Archives > Coolidge Examiner > News
Committee updates Proposition 301 plan, clarifies how staff can earn compensation
By Amanda Patton
Editor
Published:
In the fall of 2000, an initiative was passed by the residents of Arizona creating a funding stream for public education from sales tax.
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Since sales tax fluctuates, the monies available to school districts fluctuate annually. The intent of the majority of the Proposition 301 K-12 funding is to increase teachers’ salaries, increase accountability among public educational institutions and reward high-performing teachers.
In order to utilize Proposition 301 funding, a performance plan must be developed and approved by the Governing Board. The Coolidge Unified School District formed a 301 committee in August to improve its current plan and they have been meeting every week since.
Part of the challenge has been deciding how to allocate the monies available and the committee also realized that administrators were not provided information regarding the 301 plan prior to its implementation.
The district designated all funds received for base salary to increase teacher compensation approximately $3,700 for the contract year. To be eligible for any portion of the 301 plan, a satisfactory evaluation is required and teachers or staff cannot be on an improvement plan.
Human Resource Director Tom Frost said Proposition 301 funding is split into three different areas: Base salary increase, performance pay and menu option.
Performance pay is based on state sales tax revenues so the amount is not defined until late May to determine funds received and how they will be divided among those who are eligible to receive distribution. For the 2008-2009 school year, this amount was approximately $2,400.
This year, the group developed a presentation to present to administrators to better assist them in coordinating the plan at each individual site.
The committee also broke the plan into three areas: Academic performance will comprise 50 percent of the plan, professional investment 25 percent, and parent and community communication 25 percent.
“As a testament of the hard work of the committee, the goal is to secure 70 percent staff approval of the plan, but 97 percent approval was attained,” Frost said.
The committee, facilitated by Frost, was comprised of at least two representatives from each school in the district, regular and special teachers, one special education service provider and one administrator. The team focused on using 301 funds for improvement for student outcomes.
“Every Thursday the committee met, alternating between the north and the south, and what you see before you is a lot of hard work,” said Chairman Lt. Col. Mark Blaydes as he introduced committee members present. “We did not agree on everything, but everyone was very professional.”
The committee met to review Arizona Revise Statutes, Arizona Department of Education requirements and previous district approved Proposition 301 plans. The committee also solicited comments and recommendations from staff and administration regarding improvements for the 2009-10 plan.
Frost said the biggest changes to the Proposition 301 Plan from previous years included:
• Identifying the introduction distribution of funds for base salary, performance pay and menu items.
• Defining the list of approved positions entitled to receive Proposition 301 funding.
• Clarifying and adding menu items that qualified the staff to receive Proposition 301 funds.
• Changing the date when individual plans must be completed and identifying appeal process date notification procedures.
The committee reviewed each position within the district for eligibility based on the classroom site fund requirements set by the state. The positions eligible include:
Teachers (general education, special education, subject area specialists and teachers on special assignment); librarians; academic coaches; counselors; speech therapists; occupational therapists; physical therapists; and psychologists.
In the past, the district sites did not meet benchmarks set by the Arizona Department of Education to determine Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). It is required that 95 percent of all students will participate in the state testing using the AIMS/Stanford 10. Each teacher will be required to utilize curriculum maps that have been developed by the staff to align daily instruction to the state standards. Special education teachers and psychologists were also given specific guidelines to meet compliance.
Teachers who hold a National Board Certification are not required to complete the academic performance plan requirements and automatically received compensation because it is a distinction held by a very small percentage of certified staff, Frost said.
Under professional investment, the 301 committee set up menu options because of the diversity of the campuses, student services at each site and the varying levels of experience so that staff can personalize their plan. Options include service on a school or district committee, attending workshops, participating in a mentor program and more. If a staff member completes four of the 16 menu items available, they are eligible to receive a portion of the funding.
The third portion of the plan focuses on parent and community communication.
“The committee feels that each site must participate in an annual Parent Satisfactory Survey,” Frost said.
This part also includes menu items. Staff must complete three out of 12 items to be eligible for compensation. Items include chaperoning an overnight trip, distributing a newsletter, attending school board meetings and more.
“It was obvious to me at the onset of the meetings that the committee members were dedicated to providing a quality Proposition 301 Plan,” Frost said. “I am positive the reason for the 97 percent approval is based on the committee members hard, tedious work and constant communication to district staff. The committee ensured compliance to state statute while developing a very comprehensive list of menu items encompassing the various certified staff functions. I think the comments of one committee member summed up the feelings I think the whole committee share and that is that overall the process was tedious, but also rewarding when the plan was finalized.”
The Proposition 301 committee consisted of Amanda Mills, physical therapist special services; Ben Jackson, third-grade teacher at Mountain Vista; Brenda Mitchell, academic coach at West School; Brian Snow, CAVIT instructor at San Tan Foothills; Christel Gillis, seventh/eighth-grade math teacher at San Tan Heights; Delicia Garcia, kindergarten teacher at Hohokam; Ron Cuttone, seventh/eighth-grade science teacher at Mountain Vista; Jessica Miller, math curriculum; Judith Arrants, seventh/eighth-grade language arts teacher at Heartland Ranch; Kelly Eades, second-grade teacher at West; Marcia Mathers, media specialist at San Tan Foothills; Blaydes, JROTC at Coolidge High School; Monica Pellot, speech language pathologist; Nanette Quesada, fourth-grade teacher at Heartland Ranch; Therese Langlois, first-grade teacher at Hohokam; and Frost.
The Governing Board approved the changes to the Proposition 301 plan 4-0 with member Tina Moore absent during the special meeting Oct. 30 at the Ninth Grade Academy.
In other news, the board approved the following items 4-0:
• Budget revision No. 2 for the fiscal year 2009-10.
• Arizona School Board Association Top 10 Priorities for the 2010 legislative session.
Article Rating (4 * = highest)
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of TriValley Central or any of its publications.