Sorry, the video can be found on the MVWSD website under the Board of Trustees link.

I did not attend the school board meeting on Thursday evening, but I watched the video on YouTube. It certainly does not show Mr. Goldman in a positive light. He definitely lost his composure. I guess I am wondering why the board has not challenged the excessive amounts he has put in reserves. Ellen Wheeler, for example, has been on the board for more than 10 years. Isn't it their job to oversee the actions of the CFO and superintendent? Perhaps we need to become more aware as a community who exactly is overseeing the money for our schools?

As a board trustee, state laws prohibit me from sharing my own views, but invite you to share yours using a full range of issues to consider.

1) The district has $24 million in reserves, $12 million of which is unrestricted, annual expenses running closer to $50 million.

2) Cost of Living in the Valley rises 13% in a single year, rent at an even higher rate.

3) A spreadsheet comparing local teacher salaries (it does not include the per pupil funding for each district, which varies widely, for example: MVWSD $9,900 per pupil, MVLA $16,100 per pupil, but does provide a view of regional salaries).
Excel Spreadsheet
Web Link

4) The district's share of the state teacher pension costs will increase from 8.3% currently to 19.1% in six years. Source Web Link

5) Parcel Tax Measure C, which brings in nearly $3 million, is set to expire in 2016, two years from now.

6) Our district currently has the highest bond rating a school district can receive, because of its reserve. Our district did not lay off any teachers during the last economic recession.
Source Web Link

7) The Whisman community would like to re-open a neighborhood school (the cost of ending one of our leases at a Whisman school site and cost of opening a new school vary on how this issue is resolved, but there is a cost).

8) National Common Core learning standards, which challenge all schools to retool instruction to meet the needs of the 21st century, have a varying cost depending on the community’s response to this call to modernize how students learn.
Source Web Link

These are your tax dollars in our school’s reserves, what would you recommend that best serves our community for the long term that balances the many issues above?

Respectfully,
Christopher Chiang
MVWSD School Board Trustee
E-mail: cchiang@mvwsd.org
The views expressed herein are my own and not those of the Mountain View Whisman School District or MVWSD School Board.

The data is worse than presented at the Board Meeting. According to Mr. Chiang's data(3), in the far right column in a Comparison of Local Teacher Salaries, a Mountain View Whisman School District teacher can be making more money in 30 other Districts in the County as they rank 31st of 32!

The data is even worse than the community had thought. How dare the District Superintendent tell the community, teachers "are not affected."

Trustee Chiang, thank you for participating in this discussion and for providing resources and issues for us to consider. I was struck by our teachers salaries compensation in comparison to other local districts. Can you please provide us with the MVWSD superintendent's compensation in comparison to the same districts listed in your spreadsheet? And can you confirm that he receives an automatic 3% raise yearly?

Mark, yes the superintendent gets a 3% automatic increases, see page 69 of our March 20, 2014 School Board packet:
Web Link

Keep in mind, so do the teachers. Teachers get an automatic pay increase higher than 3% for each year of teaching experience (this is built into their teacher salary schedule).

Link to the MVWSD Salary Schedule
Web Link

This public information is shared without any personal declaration for or against any position on this pending board action.

I will share that the board last year set expanding preschool for at risk students as one of our district goals. Anyone expressing opinions on teacher salaries need to consider all the various issues listed in the post earlier.

Christopher Chiang
MVWSD School Board Trustee
E-mail: cchiang@mvwsd.org
The views expressed herein are my own and not those of the Mountain View Whisman School District or MVWSD School Board.

Correction, my earlier 3% COLA statement of Superintendent Goldman's salary was incomplete in that it did not reflect that there are two numbers to track:
1) the automatic increase (built into a pay schedule)
2) and the negotiated bump

Accounting for all past changes in his contract, Superintendent Goldman receives a 2% automatic increase in addition to the 3% COLA that is at the board's discretion:
2014-15 $227,027
2015-16 $231,567 (this example shows the 2% automatic, and 3% maybe voted on top of it).

Here is a teacher example, a first year teacher receives:
1 Year of Experience: $47,808
1 Year of Experience: $49,391 (this example shows a 3% automatic*, and whatever percent on top of it is what was being discussed by members of the public in this post above).

*not every year of experience of the teacher salary schedule is the same 3%, see the schedule for details, some are more or less. Web Link

My apologies for being too simplistic earlier,
Christopher Chiang
MVWSD School Board Trustee
E-mail: cchiang@mvwsd.org
The views expressed herein are my own and not those of the Mountain View Whisman School District or MVWSD School Board.

This is my 16th year in the Mountain View Whisman School District. I love my job. I love my students. I love my staff and my community. I am at the top of the pay scale due to all my years of teaching and schooling. That being said, as our Trustee Chris Chiang has pointed out, the cost of living has increased 13% per year, and my pay has not come close to matching that. I now work two jobs to pay rent in Mountain View. No matter how much I love teaching, teaching in the MVWSD is no longer sustainable for me. If I feel this way, I can see why our district has so much trouble retaining teachers.

I have been teaching in the MVWSD for over ten years. I have my Master's degree and my salary places me in the highest pay column offered by MVWSD, which I had to do in order to make my bills.

I spent this past summer interviewing at nearby school districts, and I find myself in an unbelievable situation. With my Master's and my years of experience, I am very expensive to hire in other school districts due to their significantly higher pay scale. So, committing to the District, committing to the families, and wanting to give my students the benefit of a stable teaching staff has turned out to have a very, very high cost to me personally. And, of course, it all affects my retirement.

Had I only known, I would have made the same choice our new teachers are making. Get the experience and get out to seek higher wages in a more cost-effective location. I do not fault them at all... I fault our district and our administration.

I have had my children in Mountain View schools for the past 8 years. I have loved all of the teachers that my children have had and consider myself very fortunate. Unfortunately, several of my two older children's teachers have moved away to other bay area schools because of commute and better salary. I am sad that my youngest will not have the opportunity to learn from those same teachers. I hope that we can keep the great teachers that still remain.
Also, my middle child is currently in a class with 35 students. I am worried that he will have a harder time learning with so many kids. With new state tests coming out, I really hope that the large class won't hurt my child or his peers.

So everybody has already forgotten how many local districts had to lay off teachers over the last several years? The districts that spend more, closer to the reserve line, and also have higher per teacher compensation costs. Is it more disruptive that an experienced teacher leaves for a better economic opportunity, or that great young teachers never get tenured because they get laid off from different districts three years running, and leave the profession for a more stable life style. Since PAUSD and MVLA are funded differently, their faculty will always make more. Obviously, our cost of living is related to theirs, but also to Google, Stanford, etc.

$47,800 Starting Salary/180 days of school = $265/day for a starting teacher. Try comparing this plus benefits to other college educated public employee compensation. Most making more straight out of college are likely in public safety and risking their lives on our behalf. Cops and firefighters can't afford to live in Mtn Vw either!

I too watched the YouTube of last week's meeting. Shame on Mr. Goldman. Yes, I remember the layoffs and support a district being fiscally prudent. This Board and Mr. Goldman have gone way beyond that point and are robbing our children of an appropriately resourced education.

How can Mr. Goldman stand up in front of his dedicated employees and look them in the face? He has certainly made sure that he is finacially taken care of. I would suggest the teachers look at the cummulative increase received by Mr. Goldman during his tenure as the Superintendant and negotiate an increase that parallels his % increase. Should those who have been asked to educate our future not be minimally provided an increase that is equivelant (% wise) as its leader?

The community and the Board need to compare Mr. Goldman's salary with those of other districts in the area. Mr. Goldman is approximatly #12 in rate of pay. Despite the smaller size of his district. Then look at where his teachers lie in this comparison....It is embarassing and unforgivable.

Mr. Goldman attempted to compare our district turnover rate to another district that had a rate of 40%. He failed to share that this district had an unusually high retirment rate last year and growth in teachers due to growth in students. He is not only "cheating students and those who teach them daily" but he twists data to justify his behavior.

I was also left wondering where were the principals and other district leaders last week. Has Mr. Goldman not only created a culture of inequity but one where the leaders can't even be bothered to listen to their staff's concerns? I would think that this district could be heading towards a crisis in confidence.

Perhaps the Board needs to look at Mr. Goldma's performance in a more wholistic manner. Perhaps Mr. Goldman should have remained the district's CFO.


As a parent of a child in this district, I stand up for increasing the teacher's salaries. I stand up for the campuses and classrooms being adequately resourced.

Lets remind Mr. Goldman and the Board that this is our community. Lets tell them where we want them to focus their time, energy and resources.

The reserves are for management who are grossly over paid. Yes, teachers need more money however, what about the classified employees that are under paid and under respected.

The last major increase for classified employees came under CSEA President Cathy Nelson, who has left abruptly left the District due to the treatment she received from the top management.

She was the best that had happened to the classified employees for a long time. Please don't forget the classified employees when you talk about teachers needing more money.

Cathy, if you read this, please know a lot of us miss you. That is not just classified employees, teachers miss you too and so do some of the management that valued you.

I truly hope it gets better for the certificated and classified staff of MVWSD. This is precisely the reason I left the district in June 2014 after four years. I would never own a home in an hour radius of MV with my previous salary. After taking a position in another district, I will now be able to afford a home within two years.

Mr. Goldman states he is "confused" on how he doesn't support or retain great teachers. It's simple really, if one's basic needs are not met then how is one to perform in a career? I was working THREE jobs just to make ends meet in MV. I was working paycheck to paycheck and after four years I felt totally undervalued and went to a district that truly does value my time.

Good luck certificated and classified staff. I hope negotiations go your way!

I am not a Craig Goldman fan but I did watch the video. Mr Goldman sounded confused but mainly challenged the stats provided by the speakers. First of all, average salary is irrelevant. What matters is the pay schedule, bottom to top. Hiring new teachers will bring down the average even if you have the best pay schedule in the county. Second, there is no way the cost of living is rising 13% per year. Any govt stat on cost of living is available for the SF area. The figures show a much lower rate closer to zero than 13%. Even if rents went up 13%, the average cost of living would be less. Teaching is not for everyone but salaries are based on a 9 or 10 month contract. I have never seen a shortage of new teachers applying for jobs in this district, so i doubt that salary offers are too low.

Thanks fellow MVWSD Trustee Chiang. But 'information' is not neutral - so we need to be 'kinda-sorta-careful' on the Brown Act side. However past VOTES of Trustees are recorded. So let me explain a few of my votes on these topics, as they are recorded on the official minutes of a local legislative body, that sets Public Policy.
Superintendent Goldman's 5% salary increase and extension of 2 yr contract (remaining) to 3 years NO
(the vote was 4:1 with only Nelson against)
Teachers Contract, 4:1 Nelson voting in dissent. I did not consider the pro-forma 'no performance bonus' contract sufficiently advanced for "21st century" teaching, and teachers compensation.
Restrict RESERVES to reasonable % (oh boy). "Reasonable" is totally a Public Policy debate. On Sept 5th I proudly cast the only Trustee vote Against a Resolution (4:1) asking to Abolish any upper % limitation on Reserves. (I do support amendment, to make the upper Reserve limit maybe 18%-24% throughout the State).

Trustee Chiang has a very apt phrase "Lost Opportunity Cost," that he has used in several MVWSD Board discussions. How might that apply here?

Old Steve is absolutely right. I also believe, as I expect most teachers (not all) that Mr. Goldman was instrumental, in the middle of the past state funding crisis, in guiding through rough waters (as Chief Business Officer, then Superintendent). Is this past ALSO the future we want as a community? Not as an ADMINISTRATION, but as 'the people.' The times they are a changing.

Steven Nelson

PS,'nagf' what is the management loss rate over last 4-5 yrs (not counting retirement)? Do we have a shortage of management applicants? :)

This discussion of proper teacher compensation should, and will continue. Anybody who thinks local school district administrators are overpaid should consider interviewing a superintendent. As somebody who has lived near a district office long enough to recognize vehicles coming and going, I'd challenge anybody to take the job for a week and then decide the position is overpaid. If you then still don't think they add sufficient value, that would be a different discussion.

Teachers work about 36 weeks a year, most administrators about 48. On an hourly basis, a Superintendent might make three times what a starting teacher makes, and many administrators have more than 25 years experience.

Lets make a deal, how about they get to keep their salary and we take away their pension and medical retirement funds.

Or lower their salaries and keep their pension and medical retirement funds?

"Old Steve" please note that the 36 hours you cite are the contractual hours teachers are required to be in front of their students or on school campuses. Anyone who seriously thinks that 36 hours are the only time teachers actually have to do their job are out of touch with reality. These 36 hours do not account for any lesson planning time, grading papers, making phone calls, and all of the other things that are not contractually required. Many teachers will tell you they spend hours after the end of their work day as well as working on the week-end in order to be able to do this job.

I'm of the opinion that administrators, teachers and classified staff all work very hard in this school district. However, it is our teachers who research shows has a direct impact on the academic success of our kids. I think this school district should be doing more to keep their teachers. They can surely afford to pay them more when they have such a huge amount in reserves.

I did not address work week hours at all. I merely pointed out that administrators are 12 month employees with about 4 weeks vacation, while teachers are 10 month employees who also get school holidays. Teachers have direct contact with students, but without competent administrators, teaching would be much more difficult.

Teaching is such a tough job and most of the teachers in MVWSD I've had contact with go above and beyond for their kids every day. I also know that many of them work two jobs. I definitely support increased compensation for teachers. I don't know how this should be best financed, but the Mountain View community needs to step up.

And I wish Craig Goldman would learn a bit more composure and supportiveness in his interactions with teachers and parents. I'm not sure that his abrasive personality is the best fit for MVWSD.

40% of one year's budget does not seem to be an outrageous reserve.

Looking at the salary spreadsheet shared by board member Chiang, it appears that MVWSD is above average in the salary range. And the one at the top, MVLA, is a high school. However, I support well paid teachers and $44-88,000 seems an inadequate range. Engineers right out of college are getting $90,000 at local tech companies.

Can we break this down into some real numbers?. What would be the cost to the district to give all teachers a 5% or 10% pay increase per year including the impact of that on pensions?. What has the union been doing to resolve this issue over the last several years, it seems it must have been unsuccessful in negotiations to still be in this situation for our teachers.

Can any board members break down why we do need such big reserves?. What are the 8 million reserve restricted for?. What would the 12 million cover in terms of opening a new school or other income shortfalls, and why would taking 1-2 million a year for teachers salary be so bad?

Has this discrepancy in our teachers pay always been this way? What was it 5, 10, 15 years ago?. Has every other district increased salaries while ours hasn't?. Does the union have no power in negotiating this but other district's unions do?

Some questions about the reserves for the board.

They are $24 million now, how much have they been increasing by in the last 5-10 years broken down by each year?. Does the district have excess money at the end of the year to add to the reserves or do the reserves increase each year purely from investment interest?.
What are the % reserves for every other school district mentioned in the pay scale table?

Christopher Chiang, I have some questions and I was hoping you had some information you could provide.

1) To follow the per pupil funding thread, how does MVWSD compare to the other districts in the area. You've provided the info on MVLA, but was looking for more districts.

2) What percentage of your $50 million budget is for teachers salaries, and how does that compare to other districts?

3) What percentage of our budget is allocated to building reserves, and how does this compare to other districts?

Thanks for providing all this information.

Let's talk about the real issue here. Teachers and other school workers have negotiated grossly excessive pensions that ultimately will bankrupt our school districts. It is fiscally prudent to set aside enough reserves to postpone, but not to prevent, having to file for bankruptcy. The same is true for all other Mountain View public employees, particularly police and firemen.

The question on better reports on District Finances - is really an Administrative rather than a Board Member responsibility (IMO as an elected Member of the Board). Community Member and BubbDad1, good questions, which hopefully the Administration will Report in writing, in the Agenda Packet for the next Bd. meeting. I think both the Board, and community members can survive the full range of information- and not glossed-over Power Point bullet lists.

Spent on Classrooms (came up as part of the Budget Agenda Item last meeting) The proportion is, to one part in six thousand, 60.00%. That's right, to two decimal places. The minimum proportion we are suppose to spend? 60% When I questioned this (open public meeting) the reasonable response was that it did not include "contracts" for classroom equivalent services, like the very expensive Special Education services we sometimes must provide instead of regular classrooms [legislative correction needed IMO].

5% Increase in Teachers salary pro-forma schedule. Would - roughly, increase that 60.00% by 5% (of 60%) and increase (not the healthcare) but the basic District retirement contribution for each teacher. About 9% of the increase in salary for each teacher, this year. About 10% of the increase - next year, 11% next year,... up to 18% (of the increase in future years). The STRS needs to be fully funded. [ Gov. Brown - the adult-in-Sacramento]

I long for the days, before about 6 years ago, when there was a community financial input group to aid MVWSD in deep community understanding of these issues. People like Peter Darrah, Nelson Iwai, Joe Mitchner (now on MVLA Board). Wow - joined by financial-headed people like Thida Cornes (PTOC), that would be Totally Awesome!

but I digress - the problem is rather complex - but not rocket science - or search-engine science

A little other (STRS) numerical information. For each of the next several years (4?)- each teacher in the state (including MVWSD) gets a additional 1% cut in take-home salary. didn't I just say.. The STRS needs to be fully funded. [ Gov. Brown the-adult-in-Sacramento)

I do not think the CTA lobby/PR machine is any more/less informative or honest than the California Public School Administrator's group lobby/PR machine. In data - you always need to 'correct for the bias."

(IMO - Mr. Nelson is an elected member, along with Mr. Chiang, of the MVWSD School Board) We are - skirting the-edge-of the Brown Line (Act) if this can be considered 'electronic discussion'. 2/5 is just less-than-a-majority of the MVWSD Board.

Trustees Chiang & Nelson: I believe most readers and posters appreciate your information. However, since our district has encountered challenges with Open Communication rules (Brown Act), perhaps you should both refrain from commenting in these forums. Not trying to abridge your FA rights, just don't to see any future board discussion invalidated..

To give all teachers in the district a 5% raise is less than $1 million dollars.

Right, a one year raise is less than $1 million. But you can't take it back next year, and then there will be a COLA on top of it, so at the end of a three year budget cycle it might be up to $4 million total. We have below average salaries because we have a relatively high percentage of young faculty, not because we have a lower salary schedule than similar districts around us. You have to exclude PAUSD and MVLA from these discussions. As basic aid districts with very high property tax revenue per student, they operate differently from MVWSD, LASD, Sunnyvale, or Cupertino. If the MVEA had been willing to negotiate over the summer, this business would likely already be behind us. In an accelerating economy, public salaries will never keep up with housing costs. Private employment benefits never keep up with inflation either.

And, the teachers get automatic step increase each year, which are already built in to the salary schedule. Therefore, the cost of a 5% raise this year multiplies even more in the following year.

If we want to pay teachers substantially more, why not put tenure/review processes and school staff structure on the table? I feel public school teachers are grossly underpaid, and that there also needs to be an overhaul of how they are managed as well. Changing tenure agreements (a minefield in itself) isn't going to get it done... the management structures also need to change. Look at the hours our principals and senior staff work, and ask yourself if that's really how people should be working outside of tech startups... or consider what it would be like if you had to manage a staff of 20-30 knowledge workers who all report directly to you. Would you be able to give them all the coaching and development they need? Yes it will cost more. But it might work better, it would attract new talent into teaching, and we'll reap the rewards downstream.

No increases in pay until the pension and medical liabilities are taken care of. What are they at now, 80 Billion for school personals? Like William said up above, soon pay won't matter if the school district goes bankrupt.

Does anyone care about this? Or is it just me, me, me and take take take?

No matter how you slice it, nothing will work if more pay will mean bigger pensions on top of the pensions we currently aren't quite sure we can pay.
It would be like throwing gs on a wild fire.

Change the pensions, then we can work on increasing the salary. We're trying to do it backwards and that won't work.

Wow I'm encouraged by the wisdom of the last several comments here. Maybe there is hope for public education if attitudes like those of Old Steve, Patrick N, No increases, and It is pensions prevail.

Pay teachers higher salaries.

Change the system so that teachers have more authority and make more decisions. Teachers and administrators (principal, superintendent, district office staff) remind me of of a parent-child relationship, with the authoritative administrator directing the obedient, sometimes defiant, underlings.

Get rid of pensions and let teachers save for retirement like the rest of us.

Get rid of tenure, this concept of guaranteed employment for the rest of your career based on job performance during your first 2 years, that is just plain nuts.

Instead of thinking of yourselves as hourly workers, with "contact hours" (required to be at school from 7:30 till 4pm, or whatever it is) just put in how much time it takes to get the job done, like other grown-ups with demanding jobs do, and stop complaining about how much work you take home with you, how much additional training you take during the summer, how many hours you work at home.

Yes, pay teachers a LOT more for the important work they do, and get rid of the paternalistic, patronizing way they are treated.

1) Change the pensions so we can actually afford to pay them going into the future

2) Reduce the administrative salaries (The Superintendent makes upwards of 200K per year, many other admins make well over 6 figures.

3) Raise the teachers salary with part of the money coming from the
administrative area.

The superintendent has NO problem with his cushy 200K+ per year job, and none with the other WELL PAID administrative positions either. The teachers doing the actual job make slightly over 25% of that salary.

@James,

How do you reduce a salary covered by a contract? How do you find a more qualified person to run a $50 Million/year organization by offering less compensation. Superintendents and Administrators work 48 weeks, Teachers about 36 weeks. A 4X salary multiplier from starting professional to experienced organizational leader is much flatter than most other organizations. If the $200K makes it a "cushy" job, maybe you should consider being one. Personally, I make about half that, and you could not get me to take the job for double what it pays.

Pensions are set by the state and those who vote for it. They are not set or negociated by the teachers or the classified employees.

Pay everyone off of the same schedule. Give everyone the same benefits. Get new board members in office. Clean house the old fashion way of doing business: When you get rid of the superintendent - get rid of all the other management and bring in new.

Thanks Old Steve, James is in error. The Superintendent of the MVWSD makes about 2 1/4 times what the average Total Cost Of Employee is for the average of the longest experienced teachers. So Teachers at the different schools, with about the same years of experience in this District, cost the budget slightly less than half of the Superintendent's cost. Let's say - from Old Steve, that the ratio for TCOE (Salary + everything else) for starting teachers is 1/4th.

Chris and I could have 4 newly-out-of-college teachers (without Clear Credentials) for the cost of one higher level administrator with 16 years administrative experience. Let there be light?

I don't see anything wrong with having a reserve of money for the next downturn. Superintendents of always made more then teachers don't see how this will change or will it.

You could have the best teacher but a very crummy Superintendent or worse yet a very crummy Principal running a school site. I talked with a teacher I know who taught for a very large urban school district.

CSEA Member: Be careful, some may say that cleaning house of the old way of doing business should also apply to pay schedules and how pensions are set. Not sure why us folk in private enterprise get raises based on job performance, but teachers get a pay scale based on years of service. Shouldn't the really good teachers get paid MORE? And why not give teachers the choice of extra salary to live in local high-rent communities vs. living farther away and saving more money for retirement? Why does it have to be one-size-fits-all? If these things are set at the state level, please let me know who I should vote for to change that.

You'll want to vote for Marshall Tuck for State Superintendent of Public Instruction:

Web Link