School board reviews pay-and-retention menu: unified pay-scale option, part-time raises and tuition reimbursement
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Human resources presented options to strengthen recruitment and retention, including a 2% entry-level increase and step changes costing about $15.4M, a proposed 10% part-time rate increase (~$33.3M), an $1.8M educational allowance completion and $214,000 to double tuition reimbursement to $2,000.
The Virginia Beach School Board spent substantial time evaluating a menu of compensation and retention options presented by the division’s human resources team.
Dr. Darnita Trotman, the division’s chief human resources officer, framed the presentation as a set of priorities to consider if additional funding from the state becomes available. She said the packages are intended to give the board options to act quickly if new revenue arrives: "there's no money in the budget to do anything that you're getting ready to see," an administrator stated during the introduction.
Judith Wood, coordinator of classification and compensation, outlined the principal options. One proposal would raise the unified pay scale's entry level by 2% and change steps 1–14 to a 1.25% difference while keeping steps 15 and above at 1.5%. Wood said that approach would result in raises ranging from about 2% to 7.14% at an operating cost of roughly $15.4 million (about $4.3 million above the superintendent’s estimate of needs).
Wood also reported that increasing part-time rates by 10%—affecting roughly 5,000 part-time workers including substitutes, bus attendants and custodial staff—would cost approximately $33.3 million. On educational allowances, Wood said completing a multiyear alignment to local market targets would cost about $1.8 million, and raising tuition reimbursement from $1,000 to $2,000 per employee would cost about $214,000 annually; she noted that 237 employees used tuition reimbursement this year and current funds are exhausted.
Board members pressed administrators on priorities and equity. Miss Melnick and others asked how many retirees return to full-time roles; staff answered that the number varies year to year and depends on state rules for rehire and critical shortage positions. Vice Chair Williams focused on how proposed employer health contribution increases affect employee premiums and asked whether a straight 1.5% across the unified scale (instead of the proposed entry-level adjustment) had been costed; staff said a straight 1.5% across the scale would cost roughly $5.9 million more than current amounts and could leave some lower-paid positions below the 2% average the state may require.
Members identified several "low-hanging fruit" items—such as tuition reimbursement and modest supplements—that could be prioritized if modest additional funding becomes available. Administrators said many choices will require tradeoffs and corresponding reductions elsewhere in the budget if additional state funds do not materialize.
The board did not take any final compensation votes during the workshop; staff committed to return with further analysis, including the cost to implement a straight 1.5% across the unified pay scale and other scenario comparisons.