School board narrows budget asks, signs off on salary compression, nutrition and nurses; rejects two full-time deans

The Montgomery County Public Schools School Board on Feb. 4 reviewed a budget update from Director of Finance Angie Bland and Budget and Finance Manager Trevor Bennett and gave staff guidance to include several items in the district’s budget request to the Board of Supervisors while withholding approval for others.

Board members signaled support for compressing multiple employee salary guides to a 15‑step maximum, including a 3% increase for part‑time hourly staff, and for including free school meals for students in next year’s budget request. The board also approved adding two nurses to larger high schools and voted against funding two full‑time dean of students positions for middle schools as presented.

Why it matters: The items discussed would change recurring personnel costs and affect the amount the district will request from the county. Bland said the combination of the board’s adds and a downward state enrollment projection would raise the district’s request to the county by about $7.7 million, and she urged the board to be conservative because the state’s Calc 2 enrollment estimate reduced state aid relative to earlier projections.

Most important facts

- Salary scale compression: Bland and Bennett presented numbers to compress teacher and other certified and classified pay guides to a 15‑step maximum. The presentation estimated roughly $520,000 for classified staff plus an additional amount for professional (certified) staff (presenters cited an approximate separate figure during discussion). The board asked staff to circulate detailed, school‑by‑school salary guides and a table showing how compression would change individual raises before final budget adoption.

- School meals: Bland said the initial estimate for offering free breakfast and lunch to all students had been roughly $2.5 million when a la carte and adult meals were included; when limited to student breakfast and lunch the administration revised that figure downward to about $1.2 million. At a later clarification the school nutrition line was shown as $1,250,000. Bland told the board the number was based on historical usage and included a 5% contingency to allow for higher participation.

- Nurses: The board agreed to include two additional school nurses for the district’s larger high schools and asked administration to return with caseload and visit statistics (the lead nurse maintains visit counts) and options for using any existing floater nurses on days with subs absent.

- Dean of students positions: Administrators presented the cost to convert an existing 0.8 position and add another to yield two full‑time dean positions; staff said the full cost to bring the line to two full‑time FTEs would be about $194,000 in recurring costs (administration explained some earlier budget lines included a 0.8 FTE). The board voted by thumbs (recorded by the chair) with three thumbs up and four thumbs down and did not approve adding the two full‑time dean positions to the budget request.

- School board pay and policy alignment: The board asked administration to prepare a policy amendment to align local policy with state code regarding timing of board member pay increases. The budget draft included a proposed increase moving board member pay from $7,200 to $12,000 and the chair from $9,200 to $14,000 (administration described these as illustrative figures to budget the change); the board instructed staff to research whether a separate stipend for vice chair is allowable under state law.

Discussion and questions raised

Board members debated program design and logistics rather than rejecting the ideas outright. Several members worried about waste in universal breakfast programs and asked the administration to supply participation rates by school; Bland said breakfast participation is lower than lunch and that “Lunch participation is about 50%.” Board members also pressed for details showing which salary guides and employee groups would benefit most from compression and asked for a crosswalk showing potential percentage changes for low‑paid hourly staff versus employees near top pay steps.

Administrators noted several caveats: the state’s enrollment projection reduced expected state aid (the presentation cited the Calc 2 calculation), school nutrition costs in the initial estimate included adult and a la carte sales and grants, and the original dean position had been paid in year one with ESSER funds and a retiree filled the role at a reduced benefits cost. Several board members requested discipline and suspension data to evaluate the dean of students need and asked for school‑level staffing rosters (number of assistant principals) and current student populations before reconsidering that request.

Votes at a glance

- Certified closed session: motion to certify the closed session — carried (motion recorded as passed during earlier procedural business).

- Long‑term suspension of a student (identified in the transcript as “student A”): motion to long‑term suspend — carried (motion recorded as passed during earlier procedural business).

(For the procedural roll calls recorded earlier in the meeting the transcript indicates the motions carried and multiple “yes” roll‑call responses; specific individual roll‑call tallies are recorded in the official minutes.)

Next steps

The board asked staff to: (1) circulate detailed salary guides and a compression impact table; (2) provide school‑by‑school participation counts for breakfast and lunch and a revised cost estimate; (3) provide nurse visit and caseload data and options for floater nurse coverage; (4) prepare discipline and suspension trend data and building‑level staffing for the middle schools for the board’s February presentation; and (5) draft a policy amendment to align school board pay timing with state code and to research whether a vice‑chair stipend is permissible. Administrators said they will present those materials at upcoming meetings so the board can take final budget votes before submitting the request to the Board of Supervisors.

Ending

Board members closed the discussion and moved to additional budget items; administrators said the formal budget request to the Board of Supervisors will reflect the board’s direction and include the line items the board approved for inclusion and the data requested for outstanding questions.