Sharyland ISD staff present new staffing standards, compensation plan and budget scenarios

Sharyland ISD staff briefed the school board at a workshop on a proposed multi-year approach to staffing and compensation, saying the plan will set districtwide staffing standards—how many teachers, counselors and aides each campus should have—clarify how full-time equivalents (FTEs) are used across programs and show several pay-increase scenarios under current state law.

District staff framed the work as fiscally responsible planning tied to student achievement. “We are here for budget workshop number 2 of the season. The fun one: staffing and compensation,” the presenter said at the start of the workshop. The presentation emphasized that staff costs account for roughly 80–85% of the district’s general operating budget and that personnel decisions are the district’s largest recurring expenditure.

The staffing standards proposal would: set state-mandated classroom ratios (elementary 22:1; secondary 25:1), establish target counselor ratios (elementary about 350:1; middle/high about 400:1), and adopt a cohort model at secondary schools so a counselor and assistant principal follow a student cohort for multiple years. For special education the district proposed moving toward a goal caseload of about 20 students per certified inclusion teacher (the presenter said current caseloads are closer to 25–30 and that aides cannot carry caseloads). Life-skills and 18-plus programs would remain staffed to state-required ratios (example given: 13:1 with two instructional aides, with exceptions for 1:1 needs).

Staff also outlined changes to how athletic duty and other program assignments are treated. The district would count “athletic FTEs” into staffing so coaches who are pulled from teaching for athletic periods do not reduce instructional staffing on paper. The presenter used the example of a junior high model that receives 44 instructional FTEs plus four FTEs to cover athletics, and said some campuses (Pioneer was cited) had previously had dozens of coach sections that reduced classroom staffing during the day.

A major administrative change would be account distribution by FTE utilization: when a teacher splits time across programs (for example, a teacher who teaches a core subject and a CTE class and also coaches), payroll charges would be split proportionally to the program that receives the teacher’s time rather than having one program absorb the full cost. District leaders said that will improve transparency about program costs and allow realistic forecasting of athletics, CTE and other program budgets.

The workshop included an illustrative “total compensation” example for a fictional high-school teacher/coach. The presenter showed a published base salary figure (spoken as about $54,095) but said total annual compensation for the example—after stipends, extra days and employer-paid benefits—would be about $77,851. Staff argued the “hidden” components of total pay (stipends, extra duty days, substitutes charged when teachers are pulled from class) make direct market comparisons complex and that the district must “get the base plate healthy” so pay is more transparent and sustainable.

On extra duty days and stipends, staff proposed this approach: current employees who receive extra-duty pay would be “grandfathered” and kept whole at their current levels while the district transitions new hires to standardized stipends set at market value. The presenter said the district will define and document extra‑duty days, require time-and-effort reporting for hourly work outside a job description, and move many payments into payroll so overtime and substitutes are visible in district financial reports. The presenter said the changes are intended to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act and improve payroll controls.

The presentation also reviewed market comparisons. Using the district’s salary study, staff showed Sharyland ISD’s starting and mid-career teacher pay falls below several benchmark districts and Region 1 averages and noted the district’s very low employee monthly contribution to insurance (spoken in the workshop as $12 per month for some plans). Staff said those benefit features help with retention but also make salary comparisons less straightforward.

Staff presented three districtwide pay-increase scenarios and estimated costs: a 1% increase, a 2% increase (estimated at about $1.45 million districtwide), and a 3% increase (about $2.17 million). The presenter said the district’s conservative view under current law would be to pursue roughly 1.5%–2% if the board chooses an increase now, and to revisit numbers if meaningful state funds arrive later.

Workshop speakers discussed how proposed House Bill 2 funding would interact with the plan. Staff summarized the draft HB2 language as an allotment of about $395 per student and noted that district guidance would channel a portion of that funding toward teacher pay and that state rules on experience-targeting (favoring more experienced teachers) limit how much of the allotment can be used for other groups. Staff said the district would still need local dollars to "true up" targeted pay increases; presenters cited an example additional local cost of roughly $175,629 under the 2% scenario.

No board votes or formal actions were taken at the workshop. Staff said next steps include publishing clarified staffing standards, finalizing payroll and stipend rules, meeting individually with affected program leaders and employees (special education, athletics, CTE and others), and returning to the board with any budget initiatives or changes once numbers and legal guidance are firmer. “This is not a decision-making meeting,” the presenter said near the close.

The district emphasized that change will be phased to avoid sudden layoffs; presenters repeatedly assured board members the plan aims for transparency and long-term sustainability rather than immediate staff reductions. Staff also said some roles and position uses will shift over two to four years as staffing standards are implemented.

Board members asked clarifying questions about the timing of raises, how stipends and extra duty days would be handled for long-tenured employees, and the district’s ability to sustain increases in the absence of new state funds. Staff said current-year budgeting and recent enrollment increases make a modest increase feasible but cautioned the board that larger increases would require tighter cuts elsewhere if state funds do not materialize.