Trustees weigh performance‑pay stipends for principals amid recruitment questions
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Superintendent proposed performance‑pay stipends for campus leaders tied to accountability ratings; trustees asked whether example amounts (up to $50,000 per campus leader in staff materials) would recruit or retain talent and warned about unintended incentive effects. Staff will model scenarios and timelines for board consideration.
At the Dec. 1 workshop, Georgetown ISD staff presented a draft concept for campus‑leader performance stipends designed to encourage stability and improvement at high‑priority campuses.
Superintendent outlined a proposal framework that would pay campus leaders a stipend when a high‑priority campus reached a defined accountability threshold (an example in the staff presentation tied payments to achieving at least a C rating). The superintendent framed the proposal as an attempt to mirror the Teacher Incentive Allotment approach for campus leadership teams who do not participate in other incentive programs.
Trustees probed the mechanics and fiscal impact. One trustee characterized the $50,000 figure shown as a maximum example and asked whether that amount would move the needle in recruiting leaders from neighboring districts. "If you're asking me for $50 and you need a 125, and a 125 moves us where we want to be, that is more exciting to me than, okay, let's choke up $50 and hope," a trustee said, urging staff to model multiple levels.
Trustees also warned about perverse incentives. "When you incentivize something, it de‑incentivizes something else," a trustee said, noting a stipend could shift attention from non‑tested priorities unless the metric set is carefully chosen. Board members suggested vesting or multi‑year structures to encourage stability rather than short‑term gains.
The superintendent and staff asked trustees for direction and committed to return with specific scenarios, including (a) stipend amounts tied to local recruitment differentials, (b) vesting/length options to encourage retention, and (c) budget offsets or timelines describing how stipends could phase out as campuses stabilize.
Next steps: staff will produce several modeled options with cost estimates and possible performance metrics for trustee review during upcoming budget workshops.