Classified staff, custodians and teachers press board on pay, staffing and potential school disruption
Loading...
Summary
Public commenters at the March 31 Jefferson County board meeting urged the district to prioritize classified staff, asked for pay‑scale protections for promoted employees, and warned against disrupting healthy schools — particularly King Elementary — during budget and realignment discussions.
Multiple public commenters used the board’s public‑comment period on March 31 to press the district on staffing, pay scales and the human impact of school reorganizations.
Nicole Humphrey (speaking about classified staff) said secretaries and clerks had been told they would take on extra duties previously handled by elementary bookkeepers, calling the change "a clear violation of our contract" and asking the board to reevaluate priorities for the 2026–27 school year. Aaron McCullough, a 20‑year JCPS custodian, described how centralized hiring and a promotion to a supervisory role would force him to forfeit an estimated $20,000–$25,000 a year; he asked the board to authorize HR to place classified employees promoted into supervisory roles on pay scales that reflect the employees’ real pay rates.
Teachers and counselors also addressed the board. Dr. Anna Freeman, speaking for school psychologists, thanked the district for engagement and said responsiveness matters to student supports. Crystal Wiley, a King Elementary teacher, urged the board not to disrupt routines at King and said the $500,000 figure cited in budget discussions represents a small percentage of a deficit but would have outsized impact on children; she asked trustees to look at students as children rather than numbers. Tara Johnson, another King teacher, tied teacher retention to school climate and student achievement and warned that moving students and staff disrupts relationships that underpin student success.
Board members acknowledged the comments, asked staff for clarifications about transfer processes and pay‑scale flexibility, and noted HR follow‑up would be required. No immediate policy changes were adopted during the meeting; several speakers asked that concerns be addressed in forthcoming budget and staffing discussions.

