Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Teacher Compensation and Local Levies: Take it Away, Rep Hunter

Very dense and meaty.  I think it's mostly fact-based (rather than party-prone).   Rep. Ross Hunter explains teacher compensation and local levies in his McCleary Phase II.

This chart shows how teacher salaries have been constructed since 1996. The gray portion at the top is the part provided by local levies, not by the state.

Teacher salaries aren’t the only cost. School districts also pay classified staff and administrators, and the split between state and local funding is even greater for these categories than it is for teachers.

Average Salaries for Teachers

To figure out the gray area in the above chart you have to figure out which teachers are doing “basic education” and which are providing “extras.” For example, the basic ed model (adopted in HB 2261 and HB 2276 in 2009 and 2010) assumes a six period day. The Bellevue School District has seven, providing more options to students. This requires more teachers. Then you need to know how much of their time is spent on basic education. Many teachers do extra stuff, like coaching or advising a club.

Compensation by School District

2 comments:

Ross Hunter said...

Thanks for the link! Lots more at www.rosshunter.info.

Anonymous said...

So I looked at

Ross Hunter's link to McCleary part II

While it is generally quite informative, I think there may be a part that leads to an incorrect perception.

He states: Today we have a very complicated system where we figure out exactly which teachers every district has hired and send them an amount of money that’s adjusted based on the actual experience and education levels of teachers.

While perhaps technically true, this does not mean that a more educated and experienced teacher does not cost the district more than an inexperienced teacher.

The reason that I believe this comes from Hunter's own charts. It appears that the state's contribution to a district only covers about 2/3 of a teacher's cost. Thus a $100,000 (wages and benefits ) teacher needs to be paid about (1/3) * $100,000 out of district funds, while a $60,000 (wages and benefits) teacher costs the district (1/3) * $60,000.

If the state was covering the entire cost of each teacher then it would be correct that the experienced teacher can be selected by the district without incurring any additional costs above hiring an inexperienced teacher. (Which was the case in 1984).

Today my guess would be it costs a district about $10,000 to $15,000 more to employ the more experienced teacher. Thus districts may find it financially advantageous to force out experienced teachers and hire inexperienced teachers.

I do appreciate Ross Hunter's work on this issue, as inquiring minds wish to know.

Inquiring Mind