Paraprofessionals propose two-tier pay matrix and ask district to run budget numbers

Carrie presented a draft pay matrix showing “what it would look like if … we were given a $150 raise each,” prompting a hours-and-costs review and debate about how step-based increments multiply through a paraprofessional salary matrix. Stacy Leon, vice chair of the school board, and other committee members discussed how a percent increase to the base multiplies through index points and can produce larger percentage increases for longer-tenured steps.

The meeting focused on two related proposals. One would apply a flat $150-per-cell increase across the existing paraprofessional matrix; the other would split paraprofessionals into two classifications — Par 1 and Par 2 — so roles with higher-skill duties (for example, tube feeding or life-skills supports) would start at higher pay and receive higher step increments. Jamie, identified in the introductions as an assistant principal, described the two-tier approach: the Par 2 classification would cover more demanding special-education duties and “the steps would be a little bit higher” to compensate those responsibilities.

Committee members repeatedly raised budget and fairness questions. Several speakers noted the existing matrix contains irregular increments that were likely built around historical clusters of employees, producing “weird” dollar changes at year five or year ten. Carrie said the spreadsheet she brought was illustrative and requested Deian run the proposal with real hours and pay cells so the district could see the exact fiscal impact. The group agreed that having an electronic spreadsheet would make it easier to compare scenarios and avoid underbudgeting.

Members discussed operational consequences if classifications changed. Several expressed concern that reclassifying positions should not displace experienced life-skills paraprofessionals whose continuity benefits students; they recommended filling new openings by posting and advertising them rather than automatically moving current staff into different roles. The committee also discussed required training, a 90-day probationary “bump” (an 80-cent increase after probation), and a two-week notice policy for required professional development sessions that could affect staffing and leave planning.

There was no formal vote. The committee directed staff to have Deian populate the proposed matrices with actual numbers and circulate the cleaned spreadsheet; members agreed to reconvene Monday at 4 p.m. to review the budgeted scenarios, and they signaled a preference for a minimum two-year contract term rather than a one-year agreement if an increase is adopted.