Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
San Felipe‑del Rio CISD hears TASB pay study; board weighs 2–4% models and a multi‑year merit pay plan for principals
Summary
TASB presented a district pay study April 30 showing teacher pay close to market and offering three general‑increase models (2%, 3%, 4%) with corresponding budget impacts; district leaders also outlined a multi‑year plan to adopt merit‑based principal/administrator pay tied to Teacher Incentive/Retention allotments.
TASB HR Services presented the results of a district pay‑study to the San Felipe‑del Rio CISD Board of Trustees on April 30, outlining market comparisons, targeted adjustments and three cost models for general pay increases.
Aaron Kalecki of TASB, introduced by Board President Mesa, said the district’s teacher salaries generally align with the market median — within about 1% below to 2% above at benchmark years — and highlighted a relatively low teacher turnover rate. Kalecki recommended modest structural realignments and offered three budget models: a 2% general pay increase (estimated payroll cost ~$1.9 million, about a 2.6% budget impact), a 3% model (~$2.6 million, ~3.5% impact) and a 4% model (~$3.3 million, ~4.5% impact).
“Model 1 is the 2% general‑pay increase model that does include a $13.50 increase for teachers,” Kalecki said, noting targeted adjustments for mid‑ and late‑career steps to bring years 14–22 closer to market medians. He also recommended small placement adjustments so no employee is left below a market‑aligned minimum.
Dr. Rios and TASB staff answered board questions about groups that remain below market, identifying bus drivers, LVNs and some trade positions as particular areas of concern. “The bus drivers are definitely below market,” Dr. Rios said, and administrators noted that some roles require additional study because of certification differences (for example, welders).
Board members raised questions about how those adjustments would be applied and how the district would pay for them. Kalecki said the targeted equity adjustments are modest budget impacts relative to the district payroll and that TASB can provide a breakdown of which employees fall into the recommended adjustment bands.
The presentation also tied compensation work to the district’s participation in a three‑year TEA cohort to implement an “enhanced TIA” (Teacher Incentive/Retention allotment) and a strategic compensation system for principals and assistant principals. Amy Childress described draft principal scorecards the district is developing: 60% student outcomes, 30% leadership and performance (including TPES measures) and 10% campus culture. Separate scorecards will be used for campuses rated A/B versus C–F to account for differing starting points.
Under the proposed merit pathway, pay movement would be based on a two‑year average; the first year functions as a notice/support year, and subsequent years can yield increases or phased decreases tied to sustained performance. “You don’t lose pay your first year,” Dr. Rios explained, describing proposed business rules that would reduce pay in increments rather than immediately returning to a lower step.
Administrators said the strategic compensation work is on a multi‑year timeline: a practice/capture year for data collection, a ‘harmless’ year for initial implementation, and full implementation planned for the 2027–28 school year if the board approves next steps. Next actions include continued scorecard refinement, stakeholder engagement meetings and mock data simulations before any formal policy or pay‑scale changes are adopted.
The workshop did not include any formal vote on the TASB models or the strategic compensation plan; the presentation concluded with board discussion and requests for follow‑up details on cost breakdowns and proposed business rules.
