Middleton-Cross Plains board hears detailed substitute, general‑leave staffing report as fill rates tick up
Loading...
Summary
District staff told the Board of Education the district’s substitute fill rate has risen to about 82% after switching providers, while general‑leave requests decreased from 11,781 to 10,061 year over year; board members pressed for solutions to remaining unfilled absences and burdens on building staff.
The Middleton‑Cross Plains Area School District Board of Education received a data‑heavy briefing April 7 on substitute coverage, general leave and how unfilled absences are covered.
The district reported its substitute pool grew to 307 EduStaff‑employed substitutes as of Feb. 28, 2025, up from 297 the prior year, and an average district substitute fill rate of about 82%, compared with roughly 80% at the same point last year. Administrators and staff said the change followed the district’s July 1, 2024, move from Teachers on Call to a new provider, EduStaff, and noted EduStaff provides a district services manager assigned to recruitment and outreach.
Board members heard several other year‑over‑year comparisons. Approved general‑leave requests dropped from 11,781 to 10,061 through February. The percentage of general‑leave requests denied fell to 1.46% this year from 2.1% last year. Certified staff requesting five or more consecutive days dropped to 46 from 69 a year earlier. The district reported it filled 5,334 substitute‑covered absences through Feb. 28, 2025, versus 4,441 in the comparable period the previous year — an increase of 893 filled absences even though the fill rate remained similar.
Presenters said when an EduStaff substitute is not available, internal coverage is used: a teacher covers another class during prep time, administrators provide coverage, or classes are combined temporarily. Board members called that internal coverage an additional “tax” or burden on staff. District staff said ideal performance would be 100% outside coverage but acknowledged national shortages of substitute and paraeducator candidates and turnover among short‑term substitutes.
Board members asked about contract terms with EduStaff; presenters said the contract does not include a numeric fill‑rate guarantee, though the district has set programmatic priorities (for example, targeting Glacier Creek for extra recruiting) and negotiates specific support needs. The district also reported it reduced permanent building substitutes from about 13.4 to 7.325 positions compared with last year; administrators cautioned that comparison is not apples‑to‑apples because of that change in the permanent sub pool.
The board questioned whether substitute pay and other incentives could be changed; presenters said the district’s teacher sub pay is competitive but the gap is in paraeducator substitute coverage. Committee members and staff said some compliance trainings required by state or vendor rules must be completed by substitutes, and EduStaff currently requires some unpaid compliance modules; the district indicated it had raised concerns and expected that to be revisited.
Directives and next steps from the meeting included continued focused recruitment in low‑fill buildings (Glacier Creek, Cromry Middle School and Sauk Trail Elementary were cited as focal points), ongoing monitoring of metrics, and a promise to return to the board in July with year‑end data. Staff said the district will continue working with EduStaff on targeted recruitment and that some provider innovations carry extra cost that the district must evaluate.
Board members thanked staff for the report and the additional charts that highlight month‑to‑month and building‑level trends.
