When the Superintendent received her merit pay we were told that she was serving as a model for the sort of merit pay that the District wanted to offer teachers.
Here's how her merit pay was structured:
She was eligible for a maximum of 10% of her salary in merit pay. There were 12 statistical measures, which, if reached, would each entitle her to a bonus of .5% of her pay. There were an additional four elements which were double-weighted and would fetch her 1% of her pay if achieved. Four of the statistical measures were achieved (none of them a double-weighted one), earning her a bonus of 2%. Her base salary is $264,000, so her bonus was $5,280.
That is not, however, how the proposed merit pay or bonus pay for teachers is structured. Not at all. So how in the world is the Superintendent's incentive pay in any way a model for teachers' incentive pay? It's not. Those claims were false.
Read what Director DeBell said about the Superintendent's bonus pay being a model for teachers here.
The merit pay proposal for teachers looks like this: 1% if they opt-in to SERVE. After that there are some stipends available for teachers with Strong ratings who work in "low-performing" schools and some stipends for teachers who accept mentoring roles. This is radically different from the superintendent's cash-for-results style of bonus.
For integrity's sake, the two merit pay structures should be aligned. Either pay teachers cash for outcomes with bonuses up to 10% of their base pay, or pay the superintendent 1% for subjecting herself to a similar assessment of her work and 1% more if she will move her office to a "low-performing" school. That would then be her maximum bonus.