January, 4 2008

Pursuant to Elections Code 9005, we have reviewed the proposed initiative, the “Quality Teacher Recruitment and Retention Initiative” (A.G. File No. 07-0087).

Background

Employees of school districts in the state are generally categorized as either “certificated” or “classified.” Certificated employees refer to those school or district employees who must receive state certification. These include teachers, administrators, and pupil services staff (such as counselors, nurses, and librarians). In 2006-07, of the 358,000 certificated employees in California school districts, about 85 percent were teachers, 8 percent administrators, and 7 percent pupil services personnel. Classified staff includes instructional aides, clerical workers, custodians, and cafeteria workers—none of which require state certification to perform their job duties.

The salaries and benefits for certificated employees are set at the local level. Specifically, teachers are typically paid on a locally negotiated salary schedule that is based on years of experience and educational attainment. At the highest step, the average annual teacher salary offered by school districts in 2005-06 in California was $71,000. However, in a few districts, teacher salaries topped out at over $100,000. Salaries for administrators vary depending on the specific position as well as the size of the school district but tend to be significantly higher than that of teachers. School site principals in California earned an average annual salary of $96,000 in 2005-06, whereas district superintendents earned an average of $133,000.

Proposal

This measure requires that all certificated school personnel be paid on the same salary schedule according to their years of experience, level of education, and number of days worked per year. In addition, the measure prohibits any employee of a public school district in the state to receive a salary higher than that of the district’s highest paid classroom teacher.

Fiscal Effect

The measure likely would have no significant net fiscal effect. This is because the measure would not change the state’s overall funding requirement for K-12 education. However, the measure could result in a redistribution of resources at the local level. Districts could respond to the measure by using the funds that previously went to administrators for other educational purposes. Or they could provide administrators with additional nonsalary compensation, such as improved health benefits, supplemental retirement contributions, bonuses, or housing allowances. Alternatively, districts could raise the top teacher salary to match current administrator salaries. In each of these cases, districts would be using available resources differently but total funding available would not necessarily be affected. That is, the state would not be required to either increase or decrease K-12 funding as a result of these local decisions.

Summary

This measure would have the following major fiscal effects:

• No direct fiscal effect on overall K-12 education spending.

• Redistribution of resources at the local level in response to a cap on
  administrator salaries.

Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page