Gasconade County R-2 Board of Education directors tabled a decision on the district’s 2026-27 salary schedules on Monday night after a tie vote stalled discussions. Members requested Assistant Superintendent Dr. Staci Johnson review what the increase to the budget would be before they move for a final vote.

Johnson introduced the May 18 discussion with two proposals.

“The first is $500 added to the base pay, and a 1.2 percent increase added to the classified salary schedule,” Johnson began. “The second is a salary schedule that has $1,000 added to the base pay and a classified salary schedule of a 2.4 percent increase.”

Johnson provided the board with a packet to outline how the district currently compares with neighboring districts’ salary schedules. She added that in the last five years, they have lost teachers to their competitors in Washington and Union the most, not counting those who have completely left the profession. They have taken on new teachers from more than 30 different districts, and another 60 who are recent college graduates.

“That’s all something to consider as you look at the salary schedules,” Johnson said.

While the district is not going to be able to compete with Washington, they are still competitive.

“The other thing I wanted to just throw up for you to look at when you’re thinking about salaries, I went back and relooked at the Missouri state statute that has established a new minimum teacher pay of $40,000. It’s very interesting that in that statute, they establish the new minimum teacher salary of $40,000, and then they establish a master’s plus 10 (years), but only on the master’s plus 10 (years) do they increase that for the next three years. It’s not the $40,000 that’s necessarily going up, it’s the master’s plus 10 that’s written into that statute.”

Johnson said the statute says it takes effect at the beginning of the 2028-29 school year, and the minimum teacher salary in the state of Missouri will depend on the consumer price index for that year. This year, it is almost 3 percent, so she reviewed what that may look like going forward.

“That doesn’t mean that we have to raise our entire salary schedule 3 percent,” Johnson said. “If we are ahead of the minimum, we have options about how much of a raise we give each year. The minimum is what has to increase by law.”

With local, state and federal funding expected to be unpredictable and uncertain over the next three to five years, Johnson looked at what the district could do now.

“If we were able to give $1,000 to the base this year, and then we were only able to give $500 for the next three years — because we are looking at a few tight years — that would keep us ahead of the state minimum all the way through 2030-31,” Johnson said. “If we give $500 this year, and we’re able to give $500 continuing for the next three years, that would get us to below the minimum by 2030-31. We would have to add more than $500 (to the base) in order to keep up.”

Adding $500 to the base and 1.2 percent to the classified salary will increase the district’s salary budget by $125,000, bringing the total to $521,000 for the year. If the board chose to add the $1,000 to the teacher base, with a 2.4 percent increase to the classified staff salary, the budget would increase by $144,000, for a total of $666,000 for the year.

The board discussed whether the numbers were correct. Johnson said the demographic of younger teachers reflects the minimum salary. Additionally, the extra-duty pay is calculated as 7 percent of the teacher’s base salary.

“The big increase that you would see is your classified salaries and your certified salaries and benefits,” Johnson said.

Member Debbie Landolt asked for the numbers to be re-run. Johnson said the extra duty increases were not calculated, so under the second option, salary increases go from $192,000 to $278,000 and classified salaries increase from $87 to $131. Extra duty stipends will increase to $8,000 total for 507 teachers.

“The most expensive thing in either plan is longevity,” Johnson said, adding that incentivizing teachers encourages them to stay.

Board President Glenn Ely opened the discussion to the board, adding that he is for the $500 increase to the base pay. He reasoned that all districts are experiencing the same issue, and they want to focus on building retention.

Crowe said he wants the district to pay the teachers as much as they can, but the key word is “can.”

“I think that that’s probably a good recommendation (for the $500),” Crowe said. “Given uncertainty going forward with overall funding, and then if things change, or if we see things are getting better than what we thought, we obviously always go with a larger increase than $500 later on.”

Ely said if they want to grow, they need everyone to invest. The most important influential people outside of the home environment are quality teachers. He is also concerned that losing teachers will lead to larger class sizes that make it harder for the teacher to teach.

Board member Kari Nolting said if the difference between adding $500 to the base or $1,000 is $143,000, then $1,000 is where she lands.

Ely said it is important to clarify the number before they decide.

Member Kaylynne Neiderer said she could see both arguments. Member Jenni Crosby agreed with Nolting.

Landolt said she agreed with Crowe, and the district offers more than just salaries; it offers daycare and benefits packages. She was for finding different ways to assist families to retain staff.

“I guess I’m just for the $500 right now,” Landolt said, adding that next year could be different.

Nolting said she felt the opposite, knowing next year could be harder.

Ely called for a vote to approve the $500 to the teachers’ base salary and 1.2 percent to the classified salary schedule. Ely, Crowe and Landolt voted yes, while Nolting, Neiderer and Crosby voted no. With member Keith Glaser absent, Ely said the tied 3-3 vote failed. He asked for another motion to be entertained.

Landolt asked for the numbers to be run again and revisited. The discussion was tabled.