The Caldwell School District is considering cutting some employee benefits next school year and using a portion of the district’s fund balance to offset a state-mandated hike in minimum teacher salaries. 

The recommendations from Caldwell administrators come after the Legislature and Idaho Department of Education this year directed school districts to pay minimum salaries that include recent state-funded teacher raises. Most school districts across Idaho — including Caldwell — hadn’t fully incorporated $6,359 per-teacher raises, passed by the Legislature in 2023, into their minimum salaries, and will have to make up the difference in 2025-26.

Lifting salaries to match the minimums will cost $2 million in Caldwell.

School boards this month are setting budgets and negotiating teacher contracts ahead of the next fiscal year, which starts July 1. 

During a budget workshop Monday, Caldwell administrators made recommendations for offsetting the increased salary costs, but trustees didn’t vote on them. The school board also didn’t decide one other weighty agenda item — whether the district will continue to charge sports fees next school year.

The board is scheduled to continue the budget and fee talks June 16.

Administrators propose benefits cuts to offset minimums

Cheryl Sanderson, Caldwell’s chief financial officer, presented district administrators’ budget recommendations to the school board Monday.

After negotiating with the local teachers’ union and taking feedback from committees, administrators recommended replacing Caldwell’s salary schedule with one that more closely aligns with the state’s career ladder. The career ladder is a funding allocation model that guides how many state dollars school districts and charter schools receive to pay teachers and pupil service staff. Districts haven’t traditionally used the career ladder as a salary schedule, because they often hire more teachers and pay higher salaries than the state supports, but the career ladder reflects the required minimums.

Sanderson said the minimums will be beneficial in one sense — they’ll set a new state standard for teacher pay.  “But it has a huge impact on districts,” she added. “This was always used as a funding model, not necessarily a salary schedule model.”

Caldwell’s new proposed salary schedule would present a mixed bag for teachers and certified staff, depending on their career-ladder placement. Starting pay, for instance, would jump from $43,118 to $50,252, a 16.5% increase. The top rung of the salary schedule, on the other hand, would increase just 1.2%, from $73,867 to $74,800.

Meanwhile, classified staff and administrators could see 2% raises next school year, Sanderson said. 

Altogether, implementing the minimums will cost $2 million, Sanderson said.  That’s about $1.5 million more than Caldwell received in regular salary increases from the state, after lawmakers approved a 5% increase for salaries next fiscal year. 

Sanderson proposed cutting the district’s benefits costs to make up the difference. 

Caldwell’s medical insurance premium will jump 7.1% next fiscal year, she said. The district historically has covered increasing premiums, but next year’s hike could be passed on to employees enrolled in the insurance plan. The district’s benefits committee endorsed that idea over a separate option that called for increasing employees’ medical deductible by $1,000, Sanderson said. The district could also make vision benefits optional, she said. 

If approved, these changes would mean employees pay $56.45 per month for medical coverage, and those who opt for vision coverage would pay $7.88 per month.

Sanderson also proposed using about $740,000 from the district’s $9 million fund balance to cover some of the increased salary costs. Overall, Caldwell would spend $46.5 million next school year, a 14.6% increase, with most going to salaries and benefits.

During a brief discussion Monday, trustees criticized the Legislature for “forcing” the salary minimums on districts. “Unfunded mandates,” are complicating local budgeting, said board chair Travis Manning. “It puts undue pressure on school districts, unfortunately.”

Looking to next school year, Manning emphasized the importance of student attendance — the primary factor in the state’s school funding formula. This year, average daily attendance was 90%, five percentage points below the state average. 

“That’s critical, that families get their kids to school, and not just so that we have the money we need,” Manning said. “They need to learn. That’s really why we’re here, to help our students grow and learn.”

Board punts vote on sports fees

Also Monday, Caldwell trustees punted a decision on whether to continue to charge fees to play high school sports. 

Caldwell has required sports fees since about 2018, said Superintendent Shalene French. But the district started enforcing them in 2024-25, after voters in May last year rejected a supplemental levy covering athletics, among other operational costs. 

Since voters approved a followup levy request in November, French asked trustees Monday whether the sports fees should continue in 2025-26. Caldwell charges $100 for district students and between $300 and $460 for non-district students, which includes those attending charter schools, private schools or home-schools. 

Trustee Andrew Butler argued for keeping the fees, which represent a “buy-in” to participate in team sports. Outside of public schools, sports aren’t free, he said. “I don’t understand why it’s a big deal when there’s no other place that has free athletics.”

Other board members didn’t appear opposed to upholding the fees, but trustees Manuel Godina, Marisela Pesina and Manning suggested they could be lower. “I think the fees are a little high,” Godina said. 

The board unanimously voted to delay a vote while trustees await more input from district administrators.