Spring ISD board reviews teacher pay models tied to House Bill 2; administration recommends $1,000 benefit supplement and options for additional raises
Loading...
Summary
Officials presented competing compensation models reflecting House Bill 2 funding, recommended a $1,000 benefit supplement for returning employees and outlined an optional higher-pay model (4% above HB2) that would increase the projected budget deficit; trustees discussed risks and timing.
Spring Independent School District leaders presented several teacher‑pay models Tuesday that incorporate state House Bill 2 funding and district choices to raise local pay beyond state funds.
Chief Financial Officer Anne Westbrooks and human resources staff reviewed an administration recommendation that would align teacher salary increases to House Bill 2 and provide a $1,000 benefit supplement to returning employees. The recommendation as presented included a starting teacher salary of $65,250 under a board-requested model that adds 4 percentage points above the legislative funding for some experience tiers. The administration said one option would raise pay for teachers with 0–4 years of experience by $5,225 (a 7.7% increase) and by $7,725 for teachers with five or more years (an 11.3% increase). The incremental cost for the additional 4% above the legislative amounts was estimated at about $5.1 million; boosting the benefit supplement from $1,000 to $1,500 added another $2.5 million, for a total incremental cost of roughly $7.6 million.
Westbrooks told trustees the district will adopt a budget on June 24 under current law and that revenue and expenditure estimates will be updated as TEA issues final guidance on House Bill 2 implementation. Under the administration’s recommended baseline tied to current law, the district’s adopted budget would show an estimated $6.6 million deficit; after revising for House Bill 2 revenue and the administration’s recommended pay plan, the resulting projected deficit range moved to about $5.1 million (before disaster pennies adjustments) or a larger projected deficit of roughly $21.2 million under the more aggressive board-requested increases once those are incorporated.
Trustees asked about risks: whether the state funding is sustainable, how the teacher-incentive allotment (TIA) interacts with local decisions, and whether districts could use enhanced TIA funds to offset costs. Westbrooks said state-funded components carry the same long-term risk as other state appropriations and that TEA guidance will determine detailed compliance and reporting. She noted the district can use TIA funds for some compensation purposes but that some program rules require timing and plan approvals that the district cannot assume without delay.
The board also discussed stipend recording vs. base pay for compliance reporting, and HR described a plan to record some HB2‑funded increments as separately tracked stipend payments to permit reporting of state-funded versus locally funded pay components.
No final vote on the compensation package occurred Tuesday; trustees approved the district’s compensation manual in a separate motion later in the meeting (see separate article) and directed administration to finalize numbers for the June 24 budget adoption.
Speakers quoted in this article spoke during the budget and compensation discussion and are named in the transcript.
