Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants tell board Littleton is broadly competitive; recommend 11 reclassifications and targeted raises
Summary
A CESO review of 77 positions found most pay at or above market, recommended pay-grade and classification adjustments for 11 positions, and estimated targeted adjustments to raise about 40 employees to a new FY27 minimum at roughly $25,552.
Consultants from the Center for Effective School Operations told the Littleton Elementary School District governing board that a comprehensive compensation and classification review found the district broadly competitive but identified targeted changes to improve internal equity. "We sent a survey to 22 comparable districts and received seven responses," Megan McAllister said, describing the market-sampling approach.
The consultants reviewed 77 positions, examined job descriptions and placement schedules, and compared pay ranges to local market data (including Bureau of Labor Statistics and large regional employers). They recommended 11 position-level pay-grade or reclassification changes driven by technical skill requirements and scope of responsibility; 29 positions were suggested for market adjustments (mostly modest). The presentation said about 90–95% of current employees already fall within or above the proposed placement ranges.
To address employees falling below the proposed FY27 minimums, consultants recommended targeted adjustments for approximately 40 staff; the estimated cost to raise those employees to the minimum was reported as about $25,552. CESO noted the district’s point-based placement system for experience and education provides an advantage over flat-cap systems and highlighted that Littleton leads neighboring districts on some stipends (for example, stipends for certain special-education roles and national-board certification incentives).
Board members asked about the timeline (work began in November and ran through February), partner-district cost sharing (the district split the study with Avondale), and next steps for bringing specific placement-schedule changes back to the board. The consultants said recommended placement schedules were already provided to the district and that implementation will include updates to job descriptions and targeted pay adjustments.
The board did not take immediate action to approve districtwide pay-schedule changes at the meeting; administration indicated some recommended pay-grade changes had previously been approved and would be implemented for current employees, and that remaining items would be returned for future consideration.
