What does 70th out of 72 mean?
There are 72 community college districts in the state of California comprised of 114 individual colleges. Ventura County College District is located in the southern region along with Pasadena, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Santa Clarita and 32 other districts.
The California Federation of Teachers, Research Department conducts a salary survey of all 72 college districts each year as part of their support mission for all teacher unions in California. Their work is done in a non-partisan manner, meaning that they do not prepare the survey on behalf of a single district, entity or bargaining unit. In August, CFT released the results of their most recent survey representing full-time faculty salary figures for the 2018-2019 year. You can get a copy of their results by clicking here.
Your AFT Local 1828 has analyzed the figures in the survey and based upon the starting salary for an entry-level, full-time faculty member with a Master's degree and no previous experience we found that our starting salary of $48,751 ranks 70th out of all 72 districts in the state of California, and lowest in our region. We also looked at the four closest college districts (based on geography) in our region and we found that we were dead last among them (Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Santa Clarita, and Pasadena). Los Angeles College District is our closest colleague in terms of salary with a starting salary of $60,130.
The 70th out of 72 slogan arose from the stark reality that our faculty are shockingly underpaid relative to our colleagues. In fact, to get us into the top quartile in this category (top 25%), we would need a $16,000 raise.
Over the past few months a few people have asked us about our comparison. I wanted to take a moment to offer as simple an explanation as possible to the most commonly posed questions.
Why did you only compare a single category?
We didn't actually. When we conducted our analysis we examined every single category the CFT provided to us for every single district in the state. What we found was that in every category our salaries were embarrasingly low compared to our colleagues. In fact, we made a fairly detailed presentation of our findings at the most recent general membership meeting and answered some of the faculty questions about where we score relative to our sister districts. The dilemma is that our ranking varies across the categories and steps of the salary schedule; however, at no time are we ever above the statewide average, and generally, remain below the bottom quartile (bottom 25 %).
Why did you pick the entry-level category instead of one of the other steps on our salary schedule?
One of the challenges that CFT faces when doing their annual salary survey is finding a way to compare apples to apples. Every district has their own contractually defined salary schedule, with whatever steps, classes, and criteria for advancement they may have negotiated with their respective bargaining representatives. Drawing conclusions from this data can be very difficult; however, the CFT has developed a methodology which they use to try and make a reasonable conversion of salary schedules among the districts. You can read about the CFT methodology in the full report if you want to know more. In short, starting salary is the best unassailable common denominator which we can point to with confidence. In fact the district has used this category in their own Gallagher salary survey (this survey was statistically flawed and the AFT presented evidence debunking the results at the August 13 board of trustee meeting).
Moreover, most salary schedules calculate subsequent steps as a percentage of the previous step. Given this fact, using starting salary as a yardstick makes sense: If your starting salary is incredibly low, any step increases you calculate as a percentage increase of that starting salary will be, by extension, incredibly low. While there is some variation in this general principal, the simplicity and clarity of using the entry-level salary as a yardstick greatly outweighs any minor variations in subsequent steps.
What about part-time salaries?
We have not forgotten about the non-contract faculty. In fact, last fall, we presented the results of the CFT survey, to the general membership which included the then current part-time salary data. That analysis revealed that, as expected, part-time salaries are not much more competitive than what we see in full-time salaries. However, the CFT has not yet released the results of their most current part-time salary survey. They have assured us that it will be released very soon and when it is, we will share that with everyone as quickly as we can. Because we are currently in contract negotiations, and the rankings of part-time faculty will most likely change we are not releasing the data from last year in order to avoid clouding the issue when the new data is released. What we can say is that non-contract faculty are consistently well below the statewide average in all steps and classes. If you are a non-contract faculty member, rest assured that your negotiating team is fighting very hard to correct that and our contract proposals reflect that effort. As soon as we have updated numbers we will announce them.
The Bottom Line.
Make no mistake, your AFT Executive Leadership team spent many hours of discussion and analysis in reaching the decision to adopt the entry-level step as our basic yardstick and rallying cry. Regardless of which step we choose, the net result is that our faculty, who are second-to-none in quality, dedication and performance, are woefully under-compensated throughout the entire salary schedule. It doesn't matter which step you choose, we don't earn what would reasonably be considered a competitive salary compared to our colleagues for the same work. Our current contract negotiations team is working tireless to try and rectify this.
Hopefully, this will help answer any questions you may have. If not, please feel free to send us an email.
Thank you for your support
Michael Sheetz
Executive Director
AFT Local 1828
The California Federation of Teachers, Research Department conducts a salary survey of all 72 college districts each year as part of their support mission for all teacher unions in California. Their work is done in a non-partisan manner, meaning that they do not prepare the survey on behalf of a single district, entity or bargaining unit. In August, CFT released the results of their most recent survey representing full-time faculty salary figures for the 2018-2019 year. You can get a copy of their results by clicking here.
Your AFT Local 1828 has analyzed the figures in the survey and based upon the starting salary for an entry-level, full-time faculty member with a Master's degree and no previous experience we found that our starting salary of $48,751 ranks 70th out of all 72 districts in the state of California, and lowest in our region. We also looked at the four closest college districts (based on geography) in our region and we found that we were dead last among them (Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Santa Clarita, and Pasadena). Los Angeles College District is our closest colleague in terms of salary with a starting salary of $60,130.
The 70th out of 72 slogan arose from the stark reality that our faculty are shockingly underpaid relative to our colleagues. In fact, to get us into the top quartile in this category (top 25%), we would need a $16,000 raise.
Over the past few months a few people have asked us about our comparison. I wanted to take a moment to offer as simple an explanation as possible to the most commonly posed questions.
Why did you only compare a single category?
We didn't actually. When we conducted our analysis we examined every single category the CFT provided to us for every single district in the state. What we found was that in every category our salaries were embarrasingly low compared to our colleagues. In fact, we made a fairly detailed presentation of our findings at the most recent general membership meeting and answered some of the faculty questions about where we score relative to our sister districts. The dilemma is that our ranking varies across the categories and steps of the salary schedule; however, at no time are we ever above the statewide average, and generally, remain below the bottom quartile (bottom 25 %).
Why did you pick the entry-level category instead of one of the other steps on our salary schedule?
One of the challenges that CFT faces when doing their annual salary survey is finding a way to compare apples to apples. Every district has their own contractually defined salary schedule, with whatever steps, classes, and criteria for advancement they may have negotiated with their respective bargaining representatives. Drawing conclusions from this data can be very difficult; however, the CFT has developed a methodology which they use to try and make a reasonable conversion of salary schedules among the districts. You can read about the CFT methodology in the full report if you want to know more. In short, starting salary is the best unassailable common denominator which we can point to with confidence. In fact the district has used this category in their own Gallagher salary survey (this survey was statistically flawed and the AFT presented evidence debunking the results at the August 13 board of trustee meeting).
Moreover, most salary schedules calculate subsequent steps as a percentage of the previous step. Given this fact, using starting salary as a yardstick makes sense: If your starting salary is incredibly low, any step increases you calculate as a percentage increase of that starting salary will be, by extension, incredibly low. While there is some variation in this general principal, the simplicity and clarity of using the entry-level salary as a yardstick greatly outweighs any minor variations in subsequent steps.
What about part-time salaries?
We have not forgotten about the non-contract faculty. In fact, last fall, we presented the results of the CFT survey, to the general membership which included the then current part-time salary data. That analysis revealed that, as expected, part-time salaries are not much more competitive than what we see in full-time salaries. However, the CFT has not yet released the results of their most current part-time salary survey. They have assured us that it will be released very soon and when it is, we will share that with everyone as quickly as we can. Because we are currently in contract negotiations, and the rankings of part-time faculty will most likely change we are not releasing the data from last year in order to avoid clouding the issue when the new data is released. What we can say is that non-contract faculty are consistently well below the statewide average in all steps and classes. If you are a non-contract faculty member, rest assured that your negotiating team is fighting very hard to correct that and our contract proposals reflect that effort. As soon as we have updated numbers we will announce them.
The Bottom Line.
Make no mistake, your AFT Executive Leadership team spent many hours of discussion and analysis in reaching the decision to adopt the entry-level step as our basic yardstick and rallying cry. Regardless of which step we choose, the net result is that our faculty, who are second-to-none in quality, dedication and performance, are woefully under-compensated throughout the entire salary schedule. It doesn't matter which step you choose, we don't earn what would reasonably be considered a competitive salary compared to our colleagues for the same work. Our current contract negotiations team is working tireless to try and rectify this.
Hopefully, this will help answer any questions you may have. If not, please feel free to send us an email.
Thank you for your support
Michael Sheetz
Executive Director
AFT Local 1828