Spending vs. results

Key facts

• Operating spending: $284.8M (fiscal 2015) to $491.2M (fiscal 2025). After inflation, per student, up 9.1%.¹ In 2024-25 that was $11,556 per student, a bit above $11,380, the middle of the 10 other similar districts.²
• Where the growth went: payroll, 91% of it.³
• Staff grew 14.2% while students grew 6.4% (2018-19 to 2024-25).⁴
• State grade: B, 88 in 2025 and 87 in 2026. Middle peer: 87 in 2025, 87.5 in 2026.⁵
• Share of state tests at grade level (“Meets”), 2024-25: Leander 65%; middle peer 63%.⁶
• Students from low-income families at grade level: Leander 39%; middle peer 43%.⁶

In short

This page asks what residents get for the money. Day-to-day spending grew a lot, and most of the growth went to payroll.³ Staff grew faster than students.⁴ Test results are close to similar districts.⁶ Money is only one thing that shapes results.

Why it matters to your tax bill: the operating part of your bill (called M&O) pays for this spending, so it is fair to ask what it buys.

Related: staffing · reserves and deficit · debt

Layer 1: The question

Are residents getting more for more money? To answer it you need two lists side by side: what each district spends, and how its students do. We checked both against state data. Neither list proves cause and effect.

Layer 2: The spending side (checked)

• Spending per student, after inflation, rose 9.1% over ten years.¹
• Almost all of the growth was pay: payroll rose $126.7 million.³
• Pay per staff member, after inflation, fell 0.8%. So most of the growth came from more people, not bigger raises.⁷
• Average teacher pay is lower: $61,716 on average vs. $65,128 for the state’s peer group, and $62,977 for four nearby districts (2024-25).⁸
• Central office: 2.18% of operating spending, 5th of 11. But per student it grew 69%, 3rd fastest.⁹
• In the main fund, from 2018-19 to 2024-25, after inflation, money in per student fell 9.0% (not counting interest earned). Spending per student rose 2.0%.¹⁰ (This counts the main fund only. The 4.6% rise for the same years in ¹ counts all operating funds.)

Questions to ask

• How much of the staff growth came from opening new schools?
• How does the district measure whether added staff changed results?

Changes to this page

• Nov. 2, 2026: We took internal document numbers out of the source notes.
• Nov. 2, 2026: Added questions to ask.
• Nov. 2, 2026: We checked every figure against its source. We reworded the other-side points so they stick to what the sources show.
• Nov. 2, 2026: We narrowed the low-income comparison to the state and the peers we have figures for.

What you can do or watch next

• Watch spending and results in each year’s budget and school report cards.
• You can ask the board how it measures results during public comment.

What we still don’t know

• Whether the extra staff caused better results. The data shows they happen together, not that one causes the other.
• How much of the staff growth came from new schools, which need a basic staff no matter how many students they have.

Layer 3: The results side (checked against state data)

• College-level coursework: 43% of graduates met AP or IB criteria in 2022, 44% in 2023, 43% in 2024. Flat.¹¹
• Reading: 71% of tests at grade level, 4th of 11 (middle peer 65.5%). Math: 58%, tied for 5th of 11 (middle peer 57%).¹²
• Spending vs. results: Leander spends $11,556 per student on day-to-day costs, 5th highest of 11 (middle peer $11,380). Its 2025 state score (88) is tied for 3rd of 11, with two other districts.²⁵ Reading is above the middle; math is at or just above it.
• Download the table (CSV).
• Method used: same 10 peer districts as peer districts (our pick: suburban, 24k–96k students, growing).¹³ Compare the 2025 state grade and the share of tests at “Meets” level. See the spending vs. results line above.
• Caution: about 17% of Leander’s students are from low-income families, far below the state (about 60%) and below the three peers we have this figure for (Hays, Pflugerville and Round Rock, 27% to 50%).¹⁴ Fewer low-income students tends to lift overall scores. The low-income group’s results are below the peer middle.⁶

One warning about the district’s own report. Its ten-year spending table (Table 16) shows main-fund spending of about $276 million for 2022-23. The audited statement in the same report, and state data, both show about $441 million. Every other year matches within about $2 million. So that one year in Table 16 looks wrong. Anyone using it would think spending per student dropped that year.¹⁵ The district may simply have made a typing or copying error.

The district’s side

We did not find a district document that answers this page point by point. These figures do not show whether added staff went to new programs or smaller classes. New schools opened in these years, and each needs a principal, office staff and nurses even before it fills up.

Another way to read it: spending is 5th of 11 and the state score is tied for 3rd, so both are near or above the middle. Students from low-income families score below the peer middle.⁶

Go deeper

• Where the money goes: ten years · More staff, not bigger raises · teacher pay · central office · Peer districts

Footnotes

1. TEA PEIMS actual financial data, operating spending in funds 1xx–4xx (functions 11–61, objects 61–64), not the general fund alone; our inflation math. Inputs: 2014-15 spending $284,846,093 for 36,105 students; 2024-25 spending $491,212,282 for 42,507 students (TEA fall enrollment); prices rose by a factor of 1.3425 over that time. That gives a real per-student rise of about 9.1%. ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. TEA PEIMS actual financial data FY2025, operating spending ÷ enrollment; our math. The 10 similar districts are fast-growing suburban districts with 24,000 to 96,000 students: Round Rock, Pflugerville, Hays, Frisco, Prosper, Northwest, Katy, Conroe, Lamar and Comal. Their middle (median) is $11,380; Leander is 5th highest of the 11. ↩ ↩²

3. TEA PEIMS, spending by object, same funds, fiscal 2019 to 2025: payroll (objects 61xx) $293.7 million to $420.4 million, up $126.7 million of the $139.3 million rise (91%); our math. ↩ ↩² ↩³

4. TEA Texas Academic Performance Reports, staff and enrollment counts; our math. ↩ ↩²

5. Texas Education Agency, 2025 statewide accountability summary, final after appeals (Dec. 11, 2025) and 2026 multi-year ratings spreadsheet. The 2026 rating can still change on appeal. ↩ ↩²

6. Texas Education Agency, 2025 accountability data download, STAAR all subjects, district level; middles are our math. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

7. TEA PEIMS payroll and TAPR staff counts; our inflation math. ↩

8. TEA TAPR 2024-25, average teacher salary ($61,716). Four-nearby average (Hays, Pflugerville, Georgetown, Round Rock) from TAPR. Peer figure from the district’s Efficiency Audit, Fig. 10 (TEA peer group; Sept. 17, 2026 board packet). ↩

9. TEA PEIMS, central administration, fiscal 2016–2025; our ranking. ↩

10. TEA PEIMS, general fund revenue and spending; our inflation math. ↩

11. Leander ISD TAPR, board packet BB 725242, page 32. ↩

12. Texas Education Agency 2025 accountability data download, STAAR reading and math, district level. Our recount from the TEA file. “Middle peer” is the median of the 10 peer districts; it changes if Leander is counted too. ↩

13. Our peer method, our analysis notes section 1. ↩

14. TEA Texas Academic Performance Reports 2024-25, student information, district pages for Leander, Hays, Pflugerville and Round Rock; state figure from the same reports. We do not yet have this figure for the other seven peers. ↩

15. Leander ISD ACFR 2023, Exhibit C-3 (general fund spending $441,296,340), vs. Table 16 ($276,286,595), repeated in the 2024 and 2025 reports; TEA PEIMS $441,296,011. ↩