Durham Public Schools board approves 2026–27 salary schedules, asks finance committee to study higher living‑wage

The Durham Public Schools Board of Education on Wednesday approved updated 2026–27 salary schedules and directed the finance committee to continue studying whether the district can raise its local minimum toward a higher living‑wage target.

The board voted 4–3 to approve the salary schedules as presented with one correction (setting the before‑ and after‑care rate at $18.22 per hour) and to ask the finance committee to return a recommendation on a potential increase toward $19.22. The action followed a detailed presentation from district staff about how the newly adopted North Carolina state budget affects local pay tables and benefits.

Administration representative Teeter told the board the timing of the state budget made it important to move quickly so changes could be implemented in July paychecks rather than accrue as retroactive pay. "We felt it was safe to reserve some time, to connect with the board in July, to ... finalize some pay tables so that we can get increases to our employees as soon as possible," he said during the presentation.

Teeter outlined the state framework that included base‑pay increases biased toward beginning teachers, bonuses for certified staff (examples cited in the presentation included a $500 payment for teachers with less than 16 years of experience and $1,000 for those with 16 or more), and a required minimum 3% increase for classified employees paid with state funds. The district also said it expects to receive low‑wealth supplement dollars from the state for the first time under the new budget; staff said they will return to the board with a plan for distributing those funds to Durham educators once the exact allocation is known.

County continuation and expansion funding is a major part of the local picture: staff said Durham County provided about $10.9 million for continuation costs and that $2,650,000 in expansion funds were designated to help raise classified pay, with the district planning a local match in its operating budget. Teeter emphasized the administration used an interactive calculator to model grade‑and‑step impacts and intends to make supporting documents available to board members and, potentially, other stakeholders.

Board members debated the timing and level of detail. Some members warned against rushing and asked for more community input and additional analysis of pay compression, long‑term affordability and how local funds intersect with state and county allocations. Others pressed to approve the schedules immediately so employees would not face further delays getting raises. Dr. Lewis said staff had worked to ensure payroll systems would be updated to avoid the errors that led to problems in past cycles.

The approved schedules include step increases layered on top of the state and local percentage changes. Staff said legacy pay differentials will be moved at the same percentage as the corresponding pay grade, and that health‑plan, retirement and other technical inputs were modeled in draft calculations provided to the board.

What happens next: administration said it can operationalize the approved scales for the July payroll cycle and that any additional adjustments the board later authorizes could be implemented retroactively. The finance committee will meet before the board’s August work session to study whether the district can responsibly move toward a higher local minimum and to return a recommendation to the board.

Provenance: The topic was introduced when the board moved to the 2026–27 salary scales (SEG 058) and staff presentation and questions ran through the board’s extended discussion, concluding with the final approval and vote (SEG 2239).