Moscow School District negotiators voted to add prekindergarten to the district's K–5 special‑education caseload language in the negotiated agreement, a change supporters said would align the preschool teacher's workload with other special‑education positions.

The committee agreed to expand the existing K–5 special‑education caseload line to explicitly include pre‑K. Supporters said the preschool teacher performs duties like a special‑education teacher, including maintaining Individualized Education Program (IEP) paperwork, coordinating therapies and IEP meetings, and providing classroom instruction across short sessions.

Negotiators said the district's preschool program serves students whose needs require substantial adult support. Committee members who reviewed the preschool teacher's description said the teacher handles both a special‑education caseload and separate teaching duties: 16 students were listed on the teacher's special‑education caseload, 22 students attend district preschool sessions in two half‑day sessions, and a total of about 30 students were said to be served districtwide when part‑day speech‑only students and three Head Start placements are included. The preschool classroom is staffed with one full‑time para and an additional 1:1 aide for a medically fragile student; occupational, physical and speech therapists rotate into the classroom.

Committee members discussed how the district currently applies a 1.5 weighting for students with 'significant needs' in elementary caseload calculations and whether that approach should extend to preschool. Members noted that many preschool students are on IEPs for speech‑language issues and that paper‑work and coordination demands can be similar to those in K–5 special‑education positions even when direct instructional time is part‑day.

The meeting also reviewed how preschool services are funded. Participants said the district receives federal preschool dollars (a figure cited in discussion was about $28,025 for preschool federal funds), Medicaid reimbursement for some therapy services, and general‑fund support for the classroom teacher and speech‑language pathologists. Committee members cautioned that teacher salary and total employer cost vary; during the meeting figures referenced a typical total teacher cost in the range the district uses for budgeting.

Board negotiators considered two options: (1) add pre‑K to the existing K–5 special‑education caseload line, or (2) create a separate pre‑K line with distinct caseload numbers. After discussion about the program's distinct schedule (two half‑day sessions, Monday push‑ins to community providers, and rolling enrollments as children turn age 3) and about parity with other special‑education protections, the committee chose option 1: add pre‑K to the K–5 special‑education caseload language. Staff were directed to draft the precise contractual language and return it for review.

Committee members said additional work remains: confirming which preschool students would count as 'significant needs' under the existing weighting, verifying whether the preschool teacher has been included historically in paperwork‑day calculations equal to other special‑education staff, and clarifying how Head Start placements and students who receive only speech services will be reflected in caseload accounting.

Members asked that the staff draft clarify implementation details and overage remedies already specified elsewhere in the negotiated agreement (for example, additional paperwork days and per‑student overage compensation once a caseload exceeds the maximum for a specified duration). The committee also discussed potential recruitment and retention effects if caseloads are set too high.

The committee vote: negotiators used a dot‑vote process; the board selected the option to add pre‑K to the K–5 special‑education caseload line. Staff will return draft language for the next meeting.

Ending: The committee placed the drafted contract change on the follow‑up list and asked staff to return with precise contract wording and caseload calculation examples so the parties could confirm implementation and budget consequences before final adoption.