Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
IBB endorses drafting MOU to add two paid contract days for special-education teachers
Summary
Moscow School District IBB members agreed informally to pursue a one‑year memorandum of understanding to offer two optional paid contract days for building special‑education teachers, with a projected maximum cost of about $15,000 this year; two members volunteered to draft the MOU for board review.
Get email alerts on the Personnel Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Moscow — Members of the Moscow School District Instructional Bargaining Board on May 1 agreed, by informal thumbs‑up consensus, to pursue a memorandum of understanding that would offer building special‑education teachers two additional paid contract days next year. The district estimated the maximum cost at about $14,906 for a two‑day option, based on current placements on the salary matrix.
Board and staff members said the extra days would be optional for employees and intended to provide prep/training time at the bookends of the regular contract year so special‑education teachers could prepare rooms, set schedules for paras and conduct required trainings. Participants noted the cost would fall if staff members declined the option.
The discussion emphasized scope: the proposal covers in‑building special‑education teachers and district‑assigned positions that function like building special‑education teachers. It does not include preschool teachers, school psychologists or counselors, which remain separate conversations.
District staff proposed handling the arrangement as a one‑year MOU (or white paper) so it could be tried for a year and removed if it did not work. Members agreed that the MOU should specify that the district’s maximum cost for this year would be approximately $15,000 and that the MOU would be presented for ratification through the district’s regular negotiation and board‑ratification process.
As a result of the thumbs‑up consensus, two participants volunteered to draft and clean up the MOU language and place a clean copy in the white‑paper communique folder for membership review. The IBB noted the MOU would be part of the negotiated materials the board reviews when it ratifies negotiation outcomes.
The IBB also discussed implementation details: whether the days would be scheduled at the beginning or end of the school year, whether days could be taken flexibly during the year, and whether the days should be dictated as contract days or be expressly designated for prep/training. Members favored scheduling the days at the start or end of the contract period and leaving some flexibility to staff so the time could be used for prep, training or paperwork, subject to building needs.
Next steps: the drafted MOU will be circulated to membership and included in the white‑paper bundle; the board will see the MOU as part of ratification. The district will treat the $14,906 figure as an upper estimate and clarify final costs at the salary negotiations stage.

