Finance committee reviews superintendent's proposed pay initiative; board to refine starting pay and clustering

Frederick County School Board finance committee members on Jan. 23 reviewed the superintendent's proposed compensation initiative, which the presenters said would yield a division average increase of 4.9% across pay scales if fully funded.

Kristen Anderson, a staff member who led the presentation, said the proposal is intended to meet multiple goals: raise starting salaries to attract applicants, uncluster certain years of experience on pay scales and provide targeted supplements for long‑service teachers. Anderson said, "the proposed salary initiative is a division average of 4.9%." Dr. Hummer, a school division official who opened the meeting, encouraged committee members to "please ask questions. Please dive into this, share questions with us ahead of time."

Why it matters: committee members said pay competitiveness affects hiring and retention. The presentation showed Frederick County trailing some neighboring divisions and said matching higher local scales such as Loudoun County would require substantially more funding. Committee members pressed staff for options to prioritize increases that would best reduce early‑career turnover and retain experienced teachers.

Details from the presentation: presenters described three main components of the compensation plan. First, a baseline cost‑of‑living adjustment (COLA) of 2.5% for all employees. Second, an additional 0.5 percentage point in many scales to align with Governor Glenn Youngkin's proposed 3% supplement, bringing some scales closer to the governor's proposal if local funds are provided. Third, targeted scale changes and supplements, including:

- Teachers: a proposed investment of about $5.4 million (if funded) that the presentation said would allow at minimum a 2.5% COLA and, where possible, scale enhancements including increasing the starting salary toward $54,000 and unclustering experience years around the 15‑year benchmark. The presentation noted the district could not match Loudoun County without an estimated $30 million additional investment.

- Classified employees (hourly staff such as custodians, school nutrition staff, instructional assistants and bus drivers): a proposed scale average of about 5.6%, at a cost of roughly $2 million; staff said this scenario would move the minimum starting hourly rate near $16.80 under the proposal.

- Other professionals (psychologists, speech pathologists, occupational and physical therapists, some IT positions): targeted monies to uncluster one year of experience and provide step movement.

- Administrators/supervisors/coordinators: a scale average of about 3.4%, with $80,212 noted to uncluster a year and provide step movement where affordable.

Targeted pay upgrades discussed included: moving bus assistants and instructional assistants from classified C2 to classified C3 (about a 6.4% increase) to help fill 11 current bus‑assistant vacancies; upgrading five school security officer positions from C4 to C7 (about a 13.1% increase); and converting four middle‑school lead teacher positions to 12‑month dean roles (the presentation listed a $60,000 total cost distributed across the four middle schools, not a per‑person salary). The presentation also proposed a $5,000 supplement for teachers with 25 or more years of experience and said the district could expand that bump to teachers at 24-plus years if funded.

Special education: staff proposed differentiated supplements for the highest‑need special education staff: a $3,000 supplement for level‑2 special education teachers and an additional $1,000 for level‑2 instructional assistants compared with peers, to recognize training and workload differences.

Funding and timeline: Anderson said a full 3% initiative would cost just over $5.1 million; the presentation estimated the state share of a 3% supplement at about $2.3 million and the remainder would be a local ask. Committee members were told the superintendent's proposed budget materials and draft salary scales are posted to BoardDocs and that a more detailed line‑item legend for the printed budget would be posted by Jan. 30. Key calendar items noted: a public hearing in February, a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors on Feb. 12, a full board work session and proposed adoption to send to the county on Feb. 18, and a final budget adoption in late April after updated state and county numbers.

Board discussion and follow‑up: several board members urged the committee to prioritize raising the starting teacher salary to improve first‑ to third‑year retention. One member asked staff to model alternative scenarios that break out clustered experience years (for example, expanding separation between years 3–6) and present cost implications at the next finance committee meeting. Staff agreed to return with those comparisons. Anderson also said questions submitted during the meeting would be addressed at the next meeting and asked that questions be emailed to Kristen Anderson with copies to Dr. Hummer and Mrs. Klein.

Procedural actions: the committee opened by approving the meeting agenda and ended by approving a motion to adjourn; both procedural motions passed without recorded opposition.

Next steps: staff will provide the detailed budget legend on the website by Jan. 30, post updated salary‑scale scenarios to BoardDocs, and return to the finance committee with cost comparisons for alternate clustering and un‑clustering approaches to the teacher pay scale. The committee will consider the joint board meeting with the Board of Supervisors on Feb. 12 and the full board work session on Feb. 18 as decision points for the local funding request to support the compensation initiative.