This data presented on this page was compiled and provided to CPFA by Margaret Hanzimanolis. You can contact her directly with any questions you may have about this information.

The data below is drawn from two sources, a pay comparison chart published in 2008 in the CPFA journal  (union affiliation and parity definition) and the figures reported to the California  Community Colleges Chancellor’s office by individual community college districts, for 2011.  In some cases, the districts failed to report some data. I have used the last available data in those cases, and boldfaced that datapoint.   Otherwise, all figures can be verified at the Chancellor’s Datamart, an online resource..  This chart can be accessed at  Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the figures.

How we can use these numbers?  We can see how far an institution departs from statewide averages.  Here is an example:  Three  districts rely on PTF for 60% or more of the FTE teaching,  Mt. San Jacinto (64%),  Southwestern (61%), and San Mateo (60%), according to data these districts reported to the Chancellor’s Office in response to statutory requirements.  On average, the teaching force statewide is 43% PT FTE (not head count, but FTE teaching load). If we take the average spread between the 1) FTE pay of PTF and 2) FTF salary, in the case of Mt Jacinto, the savings amounts to about 6.5 million, not including the cost of benefits.  A smaller district,  San Mateo realizes a savings of approximately 3.6 million annually by relying on PT labor at a higher rate than the statewide average.  Likewise Southwestern, by utilizing a larger cohort of PTF than the statewide average, realizes annual savings of roughly  2.5 million, (again, relying on average pay data supplied by the districts to the Chancellor’s office).

If these districts do not provide sabbaticals, health coverage, personal computers, and/or  other benefits for which FTF alone are eligible, the savings could be actually be somewhere around 25% larger, or 8 million for Mt. San Jacinto; 4.4 million for San Mateo, and 3.1 million for Southwestern, annually.  Of course if we believe that appropriate reliance on the academic workforce would be somewhere around 25% —for the flexibility threshold that districts say they need, then the value of this over reliance climbs to over 40 million annually, or over 60 million if you calculate the  cost of benefits, or the savings of not providing benefits to PTF.   

We can use this data to do other calculations.  How much would it cost (or the reverse, how much is the state, and individual districts saving) to equalize pay?  Again using FTE and not head count figures, we arrive at an average annual pay gap of $52,000 X the total PTF FTE (19,446), and we can easily estimate the amount of labor that PTF “donate” to California a year: over 100 million dollars, not including the value/cost of benefits. It takes just ten years to realize a billion dollar savings, or a billion dollar donation!

Fourteen districts rely on PTF for over 50% of their FTE instruction:  Mt. San Jacinto (64%), Southwestern (61%), San Mateo (60%), Mendocino (55%), Santa Monica (54%), Copper Mountain (54%), Victor Valley (54%), Chaffey (54%),  Marin (53%), Hartnell (52%), South Orange (51%), Sierra (51% ), Desert 51%, and  Feather River (51%) .  These districts reap significant cost savings with this practice; however,  these districts are likely to have problems integrating PTF into the life of the colleges, and would be more likely to have structural problems with governance, program coordination, curriculum development, and establishing and maintaining unity of values and mission.

How are office hours counted?  Evidently, districts roll  the pay for office hours (usually one per week per PTF, or sometimes it is tied to credits taught, or sometimes one must “apply” for it every quarter or semester;  sometimes it is automatically added to the pay)  into their “average hourly rate” despite the fact that the office “hour” is in fact another hour worked (previously worked for free), and because it is paid generally at a lower rate than the teaching hour, should in fact, lower–rather than raise–  a district’s average PTF “hourly pay.”

What is the explanation for large changes in a single year?  Generally the data is getting more and more reliable over time.  Big changes might mean that non-credit teaching is taken out of the formula, or put back in, or that other factors in reporting methodology has changed.  It is not likely that massive changes have occurred in pay, for instance, as several districts appear to be reporting.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.