Teachers, union urge Washington Elementary board to fix pay gap between new hires and returning staff

At the Washington Elementary School District governing board meeting on Aug. 14, 2025, seven district employees and the WDEA union urged the board to address what speakers described as a growing salary inequity: a new-hire salary placement the speakers said pays some recently hired teachers thousands of dollars more than experienced district staff.

The concern centered on a salary placement schedule that speakers said appears on the district website and that they said results in “salary compression” — a situation where new hires receive starting pay higher than returning teachers with equal or greater experience. Jamie Peterson, a student services specialist at Royal Palm Middle School, told the board she would earn about $7,000 more if she were hired today under the new schedule.

"If I walked into WESD today as a brand new hire, I'd be offered $7,000 more than what I'm making after 4 years of service and dedication," Jamie Peterson said. She said the gap is forcing experienced educators to consider leaving the district.

Several other speakers gave concrete examples and calculations. Julie Benier told the board she had previously estimated a districtwide cost to fix placements at $13 million but said her own spreadsheet — extrapolated from figures for one school and then across 33 schools — showed a much smaller number. "If we use that number and multiply it by the 33 schools in our district, the cost would be just under $3,800,000, obviously much less than $13,000,000," Benier said.

Kelly Fortner, a district teacher, said the posted new-hire placement for her experience and education level was $64,500 — $4,839 more than her current salary. Kathleen Burke, a teacher at Shaw Butte, said a new hire with identical qualifications made $2,143 more than she does. Britney Karjinski, president of the Washington District Education Association, said the typical gap she had heard from returning educators ranged from about $5,000 to $6,000.

Speakers framed the issue as a retention and equity problem. "When teachers leave, students lose connections and relationships," Jamie Peterson said. Others called the practice unfair to teachers who have taken on district-specific training, leadership and community work over multiple years.

Board members did not take an immediate vote to change pay. Instead, at the end of the meeting a board member asked the superintendent to place a specific item on a future board agenda: to conduct a salary study addressing compression and to have the district's IBM committee review the study and present results to the board. That request was made as a future-agenda item rather than as formal board action at the meeting.

Discussion vs. formal action: the public comments portion of the meeting consisted of public testimony and union statements (discussion). The board recorded no immediate change to the salary schedule during the meeting; the board member request to direct the superintendent to present a salary-study plan was a request for staff follow-up and a future agenda item, not a final decision at this session.

Clarifying details provided to the board included cost estimates and individual examples of salary differentials: Jamie Peterson said a $7,000 differential for her case; Julie Benier provided a districtwide estimate she calculated of just under $3.8 million (contrasting with a $13 million figure she said she had been told); Kelly Fortner cited a $4,839 gap in her case; Kathleen Burke cited a $2,143 gap for her situation. Speakers also said the posted schedule had the effect of raising new-hire offers above the pay of current employees with comparable qualifications.

The board did not change the posted salary placement during the meeting. Board and staff discussion later in the agenda acknowledged the comments and directed staff follow-up through a future agenda item to present options for addressing compression.

Ending note: Several speakers thanked the board for listening and urged prompt action; the board's next steps were limited to directing a future agenda item, with any concrete policy changes or budgetary decisions to be considered at later meetings.