Paraprofessionals and district staff haggle over tiered pay, language and potential cuts

Paraprofessionals and district representatives at a Lockwood K‑12 work session discussed a proposed three‑tier pay plan that would raise pay by 30 cents an hour for tiers one and two and 80 cents an hour for tier three while preserving the district’s attendance incentive and offering a one‑year contract.

The meeting focused on whether changes to job‑description language that limit duties for the lowest tier are workable and how the combined cost of raises and the incentive would affect staffing. Committee member Jamie pressed for clearer definitions of tier duties; district staff said they would redraft the language and circulate it for feedback.

Why it matters: Participants said the wording of job descriptions would determine who is eligible for certain duties (substitute teaching, recess or bus assignments, ABA/life‑skills support) and therefore how the compensation structure would affect morale, coverage and operational flexibility. District leaders repeatedly flagged a budget trade‑off: keeping the attendance incentive while granting the proposed raises would likely increase payroll costs enough that the district might need to eliminate positions to balance the budget.

Discussion highlights and positions

Paraprofessionals asked the district to retain a three‑tier structure but objected to language they said was too restrictive for tier one, which in the draft would limit outdoor duty and place other constraints on assignments. Several paraprofessionals said administrators typically place staff in roles but that workers want input on placement and protections against being moved into duties they cannot perform (for example, an employee with child‑care obligations who cannot ride certain buses).

District staff and committee members discussed alternative pay models, including a single 75‑cent across‑the‑board option with a bonus, and weighed how each approach would affect the budget. Participants referenced the attendance incentive fund (discussed at roughly $55,000 and budgeted up to $59,000 next year) and said those dollars factor into whether raises can be accommodated without cutting personnel. An administrator indicated the district’s savings analysis shows keeping the proposed raises and the attendance incentive could require at least two fewer paraprofessional positions.

On operational issues, paraprofessionals and committee members debated compensation for frequent substitute work and whether a separate stipend or a simplified tracking process (similar to teacher pay for substituting) would be feasible. Staff characterized some of the draft language—such as limits on how long a paraprofessional can be outdoors without a break—as likely to generate disputes and urged clearer wording that preserves administrative flexibility for scheduling and coverage.

Next steps

District staff volunteered to produce a revised draft of the tiered job‑description language for review. Participants agreed to prioritize clarifying the three most important language points they object to, and to reconvene after staff circulates a new draft. No vote was taken at the session and no formal agreement was reached on headcount or pay; staff identified a potential reduction in force as one option if the budget cannot absorb both the raises and the attendance incentive.

What was not decided

The committee did not adopt a final pay model, did not vote on staffing reductions and did not finalize the exact eligibility rules for the attendance incentive. Specific dollar estimates for alternative stipend approaches and the formal method for placing paraprofessionals into tiers were left for follow‑up.

The district is expected to circulate revised language and financial scenarios for committee review before any formal action.