Sharyland ISD lays out new staffing plan
The Sharyland administration has been busy cooking up ways to maximize district funds for next year and beyond.
Superintendent Dr. Elaine Howard and Director of Employee Relations Azucena Garza gave a detailed presentation to the board of trustees regarding the staffing vision for the district, which they plan to roll out over the next two to four years. The vision includes a market value base pay and strategic campus staffing to maximize efficiency, but achieving those goals requires some adjustments.
A significant shift will be in how the district compensates employees. In the past, Sharyland offered lower base pay compared to other districts. However, they counterbalance it with perks, such as stipends or what the district calls extra days compensation — an add-on unique to SISD. For example, an employee with a base pay of $54,950 could end up with an actual total compensation of $77,851 due to all the add-ons and “hidden compensation,” according to Garza. Hidden compensation includes employee benefits and the district contribution to the Teacher Retirement System. Howard said the district pays “a very large population” of employees this way, and Sharyland ISD is one of the few districts in the state using this model.
“It looks good but the reality is it’s not sustainable,” she said.
The superintendent continued.
“Obviously, it was a mechanism in this district for retention purposes…with the pay being so low,” Howard said. “The new compensation strategy is, let’s get that base pay healthy so we don’t have to have all this other stuff. Let’s get stipends healthy…at the market value.”
Howard also explained that there have been inconsistencies between employee compensation regarding the extra days pay for employees that did the same job. Moving forward, instead of giving employees extra days compensation, the district wants to build those earnings into the stipend budget to get them up to market value. SISD also plans to provide an itemization for employees to see how the district pays them.
“This whole illustration and exercise was so that we can better manage what’s happening and how we’re paying,” the superintendent said. “[It’s] being more transparent so that there’s not going to be hidden costs everywhere, and we’ll still be able to take care of our employees.”
Administration plans to grandfather the employees under the current pay model. However, it is position-specific. As long as an employee remains in the position, the district will honor the compensation model they have been using. But if that employee changes roles, they will not keep the stipends and extra days pay. If the district has to refill the position, it will not compensate the new person in the role under the grandfathered model.
“We’re not trying to get rid of anybody or undermine anybody. But we’ve got to stop the bleed,” Howard said.
Additionally, the district plans to reign in its substitute usage. When a teacher is absent, the district loses money because it has to pay for the substitute and the employee.
“We have to be very strategic on when we’re pulling teachers out of the classroom,” the director of employee relations said. “Because to maximize what they’re bringing to the table for our district, they have to be in the classroom in front of students.”
Howard explained that the district plans to form stakeholder committees to discuss the future of work-related absences, such as competitions or conferences.
“We’ve got to make the decision. What is the return of investment to continue to fund our kids to travel to go to all of these competitions? What is the return on the investment to instruction and to the learning environment,” the superintendent said. “And those are hard conversations that we can’t make and impose on people. We’re gonna have to bring committees around all of that.”
She continued.
“There’s so much to making sure that the funding is getting to the right place, and so this was an example of what we’re gonna have to consider in order to make sure that we start improving that [base pay],” Howard explained. “That base pay has got to be fixed. But we can’t fix it if we continue to do practices that are taking, siphoning the pay.”
The district leaders also discussed adjustments to how they staff campuses. Moving forward, Sharyland will base campus-level staffing on individual campus enrollment. If a campus loses teachers through attrition, the district will try refilling the slot from the pool of existing district staff instead of automatically hiring someone from the outside to fill the position.
Additionally, administration will staff enough full-time employees at each middle and high school campus to consistently adhere to the optimal student-to-teacher ratio — 22:1 from pre-K to fourth, and 25:1 from fifth grade to 12th. This strategy eliminates overstaffing and ensures each classroom aligns with the ratios.
“That kind of helps us plan,” the director of employee relations said. “This is something new. In the past…nobody really paid attention to that…This is one of the ways that we can make sure we’re being efficient with our staffing.”
Although there is overstaffing in some areas, district leaders confirmed they do not intend to make any reductions. Trustee Meagan Sullivan said she heard concerns from the employees that the district was making cuts, but the superintendent assured the school board that they are not firing anybody.
“When you’re trying to bring about this kind of magnitude of change, you just gotta do it slowly and with gentle pressure, with the intent and focus that at the end of the day, people are important,” Howard said. “Policy, procedures — that doesn’t trump the people factor. We are here because of the goodness of our people. Good employees, good skills, good knowledge. So we’re going to value that during this process.”
School Board Vice President Hector Rivera explained that laying this foundation means the district can reap the benefits in five to 10 years.
“We’re using the same resources more efficiently, we’re maximizing, we’re making things more quantifiable, equitable,” he said. “We’re balancing our programs, we’re defining structures and we’re being more fiscally responsible.”
It’s interesting how none of this staffing or cost cutting discussions focused on administration and the numerous positions they have created for themselves, their fellow acquaintances from Boerne, or individuals they are hiring for these positions that have no experience for the positions they are occupying. They focus on these “guiding arrows” of stakeholders, students, and employees, but yet, none of it seems to have their input or Q&A on what is important to them, questions are not taken, responses to board members are vague, the proposal(s) they refer to are not publicly posted, and no community or town hall forum involvement, especially when attempting to modify District of Innovation quietly, to allow non-certified teachers. All of this seems to only benefit the supposed “service” center and does nothing for or to service our students, teachers, and community, but does undercut and undermine their hard work. Hopefully this reporter continues their work, dividing deep into these motives and what feedback from the “stakeholders” actually is.
If I recall correctly, one of the board members campaigned on a promise to reduce the number of central office administrators, describing the department as ‘top-heavy.’ However, that commitment has yet to be fulfilled. The district would benefit from shifting its focus more toward supporting teachers and students directly.
That is a excellent point as they are attempting to cutback they have just added two more “service” center positions that were just posted. This goes to show that there is no commitment to the stakeholders other than the stakeholders from their own “service” center but nothing for actual constituents. We need individuals like yourself to continue to run for office for our School Board and hold this administration accountable and for our community to hold our trustees accountable for representing our students, parents, and teachers. This leadership just puts up the façade that they care and consider their “stakeholders” and their guiding arrows but their track record shows little of that this reporter just needs to asking for Public Information Requests into the Superintendent Advisory Committee Feedback Form and the Responses to show how concerns or questions go unanswered or vaguely addressed, like the $200,000 budget discrepancy that was acknowledged with the explanation of a follow-up but nothing came.
That is a excellent point as they are attempting to cutback they have just added two more “service” center positions that were just posted. This goes to show that there is no commitment to the stakeholders other than the stakeholders from their own “service” center but nothing for actual constituents. We need individuals like yourself to continue to run for office for our School Board and hold this administration accountable and for our community to hold our trustees accountable for representing our students, parents, and teachers. This leadership just puts up the façade that they care and consider their “stakeholders” and their guiding arrows but their track record shows little of that this reporter just needs to ask for Public Information Requests into the Superintendent Advisory Committee Feedback Form and the Responses to show how concerns or questions go unanswered or vaguely addressed, like the $200,000 budget discrepancy that was acknowledged with the explanation of a follow-up but nothing came.
The proposed staffing and compensation restructuring has been presented as a strategy to improve student outcomes. However, there has been no supporting data, clear explanation, or credible evidence provided to demonstrate that these changes will actually lead to improved student performance.
It is ultimately the responsibility of the school board to request and review this information before approving any significant structural changes. To date, only one board member has consistently raised the necessary questions and engaged with individuals who have relevant, working knowledge of the issues at hand.
A truly outcome-focused staffing proposal would take into account the unique needs of the district, including its English Language Learner (ELL) and Special Education populations, as well as student academic growth data. This proposal, however, appears primarily focused on short-term cost savings rather than long-term academic success.
The claim that Sharyland’s practice of offering “days” as stipends is unique is misleading. In reality, many surrounding districts offer similar or greater incentives. Despite promises to review administrative costs, no reductions have been made at the central office level. In fact, the district currently has more central office (service center) positions than ever before. In addition, many of the recent board workshop discussions have contained inaccuracies and misinformation, making informed decision-making even more critical.
Boerne ISD offers a relevant case study. In 2024, that district—where the current superintendent previously held a leadership role in human resources—was forced to implement several reactive measures due to staff dissatisfaction and turnover. Although a 2% salary increase was provided in June 2024, it was insufficient. Between July 2024 and October 2025, 54 employees resigned, citing unsustainable workloads and inadequate compensation. The district then increased transportation pay by $3/hour in September 2024, followed by a district-wide $1.25/hour raise in November 2025 and a $300 retention stipend. These costly adjustments were the direct result of the same standardized staffing model, to be implemented in Sharyland, that failed to account for inflation, student growth, and operational realities.
It is critical and the responsibility of board elected officials to ask the right questions: where is the data demonstrating this plan will improve student outcomes? How does this model compare to practices in other districts? What protections are in place to maintain staff morale and retention? The community expects the board to approach these decisions with diligence, transparency, and a commitment to long-term success—not short-term savings.
I knew something was wrong when in February the district closed the school because of bad weather. We got an email from PR saying no one was allowed on any campus and that the superintendent was making all support staff take a personal day or comp time (if they had any) in order to get a full check. That just tells you the type of leader this superintendent is—in a meeting she referred to using employees as “maximizing resources” and talks about our work value in terms of “ROI’s —return on investments”. She did say that her shelf life as a superintendent is 3 years—so 2 more to go…
While the superintendent publicly expressed concern for fiscal responsibility and teacher compensation, it is important to clarify the facts about the proposed teacher pay raises. The school board, not the superintendent, mandated a 2.0% pay increase, rejecting the superintendent’s original “conservative hearted” recommendation of only 1.5%. This higher raise was an intentional action by the board to begin closing the pay gap–up to $8,653–between Sharyland ISD and surrounding districts.
However, instead of adding the state-funded compensation increase approved by the Texas Legislature on top of the board-approved 2%, the superintendent has decided to offset the board’s raise with the state’s increase. In doing so, the 2% raise becomes meaningless–this district is not actually increasing its financial investment in teachers but merely shifting the sources of funds.
This approach directly undermines the board’s mandate and effort to address longstanding salary disparities. Sharyland’s teachers remain among the lowest paid in comparable districts, despite their loyalty and experience. It’s not fiscally conservative to deny teachers a meaningful raise while framing it as an increase–it’s fiscally misleading.
True respect for educators begins with transparency and honoring commitments to improve base pay, not just rebranding state contributions as local generosity.
The school board has a responsibility to ensure that the superintendent faithfully implements board directives and does not undermine approved actions through budgetary maneuvering. It is their duty to hold the superintendent accountable for delivering transparent, good-faith, leadership that aligns with the board’s commitment to fair and competitive teacher compensation.