What I learned from my first hundred salary studies

We have been busy the last four years. What started as a favor to a school because I have a passion for statistics, keen excel skills, and happened to be in the right place at the right time has blossomed into a cottage industry of helping schools understand the pay system they have and see the potential of the pay system they want.

Across more than 100 compensation engagements, a clear pattern has emerged. These studies span a range of independent schools in size, geography, and mission. Some compensation models are highly structured, others more informal. Some are early in their compensation journey, while others have decades of history embedded in their systems creating puzzles to unravel as they lean into pay equity and a better understanding of what they have inherited.

The dataset has reached a scale where patterns are no longer anecdotal. With more than 6,000 independent school teachers and well over $350 million in faculty base pay, the findings begin to carry weight beyond any single institution. The similarities across schools are striking, even when we know that the context of each school is unique.

As I find myself at an unusual lull between studies – I am all caught up and have a few that haven’t started yet – this moment offers an opportunity to step back. Rather than focusing on individual recommendations for individual schools, it is possible to ask a broader question. What is consistently true about how independent schools pay their faculty, and what does that reveal about the systems they believe they have built?

I offer this article and resources as a look at what we have learned. The article is in three parts and an appendix. The first part describes the demographics and frequencies of the hundred schools and the impact of these characteristics on compensation. The second part offers ten observations on findings around salary compression, position in the market, the impact of experience and degree, and my favorite, the relevance of the R² value. The third part asks and tries to answer the question: what’s next for compensation systems? Finally, we have created an appendix of twenty-five key terms arranged in four thematic groups.

It is our sincere hope that you will learn from your colleagues who have contributed to this knowledge base and that you might even consider undertaking a compensation analysis of your own. Learn more at www.misbo.com/compensation.

PART I: WHAT THE DATA IS TELLING US

While there really isn’t such a thing as a typical independent school, we can review the data and we can say something about averages and medians. The average independent school in this dataset, based entirely on numbers, employs between 50 and 100 teachers. Most of those teachers are female, most hold master’s degrees, and most are well into their careers, often with 10 to 20 years of total experience and five to ten years at their current school. Salaries tend to cluster between $50,000 and $80,000, rising steadily with each additional year in the profession.

On paper, the schools in this study may describe a thoughtful compensation philosophy that accounts for degrees, roles, performance, and market position. In practice, the system is far simpler.

Compensation moves upward in a steady, predictable line that closely mirrors years of experience. The structure may be called a band system, a grid, or something more customized, but the outcome looks remarkably similar across schools. Experience drives pay, and everything else adjusts around it, sometimes neatly, but more often by habit rather than design.

Faculty Size and Composition

The schools in this dataset vary widely in size, but most fall into a middle range. A small number employ fewer than 25 teachers, while several exceed 150. The majority cluster between 40 and 100 teachers (in MISBO that means about 400-900 students if you are thinking enrollment), creating a population large enough to reveal patterns but small enough for individual decisions to still matter.

Size influences the behavior of compensation systems in subtle ways. Smaller faculties tend to produce more volatility. A few individual salaries can significantly affect averages, and deviations from a stated system are harder to detect because there are fewer data points. Larger faculties, by contrast, begin to exhibit more stable and predictable patterns, even when the system itself is not tightly managed.

As a result, scale often substitutes for structure. Schools with larger faculties appear more systematic, not necessarily because they have designed better systems, but because the volume of data smooths out inconsistencies. Smaller schools often have just as much intentionality, but their systems are more easily disrupted by individual decisions.

Gender Composition

Across the dataset, faculty populations are consistently majority female. Most schools fall between 60 percent and 80 percent female, with only a few approaching parity. This pattern reflects the broader teaching workforce rather than any specific institutional choice.

From a compensation perspective, gender appears in the data but does not dominate it. In many analyses, gender shows some level of correlation with salary. However, once experience is introduced into the model, the independent effect of gender typically diminishes or disappears. Gender pay gaps may be detectable in certain slices of data, but they rarely rise to the level of statistical significance.

This creates a nuanced reality. The workforce itself is clearly gendered, but compensation outcomes are not primarily driven by gender. Instead, gender differences often reflect differences in experience distribution, role assignment, or other structural factors rather than direct compensation decisions.

Racial and Ethnic Composition

Most schools in the dataset remain majority White, often in the range of 70 percent to 90 percent. However, there is meaningful variation. Some schools show significantly more diverse faculty populations, including higher proportions of Hispanic or Latino educators and more representation across multiple racial and ethnic groups.

The variation in diversity is real, but it is uneven. Some schools are clearly evolving, while others remain relatively homogeneous. This unevenness reflects differences in geography, mission, and hiring pipelines.

From a compensation standpoint, race and ethnicity occasionally appear in correlation analyses but rarely emerge as primary drivers of salary. As with gender, these variables are present in the data but do not consistently influence pay outcomes once experience is accounted for. The system remains anchored elsewhere.

Degree Attainment

Degree attainment is one of the most consistent characteristics across schools. Master’s degrees are the dominant credential, typically representing the largest share of faculty. Bachelor’s degrees form the next largest group, while doctorates are relatively rare.

Schools often emphasize degrees in their compensation philosophy. Many have formal structures that include degree lanes or stipends. These structures signal that advanced education is valued and should be rewarded.

However, the actual impact of degrees on salary is inconsistent. In some schools, degrees contribute meaningfully to compensation differences. In others, the effect is modest or difficult to detect once experience is considered. In still others, degree-related pay is applied through flat stipends that do not scale with the rest of the system. Degrees are recognized, but they are not always decisive.

Experience Profile

Faculty across the dataset are generally experienced. Most schools have average teaching experience in the range of 10 to 20 years, with a substantial concentration of teachers in mid-career stages. Years at the current school typically fall between five and ten, indicating moderate institutional stability.

This distribution has important implications. A workforce concentrated in mid-career is more expensive than one dominated by early-career teachers. It also creates pressure in specific parts of the salary structure, particularly in the middle bands where many teachers are clustered.

Most importantly, the experience profile directly shapes compensation outcomes. Because experience is so strongly correlated with salary, the distribution of experience within a faculty effectively determines the shape of the salary curve. The demographic reality becomes the compensation system.

Salary Distribution

Salary ranges are remarkably consistent across schools. Early-career teachers typically earn between $40,000 and $55,000. Mid-career teachers fall between $55,000 and $75,000. Late-career teachers often reach $70,000 to $100,000 or more, depending on the school and market context.

The progression is steady rather than abrupt. Salaries increase gradually over time, with few sharp jumps. This creates a sense of predictability and internal logic, even when the underlying system is not formally structured.

At the same time, this steady progression can mask underlying issues. Compression in the mid-career range, inconsistencies at the top of the scale, and variation introduced by stipends or role changes can all occur within an otherwise smooth-looking distribution. The shape is consistent, but the details matter.

Assistant and Lead Teacher Relationships

One of the most consistent patterns across schools is the relationship between assistant and lead teacher salaries. Assistant teachers typically earn between 60 percent and 75 percent of what lead teachers earn, regardless of the formal compensation model in place.

This consistency appears even in schools without clearly defined systems. It suggests that, even in the absence of formal structure, schools develop intuitive relationships between roles. These relationships may not be explicitly documented, but they are remarkably stable.

This pattern points to an underlying logic that transcends individual systems. Schools may differ in how they describe their compensation philosophy, but they often arrive at similar conclusions about relative value across roles.

Previous Research

In 2023, NBOA released research findings called Mission-Anchored Compensation Strategies which represents one of the most comprehensive efforts to document how independent schools think about compensation. Drawing on survey responses from more than 400 schools, along with focus groups and follow-up interviews, the study provides a broad view of how schools structure their compensation systems and, importantly, why they make those choices. It captures the intentions behind different models, the tradeoffs leaders perceive, and the cultural and mission-driven factors that shape compensation strategy. In that sense, it serves as a valuable landscape study, organizing the field into recognizable approaches and elevating the strategic conversation around compensation design.

The NBOA study is primarily descriptive rather than analytical (note that NBOA simultaneously published an implementation guide as a companion piece). It focuses on how schools report their systems and decision-making processes, rather than analyzing underlying salary data or testing how compensation actually behaves in practice. While it incorporates existing benchmark data for context, it does not examine individual compensation patterns, quantify the drivers of pay, or evaluate issues such as pay equity through statistical methods. As a result, it offers a rich picture of compensation philosophy and structure, but stops short of assessing the real-world outcomes embedded in the data.

This paper builds on that foundation by shifting the focus from description to analysis. Rather than asking how schools say they design compensation systems, we have examined how compensation actually functions within those systems. Using aggregated salary data, the analysis identifies the factors most strongly associated with pay, tests the relative influence of variables such as experience and credentials, and evaluates how consistently compensation aligns with stated structures. In doing so, it moves beyond intention and into measurable reality.

By introducing empirical analysis into a field that has been largely narrative and model-driven, this work advances the study of independent school compensation in a meaningful way. It provides evidence-based insight into how pay systems operate, highlights gaps between design and implementation, and creates a more rigorous foundation for decision-making. If prior work helped schools articulate what they want their compensation systems to do, this analysis helps clarify what those systems are actually doing, which is where better strategy, and occasionally uncomfortable truths, tend to live.

PART II: TEN OBSERVATIONS

After reviewing the demographics and structure of these schools, the next step is straightforward. What actually shows up in the data when we look at how teachers are paid?

These observations come directly from that work. They are drawn from the analysis of salary data across schools that, on the surface, describe their systems in very different ways. In practice, many of those differences matter less than expected.

What follows is not a set of recommendations. It is a set of patterns. In some cases, they confirm what schools already believe to be true. In others, they clarify or challenge those assumptions. Either way, they reflect how compensation systems are actually functioning today.

Observation One: Experience Dominates Compensation

Across nearly every study, years of experience explain the majority of salary variation. In many cases, the percentage is well above 70 percent and often exceeds 80 percent. In a few instances, it approaches complete explanation of salary differences.

This dominance is not subtle. When salary is plotted against years of experience, the result is a clear upward trend that accounts for most of the variation in pay. Additional variables may refine the model, but they rarely replace experience as the primary driver.

The implication is straightforward. Regardless of how a school describes its system, compensation behaves like a step system. Experience is the engine, and other factors operate at the margins.

Observation Two: Degree Impact is Inconsistent

Degrees matter in theory and sometimes in practice. In some schools, degree attainment has a meaningful and statistically significant relationship with salary. In others, the effect is modest or disappears entirely when experience is included in the analysis.

This inconsistency is striking because degree-based pay is often formalized. Schools may have clear policies about stipends or lanes, yet the overall impact on salary variation remains limited.

The result is a disconnect between policy and outcome. Degrees are part of the structure, but their influence varies widely from one school to another. What appears to be a consistent element of compensation is, in fact, one of the least consistent.

Observation Three: Compensation Models Converge in Practice

Schools describe a wide range of compensation models. Some use traditional step systems, others use bands, and still others describe hybrid or customized approaches. Despite these differences, the outcomes are remarkably similar.

When the data is analyzed, different models often collapse into the same underlying pattern. Experience drives salary, and the resulting curve looks similar regardless of the stated model.

This convergence suggests that model design matters less than expected. Without strong structural constraints, different systems tend to produce similar results. The label changes, but the behavior does not.

Observation Four: R² Reflects System Discipline

The strength of the statistical model, often measured by R², varies across schools. Higher values indicate that the model explains a large portion of salary variation, while lower values suggest more unexplained variation.

Schools with higher R² values tend to have more consistent and disciplined systems. Salaries align closely with experience and other variables, and deviations are limited. Schools with lower R² values often show greater variability, reflecting a mix of historical decisions and less consistent application of policy.

R² becomes a proxy for system maturity. It does not measure intent, but it does reveal how closely a school’s compensation practices align with a predictable structure.

Observation Five: Small Sample Sizes Create Noise

In smaller schools, statistical patterns are more difficult to interpret. A small number of teachers can produce unusual results, and individual salaries can have an outsized impact on averages and trends.

This noise can obscure underlying patterns or create the appearance of relationships that do not hold in larger samples. It also makes it more challenging to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of a compensation system.

As a result, caution is required when interpreting data from smaller faculties. The patterns are still present, but they may be harder to see and easier to misinterpret.

Observation Six: Internal Equity Issues Persist

Even in schools with relatively strong systems, internal equity issues often emerge. These may take the form of individual salaries that fall significantly above or below what the model would predict.

These discrepancies can arise for many reasons. Historical decisions, market adjustments, role changes, and negotiation all play a part. Over time, these factors accumulate and create deviations from the intended structure.

The presence of these gaps does not necessarily indicate a flawed system. Instead, it reflects the reality that compensation decisions are made over time, often in response to specific circumstances. The system exists, but it is not always consistently applied.

Observation Seven: Division and Role Influence Pay

While experience dominates, other factors do contribute to salary variation. Division, department, and role can all influence pay, sometimes in meaningful ways.

In some schools, these factors are formalized through different scales or adjustments. In others, they emerge informally through hiring practices and internal decisions. The impact varies, but it is often secondary to experience.

These differences highlight the layered nature of compensation. Experience provides the foundation, while other factors create variation around it. The system is not purely linear, but it is anchored by a single dominant variable.

Observation Eight: Early Growth, Mid-Career Compression

Salary progression tends to be steeper in the early years of a teacher’s career and flatter in the middle. This creates a pattern where early-career teachers see relatively rapid increases, while mid-career teachers experience slower growth.

This structure can create challenges. Mid-career teachers often represent a large portion of the faculty, and slower salary growth in this group can affect retention and morale.

The pattern is rarely intentional, but it appears consistently. It reflects the cumulative effect of incremental increases over time rather than a deliberate design choice.

Observation Nine: Market Positioning Drives Strategy

Every compensation study ultimately leads to a discussion of market position. Schools must decide whether they want to be at, above, or below a given benchmark, and what it would cost to move from one position to another.

This decision is inherently strategic. It involves trade-offs between financial resources, institutional priorities, and competitive pressures. The analysis provides the data, but the decision rests with leadership.

What is notable is how consistent this conversation is across schools. Regardless of size or context, the same questions arise. Where do we stand, where do we want to be, and how do we get there?

Observation Ten: Systems Drift Over Time

Even well-designed systems tend to drift. Over time, individual decisions, market pressures, and internal adjustments create deviations from the original structure.

This drift is gradual and often unnoticed until a formal analysis is conducted. By that point, the system may still function, but it no longer reflects its original intent.

Maintaining alignment requires ongoing attention. Without it, even the most carefully designed system becomes a collection of historical decisions rather than a coherent structure.

PART III: WHAT’S NEXT?

The patterns across these schools lead to a clear conclusion. Independent school compensation is not strategically designed. It is historically accumulated around years of experience. Everything else is optional, inconsistent, or layered on afterward.

Schools believe they pay for experience, degrees, performance, and role. In reality, they mostly pay for experience and explain the rest later.

This does not mean that schools lack intentionality or that their systems are flawed. It means that the dominant force shaping compensation is simple and powerful. Experience drives pay, and other factors operate within that framework.

Recognizing this reality creates an opportunity. Schools can choose to align their systems more closely with their stated philosophies, or they can acknowledge the simplicity of their current approach and manage it more deliberately. Either path requires clarity about what is actually happening, not just what is intended.

The data does not prescribe a single solution. It does, however, offer a consistent insight. Across dozens of schools and thousands of teachers, the same pattern emerges. The system may be described in many ways, but it behaves in one.

 What Schools are Gravitating Toward

While compensation systems vary widely in description, schools are beginning to move in similar directions. There is increasing interest in banded systems, particularly those that allow for more flexibility than traditional step models. Schools are drawn to the idea of broader ranges, fewer rigid steps, and the ability to differentiate within a role.

At the same time, there is hesitation. Many schools adopt the language of banding but continue to operate in ways that resemble step systems. Experience still anchors placement, and movement within bands is often tied implicitly to years rather than explicitly to performance or contribution. The result is a hybrid system that looks modern but behaves traditionally.

There is also a noticeable shift toward intentional market positioning. Schools are more frequently asking where they want to sit relative to peers and what it will cost to get there. This represents a move away from purely reactive adjustments toward a more strategic view of compensation. However, the tension between aspiration and affordability remains, and few schools resolve it cleanly.

What Schools are Asking For

After the data is presented and the patterns are clear, the questions from schools are remarkably consistent. They are not asking for more analysis. They are asking what to do next.

Most schools want to know how to move from what they have inherited to something more intentional. They ask how to fix compression without creating new inequities, how to reward performance without breaking internal equity, and how to remain competitive without committing to unsustainable cost increases. Underneath each of these questions is a deeper concern about control. Schools sense that their compensation system has evolved beyond their direct management, and they are trying to regain it.

There is also a growing desire for clarity. Leaders want a system they can explain to faculty and defend to boards. They are less interested in elegant theory and more interested in something that works in practice. The most common request is not for a perfect system, but for a system that is understandable, consistent, and aligned with institutional priorities.

Are There Disruptors on the Horizon

It is tempting to look for a technological disruption that will fundamentally reshape compensation systems. Artificial intelligence, automation, and data analytics are already influencing how schools operate in other areas. Compensation, however, is proving more resistant.

The reason is not technical. It is human. Compensation systems are deeply tied to culture, history, and values. They reflect not just what schools can afford, but what they believe is fair. While AI can improve analysis and modeling, it does not change the underlying dynamics that drive pay decisions.

There is also a dynamic at play that resembles Jevon’s paradox. As analytical tools become more efficient, the demand for analysis tends to increase rather than decrease. Schools that once relied on simple salary scales now find themselves evaluating multiple scenarios, benchmarking against multiple cohorts, and considering a broader range of variables. The result is not less complexity, but more.

That said, there are subtle shifts underway. Better data tools are making it easier to identify inconsistencies and model alternative scenarios. Schools are gaining access to more sophisticated benchmarking and more immediate insights into their own systems. Over time, this may lead to more intentional design and less drift.

The more significant disruption may not come from technology at all. It may come from changing expectations. As faculty demand greater transparency and as competition for talent intensifies, schools may be forced to articulate and defend their compensation systems more clearly. That pressure, more than any algorithm, has the potential to drive real change. If there is a disruption coming, it will not replace the system, it will expose it.

A Final Thought

The system is not as complex as it appears. It is overwhelmingly driven by years of experience, with everything else layered on over time. Schools already know how their systems behave. The question is whether they will continue to manage what they have inherited, or take ownership of designing what comes next.

I’ll let you know what happens when I get through the next hundred.

 Click here for the Appendix: A List of Compensation Terms Every Leader Should Know