Virginia Beach City Public Schools reviews pay-scale scenarios as consultants present costs for teacher and support staff raises

The Virginia Beach City Public Schools board on Jan. 27 heard a presentation from district HR staff and compensation consultants about proposed pay-scale adjustments intended to improve recruitment and retention for teachers and support staff.

HR Chief Darnita Trotman and compensation coordinator Judith Wood introduced Segal consultants Paula Singer and Andrew Kaczynski, who reviewed the division’s compensation philosophy, historical adjustments and modeled cost scenarios for the 2026–27 superintendent’s budget estimates. The presentation framed total compensation as base pay plus employer-paid benefits and allowances and included examples showing how entry-level and step movement would change under different options.

Segal offered two primary scenarios the board focused on. For the teacher (instructional) pay scale, Scenario A pairs a 2% structure increase with a 1.5% step increment (an overall ~3.5% impact for eligible employees) and was presented with an operating cost of $14,885,012. Scenario B (1.5% structure plus the 1.5% step increment, ~3% impact) was shown with an operating cost of $12,741,608. Segal illustrated an entry-level example moving from $55,687 to $57,653 under Scenario A.

For the unified (nonteaching/support) scale, Segal presented grade U7 as an example of impacts for critical positions such as bus assistants, cafeteria staff and custodians. Unified Scenario A (2% structure) was displayed with an operating cost of $8,506,134 and a minimum roughly 3% increase for eligible employees; Scenario B (1.5% structure) had an operating cost of $7,234,514 and supported roughly 2.5% increases, including an example of entry pay moving from $15.76 to $16.00 an hour.

Board member Miss Melnick summarized the combined ongoing cost if the board selected the larger Scenario A for both scales as about $23,391,166 and asked whether the division has that funding in the current budget. Staff (Crystal Pate and HR staff) responded that the savings from recent adjustments in Virginia Retirement System (VRS) employer contribution rates and other identified savings are built into the division’s base budget and that the division does have capacity this fiscal year to absorb the modeled cost, while noting VRS rates can change in future biennia.

Several board members pressed Segal and staff for clarity on how the presentation computed averages and cumulative figures. Mr. Cummings asked for example comparisons by experience bracket (sub‑5 years, 5–10, 10–15) to better see how the historical 26% figure across several years corresponds to particular employee groups; Segal replied the 26% figure is a scale‑wide cumulative average while some slides emphasize entry‑rate movement. Miss Rogers warned against creating pay compression (large entry increases that flatten progression for longer‑serving staff) and said retaining mid‑career and senior teachers should be part of any decision.

Board members also questioned the retirement plan assumptions. A board member flagged an employer VRS rate cited in the presentation (about 15.23%) and asked whether the division’s contribution is competitive; Segal and staff explained VRS rates are set biennially, differ across plan options and that the division could provide a future breakdown showing cost differences by which VRS option employees hold.

Segal and HR staff described the district’s multi‑year work on pay alignment, including targeted adjustments in 2023–24 that produced substantial step realignments. The consultants said Virginia Beach’s entry‑level ranking among local peers fell from first in 2021–22 to seventh by 2025–26 because neighboring divisions made larger entry adjustments, even though Virginia Beach’s salaries have increased annually.

Chair Kathleen Brown and board members acknowledged the tradeoffs between improving entry pay and preserving step progression and other supports. Several board members emphasized the need for clearer, experience‑level comparisons and for a transparent accounting of ongoing funding implications before formal budget decisions.

The board recessed the workshop to reconvene at 6:00 p.m. for the formal meeting and indicated some Segal and staff follow‑up questions would be handled later in the budget session.