A public-policy watchdog has released a report analyzing payroll growth across more than 12,500 U.S. public-school districts from 2019 through 2023, examining how changes in district staffing budgets correspond with student achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The NAEP, often referred to as the nation’s report card, measures fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics. The analysis found that districts with higher payroll growth tended to fall further behind in NAEP rankings relative to other states, suggesting that simply spending more on staff does not reliably translate into better student outcomes.
The study, conducted by Open the Books, examined payroll expansion and compared it with changes in state NAEP rankings. Among the six states that boosted payrolls the most—by 23% or more—three ranked among the top five biggest losers in NAEP proficiency, with another state ranking sixth in losses. Only Utah bucked that trend, increasing payroll by 62% but registering a small 3% gain in NAEP rankings. Vermont, which raised payroll 74%, suffered a substantial drop, ranking as the nation’s third-largest loss in NAEP performance. By contrast, Hawaii restrained payroll growth to 1.5% yet posted a 14% gain in NAEP rankings—the largest improvement of any state in the index.
The report also notes a stark contrast with states that spend heavily per pupil yet post middling or weak results. New York, for example, allocates more per student than any other state, yet its NAEP scores have not consistently mirrored that level of investment. The authors caution that payroll data in the analysis does not separate teacher pay from administrator pay, a gap that matters for interpreting the linkage between spending and outcomes. While some studies have found that higher teacher pay can improve student results when tied to performance incentives, the Open the Books analysis emphasizes that increased spending on non-teaching personnel may be a larger driver of the observed declines.
Several district-level examples cited by the report illustrate the potential misalignment between payroll increases and educational outcomes. In Maine, payroll rose 19% while the state experienced one of the largest declines in NAEP scores. In Portland—the state’s largest district—years of concentrated growth for administrative positions led to a surge in six-figure salaries for roles such as principals and other district leaders. The report also highlights Maryland’s decade-long, $30 billion education initiative, which critics say produced little measurable improvement in reading and math outcomes and directed funds toward programs described as equity-focused rather than classroom instruction.
The authors argue that the spending pattern points to a broader public-bureaucracy dynamic: resources flowing toward administrators and “equity” specialists rather than directly toward instruction and foundational literacy and numeracy programs. They note that in some districts, staff devoted to equity-focused roles and related positions comprise a sizable portion of the workforce, suggesting that payroll allocations may be redirected away from core teaching and learning activities. While the analysis does not call for cuts in teachers’ pay per se, it implies that structural payroll choices deserve scrutiny when evaluating how to lift student performance.
Critics of the spending-heavy model contend that simple increases in school funding do not automatically generate better outcomes, especially when dollars are not linked to measurable instructional gains. Proponents of increased school funding argue that improving student achievement requires sustained investment in teacher quality, curriculum development, and targeted supports for students who enter school with disadvantages. The Open the Books report adds a data-driven perspective to that debate by underscoring that the relationship between payroll size and NAEP performance is not straightforward and varies by state and district.
The analysis arrives amid ongoing national conversations about how best to allocate limited education dollars in a way that meaningfully boosts reading and math proficiency. Supporters of rapid investment in classrooms point to evidence that well-supported teachers—through mentoring, professional development, and targeted literacy initiatives—can raise student outcomes. Opponents of broad-based payroll expansion warn that bloated administrative staff and misaligned priorities can divert funds from the front lines of learning.
Officials with school districts, state education departments, and independent researchers will likely scrutinize the report’s methodology and findings. The study highlights a need for greater transparency in how districts allocate funds across personnel categories and instructional programs, and it raises questions about whether current budgeting practices align with long-term student learning goals. As policymakers weigh cost, access, and outcomes, the central question remains: what mix of staffing, training, and classroom resources best supports students’ progress on national benchmarks?
For readers following the broader political debate over education policy, the report contributes to a pattern in which fiscal inputs are scrutinized against measured outcomes. While the NAEP remains a cornerstone for assessing national progress, critics note that state and district results depend on many factors beyond payroll levels, including student demographics, community context, classroom time, and the quality of instructional materials. Still, the Open the Books analysis adds a provocative data point to an ongoing discussion about how best to structure school spending to maximize student learning, particularly in an era of heightened emphasis on accountability and performance metrics.
As jurisdictions consider next steps, observers will be watching not only the dollar figures tied to payroll but also how those dollars are earmarked and implemented on the ground. The ultimate test, some argue, is whether investments translate into tangible gains in reading and mathematics for students across the country, especially in districts where learning gains have stalled or regressed in recent years. The study invites educators and policymakers to reexamine assumptions about how to allocate resources—with an emphasis on aligning payroll decisions with clear, demonstrable improvements in student achievement.