When School Administrators Get Raises, Students Pay the Price
Let’s start with a question: What happens when your local school superintendent starts driving a nicer car than the biology teacher who’s been mentoring students for 20 years? According to a recent bombshell report by the nonprofit watchdog group Education Accountability Now, the answer isn’t just frustrating—it’s downright infuriating. Their nationwide analysis of school district data reveals a troubling pattern: The higher the salaries of top-tier administrators, the lower student achievement tends to be. While critics of bloated education bureaucracies might say, “We told you so,” the study’s findings have reignited debates about where schools should prioritize funding—and who truly drives student success.
The Study That Confirmed Everyone’s Suspicions
The report, which examined 1,200 school districts across 45 states, found a statistically significant inverse relationship between administrator compensation and measurable student outcomes. Districts where superintendents and other high-level administrators earned salaries above the 90th percentile for their regions consistently underperformed in standardized test scores, graduation rates, and college readiness benchmarks. For every 10% increase in administrator pay, districts saw a 5% decline in math proficiency and a 4% drop in reading scores over a five-year period.
But here’s the kicker: These trends held true even when controlling for factors like district wealth, student demographics, and per-pupil spending. In other words, it’s not just that wealthy districts pay administrators more and have struggling students—it’s that pumping money into administrative salaries itself correlates with worse outcomes.
Why Does This Happen?
Researchers and educators point to three interconnected issues:
1. Resource Misallocation
When districts prioritize administrator pay, they often divert funds from classrooms. A 2022 analysis by the National Education Association found that for every $100,000 increase in superintendent salaries, districts hired 2.5 fewer teachers or counselors. This creates larger class sizes, overworked staff, and fewer support systems for students. As one middle school teacher in Ohio joked, “Our superintendent’s bonus could’ve bought new textbooks for the whole district. Instead, we’re sharing photocopies from 2006.”
2. The Bureaucracy Bloat Cycle
Highly paid administrators often justify their salaries by creating new administrative roles—think “Director of Strategic Initiatives” or “Chief Equity Officer”—which further drain budgets. A Stanford University study found that districts with the highest-paid administrators employed 40% more non-teaching staff than leaner districts, creating layers of bureaucracy that slow decision-making and distance leaders from classroom realities.
3. Incentives Gone Wrong
When administrator contracts tie bonuses to metrics like “efficiency gains” or “cost savings,” the easiest way to hit targets is by cutting programs that directly impact students: arts, sports, tutoring, and teacher training. Meanwhile, metrics like “student well-being” or “long-term academic growth” are harder to quantify—and often ignored.
Case in Point: Two Districts, Two Outcomes
Consider the contrasting stories of two districts:
– Green Valley Unified (California)
With a superintendent earning $450,000 annually (more than the state’s governor), Green Valley has become a poster child for administrative excess. The district has 14 non-teaching administrators for every 100 students but ranks in the bottom 15% of California schools in college readiness. Parents recently protested when the district slashed its music program while approving a $2 million “branding initiative” to redesign its logo.
– Riverside School District (Iowa)
Riverside’s superintendent earns $98,000 a year—below the state average—but the district consistently outperforms wealthier neighbors. Teachers here benefit from small class sizes, annual stipends for classroom supplies, and a mentorship program pairing new educators with veterans. “Our admin team works for us, not above us,” said a high school chemistry teacher. “If we need something, they find a way—no fancy titles required.”
Breaking the Cycle: What Works?
The solution isn’t as simple as slashing administrator pay. However, the report highlights districts that reversed the trend by:
– Linking Pay to Performance
Several states now require administrator bonuses to depend on student-focused metrics like literacy improvements or career pathway enrollment.
– Transparency Campaigns
Districts in Colorado and Maine publish “budget breakdowns” showing exactly how much goes to classrooms vs. administrative overhead. This has led to public pressure to rebalance spending.
– Empowering Teachers in Leadership Roles
Schools in Oregon and Georgia have reduced mid-level administrative roles by creating hybrid positions where experienced teachers spend part of their time on curriculum planning or staff training. This keeps funding closer to students while valuing educator expertise.
The Bigger Picture: Who’s Really Driving Success?
At its core, this debate asks us to rethink what—and who—we value in education. Students thrive when supported by passionate teachers, up-to-date resources, and manageable class sizes. None of these require a six-figure administrator. As policy analyst Dr. Linda Torres notes, “A great principal or superintendent can absolutely transform a district, but stacking the payroll with overpaid executives rarely does. True leadership isn’t about titles—it’s about prioritizing the people doing the work.”
So next time your school board debates a raise for administrators, ask one question: Could this money put a teacher in a classroom, a laptop in a student’s hands, or a counselor in a struggling school? If the answer is yes, the choice seems clear. After all, the best investment schools can make isn’t in corner offices—it’s in the futures sitting at those desks.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » When School Administrators Get Raises, Students Pay the Price