Board previews new educator compensation model that would average a 6.6% raise; formal vote planned

District staff presented a proposed professional educator compensation model and a companion handbook at the West Allis‑West Milwaukee School Board meeting on March 9, saying the plan aims to make salary placement clearer, honor years of local service and close regional pay gaps.

The presentation described a model developed with input from a 25‑member committee representing every school and a survey of more than 500 educators. Staff said the approach uses "steps and lanes" (placement by education level and years) plus market‑rate adjustments based on comparisons with 27 nearby districts. Presenter Rachel Cruz and members of the compensation team said the handbook will be published on the district website and that staff received certified employment‑verification letters in January to confirm placement data.

"The average increase across the entire group for every educator is 6.6%," the compensation lead said, summarizing the district's cost estimate for implementing the model next year. Financial slides shared with the board showed model implementation costs of about $2.5 million and an additional longevity stipend of roughly $250,000; staff said the board committed fund balance (about $4.75 million divided across four years) plus the district's CPI commitment together provide nearly $2.8 million in budget capacity for the proposal.

The handbook sections reviewed with the board outline how staff are placed internally and externally, what counts as "recognized" service and how market‑rate "delta" adjustments will be applied. Staff said an external placement cap honors up to seven years of prior service and that a $1,000–$4,000 ceiling is available for market‑rate gaps, with larger exceptions where needed to avoid paying an internal employee less than an external hire in the same role.

Board members asked targeted questions about implementation details. Mr. Becker sought examples of how the $1,000–$4,000 adjustments work. Mr. Lee pressed for clarity on how often district market comparisons (delta values) will be reassessed; staff said the formal re‑evaluation would occur regularly, with a planning expectation of roughly every three years but with flexibility to examine a group sooner if hiring shortages emerge. Administration also explained the pre‑approval process for degree recognition and said degrees must be completed and transcripts provided by June 30 for placement to change in the next contract year.

Staff said the longevity stipend is paid based on local years of service and cited example levels (for instance, $1,500 at year 15) paid at the end of the relevant school year; the stipend is awarded for that year even if the employee retires or moves districts afterward. Officials described the plan as a multi‑year, fiscally planned effort rather than a permanent tax increase; they said taxpayer impacts are covered by previously committed board funds and OPEB planning put in place in prior years.

Next steps: staff asked the board for feedback and said they would return in two weeks for formal approval so HR can finalize contracts and begin distribution. The board did not take a formal vote on the compensation model during the March 9 meeting.

Votes at a glance: the board approved routine meeting actions during the session — adoption of the agenda, approval of a consent package, approval of final non‑renewal process for teachers, and a motion to convene into executive session on a student disciplinary matter (see meeting actions for details).