Lexington 1 board leans toward larger budget option, gives preliminary OK to $52,000 starting-teacher schedule

Lexington County School District One trustees on April 22 received a first reading of four budget options and gave preliminary approval to the salary study committee’s recommendations, including a $3,000 increase to raise the starting teacher salary to $52,000. The board’s motion says the approval is provisional and will be finalized when the district adopts the fiscal 2025–26 general fund budget.

Dr. Price, identified in the meeting as superintendent‑elect and the presentation lead, told trustees the packet outlines four options ranging from a minimal package that adds $1,500 to the starting step to a full expansion that would add numerous positions. “This is our first reading,” Dr. Price said, asking trustees to consider the district priorities and the linked spreadsheet that breaks item costs down by option.

Why it matters: The salary recommendation is the central item driving the budget conversation and a key tool trustees say they want to use for recruitment and retention. Trustees pressed staff for clearer cost estimates and timelines for hiring proposed positions — particularly additional assistant principals at some middle and high schools, special‑education academic and behavior coaches, and other school‑level roles — and asked for alternatives for a proposed special‑education retention stipend.

What staff presented: Dr. Price described four options: - Option 1 (lowest cost): reflects a $1,500 increase to the starting teacher step and would not correct several step inconsistencies the study identified; projected one‑time use of fund balance about $2.5 million. Several routine district items would be preserved but two Lexington 1 standard items (a student data specialist days increase and an elementary behavior interventionist) would be excluded. - Option 2: implements the salary study committee’s full recommendation to raise the starting pay to $52,000 (a $3,000 increase from current), corrects scale/step inconsistencies, and includes all Lexington 1 standards; estimated fund balance use roughly $8.3 million. - Option 3: includes everything in Option 2 plus items from the “would like to do” list (additional school‑level positions and supports); estimated fund balance use just over $10.6 million. - Option 4: adds a final set of “other requests” (including a districtwide Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) lunch program and other items) with a projected fund balance use near $13.5 million.

Trustee discussion and staff clarifications: Trustees repeatedly said they intended to remove Option 1 from consideration and focus on Options 2–4. Several trustees favored Option 3 as a middle ground that advances the salary study recommendations while funding additional school supports without taking the largest package.

Principal perspectives: Mr. Dixon, principal of Gilbert High School and a spokesperson for several high‑school principals who attended, described the operational pressure on existing administrators and tied it to student outcomes. “Let's take an average of 30 minutes for one discipline referral. . . . That's 6,251 hours we're spending on discipline,” Dixon said, outlining testing and meeting loads that keep principals out of classrooms. He and other principals argued that additional assistant principals would free leaders to focus on instruction.

Special education supports: Ms. Gaskins (district staff) explained the proposal for additional special‑education academic and behavior coaches. She said current coverage is one academic coach and one behavior coach for the entire district and principals and teachers cited a need for more job‑embedded, in‑school coaching. Trustees sought cost alternatives for a proposed certified special‑education retention stipend (presented as $1,000 in year 1, $2,000 in year 2, and $3,000 in year 3). Dr. Price provided an alternate estimate that would reduce the stipend to $1,000 / $1,500 / $2,000 and lower the projected annual cost from about $1,055,164 to $711,803, a savings of about $344,000.

Next steps and direction: Trustees directed staff to focus on Option 3 as a working target, to: provide line‑item cost scenarios (including alternatives for the special‑education stipend), supply hiring timelines and contingency plans for quick hires if the budget is approved, and present more detailed, outcome‑linked metrics for the positions proposed in the “would like to do” list. Dr. Price said administration would advertise positions with a clear notice that hiring is “pending board approval and availability of funding” to accelerate a rapid hiring timeline if the board finalizes the budget.

Votes at a glance (selected actions taken April 22): - Preliminary approval of the proposed 2025–26 teacher salary schedule including the salary study committee’s recommendations (motion passed; board action is provisional pending final budget adoption). - Authorization for administration to enter into a lease agreement with Lexington County First Steps (motion passed; board said terms were discussed in executive session and authorized staff to execute the agreement). - Approval to submit a waiver application to the South Carolina Department of Education to permit the district to conduct a district‑led principal induction program (motion passed). - Other routine consent votes (agenda, multiple staff recommendations and contract renewals) and policy approvals (including a homeschooling policy, a board self‑evaluation policy and the 2026–27 academic calendar with collaborative‑planning days to be decided later) also passed during the meeting.

What trustees asked staff to provide next: specific hiring timelines and recruitment plans for positions in Option 3; clear metrics (performance indicators) tied to each newly funded role to allow post‑hire review of impact on student outcomes; line‑by‑line cost options for the special‑education stipend; and updated fund‑balance projections reflecting any adjustments. Staff agreed to return with those details at subsequent meetings before the board’s second and third budget readings.

Looking ahead: Trustees emphasized they do not wish to raise millage at this point and prefer to use fund balance in a manner that addresses near‑term recruitment and retention needs while preserving fiscal stability. The board will continue budget deliberations in the next two readings before final adoption of the fiscal 2025–26 budget.