It’s a common contention in debates over school funding: Districts spend too much money on central office staff and not enough on classroom teachers. Now, lawmakers in one state want to make it easier for members of the public to weigh the data for themselves.
The North Carolina legislature is debating a bill that would require school districts to publish the titles, job descriptions, and salaries of administrators on their websites. If the state Senate passes the measure, which passed the House May 1, the state will join others that have moved to boost transparency about compensation for superintendents and central-office administrators.
While public employees’ pay, including that of administrators, is already available through the state’s open-records law, the new requirement would make it easier for parents and community members to access the information and increase accountability for districts, Rep. Erin Paré, a Republican who sponsored the bill, told colleagues in a May 1 hearing.
Democrats who opposed the bill said it feeds into a false narrative of “administrative bloat” in school districts.
“There’s not a way that you can determine that unless you have access to see what that compensation really is, and this bill will provide that,” Paré said.
Growth in administration outpaces student enrollment
Federal data show that, over about a decade, school districts have added administrators faster than they’ve added students. But what has caused that growth, whether it’s necessary, and how much it contributes to strained school finances are all up for debate.
School systems employed 89,000 district-level employees classified as “officials and administrators” in 2022, a 37% increase from 2010, according to the most recent federal data. Meanwhile, pre-k-12 public school enrollment increased from 49.5 million in 2010 to 50.8 million in 2019 before dropping back to 49.6 million in 2022, and that decline is projected to continue.
Even so, the percentage of funds districts spend on general administrative costs has remained relatively stable in that time, holding at about 6.6. percent, federal data show.
The student population has also changed in that time. Schools now enroll more English learners, students with disabilities, students experiencing homelessness, and students from low-income families. Those additional needs come with additional state and federal obligations and often require additional coordination at the district level.
Claims of “administrative bloat” are an oversimplified argument in a much more complicated debate about how to weigh spending priorities, what constitutes adequate funding for education, and the best ways to meet students’ needs, said Jonathan Travers, president and managing partner of Education Resource Strategies, a school finance consulting firm that works with large districts.
When the famous bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he said, “that’s where the money is,” Travers said. But central offices are “convenience stores, not banks,” he said, because there’s much less money held there than in schools.
Fiscal transparency builds trust
The districts Travers consults with typically spend about 6% to9% on central office administrative costs, and it’s unlikely they’ll free up a significant stream of funds by cutting that category.
“It’s important that districts are effective … but to think that a deep rethinking is going to lead to more than a percent of savings is wrong,” he said.
Still, it’s important for district leaders to communicate clearly about spending priorities, Travers said. He pointed to a first-of-its-kind “budget transparency guidebook” created by Denver schools in 2018 that broke down how every facet of the district’s budget in per-pupil figures.
Such efforts are politically smart for districts as they navigate challenges with finances and enrollment, Travers said. But less-nuanced mandates, like the North Carolina bill, may create “more questions than answers,” as the public tries to interpret data with inconsistencies between districts on factors like job titles. (The bill defines central-office staff broadly, including superintendents, assistant superintendents, associate superintendents, directors/coordinators, supervisors, finance officers, and any employee or contractor “that is not assigned to a school campus.”)
“We see transparency as a powerful accountability lever for fiscal stewardship, but not unconditionally,” Travers said.
States adopt accountability measures
North Carolina joins a growing number of state legislatures that have weighed the growth of district administration in recent years.
In August 2024, then-New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, a Republican, signed the “Students First Act,” which requires districts to publish charts showing average teacher salaries, average administrator salaries, and per-pupil costs over the previous 10 years. The law, which takes effect in 2026, also requires districts to list the salaries of the four highest-paid administrators.
“These administrators are not just profiting from taxpayers; they are profiting on the backs of teachers,” New Hampshire Rep. Kristin Noble, a Republican, said, according to the New Hampshire Bulletin.
Lawmakers in Nebraska filed a bill this session that would cap superintendents’ pay at five times that of a beginning teacher, Nebraska Public Radio reported. Supporters of the bill said they could not identify a district that is currently exceeding the proposed cap, which would vary depending on local salary schedules. Texas lawmakers are also considering a bill that would cap superintendent pay.
Such limits may complicate efforts to counter high rates of superintendent turnover, which can make it difficult to consistently carry out district strategies and long-term plans, critics said.
After New Jersey capped superintendent pay in 2011, many superintendents left for district leadership jobs in nearby states while some districts got around the cap by awarding superintendents merit bonuses.
