Texas Spend Billions on Public Schools. Where Does the Money Go?

Texans paid nearly$105 billion last year to support public schools. They expect that money to go towards providing students with a quality education, not to merely employ adults or line the pockets of outside consultants and contractors.

If Texas wants a school system that is focused on effective education and not the appearance of prestige, then the exorbitant spending on administration must end, or we might start to suspect its about something other than achieving educational excellence.

The rise of the education administrative state has worried education reformers for some time. Since 1992, Texas’ student population has increased by 54% and teaching staff has increased by 73%. Meanwhile, non-teacher staff has increased by 238%. And 52% of Texas school staff are now nonteachers, and their compensation cost schools $19.5 billion in 2025-26.

As previously noted by James Quintero, in 2025-26, 30 superintendents in Texas made over $400,000 in total compensation, and five made over half a million dollars.

It has only been this year, however, that reporting by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) broke down the base pay and total pay, revealing just how much superintendents received in benefits. Before, the investigative  journalists like those at the Houston Chronicle could only hint at the scale of extra-salary benefits. These benefits include cellphone and technology allowances in the thousands of dollars, money for travel and cars in the tens of thousands of dollars, and, in one case, a cost-of-living stipend of $42,000 a year.

The most significant form of benefit, however, is much less glamorous. Many of these superintendents earn their gaudy total pay through bonuses given at the end of each year that grow the longer the superintendent remains at the district. These bonuses are paid in the form of contributions to the superintendent’s retirement account. This is a boon for the superintendent because those payments are typically tax-free until withdrawal.

Even the total pay, though, only counts benefits that directly accrue to the superintendent; it does not count non-monetary benefits such as personal drivers and memberships to local civic and country clubs. Some districts have even built multimillion-dollar homes for their superintendents, and one resigned after using district money to renovate the house without board permission.

In total, superintendents were paid an additional $14.1 million in benefits or about 7% extra. This figure is misleading, though, because most superintendents receive modest or no pay apart from their salary. The top 200 superintendents account for $11.3 million, or 79%, of all additional compensation. The other approximately 1,000 superintendents make $20,000 or less in additional compensation.

This pattern suggests that benefits do not organically grow with salary but are extra cherries on top for an elite group of superintendents. The question, though, is what is the purpose of these cherries? If some districts have decided to create extra incentives to attract the best superintendents, then this is public competition on the dime of the taxpayer.

A more troubling phenomenon, however, is that superintendents know that their mission is bigger than just improving academic performance. It is no secret that superintendents are a strong lobbying force for school funding, whether through the state funding formula or in bond elections. At times, districts have crossed the line, with bond campaign materials and websites that are indistinguishable from district materials. Superintendents do not benefit directly from increased debt spending, but do receive plaudits for keeping the gravy train running.

It’s difficult to not recall the example of former Northside ISD superintendent Brian Woods, who was accused of attempting to improperly influence a nearly $1 billion bond election by, among other things, telling district staff he was receiving lists of who was voting.

Ultimately, however, Woods received no punishment, and is now the Director of Advocacy for the Texas Association of School Administrators, an organization that is relied upon to make recommendations for superintendent positions.

This is why those dedicated to extracting resources from the public education system are sometimes called a cartel. Different entities in the governmental, nonprofit, and the private sector, all working towards one goal—milking every dollar they can out of the taxpayer.

Eliminating obscene superintendent salaries won’t fix public education overnight. But a firmer ceiling on administrative salaries would shift the focus back on improving academic outcomes rather than increasing administrative bloat. It’s time school administration returned to being about the school bus and not the Mercedes.