Goochland schools propose 3% cost-of-living increase and new interventionists amid rising special‑education caseloads

Superintendent Patrick Marty told a joint session of the Goochland County Board of Supervisors and the School Board that the school division’s top operational priorities for the coming fiscal year are a 3% cost-of-living adjustment for all staff, new academic interventionists and targeted support for special-education and English‑learner students.

Marty said the 3% COLA reflects regional practice and is aimed at recruitment and retention: “Right now, that number sits pretty comfortably at 3%,” he said, adding that regional colleagues are discussing similar increases. He said the division coupled a prior market adjustment with a 5% increase and that those moves helped the division remain competitive.

Why it matters: Marty framed staffing increases as foundational to student outcomes. He proposed three interventionists (one for each elementary school), an assistant principal for Goochland Elementary (enrollment cited at 518), stipends for staff to manage Section 504 caseloads, and additional ESOL FTE to reduce the current 1:26 staff-to-student ratio toward the recommended 1:20 for Level 1 English‑learner students.

The superintendent described growth in Section 504 plans at the high school and the strain on special-education staff: “At the high school, we currently have 110 students serviced under Section 504,” he said, and noted that special-education teachers’ caseloads have risen from about 15 to over 24 students per case. To address that, Marty proposed stipends for existing staff to manage 504 responsibilities during non‑teaching time rather than immediately adding new full‑time positions.

Marty also discussed the division’s first-year implementation of the Virginia Literacy Act. Intensive reading supports now target kindergarten through third grade but are scheduled to expand to kindergarten through sixth grade next year, increasing demand for reading specialists and prompting the request for additional interventionist FTE.

Board and supervisor responses highlighted tradeoffs. A supervisor pressed for prioritizing life‑safety items (smoke detectors, fire extinguishers), saying safety should come before comfort. Another supervisor raised weapons detectors as a safety measure; staff cautioned that detectors would create operational needs—staffing, certification and ongoing costs—and suggested any decision be routed through relevant capital or sheriff’s budgets.

The county’s budget outlook complicates decisions. County staff described a conservative, 0‑based budgeting approach and said the county’s initial budget would include no pay raises; if funding remains flat, schools will need to prioritize and potentially omit some requested items. Marty said his role was to present needs and that the boards would have to reconcile priorities with available funds.

What’s next: The superintendent’s assessment will feed into the formal budget cycle. County and school staff said they will continue to confer on priorities, produce supporting data (including a working list of lower‑cost retention items), and refine recommendations as the governor’s budget and county revenue projections become clearer.