long and variable lags between some cause and its eventual effects are the rule rather than the exception. Yet while that should be common sense, it has not stopped a campaign of triumphalism among Trump supporters.

Fox News pundit Larry Kudlow led off with an article headlined “Trump’s trade strategy is working. The so-called experts are wrong, there is no tariff inflation, retaliation or recession.”

On “PBS NewsHour,” Jasmine Wright, the CNN political reporter recently moved to NOTUS, asserted: “Obviously, we haven’t seen this enormous downturn of the economy, which I think a lot of economists projected would happen by now.”

Sigh! Such optimism sounds like someone who falls off Dubai’s 2,722-foot Burj Khalifa and cheerily cries, “So far, so good!” after passing the top two stories. Trump has been in office six months. Four months have passed since his Liberation Day in April. Deadlines, offers and threats have changed on a daily basis. The number of actual signed “deals” is perhaps eight at best. These contain undefined and unmeasurable “commitments” for trade-partner nations to invest in our country. It is far, far too early to assess how things will turn out.

Yes, tariff receipts are up, although mostly from shipments rushed in under historic import duty rates rather than new ones. The to-and-fro blizzard of assertions and threats by the president has left U.S. Customs offices nearly as confused as U.S. importers and exporters. And since many of his declarations break solemn promises he made earlier, whether in his first term or just a few days ago, no one here or abroad can make firm plans about anything without incurring risks.

Citizens and voters need to understand that “lags” wedge themselves almost everywhere and every time between economic policy actions and their consequences.

Wright’s “a lot of economists projected would happen by now” is sheer nonsense. I don’t know of a single reputable economist who predicted that anything major would happen in four or six months. Only a few support the facile prediction that tariffs will result in a one-and-done increase in consumer or producer prices.

No economist need specialize in economic history to know, for example, that effects of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act were still manifesting themselves four years after its implementation. Charles Kindleberger’s classic “The World in Depression: 1929-1939,” good reading for anyone interested in contemporary issues, contains the most famous economic graph of the century, a spiderweb showing how the value of international trade fell month by month from January 1929 to March 1933. At that point, it was 70% below its start.

Without necessarily predicting equal disaster, it is hard to see how the effects of the current administration’s far broader changes in a far more complex global economy could work through any faster.

The problem of lags is not limited to trade issues. In the 1950s, John Maynard Keynes’ argument that governments could and should control the business cycle of booms and busts gripped most economists. He said that by manipulating both fiscal policies — taxing and government spending, and monetary policies – money supply and interest rates – governments could prevent both excessive booms and destructive busts.

In practice, delays or lags in the processes undercut desired results. Fiscal policies first had a “recognition lag,” actually seeing what was going on. Then Congress lagged in changing spending and taxes. Yet another lag delayed effects of such policy actions on the real economy.

Often, the actions were such that they hit just as the economy was adjusting on its own. Stimulus did not always counter slowing. It might piggyback on natural recovery. Fiscal belt-tightening did not come in time to offset booms. It might rather pile on to turn natural slowing into a power dive.

In any case, Congress’ love of stepping on the gas and refusal to ever use brakes made Keynesian fiscal policy unworkable in practice.

The money side of the new theory had been to increase the money supply so as to lower interest rates in the face of recession and to contract money to raise rates when inflation loomed. Yet Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, although parent of the economic school of thought called “monetarism,” warned against such jockeying with money.

Lags that were “long and variable” in his words could compound problems rather than alleviate them. Better to have steady, moderate growth in money over time, ignoring short-term yo-yos in output or employment.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Friedman’s intellectual heirs put all this in formal mathematical models “proving” that Keynes was flat wrong across the board. Their arguments held sway within the discipline but were ignored outside it.

So now bastardized Keynesianism, in which the Federal Reserve is supposed to cure all society’s ills except “distress in the lower tract,” dominates government and the media.

Just this week, Trump nearly foamed at the mouth when the Fed didn’t cut its rate target when the economy was doing so well. He ignored that a thriving economy may be a reason to tighten. He complained that central banks of other industrialized economies have cut rates and we have not. This ignores the fact that, while several have national debt-to-GDP ratios higher than we do, none are blowing up their annual budget deficits the way his “Big, Beautiful Bill” budget is for our nation. The deficit for fiscal year 2026 projected from Congressional Budget Office baselines is over 6% of GDP. The European Union average has been about 3.2%.

The policy arena will remain fraught for a long time. And it will take not only months but years for the U.S. and global economies to adjust to the largest and most abrupt changes in a century. Hang on for a wild ride.

St. Paul economist and writer Edward Lotterman can be reached at stpaul@edlotterman.com.