IB coordinator alleges post-contract salary-scale change; Round Rock ISD administration says no contractual breach

Melissa Ross, vice president of the Round Rock Independent School District Board of Trustees, opened the Feb. 12 meeting and introduced Agenda D: a Level 3 grievance filed by Nicole Simo, an IB coordinator at Spicewood Elementary.

Simo told the board she accepted a term contract on April 2, 2025, the board approved the 2025–26 compensation plan on June 3, 2025 (publicly shared June 11), she signed her contract on July 1 and began performance July 15. She said that on Aug. 8, 2025—18 working days into her contract—she was informed IB coordinators had been moved to a newly created "professional campus support" salary scale, which altered the salary structure under which she had begun performing.

"Once a term contract has been executed, once the compensation plan has been adopted, and once performance has begun, may the salary scale under which that employee is working be altered without written amendment and without meaningful notice?" Simo asked the board. She cited contract Section 2 (payment according to the board-adopted compensation plan) and Section 19 (no amendment is binding unless reduced to writing and signed by both parties) and said she did not sign any amendment. Simo asked the board to: reinstate her daily rate to the rate in effect when her contract became binding; reclassify IB coordinators under the teacher salary guide or adopt a scale reflecting instructional leadership responsibilities; and require written acknowledgments consistent with contract clause 19 and board policy.

An administration representative replied that Simo received a 1% general pay increase under the board-approved plan and that the board’s June 3 compensation approval was contingent on legislative action and guidance from the Texas Education Agency. The administration said House Bill 2 created definitions and funding mechanisms tied to teacher eligibility under the teacher salary scale and that Simo’s role did not meet the bill’s definition for those teacher-targeted increases. The administration stated, "Miss Simo was neither an eligible employee under House Bill 2 nor a classroom teacher on the teacher salary," and urged trustees to deny the grievance because, in the administration’s view, there was no contractual breach.

Administrators described options they said had been offered previously, including the ability for an employee to move back to a classroom assignment to become eligible for certain state-directed increases, and emphasized limited district flexibility given current funding. The administration also told the board that reclassifying positions internally would not automatically trigger additional state funding if the employee did not meet the TEA definition for teacher eligibility.

Trustees asked clarifying questions about how positions are labeled in employment contracts ("teacher" or "administrator"), whether internal reclassification would produce state funding, and about communications to staff. Trustee Leonard thanked Simo for her service, criticized the state legislature’s role in constraining local control and creating differential treatment between staff groups, and pressed administration on the practical and equity consequences for district employees.

After questions and short discussion among trustees and counsel, Vice President Ross invoked Texas Government Code sections 551.071, 551.074 and 551.082 to consult with board counsel regarding the grievance and moved the board into a closed session for deliberation and legal advice. The board indicated it would leave the Level 2 decision in place pending counsel and further deliberation.

What happens next: the board moved to closed session to consult counsel. No formal vote on Simo’s requested remedies was recorded in the public portion of the meeting.