Laserfiche WebLink
170 <br /> <br />(JLARC) methodo'logy. Delegate Allen stated that he was <br />concerned that the 10% salary increase did not include <br />fringe benefits and felt the pay scale should be considered <br />and not the average salary. Delegate Allen added that he felt <br />the localities with low teacher-student ratios were <br />adversely affected. Delegate Allen suggested that <br />localities be given incentives for increasing teacher <br />salaries instead of penalties if they do not. <br /> <br /> Mr. Frank Bahram, Executive Director of the Virginia <br />School Board Association, stated that proposed State <br />legislation included: mandating that localities use 50% <br />of sales tax monies for teacher salary increases; a <br />composite ratio which will ble used to determine how <br />much of the S146 per pupil will go to localities; and a <br />new methodology for funding proposed by JLARC which has <br />never been used. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ned Carr, also of the Virginia School Board <br />Association, stated that the Association agreed with the <br />State's objective to increase teacher salaries, but <br />objected to that being the only emphasis for better <br />education. Mr. Carr listed the following amendments to <br />the State legislation which were being proposed by the <br />Virginia School Board Association: 1) delete mandatory <br />language, 2) delete reference to "Transitional Component" <br />in the JLARC methodology designed to ameliorate affects <br />of the increase, 3) amend the per pupil amount in the first <br />year from $2,213 to $2,215, 4) amend the per pupil <br />amount in the second year from $2,279 to $2,346, and <br />5) use the $146 per pupil as a Teacher Salary Incentive <br />Fund. <br /> <br /> Mr. Carr added that the Virginia School Board <br />Association had provided the following two amendments <br />designed to pressure localities that are not improving <br />salaries: 1) maintenance of effort - localities cannot <br />decrease their local contribution as the State share <br />increases, and 2) an appropriate portion of the $146 per <br />pupil would be borne by localities localities must <br />increase their funds above the maintenance level to <br />receive State funds. This would provide an incentive for <br />poorer localities. <br /> <br /> Mr. Herb Cottrill of the City School administration, <br />noted that Charlottesville uses al/ of its sales tax and <br />more for teacher salaries, that Charlottesville presently <br />receives only one third of the State funds, that the <br />composite index will significantly hurt Charlottesville, <br />and that Charlottesville will take a big cut in categorical <br />items. <br /> <br /> Delegate Van Yahres stated that a stress analysis will <br />be done to show how each locality is stressed. Delegate <br />Van Yahres added that he felt the proposed methodology <br />Could work bUt there has not been ample time to study it. <br /> <br /> On a question from Timothy Lindstrom, member of the <br />Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, concerning how <br />advanced the proposals are, Delegate Allen stated that he <br />felt the mandate issue could be omitted or made more <br />palatable, but he was not su sure that the methodology <br />could be stopped. <br /> <br /> Mr. Carr added that he felt a compromise could be <br />reached on the mandating requirement, but felt the JLARC <br />methodology had been accepted politically. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gerald Fisher, Chairman of the Albemarle County <br />Board of Supervisors, stated that he had heard that the <br />stress factors were to benefit cities and questioned how <br />the process can be assessed without understanding the <br />methodology. <br /> <br /> <br />