[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6606968,"mediaKeyId","2956735-65d1d08d35b78bfa8bcada268b7a6dba","parentId",2956735,"title","Board debates balanced teacher pay scale, supervisor add-ons and options for classified raises","audioSeconds",1001,"startMs",265000,"endMs",1266000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956735-65d1d08d35b78bfa8bcada268b7a6dba&start=265&end=1266","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956735-65d1d08d35b78bfa8bcada268b7a6dba/thumbnail_265000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6606968/Tennessee/Board-debates-balanced-teacher-pay-scale-supervisor-add-ons-and-options-for-classified-raises","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6606968-6d330446bce3b9757167de8b970ae4bd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136052&Signature=SGVwKEnDBRJCxnQ3DYErhecrgyCL6LBgSIesGb17jhPEfGvPnlHylzOnWezRw3L8ZN7WCziidnzN5A95Ed64K33ZC9g2HPgn12PoZM-RXD6bkeFCefIdgSJ9zRl~SLs3SMtIVViiI-cBcWZIh9IK0NjzIQ1o4vaeDZKJynsRhboNupLZtw1VY3Fb75sb8Gwjm8mUUaBrSIUeEbYWvYqH31FHjZF9vIG3Og9qh9n6XlvwrE2lsl9N554WFeOCH7C1JIVLpi6Mrw3EiUyXozHX-FDW8DeCcacP2fr0oDyG2SL4HqqQeP4En2n5wcCi3yvRqMNIeHL1VDcUSWgu6W3TAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Cumberland County Schools","date","2025-04-11T00:13:48.727Z","article","Cumberland County — Board members spent a prolonged portion of Monday’s meeting on salary schedules and how to use next year’s funding to address persistent pay disparities for supervisors, school administrators and classified employees.

“We were talking about also supervisors going on that same daily rate too,” Ms. Bray said of a proposal to move supervisors onto a certified-teacher pay scale and then apply a fixed daily add-on. She presented comparative tables showing current pay, a proposal that adds a fixed percentage (\"17 13\" in the packet), and a balanced scale alternative that evens out step-to-step progression.

Nut graf: The discussion focused on three linked problems — certified teacher scale imbalances that leave some supervisors below teacher pay at early steps, how to treat supervisors and principals (daily rate plus add-on versus separate scales), and classified staff starting pay that board members said hampers recruitment and retention. Board members asked staff to model the budgetary effect of several options before voting.

What was discussed
- Certified teachers: Staff presented a \"balanced\" salary schedule option that evens step increments across education levels and experience bands; staff said balancing would produce differing first-year effects by employee but should stabilize progression over time.
- Supervisors and principals: The board described a preferred approach of placing supervisors on the teacher daily rate (which assumes certified pay) and then applying a flat-dollar “add-on” per workday for administrative duties. Board members said last year’s add-on proposals had been debated and failed to move forward; staff were asked to re-run those add-on figures against the balanced scale.
- Grandfathering and career steps: Board members discussed grandfathering current employees versus moving everyone immediately to a new scale; staff noted any transition produces uneven first-year impacts depending on where employees already sit on current schedules.
- Classified staff raises: The packet included multiple scenarios (2%, 3%, 4%, 6% and 10%). Staff said a 10% across-the-board increase for many classified positions (those working fewer than 260 days were singled out for specific treatment) would add roughly $530,000 above the 2% baseline, per the presentation. Board members debated whether a 6% phased approach or targeted increases for lower-paid roles would better balance recruitment needs against budget limits.
- Benefits interaction: Board members repeatedly noted that the district’s relatively generous benefits package (presenter said many staff take employer-paid individual plans) affects overall competitiveness; some members asked staff to show how moving to a different set of insurance-plan options for new hires would affect total compensation and recruitment.

Board direction and next steps
- Staff was asked to produce: (1) a balanced certified scale extended to 30 years of service, (2) supervisor/principal cost estimates on a teacher daily rate plus specified add-ons using last year’s recommended add-ons as a starting point, and (3) classified-cost scenarios at 6% and 10% with taxes and retirement adjustments included.
- Staff to return with an itemized spreadsheet showing where current employees would fall under the balanced scale versus the current system so board members can visually compare the effects before deciding.
- Staff and the board agreed continued conversation with the County Commission about overall compensation and possible one-time capital offsets should proceed in parallel.

No formal votes: The board did not adopt any salary schedule during the meeting. The chair indicated the next meeting agenda would include updated figures and, if ready, a possible vote.

Ending: Board members emphasized urgency: new hiring and contract preparations require timely decisions; staff committed to returning updated analyses before the board’s next scheduled vote window.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","BOE Budget Meeting 4-10-25","oneSentenceSummary","Board members and staff discussed moving certified teachers to a balanced salary schedule, placing supervisors on a certified daily-rate plus add-on model, and options for classified pay increases (6% vs. 10%). No formal salary vote was taken; staff were directed to model multiple scenarios and the budget impact.","taxTitle","Cumberland County, School Districts, Tennessee","taxId",76410,"location","Tennessee","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6606973,"Cumberland County school leaders outline $3.6 million salary-and-benefits increase and search for cuts to close budget gap",5041,114000,5155000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956735-65d1d08d35b78bfa8bcada268b7a6dba&start=114&end=5155","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956735-65d1d08d35b78bfa8bcada268b7a6dba/thumbnail_114000.jpg","/articles/6606973/Tennessee/Cumberland-County-school-leaders-outline-36-million-salary-and-benefits-increase-and-search-for-cuts-to-close-budget-gap","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6606973-b2b7d33e5bfae33e2a1b09aa66271da2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136052&Signature=BiOuaD~rbomZ96QUccjILZzkvNJtfCVgNKSC3YnRggWc1f5VoC5nEocWlV9MDbiL6CyJrGIqf2eP1SuQoIF5yvQMsCwVEF1dH07IXxPLXxws3snHfGD0vXg1CMCg0an0kzRJyvq0ezIZioixLeK9xfiHQfVAJ2KbB2hhvDCmEBuM8b6FbiTaqPCbQlk11Ezx6OxNNMFW3aljwQmbj800tSM-hLCGrXxszmthyJZODr9~g2r~Hapr9x1tK6nAuDQpp3Xgn634aCGinXAW3kaRwjNPE~MtmhaAOGNoAUkeE4tR7gAFnel1x5e41E6agvm5sL5Au~hkGS-4kx5oYmn7jA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Cumberland County — School finance staff on Monday presented a draft budget that includes a proposed $3,600,000 increase in total salary and benefits and warned the system faces a structural shortfall unless the board, county commissioners and staff take steps to rebalance revenue and spending.

“This is what I presented to the county commission last night,” a presenter identified in the transcript as Ms. Bray said, outlining teacher step increases, proposed raises for classified employees and higher insurance and retirement costs. “We’ve been discussing for a while now trying to balance the budget, without utilizing fund balance. It’s just not sustainable.”

Why it matters: Salary and benefits account for the bulk of the district’s general-purpose spending; the staff presentation showed salary and benefits are roughly 86% of the district’s budget. Board members stressed that personnel and insurance choices this year will determine whether the district meets state-required pay minimums, maintains staffing ratios and avoids deeper cuts or possible reductions in force.

Key facts and figures
- Staff presented a draft that includes what the presenter called a $3,600,000 increase in total salary and benefits for the current budget draft. (Presenter: Ms. Bray.)
- Salary steps and multi-year teacher raises were discussed; the presenter said certified employees will see cumulative increases that approach $9,000 over five years under the current plan.
- Health insurance was projected to increase by 3.5% in January 2025 and again by 3.5% in January 2026, according to the presentation.
- Staff flagged higher employer retirement contributions (TCRS or equivalent) as another rising cost.
- The presenter identified maintenance and capital projects as large, discretionary categories the board could consider for one-time county support; staff proposed bundling some maintenance work and asking the County Commission for a one-time allocation.

Discussion highlights
- Maintenance and capital: Board members pressed for clearer breakdowns of large maintenance buckets (roofing, flooring, HVAC, etc.) and asked whether in-house crews could trim costs. Staff cautioned that many projects require specialized contractors and that outsourcing is often cheaper for large jobs. The group discussed the idea of bundling maintenance and requesting a one-time county capital allocation to close part of the gap.
- Grants and rollovers: The presentation showed several grant-funded items (identified in the packet as ISM and other grants, and Pre-K funding) that appear in the draft budget but are restricted in use. Staff said those grant amounts roll into the following year when not spent and must be spent for specified purposes; the board asked finance to query the comptroller for clarification about how such grants should be counted in the district’s reserve calculations.
- Fund balance and county support: Board members acknowledged past fund-balance rollovers helped avoid deeper cuts but said that cannot be relied on indefinitely. Several members asked staff to open or continue discussions with the County Commission about whether one-time county support could close immediate capital gaps.

Board direction and next steps
- Staff will prepare a clearer, itemized estimate of maintenance/Capital expenditures and what portion might be financed with one-time county support or deferred.
- Finance will provide more detailed projections of the draft budget that exclude restricted grant rollovers so the board can see the county-funded operating gap separate from grant-financed accounts; staff said they would also email the comptroller for policy clarifications about grant accounting and the maintenance-of-effort calculation.
- Staff will model the budget impact of personnel scenarios discussed elsewhere on the agenda (teacher certified-scale balancing; various classified raise scenarios) so board members can consider trade-offs before final votes.

Other items flagged
- Baker’s Crossroads property: Board packets included a summary of a parcel bought for $290,000 with an appraisal of $210,000 and limited outside interest; the highest bid to date was $93,500. Board members discussed whether the district could sell or repurpose that land to offset shortfalls.

What’s next: Staff said they will produce updated cost scenarios and run the salary-scale changes into the draft budget for a special meeting and the upcoming budget vote window. Board members scheduled follow-up work and asked for final numbers in time for a vote in the next budget cycle.

Ending: The board did approve routine minutes at the start of the session; no formal budget votes were taken at the meeting. The board left the meeting with multiple directed staff follow-ups on maintenance priorities, grant accounting and county engagement.","School finance staff presented a draft FY budget showing a projected deficit driven by salary and benefits increases, aging facilities and higher insurance costs. Board members asked for more scenarios, potential one-time county capital help and options to reduce maintenance and operational spending.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board debates balanced teacher pay scale, supervisor add-ons and options for classified raises

Cumberland County school leaders outline $3.6 million salary-and-benefits increase and search for cuts to close budget gap