In the accompanying spreadsheet (see here) you will find a listing of the 12 top-paying unified school districts in L.A. County along with what they paid their veteran 25-year teachers in 2013-14 and 2014-15.
The figures for the 2014-15 school year were taken from the salary schedules found at each district’s official website, while the 2013-14 figures were copied from last year’s L.A. County District Salary Survey Report issued in August.
Success Stories
In 2014-15, six of the top districts with SAT scores above the College Board’s benchmark score of 1550 (Arcadia-1796, San Marino-1839, Beverly Hills-1745, Santa Monica-Malibu-1641, ABC-1652 and Manhattan Beach-1743) have some of the highest SAT scores in L.A. County. When grouped together, they averaged 1736.
Benchmark for Success
The College Board has set an official benchmark of 1550. The Board has found, over the years, that high school graduates who score 1550 or above will have a better than average chance of academically succeeding in higher education. This number still is an important indicator of a high school graduate’s future success in college. It is supported by years of follow-up studies by the Board. So this is not an arbitrary number picked out of thin air. Most colleges and universities still use graduates’ SAT scores as a factor in granting their admissions. Culver City’s average SAT score is slightly below the benchmark, at 1530.
Works in Progress
The other six top-paying districts (in red) have individual scores below the Board’s benchmark—some well below (Downey-1414, Long Beach-1452, Covina Valley-1442, Montebello-1345, Baldwin Park-1331 and Bonita-1504). Together, their SAT scores averaged slightly more than 1400. The difference between the two groups’ average SAT scores is well over 300 points.
Surprisingly, when comparing last year’s salaries, the lower scoring group, on average, was paying almost $600 more than the higher performing one. While all 12 districts are ranked in L.A. County’s 2014-15 top-tier in 25-year teacher pay, the individual SAT results between San Marino-1839 and Baldwin Park-1331 show a discrepancy of more than 500 points!
How Could This Be?
Even though these two groups were averaging close to the same annual salaries, the variations in their individual SAT scores are as different as night and day.
Seeing Is Believing
These updated statistics bring into question today’s prevailing notion, perpetuated by some educators, that paying higher salaries will lead to higher student achievements.
This spreadsheet shows that there is no direct correlation between the two. Paying teachers more does not guarantee higher student outcomes.
Why does our superintendent seem fixated on closing this so-called median salary gap?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Mr. Laase may be contacted at GMLaase@aol.com
Let’s compare the demographics between those same districts, George. You’re leaving out a major factor here. I’d say Culver City has significantly more ESL students than Beverly Hills, San Marino, Arcadia, Manhattan Beach, et al. As well as economically disadvantaged families. These play significant factors in a child’s academic performance, regardless of teacher performance.
Let’s compare some of the other 12 districts; not just the more obvious, well-off ones, cherry-picked by Mr O’Brien to support his point.
According to the State’s LCFF, starting in 2013-14, Los Angeles County unified school districts with student enrollments of more than 55% of high need students, would be receiving 50% more in Concentration funding, beyond the state’s base funding received by all districts.
ABC USD enrollment consists of 56% high needs students, our CC USD has 40%, and yet ABC school district has an average SAT score (1652) 120 points higher than that of Culver City’s at 1530. The Santa Monica –Malibu USD, has 10% less high needs students (30%) than Culver City and its average SAT score is 110 points higher. Arcadia USD has 26% high needs students in its district, yet it has the 4th highest average SAT score in LA County among unified school districts.
It seems to me that if we have chosen to use the median salaries of the other LA County unified school districts as a goal for we pay our local teachers, then it would only seem fair that we use these other district’s metrics with which to compare our own district.
It’s obvious that some districts are spending their state funding more effectively and are getting a lot more bang for their district buck.
I just wish Culver City was one of them.
To respond to George’s accusation that I cherry-picked – I just chose from the districts which George labeled himself as above the benchmark (I didn’t pick ABC, because I wasn’t familiar with it). However, as I read George’s original critique again, I see passes off his own unsubstantiated belief that it is a “prevailing belief” that higher paid teachers produce higher student achievement, and that educators perpetuate that belief. That is not what I believe. I believe that teachers feel they work hard at an extremely important job and should be paid accordingly.
The fact that the lower performing districts in George’s “top 12” are in cities with lower median household incomes comes as no surprise to me (exception of Bonita is about $1000/year more than Arcadia). Those teachers SHOULD be paid more than the teachers in the districts above the SAT benchmark, because their jobs are probably more challenging than those in districts with more affluent families. These districts have kids who have greater access to private tutors, are more likely to have parents who were college educated, and are less likely to have kids who are malnourished, live in stressful environments, etc.
George, it is you who is cherry picking data to support a flimsy connection between salary and performance, whilst blaming the connection on a broad description of “prevailing notion(s)” from “some educators”. I agree that salary expenditures should be carefully monitored, but that blather you wrote is all gobbledygook meant only to stir the pot of dissension.
Mr O’Brien finished his first comment by saying that a district’s demographics and its local economics have a significant factor in its students’ academic performance, regardless of teacher performance. I couldn’t agree with him more. Local demographics and economies have a great deal to do with student achievement. But, what he said was quite different from what I was pointing out. I concluded that there was no correlation between teacher pay and student academic performance, not teacher performance!
After posting my first response to Mr O’Brien’s comment, I got to thinking and I realized that he and I were much more closely aligned in our thinking than at odds. He basically said that one should compare districts because of their differing demographics and local economies. I wrote that we shouldn’t be comparing our teacher salaries to other combined districts’ median salaries.
Mr O’Brien wrote there should be no district performance comparisons because some districts have better economies and demographics; and, I suggested there should be no district salary comparisons because many other districts (27) will receive better funding from the state–by way of the 50% increase in Supplemental Funds for each “high needs” student in their district which we, and 20 other districts will not be receiving under the LCFF, even though we have high need students in our districts also. We both agree that our district should not be comparing itself with any of these other LA County districts, whether it’s in student performance or in teacher salary.
When it comes to teacher salaries, we should stop fooling ourselves into thinking that we’ll be able to match the salaries of these better off and/or better funded districts. We should stay within our own district means, failrly compensation our own employees and forget about comparing our compensation to an arbitrarily-chosen goal of the LA County median salary.