Administrative Salary Data Analysis

Overview

Analyzing administrative staffing and compensation patterns across comparable school districts provides important context for understanding District 65’s financial challenges. This analysis examines administrative headcount, total compensation, and per-student metrics to identify potential areas for cost optimization.

Update: SY2026-27 (October 2026)

Added October 16, 2026. The charts below are unchanged. They compare District 65 with 18 peer districts using ISBE salary data through 2024. The final Evanston point, labeled 2025, comes from District 65’s own SY2025-26 PA 97-0256 report, because no peer data was available for that year. Peer data for SY2026-27 isn’t available either, so we have not added a point to the charts. Instead, the table compares District 65’s SY2026-27 report with its SY2025-26 report, classifying positions the same way as the charts:

District 65, PA 97-0256 report	SY2025-26	SY2026-27	Change
Administrators	36	30	−6
Administrator total compensation	$6.09M	$4.90M	−$1.19M (−20%)
Principals and assistant principals	28	30	+2
Teachers and other certified staff	751	737	−14
Teacher average total compensation	$110,899	$117,687	+6.1%
Teacher total compensation	$83.28M	$86.74M	+$3.45M (+4.1%)

Total compensation = salary plus retirement contribution, insurance, bonus and annuities. “Administrators” follows the charts’ classification, which includes the IES coordinators (9 → 7) and the teachers’ union president. Built by build_salary_data_update.py; totals in data/d65_salary_fy26_fy27_summary.csv.

Which “administrators”? The District’s FTE file (used on the Staff Data page) and the state salary report (used on the Salary Data page) define the group differently:

FTE file (Staff Data) State report (Salary Data)

Central-office administrators 23 → 20 24 → 21

Principals and assistant principals 28 → 31, counted as administrators 28 → 30, counted separately

IES and other coordinators, union president Not counted as administrators 12 → 9, counted as administrators

Headline 51 → 51 36 → 30

Both show central office down 3. The FTE total holds at 51 because school administrators rose by 3. The salary count falls by 6 because it also includes 3 fewer coordinators and leaves principals out. For what changed in the year Kingsley and Bessie Rhodes closed, see SY26 to SY27: What Changed.

	FTE file (Staff Data)	State report (Salary Data)
Central-office administrators	23 → 20	24 → 21
Principals and assistant principals	28 → 31, counted as administrators	28 → 30, counted separately
IES and other coordinators, union president	Not counted as administrators	12 → 9, counted as administrators
Headline	51 → 51	36 → 30

Part of the drop in administrator pay is temporary. The interim superintendent is a retired educator on a contract limited to 120 paid days, with a $138,000 base salary in this report, against $260,000 for the previous superintendent. A permanent superintendent is to be hired for July 2027.
The rest of the drop is positions that are no longer on this report. These are the Director of MTSS & SEL, the Executive Director of RAAD, the Manager of Student Specialized Services, the Assistant Director of Teaching & Learning, the Multilingual Coordinator and two IES coordinators. A new Assistant Director of Student Services partly offsets them. The report doesn’t say whether these positions were eliminated or vacant on the reporting date. The Admin Growth update tracks the certificated central-office list position by position and checks the District’s new claim that administrators were cut 36%.
Teacher compensation went up even though there are fewer teachers. There are 14 fewer teachers and other certified staff, but their average total compensation rose about 6%, and the total rose $3.45M.

Administrative Headcount Trends

This chart shows the absolute number of administrative staff employed by each district over time. The raw headcount provides a baseline view of administrative staffing levels, though it should be interpreted alongside enrollment data for meaningful comparison.

Administrative Headcount per 1,000 Students

Normalizing administrative headcount by enrollment allows for fair comparison across districts of different sizes. This metric reveals the administrative staffing ratio relative to student population. Districts with higher values employ more administrators per student, which directly impacts per-student spending on administration.

Key Observations

When comparing administrative staffing ratios, it’s important to note that significant variation exists among peer districts. Districts with lower ratios demonstrate that similar sized school systems can operate effectively with leaner administrative structures.

Total Administrative Salary Expenditure

This visualization tracks total administrative salary spending over time. While absolute spending naturally correlates with district size, the trajectory of spending growth provides insight into budgetary priorities and cost management.

Administrative Salary per 1,000 Students

Normalizing administrative salary expenditure by enrollment enables direct comparison of administrative cost efficiency across districts. This metric indicates how much each district spends on administrative personnel per 1,000 students, controlling for differences in district size.

Analysis

Districts with lower per-student administrative costs demonstrate that effective oversight and management can be achieved with more efficient resource allocation. The variation across comparable districts suggests opportunities exist for cost optimization while maintaining educational quality.

Estimated Excess Administrative Cost

Methodology

This analysis calculates the potential cost difference if each district’s administrative staffing ratio matched the average across all peer districts. The calculation:

Determines the average administrative headcount per 1,000 students across all districts
Applies this ratio to each district’s enrollment
Multiplies the difference in headcount by each district’s average administrative salary
Results shown as positive (above average) or negative (below average) values

Interpretation

District 65 shows the highest opportunity for admin cost savings compared to peer districts if staffing levels were adjusted to match peer norms.

This metric provides a data-driven framework for evaluating whether administrative staffing levels align with comparable districts. It should be considered alongside other factors such as district-specific needs, programmatic requirements, and operational complexity.

Implications for Financial Planning

The data presented here offers context for discussions about cost management strategies. While administrative positions serve important functions, the significant variation in staffing ratios and costs among peer districts suggests that different organizational models can effectively serve similar student populations.

When evaluating budget reduction strategies, comparing administrative cost structures to peer districts provides an objective benchmark. Districts operating above peer averages in administrative spending per student may have opportunities to achieve cost savings through organizational efficiency without necessarily impacting classroom instruction.

Calculations for these figures can be viewed in the interactive Jupyter notebook.