School board work session centers on meal program costs, teacher pay clustering and bus replacements

The Frederick County School Board spent its Feb. 18 budget work session debating whether to cut the Community Eligibility Provision that currently provides free meals at nine schools, how to restructure teacher pay clusters, and where to find savings to meet competing priorities ahead of a formal budget adoption expected in April.

Board members heard staff presentations on multiple budget trade-offs and asked for additional modeling before the board must finalize an adoption schedule. Ms. Anderson, a member of the division finance staff, said staff had identified $650,000 in reallocations from the current-year budget and were preparing updated cost estimates on several options the board raised during finance committee meetings.

Why it matters: the school division’s funding request to the county depends on the board’s decisions about staffing, compensation and program coverage. Some proposals would shift dollars into teacher pay and recruitment to address 45 current vacancies, while others would reduce locally funded programs such as CEP or the local share of preschool (VPI) to free up operating funds.

Staff estimates and contested figures

Ms. Anderson presented staff numbers for several proposals and clarifications. She said the local share to expand the Virginia Preschool Initiative (VPI) would be about $303,000. Implementing CEP at all 21 sites was estimated by staff to cost about $1,900,000 annually; she and other staff also said removing CEP coverage for the existing nine sites would likely save less than the $2.2 million figure some board members cited — current staff modeling put the nine-site cost at roughly $1,100,000 and urged more time to “run the model.”

On the teacher-pay question, staff showed two declustering scenarios. Keeping the existing cluster breakup farther along the scale produced a proposed teacher-scale average increase of 4.9 percent; breaking the experience clusters earlier (benefitting teachers in earlier-year ranges) would raise the average to about 5.6 percent and add roughly $832,000 to the operating request, Ms. Anderson said.

Board debate: meals, equity and priorities

Board members split over whether CEP is an appropriate target for savings. One board member argued that sunsetting CEP at the nine schools would remove a direct source of free meals many families rely on and urged the board to consult Bright Futures and county partners before taking action. Opponents warned that cutting CEP would effectively remove free meals for some students who currently receive them, and said nutrition supports learning.

Supporters of trimming CEP pointed to an increasing local cost index and argued the division must be fiscally circumspect as it seeks additional county operating funds. Board members pressed staff for more precise estimates and for an analysis of how participation rates would change under different CEP scenarios; Ms. Anderson told the board that participation has increased to more than 60 percent systemwide, up from about 50 percent the prior year, and that higher participation would affect the net cost of CEP implementation.

Nutrition funding and unpaid meal balances

Staff said the budget currently transfers $1,000,000 from the operating fund to the school nutrition fund; about $200,000 of that covers existing unpaid meal balances. The proposed transfer increase of $100,000 is intended to cover projected growth in unpaid balances to roughly $300,000 next year if CEP is not expanded. Staff noted that if CEP were implemented for all sites the annual operating-transfer line could be reduced, but the first-year conversion costs and participation changes would produce a different short‑term cash flow profile.

Teacher pay, retention and staffing standards

Board members repeatedly returned to retention and recruitment. Superintendent Dr. Hummer and board members emphasized vacancies — staff said there were approximately 45 vacancies — and the need to make Frederick County competitive for teachers, particularly given plans for a fourth high school in coming years. Board members weighed two priorities: improving pay for early-career teachers to reduce year‑one and year‑two attrition versus targeting mid-career teachers whose experience is central to building leadership in new facilities.

Several board members emphasized this is an iterative, multi‑year process. Ms. Anderson told the board that declustering could be phased in over subsequent budget cycles.

Staffing and compliance positions

Staff proposed 50 full‑time equivalents (FTEs) tied to the second year of phasing in the division’s staffing standards; 10 FTEs are proposed to be reallocated from existing positions for a net increase of 40 FTEs. Staff clarified eight of the requested positions are compliance related (notably ELL/English‑learner teachers) and would be funded to maintain state funding and avoid “funding at risk,” staff said. Board members asked what would happen if the district could not fill compliance positions; staff replied that the division had budgeted for those FTEs and that losing compliance could put state funding at risk.

Transportation, capital and technology adjustments

Board members asked to increase the annual bus replacement from two to four vehicles in this request year; staff said adding four replacement buses would cost about $600,000 and would bring the division to the targeted 13 buses replaced annually. Staff also recommended lowering the technology request to $75,000 to support Chromebook refresh cycles and identified other capital priorities including lease costs for 10 modular units at Middletown Elementary (about $175,000) and safety upgrades at several schools.

Other investments

Staff recommended a $400,000 human capital management system to streamline personnel processes and argued it could produce long‑term savings. Staff also described a $250,000 instructional package for data systems, curriculum development and professional learning.

Process, timing and next steps

Ms. Anderson told the board there was no action required at the work session; staff will update the presentation for the board’s later adoption meeting and continue discussions with the Board of Supervisors. The board took consensus to schedule a special called meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 25, at 6:00 p.m. for final adoption discussion so the county has time to advertise the appropriation; staff will post the meeting by Thursday, the chair said. The division’s formal adoption timeline anticipates the Board of Supervisors’ appropriation decision before the board’s final approval in April.

Quotations

“The content doesn't change, but the methodologies do,” said Miss Knight, the division’s curriculum leader, explaining why staff recommended investment in updated instructional materials and digital resources rather than simply reusing older textbooks.

“I think it would be very difficult for us to compete with any district, for our students to stay competitive in the absence of a Chromebook,” Superintendent Dr. Hummer said, describing staff’s view of the role of technology in curriculum and college- or career-readiness.

What was decided and what remains open

There were no final policy adoptions at the work session. The board approved routine procedural motions (agenda acceptance and adjournment) and took consensus to hold a special called meeting Feb. 25 to finalize the division’s submission to the county. Staff will return with more detailed fiscal modeling on: (1) CEP cost and participation scenarios for nine schools vs. systemwide coverage; (2) the exact net savings from any proposed CEP changes; and (3) the combined cost to implement both early‑cluster pay adjustments and other compensation changes the board may direct.

The board is expected to return to formal vote at a later meeting after staff provides the updated estimates and after the Board of Supervisors finalizes its appropriation.