Lakeland trustees review removing 'shadow' salary schedule, ask staff for three-column pay models

Trustees of the Lakeland Joint School District met in workshop to review a draft negotiated agreement that would govern certificated professional employees and to consider several alternatives for the district’s teacher salary schedule.

The chair opened the meeting and led trustees through the document’s preamble and recognition language, which identifies the Lakeland Education Association as the exclusive representative for certificated professional employees while excluding administrative and classified staff from the negotiated‑agreement bargaining unit. Trustees requested that staff confirm membership counts; the draft displayed inconsistent figures (trustees discussed both 290 and 287 total certified teachers and an active count near 178), and staff agreed to verify the correct numbers before the agreement is finalized.

A central focus was the district’s so‑called “shadow” schedule, a mechanism staff said was previously used to fold AP stipends into base pay for a subset of longer‑tenured employees. Staff presented two main options modeled for trustees: (1) a lane or career‑ladder‑aligned schedule tying cells to state rungs, and (2) removing the shadow schedule and capping the base schedule (staff described a scenario that would keep present salaries intact for current employees but stop future moves into the shadow cells). The administration presented two sample scenarios based on a random sample of 20 certified employees and asked trustees whether they preferred models tied to the state career ladder or a three‑column format (bachelor’s, bachelor’s plus 24, master’s).

Staff cautioned that the lane approach requires a time‑consuming credit/transcript review for many employees and that the district’s personnel records are not yet fully updated to support an immediate conversion. "We would probably have to request transcripts, and we'd have to do credit reviews," staff said, noting that the task is labor‑intensive and that final cost figures would require those reviews.

Trustees pressed on the financial consequences. Staff provided a rough, preliminary estimate for one removal scenario: "Rough calculation is $323,000," a figure staff described as provisional and subject to verification for retirees and other exceptions. Trustees also heard that roughly 62 employees (a maximum figure staff used in the sample) might be affected by removing the shadow schedule; staff said the final count would depend on reconciled personnel records.

Benefits and health insurance were linked to the salary discussion. Staff told trustees that broker information showed insurance carriers facing large increases statewide, and that the district — which currently subsidizes roughly $800,000 in benefits — could face plan cost increases in the mid‑teens (staff warned some districts outside the trust are seeing 30–50% spikes). "We are potentially looking at anywhere between a 15–20% increase," staff reported, stressing this figure was preliminary.

On stipends and transparency, trustees voiced differing priorities: some preferred to fold bachelor’s and master’s stipends into base pay so employees could clearly see where they stand, while others worried that building stipends into base pay could obligate the district to pay for stipends the state does not fund. Staff recommended producing a three‑column salary schedule that meets state minimums and that also highlights which employees would be frozen or capped under different scenarios.

Trustees also discussed benefits eligibility and the negotiated‑agreement language that full‑time certificated employees receive a defined contribution toward benefits. The draft references a district contribution "up to $860 per month" for eligible full‑time certificated employees; trustees asked staff to clarify prorating language so part‑time employees receive a proportionate contribution based on FTE.

Next steps: staff committed to return with a reconciled three‑column salary schedule that (1) hits state minimums, (2) flags which employees would be capped or frozen under different options, and (3) provides verified counts and updated cost estimates for removing the shadow schedule. The board set a follow‑up workshop date to continue negotiations after a scheduled student hearing the following week; no formal vote or adoption occurred at the workshop.

The workshop concluded with trustees asking staff to provide the detailed transcript/credit reviews and cost runs necessary to make a final recommendation.