Below is a spreadsheet I have generated with the intent of informing the School Board about what other L.A. County unified school districts had done fiscally during the Great Recession.
Since I was the one to assemble this dispersed data into a large spreadsheet, it was my task to define and identify which districts appeared to be fiscally foolish in their actions during the past Great Recession.
Fortunately, I knew I had, as my example, a district noted for its fiscal responsibility over the last 5 years: Our very own Culver City Unified School District.
Even though a negotiated, five-year, long-term contract with annual raises of 2 percent could add up over time into a significant salary increase, I chose the 3 percent figure. It is well-known that the CCUSD has not given its certificated employees a raise in the past five years.
By rounding off the CCUSD’s 2.9 percent to an even 3 percent, it seemed a good line of demarcation for fiscal responsibility.
In hindsight, any district where salaries were increased by more than 3 perecent during the past recession were deemed to be fiscally irresponsible.
All increases shown in the spreadsheet are totals of both the automatic annual Step-and-Column increases and any negotiated raises within each district.
The following bullets refer to the last column on the far right.
- Teachers in four school districts received substantial increases in salary just before the Great Recession 2006-07—including the CCUSD.
- Teachers in 21 districts received increases at the start of the recession, possibly due to multi-year contracts.
- Teachers in 18 districts received increases during the first half of the recession—again possibly due to negotiating long-term, multi-year salary agreements.
- Teachers in only nine districts received increases within the last two years. Note: Some districts, after giving the increases, reduced teacher salaries in the following year.
The average total of $2,282* at the bottom of the “Difference Over the Last 5 Years” shows the average increase for teacher salaries in L.A. County from 2007-08 to 2011-12 after taking out those ill-timed and/or fiscally irresponsible district increases. Those districts with over 3 percent are shown in red.
Influencing Board Members
As I mentioned in my notes, the increases may have happened due to long-term contract obligations. Some of those districts, even after giving 3 percent to 4 percent increases in one year realized they had to take some of it back in the following years. They had overstepped economic conditions.
The Pitfalls of Long-Term Contracts
This shows the pitfalls some districts fell into from negotiating long-term contracts that included annual increases in salary schedules. Maybe some school board members were convinced by the union negotiators that the district was in better shape financially than it actually was.
Flat-Funding
Just as when Prop. 30 passed last November and school districts were expecting to receive an influx of new revenue when the state started paying back the deferrals that it snatched.
We now know how that turned out. We got nothing but flat funding from the state.
Not Too Shabby
The average gain in salaries in the more responsible districts was $2282. The CCUSD held its increases to $1773, for a difference of $509 less. The increase in our teachers’ salaries was due exclusively to the annual Step-and-Column increases since no District raises were given over the past five years. That's about $100 a year, or 56 cents a day down. Does that really sound as bad as the Teachers Union makes it out to be?
Plain to See
This spreadsheet verifies that the CCUSD is one of the most fiscally conservative districts in Los Angeles County. From a homeowner/taxpayer’s perspective, this is a good thing.
You Must Remember This…
This is nothing new. The Culver City Unified School District never has been seen as a County leader in employee pay. It probably never will be.
No Doubt About It
Culver City is extremely frugal when it comes to paying wages. But if you were to listen to the way the Teachers Union publicly paints it, you might conclude Culver City is downright cheap.
So can anyone explain the fiscal contradiction between how California can be in the Top Five states, nationally, in teacher pay and at the same time in the Bottom Five states in pupil spending?
We just might have it right, after all here in olde, frugal Culver City.
Mr. Laase may be contacted at GMLaase@aol.com
