Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Teacher Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teacher representative presses board over contract wording, planning-time pay and student-medication rules
Summary
A representative of the Southwest Louisiana Federation of Teachers told the board the proposed contract language reads as an 'intent to employ' rather than specifying base salary, and asked whether teachers would be paid when they miss required uninterrupted planning time; staff responded that compensation at the teacher's hourly rate is in policy and that implementation is handled case-by-case.
During public comment at the Nov. 18 meeting, Terry Johnson, who identified themself as representing the Southwest Louisiana Federation of Teachers, raised several concerns about the board’s proposed contract and compensation language.
Johnson asked whether the district would change contract language that currently reads like an "intent to employ" so that new hires would see their base salary reflected in the contract. Johnson also sought clarity about additional compensation for teachers who do not receive the minimum uninterrupted planning time required by law, saying the policy as written was "very broadly" worded and that teachers want to know whether planning-time interruptions for PLCs or IEP meetings would be compensated.
A district presenter responded that the policy states: "in addition to all other compensation to which a teacher is entitled, the school board shall compensate any teacher who has not afforded the minimum uninterrupted planning time as required by law at the effective hourly rate for that teacher." Staff said they handle such instances case-by-case and that the district will continue to work with schools to schedule planning time and provide training opportunities.
Johnson also raised concern about a medication/diabetes provision that, in their phrasing, suggested only one person on campus would know a student's condition; Johnson said that could be problematic for staff responding on playgrounds and asked whether more staff would be informed. Staff replied that medication-administration language was updated under Act 161 to accept prescriptions from providers licensed in any U.S. state and emphasized the district follows established procedures for confidentiality and for coordinating with parents and health providers.
The exchange illustrated concerns from teachers' representatives about clarity in contract language and operational details on how pay and health procedures will be implemented. Board members and staff said they will continue to clarify language and bring additional contract batches to future meetings.
