GCISD CFO says federal Title I funding drop tied to interdistrict transfers; board weighs pay models amid HB2 changes

Grapevine-Colleyville ISD officials told the Board of Trustees on June 9 that multiple recent state and federal funding changes, combined with local enrollment patterns, are forcing program and staffing adjustments for the 2025–26 school year.

"We received information on May 20 that we would have a significant decrease in our Title I Part A funds," David Johnson, GCISD chief financial officer, told trustees. Johnson said the district's Notice of Grant Award set Title I, Part A funding for 2025–26 at $470,964, a decrease of $508,088 from the prior year. He said TEA attributed the reduction to the district's interdistrict transfer students and that TEA's calculations showed 1,802 interdistrict transfer students with 40 of those students qualifying as economically disadvantaged for the federal small-area income and poverty estimate used in the formula.

Shannon Tovar, director of accountability and continuous improvement, told the board that TEA initially cited iUniversity Prep as the main factor but later clarified the calculation included all interdistrict transfers. Johnson said the lower Title I calculation also removed GCISD from a concentration-targeted threshold (dropping from 5.42 to 4.96), making the district ineligible for certain Title I components.

Board members pressed staff for documentation; Johnson said TEA provided a calculation and a list of students and districts and that district staff requested the agency round the 4.96 up to 5, which TEA declined.

District staff also reviewed the impact of House Bill 2, which the legislature and governor approved in late May and early June. Johnson said HB2 included a new teacher retention allotment and a support-staff retention allotment, a $55 increase in the basic allotment and a new per‑student basic cost allotment of $106 to help address fixed costs such as insurance, utilities and payroll taxes. The district's initial estimate was that the new basic-cost allotment would provide roughly $1.4 million but that the district faces about $1.6 million in higher insurance and utility costs, leaving a shortfall on those items.

Kelly Myers, who presented compensation models, described three district options for raises: (1) a 1.5% midpoint increase for non‑teacher staff with targeted increases to beginning teachers; (2) a 2% midpoint increase; and (3) a 2.5% midpoint increase. All models assume the state-provided teacher retention allotment will fund raises for teachers with three-plus years of service under HB2. The district showed how each option would affect starting teacher pay: model 1 would raise starting pay from $59,250 to $59,750; model 2 to $60,300; and model 3 to $60,650.

Johnson presented a preliminary fiscal picture that included a recurring state contribution tied to HB2 but also multiple reductions the district must absorb, including an anticipated federal SHARS reduction and lower interest income versus prior years. He told trustees the district planned three balanced-budget scenarios incorporating the compensation options but flagged that each scenario assumes an "underspending variance" (unspent budget) of about $2.5 million; without that variance the higher raise options could produce small deficits.

Trustees traded concerns about sustainability, fund balance and recruitment. Trustee AJ and others warned that paying below regional market rates risks losing staff who could be hired elsewhere; other trustees urged caution because of continuing uncertainties around TEA calculations, future certified property values, potential voucher impacts beginning in 2026–27 and unknown federal/state template changes.

No formal vote was taken on 2025–26 salary options at the June 9 workshop; staff said a budget adoption vote would occur at the district's next regular meeting and that values and tax-rate decisions would be updated after the July certified values are released.