Report
California Teacher Pay: Decades of Falling Behind

Report
Fact-based, data-driven research and analysis to advance democratic debate on vital issues shaping people’s lives.
Center for Economic and Policy Research
1611 Connecticut Ave. NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20009
Tel: 202-293-5380
Fax: 202-588-1356
https://cepr.net
Teachers are the single most important school-based determinant of student outcomes.1 The success of teachers and the whole of public education is critically important to students, their families and communities, and the future of the US economy. Yet across the country many schools struggle to retain and attract talented teachers, leading to shortages and a reliance on substitutes.2 There are many important issues around teacher retention and the ability to attract high quality students into the profession, but one that consistently lands near the top of any list is pay.3
Over the last two decades, my colleagues and I have documented trends in teacher pay in the United States. This body of work shows that teacher weekly wages in the US have been falling further and further behind that of their nonteacher college educated peers.4 Most recently, I estimated that the relative pay of US public school teachers was 26.6% less than that of similar nonteacher college graduates in 2023 – a significant and growing gap from the 6.1% teacher shortfall estimated for 1996.5
The present brief extends this work by focusing a single lens on teachers in California to see how they have been faring over the last four and a half decades. Public schools in California educate more students than any other state. Documenting trends in teacher pay in the Golden State provides historical context that may help inform future expectations on issues regarding the teaching workforce. I have long asserted that providing teachers a standard of living commensurate with similar nonteacher professionals is not simply a matter of fairness. Teacher pay is a central issue in public education – concerning issues of retaining currently credentialed teachers, addressing teacher shortages, and ensuring teaching remains an attractive career option for a large pool of highly-qualified students.
All Teachers: Falling Further and Further Behind
Female Teachers: Once Ahead, Now Significantly Behind
Male Teachers: Facing an Ever-Widening Gap
Here I provide information regarding the data source and sample criteria used in this study.6 I use Current Population Survey-Outgoing Rotation Group (CPS-ORG) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 1979 through September 2024. The CPS-ORG provides demographic, occupational, and earnings data that affords the basis for this study. Importantly, the analyses in this brief restrict comparisons of teachers who work in California’s public schools to other nonteacher college graduates with at least a bachelor’s degree who also reside in California. Public school teachers are identified using detailed census occupation codes—the sample includes only elementary, middle, and secondary teachers (prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers, adult educators, and special education teachers are excluded).
Weekly wages are the earnings variable of interest. I focus on weekly wages, as opposed to weekly hours worked or the length of the work year, to account for the “summers off” issue that affects teachers but not other college graduates.7 The sample is restricted to full-time workers working at least 35 hours per week aged 21 to 65 with at least a bachelor’s degree. The education restriction is due to the fact that teachers today need at least a bachelor’s degree to teach. Furthermore, the comparison of teachers to other nonteacher college graduates considers all the other professions and careers that teachers may have chosen had they not gone into teaching.
The sample is further limited to those who reported their wage information directly (those who did not respond and whose wages were estimated by BLS are excluded).8 Additionally, to preserve data confidentiality, the BLS records weekly wages only up to a defined threshold, and wages earned above the threshold are suppressed at the lower threshold amount and actual earnings are not identifiable. This is referenced as top-coding.9 I use Economic Policy Institute CPS-ORG extracts that replace original BLS top-coded weekly wages based on a Pareto-distribution. Otherwise, EPI assigns weekly wages at means above the CPS-ORG top-coded values to account for weekly wages suppressed by the BLS. This is especially important when analyzing earnings in a high earnings state like California.
For my research on the US, I relied on samples of teachers and other college graduates using data for the whole country. Using a sample that represented the whole country permitted me to report annual statistics for both groups (i.e., teachers and other college graduates).10 However, the CPS-ORG data are too small to produce meaningful (i.e., statistically significant) results for public school teachers for individual states on an annual basis.
California is the most populous state; therefore, the CPS-ORG samples overrepresent Californians. Even so, the present study on California relies on using successive five-year increments of pooled CPS-ORG data. The results reported throughout are as follows. The first data point in all the figures is generated from pooling CPS-ORG data from 1979-1983. In each figure it is labeled as 1981, which represents the midpoint of the first five-year span of pooled data. In turn, the second data point in each of the figures is labeled 1986 and is generated using pooled 1984-1988 CPS-ORG data; and so on. Due to the lack of allocation flag variables in the CPS-ORG data for 1994 and 1995, those years are not used in this analysis. The last data point in all figures was generated from pooled 2021-September 2024 CPS-ORG data, which reflects the most recent data available for this analysis. It is labeled 2022.
I present two figures for each set (i.e., the total sample (All) and separately by gender) of results. When broken out by gender, female(male) teachers are only compared to female(male) other nonteacher college graduates, all residing in California.
The first figure reports trends in the average weekly wage of teachers and other college graduates. The weekly wages are adjusted only for inflation.11 These simple average wage trends allow the reader to determine if the wages of teachers have historically merged, diverged or tracked closely with those of their college educated peers. Additionally, the wage trends show if there were any real (i.e., above inflation) gains in living standards.
The second figure in each grouping reports regression-adjusted estimates using standard econometric techniques. The estimates reflect what remains after controlling for factors that affect wages such as age, race/ethnicity and educational attainment—what is referred to as the relative difference. Regression estimation is necessary given that teachers and other college graduates may differ systematically in ways that typically affect pay, such as their distributions of age, gender, educational attainment, and race/ethnicity. For instance, all else being equal, one would expect experienced workers to earn more than younger workers just starting out in their careers. Controlling for age within a regression model therefore accounts for such differences across the two samples. Thus, I use standard regression techniques to estimate weekly wages of public school teachers in California relative to other similarly situated college graduates working in other professions in California, which may provide a more apples-to-apples comparison of earnings.
For ease of discussion, regression results are presented from the viewpoint of teachers. A weekly wage penalty (premium) is reported when the regression estimates suggest that teachers, all else equal, are paid less (more) relative to other college graduates. Parity refers to results where there is little to no difference in average or relative weekly wages of the two groups.
To reiterate, every data point in all the figures represents output based on successive five-year increments of pooled CPS-ORG data. Hence each statistic represents a five-year average with the middle year noted on the x-axis.
The first set of results is based on the total sample of teachers and other college graduates in California who met our sample criteria. Figure 1 reports the simple average weekly wage trends for teachers and other college graduates (adjusted only for inflation). There are several notable features to emphasize. In the first three periods, the wages of teachers and other college graduates trended closer together; from the early 1980s to the early 1990s, teachers in California on average earned 11.9% less than other college graduates in the state. Over time the two wage trends diverged; by 2022 teachers earned 35.2% less than their nonteacher peers. In other words, over four and a half decades the inflation-adjusted average weekly wage of teachers increased by 26.3%, while those of their nonteaching counterparts increased by 70.0%.
Figure 1
As mentioned, it is best to go beyond comparisons of simple averages to employ standard regression techniques that account for differences in the samples of teachers and other college graduates that typically affect pay—such as age, educational attainment, and race/ethnicity. Figure 2 reports the output from the regression-adjusted analysis, or what I refer to as the relative difference in weekly wages between teachers and other college graduates.12
Figure 2
In the early years, the relative difference was somewhat stable and small, but over time an ever-increasing teacher penalty emerged. In the first four periods, the teacher gap averaged -6.2% – but a steady erosion in relative teacher pay followed and the gap grew to -23.8% in 2022. In sum, teachers in California earned 76.2 cents for every dollar earned by similar nonteaching professionals in 2023 – much less than the 95.2 cents on the dollar they made in 1991.
The output in the first two figures were generated from the full sample. However, my previous research on teachers revealed that the trends in weekly wages as well as regression-adjusted relative pay vary considerably by gender. Providing separate analyses by gender may also inform the historical context of teacher trends along with present day dynamics.
The weekly wage trends for female teachers compared to other female college graduates is shown in Figure 3—the depiction is distinctive from Figure 1. The female wage trends crisscross around 1998, indicating that the average weekly wages of female teachers were about the same as those earned by other female college graduates. Before the two wage trends reached parity in 1998, female teachers on average earned more than their nonteacher female counterparts. However, after the brief period of parity, the average wages of other female college graduates increasingly outpaced that earned by female teachers in California.
Figure 3
In sum, female college graduates outside of the teaching profession earned 12.4% less than female teachers in 1981, but by 2022 the nonteacher graduates earned 32.9% more.13 Notably, gains in female teacher wages have stagnated since the early 2000s, up just 0.6% from 2003 to 2022 compared to an increase of 26.6% for other female college graduates. The strong upward trendline for nonteacher females indicates that wages, on average, exceeded the rate of inflation—in other words, buying power has increased over time, but generally not the case for female teachers in California since 2003.
Given the historical trends in the weekly wages of the female teachers compared to their nonteacher peers, the corresponding regression-adjusted estimates presented in Figure 4 may not be all that surprising. California’s female teachers enjoyed an 8.3% premium in 1981. The relative gap reached parity in 1998 and a small -1.3% differential followed in 2003—but since then relative female teacher pay fell increasingly behind that of their female peers. In 2022, the female teacher penalty grew to 18.7%. in California.
Figure 4
The relative trend shown in Figure 4 is similar to what I found historically for female teachers, on average, in the US. I reported in Allegretto (2024) that the regression-adjusted difference for female teachers in the US was at a premium or near parity prior until the latter 1990s, after which a steady worsening penalty ensued and grew to 21.4% in 2023.
There is an important and unique story behind the dwindling relative wages of female teachers in the US and in California. Historically, the teaching profession relied on a somewhat captive labor pool of women who had few other employment and educational opportunities. This is thankfully no longer the case. Over time, expanding opportunities enabled women to become better educated and earn more as they entered occupations and professions from which they were once barred — a major factor in the story reflected in this research. Today, a much smaller share of educated women chooses the teaching profession over expanding career opportunities with better pay. Simply maintaining the quality of the current labor market pool for teachers requires significant increases in teacher pay to compete with the average pay of other female professionals. Otherwise, the quality of education will be compromised.
Today, women continue to dominate the teaching profession. In California, using the same five-year increments of pooled data used in all analyses, the share of male teachers fell from 38.3% in 1981 to 29.6% in 2022.14 The corresponding average weekly wage trends and the regression-adjusted relative wage gaps of male teachers compared to their nonteacher male peers tells a story that differs from female teachers—and may well have contributed to the decline in male teachers.
Average weekly wage trends for male teachers compared to their nonteacher male counterparts are shown in Figure 5. Throughout the timeframe male teachers earned, on average, significantly less than their male nonteacher counterparts in California. In 1981, male teachers earned 18.5% less than their peers in California. The disparity widened considerably starting in the early-2000s, and by 2022 teachers earned 38.9% less.15
Figure 5
In sum, over the entire timeframe, the average weekly wages of male teachers increased 29.5%, while those of their male nonteaching peers grew by 72.6%. Similar to the wage stagnation that female teachers experienced, there was little improvement in the inflation-adjusted wages of male teachers from 2003 through 2022 – up just 3.2% compared to a 27.9% increase experienced by male nonteacher college graduates.
Unlike the early period results that showed a wage premium for female teachers, the corresponding estimated relative pay of male teachers has always lagged considerably behind that of their male counterparts in California. Figure 6 reports the regression-adjusted relative weekly wage gaps for male teachers. The relative male teacher wage gap in California was -20.6% in 1981, and showed some improvement as it lessened to -16.5% in 1998, but the trend continued to worsen and grew to -34.5% in 2022.
Figure 6
The very large relative pay penalty experienced by male teachers is unfortunate given the recent statistics and reporting of boys struggling in school. Performing poorly in school is associated with problems encountered later in life – including addiction, mental and physical health issues, and involvement with the criminal justice system.16
One solution put forth, among many, is to recruit more male teachers into the profession so that boys, as well as girls, are represented. There are many possible theories as to why a more equal representation of gender (as well as race and ethnicity) of teachers and students matters, including differences in communication styles, expectations and perceptions. Thomas Dee found that a teacher’s gender has large effects on student test performance, teacher perceptions of students, and students’ engagement with academic material.17 Unfortunately, it is hard to imagine a successful campaign to recruit male college students into the teaching profession given the extreme and persistently worsening pay penalties experienced by male teachers in California.
Moreover, underrepresentation is more acute when broken out by race and ethnicity. The majority (64.4%) of teachers in California are white (not Hispanic), while just 20.3% of students are in this category. Hispanic/Latino students at 56.1% make up the single largest group, but only 21.0% of teachers represent this group.18 While more studies are needed to assess the full implications of gender and race/ethnicity disparities between teachers and students, the recruitment of a wider diversity of teachers into the profession would be wise on many levels.19
In my work on teachers for the nation as a whole, I include a section on benefits. Specifically, I add a benefits analysis to the weekly wage calculations in order to provide an estimate of a total compensation differential. Table 1 in Allegretto (2024) reports the trends in W-2 wages and the cost of benefits as a share of total compensation for public school teachers and for other professionals (i.e., importantly a comparison to other professionals, not all workers) as defined in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Data.20
From Allegretto (2024) Table 1, the benefits advantage that teachers in the US have compared to other professionals grew from 2.2% in 2004 to 9.9% in 2023. At the same time, the relative US teacher penalty grew from 12.8% to 26.6%, leaving a 16.7% total US compensation teacher penalty in 2023.21
The data used to assess total compensation are not available for individual states, so cannot be calculated specifically for California. However, applying the benefits analysis from Allegretto (2024) provides a good measure to assess the total compensation differences of California’s public school teachers compared to other professionals. Adding the 9.9% teacher benefits advantage to the -23.8% overall California teacher wage penalty (from Figure 1) leaves a total compensation estimate of -13.9%. Benefits are an important component of total compensation; however, it is only earnings that can pay for other necessities, along with everything else needed to attain economic viability. Thus, the weekly wage analyses presented here hold their own independent importance.
The divergent trends in average weekly wages and the increasing teacher wage penalties reported here are important on their own, but perhaps even more so in light of California’s high cost of living trends and environment. For example, since 2000 consumer prices in California nearly doubled (up 99.5%)22 while the nominal (not inflation adjusted) average weekly wage of teachers and other college graduates in the state increased 61% and 102%, respectively. By this measure, the buying power of nonteaching college graduates kept pace (barely) while teachers’ affordability waned.
One of the single largest outlays for any budget is shelter. Rental costs for apartments across California increased substantially over the past quarter of a century. The cost of renting a typical two-bedroom apartment increased well over 200% in many metropolitan areas, including in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale (232%), Riverside-San Bernardino (234%), San Diego (245%), and Santa Cruz-Watsonville (264%). The cost of a typical two-bedroom apartment is way up even in more rural counties – increasing 134%, 152% and 167% in Humboldt, Inyo and Sierra counties, respectively.23 Even further out of reach is the cost of buying a modest home, as the cost of a bottom-tier home in California increased 362% from 2000 to 2024.24
There are entities in California that are documenting and suggesting solutions to the issue of housing affordability specifically as it concerns public school teachers and other school employees. For example, The Terner Center for Housing Innovation provides data-driven analysis of the problem, working with other entities to produce the Education Workforce Housing in California study.25 These and other creative solutions are necessary, but they do not circumvent the necessity of increasing the pay of teachers.
Public school teacher is one of the most consequential professions in California and across the United States. Are we doing our best to assure that the best and the brightest are retained and attracted to the profession? This study presents trends in teacher earnings and how they have been faring compared to those of other college graduates in California over the last four and a half decades. Importantly, the comparison of teachers to other nonteacher college graduates considers, on average, the earnings trends of all the other professions and careers that teachers may have chosen had they not gone into teaching.
I have shown that the average weekly wages of teachers adjusted for inflation have stagnated since the early 2000s – meaning the standard of living for teachers has not changed, while it has greatly improved for other college graduates in the state. Second, the regression-adjusted relative wage gap of teachers has worsened significantly over the last four plus decades – from an 8.3% premium in 1981 to a 18.7% penalty in 2022 for female teachers, while historically large differences faced by male teachers grew from -20.6% to -34.5%. Even as teacher benefits are taken into account, on average, a 13.9% total compensation teacher gap still exists. Importantly, wages matter on their own — especially as the costs to live in California continue to outpace teacher earnings.
The worsening relative teacher pay gaps, along with economic realities of living in California, may intersect to make it increasingly more difficult to assure that the public school system in the state is headed up by a workforce chosen from a crop of the best and brightest, most passionate potential teachers available. As the cost of choosing a career in teaching diverges so far from that of other opportunities, it is hard to come up with a scenario that does not adversely influence the need to retain and employ more than 300,000 teachers to educate approximately 5.8 million public school students in California. Unfortunately, there have not been effective long-run policies in place that have successfully mitigated, let alone markedly improve upon, the outcomes presented in this study. This is a troublesome reality, given that California on its own is the fifth largest economy in the world.