Northeast ISD outlines pay-plan tied to HB2, projects revenue and budget trade-offs

The Northeast Independent School District on Tuesday reviewed a compensation package tied to Texas House Bill 2 and a multi-year budget forecast that administrators say balances mandated teacher raises with targeted pay adjustments for other staff.

At a budget study session, Susie Lockhorn, the district’s executive director of finance and accounting, and other administrators explained how HB 2 requires classroom teachers to receive $2,500 if they have three to four years of experience and $5,000 for five or more years, and described recommended adjustments for bus drivers, instructional assistants and custodial staff. Lockhorn said the district has modeled the mandated teacher allotments and is recommending additional targeted increases to address hiring and retention challenges.

Administrators emphasized the trade-offs in the forecast. Lockhorn said a 1 percent across-the-board raise would cost about $4.2 million in the general fund. She told the board the allotment for classroom teachers and related HB 2 revenue would cover the mandated increases, and that roughly $19.6 million of HB 2-era revenue is being directed to raises districtwide. The presentation included a one-time 1.5 percent retention supplement as an option, estimated at about $1.6 million, to provide relief without committing ongoing funds.

Board members and the public pushed administrators on whom the district’s recommendations would affect. Public commenters raised broad concerns about pay and retention. Paraprofessional Teresa Hurd, vice president of education support professionals for the Northeast Education Association, told trustees the district faces a staffing crisis: “We're facing a crisis. 37 paraprofessional positions remain open for the upcoming year,” she said. Patsy Esterline, president of Northeast AFT, urged the board to address employee categories not covered by HB 2.

Trustees pressed for operational detail. Administrators said they are proposing changes to starting pay in several job classes to address pay compression: examples discussed included increases to bus driver starting pay and higher increments for incumbents, and increases for various instructional-assistant scales. Lockhorn described the district’s approach to pay scale midpoint adjustments to avoid compression and to shift the salary schedule rather than granting raises based only on current pay.

Substitute pay and classroom coverage drew particular attention. Lockhorn reported the district’s daily substitute pay rates are currently $120 per day for certified substitutes, $110 for noncertified, $150 for long-term subs and $98 for special education instructional assistants. Trustees and administrators discussed frequent gaps in substitute coverage and what campuses do when substitutes are unavailable. Board members also raised a recommendation that had been suggested by employee groups — paying teachers to cover classes when substitutes are not available — and were told by administrators that Texas Education Code 21.404 prohibits assigning teachers to cover classes during their planning period in many circumstances; administrators said paying teachers to cover classes as a regular compensation method would risk a TEA audit and potential reimbursement obligations.

School nutrition and other operating funds were folded into the presentation. The district reported an increase in employee discounts for the after‑school/childcare enterprise (Kin) from 20 to 25 percent last year and said further increases would reduce that program’s surplus; staff estimated a 5 percentage‑point increase would cost about $70,000 to the Kin fund. Nutrition staff also recommended modest meal-price increases for students who do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals; administrators said two‑thirds of campuses operate under CEP (Community Eligibility Provision) so many students already receive free meals.

Forecast and risk. Lockhorn and other staff showed preliminary fund-balance projections that incorporate HB 2 and other assumptions. The finance team warned those forecasts assume current conditions and minimal staff reductions tied to enrollment losses; they said the district will continue to refine assumptions as TEA issues rules governing HB 2 implementation. Trustees asked for follow-up slides and a more detailed budget adoption package at the next meeting. No final compensation package was adopted during the session; the board was scheduled to consider formal budget adoption at a later public meeting.

What’s next. Administrators said they will bring final budget and compensation recommendations back to the board at the district’s next budget meeting for formal action. They also said they will provide additional detail requested by trustees on substitute coverage protocols, the economic impact to the Kin enterprise fund of any discount changes, and vacancy and recruitment metrics for paraprofessionals.