The Sad, Sad Story Of California's Underpaid Public Employees
Joseph Perkins at CalWatchdog lays out the tragic tale of school custodians making only $108,000.00 a year, thanks to a California tax measure voters approved to fund education.
Well, it's been an education for me: Wanna earn a good living? Get a mop and get connected to somebody who will get you one of those janitorial jobs so you, too, can suck off the public trough.
Eduardo Benard, a custodian at San Francisco's Leonard R. Flynn Elementary School, received $107,912.31 in pay and benefits in 2013.He was one of 31 custodians employed by California public schools that boasted more than $100,000 in compensation last year, according to just-release figures revealed on Transparent California, a database maintained by the nonpartisan California Policy Center.
The handsome compensation packages enjoyed by Benard and the other six-figure custodians almost certainly aren't what California voters had in mind when they approved Proposition 30 two years ago.The measure, championed by Gov. Jerry Brown and the Democratic-controlled Legislature, and bankrolled by such special interests as the California Teachers Association and SEIU/California State Council of Service Employees, imposed $7 billion in new taxes for seven years, 89 percent of which was supposed to reach the state's K-12 classrooms.
But Prop. 30 has proven a bait-and-switch. Indeed, 80 percent of the Prop. 30 money the state has collected has gone to salaries and benefits of public school employees, according to the state Controller's Office.
That includes Jose Fernandez, who left his post this month as superintendent of the Centinela Valley School District after revelations by the Daily Breeze in Torrance that he received more than $763,000 in total compensation last year.
Anyone around here still think government exists to protect us?
But, wait -- there's some debate in the comments section below the piece:
What kind of "journalist" divulges two pieces of information: name and total compensation, without any context or investigation? And why? Did Mr. Perkins call Eduardo and ask about his pay? Or inform him that his pay would be published?For those who are contemplating applying for a " six-figure custodians" job, try to rein in your envy. The top pay scale for a custodian in the San Francisco Unified School District is $3,800 a month. Off the top, subtract 8% for CalPERS. Not a lot of take home pay for San Francisco cost of living.
Mr. Bernard apparently worked a LOT of overtime, and it appears that a large part of his compensation *may* have been from cashing in vacation upon retirement.
"A lot of overtime"? Did he not eat or sleep for an entire year?
Look for yourself at what school custodians are making, here at transparentcalifornia. And yes, benefits are counted -- and should be as part of salary.
In case you were wondering, no, those public school teachers that the union whines are grossly underpaid don't make what janitors do. Per Perkins, here's the deal:
The reality is that the average full-time teacher received nearly $85,000 in pay and benefits in 2013, according to Transparent California. And nearly 35,000 teachers received more than $100,000 in compensation.
And remember that they aren't working a full year for that.
via @reasonpolicy
Don't blame me, I voted against Prop 30. I haven't voted for any of these stupid thing for a long time.
BigFire at July 29, 2014 11:18 PM
That "transparentcalifornia" link is pretty amazing.
Click on a school district, for example, "San Francisco Unified". The most striking thing is that the first 10 pages or so are filled with school administrators. Why is it that all school administrators should earn more than even the best teachers? And just why do schools need so many administrators?
a_random_guy at July 30, 2014 1:48 AM
Glenn Reynolds has written about this vis a vis colleges -- and there, the administrators are also raking it in.
On campuses, the administrators raking it in leads to a desire to squash any unpleasant publicity (via unpleasant free speech), making campuses places with speech codes and speech zones.
Amy Alkon at July 30, 2014 6:14 AM
why do schools need so many administrators?
We've been conquered. Not by the legislature or governors or presidents as politicians come and go, but the persistent and never ending mandarin class of bureaucrats.
They are our rulers, as they're the ones that write the rules that implements the laws passed by the politicians. And in many cases, judge whether we're abiding by those rules.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 30, 2014 6:53 AM
Almost no one -- not the school boards, not the teachers, not the general public -- seems to recognize the market realities of teaching. There's still this myth that public school teachers are vastly underpaid -- a belief that holds over from the '70s, when there was some truth to it, but it general it hasn't been true for decades.
The market for elemetary school teachers is very much a buyer's market. Ed schools crank out lower-grade teachers by the thousands, and thanks to tenure, most school systems only have a few openings each year. The ones that succeed in landing a full-time job have in effect hit the lottery; they have a job that pays pretty well, gives them the summer off, and they don't have to actually work very much. (Some of them go way above and beyond the job requirements, and good for them, but that doesn't change the fact that a lower-grade teacher can slack and get away with it.)
On the other hand, you can make a market argument that high school teachers are underpaid. School systems have a tough time recruiting high-school teachers; it's considered an undesirable job, and most ed schools don't train teachers for high school very much. For qualified high school instructors, it's a seller's market, and most school boards don't really get this. They patch around the problem by taking on teachers that are not qualified to teach the subjects they are assigned.
It dawns on me that in a merit-based system, teaching the lower grades would be the entry-level jobs. These jobs don't really require four-year degrees; an associates' degree from a junior college would be sufficient. Teachers would move to higher grade levels as they gain in experience and education/training. High school teachers would be the most experienced and best paid.
Cousin Dave at July 30, 2014 7:09 AM
Cousin Dave,
And this would fit in nicely with things like my school district does as part of their contract with the teachers. They pay for 70% of your Masters for any teachers that don't have one, and 50% of your Doctorate. Not too many teachers took the Doctorate route, but a lot of teachers were in night school for Masters.
spqr2008 at July 30, 2014 7:21 AM
Man, was I teaching in the wrong town.
NicoleK at July 30, 2014 9:13 AM
It dawns on me that in a merit-based system, teaching the lower grades would be the entry-level jobs. These jobs don't really require four-year degrees; an associates' degree from a junior college would be sufficient. Teachers would move to higher grade levels as they gain in experience and education/training. High school teachers would be the most experienced and best paid.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at July 30, 2014 7:09 AM
This would make sense if the specialized classes in high school were just a continuation of knowledge gained in a regular college degree..
Unfortunately, a college history degree, or math or Chemistry degree is light years of difficulty beyond what is required of an elementary education major.
I am in favor of a return to a normal school system, where teaching in the lower grades requires some basic classroom management courses, and a competency test, or medium range SAT score.
Junior high should require twenty to thirty hours of classes in the subject area, and high school, thirty six or more, or possibly a cut off score on the graduate record exam for the subject you want to teach.
History classes in high school, became a rolling joke, when they became the place to put the football coach.
Isab at July 30, 2014 9:42 AM
A friend of mine is a high school science teacher. The school district he now works for had the position open for two years because nobody was really applying for the job and the few that did were grossly underqualified. They hired him on the spot saying he was literally the only qualified candidate to apply for the job. He'd been teaching science classes at a small private school previously, but needed to relocate for his wife's job.
BunnyGirl at July 30, 2014 9:57 AM
Was a time when in order to teach math you needed a math degree, not a "study of education"
Schools today dont hire teacher trained to teach the subject, the hire teacher trained to teach a system regardless of the subject
lujlp at July 30, 2014 10:42 AM
Lujlp,
When I grew up you needed a physical education degree to teach math. In 12 years I only had one math teacher who had actually studied and understood math. Many of my grade school teachers had trouble with addition and subtraction if you took their teachers copies away. We were rated on of the top schools in the area. RISD (Richardson Independent School District, Dallas suburbs).
The truth is there is a negative correlation between education spending and education quality. When you have all that money you can blow it on stupid things instead of basic teaching.
Ben at July 30, 2014 12:07 PM
Part of that, Ben, might be because there's also a correlation between high spending and at-risk urban youth if I remember my stats from my, yep, education major.
You do have to take a test in whatever subject you want to teach, at least in MA, to get the preliminary certification. And the school districts I looked at won't hire you unless your undergrad is in the field you want to teach, or a similar one.
NicoleK at July 30, 2014 1:12 PM
Cousin Dave: I agree with most of what you say, but one thing is wrong. It should not be possible to progress as a teacher from elementary education to high school. They are (or should be) very different jobs.
Elementary education requires you to be able to read, write and do some basic math - and you teach everything, all subjects. The core skills are child psychology and pedagogical training, plus a love of small children.
A high school teacher (and, I would argue, junior high / middle school as well), teachers are subject-specific. They should be good in their subjects, they should certainly hold at least a bachelor's degree in what they teach. Psychology and pedagogy are less important, and could be taken as seminars, or perhaps a minor within their bachelor's degree.
One last point: the "don't work very much" bit. Sure, the summers are more-or-less down time, but during the school year there is plenty to do. If people slack off and get away with it, that's not the job, that is individual lousy teachers who ought to be flipping hamburgers instead of teaching. Make is possible to fire bad teachers, and do it, problem solved. Please fire at least half of the administrators at the same time.
a_random_guy at July 30, 2014 11:36 PM
It sounds a bit high to me but I would want to see the break down. Years ago an employer sent each employee a packet with what the company considered there total compensation (salary & benefits, etc.) and it shocked me. Some of it I kind of feel was bogus... the one I distinctly remember was $1200 for parking below market value and parking co-ordination. I paid $120 a month to park in the company lot and they said the real value was $220 so 100 of that is a benefit to me. Then they had a field that was something like total cost of employee which was how much they spent overall - e.g. office space, etc.
Teacher pay varys alot by place. Years ago just out of college I had a friend who lived on the Idaho/oregon border. When she got work in oregon it was 30K/year...Idaho 20k.
The Former Banker at July 31, 2014 12:29 AM
Yeah, total compensation can include some strange things. Take the salary plus overtime as a better indicator.
The salaries I saw on the California site were certainly competitive. San Francisco median family income (according to Wikipedia) is a bit over $70k/year. Plenty of teachers in San Francisco are earning $70k. Really, they have no room to complain. Especially anyone in elementary education, which is (as Cousin Dave said) frankly a low-level job.
My heartburn comes with the huge number of administrators and their salaries. As far as I can see, school administrators exist only to enable the teachers to work efficiently. There is no reason for the average administrator to earn as much as the average teacher.
a_random_guy at July 31, 2014 6:45 AM
"Make is possible to fire bad teachers, and do it, problem solved. "
That was my point, actually: There are a lot of teachers who work hard, but they do so out of their own initiative, not because their employer requires them to. If they decide they'd rather slack, there's nothing the school board can do about it.
Cousin Dave at July 31, 2014 6:45 AM
I taught for a few years at a German college where the departmental administration was shared out among the teachers. There were two administrative positions in our department: dean and assistant dean. We all hated administrative work, so we took turns.
This made for a very pleasant atmosphere. Nobody got stuck up on their authority as department head, because next year it would be someone else's turn. Everybody taught most of the time. Some people were better at the administrative stuff, some were worse, but it all evened out.
bradley13 at July 31, 2014 6:56 AM
'"A lot of overtime"? Did he not eat or sleep for an entire year? '
Sounds like some of the ATC overtime scams were used. Often giving double or triple overtime.
ATC don't have 40 hr weeks, too high stress of a job, so all generally work 20 something, anything over is overtime. Which they should keep to a minimum because that high stress thing, but overtime pay is only a coworkers phone call away.
So what happens is admin makes up the schedule with one or two on call. But controllers swap shifts so this week John, does all his 20 hrs by Wed. Then Bob calls in sick, and Alice and Jane were on call but are mysteriously unreachable. So they have to use John in overtime. So John works another 20 hrs that week, oops some was on a weekend, double overtime, oh it's a holiday weekend, triple overtime. Next week, Bob does all his hours by Wed, and John is the sick one.
So instead of John working 20 hrs a week his monthly time sheet would look more like;
Week 1; 40 hrs (20 regular, 20 triple overtime)
Week 2; 0 hrs
Week 3; 40 hrs (20 regular 20 overtime)
Week 4, 0 hrs
So he worked the 80 hrs he should have but gets paid for 150.
Joe j at July 31, 2014 7:06 AM
I'd hazard a guess that the custodians come a lot closer to actually earning their pay than the myriad school administrators do.
Nolo Contendere at July 31, 2014 12:49 PM
NicoleK,
The biggest correlation is overhead. RISD had 1.5 administrators per teacher. Even though on average each administrator made less than the average teacher the sheer number of them meant 50% of the districts money went into administration.
And at risk urban youth is not a persuasive excuse. Since the 1960 the US has spent more and more on education while getting increasingly worse results. Resources are clearly misallocated.
Ben at July 31, 2014 3:57 PM
"I'd hazard a guess that the custodians come a lot closer to actually earning their pay than the myriad school administrators do."
That's assuming that they are actual custodians. I remember reading a newspaper report about the Knoxville, Tennessee school system in the '70s. On the books, they had about double the number of custodians that were actually working. The rest were union featherbedding no-show jobs.
Cousin Dave at August 1, 2014 6:16 AM
a_random_guy
"Why is it that all school administrators should earn more than even the best teachers?"
They're the bosses, of course they get paid more then the people who do the actual work. Never mind that most of them are just doing paperwork - they're the bosses _as a class_, and the ones who actually are bosses set the salaries...
"And just why do schools need so many administrators?"
1. Administrators rate their status by how many flunkies they can get on the payroll.
2. Federal education funding requires a lot of paperwork, and you need people to fill it out. There's only so much that can be shuffled off on the teachers and pretend they still have time to teach.
3. Back when I was in public schools (1958-1971), administrators were just jumped-up teachers (IMO, usually selected because they possessed a Y chromosome rather than for any special skills as teachers or anything else), and they could pass the much smaller paperwork load off on secretaries (who lacked a Y chromosome and hence could forget about getting a job title and salary matching their ability). It didn't take me long to learn that the secretaries actually ran the school - and were quite good managers. Nowadays, women with similar skills and ability as many of the school secretaries may be corporate CEO's, doctors (rather than nurses), or college professors (rather than elementary teachers). What bright and talented young women rarely become is public-school administrators; that's a separate major in education schools nowadays, and most of the young men and women taking it score even lower than the teacher candidates on the SAT, GRE, and other standardized tests. It takes several of these dolts to do (badly) what one good secretary could do correctly in the 60's.
4. There really is a LOT more paperwork now. Successfully teaching kids is unimportant; what is essential is to document all the efforts made to provide an equal(ly ineffective) education to each kid, regardless of color, intelligence, interest in learning, or parental support. This is not only required by law, it's the only thing that might save the principal and district superintendent when it is discovered that, regardless of all the attempts to hold them back, Asian kids with their parents pushing them HARD and white kids with an interest in academic subjects far outperform the kids who call doing your homework or paying attention to the teacher "acting white".
markm at August 1, 2014 2:40 PM
spqr2008: And all the teachers and school administrators studying for Masters degrees and PHD's, usually in Education, is a perfect example of paperwork being valued above actual worth. Half of these people were educated beyond their intelligence just getting a bachelors. Graduate education just stuffs in more half-baked theories and reduces their ability to recognize BS and to tell what works and what doesn't in the classroom.
Except for highschool teachers pursuing a degree in the subject they teach rather than "education", a higher degree will not improve their ability to do their jobs. They'd do better at their job if they put half the time and effort into the job. But teaching the kids better is unlikely to be recognized, while a degree will get them a higher salary or preference in getting a job. Overall, what we have is an insanely expensive organization frantically documenting _inputs_ and trying to make them look better, while no one is verifying the effect of the valued inputs on the _outputs_.
markm at August 1, 2014 2:56 PM
Leave a comment