SVUSD presents proposed FY25-26 classroom site fund plan; no board vote at public hearing

Sierra Vista Unified School District (SVUSD) officials on Tuesday presented proposed revisions to the district's Classroom Site Fund plan for fiscal year 2025–26 at a public hearing, describing specific new requirements for family engagement activities, professional development hours and use of the district's communications tool; no governing board vote occurred at the hearing.

SVUSD Chief Human Resources Officer Bonnie Gomez said the district is revising its plan to align with Governing Board policy GCBC and Arizona Revised Statutes §15-977. "The district has been working to align governing board policy and Arizona revised statute with the district's classroom site fund plan," Gomez said, adding the changes are meant to "ensure consistency, transparency and compliance moving forward."

The proposed plan defines measurement of performance, expands the definition of engagement activities and lists objectives that include improving student achievement, raising graduation rates and supporting social-emotional development. Gomez described three required categories of activities for eligible certificated staff at each site: two site-determined family-engagement activities (explicitly excluding open house, meet-the-teacher events and parent–teacher conferences), one personal-choice activity approved by site administration, and monthly use of the district's Rooms communications tool from July through May.

Gomez said professional development (PD) activities that count toward the plan "do not have to be district sponsored" and that the district will accept outside PD if approved. She also clarified the PD-hour requirement discussed at the meeting: "Sorry. 10. I apologize. It'll be 10 PD hours," Gomez said when confirming the number.

District staff emphasized that the proposed changes do not alter the per-employee allocation from the state classroom site fund. Gomez said the standard per-eligible-staff allocation remains the same and noted that the end-of-year performance portion remains 20% of the total: "There will be no change in the amount that is allocated to certificated eligible staff members that will remain the same, which is 20%, that is earned at the end of the school year for meeting all the plan criteria." Attendees were told the regular amounts paid throughout the year are unchanged.

Dr. Holmes, a district staff member addressing process and tracking, said the district is evaluating an online system to make PD reporting and verification easier for staff. "We are looking into a mechanism to be able to make that an easy input for everyone to utilize and track their PD hours," Dr. Holmes said. The district also encouraged staff to contact their site administrator or the curriculum department to verify whether a particular outside PD will qualify.

Attendees asked a range of clarifying questions during the hearing. Staff responses stated: - PD requirement: 10 hours (district-confirmed in the hearing). - Rooms communications tool: staff are asked to use the district tool to contact parents at least once per month from July through May (usage intended to preserve staff privacy and create an auditable record). - Per-eligible-staff allocation: described in the hearing as $10,000 per eligible staff member for the current year; district stated that amount is not planned to change for the next year but said final state allocations could affect future years. - Eligibility: the district said certificated staff with direct student contact (including nurses and exceptional student services staff) are eligible; administrators and some district-level staff were described as excluded from the site-level eligibility but specifics will be clarified with administrators when the plan is presented for board review.

Gomez repeatedly stressed that the existing practice in some sites did not fully align with board policy or state statute and that the proposed plan is intended to bring the district's written plan into compliance. "The current plan does not match our board policy nor does it match what the state is expecting schools to do," Gomez said, describing prior local variations and the committee process that produced the proposed updates.

No formal action or vote was taken at the public hearing. Gomez said the next step is to present the proposed plan to the governing board for review and approval: "Once this plan is taken to the governing board for review and their approval, then it will be shared with all administrators and then they will meet with their staff to go over the specifics for their site." The district offered contact information for follow-up questions and noted that remote viewers could email questions to staff for later response.

The hearing served as an informational and compliance step required by ARS §15-977; any final change to how the Classroom Site Fund is administered will require governing board action consistent with district policy GCBC and the statute.