Will educators’ pay reach $63K by 2020?

How much would a proposed income tax increase on the rich boost Arizona teachers’ salaries?

It’s an important question, because teacher pay was one of the central issues driving this spring’s teacher walkout.

And though lawmakers approved a budget that aims to give them a 20 percent raise by 2020, there are questions about whether that raise is sustainable for the long haul.

So, good news! Based on my calculations, average teacher pay could increase to a respectable $63,000 by 2020 if voters green-light a possible ballot initiative to raise the tax.

But don’t bet on that number. Because as several education and finance experts pointed out, there are devils in the details that could significantly diminish what teachers get.

Problem 1: How much will it raise?

Problems quickly arose with calculating how much the measure would generate. Proponents say essentially doubling the marginal income tax rates on people making $250,000 or more would generate $690 million a year.

But there are questions about whether that would be the case. Some have said that a steep increase would motivate more of the state’s richest taxpayers to move more of their money to other states, decreasing what they would pay.

Yet no one I could find has done an independent analysis of the measure. In fact, the Department of Revenue hasn’t even calculated what people making $250,000 or more are already paying to the state.

So, fine. Let’s take the best-case scenario that $690 million flows each year. The initiative would direct 60 percent of that — about $414 million —

to teacher raises.

Problem 2: Who gets the cash?

The next problem lies in how many teachers would get the money.

The initiative changes the definition of “teacher” to include “any non-administrative personnel who teaches students or supports student academic achievement (as defined by districts and charters) including but not limited to nurses, counselors, social workers, psychologists, speech pathologists, librarians and academic interventionists.”

There will undoubtedly be a debate over who deserves to be included in the raises, and obviously, the more people are included, the less money each one will receive.

Based on my analysis, there are 48,905 full-time equivalent teachers and another 20,706 certified specialists and classified employees in district schools who might fit the definition.

In other words, that $414 million would be spread around to 69,611 fulltime equivalents, instead of 48,905 if the definition was left as is.

Problem 3: And charter schools?

But there’s a monkey wrench in that, too. While the Department of Education keeps detailed numbers on the staff in district schools, charter schools are a mystery. The Arizona Charter School Association says there were 9,950 charter school teachers in 2017. But there are no statewide statistics on the number of certified specialists and classified employees there.

Because the income tax would boost salaries for all teachers, whether they teach in district or charter schools, we should include them in our count for a more accurate picture.

Problems 4-6: The comparisons

OK, so let’s low-ball it and say there are 79,561 “teachers” under the initiative’s definition who would be eligible for salary increases. That would amount to an extra $5,203 per teacher each year.

That’s not bad, though if the expanded teacher definition weren’t in there, it would be north of $7,000 per teacher.

But it gets even more complicated when attempting to determine the percentage increase and how it compares to the national average, because:

❚ It’s hard to calculate what teachers will be making next year and through 2020 because the 20 percent raise lawmakers gave will be applied differently among the districts.

❚ The national average keeps moving, too, particularly now that lots of other states are boosting teacher salaries.

❚ The expanded “teacher” definition also would apply to money already being distributed by the Classroom Site fund. That could decrease what teachers are getting by 30 percent.

Best-case scenario: $63K by 2020

That means the starting and ending points are blurry, moving targets. But, for the sake of argument:

The average teacher salary was $48,372 in fiscal 2017, according to the state Auditor General — nearly $9,700 below the national average in 2016-17, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, the most recent data available.

If the raises lawmakers approved this year were applied equally to everyone, which they won’t be, and schools don’t hire any new staff with the cash, which is unlikely, Arizona’s average should ultimately increase to $58,129 in 2020.

Presuming that money doesn’t supplant what lawmakers have previously approved (which is an open question, considering that some economists are unsure about how long the state can sustain these raises with current revenue), the income tax would boost that by another $5,203 — to a respectable average teacher salary of $63,332 in 2020.

Good, but good enough?

That’s almost a 31 percent increase, and even if the national average increases, likely enough to keep us competitive. But, again, that’s the best of the best-case scenarios.

I’d be shocked if lawmakers would independently fund years 2 and 3 of the 20 percent raise if the tax passed. In that case, the next-best-case scenario would be an average salary of $57,928, or just shy of a 20 percent increase. The factors described above could decrease it from there, though it’s anyone’s guess by how much.

That’s frustrating, because as a voter, I’d like to know if what I’m being asked to do will ultimately fix the teacher-pay problem. We can say for certain that the tax does not generate enough to restore funding to pre-recession levels, which was teachers’ other big ask.

And we only have one shot of asking voters to pony up. If the income tax increase qualifies for the November ballot and subsequently passes, the chances of coming back in another year or two for more money are basically nil.

I wish I could say with more certainty that we wouldn’t need to.