Teachers, hourly staff urge board to restore annualized pay; board hears comments but takes no immediate vote

Dozens of Springfield Public Schools employees pressed the Board of Education on Feb. 25 to restore annualized pay for hourly and nine‑month staff, arguing the change would stabilize household budgets, preserve access to benefits such as Medicaid and help the district recruit and retain staff. The board heard four public commenters and several staff and board members debated options but did not vote to reinstate annualized pay that night.

Supporters said the removal of annualized pay two years ago has had material effects on employees. Jennifer Counts, who identified herself as an SPS behavioral special‑education employee, told the board she and co‑workers now face “instability” and difficulty budgeting because paychecks vary widely month to month. Counts said the district previously paid hourly staff on an annualized schedule and urged the board to restore it as an option for employees.

Laura Mullins, president of Springfield NEA, said she reviewed the auditor and federal guidance cited by the district and found no legal barrier that would categorically prohibit annualized pay. “The auditor’s office…determined there were no concerns,” Mullins said, and she reported that the U.S. Department of Labor regional office told her annualized pay “is a common practice across districts in the United States.” Mullins told the board employees want the option returned and noted the practice remains in place for most SPS employees, including educators and administrators.

Other commenters described concrete consequences. Madison Henry, who said she organized a petition signed by more than 1,000 supporters, told the board the current arrangement typically provides only one month of summer‑school pay and leaves many employees without guaranteed work until mid‑August. Jennifer Kaufman, a Pershing K‑8 teacher and parent, described how pay distribution affects families’ Medicaid eligibility and said her family once faced a monthly “spend down” of more than $4,000 that made care unaffordable. “Being paid over 9 months rather than 12 isn’t just an economic inconvenience,” Kaufman said. “Medicaid isn’t just another benefit. It’s a lifeline.”

Board members asked questions about the range of harms and possible fixes. Board member Mikoski said she would support restoring annualized pay as an option and called for a collaborative approach between administration and staff. Another board member urged administration to continue to study whether annualized pay could be offered as an opt‑in benefit, with safeguards for the payroll system and for employees who start midyear. Several board members urged administration to provide more precise data on how many employees would opt in and on the operational and audit implications.

Superintendent Dr. Lathan told the board the payroll change is not a simple “flip a switch” and explained that the district relies on legal and audit advice when changing payroll systems. She also said the district attempted to show support in other ways during recent inclement weather: the district paid hourly and operational staff for snow days so those employees would not lose income because the district could not make up instructional time. “We will continue to be what we have implemented over the past two years,” Dr. Lathan said, describing the current practice as the district’s operational position while administration continues to explore options.

No motion to modify payroll policy was on the agenda, and the board did not take a vote to reinstate annualized pay at the meeting. Several members repeatedly asked administration to continue studying whether an opt‑in or phased approach (for example, making annualized pay available after an employee’s first year) could reduce the operational risks they cited.

Why it matters: The change affects roughly 1,100 hourly employees who were removed from annualized pay two years ago, according to speakers, and has implications for household budgeting, benefit eligibility and staff retention. Board members said they want to balance legal/audit advice and operational feasibility with staff morale and recruitment.

What’s next: Board members asked administration and labor representatives to continue discussions; two board members specifically asked for more data on how many employees would opt in, the payroll implementation steps and the potential effect on benefit eligibility. The board gave no deadline for a return report.