Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation Proposition 301 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears public presentation and questions on 2024–25 Proposition 301 ‘pay for performance’ plan
Summary
At a Jan. 15 public hearing the district presented its 2024–25 Proposition 301 performance-based compensation plan: anticipated payout $700 per eligible certified staff, split 50/50 between a site learning-experience requirement and teacher performance classification; staff agreement recorded 99% approval.
The Chandler Unified School District governing board held a public hearing on Jan. 15 to review the district’s 2024–25 Proposition 301 ‘‘pay for performance’’ plan required under state law.
Dr. Craig Gilbert (presenting as "doctor Gilbert" in the transcript) outlined the plan and the funding background. Following a 2000 voter-approved initiative (Proposition 301), the district now places most funding into teacher salaries; the portion earmarked for performance pay is $700 per eligible certified staff member for 2024–25. The plan’s payout is split into two equal parts: $350 contingent on completion of a site learning-experience plan and $350 tied to each teacher’s performance classification.
Gilbert described the learning-experience component as a site-level process that builds on the district’s multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) and incorporates universal design for learning (UDL). The performance classification component is derived from the teacher evaluation system and is calculated from several weighted elements: instructional practice (55 percent, via the Marzano tool), student achievement (33 percent, site-level student data), deliberate practice/growth plan (6 percent) and professional responsibilities (6 percent). The plan allows partial payments if staff meet only one of the two components.
Board members and staff clarified who is eligible. The plan applies to certified staff on the teacher salary schedule; administrators are connected to the plan but the $700 payout applies only to certified staff on that schedule. Gilbert and other staff explained that most Proposition 301 funds were moved into the salary schedule in recent years, and the remaining $700 represents the portion set aside this year for performance pay; teachers still receive roughly $8,800 annually in salary-related Proposition 301 funding on average, of which less than 10% in this year’s allocation is performance pay.
Questions from trustees covered whether site-level or individual measures are used (answer: both — site learning plan requirements plus individual evaluations), how the site learning plan is measured, tax treatment (the $700 is reported on employees’ W-2 forms), and whether the district will revisit the plan for 2025–26. Gilbert said the SuperProp committee (a district-staff-and-teacher group) develops the plan and the staff agreement was approved by 99 percent of eligible staff. The statute cited in the meeting for the requirement was A.R.S. §15-977, which requires districts to adopt a performance-based compensation system to allocate Classroom Site Fund dollars.
Several trustees discussed whether the plan is simple enough for transparent implementation. District leaders said the current two-part plan is simpler than earlier iterations when larger sums were tied to more complex requirements, and that site plans align with district metrics and research-based instructional practices intended to improve student outcomes.
No changes to the plan were adopted at the Jan. 15 hearing; the board was notified that final approval of the performance-based compensation system will be requested at the Feb. 12 regular meeting, per the timeline presented.
