Rachel Nozari | September 2025
In almost every organization I’ve worked with, I’ve sat with staff who discovered they were being paid less than colleagues doing comparable work — sometimes thousands of dollars less. The frustration in those moments isn’t just about the money; it’s about fairness, trust, and dignity. Those conversations stay with me, and they’re why I believe compensation design isn’t just a technical exercise. It’s one of the clearest signals of what an organization values.
At EdFuel, we work with organizations every day to help them build more fair, inclusive, and effective talent systems. Compensation is one of the most powerful and most fraught tools in that system. It’s where market logic, budget constraints, and deeply held values collide.
Even in mission-driven environments, we often see the same patterns: roles essential to student wellbeing are underpaid, legacy structures drive internal pay gaps, and compensation decisions get made behind closed doors. These aren’t new problems, but they demand deeper, more intentional solutions.
This blog offers a set of guiding questions to help organizations reflect on how fairness and inclusion show up (or don’t) in their compensation strategy. Whether you’re designing salary bands, conducting a pay equity audit, or rethinking your compensation philosophy, these questions are a starting point for harder, better conversations.
- Are we balancing market rates with our values?
Most compensation strategies are grounded in external benchmarks, but the market isn’t neutral. It reflects decades of undervaluing roles disproportionately held by women and BIPOC staff, including organizational culture and community partnerships leaders, social workers, and family liaisons.
- When we know the market underpays a role we say is critical, should we intentionally pay above market?
- Are we reinforcing unfairness by anchoring too tightly to market norms?
- Is our strategy reactive (chasing the market) or proactive (shaping the future we want to see)?
- Are we rewarding work of comparable complexity and contribution fairly?
Internal equity matters, but it doesn’t happen by accident. Many organizations inherit titles, bands, and pay scales that no longer reflect the real scope or impact of the work.
- Do our bands reflect what people are actually expected to do, or are they based on outdated assumptions?
- How are we recognizing invisible labor like emotional support, cultural mediation, or DEIA committee work?
- Are lower-paid roles actually carrying more community-facing or high-stakes work than we acknowledge?
- Are we paying people enough to not just survive, but live with dignity?
Establishing a cost-of-living floor is a critical step. From there, organizations can also ask: What does it look like to ensure staff are thriving, not just surviving?
- Are our lowest-paid employees earning at least the local living wage, and does that allow them to keep pace with essential costs like housing, food, childcare, health care, and transportation?
- Are there ways to account for differences in personal circumstances (e.g., caregiving, multigenerational households)?
- Are hourly or support staff seeing the same pace of wage adjustments as exempt staff?
Example in Action: We’ve seen partners begin to take meaningful steps here. For example, when we worked with LAYC Career Academy to redesign their compensation system in 2024, they established a Minimum Salary Threshold of $50,000 so that no full-time staff member earns below that amount, even when the benchmarks suggested less. This decision reflects their commitment to fair pay and helps staff cover essential expenses. It’s a powerful example of translating values into action.
- Do our pay structures reflect what we value, or what’s historically had power?
Pay often flows toward strategic planning, compliance, and oversight, not care work, relationship-building, or direct student impact.
- Do we reward “strategic” work more than “relational” or “emotional” labor?
- Are roles like instructional aides, counselors, and family liaisons often near the bottom of the pay scale, even when they’re core to student success?
- Should leadership roles always sit at the top, even if they’re more removed from students or families?
- If we can’t pay more, how else do we express value, and is it enough?
Recognition matters. But non-monetary praise alone won’t fix structural underpayment, and can sometimes mask it.
- What’s the risk of relying on shout-outs or perks for undervalued roles while others receive pay increases?
- Are we asking lower-paid staff to do more “mission labor”, like volunteering at school events or supporting families after hours, without fair compensation?
- How do we avoid using passion as justification for unfair pay practices?
- Do staff understand and trust how compensation decisions are made?
Even a technically fair system won’t feel fair if it’s opaque. Trust grows when organizations are willing to share not just the what, but the why behind pay decisions.
- Do staff know how their salary was set, and what their path to growth looks like?
- Are pay bands and salary-setting criteria transparent across the organization?
- Are we willing to name real tradeoffs (e.g., “We raised counselor pay this year, which meant flatter raises elsewhere”) as a demonstration of our values?
Final Thought: Design Is a Choice
Compensation design is never just about numbers; it’s about priorities, tradeoffs, and what we’re willing to stand behind. These questions aren’t meant to prescribe a single approach, but to provoke the honest dialogue fair compensation work requires.
For me, the moments when staff discover they’re being paid less than peers doing comparable work are reminders of why this matters so deeply. Pay is about more than budgets — it’s about fairness, trust, and dignity.
If you’re wrestling with these questions in your own organization, start the conversation. Ask one of these six questions at your next leadership meeting, or invite staff into dialogue about what fair and inclusive pay could look like for your team. The first step is simply choosing to look closely – and to act on what you see.