Salt Lake City School District study session focuses on Title I staffing, differentiated pay and planning time

Salt Lake City School District staff reviewed research and local data at a study session about how Title I funds and other district resources are being used to support staffing, teacher pay and planning time in high-poverty schools, and the Board directed staff to survey Title I schools and report back with site-level needs and options.

The discussion matters because Title I and related district dollars fund services that directly affect students in high-poverty schools — including additional teachers, paraprofessionals, counselors and behavioral supports — while those federal and state allocations are declining and the district must choose whether to reallocate local funds or seek new revenue.

Staff presented mixed research on retention incentives and transfer stipends. District staff summarized studies showing that one-time retention bonuses of about $5,000 produced short-term retention gains for teachers in tested subjects, while a multi-district pilot that offered up to $20,000 to move high-value-added teachers into Title I schools showed measurable gains in elementary reading and math during the pilot’s two-year window. Staff also reviewed studies indicating that increasing base pay for teachers in high-poverty schools produced higher retention (roughly a 12 percent increase in some studies). Staff cautioned that these models raise sustainability questions because ongoing funding sources were not guaranteed in the research examples.

Staff described current local supports. Title I elementary schools in the district commonly use federal Title I funds to add teacher FTE to reduce class size, to hire paraprofessionals and in a few instances to fund intervention or behavior specialists. The district also mixes Title I with property-tax and “at-risk” allocations that are not always tracked separately in site budgets; staff said next year’s allocation reporting will separate at-risk funds so spending can be monitored more precisely.

Presenters highlighted district programs that aim to improve retention independently of differentiated pay. The district’s Peer Assistance and Review program — funded beginning in 2013 — employs five consulting teachers who mentor brand‑new educators; staff said the program’s first five years exceeded the state average five-year retention rate by about 23 percent, though post‑COVID comparisons are difficult.

Local comparisons and cost estimates framed the policy choices. Granite and Jordan school districts offer a $1,000 annual stipend to teachers in Title I schools (Jordan pays that amount in two $750 payments on top of its schedule). Canyons, Murray and Davis do not currently offer differentiated Title I pay; Murray staff said an earlier program created divisions between eligible teachers and other school staff and was discontinued. Using current district salary data, staff modeled several scenarios: a $1,000 stipend would cost roughly $374,000; a $5,000 stipend about $1.8 million; and a $10,000 stipend would run into the low‑single‑digit millions. Extending the school day for Title I teachers was another scenario: staff estimated a single additional contractual day at roughly $178,000 and a 30‑minute daily extension across affected teachers would cost just over $2 million.

Board members and school staff emphasized staffing mix and site priorities over a single differentiated‑pay solution. Multiple participants — including classroom teachers and local representatives — told the board they hear requests from schools for “more people in buildings” (more counselors, social workers, paraprofessionals and administrative support) and for protected planning time, rather than a simple stipend. A classroom teacher from Glendale Middle School identified needs that include expanded mental‑health supports, more ELD services for newcomers and protection of planning time so teachers can prepare instruction and manage increased behavioral needs.

Staff described current social‑service capacity and funding uncertainty. The district reported seven full‑time district social‑worker positions (five plus two additional). Staff emphasized that filling positions has been feasible but maintaining them year to year depends on ongoing funding; some state and grant sources that supported social workers have declined or ended. The district noted philanthropic and grant funding can be short term and may create sustainability problems if positions are funded for only two or three years.

Several participants urged a site‑level needs assessment before pursuing a large, districtwide stipend. Board members and staff agreed that Title I schools vary in composition — for example, the district’s funding currently scales linearly for counts such as English language learners, but schools with very high ELL percentages face qualitatively different needs that may require more than a linear funding adjustment. As a result the board asked staff to design a targeted survey and outreach that includes teachers, administrators, families and other school stakeholders to identify what each Title I school would prioritize if additional resources were available.

Next steps and direction. District leaders said they will draft the school‑level survey and outreach plan and return at a future study session with consolidated results, cost estimates and options for how to finance changes (reallocating current funds, identifying other revenue sources or seeking increased local revenue). Staff also flagged a follow‑up study session planned next month that could add legislative estimates and other budget information into the discussion.

The study session included no formal board votes on policy or budget changes; the explicit action was direction to staff to develop the survey/outreach and report findings to the board for a policy decision at a later meeting.