“Where the [censored] is the money going?”

Forgive my reference to profanity (but notice, dear reader, the quotation marks, indicating that it was not I who spoke with such vulgarity), but it was this wise question from an eminent fellow Upper Schooler that guided my analysis of this year’s “State of the School” address from Winchester Thurston’s Head of School, Dr. Scott D. Fech.

(I can already hear you asking yourself, “Wait, wasn’t the State of the School like, almost four months ago? Why are you writing about it only now, mere days before graduation?” Quiet! The best things in life take time. This is not one of the best things in life. But it did take time.)

It’s certainly a reasonable question. Winchester Thurston is not exactly a cheap investment for parents. Tuition for seniors is nearly forty-thousand dollars per year ($38,600, to be exact). That’s close to 4% of the price of an audience with our Dear Leader. 

What else can you buy with forty-thousand dollars? About thirty-four metric tons of bananas.  Over thirteen-thousand sumo oranges. Seven-thousand loves of Five Points Artisan Bakeshop sourdough bread. Half a Cybertruck (which probably functions about as well as a whole one). Around nineteen custom Rivendell bicycles. A 2025 Subaru Crosstrek. About seven-dozen eggs.

But I get ahead of myself.

Last year, I unfortunately missed Dr. Fech’s in-person presentation and was forced to rely on a mere video recording to compose my review of his speech. But this year, bearing the fleeting resemblance of an actual journalist, I attended the event in person on a mild evening in January.

I rushed from running 800 meter repeats on the Jail Trail (around the same time someone was stabbed with a machete not a mile away) to arrive at the Joan Clark Davis Center for Interdisciplinary Learning (JCDC, to those in the know) just in time to enjoy some “light refreshments.” My homemade, laminated, all-access Voices press badge dangled proudly from a lanyard around my neck and I found a seat in the front row. With a pen in one hand and a legal pad in the other, I was ready to be informed.

The State of the School left me with many thoughts. But what left me with yet more thoughts — and manifold questions — was the slideshow presentation of his State of the School that I later (somewhat accidentally) obtained, which contained facts and figures not discussed in the in-person discussion. Initially, some of what I found led me to write an article with no small amount of criticism of WT — namely, with regard to how we compensate our teachers.

But, after drafting this article and preparing to publish it, I reached out to Dr. Fech, and to my surprise, he invited me to meet about my findings. Dr. Fech was admirably transparent with me, and his answers to my questions led to considerable revisions to this article, which has remained persistently long, despite my best efforts.

I will lay out Dr. Fech’s response to my findings in the latter half of this article. I have also changed portions of the first part to reflect my updated understanding of my findings.

I wish to also stress my sympathy for the position of one such as Dr. Fech. There are so many constituencies to which Dr. Fech is beholden: parents, alumni, board members, teachers, students, even colleges, and they do not all share the same interests and opinions. Each have different priorities, expectations, and needs. Pleasing them all is impossible.

I overheard Dr. Fech speaking to a parent before his speech about his decisions regarding snow days (the parent didn’t seem so pleased, which I may have had something to do with) and Fech echoed this sentiment — that no matter what he does, some people will be unhappy.

Thus, I proceed with the following qualification: broadly speaking, I don’t think I could do a much better job than Dr. Fech. To claim otherwise would be exceedingly hubristic. I believe, by and large, that Dr. Fech acts well in his role as head of School. Additionally, although Dr. Fech is the “face” of WT, he is himself beholden to our (rather large) twenty-eight member Board of Trustees. Not every decision is up to Dr. Fech, and any decision Dr. Fech makes is contingent on the approval of the Board.

And yet, as I have argued before, so long as WT continues to bathe itself with such effusive self-praise, casting the school as some sort of infallible Midas that turns all it touches to gold, an exceptional outlier that does things differently (read: better), I will continue to hold it to rigorous standards.

But enough preamble: 

At the urging of my editor (yes, even I have an editor), I’ve decided to only address the financial outlook of WT in this article. Particularly, I concerned myself with the issue of… well, where does the money go? 

And indeed, the main message of this year’s State of the School could be summarized in just three words:

“We need money.”

(If I’m not mistaken, an email imploring me to contribute $20.25 is already breathing bated breaths at the precipice of my inbox, waiting to enter the moment my fingers brush the parchment edge of my diploma.)

But if I’ve learned anything from looking at WT’s finances, it’s that WT truly earns every penny of its non-profit status.

Tuition only makes up around 85% of WT’s income. Around 7% comes from the endowment (which has risen significantly over the years to about $27 million… though current official US economic policy of trusting the instincts of a twice-failed real estate mogul isn’t exactly doing us any favors on that front) and 2% comes from several other miscellaneous sources.

The remaining 6% must come from donations. WT is reliant on these yearly donations (called the “Annual Fund”) to function. Those of you who follow WT’s Instagram account may have noticed that WT now regularly posts about mini-fundraisers for targeted, specific causes (such as a particular funding need in the arts). WT relies on donations for all sorts of capital expenditure — new desks, new chairs, new computers, new pianos, new anything — and the school, recognizing just how unsustainable, or at the very least risky this model is, has begun working to move towards a more stable model — namely, by increasing the endowment.

Additionally, any “Capital Campaign” projects — such as the 2015 renovations to the Athletic Wing, or the purchase and renovation of the Davis Center — are entirely funded by donations. WT is currently in the midst of such a capital campaign in order to fund much-needed renovations to Molloy Posner Hall (MPH), which, Dr. Fech announced, are slated to begin in June. Although the project is not yet fully funded (WT still needs several million at the time of writing), WT is beginning these costly renovations anyways — a not necessarily uncommon practice in the fundraising world.

Nonetheless, one shudders to imagine what would happen if we ran out of money midway through construction — which makes it quite understandable why Dr. Fech would devote so much attention to this issue. Ensuring that WT receives these valuable donations is arguably the most important part of Dr. Fech’s job. Additionally, WT is seeking to raise more money to contribute to the endowment in order to reduce reliance on the Annual Fund and tuition.

One might wonder where all that tuition money is going, if it doesn’t even cover the full cost of education. One might even phrase that question in such an elegant manner as “Where the [censored] is the money going?”

According to WT, some 12% goes to “General and Administrative” costs, 9% to “Instruction and Student Services,” and 8% to facilities. The bulk of income — around 71% — goes to compensation (salaries and benefits). Our most valuable and distinctive asset of all here at WT is our teaching faculty. Says it right there on the “Compensation Philosophy” slide of the presentation (more on that later): “Our exceptional faculty and staff, driven by their commitment to WT’s strategic priorities and mission, are at the forefront of [WT’s] work.

So why does it seem like we are paying them so little?

According to WT’s own compensation data, for teachers with between one and ten years of experience (of which, about 28% of our teachers are), we pay an average salary below the tenth percentile when compared to our peer schools, a group of peer schools for which the median average salary is about $49,000 for teachers with 1-5 years of experience and about $56,000 for teachers with 6-10 years of experience.

WT salaries average about $42,000 for teachers with 1-5 years of experience, and about $50,000 for teachers with 6-10 years of experience.

The picture is a bit brighter when you consider that experience from other institutions carries over to WT. For teachers 11-15 years of experience, WT is in the 25th-50th percentile range with an average salary around $58,000 (the group median is around $62,000) and for teachers with 16-20 years of experience, WT is almost exactly at the 50th percentile range with an average salary around $64,000 (the group median average salary is around $64,000).

(A note on comparisons: WT compares itself to a “Benchmark Group” of sixteen schools that participate in INDEX — the Independent School Data Exchange. These schools have similar numbers of students as WT and similar operating budgets, and are all PK-12 day schools. All of the data I’m citing in this article is for 2023-2024.)

Pittsburgh public school teachers with nine years of experience, by comparison, average somewhere around $70,000 according to PublicSource, and that increases with tenure. Salaries above $100,000 for those who have significant experience are not uncommon. That’s pretty far from WT, where it takes over twenty years of experience to reach $70,000.

It’s not that our tuition is lower than average. Actually, according to WT’s own data, our tuition is actually on the higher end when compared to our peer schools. And, WT’s student-to-teacher ratio (at about 1 to 8.4) is quite high, as compared to the median of 1 to 7.8 and the low of 1 to 7.3 of WT’s peer schools. PPS has a much higher ratio of about 11.7 to 1 according to PublicSource, which is smaller than the national average of about 16:1.

What parents might also find interesting is that WT ranks 1 out of 9 for students per section; in other words, we have the most students per section. While class sizes are obviously smaller than in public schools… it is not because we have exceptionally low class sizes that our salaries are so low.

Per Dr. Fech’s presentation, WT spends an average of about $32,000 per student (I imagine — or perhaps hope — that the amount is greater for seniors, given that they pay more than $32,000) and this amount is actually greater than the average tuition paid (because of donations and the endowment… and likely because many students have financial aid). According to the data, WT ranks 11th out of 16 schools for expense per student. By comparison, Pittsburgh Public Schools spends between 22k and 29k per student.

So the question again begs: “Where the [censored] does the money go?” (Notice, again, dear reader, the quotation marks.)

Why are teacher salaries so low? The answer might seem obvious — we don’t have enough money — but why don’t we have enough money? Our peer schools don’t seem to have the same problem. I am but a naïve high schooler, perhaps lacking the requisite MBA skills to properly understand these matters, but that we pay teachers so little seems, to me, an issue. Though our teachers may love their craft, they still must pay their bills.

One distinct advantage of a private school is that our teachers needn’t a specific teaching degree, but rather have degrees in an array of other subjects like chemistry, history, biology, engineering, mathematics, and English, which to me, leads to a much more interesting student experience.

In AP Biology, Dr. Horton was able to bring up research she did for her own PhD when we were talking about cell signaling and cancer, and in Multivariable Calculus last year, Dr. VandenBosche, an engineer by training, was able to integrate her own experiences applying math in the real world into our classes. Several of our English teachers have been published authors (including my very own AP Literature teacher, Ms. McDermott, who recently published Millions of Suns) and our history department boasts three PhDs.

But because they lack teaching degrees, many of our teachers couldn’t work in a public school. Dr. Fech bragged in his presentation — rightfully so — about how qualified our teachers are; some 58% have a Master’s degree and 10% have a Doctoral degree. Having teachers so deeply familiar with research is also an immense asset when it comes to expanding research opportunities for students at WT — a key priority that Dr. Fech articulated.

But we must continue to attract talent. Many of my teachers have told me of forgoing better-paying careers in the private sector or at universities because they believe in the mission of educating students. But if they can’t afford to… well, then they won’t! It simply seems that we aren’t paying our teachers much at all — especially those who are new to the job.

WT seems to indicate that it knows this is a problem. Fech announced during his address to the teachers updates on a “Compensation Study” that is in progress at WT.  Identified issues include that the salary scale is “not predictable nor accurately reflects actual employee experience,” that there is a “lack of clarity in defining faculty workload,” and that there’s a “lack of clear growth in salary/scope for staff and administrators.”

(What is meant by an unpredictable salary scale? As I understand it, WT regularly changes the salary scale such that employees do not always have the salary they anticipated in years prior.)

Much of the work of the study so far seems focused on mitigating workload and ensuring that it is “equitable” — an avenue of attack that notably avoids the more direct solution of raising salaries.

The “Compensation Slide” in the presentation stated that “WT “embraces our Philosophy of Teaching and Learning and takes a bold approach to imagining the future.” The slide continues: “WT aims to provide salaries and benefits that are competitive with independent schools in our peer group. We recognize that compensation is our largest expense, and it’s only by managing our limited resources efficiently that we will be able to set a market and benchmark aligned tuition and remain economically sustainable.”

How is paying salaries below the tenth percentile of our peer group “competitive”? (I recognize that Pittsburgh’s relatively low cost of living may be a factor.) It’s true that our overall faculty attrition rate is good (below the mean, at about 9.3%). But one must wonder: does this average statistic mask experience cohort variation in attrition — which is to say, is the attrition rate for new faculty (those paid the worst) significantly higher than for more tenured faculty?

(WT does not, however, have tenure: our teachers operate on one-year contracts.)

One must ask: Are we really attracting the best possible faculty?

Before Fech spoke, Jessica Bemer, the president of the Board of Trustees, gave a rather lovely opening address in which she cast the role of WT as not just a service to educate the children of paying parents, but as an institution to serve “the many families of the Pittsburgh community, including those who could not afford to send their children to Winchester without the generous support of our donors… Education is our mission, not just for your children, but for our larger community.”

I am in full support of these worthy efforts. Such socio-economic diversity is beneficial to all students at WT. But if WT casts itself as such a force for good, if it believes that it holds such an important and benevolent role in the community, shouldn’t paying teachers well be part of that vision? I understand that there are significant financial restrictions, that WT doesn’t exactly have money to spare. But why? “Where does the [censored] money go?” 

This was supposed to be about where I ended this article.

But then, succumbing to principles of “journalistic integrity” (though apparently that’s no longer legal) I sat down with Dr. Fech.

Dr. Fech had a lot to say, and I truly appreciated his willingness to discuss the school’s finances with as much detail and transparency as one could hope. As a student journalist that attempts to be at least occasionally serious, I also appreciated that Dr. Fech answered all of my questions without pulling the classic “you’re just a kid” cop-out card.

Firstly, Dr. Fech said that my data (the data I talked about above) is a bit outdated, and that in actuality, no teachers are currently being paid salaries on the 1-5 year scale (note that this only includes full-time teachers). In other words, just because a teacher is technically in a particular experience bracket doesn’t mean that they are being paid in that bracket on the salary scale. According to Dr. Fech, only about 10 full-time teachers are being paid in the 6-10 year salary scale.

Dr. Fech did acknowledge that there is “room for growth” for the bottom 20% of salaries — which, essentially, is to say that yes, we probably should be paying that group of teachers better, and Dr. Fech said that WT is trying to do just that. I must emphasize, in all fairness to WT and to paraphrase a statement from the WT administration, there isn’t some “pot of money” sitting around that we can raid.

Such a pot of money, of course, is under the careful care of the Shady Side Academy Board of Trustees.

Secondly, Dr. Fech rightly pointed out that probably no independent schools in Pittsburgh (not even Shady Side Academy pay in the highest percentiles on the salary scale. Additionally, he showed me data that reflected that salaries are currently a bit higher than in my data. Fech did not, however, actually provide me with this data so I cannot give exact numbers.

The more important component of Fech’s explanation is that WT’s benefits are quite generous — and therefore extremely costly for WT. The salary scale only encompasses how WT’s salaries match up to other schools, not necessarily the total value of compensation. The employee contribution to WT’s healthcare plan hasn’t risen in years, for instance, but WT’s contribution has — and significantly. 

For a family, WT contributes around $20,000, for instance. Additionally, WT provides life insurance, contributes to employee 403 (b) accounts (5%, which is pretty typical), and dental & vision care. Additionally, WT provides a total of over $800,000 in tuition remission for the children of faculty and staff — a not insignificant benefit, if not a universal one (since not all teacher have children attending WT).

Fech told me that there wasn’t a tool in the INDEX software that allowed him to compare total compensation with peer institutions. However, with this new perspective in hand, I reexamined the data I do have from the State of the School slideshow.

Indeed, that data shows that WT pays the highest percentage of healthcare premiums for an individual in its peer group (about 94%) and the second highest for families (around 72%). When we look at Benefits Expenses per Employee, we see that WT is ranked 4 out of 10 (about $17,000 per employee) — a much better look than the salary scale might suggest, especially when we consider that the benefits data is adjusted for inflation but the salary scale is not. I cannot, however, say with certainty whether simply adding benefit expenses and nominal salaries would sum to total compensation.

With further regard to WT’s costs and expenditures: WT has certain expenses that are higher than usual by virtue of WT’s positive attributes. 

To elaborate, because we are located in the middle of the city, we don’t have space to have all of our own practice facilities. Thus, we spend immense sums to rent-out practice facilities and to transport student athletes to practices. (However much you might think it is… it’s more, I have been assured.) Further, our City as Our Campus program — no doubt a great resource at WT, the crown jewel of WT exceptionalism, if you will — is also apparently rather expensive.

So, where is the money going? That’s a complicated question, and after this whole, drawn out process, I must admit that I am more sympathetic to WT than perhaps I expected after I initially saw the somewhat shocking salary scale. WT is not intentionally underpaying its staff. But still, there are reforms to be made in compensation at WT; as it stands. Even with benefits, I find it difficult to believe that our salaries are “competitive” — especially where attracting new teachers is concerned.

One hopes that the Compensation Study results in a WT that can, better than ever before, attract and retain the very best teaching talent, the kind of talent that makes WT a special place.

At the same time as I call for better compensation of our teachers, I simultaneously call for a more rigorous accountability and feedback system for teachers. WT has recently rolled out a “Faculty Professionalism Checklist,” but this checklist is little more than an exercise in checking boxes, so to speak, and doesn’t actually get at how effective a particular teacher actually is.

I reiterate my call for the introduction of a survey system to collect feedback from students about their classes, as well as their overall WT experience.  If WT is moving towards more data-driven learning, it seems an incredible hole in their data that there is no asking the students what they think of their classes. This would also be valuable information for teachers; students often don’t feel comfortable articulating their opinions directly to teachers or administrators.

Of course, such a survey system must be carefully designed to ensure that students are giving constructive, not degrading, feedback and that bias or prejudice isn’t allowed to influence the effect of this feedback. My fellow senior, Nora Faraci, is at the moment actually conducting an independent study into how such a survey system might be designed and implemented and how we might protect against the aforementioned potential issues (say, teachers of a certain gender being systematically rated lower by students).

Dr. Fech told me that such a student survey mechanism is in the process of development and that the Faculty Professionalism Checklist is only a first step. I hope so, because student surveys cannot come quick enough. The issue is, to use vocabulary I learned in my Constitutional Law class, ripe.

I restrain myself from acting like those currently in the employ of a certain DOGE, from suggesting where there might be waste or money misspent, where efficiency might be improved (always, the question is, what is meant by efficiency?) or what ought to be slashed from our budget, because I am hardly in a position to know. 

My understanding of how the school works most certainly pales in comparison to our hardworking teachers and administrators — except, of course, when it comes to the student experience, or so it seems. I’ve likely made errors in this article, and so I am ready to be corrected, but I find it hard to believe that there aren’t significant inefficiencies at WT. 

Why isn’t it a higher priority to ensure that our teachers can focus on school and not worry about their finances, that they feel valued by their institution, that they can be properly compensated for making Winchester truly “exceptional”? With all due respect and appreciation for their efforts, City as Our Campus is simply not what makes WT special, nor are any of the other fancily-named but well-meaning initiatives WT concocts every year.

What ultimately makes the student experience is the incredible quality of teachers. That should be our number one priority.

I sourced most of the information used in this article from a slideshow presentation shared with faculty and staff — only a portion of which was shown in the presentation to parents — and from my in-person experience of Fech’s presentation, a video recording of which can be found here. Other information was sourced from my fellow students and my personal experiences, as well as from my interview with Dr. Fech.