Public School Personnel Salary Schedules:
SB 136 revises Florida law governing district school board salary schedules for public school employees, with a focus on instructional personnel and school administrators. The bill removes several existing statutory definitions and requirements tied to salary schedule administration, including the current requirement that districts adopt a performance salary schedule under specified conditions and the prohibition on reducing that schedule due to budget constraints. It also changes the treatment of cost-of-living adjustments and salary supplements, and updates how districts may use advanced degrees, performance, and other factors in setting pay.
The bill preserves the general framework of grandfathered and performance-based salary schedules, but makes the performance-based system more flexible for districts. Beginning with the 2026-2027 school year, districts would be required to adopt salary schedules for employees hired before July 1, 2014, while allowing certain employees to opt into the performance schedule and remain there. For the grandfathered schedule, districts would be authorized, rather than required, to base part of compensation on performance and to provide differentiated pay based on factors such as additional responsibilities, school demographics, critical shortage areas, and job performance difficulty. The bill also revises the rules for base salary placement and annual adjustments under the performance schedule, including the relationship between ratings of effective and highly effective.
SB 136 also expands and clarifies the list of salary supplements districts must provide for certain assignments, including Title I schools, low-performing schools, critical shortage areas, mentoring new teachers, and additional academic responsibilities. It further makes conforming changes to related statutes governing charter schools, district innovation schools of technology, academically high-performing school districts, and the Principal Autonomy Program Initiative so those provisions continue to reference the amended salary-schedule law. The bill is set to take effect July 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available context is limited because there were no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, but the bill’s structure suggests an effort to give school districts more discretion in compensation design while preserving performance-based pay concepts. The bill ultimately died in the Senate Education Pre-K - 12 committee, indicating it did not advance through the legislative process.
The main point of contention appears to be the balance between district flexibility and statutory pay protections. By deleting mandatory performance-schedule requirements and weakening the rule that prevents performance pay reductions during budget shortfalls, the bill could be seen as reducing statewide guardrails for teacher and administrator compensation. At the same time, supporters would likely view it as modernizing salary-setting authority and allowing districts to better tailor pay to local needs, shortage areas, and performance incentives.
SB 136 would amend s. 1012.22, Florida Statutes, which governs district school board authority over public school personnel compensation and salary schedules. It would alter how districts structure base pay, performance pay, supplements, and cost-of-living adjustments, and it would remove or revise several statutory constraints on salary schedule design. The bill also makes conforming reenactments to charter school, innovation school, high-performing district, and principal autonomy statutes so those provisions continue to incorporate the updated compensation law.
No committee debate or vote record was provided, so the public record here does not show direct support or opposition statements. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a flexibility and compensation-reform bill rather than a broad policy overhaul. Its failure in the Senate Education Pre-K - 12 committee suggests it did not secure enough support to advance, but the available materials do not identify whether the concern was substantive disagreement, procedural timing, or other legislative priorities.
The likely area of contention is the shift away from mandatory, statewide performance-salary requirements toward greater district discretion. Critics may object to deleting the requirement that districts adopt a performance salary schedule and to removing the protection against reducing that schedule during budget constraints, viewing those changes as weakening teacher pay safeguards. Another possible concern is the bill’s treatment of grandfathered employees and the conditions for moving between salary schedules, which could affect contract rights and compensation expectations. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s flexibility, local control, and ability to tailor pay to performance, shortage areas, and school-specific needs.