Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Class Size topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board study session centers on salaries, class-size trade-offs and aides; staff seeks direction for budget priorities
Summary
District staff presented scenarios on class-size targets, step/percent salary increases, instructional-assistant options and other cost drivers; staff asked the board to prioritize salary increases, class-size reductions or additional aids as it shapes the tentative budget.
Get email alerts on the Budget And Class Size topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District finance and human-resources staff walked the Provo City School Board through budget trade-offs on March 28, showing the fiscal impact of class-size targets, step increases, pay raises, instructional assistants and insurance costs.
Devin (district finance staff) presented model scenarios the board can use to prioritize spending. She said changing elementary class-size targets produces large staffing effects: one scenario that reduced some class-size cutoffs would add 18 full‑time‑equivalent teachers at an estimated cost of about $1.7 million, while other class-size configurations in the presentation would add 25.5 FTEs at an estimated cost of roughly $2.4 million. Devin emphasized those figures were illustrative for board discussion and that facility capacity (classroom space, portables) is a practical constraint at some schools.
Salary and step calculations: Devin said one salary-step increase (a single-step across eligible employees) would cost roughly $1.8 million for the district; she estimated that each additional 1 percent across the board would cost roughly $900,000 beyond a step. She said a 4 percent across-the-board raise (tied to WPU growth scenarios discussed elsewhere in the meeting) would equal about $3.6 million; adding a step increase on top of that would bring the combined cost to roughly $5.4 million. Devin also noted the state WPU increase quoted in staff materials was about $180 per student, yielding roughly $2.5 million in additional state funds for the district under current enrollment assumptions, and that much of that gain could be consumed by increases in health‑insurance costs.
Instructional aides and kindergarten supports: staff modeled several instructional-assistant options. A single 29‑hour aide at every school (part‑time) was estimated in the meeting materials at roughly $1.7 million to $2.0 million depending on lane/certification levels; providing a full-time lane‑3 aide at every kindergarten class was presented at a higher cost. Staff noted Title I schools require a higher lane classification for aides, which affects cost if the district provides parity across schools.
Other cost drivers: Devin said the district expects a significant insurance-cost increase and that staff are examining plan design and HSA contributions to manage long‑term costs. Human-resources director Jason reviewed recent legislative changes to the Teacher Student Success Program (TSSP), explaining the district must identify three to five “high-need” areas for stipend eligibility (the district intends to recommend math, science and special education, consistent with prior years) and verify eligible teachers early in the fall so they qualify for stipends pending state allocations.
Staff and union perspectives: Christy Gidlin, president of the Provo Education Association, told the board that teachers placed salary and class-size reductions as top priorities in staff feedback. Gidlin said smaller class sizes are strongly associated with better instructional results in elementary grades and argued that training cannot fully substitute for the effects of smaller classes: “you can’t train our way out of this problem,” she said. Gidlin urged the board to communicate clearly to the public that funding constraints force trade-offs.
Survey and timing: staff reported the district’s employee survey about budget priorities had produced hundreds of responses (staff gave a raw count of roughly 578 employee responses and 422 certified-employee responses in sub‑reports). Staff asked board members to identify priorities they would like included in the district’s proposed budget and said staff will continue modeling scenarios and return with costed options ahead of formal budget action.
No formal budget vote occurred at the study session. Staff said the board has time to shape priorities before formal budget decisions later in the spring and will receive more-detailed allocation materials after spring break.

