Gary Hoffman, president of the Nashua Teachers’ Union, is calling on the Board of Education to take action at its next meeting to reinstate the $25 per day incentive for paraeducators. Courtesy photo/Nashua Teachers’ Union

NASHUA – The Nashua Teachers’ Union is calling on the Board of Education to renew the Memorandum of Understanding that provided paraeducators with additional compensation of $25 per day.

Union President Gary Hoffman said there are currently 67 openings for paraeducators with the district’s six Title I elementary schools having the greatest need.

Hoffman said the starting pay for paraeducators, particularly in the intensive needs programs, is less than $17 per hour, which amounts to $35,360 per year.

“These roles demand a unique skill set and are often physically demanding,” he said. “Coupled with chronic understaffing, the workload has become overwhelming, leaving morale among paraeducators at an all time low.”

During the 2023-2024 school year, the union and board agreed to give paraeducators $25 per day and to give special education teachers $35 per day if they worked in a program that had a staffing shortage.

The $25 incentive was met with open arms and compelled many paraeducators to remain in the district.

During the summer, the union asked district administrators to continue the incentive.

“Initially, the district considered the proposal but ultimately decided it was unnecessary,” said Hoffman.

The union then looked to the board to review the district’s decision. During the board’s Oct. 28 meeting, school officials went into executive session to discuss the union’s request.

Hoffman said that following the executive session, the board instructed district administrators to negotiate a new agreement with the union.

“It was an unusual choice given that similar agreements have been discussed in public sessions in the past,” said Hoffman.

While crafting a new proposal, the union eliminated the $35 incentive for special education teachers. The proposal would only focus on the $25 incentive for paraeducators working in intensive needs programs with vacancies. The union also agreed to compromise on a 3:1 para-to-student ratio.

“The district has no ratio caps for paras at the moment,” said Hoffman.

On Dec. 18, the union asked the board to approve the new proposal. Following another executive session, the board announced that the proposal was rejected.

“This decision fails to address the district’s immediate paraeducator shortage. Current contract negotiations will not resolve the issue until the next school year at the earliest, leaving the district without a short-term solution,” said Hoffman. “Meanwhile, reports from the Human Resources Committee revealed that the district has hired 28 private agency paraeducators, a costly alternative that, last year, significantly exceeded the expense of district-employed paraeducators.”

Hoffman has also questioned the board’s level of transparency.

“While non-public discussions are permissible under certain circumstances, this situation does not appear to meet the criteria outlined in RSA 91-A:3,” he said. “The public has a right to know where Board members stand on this critical issue and why they made their decisions.”

Hoffman said the union would prefer to continue negotiations and avoid a strike as state law prohibits public employees from taking such action.

“We seek to work with the district and School Board on this issue, but it’s frustrating because the board won’t even have a public discussion at a full board meeting right now,” he said.

In response, board President Jennifer Bishop said the $25 incentive was only available through the federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund, which is now exhausted.

“This is not a $600,000 line item that was worked into our current fiscal year budget,” she said.

Within the 67 positions posted on the district’s website, Bishop said 54 are special education positions while the remaining 13 are general education classroom positions. From the 54 special education positions, 28 of them have been filled by contract paraeducators, leaving 26 positions open.

She also said there have been no adverse effects on students on Individualized Education Programs.

“The district has not sent letters to families stating that IEP goals are not being met,” said Bishop.

Because the board and the union were unable to reach an agreement, Bishop said salary increases for paraeducators will be included in the ongoing contract negotiations.

Paraeducator Bobbie Desjardins, who has been in the district for 28 years, said she “finds it ironic” that school officials cannot continue to fund the $25 incentive, yet they can always find money for other things.

She also said the board does not understand the reality of being a paraeducator.

“In my opinion, what the Board of Education is looking at is numbers,” she said, adding that paraeducators are often asked to be substitute teachers and lunch monitors. “They don’t understand that we are being pulled in many different directions. They tell us in words that we are very much valued, but we don’t see it.”