Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Staffing Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves five‑year contract with Unlimited Instruction after debate over pay, length and oversight
Summary
After extended questioning about hourly rates, instructor pay, certification timelines and contract length, the Alachua County School Board approved a contract with Unlimited Instruction to supply long‑term instructors and directed staff to draft policy tying long‑term sub pay to beginning teacher pay.
The Alachua County School Board voted Aug. 4 to approve a contract with Unlimited Instruction (UI) to recruit, vet and supply long‑term instructors to Alachua County Public Schools. The item had been pulled from consent and discussed as an action item amid extensive member questions about costs, pay equity and contract length.
District staff and UI representatives described the company model: UI recruits candidates within a 45‑mile radius, conducts background and screening at its own cost, places instructors as UI employees in district classrooms, provides a 10‑to‑1 mentor‑to‑instructor ratio and funds certification courses and exams for employees. Company representatives stated the proposed billing rate is approximately $67.57 per instructional hour (based on a 7.5‑hour day) and said UI pays most of the employers' upfront costs; they said typical take‑home pay varies by degree and experience and estimated a range "around $29 to $33 an hour" for some placements.
Board members pressed staff and the company on exactly how much of the hourly billing rate passes through as pay, what screenings and state clearinghouse requirements would be met, the number of days instructors would work this year (staff said 175 this year and 190 in a full year), and what happens if employees do not complete certification timelines. Several board members expressed concern about paying a premium for recruitment and that UI employees may not receive the same retirement or benefits as district hires unless transitioned to district employment. The board amended the motion to make the contract a five‑year agreement (08/05/2026 to 08/04/2031) and then approved the amended contract; the transcript records the final motion as passing with a 4–0 tally. The board also approved a separate motion directing the superintendent and legal counsel to draft a policy tying long‑term substitute hourly pay to the beginning teacher hourly rate.
Why it matters: The contract addresses urgent classroom vacancies with a recruiting and certification‑support model, but board members raised questions about cost, equity for instructors, long‑term district capacity, and whether the district should invest internally instead of outsourcing recruitment.
