How much do California teachers make? Report ranks California teacher pay top in nation
California teachers had the highest average salary in the country during the 2023-24 school year, according to recently published reports by the National Education Association.
The average teacher in the Golden State made $101,084 last year, as reported by the 2023-24 NEA Rankings and Estimates report. This is a 6% increase from the previous year's average salary. Additionally, this figure is about $30,000 higher than the nationwide average of $72,030.
California's average teacher starting salary for the 2023-24 school year was $58,409, the second highest in the nation, according to the NEA Teacher Salary Benchmark Report. This figure is more than $12,000 higher than the national average starting teacher salary of $46,526.
According to the benchmark report, starting teacher salaries across the United States "picked up a little momentum" last year, increasing by an average 4.4%. This jump marks the most significant increase over the 15 years that NEA has been tracking this data.
While educators have begun to see "long-overdue pay increases," partly thanks to union advocacy both at the bargaining table and with state legislature, the average teacher pay has failed to keep up with inflation, NEA said. When adjusted for inflation, according to the report, teachers make on average 5% less than they did 10 years ago and 9% less than the peak in 2009-10.
Last year, the national average teacher salary saw an increase of 3.8%, just below the 4% increase reported the year before and still less than 2009-10. While the data shows that salaries have improved, NEA says that they are "still likely too low to make any lasting positive impact on teacher recruitment and retention."
These reports come amid an ongoing teacher shortage, both in New Jersey and across the country. This crisis, fueled by retention challenges and a drop in the number of students seeking teaching degrees was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The average starting teacher salary in the United States in 2023-24 was $46,526, a 4.4% increase from the year before and the largest increase in 15 years, NEA reported. While this improvement was diminished by a 3% inflation rate, NEA says that the progress detailed in the report is still encouraging.
For example, the NEA's data shows that the average starting salary for teachers now exceeds $50,000 in 15 states. This represents a jump from 23% to 30% of school districts that meet this benchmark. Additionally, according to the NEA, more than 800 school districts around the country paid teachers a starting salary of at least $60,000 during the 2023-24 school year marking a 66% increase from the year prior.
"These sorts of improvements are critical in the effort to attract and keep teachers," reads the report. "Even after entering the profession, too many educators find they cannot make ends meet, forced to take on second or even third jobs, leading to burnout and an early exit after only a few years."
The 10 states (and Washington, D.C.) with the highest average teacher salary during the 2023-24 school year, according to the NEA, were:
California: $101,084
New York: $95,615
Massachusetts: $92,076
Washington: $91,720
District of Columbia: $86,663
Connecticut: $86,511
Maryland: $84,338
New Jersey: $82,877
Rhode Island: $82,189
Alaska: $78,256
The 10 states with the lowest average teacher salary during the 2023-24 school year, according to the NEA, were:
Mississippi: $53,704
Florida: $54,875
Missouri: $55,132
West Virginia: $55,516
Louisiana: $55,911
South Dakota: $56,328
Montana: $57,556
Kansas: $58,146
North Carolina: $58,292
Kentucky: $58,325
To view the NEA's full report and state-by-state rankings, visit https://www.nea.org/node/27906/all-news-articles/state-teacher-pay.
This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: California teacher salaries rank top in US, report says
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ramey v. Penn State University: Class action lawsuit payments distributed to students
(WHTM) – Penn State University students who were enrolled in classes at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic are now receiving part of a $17 million class action settlement. On March 16, 2020, the university moved to 'remote instruction' due to the outbreak of COVID-19. Years later, a class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of those who paid tuition and/or fees for the Spring 2020 semester and registered for a class. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now The lawsuit was brought forward with allegations of a breach of contract by the university for not providing the services promised with tuition and fees. The university denied the claims asserted against it and agreed to the $17 million settlement for students who opted in to the lawsuit, known as 'Ramey et al. v. The Pennsylvania State University.' A court granted final approval of the settlement on February 18, 2025, and the deadline to file a claim has since passed. According to the Penn State Tuition Refund Settlement website, payments to eligible class members were sent on June 5, 2025. The website says those who opted to receive payments should have received notification of their award via email and should expect a check in the mail. Payments were automatically sent to the recipients' 'last known permanent postal address on file with Penn State,' according to the settlement website. The deadline to change that address or type of payment has also passed. Of the $17 million in settlement funds, the final judgment awarded attorneys' fees of $5,666,100, deducted litigation expenses worth $17,990.94, and made a $15,000 award for the individuals who initiated the lawsuit. The remaining portion of the money (approximately $11,300,909) was designated as the 'Net Settlement Fund.' Students eligible for payments 'who withdrew for medical reasons from Penn State after March 16, 2020, but before the conclusion of the Spring 2020 semester, and received a refund of tuition,' will receive $50 from the Net Settlement Fund. The remaining funds were then 'distributed equally to all other Settlement Class Members.' Eligible students included those attending branch campuses at the time of the shutdown, according to the settlement. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
BioNTech buys mRNA, courtroom rival CureVac in all-stock deal
This story was originally published on BioPharma Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily BioPharma Dive newsletter. COVID vaccine maker BioNTech is buying rival CureVac, announcing Thursday an all-stock deal weeks before the two companies were due to face off in a German court over potentially billions of dollars worth of royalties related to intellectual property on messenger RNA drugs. Per deal terms, each CureVac share will be exchanged for about $5.46 worth of BioNTech's U.S.-listed shares, valuing the company at $1.25 billion. Upon the deal's close, CureVac shareholders will own between 4% and 6% of BioNTech. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, BioNTech and CureVac were among the companies racing to develop the first coronavirus vaccines. BioNTech, however, partnered with Pfizer and won approval of the first COVID-19 shot, while CureVac's program never made it to market. The two companies have since been embroiled in patent litigation. CureVac was a leading candidate to develop the first COVID-19 vaccine, launching rumors, later denied, that the U.S. government might even buy the company or its research. But while BioNTech and fellow mRNA drugmaker Moderna succeeded in making vaccines that saved millions of lives and earned billions of dollars in revenue, CureVac fell short. Its initial project wasn't effective enough at preventing sickness, prompting it to scrap development. A year later, CureVac sued BioNTech, claiming it infringed four patents. CureVac has since changed course, selling off most rights to influenza and COVID-19 vaccines to partner GSK and focusing on cancer instead. But its legal spat with BioNTech has lingered. The European Patent Office had upheld two CureVac patents, and a trial in a Dusseldorf regional court was set on July 1 to determine if BioNTech had infringed on them. A separate trial in the U.S. was scheduled to begin Sept. 8 in Virginia. Some Wall Street analysts, as a result, speculated that BioNTech's primary purpose is buying CureVac is to sidestep the risk of a loss in court. A single-digit percentage royalty awarded to CureVac could've cost BioNTech as much as $3 billion, Evercore ISI analyst Umer Raffat wrote in a note to clients. 'It seems to us that [BioNTech] assessed the cost of a cash settlement as substantially greater than the cost of buying [CureVac] outright,' Raffat wrote. The deal could also help BioNTech further its oncology ambitions. Like CureVac, BioNTech has made cancer research a top priority. It's invested in a variety of programs, from cell therapies to mRNA vaccines and a coveted type of bispecific antibody. Some are in advanced testing. CureVac's cancer vaccines are in earlier phases of development. A brain cancer shot has delivered early clinical data, while a lung cancer immunotherapy was cleared in April for human testing. The deal should help CureVac because of 'the early stage of the oncology pipeline and the need for a development partner to effectively compete in personalized cancer vaccines – which [BioNTech] is well positioned to execute,' wrote Leerink Partners analyst Mani Foroohar. Raffat, of Evercore ISI, however, wrote that the deal ascribes 'very little value' to CureVac's pipeline. Recommended Reading Recursion to acquire two Canadian drug discovery startups Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Workplace injuries are declining, but costs are climbing, Travelers report finds
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. Due in part to changing workforce demographics, costs associated with workplace injuries are climbing, even while the number of injuries continues to decline, according to a June 3 report from workers' compensation insurer Travelers. The report compared workers compensation data from the five years leading up to the Covid pandemic, 2015 to 2019, with data from the five years since, 2020 to 2024. Three cost-related trends emerged: Increasing retirement ages, ongoing employee turnover and longer injury recovery times, Rich Ives, Travelers senior VP of business insurance claims, said in a press release. To help prevent workplace injuries and manage employee safety, businesses should focus on three key areas: onboarding and training to establish safe work practices; creating a culture of safety by supporting and engaging employees; and managing workplace accidents and injuries, Travelers said. One of the factors affecting workplace injuries has been a continuous job churn over the past five years, Travelers noted. This has created a steady stream of new employees — a group considered among the most vulnerable to injury, the company said. In particular, its research found workplace injuries during a worker's first year on the job comprised 36% of all workplace injuries over the past five years, up from the 34% recorded during the period between 2015 and 2019. There's also been a slight increase in claims by employees aged 50 and older, the study found. 'This trend is significant because older employees — while typically injured less frequently than their younger counterparts — tend to require longer recovery times and have more costly claims,' Travelers said. Across the board, from 2020 to 2024, employees missed an average of 80 workdays per injury, an increase of more than seven days when compared with the previous five-year period, according to Travelers' analysis of more than 2.6 million claims submitted over the past decade. Employers can act proactively to reduce injury risk with onboarding programs that educate employees on appropriate safety procedures and safeguards, such as where emergency exits or eye wash stations are located, Travelers explained in an earlier report. Orientation — as well as training when roles change or for employees returning to work from injuries — should also be skills-based, meaning that it provides actual hands-on training on how to safely perform a task, the report said. Travelers added that employers should include in their safety programs awareness-based training, which emphasizes general safety policies, hazard recognition and how to report an injury or unsafe condition. The combined focus on skills- and awareness-based training 'gives employees tactical knowledge and cultural awareness of why safe practices are important,' Travelers said. Additionally, employers should have policies and employee training in place on how to handle customer hostility — which has been on the rise in recent years, according to a 2022 Axonify report — as well as workplace harassment, particularly harassment outside categories protected by civil rights laws such as inappropriate boundary violations, experts previously told HR Dive. Such policies may include protocols for mitigating different levels of customer-facing and internal harassment, from annoying to physically dangerous. Another factor to keep in mind is that employees may face different risks depending, for example, on characteristics such as gender or physical limitations, the National Safety Council said in a 2024 report. Workplace injury prevention programs that incorporate principles of diversity and inclusion can reduce these risks and create a more effective culture of safety, the report found. For instance, personal protective equipment traditionally has been designed to fit the average White male, NSC said. But this can result in women and nonbinary and transgender employees having incorrectly sized PPE, which can increase injuries. NSC's report also noted that Black and Hispanic workers expressed the most unease about reporting unsafe working conditions and recommended that employers ensure all workers feel comfortable reporting safety issues as part of their priorities around inclusion. Recommended Reading GAO: Federal agencies need to coordinate data on independent contractors, temp workers
