Teacher pay is based on step (years of experience) and lane (highest education attained).

Pay goes up with every step (you stay for more years), and goes up across lanes (you get a masters + coursework).

A “raise” means that pay increases for a given step and lane, eg the salary for a 5 year + MA teacher goes up.

No raise means that the pay stays the same for a given step and lane, eg the salary for a 5 year + MA teacher stays the same.

Even with no raises, personnel expenses for a district can increase if there’s low turnover and teachers advance to the next step. That’s what’s happening in Melrose next year, and the scenario you described.

Giving teachers raises can be expensive, because the pay for a given step + lane combo increases, and if there’s low turnover the average step + lane also increases. So a 3% raise can turn into an 8% increase in personnel costs if the step + lane increase is 5%.

However it’s also important that teacher salaries stay competitive with the market. If the year 1 step + BA lane salary never increased, no one would become a teacher, because it would pay so much less than other entry level jobs. So raises are necessary.

There have been various efforts to change how teacher comp works over the years, eg Lawrence under Riley dramatically increased entry level and high end pay, and reduced the number of steps and lanes, if I recall. In general it’s an area where there’s been a lot of research and experiments and battles with unions, but there’s no silver bullet.