“We Were Getting Those Funds, and We Weren't Giving Them to Our Employees”: TJCA Leaders Admit Pay Failures While Questioning Staff Quality

What happened: On November 5, 2024, Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy's Finance Committee met to review the school's finances and consider a proposal to provide employees with additional compensation in recognition of its 25th anniversary. The meeting began with a favorable financial report. TJCA had approximately $8.3 million in cash and cash equivalents, substantial reserves, and nearly 200 days of reported cash on hand. But the discussion soon revealed another side of the Academy's financial management. Administrator Jodi Isaacs was advocating for a $229,000 staff bonus. In explaining why the proposed payment should be treated separately from state-funded retention bonuses employees had recently received, she disclosed something extraordinary about TJCA's earlier practices. At approximately 16:21, Isaacs told the committee: "We were getting those funds, and we weren't giving them to our employees."

She was referring to state funding intended for employee retention. Isaacs continued: "Charter schools have the flexibility to not give them to their employees, but the money is earmarked from the state to the employees." According to Isaacs, she and Jason Cole changed the practice after discovering it. "Since Jason and I have come aboard, we've made sure that that money goes straight to the employees." The admission raises questions about how TJCA previously handled public funding intended to support its workforce.

The school had received money designated for employee retention. Its employees had not received that money. And the people responsible for changing the practice apparently discovered it only after assuming their administrative positions. The committee did not establish how much money had been involved, which fiscal years were affected, or how the earlier administration had spent those allocations. But Isaacs's disclosure was only the beginning.

Over the next half hour, the committee heard that TJCA offered no local teacher salary supplement, had historically paid some employees below state salary standards, was losing experienced educators, and had increased class sizes without increasing staffing.

Then Isaacs delivered an assessment of the Academy's newer personnel: "Our new staff that come in are not strong people." Taken together, the statements describe an institution whose leadership understood that its compensation practices were putting pressure on employees and making recruitment increasingly difficult. Yet the proposed additional compensation was postponed.

What was established:

State money intended for employee retention had not been reaching employees

Isaacs's disclosure about the earlier retention funds is the most consequential statement in the recording. The administration was not merely acknowledging that employees had been underpaid or that TJCA's compensation packages were less competitive than neighboring districts. It was acknowledging that the school had received state retention funding and previously exercised its discretion not to distribute that money to staff. Isaacs characterized the funds as intended for employees, even while asserting that charter schools had flexibility over their distribution. That distinction deserves careful examination. North Carolina has established multiple employee bonus and retention programs, and the requirements governing charter schools have varied by appropriation. The recording does not identify the specific programs involved or establish that TJCA violated a particular funding restriction.

What it establishes is that TJCA's own administrator considered the previous practice sufficiently troubling that she and Cole changed it. The important questions are financial and institutional. How much retention funding did TJCA receive during the affected years? Who decided not to distribute it? Was the Board informed? How was the money subsequently used? Were employees ever told that retention allocations had been received on the school's behalf?

Isaacs offered no accounting of the earlier funds. Instead, she explained that the administration had begun distributing the state-funded bonuses to employees, including the retention money paid in 2024. That change was welcome. It does not answer what happened to the money employees previously did not receive.

TJCA expected more work from teachers without proportionately increasing staffing

Isaacs then described an institution that had benefited financially from enrollment growth while asking existing employees to shoulder the additional workload. She said TJCA's enrollment had increased substantially, bringing in approximately $600,000 to $700,000 in additional funding.

But the school had not increased staffing accordingly. "We didn't increase our staff at all. We just had larger class sizes. People worked harder, uh, with what we had."

This was not an allegation from a dissatisfied former employee—It was the administration's own description of how TJCA had operated. More students meant more money for the school. For teachers, it meant larger classes and additional work. And Isaacs acknowledged that the additional effort had helped produce substantial financial surpluses. She argued that employees deserved to share in the institution's financial success. "I can't beg enough that I really think that we need to take care of the employees that we have."

The implication was difficult to miss. TJCA had recognized the financial advantages of expanding enrollment without expanding staffing. Its employees were still waiting for comparable recognition of the work that made those savings possible.

Employees had been paid less than neighboring public school teachers

Isaacs also acknowledged that TJCA was not providing the additional local salary supplements available to teachers in surrounding school districts. "We don't give anything beyond the state scale." She explained that traditional public school systems generally supplemented the state salary schedule with additional local compensation. Using figures presented to the committee, Isaacs compared TJCA's compensation with Rutherford, Cleveland, Polk, and other nearby school systems. She argued that the absence of a local supplement made it difficult for TJCA to compete for experienced educators. A separate exchange revealed that the problem extended further back.

When a committee member defended the school's salary increases over the preceding five years, Issacs responded: "That's just brought us up to state standards though."

Issacs then added that many employees had worked below state standards for much of their time at TJCA. That exchange exposed a significant difference in how the leadership characterized the school's investments in personnel. One perspective celebrated recent increases. The other recognized those increases as belated corrections to years of inadequate compensation.

For employees who had spent years earning less than the state salary schedule, finally reaching that standard was not evidence of exceptional generosity. It was evidence of how far behind TJCA had allowed their compensation to fall.

The administration questioned the quality of its own new hires

Perhaps the most startling part of the meeting came when Isaacs discussed TJCA's recruitment difficulties. At approximately 22:35, she described the summer of 2024 as the worst hiring season she had experienced at the Academy. She said the school was receiving relatively few applications, and even the candidates selected for consideration often failed to impress administrators. "We may get very few resumes, and out of the, say, five resumes, resumes we get, there's two of them that we wanna call, and we're really not even that impressed with that." She added: "So it's not like we've got quality people coming, begging, knocking on our doors."

The comments reflected serious dissatisfaction with TJCA's applicant pool.

Then, at approximately 29:08, Isaacs went further. "I'm telling you, if we don't start investing in our staff, it, it's, it's... We're gonna have a problem. Our new staff that come in are not strong people, and every little bit makes a huge difference." This was a senior administrator expressing concern not only about recruitment but also about the perceived quality of some people the Academy was already hiring. The statement was Isaacs's assessment, not an independent evaluation of the qualifications or professional competence of individual employees. It was also directed at newer staff, rather than every teacher employed by TJCA. Nevertheless, the implications are serious. TJCA's administration believed it was losing experienced employees, struggling to recruit capable replacements, and bringing in new personnel it did not consider strong enough. And this was being discussed in the same meeting where additional compensation for employees was being treated as a financial risk.

That is a remarkable position for an educational institution to find itself in. The Board was being warned that existing employees were difficult to retain and replacements were falling short of administrative expectations. Yet it hesitated over additional compensation that its own administrator believed could help address the problem. The criticism falls squarely on the Academy's leadership. If TJCA believes its new employees are inadequately prepared or poorly suited to their positions, then recruitment, compensation, hiring, and professional development are leadership responsibilities. An institution cannot blame employees for failing to meet its expectations while refusing to confront the conditions under which it recruits and retains them.

TJCA reported substantial reserves while leaders worried that bonuses would create expectations

At the same meeting, the Academy's financial services representative reported approximately $8.3 million in cash and cash equivalents. Isaacs cited a $1,194,000 surplus from the previous fiscal year. The school's financial position was not without qualifications. Some cash represented state funds subject to repayment, while Board members discussed capital projects, future enrollment uncertainty, and Employee Retention Credit funds they considered prudent to preserve. The proposed $229,000 anniversary bonus was also outside the approved budget. But those considerations were only part of the discussion. Several participants expressed concern that providing employees with additional money would create expectations for future payments.

At approximately 25:33, board chair Doug Grondahl warned: "If we set a precedence giving a Christmas bonus, for example, um, people, people quickly have the expectation. And they will say, 'Where's the Christmas bonus?'" The worry was not simply whether TJCA could afford the proposal—it was also whether compensating employees now might establish an expectation that the school would compensate them again.

Other participants suggested delaying a possible bonus until employees renewed their contracts or returned for another school year. The discussion increasingly focused on how additional money could be used to secure employee retention rather than simply reward work already performed.

Isaacs pushed back. She emphasized that teachers were making career decisions well before the next school year and that TJCA needed to remain competitive. "And money talks. It's, I mean, at the end of the day, in this economy, money talks." Her argument was straightforward: TJCA could not expect experienced educators to remain indefinitely on the strength of loyalty, school culture, or promises of future recognition.

The proposed bonus was postponed

Despite Isaacs's repeated appeals, the Finance Committee did not approve an immediate recommendation for the $229,000 payment. Members discussed additional funding options, alternative retention programs, possible changes to longevity bonuses, and further review by the Executive Committee. By the end of the discussion, the proposal had been deferred. The committee's next step was to send it to the Executive Committee for additional consideration.

For staff, that meant no immediate decision on the proposed additional pay.

Why this matters: There is a particularly ugly contradiction at the center of this meeting.

TJCA's leadership acknowledged that employees had worked larger classes without additional staffing. It acknowledged that some employees had spent years earning below state salary standards. It acknowledged that the school offered no local teacher salary supplement despite competition from surrounding districts. It acknowledged that experienced educators were leaving. And its administration openly questioned the quality of the people being recruited to replace them. Yet when a senior administrator asked the school to invest more money in its workforce, the response was hesitation, concern about precedent, and another round of committee discussions.

Worse, the meeting revealed that this was not the first time TJCA employees had been disadvantaged by the school's compensation decisions. Isaacs acknowledged that state retention funding had previously reached the Academy without reaching its employees. That money was intended to support staff retention. According to her account, the school had chosen not to distribute it. The decision may have been permissible under the particular funding rules then in effect. But the institution still owes employees an explanation of how much was involved and why the funds were used elsewhere.

The broader picture is one of priorities. The Academy accumulated substantial reserves and benefited from increased enrollment. Employees absorbed larger workloads. Experienced teachers left for competing school systems. The administration complained about the strength of new hires. And the Board worried that giving staff additional money might encourage them to expect more compensation in the future.

A school cannot build its reputation on educational excellence while treating the people delivering that education as an expense to minimize. Nor can its leadership credibly express alarm about employee quality without examining the compensation and working conditions affecting recruitment. If TJCA wants experienced, capable, committed educators, it must offer them reasons to remain. If it believes new hires are falling short, it must accept responsibility for the employment environment in which those people were recruited. And if the state previously provided money intended to retain employees, the Academy should explain exactly what happened to it.

The November 2024 recording does not portray a workforce that was indifferent to its responsibilities. It portrays an administration acknowledging that employees had worked harder, that the school had benefited financially from their efforts, and that failing to invest in them was becoming a serious institutional problem. The question is why those acknowledgments did not produce a more urgent response from the school's governing leadership. TJCA's employees deserved better than larger classes, historically inadequate pay, disparaging assessments of newer colleagues, and uncertainty about compensation funding the school had already received.

Original evidence:

• November 5, 2024, TJCA Finance Committee meeting recording, preserved in the 49-minute transcript Finance and Staff Bonus Review.

• 16:21–18:33: Isaacs acknowledges that TJCA previously received state retention funds without distributing them to employees and explains how the practice changed under her and Jason Cole.

• 18:50–24:26: Isaacs discusses the lack of local supplements, financial surpluses, recruitment difficulties, increased enrollment, and larger classes without additional staffing.

• 25:08–29:58: Committee members discuss the financial implications of staff bonuses. Isaacs questions the strength of newer staff and warns about the need to invest in employees.

• 29:48–30:23: A participant states that many employees had historically worked below the state salary standard.

• 30:27–38:47: Discussion of changing student needs, experienced teachers leaving TJCA, alternative compensation arrangements, and employee retention.

• 39:25–42:38: The committee agrees to pursue additional discussion rather than advance the proposed bonus immediately.

• TJCA Board of Directors meeting minutes, November 5, 2024.

• TJCA Board of Directors meeting minutes, December 3, 2024.

Subsequent developments: The November 5, 2024, full Board meeting minutes offered a considerably less revealing account of the Finance Committee's discussion. The official summary stated: "Retention of staff and ways to help keep staff and recognize what they do for TJ were also discussed." There was no mention of the earlier retention funding that Isaacs said employees had not received. There was no discussion of her negative assessment of newer staff, the absence of local salary supplements, or the increased workloads she described. Nor did the minutes convey the urgency of her appeals.

At the December 3, 2024, meeting, Board Chair Doug Grondahl reported that the Executive Committee had considered staff bonuses and that the discussion had been tabled until spring.

The Board minutes reviewed through May 2025 do not document approval of the original $229,000 proposal. The available record does not establish whether a later or differently structured bonus was ultimately paid.

In March 2025, the Finance Committee reported an approximately $900,000 year-to-date surplus, although the figure was expected to decline as the school year continued. The historical amounts and disposition of the earlier undistributed state retention funding remain unresolved.

TJCATruth.com is seeking records identifying the state retention allocations TJCA received before Isaacs and Cole changed the practice, how those funds were spent, and whether the Board formally authorized their use for purposes other than employee payments. Historical compensation schedules, bonus policies, and documents explaining the Academy's decisions not to provide local salary supplements would also help establish the broader financial history.

Report from the community: This entry is based primarily on statements made by TJCA administrators, financial representatives, and committee members during the recorded November 5, 2024, Finance Committee meeting. Isaacs acknowledged that previous state retention allocations had not been distributed to employees. She also described the additional workload placed upon staff, the absence of local teacher supplements, difficulties recruiting experienced educators, and dissatisfaction with the strength of incoming personnel. Another meeting participant stated that many TJCA employees had worked below state salary standards for much of their tenure. The recording does not contain testimony from employees who may have missed earlier retention payments or from newer employees affected by the administration's unfavorable assessment. Those perspectives are important. Current and former teachers, instructional assistants, custodians, and other staff members may be able to clarify how retention payments were communicated, whether employees knew about the state allocations, how salary practices changed over time, and how larger classes or understaffing affected their work.

TJCATruth.com welcomes firsthand reports from current and former TJCA employees concerning compensation, retention bonuses, workloads, staff turnover, hiring practices, and administrative treatment of employees. Particularly valuable would be communications discussing state-funded bonuses, historical pay statements, employment offers, salary schedules, and firsthand accounts of working conditions during the period described. Requests for anonymity will be respected, and identifying information will not be published without the contributor's explicit consent. All submissions will be handled with discretion and confidentiality.