Charleston County School District

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Charleston County School District"

Merry Copeland
8 years ago
Views:

1 Charleston County School District Classification & Compensation Study: Final Report Dec. 9, 2013

2 STUDY BACKGROUND Goals of the Classification and Compensation Study Charleston County School District (CCSD) desires a Classification and Compensation system that supports the organization s goal to recruit, select, motivate and retain well-qualified employees. The compensation system should be fiscally sound and cost effective while supporting the employees of CCSD and encouraging them to be responsive to customers and stakeholders. CCSD desires an understandable and transparent classification and compensation system that enables employees and management to effectively manage career growth and development. CCSD desires a classification and compensation that is reflective and competitive of the market. Recommendations of the Classification and Compensation Study Fox Lawson has completed and delivered the results and recommendations of the study, which consists of: Recommended classification structure; Training and recommendations on the job evaluation method; Results and recommendations of the salary survey in the form of comparison to the market, salary structure and implementation options. Review the overall results of the the study related to the recommended classification structure and salary range by current job title, overall salary structure, and answer any final questions. It is the Boards decision if the study should be implemented. 2

The compensation system should be fiscally sound and cost effective while supporting the employees of CCSD and encouraging them to be responsive to customers and stakeholders.

3 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS Classification Study We developed a classification structure based on type and level of work that allows for: Developed a classification structure that includes 40 class series (bodies of work) and 100 classifications from over 250 current job classifications that are not aligned in a series that allows for career progression flexibility in staffing and assignments Transparent career paths that enable employees and managers to manage career development Consistent internal equity through the use of understandable career levels Connection between the assigned salary range and the market We recommend CCSD review the Classification placement and implement the proposed structure. Academic Facility Services Legal Procurement Accounting & Finance Family Services Maintenance Psychologist Accounting & Finance Maintenance Food Services Support Social Work Administrative Special Education Grant Materials Therapy Administrative Support Head Start Media Student Conduct Auditorium Human Resources Multi-media Student Counseling Braillist Information Technology Nursing Services Teaching Support Communications Information Technology Occupational Therapy Transportation Educational Programs Information Technology Support Physical Therapist Planning Educational Technology Instructional Programs 3

Transparent career paths that enable employees and managers to manage career development Consistent internal equity through the use of understandable career levels Connection between the assigned

4 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS Job Evaluation Study We evaluated all proposed classifications with a defined and valid job evaluation methodology that allows for: Understandable evaluation criteria Evaluation criteria applicable to all types of job responsibilities Ability to evaluate and slot new jobs into the salary structure Trained CCSD Human Resources on the methodology We recommend CCSD utilize the Decision Band TM Method to evaluate classifications and develop the salary structure. Compensation Study We created single salary structure that can be utilized for staff, teachers, and principals: Conducted custom market survey of comparable local market and school districts Developed salary structure that balances the market and internal equity across all classifications A single salary structure maintains market competitiveness and internal equity, while also decreasing administrative time and complexity to maintain separate salary structures We recommend CCSD implement the recommended salary structure. 4

utilize the Decision Band TM Method to evaluate classifications and develop the salary structure.

5 COMPENSATION STUDY: Proposed Salary Structure Below is an example of the handout which summarizes the results and recommendations of the Study, by combining the classification structure, job evaluation, and salary structure. Series Title New Class Title Series Level Current job titles DBM Evaluation Proposed Minimum Proposed Midpoint Proposed Maximum Administrative Support Clerk 1 of 6 General Clerk Secretary I Clerk typist Due Process Clerk Media Clerk Receptionist A12 $19,796 $25,735 $31,674 Administrative Support Assistant 2 of 6 Technician I Student Data Clerk Secretary II A13 $22,747 $29,571 $36,395 Administrative Support Senior Administrative Support Assistant 3 of 6 Technician II & III Administrative Asst I Secetary III Secretary/Bookkeeper Bookkeeper II B21 $25,707 $33,419 $41,131 Administrative Support Specialist 4 of 6 Technician IV Administrative Asst II B22 $28,658 $37,255 $45,852 Senior Administrative Support Specialist 5 of 6 Administrative Asst III B23 $31,609 $41,091 $50,574 Administrative Support 6 of 6 Office Administrator B32 $39,735 $51,655 $63,576 5

Series Title New Class Title Series Level Current job titles DBM Evaluation Proposed Minimum Proposed Midpoint Proposed Maximum Administrative Support Clerk 1 of 6 General Clerk Secretary I Clerk

6 COMPENSATION STUDY: Teacher Salary Structure The Teacher classification is evaluated at the C4 level due to the management and education of assigned classes and subjects. We compared the developed salary structure to the market data collected for Teachers: Job Title Education Levels Minimum* Midpoint* Maximum* Teacher C41 BA $34,382 $44,703 $55,009 Market Minimum $34,002 Teacher C42 BA +30 $36,723 $47,728 $58,748 Teacher C43 MA $39,049 $50,768 $62,487 Market Midpoint $52,242 Teacher C44/C51 MA +30 $41,982 $54,568 $67,169 Teacher C45/C52 Ph.D. $45,494 $59,128 $72,778 Market Maximum $71,060 *Annual calculations area based on 1560 hours. Due to the highly competitive relationship between the market rates and evaluation levels for the Teacher classification, we recommend CCSD utilize the above ranges for the current Teacher education levels. From the above ranges we have developed a step structure for each education level that has been provided to CCSD Human Resources. 6

$34,002 Teacher C42 BA +30 $36,723 $47,728 $58,748 Teacher C43 MA $39,049 $50,768 $62,487 Market Midpoint $52,242 Teacher C44/C51 MA +30 $41,982 $54,568 $67,169 Teacher C45/C52 Ph.D.

7 COMPENSATION STUDY: Salary Structure The current calculation method (Combination of school size, experience, and education level) for principal salaries create market competitive issues with the market maximum, with all level maximums below the market maximum. We recommend CCSD replace the calculation method with a salary range approach, with progression based on a District determined performance or step approach. We have placed Assistant s and s into the proposed structure based on a combination of school level and school size: Job Title Classification School & Size Minimum Midpoint Maximum Assistant Elem Assistant D61 MS <350 $61,153 $79,499 $97,845 Assistant MS >350 Assistant D62 HS $64,104 $83,335 $102,566 Elem <700 MS <350 D63 HS <200 $67,055 $87,171 $107,288 D64/D71 D65/D72 Elem >700 MS >350 HS 200<1000 $70,750 $91,975 $113,200 HS >1000 $75,181 $97,735 $120,289 7

We recommend CCSD replace the calculation method with a salary range approach, with progression based on a District determined performance or step approach.

Salary Scale Study E V E R G R E E N S O L U T I O N S, LLC

Salary Scale Study E V E R G R E E N S O L U T I O N S, LLC E V E R G R E E N S O L U T I O N S, LLC Salary Scale Study Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) retained Evergreen Solutions, LLC in the fall of 2012 to assess the relative market competitiveness of its