When Lakeland School District’s supplement levy passed earlier this week, trustees and the superintendent took a moment to celebrate. 

But they could not ignore the district’s hard budget realities. 

Trustees spent most of their Wednesday meeting discussing a potential move to a four-day school week, in hopes of saving money. 

Then, on Thursday afternoon, Chief Financial Officer Jessica Grantham teared up during a bargaining meeting with the teachers’ union, explaining the new state-mandated minimum salaries that would result in 44% raises for some employees and likely nothing for anyone else. 

The situation highlights an issue that plagues many rural districts, which offer small community schools that require additional staff. It also highlights the challenge in North Idaho, where districts compete for staff with nearby Washington. 

New minimums, major headache

When Lakeland trustees approved putting a $15 million, two-year levy on the ballot back in January, they signed off on major cuts. 

The district, which serves about 4,600 students, has dealt with cuts in recent years. Then, in November, Lakeland’s $19 million two-year levy failed. 

Trustees held months of contentious meetings on whether to forgo the levy and cut 25% of the district’s budget, or run a reduced levy in May. Ultimately, trustees cut $4 million from the levy ask — resulting in 25 classified staff members losing their jobs, among other cuts. 

The levy passed Tuesday, with 67% support. 

In the background, Grantham was working on two budget blueprints while sorting through a state requirement that shocked many districts: new salary minimums. 

“The state dropped a bombshell on everyone,” Grantham said Thursday. “There was no time to pivot on this. There was no time to plan.”

The Legislature, as in years past, approved 5% raises for K-12 public school teachers and pupil services staff. Those raises often don’t equate to 5% when they reach teachers. In many districts, including Lakeland, administrators hire more teachers and pay higher salaries than state funding supports. 

There was one major difference this year, however: Schools must meet minimum salaries that incorporate statewide raises from two years ago. Then a 5% raise was then added on top of those higher minimums. 

In Lakeland, that meant an increase in minimum salary from $47,477 to $50,252.

While Lakeland’s minimum was higher than many districts, the new rule still constitutes $280,000 in raises spread across 146 certified staff. 

“This is the thing that has probably given me the most heartburn in the last two months other than waiting to see if the levy was going to pass,” Grantham said. 

The change came after most districts had submitted their supplemental levy ballot language, making it impossible to increase the ask to meet the salary minimums.

Lakeland got about $600,000 in additional state funds this year. The mandated raises will eat up nearly half of that money, Grantham said. 

 One factor forcing such large increases in Lakeland is its past decision to pay Advanced Professional Endorsement stipends, rather than adding the money into qualifying teachers’ base salaries. 

Those stipends do not count toward state minimum pay, Grantham said, leaving Lakeland’s salary schedule artificially low. 

While there’s some support within the district for moving those stipends into base pay, it’s unlikely teachers receiving stipends would also get raises — leaving their salaries stagnant.

Considering four-day

Lakeland’s trustees have made it clear: they want to reduce reliance on supplemental levies. 

With that goal in mind, Superintendent Lisa Arnold Wednesday recommended moving to a four-day school week. 

The idea is that Lakeland would save money on transportation and utility costs by having buildings closed one day a week. But there’s little evidence that a four-day school week has more than a negligible effect on districts’ budgets. 

Lakeland trustee and retired superintendent Bob Jones was skeptical of the plan, as was Trustee Randi Bain. 

“The calculations of savings amount to less than half a percent of our total budget and it just seems to me this is an extreme method to find that kind of savings,” Jones said. “We’ve heard no other reason to do this other than the dollar savings.” 

Vice chair Ramona Grissom supported the idea, but more as a way to revamp the educational system and less as a money saver. Grissom said she wants more community input before voting for the shift. 

Trustee David Quimby asked that parents with young children be surveyed separately to assess their childcare needs.

The board tabled the idea for the 2025-26 school year and asked Arnold to conduct parent and community outreach to assess the desire for a shift.