Since most U.S. states rely heavily on per-pupil funding models, projected decreases in school-aged children through 2030 and rapidly expanding private school voucher policies have raised concerns about potentially inadequate public school funding. A recent EdChoice report suggests that such underfunding concerns are overstated. Its rationale is that districts with declining enrollment have more resources for remaining students, partly because federal, state, and local funding do not always drop proportionately as student enrollment drops. However, the report is severely limited in that it applies an unreasonably simplistic analytical approach to draw conclusions about complicated and contextually nuanced topics. In particular, the report has five main faults: (a) it oversimplifies the categorization of school district types; (b) it fails to consider structural cost differences that influence district finances; (c) it lacks an adequate approach to analyzing longitudinal data; (d) it includes faulty assumptions about how per-student expenditures benefit students; and (e) it fails to consider how more severe declines in student enrollment can trigger reduced services, school closures, and other reductions that would negatively impact students, especially those with the greatest needs. In short, the report's unsophisticated approach to a complex topic offers readers--especially policymakers and state leaders--nothing useful.