Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West Oso ISD leaders and trustees debate proposed 2025–26 pay scales as state funding details arrive
Summary
Superintendent Kim Moore and staff reviewed draft salary scales and state funding for 2025–26, prompting questions from trustees about equity for lower-paid support staff. Board entered closed session after detailed discussion.
Superintendent Kim Moore reviewed draft salary scales and the district's proposed use of state funding for the 2025'26 school year during the West Oso ISD board meeting on June 24.
Moore said the Legislature had provided specific teacher increases and that the district had modeled two teacher steps: a $4,000 increase for teachers at a particular experience step and an $8,000 increase at another step. She said the state was also providing a smaller pot of funds the district could apply to nonteacher staff and that the district was working to align pay grades and midpoints for administrators and certified professionals.
The presentation included a draft teacher salary table, daily rates for administrators and certified nonteaching professionals, and a spreadsheet mapping projected state allocations against the local cost to implement the scale. Moore told trustees the state was expected to provide roughly $854,000 in additional recurring funds tied to average daily attendance and other formulas, and the district's estimated additional local cost to implement the draft scales was about $300,000.
Trustees pressed for more detail and questioned how some positions had been reclassified to higher pay brackets. Trustee Liz Gutierrez called for priority on raising hourly rates for staff currently paid under $15 an hour. Several trustees said they wanted the district to prioritize bringing low-paid hourly employees up before approving larger increases for individual administrative positions.
Moore and staff said the draft reflected both legislative direction and a market analysis (TASB market data was cited as an input) and that figures remained preliminary pending final state guidance and final employee rosters. Trustees asked for the underlying calculations and justifications for reclassifying several positions; Moore said staff would provide a tighter, closed-session briefing and more detailed documentation at the district's next meeting.
The board recessed into closed session for personnel and compensation discussions and returned to open session later in the evening.
Trustees did not vote on the salary scales at the June 24 meeting; administrators described the materials as draft and said a finalized recommendation and supporting documentation would be presented at a subsequent meeting for formal action.
The discussion highlighted trustees' concerns about pay equity and sustainability as the district incorporates new state allocations into next year's payroll.
