Mountain View Whisman School District teachers and staff will get a 4% salary bonus next month, which the school board unanimously approved at a Thursday, Oct. 19, meeting.
The one-time payment will cost the district roughly $3 million and will benefit members of the district's teacher and staff unions, as well as those in management positions and unrepresented employees.
Chief Business Officer Rebecca Westover told the school board that the district wanted to honor its staff's work and had the money due to its "financially conservative budgeting."
When the district closed the books on the 2022-23 school year, there were one-time savings that meant money was available for this payment, Superintendent Ayindé Rudolph told the Voice. That included leftover one-time state funding, savings from the district's solar panels and unused money that had been set aside for positions that went unfilled, he said.
According to Rudolph, the $3 million didn't come from growth in property tax revenue above what was budgeted. Mountain View Whisman's main source of funding is local property taxes, and the district has in recent years made conservative projections that undershot the actual growth rate in tax collections.
When the school board passed the budget in June for the 2023-24 school year, the district projected that it would run a $4.6 million deficit this school year, assuming the assessed value of properties in the district increases by 3%.
The district is still projecting a deficit, Rudolph said, adding that the budget doesn't include any ongoing raises for employees. This is the final year of the current union contracts, so future pay increases haven't been agreed upon.
Despite the projected deficit, the district opted to give the 4% bonus to staff because the money came from unexpected one-time funds, not ongoing revenue, and therefore couldn't be relied upon in future years, Rudolph said.
Rudolph added that employees are grappling with the impact of inflation, and that part of the difficulty the district has had in filling positions is because of the high cost of living in the area.
"I feel like our staff is incredibly deserving and I'm really glad that we can recognize them in this way," school board member Laura Blakely said at Thursday's meeting. "I don't think a lot of school districts are in this position where they can reward their teachers and staff, and I'm grateful that we are."
Comments
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 23, 2023 at 2:47 pm
Registered user
on Oct 23, 2023 at 2:47 pm
"fiscally conservative budgeting" or spending less on students and their support than needed for Academic Gap decreases? This district spends darn near the minimum percentage on Cost of Education Expended for Classroom Compensation. "CEA" min is 60% and they spend 60.04%.
They are one of the lowest in the County, and they are also one of the lowest employers of direct Student Services Staff (by head count per student).
More support staff, directly helping poor families get to class? (naw, too hard to hire)
More teaching staff at the poorest campus. To cut class size to 12, and Really Help the Learning of this campus where 2022-23 state testing shows Graduating Class Learning "met Standard" for 15.2% in MATH, and 27.9% in ENGLISH (naw, too hard to hire teachers - and clear out repurposed permanent classrooms / well That Would Be Just Impossible, right?)
So - across the organization (1-time) pay hikes, no deep thinking required (especially since all at the District Office get this one time bonus / for ???). Are DO staff leaving faster than teacher/direct student support staff? (we don't have to Think About that, IT'S TOO HARD!)
And in the end, Trustee Blakey can put in her concluding comments, again agreeing with the Superintendent and agreeing that spending money, one-time, on all current employees will SomeHow, Magically(?), help hire in the future.(?)
Peace, Love and take Care of your Poor
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 26, 2023 at 5:46 am
Registered user
on Oct 26, 2023 at 5:46 am
Actually - working from the very poorly posted Consent Agenda Item from Sep 7, "Approval of application for Exemption" VI. K it's worse than I thought! Hidden down under the wording, several levels of attachments is: this district spends UNDER the minimum percentage on Cost of Education Expended for Classroom Compensation.
"Application for Exemption from the Required Expenditures for Classroom Teachers’ Salaries". They spent - 56.05% / underspent 3.95% / "deficiency Amount. $3,563,530.11 "
The justification figures / "X_ Payment of classroom teacher salaries that are in excess of those paid by other comparable school districts" is going to make it 'hard to believe' that their teachers are under compensated OR at a disadvantage to "other comparable school districts". There is a pretty detailed Total teacher 'offered' compensation table set attached!
The MATH (I think, 1st pass) MVWSD actual paid compensation is lower / 'cause the experience (8 yr) is 2 years lower than the Santa Clara County average of 10. And, I argue - Not Enough Teachers for the Castro / Mistral to halve class size and actually make a five-year difference in their Academic Achievement GAPS.