The conversation on the six-period supplement highlighted concerns regarding its impact on school budgets, with consensus among committee members on the value of maintaining the supplement structure. Despite its importance, the financial strain it imposes on school principals was a point of discussion. Principals often resort to the six-period supplement as a stopgap when vacancies cannot be filled through traditional hiring methods. A principal shared an example of using a six-period supplement to manage a specific program, negotiating with existing staff to take on extra responsibilities. This practice, while necessary, often leads to financial challenges, particularly for middle schools that have less access to additional funding sources compared to high schools.

The committee noted that while high school principals might tap into additional funding sources such as ACE and Cambridge funds, middle schools lack comparable resources. Compounding this issue, impending state cuts to these funds could further strain the financial landscape for high school principals. The board underscored the need for the district to recognize these unique funding challenges and consider separate funding strategies for middle and high schools.

A point of contention was the recent minimal increase of the six-period supplement, which rose by only five dollars after many years. Committee members expressed concern over its adequacy given current economic conditions, questioning the sustainability of funding such supplements under inflationary pressures. Discussions concluded with a proposal for the district to provide additional funding to alleviate the burden on schools, ensuring that they do not disproportionately bear the costs, especially those with fewer resources. The committee agreed to follow up with the district for more data and to explore potential strategies to address these financial implications.

Parallel to the budget discussions, the board addressed a survey targeting ESC teachers, focusing on refining the language to accurately reflect their diverse responsibilities. Concerns were raised about the terminology, specifically the use of the term “models” to describe the responsibilities of ESC teachers. A participant suggested focusing on “duties or tasks” instead, as ESC teachers often perform multiple roles, including consultations, support, and direct instruction.

Clarification was offered on the term “model,” which refers to different service delivery methods such as direct instruction, support facilitation, and consultation. These distinct functions influence the duties assigned to teachers based on student IEPs. A consensus emerged around rephrasing the survey question to “select all the different models of services or duties,” aiming to enhance clarity and better capture the responsibilities of ESC teachers.

The board emphasized the need for a clear strategy to analyze survey responses, which would inform future negotiations and recommendations. The importance of maintaining the integrity of the data by ensuring responses were limited to one per individual was also noted. As the meeting progressed, discussion shifted to logistics concerning the survey timeline, with a proposed distribution date within a day or two and responses collected by April 25th. A follow-up meeting was tentatively scheduled for early May to review the data.

Participants agreed on the importance of sharing survey results with relevant team members ahead of time, fostering transparency and collaboration. The board concluded with a commitment to promptly send out the survey and organize the follow-up meeting, emphasizing the importance of supporting ESC teachers and enhancing their effectiveness in the classroom.