Committee advances bill letting districts use management levy for teacher recruitment and retention incentives

The Senate Education Committee advanced Senate Study Bill 1027 after a subcommittee recommended passage. The bill would allow a school board to adopt a locally administered teacher recruitment and retention incentive program and to include the program’s estimated cost in the district management levy, subject to restrictions specified in the bill.

Under the bill, a recruitment or retention incentive paid by a district may not exceed 10% of the state-required minimum initial teacher salary in any given year. Districts would not be allowed to pay a recruitment or retention incentive to a teacher in more than five school budget years. The bill also specifies that a school board may adopt either an early retirement incentive program or a recruitment and retention incentive program funded through the management levy, but not both at the same time. Before adopting either program the school board must discuss it at a regular or special meeting and provide sufficient time for public comment; each interested member of the public must be allowed an opportunity to speak, the bill says.

Sen. Shipley described the idea as one that originated with superintendents of small rural districts and said it would help rural districts compete with larger urban districts for beginning teachers. "It certainly gives those districts out there, in my part of the world, an opportunity to be more competitive," Shipley said, adding that management funds often have unspent balances that could be used for recruitment.

Sen. Evans noted the state recently raised teacher pay, moving the state’s ranking upward, but said recruitment effects will take time and local control over a management levy fund could help districts supplement recruitment. "This gives some local control to a fund that is already available to school boards to use for recruitment," Evans said.

After closing remarks the committee adopted the bill by voice vote and moved it to the calendar under Rule 40. The committee record shows unanimous subcommittee support and no recorded roll-call opposition in committee.

The bill’s text and fiscal impacts were discussed in committee but the committee record did not list specific dollar amounts for incentives or a fiscal-note total; those details would be resolved in later fiscal analyses or floor consideration.