Okay. Go ahead. Uh, next group, group three. Uh we value compensating staff at a level that encourages retaining and recruiting highly effective people with fairness, recognizing employees worth and filling vacancies. >> We value Can you read your first one again? Compensating staff at a level that encourages retaining and recruiting highly effective. So that's similar to the first one, correct? And then you had fairness. Did another group have fairness? Fairness here. Did you guys have fairness? How about over here? >> All uh let's we'll table that. So, okay. What was after fairness, please? >> Recognizing employees worth and filling vacancies. >> Did anyone else have something about worth or value or something along those lines? Okay, we value recognizing value. Read it one more time, please. Sorry. >> Recognizing employees worth and filling vacancies. >> Okay. What would yours say? >> Um the one that's similar to theirs or all of them?
uh the one owned value or worth. >> Um high morale and respect for the industry through equitable compensation. >> How's everybody feel about that? Does that capture similarly what you were saying around value over here? >> Yes. A do you guys feel like that? Can you read that one more time? Amber, let's let him in. Amber, can you read that last one out loud again? High morale and respect for the industry through equitable compensation. Respect for industry through one more time. Sorry, I'm not a good notetaker. What? through competitive equitable is that >> equitable. Okay. Okay. James, you have one after that. >> No, >> you read all of them. >> Yeah. >> Okay. This group something different. Um, we value ensuring that full-time employees can afford to pay their bills or that full-time employees have a livable wage. Um, specifically that they're not having to take on extra jobs that detract from their full-time job.
>> You guys had something very similar. Allow staff to feel valued, earn a competitive and livable wage. Any similar? >> Yes. Can I'm going to read this one out loud and you all let me know. Does this capture it? Uh, we value compensation that allows all staff to feel valued and earn a competitive and livable wage. >> Yes. >> Does this group feel okay with that? James neighbor Daniel. Yes. Okay. >> All right. Let me rewrite that. All right. Amber, any others on your list? >> No. >> Um, And then Ally, do you guys have anything else? >> Everyone else. >> Okay. >> I think the only thing that we would want we we wanted to um stress about that all of those things would then benefit the students by giving them quality and appropriate public education. >> Okay. Okay. Now, here's what I have that there were similarities.
Maybe not exactly the same, but similarities across all groups. I'm going to read them out loud. We value retention of quality staff. Retention and recruitment of quality staff. We value recognizing employees value. We value morale and respect for the industry through equitable compensation. And we uh value compensation for all staff so they feel valued and earn a competitive and livable wage. So that's one, two, three, four. Are there any others that are on your list that you feel like absolutely need to belong on here and then we'll check with the group. >> The only one that we really have that heard is fiscally responsible. Okay. we're making the decisions not just but >> anybody else have anything along those lines or is adding that interest of interest to the rest of the groups an interest that it is fiscally responsible not just now but in the future everybody okay adding that interest I'm seeing heads nodding okay Dorothy would you read it one more time being responsible.
Okay. I know that some people cannot read what I just wrote on here, so I'm going to try to have somebody uh make that more clear. So, please thank your partners and head on back to your seats. Roxanna, do you think you could rewrite these and make them look better like on the same Oh, oops. Just put it on there. Yeah. Okay. >> She's She's going to rewrite it so people can unless you're putting it in a document or you're putting it in the notes, >> but they have access to that, too. Okay. All right. So, here's what we're going to do. Two things before we move into this next part. one. Uh Joel is being kind enough to decipher my handwriting and he's going to put these interest statements into your notes so that everyone has access and can refer to them because you're going to need to refer to them for this next part.
Okay. The other thing is if you go into where all your links are, uh maybe not all of you, but at least one person is going to need to go into the link that has the options. So all the options that we've evaluated thus far, um you're going to go someone's going to need to be able to look at that. So not everybody, but when you get into small groups, so maybe have somebody that has the interest, somebody has the options. Okay? And what we're going to do is we are going to first work in small groups and there are parameters around compensation and Vanessa check me on this. Okay. In your small groups, you are going to put together an options package. So, you have a laundry list of options. Your small group is going to put together a package that includes these options.
And you have to be thinking about it cannot exceed 750,000. Correct? So, it can be 750,000 or less. You need to make sure that when you are creating your package, it's aligned to the interests that we just identified and you need to make sure it's aligned to your standards. So, what I would suggest is that when you're looking at your options to develop your package that you are taking a look because you have several options that have some very close point totals. They're within a couple of each. That's good. It means you've got some good options, but you may want to take notice of the ones that are perhaps have a higher value than others. It doesn't mean yes, it doesn't mean no, but this is work that the group did. So, you want to consider that in your small groups, you're going to put together a package with all of these options that fall within these parameters.
Does everybody understand? Okay. When you do that, you're going to have to similarly share with the whole group. Explain your rationale as to why this is your package. So, we should hear things about it aligned to this interest of recruiting or retaining quality staff. Does that make sense? We chose this one because it had a it was closer or high on a higher point value. Okay, everybody clear? So, you get to develop the package and then we're going to see as a whole group where we find similarities from hearing from all of the small groups.
Are there any questions before we move into small groups? I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but going back to my my question about SEI and how there were certain teachers who were not included in that. Is there like it feels like there's no way to amend it so that the so that it felt like it was a better package and more equitable? So, is is that true? Is it just like we go with whatever options are right here and that's it? >> Here's my question and um Eve, I'm sorry to put you on the spot having missed some of this conversation earlier. There was a question about the option that is around giving um SEI teachers that do the twohour model. Is that correct? receiving an a stipend. I think it's $500 for that work. And when Dominic budgeted that out, he there were 58 teachers, but I think there was some conversation to identify who those teachers were and exactly what that meant.
Katie's concern is at uh Kraton Academy there are dual language teachers. They teach Spanish part of the day. They teach English. They do. They're on a different salary schedule and some of them also have to they're not on a different salary schedule >> or they get a different >> are not on >> the ones in Spanish. Okay. My apologies, but that there are some teachers that are still responsible for teaching SEI, but they only do it for one hour. So I can you did I capture that correctly? And is that true? And of the teachers that you and Dominic captured, tell us more about that. >> I'm trying to remember what we captured. Um, I think we did an estimate of SEI teachers in general. We didn't differentiate between who did one hour and who did two hours. So, >> I mean, I think that that's the way we figured it out.
It was what was it around like 50 >> 58 teachers. Would that include every teacher at every campus that's teaching SEI? Because I think >> I think there's some belief that that does not include TCA teachers. >> Well, it's not just TCAP >> or BPA. Yeah. >> There's two schools that >> Okay. that um I don't know if it included TCA or BPA because the way that I pulled it was who was the SEI teachers on the campuses. So >> from that was from the curriculum list, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. which >> I mean if you did that so all of our grade levels have an SEI designated teacher >> then that would include that. >> Okay. So if so if it does include that can we change the language of the option? >> If it includes it does already include your teachers though or no or >> but it's but but now the language isn't matching what the math is saying >> because of the two hour.
Is that what you're saying? Uh I think it was always meant to be to our model. I think we explicitly said when we came up with the recommendation there was reasoning behind it. Um I don't think it was meant to for one hour teachers doing the one hour model for a specific reason because the two-hour model comes with a more substantial amount of work and I think that was the reasoning behind it. And then also the district used to do a siphon for teachers who were doing that to our model. Um I just think it was the reasoning behind it. >> Okay. So your question is can we amend it to reflect something different that we would have to evaluate that through all of the standards again. Um, again, in your small group though, you you may or may not have that as part of your package and it may not land on the final thing.
Now, it doesn't mean no, but I'm going to open it up to this group to say, are we open to amending the particular option now before we get into small groups or adding an option? But if we do this, I want to be very careful. I don't want we're not going to add any more options, right? because somebody may come up. So I'm there are two schools of thought here is one is it was meant for this group and not for that um right wrong or indifferent that was the option. So Dorothy, I'll let you turn it ask your question. >> I guess I don't >> I don't necessarily disagree and I think it's a slippery slope because we had conversation earlier on previous days and if we do it for this option then that opens up the possibility for us doing it for all the options otherwise that would violate the fairness.
And so, while I'm empathetic to the concern that Katie's bringing up, I'm worried about that slippery slope. >> And here's what I'm gonna ask you to do. Just like I just said, when you're in your small groups and you're looking at these options, you've got to look through the lens of the interest when you're creating your package. And again, your small group is creating a package. Then we're going to come to the whole group to create it. Okay? Can I add one thing? I feel like to Katie's point, the math has already been done for the teachers. So if the math is already there, we're just aligning the language to be the math. Whether or not that captured the original intent, I don't know. But I think we're too far gone now. And those teachers were included in whatever list of these master SEI teachers are anyway, which to me means that they are part of that group.
whether they teach one hour or two, they still have to do the work >> and move the same amount of kids >> more. I mean, right. >> So again, then the the amendment to the option would just be taking the twohour part off. It would just But how do you how do you cap how do we capture that group without because there are certain other SEI teachers that do not do this? Is it just considered a >> designated SEI home room teachers? >> How is it labeled on this curriculum list? Just SEI teachers. >> I'm trying to find that document. So once I have that, I'll let you know. >> So it sounds like we need some more information. So here two things you have to do. I don't have the options list open in front of me, but we had the one that we're going to table until the end, which is that $500 one, right?
And then let's hold off on this other one until we get some more data to clarify exactly what we're talking about. Okay. >> Can we also just add I don't like the way we're using the word equitable because equitable doesn't necessarily means that everyone gets the same exact thing. I think the from my view of equity is that people getting you know what they need you know for some I don't want to get into it but >> I know what you're saying >> equity is not equal equal >> and it's not always fair >> exactly >> okay okay so we're going to count off again we're going to count differently because you're going to be in different group again uh same location 1 2 3 4 If you want to bring your chairs over that's fine You're coming up with a package that lives within $750,000 total, not a penny over.
Rationale aligned to your interest. Looking at your standards, looking at your total points for those uh options on their standards questions. Amber, >> did we already use part of that 750 for the insurance increase? Vanessa, is the insurance included as part of the 750? >> No, we covered it through medical budget, >> but you got your classified I just want to point out your classified merformance pay is in there and it is something that we agreed to, but that that is on your option. So that is part of the 750. So just food for thought. All right, I'll get you new paper. Have some conversation. It is uh I don't know what that says. 10:51. I'm going to do a checkin at 10:20 to see where we are. I mean 11. Thank you. Okay. Here. Yes, neighbor. Okay. All right. I'll I'll skip you, but All right.
Are we ready, >> Amber? >> One, two, three, >> four. >> What are you? >> Four. >> Dorothy. >> Thank you. Okay, get into your groups. New paper coming. body. >> What we're going to do is we're going to have each small group out and this time instead of you circling or whatever similarity we're going to tally it. So all we want to hear is your option number. We want to hear rationale, not justification, not positional. We chose these things because we each group has one minute to present. Okay? So, I don't want you can't give like an essay for each option. So, you present your package. You're going to give Roxanna and I enough time to tally your number. So don't go 412719 whatever. Give us time so we can tally for each group. >> This group's ready. >> Yeah. >> All right, Daniel.
>> I get one minute for my rational not to list numbers. Right. >> Say it again. >> I get one minute for my rational not just to list numbers. Right. >> One minute for your rational. Okay. >> So options. We're going one two three >> six seven eight n* two. So it's a 1% raise. >> So we change the option which is not an option. >> Well, when we when we made these options, we said >> to do that mathematically. >> Yeah. When we >> What I would do is if you support the option as written, put that if we have space later on after we get the whole package, then we might come back as a group and say, "Okay, let's re revisit." >> I'm saying 9* 2 11 17 and 18. So, our grand total for this whole package is $752,05. So, we are $2,000 over budget, which is the only bad part about this.
Our rationale of offering the 1% raise is it gets money to everyone. So, we can ignore the $500 minimum option. Every single person gets a raise. And then on top of that, we're fixing the schedules for all the employee groups that need schedules fixed. We're addressing compression for the employee groups that need the compression fixed. and we're hitting all of those much smaller dollar value, high impact, small employee group options that are really important for those employee groups but don't cost as much money. Um, we prefer this over like a tiered raise or something because uh and we prefer to massage the dollar values which is what we're talking about about being able to adjust the 1% 2% like even the tiered raise option was intended to be like a ratio that we could adjust higher or lower. And so we the only negative that we found in this package is that we are um $2,000 over budget.