Charles City leaders support raises, but emphasizes public to research school finances

A May 20 public hearing on Charles City County’s proposed FY2021-22 budget garnered attention after comments and information surrounding proposed raises for county educators hit the forefront. Charles City leaders took a heads-on approach on the issue after the public spoke.

At issue were comments made by members of Charles City School’s Board May 11 meeting that an expected shortfall and lack of financial support from county leaders would result in several school employees leaving for better compensation.

Two days later at the first portion of the county’s board of supervisors public hearing on the budget, County Administrator Michelle Johnson’s presentation on the county’s budget and recommended a budget of $5,850,089 in local funding for the upcoming year. The county administrator said that the school system had requested $6,400,472 and that she is recommending an actual increase of $150,000 for the schools this year to the aforementioned $5.85 million.

Since the May 11 school board meeting, county supervisors along with Johnson had received emails and calls to support educators receiving raises. At the May 13 meeting, District 2 representative Bill Coada had asked the amount of money it would take to provide the teachers a five-percent raise. That amount came in at $234,068, with $182,000 being the amount needed from the local level.

From there, three options were proposed to assist with finding the funding for the raises. But with the public unable to weigh in, the public hearing carried over until May 20. And at the public comment period, both submitted statements along with podium speakers voiced their thoughts to supervisors.

“More money, more money,” wrote former school board member Steve Fuhrmann in his letter to county leaders. “In the past 10 years, the school system has spent $104 million, with $52 million contributed from local taxpayer dollars.

“Enrollment has declined by 20 percent and the cost to teach a student is higher than the state average,” the letter continued, saying that funding should be redirected from administration to in-classroom teachers. “More money for an overfunded, underperforming, unexamined system is likely to get us more the same; higher expenditures for lower student achievement.”

Other comments targeted supporting teachers raises and asked supervisors to throw their support behind the cause.

“Teachers of Charles City Public Schools did the best they could during the pandemic,” commented Kristy Lewis. “I’ve witnessed a teacher crying to teach over a computer. They have worked not only hard though these tough times, but even before the pandemic.”

“I’m asking county leaders to give more money to Charles City schools,” Justin Moore’s submitted message said. “County teachers don’t make much and it’s hard to attract and retain them. I know you all have a tough job juggling requests with limited money, but please make paying the teachers a priority.”

Elizabeth Edwards commented the earlier steps made by county leaders at the May 13 portion of the public hearing but says she could not fathom what teachers are going through.

“I have taught online and as someone who teaches online, it is work intensive,” she commented. “Teachers are working 60 hours a week and it’s dramatically different than teaching face-to-face.

“I’ve heard the storied about the education in Charles City, but my kids have done well in the system,” Edwards continued. “The level of schooling in this county and what these students are working with is outstanding.”

After additional speakers spoke at the lectern for the support, Coada took to a Powerpoint presentation he created. After reiterating that the schools were receiving an increase in funding in the upcoming year, Coada focused on the school’s presentation that was given on May 11.

“I am looking at this scale and the proposal says that a first-year teacher would receive a 7.2 percent pay increase, while somebody with 11 years or more would receive 1.5 percent,” the District 2 representative commented. “I don’t know about you, but if I was there for 11 or more years, I wouldn’t be happy about that.”

Coada continued, pointing to decisions the school board made that include them turning down $81,000 in carryover funding to spread evenly among teachers, instructional aides, bus drivers, and cafeteria workers.

“From my understanding, the school board turned it down because it wasn’t presented by the [board of supervisors] chairman, who was caring for his sick wife at the time, and it showed partiality among the employees,” Coada continued. “But if you go back to the slide with the proposed raises, is that showing partiality? The proposal of the one-percent raise was what the superintendent recommended, and the school board approved it. It wasn’t the board of supervisors.

“To the school board, please research your pupil expense and find out why it is so high in comparison to other districts of similar size,” Coada said as he ended his monologue. “You have had the money all along and you will have the money to do it [provide raises to teachers]!”

District 1 representative and board chairman Gilbert Smith commented that the school board is providing the funding for the school system and it’s up to the community to ask their school representatives questions.

“A whole lot of miscommunication is going on in this county,” he said. “You need to contact your school board representative and pose these questions to them.

“It’s not our decision,” Smith continued, specifically pointing to the funding and how the school system uses it. “They are trying to put words in our mouth. Take the five percent raise. Look at the school system. They are proposing one percent. What does that tell you? Are they looking out for the teachers themselves?”

Both Coada and Smith commented that they would only support a five percent raise for the school if the funding goes to SOQ (Standards of Quality) positions and would not support a one or two percent pay increase. According to Johnson, approximately 96 positions are SOQ in the school system. Those positions include 50 teachers, six administrators, principals, guidance counselors, and instructional assistants. Positions not covered under the SOQ are food service workers, drivers, and mechanics.

County supervisors plan to adopt the budget at its May 26 regular board meeting.