yikes….someone please save us.

As someone who lives here and has kids actually attending OUSD schools, compensation does matter. When you don’t pay enough, you create an unstable work force. I want my neighbors’ children and possibly my grandchildren to be in schools with stable staff. I want there to be another teacher retiring again with 39 years at one school. I want high school kids to be able to come back and visit their elementary school principal and teachers.

Please keep in mind that we live in one of the most expensive parts of the state when looking at averages. That is one of the reasons the data for nearby district salaries is even more distressing when comparing to OUSD (see previous postings). Note – the salary comparison below is a good example of why people may be willing to start teaching in Oakland, but do not stay long.

OUSD State

Beginning Teacher Salary
$38778 vs $40721
Mid-Range Teacher Salary
$53394 vs $65190
Highest Teacher Salary
$69714 vs $84151

Average Principal Salary (Elementary)
$86673 vs $104476
Average Principal Salary (Middle)
$87127 vs $108527
Average Principal Salary (High)
$89006 vs $119210

I also don’t kknow where you are getting your numbers. If you look at the revenue calculation for the district, which is their main source of income, you will see that 2007-08 saw OUSD receive $5,790 per pupil. After a few adjustments, their unrestricted general fund dollars were $214,107,049 based on ADA of 37,225. These details are available on the CDE website.

The Feds do not give OUSD revenue for daily operations. They send restricted revenue which has several strings attached. It comes in the form of Title programs, Title I being the biggest one.

Other state revenue usually has strings attached. These programs are there to augment the general fund, not supplant it. It is especially risky to hire teachers with this money if the grants are one-time and not recurring. Other grants explicitly state that salary and benefit costs cannot be charged to them.

Obviously, there is a need for certificated non-teaching staff. And some of them satisfy critical needs for OUSD. But, it is also important to note that
many of these analysts and managers get paid a lot more than teachers. Let’s not forget that if you are not in the classroom instructing, then you are in support of the district’s instructional mission. If that is the case, with a few exceptions (superintendent, Associate Superintendent of Curriculum, etc) should you be making more than those who actually deliver the product that OUSD is in the business of providing?

Finally, we are talking about teacher salaries, not compensation. While benefits are needed, they do not make up for lowly paid teachers. The compensation argument is just smoke and mirrors. Let’s pay the teachers what their peers in other districts are paid, then we can have a discussion benefits.

Teachers do not join the profession for the money. They do it for noble reasons. There is a lot more to their lives than money. But, that doesn’t justify their being underpaid in Oakland or anywhere else.

turner

Turner: In 2007-2008, Oakland got $1516 per student from the Feds and $3476 from “Other State Revenue.” That totals just shy of $5000

Also, I was trying to point out that teacher compensation does not mean just teacher salaries.

Finally, at least some of the non-teaching certificated staff do, in fact, increase student achievement. Eg: Shelly Weintraub and Stan Pesick, in Social Studies.

Hmmn, we could argue about the “best way” all day. But if we say teachers are important, than recruiting and retaining the good ones becomes paramount, and salary comes into that. Of course, teachers stay or leave for other reasons besides money, but it is a real factor — psychologically and re: the bottome line.

Or do you think teachers are interchangeable widgets?

OUSD received $6,119 per student, not $5,000, for 2008-09 and $5,790 for 2007-08.

“Certificated” includes a broad group of people many of who are teachers but also include the state administrator, superintendent, executive officers, several directors involved in curriculum development and execution. Don’t assume it is teachers only.

The data is clear. OUSD teachers are paid less than their counterparts elsewhere in the county. If teachers and students were valued in Oakland, there would be less money spent on non-instructional issues and items and more spent on the students, their needs and the people who educate them.

turner

The same data you just looked at also says that Oakland receives 135% of the state average per student in total revenues(For many reasons, starting with Measure E). Proportionately, it is spending less of the money it receives on teachers and much more than average on consultants. That’s a very direct and sizeable statement about who gets a higher priority of value than teachers.

Castro Valley ($65 G) and Albany ($64G) do NOT have average teacher salaries in this chart as low as Oakland ($54G).

Large chunks of federal and other state money are either unrestricted (over $25 million) or different types of restricted money which does end up going to pay for teachers (class size reduction, special ed, categorical depending on the actual category, etc.)