A proposed law in California aims to give teachers a 50% raise by 2030.
Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), Chair of the Assembly Education Committee, on Wednesday introduced Assembly Bill 938, a measure that would do just that, something he said would help close the current wage gap between teachers and similarly educated college graduates in other fields.
The bill is supported by organizations including the California Federation of Teachers (CFT), California Teachers Association (CTA), and the California School Employees Association (CSEA).
"Schools across the state are facing a workforce crisis, with many teachers and school employees unable to afford to live in the communities that they work in," Muratsuchi said.
SUGGESTED: LAUSD teachers to see 21% salary increase, smaller class sizes in tentative labor agreement
Specifically, AB 938 would create state Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) funding targets over a seven-year period, with the specific intent of increasing school-site staff salaries by 50% by 2030. The bill would establish targets for the state grant to be increased by 50% by fiscal year 2030-31, while requiring school districts to report their progress in meeting the 50% increase in salaries over a seven-year period.
"As California faces an unprecedented staffing crisis in our public schools, we need real solutions to keep educators and classified professionals in our schools and attract new and diverse talent to the field," said CFT President Jeff Freitas. "The 50 percent salary increase proposed in AB 938 represents an investment in our schools, students, communities, and ultimately the future of our state.
Close to 63% of those not interested in teaching cited pay as one of the top three reasons they were not interested in teaching, according to a statement put out by Muratsuchi's office. It also said research indicates that teachers earn 23.5% less than comparable college graduates.
"The teacher and staff shortage crisis has a direct impact on student achievement. Across the state, school districts continue to struggle to recruit and retain teachers in large part because they are not fairly compensated for the work, time, effort and emotional commitment they give their students each and every day. We commend the members of the committee for their support today," said E. Toby Boyd, President, CTA.
Nick_Full_Time on April 28th, 2023 at 19:14 UTC »
About a month ago my tiny California district announced a 5% retroactive raise for all teachers and then added an 7% increase for next year. Starting salary is now 67k for an intern with no credential, 70k for a first year/76k with a Masters. Top salary for teachers is 135k. I’d take more, but I have no complaints.
It varies tremendously by city. I’m lucky to have a cautious and ethical school district. See the Ontario/Montclair Superintendent for some corruption. You can Google “(city name) school district salary schedule” and generally see them publicly.
FinanceAnalyst on April 28th, 2023 at 17:55 UTC »
50% from 2023 baseline over 7 year period is about 6% pay increase each year (or maybe 8 years depending on merit cycle and timing). It's good, but wouldn't call it game changing.
Slawter91 on April 28th, 2023 at 17:48 UTC »
Teacher here. The fun part is that the bill just ENCOURAGES districts to use it pay teachers more. It does not REQUIRE them to. So, districts are being handed a bunch of extra money with the SUGGESTION that they use it to pay teachers more.
As someone who has spent enough time in public education, I can assure you that the majority of this money will go to sports stadium and gear updates, new administrators and district level folks, and new prepackaged corporate curriculum. Some will probably go to hiring more teachers, which is nice. But, I can guarantee you that teacher pay scales won't suddenly jump up.
EDIT: After further reading, I believe I was wrong about funds being available for sports gear and curriculum. It looks like it has to be used for salaries. Though, my reading of it indicates they could still hire more administrative bloat and fulfill the text of the bill, as it would be increasing the total payroll for the building.