1The gap is widening — and flat raises are why
A flat percentage raise gives the same proportional bump to everyone, which means a larger dollar bump to those already paid most. Across all SEA-represented staff — where an aide earns roughly half what a senior teacher does — the absolute distance between the lowest- and highest-paid keeps growing.
Flat ratio, growing dollars
From 2013–14 to 2024–25 the dollar gap between the top and bottom fifth grew from $58,609 to $86,032 (+47%). The ratio (top ÷ bottom fifth) actually narrowed, from 2.95× to 2.69× — the bottom rose faster in percentage terms (+69% vs +54% at the top), helped by rising state pay floors — the post-McCleary minimum certificated salary (~$40k, regionalized; OSPI / EHB 2242) and Washington’s voter-approved minimum wage rising from $9.47 to $16+/hr, which lifted the lowest-paid classified staff — plus the $1,500 low-paid bonus and aide/office schedule gains. But the absolute dollar gap widened, because a flat percentage on a much higher base is always more dollars. Seattle's contract raises were exactly that — a single uniform percentage added to every schedule each year (7% / 4% / 3% / 2.5%; CBA §A.6), applied to all SEA units alike.A note on grouping: this trend uses equal-count fifths (lowest-paid 20% vs highest-paid 20%), which is what tracks a widening gap over time; sections 2–4 use equal-width $20k pay bands, the natural unit for a single year's distribution and for designing bracket-by-bracket raises.
2The 2024–25 pay distribution, by salary band
All 5,580 SEA-represented staff (≥0.3 FTE) sorted into five equal-width $20k bands from $45k to $145k by actual annual pay. The bottom band (B1) is the largest — 30%, overwhelmingly paraeducators/aides and office professionals; teachers and ESAs fill the upper bands.
The two end bands are open-ended. B1 includes everyone below $65k (down to the lowest ~$20k), and B5 includes everyone at $125k and above (up to ~$172k) — so a trim on B5 in §4 applies to every staff member at $125k+, not just those under $145k.
| Band | Pay range | Staff | FTE | Salary (mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | <$65k | 1660 | 1103 | $54,559 |
| B2 | $65–85k | 659 | 547 | $75,624 |
| B3 | $85–105k | 1166 | 1102 | $93,565 |
| B4 | $105–125k | 915 | 860 | $116,190 |
| B5 | $125k+ | 1180 | 1129 | $136,324 |
Salary = S-275 total final salary (actual annual pay; already includes any supplemental/TRI). Means are per-person within the band; FTE is the summed full-time-equivalent (aides and some office staff are part-time, so FTE < headcount). S-275 insurance and mandatory-benefit fields are unreliable and are not shown.
3How the gap compounds — pay growth by role
A flat percentage raise looks equal, but it compounds unequally: the same percent on a higher salary is more dollars every single year. The clearest case below — teachers and paraeducators got almost the same percentage raise over the decade (+62% vs +60%), yet teacher median pay grew by $42,823 and aide pay by only $21,788 — barely half. Same percentages, double the dollars.
| Role | Staff (2024-25) | Median pay 2013-14 | Median pay 2024-25 | Growth % | Growth $ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teachers | 3126 | $68,097 | $110,920 | +63% | +42,823 |
| ESAs / specialists | 597 | $73,832 | $107,448 | +46% | +33,616 |
| Substitutes | 42 | — | $84,150 | — (new) | — |
| Paraeducators (aides) | 1468 | $35,995 | $57,783 | +61% | +21,788 |
| Office (SAEOP) | 347 | $40,605 | $73,136 | +80% | +32,531 |
Median actual annual pay (S-275 total final salary), ≥0.3 FTE. Substitutes have no 2013–14 baseline (the role becomes meaningful only from ~2020–21). ESAs/specialists = counselors, nurses, SLPs, OT/PT, psychologists, social workers, librarians.
Why "everyone gets the same raise" still widens the gap
The 7% / 4% / 3% raises were applied to every schedule alike. But 7% of a $130k teacher salary is ~$9,100, while 7% of a $36k aide salary is ~$2,500 — every year. Compounded across a decade, identical percentages turn a $32,102 teacher-vs-aide gap (2013–14) into a $53,137 gap (2024–25). The percentage feels fair; the dollars diverge. (Role-specific schedule changes — McCleary floors, the office-staff restructuring that drove Office +80% — add to the spread on top of this.)Where each role sits — role × pay-band matrix (2024–25)
The same stratification, as a headcount matrix. Paraeducators are almost entirely in the bottom band; teachers and ESAs fill the top three. The bold cell is each role's most common band.
| Role | B1 <$65k | B2 $65–85k | B3 $85–105k | B4 $105–125k | B5 $125k+ | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teachers | 108 | 336 | 925 | 748 | 1009 | 3126 |
| ESAs / specialists | 60 | 70 | 154 | 144 | 169 | 597 |
| Substitutes | 7 | 17 | 11 | 5 | 2 | 42 |
| Paraeducators (aides) | 1335 | 104 | 15 | 14 | 0 | 1468 |
| Office (SAEOP) | 150 | 132 | 61 | 4 | 0 | 347 |
4What a progressive redo of the 2022 contract would have looked like
The 2022–25 contract added a flat percentage to the entire salary schedule each year — 7% (2022–23), 4% (2023–24), 3% (2024–25) — confirmed verbatim in the contract (“will be added to the salary schedule,” SEA–SPS CBA, §A.6). Below, the same three raises are re-run as a progressive schedule, holding each year’s total raise pool identical to the flat version (cost-neutral to the dollar). SEA-represented staff are grouped into five equal $20k salary bands (B1 $45–65k … B5 $125–145k, by 2024–25 actual annual pay). Use the controls to set how much is trimmed from the top two bands — everything recomputes live.
The exchange rate: trimming the top to lift the bottom
The bottom band (B1, under $65k) is the largest — 30% of all SEA staff, overwhelmingly paraeducators/aides and office professionals; the top band (B5, $125k+) holds 21%. The top band’s payroll is 1.8× the bottom band’s, so 0.5% trimmed from B5 funds ~0.89% added to B1 (one point at the top ≈ 1.8 points at the bottom), or about +0.57% spread across the bottom two bands. The trims you set below are redistributed to B1 + B2 — with a control to slope how much each gets — while the middle band (B3) stays at the flat rate.
Band salaries: the progressive path, vs the flat outcome, with the per-band difference
| Band | 2021-22 start | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | 2024-25 (progressive) | Total raise (progressive) | 2024-25 (if flat) | Δ vs flat | FTE in band |
|---|
Columns 2–5 trace each band forward under the progressive schedule; the last two columns set its 2024-25 salary beside what the flat 7/4/3 would have paid, with the per-band difference (+ = the band gains vs flat, − = it gives up). The Total raise column is each band’s cumulative % increase 2021-22→2024-25 under the progressive schedule, colored against the flat baseline (+14.6% for every band under flat 7/4/3). The FTE in band column is colored the same way, so you can see how many teachers are on each side of the trade. The flat path’s own year-by-year is the solid lines in the chart below.
The raise each band receives
Each cell reads flat rate → progressive rate; green = bigger than flat, red = smaller.
| Band | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | 2024-25 |
|---|
Mean base salary per 1.0 FTE within each band, classroom teachers (duties 31–34). Bands are equal $15k salary ranges; counts differ (B1 223 teachers … B5 782). Each year’s progressive pool equals the flat pool to the dollar.
What this redo would do — at zero extra cost
5Are SPS teachers overpaid? Raw pay vs the cost of living
A common claim is that Seattle teachers “already earn plenty.” Here are the raw numbers and the same numbers adjusted for what a dollar buys in Seattle — both shown, so you can trust whichever you prefer. SPS’s average teacher salary, $112,696, is accurate and verifiable — and it is only ~3% above the statewide average ($109,111). Net out Seattle’s cost of living and SPS teachers earn less than the rest of the state.
| Measure | Seattle (SPS) | Rest of WA (avg) | SPS vs state |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average teacher salary — raw | $112,696 | $109,111 | +$3,585 (+3%) |
| Cost-adjusted (BEA RPP, all items) | $101,406 | $103,938 | −$2,532 (-2%) |
| Indexed to housing only (RPP 151 vs ~126) | $74,478 | ~$86,596 | −$12,118 |
Why show both numbers
The raw $112,696 is exactly what the district reports — no adjustment, nothing to dispute — and even that whole number is barely above the state average. The adjustment is a standard lens: the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis’s regional price index puts the Seattle metro 11% above the national average overall and 51% above on housing. Net that out and the “Seattle teachers earn a lot” story does not hold — they earn below the state average on a cost-adjusted basis, and far below once housing is isolated.
The most concrete version: what is left after rent — and where you live changes everything
Forget index theory — just subtract a year of typical rent (Census median gross rent, by county). Split three ways, it is not what the headline salary implies:
- Seattle (SPS) — highest salary ($112,696) but highest rent ($1,998/mo, 21% of pay): keeps $88,720 after rent.
- Urban / suburban WA — slightly lower salary ($110,507) but cheaper rent: keeps $90,844 — more than a Seattle teacher.
- Rural WA — much lower salary ($97,826), but rent runs about half Seattle’s and eats only 14% of pay: keeps $84,576.
So Seattle’s highest-in-the-state headline salary buys the second-best take-home once rent is paid — its pay premium is consumed by its rent, and Seattle teachers carry the heaviest rent burden of the three groups.
But after-rent dollars still are not equal — a dollar buys less in Seattle than in rural WA. Here is the striking part: once housing is removed (we already subtracted rent), the remaining cost-of-living gap is small. Non-housing prices barely vary across Washington (BEA non-housing index: Seattle 103.5, most metros ~102, rural ~99) — the geographic cost difference is almost entirely rent. Still, adjusting each group’s after-rent income for its non-housing price level settles the question:
The bottom line: a Seattle teacher’s cost-adjusted discretionary income, $85,737, is essentially the same as a rural teacher’s ($85,431) — even though the Seattle teacher earns $14,870 more in salary — and both trail suburban WA ($88,806). The headline salary is the highest in the state; the standard of living it buys is not.
Caveats (stated up front). The price index is metro-level — it averages Seattle proper with cheaper suburbs, so it likely understates true Seattle housing cost, meaning the cost-adjusted gap is if anything larger. Teachers who live outside the city and commute pay less than the index implies. And Washington already adds a housing-value-based “regionalization factor” to SPS’s state salary allocation, so part of the raw figure is itself a cost-of-living bump. Salary basis: mean S-275 total final salary, full-time teachers (≥0.8 FTE), duties 31–34. Cost index: BEA Regional Price Parities, 2024, by metro.
Data sources. (1) OSPI S-275 personnel reporting — every WA certificated & classified employee, per district, 2013–14 → 2024–25 (read here from the safs_prod S-275 AVRO export: report / report_employee / private_report_employee / assignment). (2) U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Price Parities by metro area, 2024 (file MARPP_MSA_2008_2024.csv; LineCode 1 = all items, 3 = housing/rents). (3) U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year (2023) median gross rent, table B25064, by county and for Seattle city (Census API). (4) SEA–SPS CBA §A.6 for the negotiated raises.
Population & salary basis (§§1–4). SEA-represented Seattle staff (CCDDD 17001): duty roots 31–34 (teachers), 39 & 41–48 (ESAs/specialists: counselor, OT/PT, SLP, psychologist, social worker, nurse, librarian, orientation/mobility), 52 (substitutes), 91 (paraeducators/aides), 94 (office/SAEOP) — identified by each person’s is_major assignment, ≥0.3 FTE with a valid salary (5,580 staff in 2024–25). Excludes administrators, principals, directors (non-SEA) and other-union classified staff (custodians, trades, food service, technical). Salary = S-275 total final salary (actual annual pay; already includes supplemental/TRI — the separate other_salary field applies only at the per-assignment grain); not FTE-normalized. S-275 insurance and mandatory-benefit fields are unreliable and excluded throughout. Nominal dollars, not inflation-adjusted across years.
§1 — gap over time. Each year, staff are sorted into equal-count fifths by salary; the chart plots the mean of the bottom / middle / top fifths. Gap = top-fifth mean − bottom-fifth mean. (Equal-count fifths, not the $20k bands, because fixed-dollar bands can’t track a widening gap — staff migrate out of them as pay rises.)
§2 — distribution. Five equal-width $20k pay bands, $45–145k, by 2024–25 salary; the two end bands are open-ended (B1 = everyone ≤$65k, B5 = everyone ≥$125k). Counts and means per band; FTE = summed full-time-equivalent.
§3 — growth by role. Median pay by role group (Teachers 31–34; ESAs 39/41–48; Substitutes 52; Paraeducators 91; Office 94), 2013–14 vs 2024–25, plus a role×band headcount matrix.
§4 — redistribution model. Re-runs the actual 2022–25 raises (7% / 4% / 3% — the single percentage the CBA adds to every schedule) each year, cost-neutrally: trims the top two bands (B4, B5) by the selected points and pours the freed dollars into the bottom two (B1, B2) with an adjustable B1:B2 split. Each band starts at its 2024–25 mean ÷ 1.146 (the cumulative 7/4/3) and is grown forward; the “exchange rate” is the ratio of band payrolls (headcount × mean). Illustrative — not modeled against the actual step/lane schedule.
§5 — cost of living. Statewide teacher salaries: mean S-275 total final salary, full-time teachers (≥0.8 FTE, duties 31–34), by district (330 districts). District→county→metro crosswalk via the CCDDD county code (first two digits) and standard OMB metro definitions. Cost-adjusted salary = nominal ÷ (BEA all-items RPP ÷ 100) for the district’s metro (Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue = 111.1; nonmetro estimated at 93). After-rent = salary − 12 × median gross rent (Census ACS county rent; Seattle-city rent for SPS). Urban = metro counties, Rural = nonmetro counties. Non-housing price level = (all-items RPP − 0.16 × housing RPP) ÷ 0.84 (0.16 ≈ rent’s share of consumption); cost-adjusted after-rent = after-rent ÷ (non-housing level ÷ 100); rural non-housing estimated ~99 (BEA publishes no nonmetro components). Caveats: the metro price index averages Seattle proper with cheaper suburbs and so likely understates Seattle’s own housing cost; teachers may live outside the district where they work; and WA already adds a housing-value-based regionalization factor to SPS salary allocations, so the nominal figure already embeds a partial cost-of-living bump.