School Directors' Compensation Study — Pursuant to Chapter 297, Laws of 2022 (SB 5693), January 6, 2023
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Report
Summary
The School Directors' Compensation Study, a report to the Legislature by the Washington State Department of Commerce dated January 6, 2023, prepared under Chapter 297, Laws of 2022 (SB 5693). It examines compensation for school directors and compares it with 14 categories of special purpose, district-elected officials. Key findings state that school directors' maximum annual compensation is 61% less, that their compensation is funded by a property tax-based levy, and that the governing statute has not been updated since 1987. Recommendations include state funding administered by OSPI, a base salary of $925 per month under a three-tiered formula, an annual per diem maximum of $12,288 and per meeting pay of $128, and inflation adjustments every five years. The report closes with appendices including school districts' funding data by county.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“School Directors' Compensation Study — Pursuant to Chapter 297, Laws of 2022 (SB 5693), January 6, 2023.”
Original at app.leg.wa.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2023-commerce-reports-school-directors-compensation-report-final-77d1e8f1-8/
, SHA-256 35ebe538842d81c33b046493186ad37a60716b6efeb7301b7dd481378079b996.Full text
School Directors'
Compensation Study
Pursuant to Chapter 297, Laws of 2022 (SB 5693)
January 6, 2023
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND
HOUSING DIVISION Report to the Legislature
Director Lisa Brown
V3.2
Acknowledgments
Washington State Department of Commerce
Alice Zillah, section manager, Research Services,
Community Assistance and Research Unit
Kate Fernald, research analyst, Research Services,
Community Assistance and Research Unit
Jordan Laramie, research services analyst,
Research Services, Community Assistance and
Research Unit
Washington State Department of Commerce
Alice Zillah, section manager, Research Services
(360) 725-5035
Alice.Zillah@commerce.wa.gov
Community Assistance and Research Unit
1011 Plum St. SE
P.O. Box 42525
Olympia, WA 98504-2525
www.commerce.wa.gov
For people with disabilities, this report is available
on request in other formats. To submit a request,
please call 360-725-4000 (TTY 360-586-0772)
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY
Table of Contents
Executive summary...................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 6
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 15
Information about school directors ............................................................................................................ 17
Appendix A: School Directors' Survey summary .......................................................................................... 28
Appendix B: Revised Code of Washington for school directors' duties and responsibilities .......................... 46
Appendix C: Revised Code of Washington for school directors' compensation ............................................ 47
Appendix D: County demographics from 2020 Census ................................................................................ 48
Appendix E: Changes in statute recommendations ..................................................................................... 50
Appendix F: School districts' funding data .................................................................................................. 51
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 1
Executive summary
Overview
School directors play a distinct role with specific responsibilities in public education. As school board
members, they partner with fellow school directors to take decisive action in all areas that affect students and
staff in their school districts. A school board has primary responsibility to:
Hire, supervise and evaluate the superintendent
Set the vision, mission and strategic goals for the district
Review, revise and adopt district policies
Establish and oversee the district's budget
Serve as community representatives
Monitor the district’s progress towards its goals1
Section 128(169), Chapter 297, Laws of 2022 (SB 5693) (PDF) tasked the Department of Commerce
(Commerce) with completing a study of school directors' compensation. The bill directed Commerce to
"examine actual and potential school director compensation, including salaries, per diem rates, expense
reimbursements, and health care benefits for the purpose of determining what changes in statute or practice, if
any, would be necessary to align provisions governing school director compensation with those governing the
compensation of other elected officials with comparable duties and responsibilities." Commerce developed
the options and strategies in this report in response to the directives of the bill.
Key findings
Commerce met and corresponded with multiple stakeholders and subject matter experts, elected officials and
appropriate agencies, and distributed a survey to all school directors in Washington to understand which
compensation components would need to be changed to achieve parity with similar elected officials.
The most pressing compensation issues that need to be addressed to bring school directors' compensation
into alignment with similar elected officials' compensation include:
School directors' maximum annual compensation is 61% less than 14 other categories of elected
officials with similar duties and responsibilities.
The funding source for school directors' compensation — a property tax-based levy — creates
inequitable opportunities to pay school directors and negatively impacts school districts and school
directors serving in areas with lower property values.
The results of a widely distributed online survey indicate that more than half of Washington counties
may not have a single school director that identifies as a person of color.
The statute governing school directors' compensation has not been updated since it was enacted in
1987.
A school district's size does not correlate to a school director's workload.
School directors' roles on the school board vary, and the workload varies with the roles.
1 Washington State School Directors' Association, "Serving on Your Local School Board," (2022), https://wssda.org/leadership-
development/board-development/becoming-a-school-
director/#:~:text=School%20directors%20work%20together%20to,strategic%20goals%20for%20the%20district
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 2
Recommendations
Commerce recommends the following changes to bring school directors' compensation into parity with
elected officials that share similar duties and responsibilities. These recommendations are most similar to the
compensation structure for public utility district (PUD) commissioners' compensation and expenses' policy
(RCW 54.12.080). PUD commissioners' compensation policy provides a three-tiered salary; per diem
compensation for meeting attendance or for performing other related duties; paid expenses; and terms for
reviewing and updating compensation.
Establish long-term, sustainable funding for school directors' compensation in the state operating
budget and to be administered by OSPI to provide equitable compensation to all school directors.
Under RCW 28A.315.005, school districts are identified as subdivisions of the state, and thus their
funding is separate and distinct from that for basic education.
Bring school directors' compensation into parity with other elected officials with similar duties and
responsibilities. By using a model based on the weighted average per hour compensations of similar
elected officials, a comparable base salary is $925 per month.
Account for school directors' varying roles on their school boards and corresponding workloads by
establishing a three-tiered school directors' compensation formula. The maximum total annual
compensation cost to pay all school directors statewide would be $19,676,280.
Update school directors' annual maximum per diem to $12,288 and pay per meeting to $128.
Pay school directors' expenses from per diem funds in advance to ensure school directors on limited
budgets can attend out-of-town trainings, participate in meetings, and perform their additional required
duties. Reimburse school directors for travel expenses incurred while performing school directors'
duties and responsibilities.
Add a subsection to the school directors' compensation policy (RCW 28A.343.400) that states the
Office of Financial Management should adjust school directors' salary, per diem, and per meeting
compensations for inflation every five years to achieve policy parity for compensation updates.
Further discuss providing benefits to school directors to address disparities, cost concerns and
equitable opportunities to offer benefits.
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 3
To prepare this report, Commerce researched school directors' compensation statutes and practices, and the
impacts of each. Then school directors' compensation statues were compared to compensation statues of
other elected officials with comparable duties and responsibilities.
Research findings indicate the source of school directors' compensation does not provide equal funding for all
school districts. Consequently, some school districts have the opportunity to offer school directors
compensation, some do not, which may limit who can afford to participate as a school director.
Low-income individuals living in school districts that cannot afford to pay school directors experience
disproportionate adverse impacts as a result of the compensation policy, particularly low-income individuals
who cannot afford to pay for expenses they would incur while performing the duties of a school director, such
as traveling for required trainings. Consequently, current school director compensation policy risks limiting
which districts can afford to offer their school directors compensation, which can limit who has the
opportunity participate as a school director.
When school directors' compensation policy was compared to the compensation policy of other elected
officials that share similar duties and responsibilities, school directors' compensation policy was
comparatively outdated and significantly less than similar elected officials' compensation.
Below is a summary table of the research findings that include school directors' compensation issues and
recommendations for them.
Table 1: School directors' compensation issues and recommendations
Issue Recommendation
Not all school districts can afford to offer school
directors' compensation.
Establish long-term, sustainable state funding to provide
At least 129 school directors reported their school equitable compensation to all school directors, and to
district does not allow them to be reimbursed for ensure all school districts have equal opportunity to pay
expenses or receive per meeting pay, while more than school directors.
200 school directors are allowed reimbursement and
per meeting pay, resulting in compensation disparities.2
Add a subsection to school directors' compensation
policy that states the Office of Financial Management
School directors' compensation policy has not been
should adjust school directors' salary, per diem, and per
updated since it was enacted in 1987.
meeting compensations for inflation every five years to
achieve parity.
School directors' per diem maximum is 61% less than
Update school directors' annual per diem maximum to
that of 14 other special purpose, district-elected
$12,288 to achieve parity.
officials.
School directors' per meeting pay is 61% less than that Update school directors' per meeting pay from $50 per
of 14 other special purpose, district-elected officials. meeting to $128 to achieve parity.
School directors' compensation policy states school Achieve compensation parity by paying school directors
directors cannot be compensated, which creates a the same weighted average per hour that similar elected
compensation disparity between school directors and officials receive for their work with similar duties and
the three most similar elected officials. responsibilities.
2 According to 2022 School Directors' Survey, Department of Commerce.
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 4
Some school districts do not allow their school directors
to be reimbursed for travel expenses Ensure all school directors have equal opportunity to
attend out-of-town trainings, participate in meetings,
School districts requiring school directors to incur all and perform additional required duties by paying travel
travel expenses might prohibit people from participating expenses in advance. Travel expenses should be
as school directors if people cannot afford to pay for the reimbursed.
travel required to fulfill school directors' duties.
The most similar elected officials may receive benefits
including: public utility district commissioners
Commerce recommends the Legislature further discuss
(RCW 54.12.080), port commissioners (RCW 53.08.170),
providing benefits to school directors to address parity,
and city council members (RCW 35.27.130), but school
cost and equity issues.
directors are not allowed to receive benefits from their
respective jurisdictions.
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 5
Introduction
School directors are special-purpose, district-elected officials commonly known as school board members.
School directors partner with fellow school district board members to make critical decisions directly
impacting school districts, classrooms and students. School directors' work is integral to public education.
In 1987 the Legislature recognized the value school directors bring to public education by enacting legislation
that allowed them to receive compensation for attending meetings or performing duties (RCW 28A.343.400).
Many elected officials may be compensated for attending meetings and performing duties, but unlike other
elected officials, school directors' compensation has never been updated.
Consequently, the Legislature tasked the Department of Commerce (Commerce) with studying potential
options for updating and funding school directors' compensation. The goal is to present options and make
recommendations that would bring school directors' compensation into parity with elected officials who share
similar duties and responsibilities.
Authorizing legislation
The 2022-23 State Supplemental Operating Budget Section 128(69), Chapter 297, Laws of 2022 (SB 5693)
directs Commerce to research actual and potential school directors' compensation:
(169) $97,000 of the general fund—state appropriation for fiscal year 2023 is provided solely for the department to
examine actual and potential school director compensation, including salaries, per diem rates, expense
reimbursements, and health care benefits for the purpose of determining what changes in statute or practice, if any,
would be necessary to align provisions governing school director compensation with those governing the
compensation of other elected officials with comparable duties and responsibilities.
(a) The examination required by this subsection, at a minimum, must address:
1. The duties and responsibilities of school directors and to what extent those duties, and the factors relevant to their
completion, may have changed in the previous 10 years;
2. Demographic data about school district boards of directors and the communities they represent for the purpose of
understanding the diversity of school district boards of directors and whether that diversity reflects the communities
they serve;
3. The significant variances in school district budgets, student enrollments, tax bases, and revenues;
4. Options for periodically updating school director compensation, including the frequency and timing of potential
compensation reviews, potential entities that may be qualified to conduct the reviews, and considerations related to
inflationary indices or other measures that reflect cost-of-living changes; and
5. Options for funding the actual and potential costs of school director compensation, including salaries, per diem
amounts, expense reimbursements, and health care benefits.
(b) In completing the examination required by this subsection, the department shall consult with interested parties,
including the office of the superintendent of public instruction, the Washington state school directors' association,
the Washington association of school administrators, and educational service districts.
(c) The department shall, in accordance with RCW 43.01.036, report its findings and recommendations to the
governor, the superintendent of public instruction, and the committees of the legislature with jurisdiction over fiscal
matters and K-12 education by January 6, 2023.
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 6
Subject matter experts
Commerce partnered with the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), the Washington State
School Directors' Association (WSSDA), the Washington Association of School Administrators (WASA), the
Washington Association of Educational Service Districts, and subject matter experts to determine necessary
updates to bring school directors’ compensation into parity with compensation of other elected officials with
comparable duties and responsibilities.
Table 2: Subject matter experts consulted
Name Title
Jordan Alcantara Operations Associate, We Are One America
Lisa Callan 5th Legislative District Washington State Representative
Roger Ferris Executive Director, Washington Fire Commissioners' Association
Sarah Fox Vancouver City Council, Councilmember
Anne Hessburg Mayor Pro Tempore, Leavenworth City Council
Meghan Jernigan Director, Shoreline School District
Tricia Lubach Director of Leadership Development, WSSDA
Michelle Matakas Director, School Apportionment and Financial Services, OSPI
Kathy Mulkerin Director, Walla Walla Public Schools
Roxana Norouzi Executive Director, We Are One America
Director of the Office of Education Ombuds, formerly Executive Director, Southeast Seattle
Erin Okuno
Education Coalition
Marissa Rathbone Director of Strategic Advocacy, WSSDA
Heather Rees Research and Policy Development Program Manager, OSPI
Chris Reykdal Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction, OSPI
Melissa Rubio Political Director, We Are One America
Mike Sando School District and ESD Financial Reporting, OSPI
Vivian Song Maritz Director, Seattle Public Schools
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 7
Name Title
Dan Steele Assistant Executive Director, Government Relations, WASA
Jane Van Dyke Secretary, Washington Public Utility District Association
Jessica Vavrus Executive Director, Association of Educational Service Districts
Colleen Vekich Youth Services Specialist, ESD 112
Graciela
Vice President of Directors, Yakima School District
Villanueva
Phil Vu Chief Customer Success Officer, Policy Map
Sandra Zavala-
Director, Vancouver School District
Ortega
Background
According to the Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC), a total of 14 special purpose, district-elected
officials' maximum compensations are updated to reflect inflationary indices every five years.3 Conversely,
school directors' compensation has not been updated in 36 years (RCW 28A.343.400). As a result, a significant
disparity exists between school directors' compensation and fellow special purpose, district-elected officials'
compensation.
Fourteen special purpose, district-elected officials receive up to $128 per day whereas school directors receive
up to $50 per day. Legislation caps 14 special purpose, district-elected officials' compensation at $12,288 per
year while school directors' compensation is capped at $4,800 per year. School directors' annual maximum
compensation is 61% less than the compensation maximums for 14 special purpose, district-elected officials.
Deepening the compensation disparity, in 2023 and 2024, the same 14 categories of special purpose, district-
elected officials will have their maximum daily compensation rates and annual maximums reviewed and
updated to reflect inflationary indices. The Per Legislation column in the table below is informed by Municipal
Research Services Center, "Salary Increases Effective July 1 for Many Special Purpose District Officials."4
3 Municipal Research Services Center, "Salary Increases Effective July 1 for Many Special Purpose District Officials," (2018),
https://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/June-2018/Salary-Increases-for-Special-Purp-Dist-Officials.aspx
4 Source: Municipal Research Services Center, "Salary Increases Effective July 1 for Many Special Purpose District Officials," (2018),
https://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/June-2018/Salary-Increases-for-Special-Purp-Dist-Officials.aspx
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 8
Table 3: Compensation comparisons
Elected officials in special
Per legislation School directors purpose districts (14)
Compensation updates Not Allowed Every five years
Compensation last updated 1987 2018
Maximum compensation
$50 $128
allowed per day
Maximum compensation
$4,800 $12,288 — $17,920
allowed per year
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 9
Recommendations
To bring school directors' compensation into parity with elected officials that share similar duties and
responsibilities, Commerce recommends updating statute RCW 28A.343.400 governing monthly salaries, per
diem maximums, and per meeting maximums. This section offers recommendations in two parts.
Part one outlines Commerce’s recommendations for sustainable funding that would address pay
disparities between school directors and other elected officials with similar duties while ensuring all school
districts have equal opportunity to offer school directors compensation. Specifically, Commerce
recommends:
The Legislature should establish long-term, sustainable funding for school directors' compensation.
The base salary school directors should be offered to achieve parity with similar elected officials is
$925 per month.
Establish a tiered compensation system that reflects school directors' various roles on the school
board and the additional work typically required.
Allow all school directors' travel expenses to be paid in advance. All school directors' travel
expenses incurred while performing school director duties should be reimbursed from per diem
funds.
The Legislature should further discuss the following three issues: Offering benefits to address the
disparity between school directors and other elected officials, cost concerns and equitable
opportunities to offer benefits.
Part two outlines recommended practice and statute changes necessary to align provisions governing
school director compensation with provisions governing other compensation of elected officials with
comparable duties and responsibilities. School directors' compensation statute RCW 28A.343.400 should
be revised to:
Remove the mandated source of school directors' compensation, excess levy funds. Replace the
funding source as coming from the state operating budget and to be administered by OSPI.
Update salary, annual per diem maximum and per meeting pay.
Add a sub-clause that provides terms for updating school directors' compensation.
Revise the practice of opt-in compensation to make compensation mandatory for all school
directors.
Part one: Establish state funding for school directors' compensation
To bring school directors' compensation into parity with the most similar elected officials', and to ensure
school directors' compensation is uniformly available across the state, the state should establish long-term,
sustainable funding for school directors' compensation in the state operating budget to be administered by
OSPI. State funding would provide all school directors updated compensations that reflect similar elected
officials' compensation, and would eliminate the inequity of requiring school directors to be compensated from
excess levy funds. State funding would ensure all school districts have the opportunity to pay their school
directors, regardless of the district area's assessed property value. It would further ensure people from all
economic backgrounds receive equal compensation for their work as school directors.
Monthly salary
To address the inequitable pay disparities between school directors and their similar elected officials,
Commerce recommends paying school directors a monthly salary based on each school director's role on the
school board. To better determine the appropriate school director salary, Commerce conducted a pay equity
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 10
audit, a method to compare compensation amongst positions of similar duties. The work of port
commissioners, PUD commissioners and city council members is very similar, but because they work a range
of different hours, their weighted average hourly pay was calculated to more accurately compare the elected
officials' compensations.
The weighted average pay per hour model was selected because it provides the greatest accuracy,
transparency, and objectivity. After the weighted average pay per hour of three elected officials with the most
similar duties and responsibilities was calculated, it was multiplied by 16 (the average hours school directors
spend on their duties, according to the 2022 School Directors' Survey). The total annual compensation cost to
pay all school directors the same base salary would be $16,394,700.
Additionally, stakeholders unanimously agreed that three roles on the school board almost always require
more work. Accordingly, stakeholders recommended a tiered compensation system that reflects the additional
work typically required by the role:
President $925 x 1.50 = $1,388 per month
Vice president and legislative representative $925 x 1.25 = $1,157 per month
All other school directors Base salary = $925 per month
The maximum total annual cost to pay 1,477 school directors' tiered salaries that correspond to workload
would be $19,676,280, or $3,281,580 more than paying all directors the same base salary.
Annual per diem
Elected officials typically incur business and travel-related expenses while performing their duties,5 including
flights, hotels and meals for required training, known as per diem expenses. Covered costs under per diem
typically include airfare, rental cars, and hotel and meal costs in addition to pay-per-meeting standards.
Jurisdictions vary on their policies, some paying elected officials' travel costs in advance. Others require the
official to initially pay the per diem costs, then the elected official is reimbursed for expenses post travel. It is
important to note that per diem pay is separate from and in addition to any monthly salary or salary elected
officials receive.
Commerce recommends bringing school directors' annual per diem maximum up to $12,288 to achieve parity
with allowable annual per diem maximums for port commissioners, public utility district commissioners, and
12 more special purpose, district-elected officials.6
Table 8: Annual special purpose districts' allowable compensation thresholds7
Elected officials, special purpose district Annual per diem compensation threshold
Port districts $12,288 - $15,360
Public utility districts $17,920
Water sewer districts $12,288
Irrigation districts $12,288
Fire districts $12,288
5 Municipal Research and Services Center, "Travel and Expense Reimbursement Policies," (July 28, 2022),
https://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Finance/Accounting-and-Internal-Controls/Travel-Expense-Reimbursement.aspx
6 Municipal Research Services Center, "Salary Increases Effective July 1 for Many Special Purpose District Officials," (2018),
https://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/June-2018/Salary-Increases-for-Special-Purp-Dist-Officials.aspx
7 Municipal Research Services Center, "Salary Increases Effective July 1 for Many Special Purpose District Officials," (2018),
https://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/June-2018/Salary-Increases-for-Special-Purp-Dist-Officials.aspx
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 11
Elected officials, special purpose district Annual per diem compensation threshold
Public hospital districts $12,288
Metropolitan parks districts $12,288
Cemetery districts $12,288
Diking districts $12,288
Drainage districts $12,288
Diking, drainage and sewerage improvement districts $12,288
Flood control districts $12,288
Flood control district supervisors $12,288
Special districts — diking, drainage, and flood control
$12,288
facilities and services
Expenses
To align school directors' expense policies with numerous special purpose, district-elected officials, including
but not limited to public utility district commissioners, fire district commissioners, and conservation district
supervisors, Commerce recommends the following: School directors shall receive all reasonable and
necessary expenses incurred in attending meetings of the board or when otherwise engaged in district
business. All travel expenses shall be paid.
Commerce recommends allowing these expenses to be paid in advance when needed to ensure school
directors on limited budgets can attend out-of-town trainings, participate in meetings, and perform their
additional required duties.
Per meeting pay
Elected officials' per diem pay often includes a per-meeting payment component. Many elected officials can be
paid a set amount each day for performing their elected duties, such as attending meetings, up to a maximum
annual amount.
Commerce recommends updating school directors' per-meeting payment amount from $50 per meeting to
$128 per meeting. Updating school directors' per-meeting pay to $128 would match school directors' per-
meeting pay with 14 other similar special purpose, district-elected officials' per-meeting pay, including public
utility district commissioners and port commissioners. It would also eliminate the 61% disparity in per-meeting
pay that currently exists between school directors and similar elected officials.
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 12
Table 8: Special purpose districts' allowable per day threshold8
Elected officials, special purpose district Per day allowable threshold
Port districts $128
Public utility districts $128
Water sewer districts $128
Irrigation districts $128
Fire districts $128
Public hospital districts $128
Metropolitan parks districts $128
Cemetery districts $128
Diking districts $128
Drainage districts $128
Diking, drainage and sewerage improvement districts $128
Flood control districts $128
Flood control district supervisors $128
Special districts — diking, drainage, and flood control
$128
facilities and services
Updating school directors' maximum per diem to $12,288 would bring one component of school directors'
compensation into parity with similar elected officials. Given the various number of school board meetings per
year, differing travel expenses, varying training requirements and unpredictable number of meetings from
which school directors will be absent, it is only possible to calculate the maximum total annual cost of
providing per diem pay: $18,149,376. This total assumes all 1,477 school directors are paid the annual
maximum per diem compensation, $12,288, which includes travel expenses and per-meeting pay.
Reviewing and updating school directors' compensation
Commerce recommends the same review schedule for school directors as that of port commissioners and
public utility district commissioners: The Office of Financial Management should adjust school directors'
salary, per diem, and per-meeting compensations for inflation every five years. The first adjustment should
begin January 1, 2024, based upon changes in the consumer price index during the previous five years as
compiled by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, United States Department of Labor.
Commerce's recommendation to add a "review and update" sub-section to school directors' compensation
policy would ensure school directors' compensation is regularly updated to reflect inflationary indices, and
would remain in alignment with the most similar elected officials' compensation.
Benefits
Of the respondents who took the School Directors' Survey, approximately 16%, or 64 school directors, did not
have health benefits. Commerce recommends the Legislature consider providing benefits to school directors
who do not already have them. Public utility district commissioners (RCW 54.12.080), port commissioners
(RCW 53.08.170), and city council members (RCW 35.27.130) may receive benefits from their respective
8 Municipal Research Services Center, "Salary Increases Effective July 1 for Many Special Purpose District Officials," (2018),
https://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/June-2018/Salary-Increases-for-Special-Purp-Dist-Officials.aspx
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 13
jurisdictions. To achieve true parity with similar elected officials, school districts should be allowed to offer
benefits to school directors.
OneAmerica, a subject matter policy expert in creating more diverse communities at every level of society,
reported in a stakeholder meeting that providing benefits to school directors who do not already have benefits
is key to creating more diverse school boards.
On the other hand, the significant variance in school districts' budgets may result in unequal opportunities for
school districts to offer benefits to school directors. Additionally, some stakeholders voiced reservations
about the costs to provide benefits. Due to these variable factors, Commerce recommends further discussion
on this topic.
Part two: Practice and statute changes to achieve parity
To achieve compensation parity with other elected officials, Commerce recommends the Legislature revise
RCW 28A.343.400 to provide funding through OSPI.
OSPI recommended that they send school directors' compensation amounts to local districts for director pay.
OSPI is the most logical choice because they already calculate and distribute each school district's appropriate
amount of state funding through the state apportionment system. School directors' compensation funding
should be appropriated specifically for that purpose. Commerce's recommended school directors'
compensation policy is best exemplified by public utility district (PUD) commissioners' compensation and
expenses' policy, RCW 54.12.080. PUD commissioners' compensation policy provides a three-tiered salary; per
diem compensation for meeting attendance or for performing other related duties; paid expenses; and terms
for reviewing and updating compensation.
However, Commerce does not recommend allowing school directors to waive any portion of their
compensation. 38% of school directors reported their school district does not allow directors to receive
compensation, and almost 30% reported there is an expectation in their school district that they waive their per
diem.9 If the recommended policy changes are made, the option to waive compensation and the option to
accept compensation will not exist.
Mandating school directors' compensation will best protect school directors from public scrutiny, remove the
school directors' compensation debate from local communities, and uphold the spirit of RCW 43.03.027. RCW
43.03.027 states, "It is hereby declared to be the public policy of this state to base the salaries of public
officials on realistic standards in order that such officials may be paid according to the true value of their
services and the best qualified citizens may be attracted to public service."
Commerce recommends school directors' compensation policy RCW 28A.343.400 be revised to reflect the
following recommendations:
School directors shall receive a monthly salary based on school director's role on the school board:
School directors' base salary: $925
Vice-president and legislative representative: $1,157
President: $1,388
9 2022 School Directors Survey, Department of Commerce
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 14
Update annual per diem maximum to $12,288.
Update per-meeting pay maximum to $128.
Paid expenses: Directors shall receive necessary expenses incurred in attending meetings of the board or
when otherwise engaged in district business. All travel expenses shall be paid. Expenses can be paid in
advance.
Salary, annual per diem and per-meeting pay thresholds shall be reviewed and updated every five years
beginning Jan. 1, 2024, by the Office of Financial Management according to consumer price index changes
determined by the United States Department of Labor.
If the Legislature updates school directors' compensation policies and provides the requisite funding, school
directors' compensation will be:
Equal with similar elected officials' compensation
Equitably offered by all school districts in the state
Equitably available to all school directors regardless of the economic conditions of their area
Inclusive, so that all school directors have the economic resources required to perform their duties and
responsibilities
Removed from locally collected excess levy funds, thereby achieving equitable opportunity while
preserving levy funds for services and students that need them
Note: school directors’ compensation should not be considered as part of basic education.
School districts are defined in statute as sub-agents of the state: “Local school districts are political
subdivisions of the state and the organization of such districts, including the powers, duties, and boundaries
thereof, may be altered or abolished by laws of the state of Washington” (RCW 28A.315.005).
Because school districts are subdivisions of the state, school directors’ compensation should not be part of
the basic education program. Basic education is defined in statute through a variety of formulas and
entitlements to students – days, hours, and instructional staff, among others (RCW 28A.150). According to the
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, basic education is often thought of as what students can
expect by way of “prototypical supports” for a typical sized school, so school directors’ compensation does not
belong in basic education.
OSPI’s preferred recommendation is to add school directors’ compensation to the chapter for all school
districts’ provisions, specifically RCW 28A.320.015 where school directors’ powers are listed. RCW
28A.320.015 is preferred because it is not considered a basic education statute.
OSPI’s second recommendation is to add school directors’ compensation to the basic education statute where
school director responsibilities are listed: RCW 28A.150.230 but add a clarifying sentence such as “for
purposes of this section, school director compensation is not part of the program of basic education.”
Methodology
Commerce first conducted literature reviews, then met with multiple stakeholders. From there, a survey was
distributed to all Washington school directors. Further e-mail communications with stakeholders ensued as
Commerce refined funding options and recommendations. The final steps were crafting and calculating school
directors' compensation options and recommendations.
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 15
Commerce's project manager met weekly with WSSDA to get a basis of understanding for what school
directors do, the meetings and events they attend, and the impact of the decisions they make.
During one meeting with WSSDA, stakeholders expressed concern about the demographic portion of the
proviso. Some school directors shared safety concerns about disclosing their personal demographic
information due to past threats and harassment.
Ultimately, the best solution was to send a voluntary and anonymous survey to all Washington state school
directors currently serving. (See Appendix A for all survey questions.) One question asked the respondent to
self-identify their demographic information. A separate question asked in what county the survey respondent
lived. This solution protected individuals' demographic information and right to privacy; it also allowed
Commerce to collect demographic information that could be disaggregated at the county level for statewide
comparisons.
In August 2022, WSSDA sent the survey to all 1,477 school directors in the state on behalf of Commerce. Of
those, 390, or 26.5%, of Washington's school directors completed the survey.
Figure 1 displays the percent of school directors that responded to the survey in each county.
Figure 1: Percent of school director survey responses by county
Source: 2022 School Directors' Survey, Department of Commerce
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 16
Commerce worked with WSSDA, additional stakeholders directly named in the proviso, district associations,
elected officials, and additional subject matter experts. Using the stakeholders', subject matter experts' and
survey respondents' feedback, final funding options and recommendations were determined.
Information about school directors
The proviso requires this report to address school directors' duties and responsibilities, how duties and
responsibilities changed in the last 10 years, and school directors' compensation and demographic
information. A detailed discussion of each follows.
School directors' duties and responsibilities
School directors' responsibilities are directly named in statute RCW 28A.150.230. School directors work
together to oversee the school district. As a board, their primary responsibilities are to:
Hire, supervise and evaluate the superintendent
Set the vision, mission and strategic goals for the district
Review, revise and adopt policies
Establish and oversee the budget
Serve as community representatives
Monitor the district’s progress towards its goals
Approve major purchases and investments
School directors responding to the online survey reported:
More than half of school directors attend three or more meetings per month
School directors spend an average of 16 hours per month on their duties10
16% spend more than 25 hours per month performing school director duties
50% spend 16 or more hours in training each year
25% spend more than 25 hours in training each year
Duties: Meetings
School directors' duties include attending monthly meetings, work-study sessions and related committee
meetings. The number of required meetings per month varies by school district and by the school director's
role on the school board (discussed below). However, results from the school directors' online survey show
that more than half of school directors attend three or more meetings per month.
Additionally, all school directors are expected to meet with their constituents. Again, the frequency and length
of constituent meetings varies by district, and by the topic, but 55% of school directors who took the online
survey reported they meet with community members every month. More controversial topics often result in
longer meetings, both school board meetings and one-on-one constituent meetings. Regardless of school
directors' role on their district boards, many school board members are asked or expected to join one or two
committee meetings per month, but again, this varies by district.
10 According to the weighted average reported in the 2022 School Directors' Survey, Department of Commerce.
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 17
Duties: Roles
There is one commonality that better predicts all school directors' workload regardless of the district in which
they are located: school directors' role on the school board. Multiple stakeholders reported the president of the
school board typically spends the most hours per month on duties, followed by the vice president and
legislative representative. These roles require additional hours because they often require additional monthly
meetings and communications with various entities including superintendents and state representatives.
Duties: Unseen
All school directors have additional duties that occur outside of their required meetings. According to the
school directors' online survey responses, almost 95% of school directors' regularly attend graduations, public
forums, or other school or district events; 93% of school directors research and prepare for the topic(s) to be
discussed at the next school board meeting; 92% of school directors regularly read and respond to community
members' emails and phone calls; and 65% advocate for their school district's policy interests with legislators.
Additionally, school directors are responsible for organizing and tracking their schedules including meetings,
trainings and events; and they arrange all travel for trainings, conferences and events.
Duties: Required trainings
WSSDA provides Educational Equity and professional development training for school directors. During a
school director's first term in office, they are required to take the Open Government Training, per
RCW 42.30.205, and Education Equity training, per RCW 28A.345.120, in addition to professional development
courses. During subsequent terms of office, school directors are required to attend one of WSSDA's
professional development elective training courses per term.
Almost half of school directors who took the online survey reported spending more than 16 hours in training
every year, while 23% of responding school directors spent more than 25 hours in training each year. Attending
training was reported as the number one reason school directors missed work, followed closely by meetings.
According to the online survey, school directors' duties, especially trainings and meetings, have a direct impact
on their outside employment. More than 75% of school directors have jobs separate from their school director
responsibilities, and 60% of those directors work full time. However, 73% of school directors reported they
have missed work due to a school director duty, and 19 school directors indicated that their personal finances
were negatively impacted because they had to take time off of work to fulfill their school director duties.
How school directors' duties changed over the past 10 years
According to multiple stakeholders, in the previous 10 years school directors' duties and responsibilities have
significantly changed. School directors' duties and responsibilities became more complex as many aspects of
K-12 education became more complex. Public education is rapidly diversifying and dealing with external health
crises. The system is catching up to understand how to best serve the changing student body and modernize
itself.
Consequently, all primary areas of school board governance (including policy, budgeting, strategic planning
and advocacy) have expanded over the last 10 years to include community conversations and considerations
around:
Educational equity
Serving more diverse students and families
Increased pressure on academic achievement
Greater expectation of community engagement
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 18
Unprecedented decision making pressure regarding health and safety during the COVID-19 pandemic
Additionally, within the last 10 years the Legislature began requiring Open Government Training and
Educational Equity Training that includes diversity, cultural competency, and inclusion training.
School directors' compensation
According to the school directors' compensation policies (RCW 28A.343.400) each school district's board of
directors decides if it will offer its board members compensation. If compensation is provided, funds may only
come from the school district's locally collected excess levy funds. In districts that allow compensation, school
directors may claim $50 per day for attending board meetings or performing other school-director duties, not
to exceed $4,800 per year.
School directors responding to the online survey reported:
68% of school directors do not receive any compensation for their work
28% feel there is an expectation in their school district to waive school directors' salary
38% are in school districts that do not allow school directors to be compensated
88% would or might support school directors' compensation depending on the details
How levy funds work
The state of Washington is required to supply school districts with state funding for “basic education,” which is
based on what is referred to as a “prototypical model” representing the Legislature’s assumptions of what
resources are required to provide the program of basic education. A levy is a short-term, local property tax
passed by the voters of a school district that generates revenue for the district to enhance basic education and
fund programs and services.11 Because property taxes are determined by a percentage of a property's
assessed value, school districts in areas with higher property values have the potential to bring in significantly
more levy funding dollars than school districts with lower property values.
Local effort assistance funds
In 1987, the Legislature approved payments of State General Fund moneys to match excess General Fund
levies in eligible districts. The fund, known as local effort assistance (LEA), helps school districts with above-
average tax rates due to low property valuations. In calendar year 2019, 178 of the state’s 295 school districts
received LEA allocations totaling $330.6 million. LEA allocations make up about 2.3% of all school district
revenues statewide, are paid into school districts’ General Fund, and may be spent on enrichment General Fund
programs.12
Levies and student services
Locally collected excess levy funds are an important revenue source that supports student services. The state
of Washington is required to supply school districts with state funding to support basic education
(RCW 28A.150.260). When the funding provided by the state does not cover the actual costs to operate,
construct and maintain a school district, districts often utilize bonds and levies to bridge the gap. "This local
funding allows school districts to provide the structures and services communities rely on, which allows
students to grow and thrive," according to the Education Service District 112.
11 Educational Service District 112, "Bonds and Levies: The seeds of school funding," (September 29, 2022),
https://www.esd112.org/bond-levy/
12 Organization and Financing of Schools – 2020 Edition (www.k12.wa.us)
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 19
The funding source that often bridges the gap — local levies — is the same funding source for school directors'
compensation. This funding conflict between student services and school directors' compensation
disproportionately impacts Washington's most economically vulnerable students and school directors,
especially students and school directors of color who are disproportionately represented in economically
vulnerable households.13
Levies as inequitable funding sources
The source of school directors' compensation funding — local excess levy funds only — results in
unsustainable, unreliable and inequitable compensation opportunities for school directors. This section
discusses each issue in detail. (See Appendix D for school districts 2021-2022 financial information.)
First, levies are short-term, lasting from one to six years depending on the levy type, so they are neither a long-
term nor a sustainable funding source.
Two school districts similar in size demonstrate how different levy collections can be. In 2020, Federal Way's
student enrollment was 21,189 students. Edmonds School District enrollment was 759 fewer students, at
20,430. Materials and operations (M&O) excess levies collected for the two school districts in 2020 resulted in
$2,584 per student in the Edmonds School District, and less than half that amount ($1,270 per student) in
Federal Way.
Table four displays the 2020 excess levy funds in six similarly sized school districts for comparison.
Table 4: School districts' 2020 property valuations and excess levy funds
Excess M&O levy
2020 excess funds per Student
School district Valuation M&O levy funds student enrollment
Higher property values
Edmonds $34,842,909,268 $52,790,701 $2,584 20,430
Bellevue $76,525,448,992 $53,100,128 $2,682 19,801
Everett $23,717,349,585 $45,319,996 $2,277 19,909
Lower property values
Federal Way $17,431,370,800 $26,899,963 $1,270 21,189
Kennewick $9,385,430,286 $14,850,000 $806 18,434
Bethel $13,865,011,933 $29,484,782 $1,478 19,961
Source: The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction's Levy Detail.
13 National Low Income Housing Coalition, "Racial Disparities Among Extremely Low-Income Renters," (April 15, 2019),
https://nlihc.org/resource/racial-disparities-among-extremely-low-income-renters
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 20
Although all school districts are authorized to compensate their school directors from excess levy funds, not
all school districts can afford to, making the source of school directors' compensation unequal and
inequitable.
Limiting which school districts can afford to pay their school directors might also limit who can afford to
participate as a school director.
Inequitable compensation policy
State policies that do not provide an equally reliable funding source for school directors' compensation can
result in disproportionate adverse impacts to low-income areas, particularly to low-income individuals who
cannot participate as school directors without compensation.
School districts that do not compensate their school directors are at risk of ensuring school directors are
mostly members of economic classes who can afford to serve without compensation. Conversely,
economically vulnerable people who might need compensation so they can afford to take time off of work to
attend school directors' meetings, trainings and other required duties, are denied the opportunity to participate
if they cannot afford the privilege of serving without compensation.
School directors responding to the online survey reported:
61% have a household income of $80,000 or more per year
7% have a household income of $40,000 to $60,000
6% have a household income of $40,000 or less
According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, "Black, Native American, and Hispanic households
are more likely than white households to be extremely-low income."14 Given that Black, Native American, and
Hispanic people are disproportionately represented in extremely-low income populations, school districts that
do not compensate their school directors risk disproportionately excluding Black, Indigenous, and persons of
color (BIPOC) from participating as school directors.
Washington's school directors' compensation policy does not require all school directors to be equally
compensated from district to district, so it does not afford all community members' equal opportunity to
participate.
14 National Low Income Housing Coalition, "Racial Disparities Among Extremely Low-Income Renters," (April 15, 2019),
https://nlihc.org/resource/racial-disparities-among-extremely-low-income-renters
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 21
School directors' demographics
This report required Commerce to gather "Demographic data about school district boards of directors and the
communities they represent for the purpose of understanding the diversity of school district boards of
directors and whether that diversity reflects the communities they serve." Every counties' population
demographic data is displayed in the map below and identified in Appendix D.
The map displays the estimated population that identifies as BIPOC in each county.
Figure 2. Estimated BIPOC population per county
Source: 2020 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimate.
Commerce was not able to gather school directors' demographic information at an individual level due to
safety concerns. Nonetheless, school directors' demographic information was ultimately collected at a county
level through a voluntary, anonymous survey distributed to all Washington state school directors. Among other
questions, it asked the school director to self-identify the county they lived in and whether they identified as a
school director of color. With 39 counties and 1,477 school directors, the survey protected individual identities
while providing a sense of school directors' demographic information in each county.
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 22
Demographic comparisons
When responding to Commerce's survey, 10% of school directors identified as school directors of color; 82%
identified as not a school director of color; 7% preferred not to respond; and two people skipped the question.
School directors from all areas of the state, including 36 of 39 counties, took the survey.
Figure 3: School directors' demographics from 2022 School Director Survey
16. Do you identify as a school director of color?
(n=388)
11%
7%
No
Prefer not to respond
Yes
82%
Source: 2022 School Directors' Survey, Department of Commerce
According to the survey results, school directors' demographics are not representative of their communities.
The survey responses indicated that more than half of Washington state counties may not have a single
school director that identifies as a person of color.
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 23
Figure 4: Survey results: percentage of counties without BIPOC school directors
Survey responses indicated more than half of
counties may not have BIPOC school directors
38%
62%
62% of counties did not have any school directors identify as BIPOC
38% of counties had one or more school directors identify as BIPOC
Source: 2022 School Directors' Survey, Department of Commerce
The survey data suggest that in the majority of counties, school directors' diversity does not mirror the diversity
of the communities they serve. King County respondents identified as BIPOC more than those from other
counties, but the county's population is still 14% more likely to be BIPOC than school directors answering the
survey. Notably, 76% of school directors who identify as a person of color live in just two counties, King and
Pierce, according to the survey.
The chart below only displays counties that had one or more school directors identify as BIPOC. For those
counties, the percent of community members that identified as BIPOC in the 2020 American Community
Survey 5-year Estimate are compared to the percent of school directors that identified as BIPOC in the online
survey.
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 24
Figure 5: Counties with one or more BIPOC school directors compared to counties'
demographics from 2020 American Community Survey 5-year estimate
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Estimated percent of the population that is BIPOC (%)
School Directors Identifying as BIPOC (%)
Additional School Directors' Survey results
In addition to asking about school directors' duties, demographic information, income and compensation, the
survey also asked about school directors' election terms, individual households, outside employment and
potential school directors' compensation. Key findings from each category are summarized below.
Election terms
50% of school directors have served as school directors for four or fewer years.
25% have served for five to eight years.
25% have served for nine or more years.
15% do not plan to run for re-election.
40% would be more likely to run for re-election if compensation was provided for school directors' work.
Household
50% have school-aged kids.
17% do not have health benefits.
81% do not require childcare.
Employment
60% work full-time.
18% are retired.
15% work part-time.
7% do not work and are not retired.
73% had to miss work for a school director-related duty.
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 25
Elected officials with similar duties and responsibilities
Commerce researched 19 categories of elected officials to determine which officials shared the most similar
duties and responsibilities with school directors. Public utility district commissioners, port commissioners, and
city council members in council-member cities were found to have duties and responsibilities most similar to
school directors, and are non-partisan positions. A brief description of each position's duties and
responsibilities follows below.
Public utility district commissioners15
Select a general manager to oversee the utility operations and staff
Set the long-term goals and strategies for the district
Review, revise and adopt utility policies
Review and approve annual budgets
Serve as community representatives
Approve major purchases and investments
Port commissioners16
Select port's professional staff members
Set the long-term strategies for the port district
Review, revise and adopt port policies
Review and approve annual budgets
Serve as community representatives
Approve major purchases and investments
City council members17
Select the city manager to oversee all administrative functions and staff
Set the long- and short-term objectives and priorities for the city
Review, revise and adopt city policies
Review and approve annual budget
Serve as community representatives
Approve major purchases and investments
School directors18
Hire, supervise and evaluate the superintendent
Set the vision, mission and strategic goals for the district
Review, revise and adopt policies
Establish and oversee the budget
Serve as community representatives
Monitor the district’s progress towards its goals
Approve major purchases and investments
15 Municipal Research and Services Center, "Public Utility District No. 1 of Cowlitz County, Board of Commissioners Governance Policy,"
(November 24, 2015), https://mrsc.org/getmedia/9595f2fa-351a-4897-9ca0-d29284254bcd/s77p8cowcoPUDgovPolicy.pdf.aspx
16 Washington Ports Association, "How Ports Are Governed," https://www.washingtonports.org/about-our-ports
17 Municipal Research and Services Center, "Mayor and Councilmember Handbook," (September 21, 2022),
https://mrsc.org/getmedia/034f13b6-7ec2-4594-b60b-efaf61dd7d10/Mayor-And-Councilmember-Handbook.pdf.aspx?ext=.pdf
18 Washington State School Directors' Association, "Serving on Your Local School Board," (2022), https://wssda.org/leadership-
development/board-development/becoming-a-school-
director/#:~:text=School%20directors%20work%20together%20to,strategic%20goals%20for%20the%20district
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 26
Other elected officials reviewed
Fourteen other categories of elected officials were considered but ruled out due to having differences in duties
and responsibilities, schedules, meeting frequencies, and workloads. Those considered but not used for
comparison were county commissioners, state representatives, state senators, and elected officials from all of
the following special-purpose districts: fire district commissioners, metropolitan park district commissioners;
cemetery districts; diking districts; drainage districts; diking, drainage and sewer improvement districts; diking
and drainage districts in two or more counties; public transportation benefit authority; flood control districts;
flood control district supervisors; and conservation district supervisors.
Options for updating and funding school directors' compensation
While researching, meeting with stakeholders and working with subject matter experts, a list of options was
created for compensating, funding and updating school directors' compensation. This section presents the
options for each topic.
Options for compensating school directors
Providing a salary ranging from $1,200 to $2,000 per month
Not providing a monthly salary and instead updating the per-meeting pay
Paying school directors based on student enrollment or district budget
Options for funding school directors' compensation
Locally collected excess levy funds (the current source for school directors' compensation funding)
Funding provided by counties, as is practiced in some states
Funding provided by the state government, as is practiced in some states
Options for updating school directors' compensation
Authorizing OSPI to update school directors' compensation biennially to coincide with school directors'
biennial elections using a formula-based method to increase compensation by a set percentage
Directing the Washington Citizens' Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials to update directors'
compensation every year based on the commission's studies of realistic standards, duties, and ability
to attract highest quality citizens to public service
Directing the Office of Financial Management to update school directors' compensation every six years
by calculating changes to the Implicit Price Deflator19 to follow the index used for some educators'
salaries
Allowing county commissioners to determine their school directors' compensation amounts as is
practiced in some states every four years to coincide with school directors' terms
At the Legislature's discretion, the Legislature could periodically review and update school directors'
compensation.
19 An implicit price deflator is the ratio of the current-dollar value of a series, such as gross domestic product (GDP), to its
corresponding chained-dollar value, multiplied by 100.
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 27
Appendix A: School Directors' Survey summary
The Washington State School Directors' Association sent all Washington school directors a school directors'
compensation study survey on behalf of Commerce. All questions and responses are included here.
1. Please select all meetings you attend in a typical month while serving as a school director. (Please select all
that apply.)
1. What meetings do school directors attend in a typical month?
(n=389, 1,447 responses)
350
300
250
Responses
200
150
100
50
0
Business Work study Meeting with Agenda review Workshop 1st committee Other 2nd committee
meeting sessions community meeting meeting meeting meeting
members
Question 1, Other responses
(n=109)
44
School Visits and Staff Meetings
13
District Meetings
18
Other Committee Meetings
15 Other Board Meetings (WIAA, WSSDA, etc.)
3 Superintendent Meetings
City or County Council Meetings
2
Meeting with Students
2
All Other Meetings (tribes, representatives,
trainings, etc.)
7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 28
2. In addition to monthly meetings, what other duties are school directors from your
district expected to participate in? (Please select all that apply.)
2. Other responses
Question 2, Other responses
(n=48)
School events
Staff meetings
Community outreach
Board meetings
City/town hall meetings
Committee meetings
Training
Work groups / research
Volunteering
Hiring
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 29
3. On average, approximately how many hours per month do you spend working on
school director duties (including all meeting prep, meeting attendance, stakeholder
engagement, etc.)?
3. On average, approximately how many hours per month do school
directors spend working on required duties? (n=387)
4%
16%
Less than 5 hours per month
31% 6- 10 hours per month
11-15 hours per month
24% 16-25 hours per month
More than 25 hours per month
25%
4. Approximately how many hours do you spend each year in school director training
or professional development?
4. How many hours do school directors spend each year in training or
professional development? (n=387)
89
90
More than 25 hours per year
16-25 hours per year
66
11-15 hours per year
6- 10 hours per year
90
Less than 5 hours per year
52
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 30
5. Are you currently employed?
5. School directors' employment status
(n=387)
7%
No, I do not currently work and I
18% am not retired
No, I’m retired
Yes, part-time
60% 15%
Yes, full-time
6. Do you currently have health benefits?
6. School directors' health insurance status
(n=386)
17%
No
Yes
83%
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 31
7. Have you ever missed work due to serving as a school director?
7. School directors that have missed work due to serving
(n=388)
14%
26%
No
Yes, 1-3 days per year
29% Yes, 4-8 days per year
Yes, 9 or more days per year
31%
8. If you’ve ever had to miss work due to serving as a director, what
caused you to miss it? (Please select all that apply.)
8. If a respondent missed work, what was the reason?
(n=386)
300
248
250 240
200
173
150
114
100
55 50
50 39
0
Attended a Attended a Travel related to Statewide Other Mental health Tired from late
required or required district school director leadership, impact of serving meeting the night
voluntary training, event activities including as a school director before
meeting, or legislative or
conference committee
participation
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 32
9. Do you currently have children in school?
9. School directors with children
(n=388)
No
49% 51%
Yes
10. Regarding childcare, approximately how many hours of childcare do you need per
month to complete all school director duties and responsibilities?
10. For school directors with children, what were their childcare needs
per month to complete all duties and responsibilities
(n=190)
9%
14%
I do not require childcare
Less than 5 hours
6-12 hours
14% 13 or more hours
63%
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 33
11. What is your current household income level?
11. Household income level
(n=388)
6%
14%
7%
$40,000 or less
12%
$40,001 - $60,000
$60,001 - $80,000
$80,001 or more
Prefer not to respond
61%
12. What county is your school district in?
12. What county is your school district in? (n=386)
50
44
45
41
40
35
30
24
25
20
20 17 16
14 13 13 13
15 12 12
10 10 10 9 9 9
10 8 7 8 7 8 7
5 6 5 6 6
4 3 4
5 2 2
1 1
0
Chelan Cowlitz Island Kitsap Lincoln Mason Pacific
Okanogan San Juan
Snohomish
Thurston
King
Pend Oreille
Pierce
Spokane
Adams Douglas
Grant Kittitas Klickitat
Lewis Skagit
Stevens
Clark
Columbia Skamania
Walla Walla
Clallam Yakima
Whatcom
Ferry
Benton Franklin Jefferson Whitman
Grays Harbor
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 34
13. Do you identify as a person with a disability?
13. Disability status
(n=389)
10%
3%
No
Prefer not to respond
Yes
87%
14. Do you require any accommodations to fully participate in your role as a director?
14. Additional accommodations required?
(n=388)
4%
3%
No
Prefer not to respond
Yes
93%
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 35
15. Do you require interpretation services?
15. Need of an interpreter?
(n=388)
1% 1%
No
Prefer not to respond
Yes
K 98%
16. Do you identify as a school director of color?
16. School directors of color
(n=388)
11%
7%
No
Prefer not to respond
Yes
82%
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 36
17. Has serving as a school director impacted your finances?
17. Impact on finances
(n=389)
No, serving has not impacted my
finances.
34% Other
55% Yes, I earn more money as a
school director.
Yes, I spend more money for
10% school-director-related expenses
1%
that are not reimbursed.
17. Has serving as a school director impacted your finances? (Other answers)
Question 17, Other answers
(n=39)
1
Using vacation time to attend conferences
1
Other
2 Increased donations to district
2 Campagin costs
1 3 Limited employment opportunities due to
school director duties
3 Only work in a part-time role to fullfill school
director duties
3 Fuel and Travel Costs
Not paid for school director work
4
Reduced employed work hours to fullfill
19 school director duties
0 5 10 15 20
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 37
18. Does your school board policy allow school directors to receive a salary?
18. Does school board policy allow respondents to receive a stipend?
(n=389)
15%
I don’t know
No
54%
Yes
31%
19. Do you currently accept the school board member salary?
19. Do respondents accept a school board member stipend?
(n=373)
32% 30%
No, our board policy allows it, but I
choose not to
No, our board policy does not allow
it
Yes
38%
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 38
20. If board policy allows for a salary, is there an expectation in your district that you
waive the salary?
20. Does respondent believe there is an expectation to waive a stipend, if
school board policy allows for a stipend?
(n=380)
28%
34%
I don’t know
No
Yes
38%
21. Do you support school board compensation?
21. Does the respondent support school board compensation?
(n=389)
30%
Maybe, depending on the details
No
58% Yes
12%
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 39
22. Would you support a policy recommendation that changed the school director
salary from an opt-in program to an opt-out program so that all school directors
would receive a salary unless they requested to opt-out of the salary?
22. Would the respondent support a policy recommendation that all
school directors would receive a salary unless they requested to opt-out
of the salary?
(n=387)
16%
No Yes
84%
23. Would you support a policy recommendation to have the state pay school
directors a monthly salary with an opt-out option for directors who do not want the
compensation?
23. Would the respondent support a policy recommendation to have the
state pay school directors a monthly salary with an opt-out option for
directors who do not want the compensation?
(n=389)
20%
No Yes
80%
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 40
24. Please explain how compensation would affect your ability to serve as a school
director.
24. How would compensation affect the respondents' ability to serve as
a school director?
(n=389)
3%
8%
Compensation would
encourage/help me to remain
a school director.
43% Compensation would have no
impact on my ability to serve.
I would not serve as a school
46% director if compensation
were offered.
24. Explain how compensation would affect your ability to serve as a school director.
(Other responses)
Question 24, Other repsonses
(n=33)
3
Unsure
4
Would rather have the stipend go towards
school/students
4 A stipend would complicate the relationship
school directors have with the public
6 Would help with transportation, healthcare,
or child care
Don't believe a stipend is necessary
6
Attract more people to serve
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 41
25. If school board members received compensation, what do you believe they should
be compensated for? (Please select all that apply.)
25. If school board members received compensation, what do respondents
believe they should be compensated for?
n = 382
160
147
140
Reimbursement for childcare
120
108
104
Health care benefits
100
Other
80
60 Per diem (travel, lodging, meals, incidental
expenses)
40 Salary
20 10 13
0
25. Other responses to if school board members received compensation, what do you
believe they should be compensated for? (Please select all that apply.)
Question 25, Other Answers
n= 104, 240 responses
Any of the above
2
Retirement Benefits
3
Stipend
6
Health Insurace
42
49 Childcare
65 Per diem
65 Salary
8 Do not believe in school director
compensation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 42
26. Current policy requires school directors to be citizens of the United States of
America. If this policy were changed, who, if anyone, should be added to the list of
eligible candidates?
26. Current policy requires school directors to be citizens of the United
States of America. If this policy were changed, who, if anyone, should be
added to the list of eligible candidates?
(n=385)
I do not believe this policy should
4% be changed
7%
People with permanent resident
status
13%
More than one, or a different
choice
58%
People identified as DACA
18% (Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals)
People with green cards
26. Current policy requires school directors to be citizens of the United States of
America. If this policy were changed, who, if anyone, should be added to the list of
eligible candidates? (Other responses.)
Question 26, Other reponses
(n=52)
1
3
No opinion
Depends on circumstances
7
DACA and Premenant Resident Status
DACA and Green Card
2 All the above
39
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 43
27. Do you currently plan to run for re-election?
27. Does the respondent plan to run for re-election?
(n=389)
No
14%
Not sure
Yes
43%
43%
28. Would compensation for time, childcare, medical benefits and pension encourage
a respondent to run for re-election?
28. Would compensation for time, childcare, medical benefits and
pension encourage a respondent to run for re-election?
(n=373)
3%
Compensation would have no
9% impact on whether or not I
choose to run for re-election.
Yes, I would be more likely to run
for re-election if I received
47% compensation and benefits for
my work.
No, compensation and benefits
41%
would not be enough to compel
me to run for re-election.
Other
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 44
28. Other responses to would compensation for time, childcare, medical benefits and
pension encourage a respondent to run for re-election?
Question 28, Other responses
(n=10)
1
Compensation should remain a stipend
1
Would not serve without some form of
compensation
1 Not enough time to fullfill duties
1
2 Compensation would not be an
encouragement to run for re-election
Unsure
2
Would like another member of the
3 community to take my position
0 1 2 3 4
29. How long have you served as a school director?
29. Tenure of school directors
(n=390)
26% 24%
Less than 2 years
2-4 years
5-8 years
9 or more years
25%
25%
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 45
Appendix B: Revised Code of Washington for school
directors' duties and responsibilities
School directors' responsibilities are directly named in statute RCW 28A.150.230:
District school directors' responsibilities.
(1) It is the intent and purpose of this section to guarantee that each common school district board of directors,
whether or not acting through its respective administrative staff, be held accountable for the proper operation of their
district to the local community and its electorate. In accordance with the provisions of Title 28A RCW, as now or
hereafter amended, each common school district board of directors shall be vested with the final responsibility for
the setting of policies ensuring quality in the content and extent of its educational program and that such program
provide students with the opportunity to achieve those skills which are generally recognized as requisite to learning.
(2) In conformance with the provisions of Title 28A RCW, as now or hereafter amended, it shall be the responsibility
of each common school district board of directors to adopt policies to:
(a) Establish performance criteria and an evaluation process for its superintendent, classified staff, certificated
personnel, including administrative staff, and for all programs constituting a part of such district's curriculum. Each
district shall report annually to the superintendent of public instruction the following for each employee group listed
in this subsection (2)(a): (i) Evaluation criteria and rubrics; (ii) a description of each rating; and (iii) the number of
staff in each rating;
(b) Determine the final assignment of staff, certificated or classified, according to board enumerated classroom and
program needs and data, based upon a plan to ensure that the assignment policy: (i) Supports the learning needs of
all the students in the district; and (ii) gives specific attention to high-need schools and classrooms;
(c) Provide information to the local community and its electorate describing the school district's policies concerning
hiring, assigning, terminating, and evaluating staff, including the criteria for evaluating teachers and principals;
(d) Determine the amount of instructional hours necessary for any student to acquire a quality education in such
district, in not less than an amount otherwise required in RCW 28A.150.220, or rules of the state board of education;
(e) Determine the allocation of staff time, whether certificated or classified;
(f) Establish final curriculum standards consistent with law and rules of the superintendent of public instruction,
relevant to the particular needs of district students or the unusual characteristics of the district, and ensuring a
quality education for each student in the district; and
(g) Evaluate teaching materials, including text books, teaching aids, handouts, or other printed material, in public
hearing upon complaint by parents, guardians or custodians of students who consider dissemination of such
material to students objectionable.
[ 2010 c 235 § 201; 2006 c 263 § 201; 1994 c 245 § 9; 1991 c 61 § 1; 1990 c 33 § 106; 1979 ex.s. c 250 § 7; 1977
ex.s. c 359 § 18. Formerly RCW 28A.58.758.]
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 46
Appendix C: Revised Code of Washington for school
directors' compensation
School directors' compensation policies are provided in RCW 28A.343.400:
Compensation—Waiver.
Each member of the board of directors of a school district may receive compensation of fifty dollars per day or
portion thereof for attending board meetings and for performing other services on behalf of the school district, not to
exceed four thousand eight hundred dollars per year, if the district board of directors has authorized by board
resolution, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the provision of such compensation. A board of directors of a school
district may authorize such compensation only from locally collected excess levy funds available for that purpose,
and compensation for board members shall not cause the state to incur any present or future funding obligation.
Any director may waive all or any portion of his or her compensation under this section as to any month or months
during his or her term of office, by a written waiver filed with the district as provided in this section. The waiver, to be
effective, must be filed any time after the director's election and before the date on which the compensation would
otherwise be paid. The waiver shall specify the month or period of months for which it is made.
The compensation provided in this section shall be in addition to any reimbursement for expenses paid to such
directors by the school district.
[ 1987 c 307 § 2. Formerly RCW 28A.315.540, 28A.57.327.]
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 47
Appendix D: County demographics from 2020 Census
Each county's demographics were collected for comparison to school directors' demographics in order to determine
if school directors' demographics reflect the communities they serve. Below is each county's demographic
information according to the 2020 Census, five year estimate.
2020 Census demographics of each county
Percent of all Percent Percent
people who of all Percent of all Percent of Percent of all of all
were people people who all people people who people
American who were Black or who were were Native who
Indian or were African Hispanic Hawaiian or were
County Alaska Native Asian American or Latinx Other Pacific white
Adams 2.13 0.65 0.2 63.93 0.06 44.46
Asotin 1.34 0.92 0.52 4.25 0.15 89.11
Benton 0.99 3.09 1.4 22.28 0.29 70.62
Chelan 1.03 1.02 0.37 28.09 0.16 69.92
Clallam 5.63 1.64 0.8 6.73 0.15 80.94
Clark 0.96 4.82 2.26 10.01 1.05 75.47
Columbia 1.27 0.58 0.28 8.10 0.03 87.1
Cowlitz 1.55 1.6 0.74 9.25 0.6 82.01
Douglas 1.57 0.96 0.35 31.99 0.14 64.84
Ferry 18.24 0.64 0.39 4.88 0.15 71.3
Franklin 1.45 1.97 1.85 53.24 0.24 47.38
Garfield 0.79 0.48 0.39 1.37 0 91.78
Grant 1.67 1.21 0.79 42.00 0.1 57.94
Grays Harbor 5.12 1.39 1.36 10.24 0.18 78.07
Island 0.83 4.63 2.76 8.13 0.51 78.21
Jefferson 1.71 1.51 0.63 3.81 0.15 86.69
King 0.84 19.94 6.67 9.83 0.88 56.09
Kitsap 1.56 5.23 2.84 8.05 1.08 74.89
Kittitas 1.22 2.1 0.91 9.02 0.21 82.28
Klickitat 2.42 0.64 0.28 11.99 0.18 80.37
Lewis 1.45 1 0.69 10.66 0.19 82.56
Lincoln 2.07 0.67 0.19 3.49 0.13 89.22
Mason 4 1.19 1.08 10.24 0.34 77.63
Okanogan 11.59 0.67 0.4 20.42 0.1 65.57
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 48
Percent of all Percent Percent
people who of all Percent of all Percent of Percent of all of all
were people people who all people people who people
American who were Black or who were were Native who
Indian or were African Hispanic Hawaiian or were
County Alaska Native Asian American or Latinx Other Pacific white
Pacific 2.37 1.98 0.43 9.96 0.2 81.76
Pend Oreille 2.96 0.58 0.43 4.05 0.08 88.14
Pierce 1.39 6.89 7.17 11.27 2.05 64.64
San Juan 0.65 1.29 0.3 6.52 0.15 85.88
Skagit 2.22 2.19 0.69 18.62 0.32 74.54
Skamania 1.55 1.01 0.61 6.59 0.28 85.64
Snohomish 1.31 12.25 3.54 10.51 0.61 66.05
Spokane 1.5 2.35 2.04 5.99 0.8 82.13
Stevens 5.77 0.62 0.32 3.81 0.19 84.64
Thurston 1.51 5.86 3.19 9.26 1.14 73.2
Wahkiakum 1.38 1 0.5 7.55 0.07 87.83
Walla Walla 1.11 1.51 1.69 21.58 0.22 72.66
Whatcom 2.77 4.46 1.03 9.68 0.32 77.56
Whitman 0.7 7.6 2.51 6.43 0.32 76.26
Yakima 5.06 1.18 0.83 49.87 0.12 48.47
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 49
Appendix E: Changes in statute recommendations
Example statutory changes are offered below. They would bring school directors' compensation into parity
with similar elected officials.
Salary
(1) Each member of the board of directors of a school district shall receive salaries as follows:
(a) Each President of the board of directors of a school district shall receive a salary of one thousand
three hundred eighty-eight dollars per month, as adjusted for inflation by the Office of Financial
Management in subsection (4) of this section, for each school director.
(b) Each Vice President and each Legislative Representative of the board of directors of a school district
shall receive a salary of one thousand one hundred fifty-seven dollars per month, as adjusted for inflation
by the Office of Financial Management in subsection (4) of this section, for each school director.
(c) All other members of the board of directors of a school district shall receive a salary of nine hundred
twenty-five dollars per month, as adjusted for inflation by the Office of Financial Management in
subsection (4) of this section, for each school director.
Per diem
(2) In addition to a salary, the Legislature shall provide for the payment of per diem compensation to each
school director at a rate of one hundred twenty-eight dollars, as adjusted for inflation by the Office of Financial
Management in subsection (4) of this section, for each day or portion thereof spent in actual attendance at
official meetings of the school district or in performance of other official services or duties on behalf of the
district, but such compensation paid during any one year to a school director shall not exceed twelve thousand
two hundred eighty-eight dollars, as adjusted for inflation by the Office of Financial Management in subsection
(4) of this section.
Expenses
(3) School directors' shall receive necessary expenses incurred in attending meetings of the board or when
otherwise engaged in district business. The transportation, meals, lodging and other appropriate expenses of
board members who attend conferences or meetings as representatives of the school district shall be paid.
Such expenses may be paid in advance.
Reviewing and updating school directors' compensation
(4) The dollar thresholds for salaries, meetings, and per diem maximums established in this section shall be
required to be adjusted for inflation by the Office of Financial Management every five years, beginning January
1, 2024, based upon changes in the consumer price index during that time period. "Consumer price index"
means, for any calendar year, that year's annual average consumer price index, for Washington state, for wage
earners and clerical workers, all items, compiled by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, United States
Department of Labor. If the Bureau of Labor and Statistics develops more than one consumer price index for
areas within the state, the index covering the greatest number of people, covering areas exclusively within the
boundaries of the state, and including all items shall be used for the adjustments for inflation in this section.
The Office of Financial Management must calculate the new dollar threshold and transmit it to the Office of
the Code Reviser for publication in the Washington State Register at least one month before the new dollar
threshold is to take effect.
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 50
Appendix F: School districts' funding data
The table below offers all school districts' financial information required for this report including student
enrollment, local taxes, revenue, per pupil spending, and general budget. The school districts are categorized
by county.
2021-2022 School districts' enrollment, taxes, revenues and general fund budgets
Budgeted
General General
School Student Fund Local Fund Per Pupil General
County District Enrollment Taxes Revenue Spending Fund Budget
Adams Washtucna 62 $146,240 $2,464,704 $44,173 $2,738,730
Benge 12 $49,523 $521,225 $47,483 $569,797
Othello 4,630 $2,397,727 $77,042,862 $16,610 $76,904,781
Lind 180 $501,542 $5,824,953 $35,263 $6,347,319
Ritzville 300 $875,832 $5,981,264 $19,524 $5,857,132
Asotin Clarkston 2,391 $2,977,996 $44,187,951 $18,439 $44,087,951
Asotin-Anatone 619 $843,129 $10,262,240 $16,970 $10,497,706
Benton Kennewick 18,496 $17,201,380 $285,409,700 $15,779 $291,856,427
Paterson 140 $341,200 $2,965,004 $21,179 $2,965,000
Kiona Benton 1,334 $783,535 $22,293,586 $16,865 $22,489,157
Finley 850 $1,117,250 $14,725,927 $17,887 $15,203,640
Prosser 2,430 $3,407,347 $40,559,740 $17,372 $42,213,147
Richland 13,200 $25,330,850 $195,977,795 $15,402 $203,300,000
Chelan Manson 588 $1,537,139 $11,631,389 $20,256 $11,906,160
Stehekin 9 $- $358,109 $32,117 $289,055
Entiat 305 $486,214 $6,225,518 $20,882 $6,366,926
Lake Chelan 1,247 $3,482,595 $24,280,718 $19,549 $24,378,020
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 51
Budgeted
General General
School Student Fund Local Fund Per Pupil General
County District Enrollment Taxes Revenue Spending Fund Budget
Chelan Cashmere 1,560 $1,879,853 $24,874,620 $16,180 $25,240,136
Cascade 1,132 $3,231,171 $21,307,591 $18,551 $21,000,000
Wenatchee 7,132 $11,783,642 $140,617,853 $20,046 $142,969,924
Clallam Port Angeles 3,361 $5,791,708 $59,397,631 $17,687 $59,450,628
Crescent 316 $519,999 $6,284,305 $21,095 $6,666,243
Sequim 2,598 $7,067,419 $48,270,832 $18,579 $48,269,035
Cape Flattery 500 $361,080 $13,035,963 $26,036 $13,017,930
Quillayute Valley 4,290 $701,511 $54,503,684 $12,684 $54,418,225
Clark Vancouver 21,775 $47,084,800 $384,340,774 $17,613 $383,510,326
Hockinson 1,920 $2,918,925 $27,532,755 $14,587 $28,007,002
Lacenter 1,644 $2,758,583 $24,248,931 $15,517 $25,510,549
Green Mountain 145 $373,507 $2,764,656 $18,927 $2,744,390
Washougal 2,992 $7,589,300 $52,085,170 $17,425 $52,135,269
Evergreen
24,601 $37,089,425 $412,976,272 $16,784 $412,912,282
(Clark)
Camas 7,218 $17,016,392 $107,916,674 $15,778 $113,888,128
Battle Ground 12,008 $12,667,964 $181,225,736 $16,412 $197,079,270
Ridgefield 3,560 $6,965,353 $52,256,580 $14,727 $52,433,458
Columbia Dayton 375 $1,028,432 $7,696,323 $21,271 $7,986,046
Starbuck 635 $- $7,364,271 $11,172 $7,094,455
Cowlitz Longview 6,246 $14,175,395 $107,784,835 $17,255 $107,784,835
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 52
Budgeted
General General
School Student Fund Local Fund Per Pupil General
County District Enrollment Taxes Revenue Spending Fund Budget
Cowlitz Toutle Lake 619 $1,411,938 $10,118,390 $18,376 $11,375,012
Castle Rock 1,377 $2,480,240 $20,692,810 $15,042 $20,712,256
Kalama 1,020 $2,349,343 $15,715,142 $16,603 $16,933,155
Woodland 2,370 $5,554,751 $43,663,277 $18,565 $43,998,820
Kelso 4,826 $6,213,423 $77,063,855 $15,927 $76,865,040
Douglas Orondo 155 $628,523 $5,231,782 $35,046 $5,432,118
Bridgeport 748 $290,778 $15,991,940 $18,379 $13,747,474
Palisades 25 $151,089 $1,003,655 $39,114 $977,844
Eastmont 5,855 $10,799,830 $93,666,525 $16,368 $95,834,680
Mansfield 80 $169,750 $3,362,139 $44,457 $3,556,531
Waterville 270 $604,281 $5,870,176 $22,093 $5,954,195
Ferry Keller 30 $17,564 $1,659,173 $55,358 $1,660,732
Curlew 234 $191,969 $4,515,446 $21,700 $5,077,783
Orient 38 $16,714 $1,615,173 $42,789 $1,625,983
Inchelium 215 $102,488 $6,052,909 $29,391 $6,319,062
Republic 310 $459,810 $5,999,305 $18,931 $5,868,654
Franklin Pasco 18,411 $14,053,843 $288,218,011 $15,685 $288,768,011
North Franklin 2,039 $1,981,572 $41,789,872 $20,491 $41,789,872
Star 16 $- $521,126 $35,044 $560,696
Kahlotus 36 $75,000 $2,298,299 $79,702 $2,869,257
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 53
Budgeted
General General
School Student Fund Local Fund Per Pupil General
County District Enrollment Taxes Revenue Spending Fund Budget
Garfield Pomeroy 314 $811,542 $6,110,963 $19,803 $6,218,177
Grant Wahluke 2,465 $1,892,492 $46,958,558 $18,963 $46,743,532
Quincy 3,104 $8,268,029 $58,791,860 $18,519 $57,491,860
Warden 873 $1,110,023 $19,398,816 $22,221 $19,398,817
Coulee/Hartline 206 $366,318 $4,721,355 $23,551 $4,851,476
Soap Lake 545 $600,574 $10,817,993 $20,075 $10,941,108
Royal 1,725 $1,361,300 $27,915,375 $16,183 $27,915,374
Moses Lake 8,546 $4,321,309 $129,784,022 $15,181 $129,739,701
Ephrata 2,568 $1,752,640 $45,650,390 $18,373 $47,181,411
Wilson Creek 135 $212,375 $3,638,703 $27,201 $3,672,129
Grand Coulee
698 $815,830 $14,455,531 $20,947 $14,620,800
Dam
Grays
Aberdeen 3,100 $4,115,438 $59,982,216 $19,126 $59,292,017
Harbor
Hoquiam 1,589 $1,998,612 $27,206,822 $18,009 $28,616,468
North Beach 737 $1,854,123 $13,842,109 $19,365 $14,272,171
Mc Cleary 275 $837,888 $5,216,534 $20,038 $5,510,347
Montesano 1,327 $2,103,092 $22,746,698 $17,539 $23,274,591
Elma 1,543 $2,661,244 $28,537,491 $18,879 $29,129,538
Taholah 171 $36,122 $6,274,000 $38,251 $6,541,000
Quinault 171 $327,041 $5,193,578 $30,431 $5,203,765
Cosmopolis 161 $552,231 $3,275,339 $23,205 $3,735,933
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 54
Budgeted
General General
School Student Fund Local Fund Per Pupil General
County District Enrollment Taxes Revenue Spending Fund Budget
Grays
Satsop 51 $79,027 $1,199,082 $24,347 $1,241,700
Harbor
Wishkah Valley 139 $271,936 $3,385,806 $31,118 $4,313,225
Ocosta 575 $1,587,300 $12,133,207 $21,749 $12,505,854
Oakville 276 $392,949 $8,151,236 $29,932 $8,253,734
Island Oak Harbor 5,575 $11,181,137 $98,541,587 $18,408 $102,623,900
Coupeville 1,000 $2,422,947 $16,988,318 $17,071 $17,071,410
South Whidbey 1,183 $3,384,688 $21,540,143 $18,877 $22,333,792
Queets-
Jefferson 40 $76,171 $1,227,479 $28,031 $1,121,254
Clearwater
Brinnon 62 $264,803 $1,952,785 $31,141 $1,930,728
Quilcene 635 $620,318 $9,591,853 $16,340 $10,376,041
Chimacum 690 $2,087,217 $13,817,290 $21,464 $14,810,453
Port Townsend 1,141 $3,156,673 $21,365,893 $19,811 $22,604,541
King Seattle 52,792 $169,903,767 $1,078,766,666 $21,268 $1,122,797,766
Federal Way 22,080 $30,696,000 $387,200,000 $18,252 $403,000,000
Enumclaw 4,164 $9,047,974 $67,729,767 $16,594 $69,098,866
Mercer Island 4,192 $11,429,675 $67,616,175 $17,355 $72,749,347
Highline 18,142 $48,821,591 $378,493,627 $21,070 $382,261,364
Vashon Island 1,467 $3,956,438 $26,186,194 $17,850 $26,186,194
Renton 15,266 $40,021,010 $297,623,975 $20,016 $305,564,092
Skykomish 42 $133,333 $2,710,755 $64,066 $2,690,755
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 55
Budgeted
General General
School Student Fund Local Fund Per Pupil General
County District Enrollment Taxes Revenue Spending Fund Budget
King Bellevue 19,585 $54,235,782 $369,066,251 $19,209 $376,209,997
Tukwila 2,684 $7,433,311 $59,023,771 $22,747 $61,053,093
Riverview 3,182 $7,778,278 $51,847,991 $17,183 $54,676,427
Auburn 17,051 $37,635,797 $292,744,960 $18,075 $308,207,666
Tahoma 8,925 $16,198,526 $140,145,242 $16,800 $149,942,125
Snoqualmie
7,121 $16,358,000 $115,880,682 $16,527 $117,692,127
Valley
Issaquah 19,380 $51,904,271 $332,404,571 $18,227 $353,240,620
Shoreline 9,197 $25,121,815 $156,847,000 $18,162 $167,040,000
Lake
30,887 $66,248,570 $476,255,267 $16,232 $501,362,207
Washington
Kent 25,776 $69,252,312 $467,616,322 $18,832 $485,425,546
Northshore 22,626 $59,619,270 $396,340,000 $18,841 $426,300,000
Kitsap Bremerton 4,522 $13,145,299 $96,322,106 $21,309 $96,369,299
Bainbridge 3,454 $9,925,290 $56,030,987 $17,269 $59,647,457
North Kitsap 5,544 $12,920,492 $94,638,023 $17,915 $99,325,113
Central Kitsap 11,040 $16,827,070 $188,303,584 $17,276 $190,730,677
South Kitsap 10,307 $26,769,480 $183,772,169 $17,852 $183,996,228
Kittitas Damman 41 $85,000 $602,289 $19,899 $815,840
Easton 86 $256,923 $2,820,509 $34,426 $2,960,670
Thorp 230 $592,431 $5,073,646 $22,091 $5,080,984
Ellensburg 3,130 $4,859,559 $48,250,000 $16,655 $52,129,794
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 56
Budgeted
General General
School Student Fund Local Fund Per Pupil General
County District Enrollment Taxes Revenue Spending Fund Budget
Kittitas Kittitas 586 $1,760,123 $10,917,969 $18,890 $11,069,471
Cle Elum-Roslyn 867 $2,428,939 $13,782,593 $16,950 $14,695,330
Klickitat Wishram 84 $72,142 $2,360,972 $29,116 $2,445,744
Bickleton 109 $290,010 $2,550,003 $24,312 $2,650,003
Centerville 86 $255,743 $1,881,171 $21,802 $1,874,953
Trout Lake 205 $444,640 $4,599,015 $23,034 $4,721,919
Glenwood 58 $103,422 $2,421,770 $48,984 $2,841,075
Klickitat 74 $89,938 $3,140,068 $42,809 $3,167,833
Roosevelt 32 $60,000 $911,488 $32,840 $1,050,869
Goldendale 2,318 $2,386,569 $31,497,220 $12,636 $29,283,509
White Salmon 1,158 $3,291,379 $20,305,129 $17,661 $20,451,402
Lyle 214 $638,193 $6,724,590 $31,908 $6,828,333
Lewis Napavine 751 $785,151 $11,316,230 $15,675 $11,770,366
Evaline 49 $186,200 $1,525,262 $35,630 $1,745,890
Mossyrock 520 $732,813 $8,941,920 $17,636 $9,174,631
Morton 308 $833,035 $6,138,757 $21,133 $6,509,017
Adna 619 $954,553 $9,694,256 $16,469 $10,196,891
Winlock 720 $650,824 $13,904,850 $19,312 $13,904,847
Boistfort 76 $246,026 $1,812,405 $25,774 $1,958,849
Toledo 780 $1,012,084 $12,838,604 $16,855 $13,147,214
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 57
Budgeted
General General
School Student Fund Local Fund Per Pupil General
County District Enrollment Taxes Revenue Spending Fund Budget
Lewis Onalaska 814 $935,872 $13,297,696 $16,120 $13,121,900
Pe Ell 250 $344,984 $5,293,480 $23,448 $5,861,998
Chehalis 2,924 $5,226,300 $53,332,451 $18,946 $55,398,781
White Pass 320 $924,504 $6,797,532 $22,960 $7,347,102
Centralia 3,241 $2,397,600 $51,585,534 $16,247 $52,658,093
Lincoln Sprague 63 $171,570 $2,409,299 $44,150 $2,781,433
Reardan 686 $1,300,121 $10,893,154 $15,919 $10,920,655
Almira 88 $204,744 $2,759,352 $34,291 $3,017,578
Creston 83 $231,633 $3,248,559 $38,984 $3,235,679
Odessa 212 $559,483 $4,514,681 $22,482 $4,772,478
Wilbur 211 $446,632 $4,412,991 $23,600 $4,979,539
Harrington 112 $351,310 $3,779,832 $33,874 $3,793,868
Davenport 538 $732,341 $9,833,191 $18,539 $9,974,171
Mason Southside 196 $592,013 $3,522,385 $20,217 $3,962,580
Grapeview 205 $706,122 $3,891,454 $19,621 $4,022,249
Shelton 4,240 $5,500,999 $74,506,513 $17,565 $74,477,700
Mary M Knight 1,455 $571,541 $20,626,462 $13,965 $20,318,641
Pioneer 638 $2,634,208 $13,586,097 $23,172 $14,783,906
North Mason 2,210 $500 $34,987,009 $16,451 $36,357,037
Hood Canal 290 $1,156,378 $8,442,182 $31,369 $9,097,086
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 58
Budgeted
General General
School Student Fund Local Fund Per Pupil General
County District Enrollment Taxes Revenue Spending Fund Budget
Okanogan Nespelem 115 $36,000 $4,358,230 $42,218 $4,855,032
Omak 7,633 $1,181,905 $108,208,469 $13,810 $105,409,543
Okanogan 1,052 $662,691 $21,805,973 $20,639 $21,712,594
Brewster 947 $1,023,670 $18,385,017 $19,354 $18,328,500
Pateros 293 $419,030 $6,272,695 $21,360 $6,258,540
Methow Valley 670 $1,804,953 $15,086,429 $23,565 $15,788,699
Tonasket 1,040 $906,120 $20,758,785 $20,614 $21,438,055
Oroville 508 $1,217,304 $14,789,595 $30,936 $15,715,278
Pacific Ocean Beach 1,014 $2,733,496 $19,032,528 $18,593 $18,853,683
Raymond 519 $620,257 $10,718,650 $20,572 $10,676,750
South Bend 507 $515,397 $14,087,019 $26,649 $13,511,082
Naselle-Grays
286 $512,338 $8,290,271 $28,644 $8,192,230
River
Willapa Valley 347 $- $6,004,687 $18,370 $6,374,446
North River 74 $- $2,464,041 $33,297 $2,463,962
Pend Oreille Newport 1,047 $1,546,783 $18,734,419 $17,784 $18,619,987
Cusick 262 $461,179 $5,932,102 $23,221 $6,090,821
Selkirk 234 $656,521 $6,369,490 $27,232 $6,372,366
Pierce Steilacoom Hist. 3,104 $6,370,727 $47,399,394 $15,648 $48,571,407
Puyallup 22,520 $53,230,845 $346,628,010 $15,713 $353,867,058
Tacoma 27,982 $74,495,311 $553,909,806 $20,984 $587,183,999
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 59
Budgeted
General General
School Student Fund Local Fund Per Pupil General
County District Enrollment Taxes Revenue Spending Fund Budget
Pierce Carbonado 187 $363,611 $2,930,533 $15,455 $2,890,009
University Place 5,480 $11,984,645 $87,220,206 $16,135 $88,417,369
Sumner 9,585 $25,081,282 $157,749,673 $16,741 $160,458,588
Dieringer 1,366 $5,439,625 $26,206,766 $19,970 $27,278,762
Orting 2,467 $4,003,265 $39,627,138 $17,600 $43,418,346
Clover Park 11,754 $20,064,629 $234,509,991 $20,165 $237,019,224
Peninsula 9,121 $24,146,235 $142,671,753 $16,375 $149,356,633
Franklin Pierce 7,766 $14,380,077 $136,211,494 $18,075 $140,363,569
Bethel 19,784 $35,957,916 $317,267,903 $17,227 $340,823,558
Eatonville 1,861 $5,132,995 $29,629,586 $16,122 $30,003,291
White River 3,963 $9,475,859 $61,482,698 $15,726 $62,330,098
Fife 3,748 $9,806,557 $63,368,130 $18,217 $68,276,038
San Juan Shaw 10 $- $530,700 $55,591 $555,905
Orcas 742 $1,997,832 $12,875,574 $17,817 $13,220,398
Lopez 230 $616,842 $6,196,914 $27,589 $6,345,436
San Juan 767 $2,088,923 $14,245,647 $18,577 $14,239,259
Skagit Concrete 497 $1,281,226 $10,542,781 $21,849 $10,858,737
Burlington
3,203 $8,995,365 $62,426,242 $20,072 $64,290,493
Edison
Sedro Woolley 4,164 $9,927,624 $75,983,473 $18,664 $77,715,254
Anacortes 2,439 $7,027,170 $41,894,035 $17,211 $41,972,017
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 60
Budgeted
General General
School Student Fund Local Fund Per Pupil General
County District Enrollment Taxes Revenue Spending Fund Budget
Skagit La Conner 578 $896,170 $14,070,000 $24,260 $14,022,000
Conway 448 $1,101,883 $7,775,091 $17,168 $7,691,451
Mt Vernon 6,831 $12,475,515 $122,867,437 $18,636 $127,299,456
Skamania Skamania 65 $220,811 $1,583,291 $25,743 $1,673,312
Mount Pleasant 63 $153,819 $1,264,199 $19,958 $1,257,347
Mill A 61 $- $2,361,123 $38,423 $2,343,773
Stevenson-
854 $2,133,305 $16,349,793 $19,145 $16,349,793
Carson
Snohomish Everett 19,962 $50,705,450 $371,263,765 $19,074 $380,753,164
Lake Stevens 8,794 $13,620,492 $142,168,541 $17,384 $152,874,640
Mukilteo 15,417 $41,451,899 $299,412,291 $20,023 $308,689,151
Edmonds 20,250 $54,822,103 $363,330,000 $18,410 $372,800,000
Arlington 5,265 $9,086,439 $85,019,012 $16,866 $88,799,018
Marysville 9,464 $25,941,129 $187,910,400 $19,877 $188,117,687
Index 24 $98,502 $1,013,328 $48,681 $1,168,353
Monroe 5,815 $14,640,352 $95,737,329 $16,799 $97,685,889
Snohomish 9,164 $17,911,985 $152,355,689 $17,087 $156,583,081
Lakewood 2,487 $3,254,101 $37,715,427 $16,571 $41,203,198
Sultan 1,996 $3,319,101 $35,511,792 $17,292 $34,513,314
Darrington 389 $511,000 $9,071,136 $22,933 $8,920,866
Granite Falls 2,074 $4,449,366 $35,822,330 $16,981 $35,218,240
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 61
Budgeted
General General
School Student Fund Local Fund Per Pupil General
County District Enrollment Taxes Revenue Spending Fund Budget
Snohomish Stanwood 4,536 $12,230,994 $81,284,300 $18,690 $84,775,857
Spokane Spokane 30,157 $52,575,740 $526,334,327 $17,704 $533,888,239
Orchard Prairie 56 $143,417 $1,258,532 $23,177 $1,297,926
Great Northern 40 $208,639 $1,133,655 $28,257 $1,130,275
Nine Mile Falls 1,297 $2,862,024 $24,809,787 $19,127 $24,808,249
Medical Lake 1,775 $1,214,168 $28,000,000 $16,225 $28,800,000
Mead 10,084 $13,361,390 $141,217,409 $14,720 $148,433,728
Central Valley 13,962 $28,515,525 $216,981,694 $15,558 $217,221,935
Freeman 863 $1,264,971 $12,615,304 $14,899 $12,857,613
Cheney 5,031 $7,952,580 $74,472,167 $14,987 $75,391,809
East Valley
3,644 $9,773,360 $65,830,000 $18,303 $66,697,521
(Spokane)
Liberty 557 $1,436,737 $9,121,038 $16,511 $9,196,789
West Valley
3,357 $7,102,899 $52,357,051 $15,596 $52,357,041
(Spokane)
Deer Park 2,469 $2,318,999 $38,830,206 $16,086 $39,715,425
Riverside 1,371 $2,148,957 $23,827,482 $18,227 $24,986,078
Stevens Onion Creek 43 $71,071 $1,527,446 $35,481 $1,525,670
Chewelah 740 $999,999 $12,712,632 $18,050 $13,357,075
Wellpinit 460 $50,000 $10,644,217 $27,520 $12,659,131
Valley 1,083 $154,200 $15,793,621 $13,896 $15,048,834
Colville 1,614 $1,756,939 $25,358,148 $15,871 $25,615,778
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 62
Budgeted
General General
School Student Fund Local Fund Per Pupil General
County District Enrollment Taxes Revenue Spending Fund Budget
Stevens Loon Lake 229 $250,623 $3,021,198 $13,158 $3,015,718
Summit Valley 64 $90,623 $1,629,421 $26,108 $1,670,935
Evergreen
32 $28,305 $710,444 $22,108 $707,459
(Stevens)
Columbia
100 $166,977 $3,706,776 $36,933 $3,693,252
(Stevens)
Mary Walker 444 $316,386 $8,321,398 $18,721 $8,321,398
Northport 252 $353,000 $5,848,110 $23,133 $5,829,559
Kettle Falls 1,013 $917,145 $16,599,577 $16,590 $16,805,740
Thurston Yelm 5,600 $9,857,110 $88,433,061 $16,231 $90,897,370
North Thurston 15,132 $38,617,289 $236,785,971 $16,252 $245,931,019
Tumwater 6,645 $16,793,472 $105,566,891 $15,884 $105,549,788
Olympia 10,119 $25,626,308 $163,123,896 $16,939 $171,397,422
Rainier 889 $1,614,369 $13,989,304 $15,945 $14,175,240
Griffin 605 $2,150,959 $10,022,743 $18,671 $11,296,143
Rochester 2,080 $3,437,123 $33,701,784 $17,085 $35,536,420
Tenino 1,230 $3,068,082 $20,002,086 $16,350 $20,110,793
Wahkiakum Wahkiakum 467 $997,000 $8,187,828 $17,909 $8,363,533
Walla Walla Dixie 20 $107,046 $806,964 $40,634 $812,689
Walla Walla 5,575 $10,345,665 $94,565,201 $17,230 $96,048,099
College Place 1,550 $2,676,500 $26,376,729 $17,346 $26,889,285
Touchet 212 $567,836 $4,355,891 $20,641 $4,375,980
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 63
Budgeted
General General
School Student Fund Local Fund Per Pupil General
County District Enrollment Taxes Revenue Spending Fund Budget
Columbia (Walla
Walla Walla 696 $1,987,937 $13,136,752 $19,921 $13,862,325
Walla)
Waitsburg 233 $474,867 $4,716,294 $21,747 $5,071,403
Prescott 254 $654,869 $6,549,866 $26,113 $6,632,769
Whatcom Bellingham 11,232 $30,506,027 $196,565,776 $18,249 $204,976,960
Ferndale 4,562 $8,293,699 $74,932,130 $17,580 $80,198,503
Blaine 2,140 $5,857,263 $42,378,197 $19,550 $41,842,107
Lynden 3,415 $7,001,600 $52,631,500 $15,794 $53,937,429
Meridian 1,717 $4,101,782 $29,153,574 $17,576 $30,178,574
Nooksack Valley 1,926 $2,608,754 $31,849,377 $16,667 $32,105,483
Mount Baker 1,705 $4,413,666 $33,687,670 $20,069 $34,217,429
Whitman Lacrosse Joint 73 $209,084 $2,854,023 $40,970 $2,990,803
Lamont 33 $117,928 $956,165 $31,780 $1,048,736
Tekoa 180 $219,879 $4,077,735 $22,542 $4,057,543
Pullman 2,659 $5,247,000 $39,104,664 $15,167 $40,329,367
Colfax 534 $884,970 $8,623,221 $16,178 $8,639,238
Palouse 155 $412,263 $3,463,775 $22,705 $3,508,533
Garfield 105 $175,969 $3,436,449 $34,278 $3,599,176
Steptoe 43 $110,000 $935,801 $21,964 $944,467
Colton 141 $388,454 $3,881,443 $31,772 $4,479,798
Endicott 78 $215,925 $2,780,368 $37,435 $2,919,927
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 64
Budgeted
General General
School Student Fund Local Fund Per Pupil General
County District Enrollment Taxes Revenue Spending Fund Budget
Whitman Rosalia 150 $406,772 $4,323,341 $29,937 $4,490,589
St John 145 $367,016 $3,642,543 $26,022 $3,773,180
Oakesdale 133 $343,013 $3,490,123 $26,242 $3,490,123
Yakima Union Gap 542 $913,275 $13,261,475 $26,262 $14,234,136
Naches Valley 1,229 $2,761,502 $20,483,804 $17,032 $20,932,557
Yakima 15,711 $14,871,045 $284,505,113 $18,064 $283,805,113
East Valley
3,190 $3,978,826 $48,510,286 $15,356 $48,986,892
(Yakima)
Selah 3,643 $3,496,551 $55,875,605 $15,914 $57,974,117
Mabton 850 $394,744 $16,470,547 $19,716 $16,758,783
Grandview 3,466 $1,790,500 $64,047,381 $18,940 $65,646,740
Sunnyside 6,525 $2,962,760 $117,165,506 $17,949 $117,116,587
Toppenish 4,618 $1,410,524 $77,470,742 $16,960 $78,321,049
Highland 1,033 $1,221,508 $18,163,634 $17,820 $18,408,340
Granger 1,432 $672,831 $33,631,100 $23,527 $33,691,246
Zillah 1,219 $1,100,100 $19,829,609 $16,426 $20,023,192
Wapato 3,103 $1,309,500 $60,075,116 $20,029 $62,150,008
West Valley
5,327 $5,374,930 $80,672,340 $15,124 $80,564,177
(Yakima)
Mount Adams 840 $244,757 $21,861,530 $24,981 $20,983,632
SCHOOL DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION STUDY 65
File and source
- File
- 2023_commerce-reports-school-directors-compensation-report-final-77d1e8f1-8.pdf
- Size
- 1,538,754 bytes
- SHA-256
- 35ebe538842d81c33b046493186ad37a60716b6efeb7301b7dd481378079b996
- Original
- app.leg.wa.gov