The primary focus of the meeting was on the collective bargaining negotiations between the district and the CTA. Discussions commenced with feedback on prior proposals, particularly addressing teacher planning time, after-school care, differentiated pay for Exceptional Student Education (ESE), and assault language in contracts.

The district emphasized that most elementary teachers use planning time for individual preparation without students in the classroom. Concerns were raised about potential schedule changes, especially with upcoming alterations to school start times. The district stated no significant proposals would be made regarding elementary planning at this time, advocating for continued discussions to identify specific challenges rather than implementing changes that might not address existing issues.

A notable proposal involved extending after-school childcare programs to middle schools and increasing employee discounts from 25% to 100%. The district acknowledged this inclusion but expressed concerns over the financial impact of raising the discount to 100%, estimating an annual cost exceeding $3 million. Additionally, discounts above 20% would be taxable income, potentially affecting employees’ tax obligations. Consequently, the district recommended maintaining the current discount level due to sustainability concerns.

ESE differentiated pay was another topic, with discussions highlighting a prior increase from $100 to $11,000. The district considered this a significant improvement and proposed adding school psychologists to the eligibility for ESE pay supplements. However, the district maintained that base salary increases were more favorable than the supplement increases proposed by CTA. A proposal for additional days for ESE teachers was opposed due to concerns about the negative impact on students and required services.

The meeting also addressed the additional period supplement, where the district countered a proposal to increase pay to $35 per period. It was noted that state funding for salary increases was limited, with only a 1.27% increase provided by the state. However, the district claimed to be offering a blended recurring increase of 3.32%, bringing starting teacher salaries to $53,000, which they deemed competitive.

Feedback on the assault language in contracts was positively received by the CTA, who expressed willingness to collaborate on forming a committee to discuss potential modifications for clarification while ensuring legal compliance. Both parties agreed to remove expired memorandums of understanding (MOUs) and ensure newly renewed documents were integrated into the contract properly. Consideration was given to creating a digital or print resource for employees to access active MOUs, aimed at streamlining processes and avoiding confusion about expired agreements.

Another discussion among the board members revolved around salary supplements for teachers, focusing on equity and market competitiveness. Despite previous allocations of over $2 million to supplements, budget constraints posed challenges for the current year. There was a clear intent to avoid a blanket increase across all supplements; instead, the focus was on identifying specific supplements that warranted increases based on market standing. Concerns were raised about sports sponsors and coaches feeling undervalued due to exclusion from last year’s increases. The board recognized this sentiment and emphasized the need for equitable distribution of increases.

One board member suggested considering provisions that tie supplement increases to teacher raises, as practiced in other districts. The dialogue highlighted the importance of leading in athletic supplements, with a desire to be a “state leader” in this regard. However, the inability to increase every supplement was acknowledged, leading to discussions about selectively targeting those not adjusted in prior evaluations.

A counter proposal for salary increases included a 7% raise for highly effective teachers, incorporating cost of living adjustments. The board expressed a willingness to discuss modifications to elementary school schedules to improve teacher preparation time, acknowledging the strict requirements that leave little time for teachers to prepare for their classes.

Proposals also included leniency for middle school teachers with children in aftercare programs, allowing them to avoid penalties for late pickups due to contractual obligations. The board showed openness to this request.

Discussions on extra period supplements underscored their impact on teachers’ workloads and compensation. Concerns were raised about the responsibility placed on teachers and the financial benefits to the district by avoiding hiring additional staff with full benefit packages. The district acknowledged the need for clarity on the new budgeting model and suggested providing detailed information in future discussions to foster better understanding.