Winchester Board approves three-year paraeducator contract, adopts policy updates; superintendent outlines budget pressures and facility plans

The Winchester Public School Board of Education unanimously approved a three-year paraeducator contract and a package of policy updates during its Feb. 10 regular meeting, while the superintendent outlined budget pressures and a set of facility and staffing initiatives ahead of the district’s budget referendum season.

The contract, ratified earlier by the paraeducator union, sets a starting wage of $18.91 an hour for paraeducators and includes a 3% general wage increase annually plus step increases that move employees to higher pay columns after five years. “If you take 183 days that the paras work times their hours, their salary is $22,493,” the superintendent said in presenting the terms and summarized the district’s projected cost of the settlement as an 11.7% increase over three years. The board approved the contract by unanimous vote.

Why it matters: the contract affects roughly 34–35 paraeducators in the district and was incorporated into the budget planning the superintendent presented to the board. Board approval finalizes terms the union already ratified and commits the district to the projected multi-year cost increase.

Board action and other votes

• Policy updates (items 1–12): The board adopted required updates to policies including nondiscrimination, meal-charging and purchasing rules, moving the set of items on a single read and approving them unanimously. Those updates were described as required to reflect changes in law and to update addresses and administrative details where needed.

• Paraeducator contract (three-year): Approved unanimously after the superintendent and staff explained wage steps, the annual general wage increase and budget treatment.

Details from the superintendent’s report

The superintendent emphasized constraints and a tight projection for the fiscal year, saying, “As it sits today, looks like we will escape with $12,000 to spare,” when describing the projected year-end balance. She explained that personnel savings (about $565,000 in unfilled positions) are largely offset by nonpersonnel overages (about $553,000), driven in part by unplanned special-education costs and out-of-district transportation. On McKinney-Vento related transportation, board discussion cited about $60,000 spent so far this year.

On capital planning and facilities, the superintendent said the board of selectmen voted to send a proposed roof project to referendum and town staff are drafting referendum language; the selectmen are targeting a March vote though the exact date remained under consideration at the time of the meeting. For a proposed preschool project, town manager Paul Harrington engaged Downs Construction to deliver conceptual drawings and an estimate under a professional-services allocation; the superintendent described the engagement as a conceptual (non-bid) step aimed at clarifying possible scope and cost.

Superintendent also highlighted curriculum and extracurricular items: a districtwide literacy night funded by an approximate $4,500 Dollar General grant that allowed students to select books, and an after‑school drone competition program with multiple teams and an upcoming hosting event scheduled for March 14.

What’s next

The board and superintendent continue to refine the FY27 budget in coming weeks and expect additional workshops and a public referendum process for the roof project. The principal search process is underway with job postings and stakeholder surveys; the superintendent said the district is aiming to present a finalist to the board in April if timelines hold.

Votes at a glance

• Paraeducator contract (3‑year) — Motion to accept as presented; mover: Board member (motion recorded by the meeting); outcome: approved unanimously. • Policy updates (items 1–12) — Motion to approve on single read; outcome: approved unanimously.

All quotes and attributions are drawn from the meeting record; where a speaker’s full personal name was not provided in the transcript, the article uses the speaker’s role (for example, “Superintendent” or “Board member”) for attribution.