"District officials, under Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph, commissioned a survey through the firm Hanover Research earlier this year, which found that teacher pay in the district is more or less on par with similar school districts."

The problem isn't pay. That's all Unions ever want, more money.

If people are being paid "on par" with similar districts why would they be leaving? Has to be something other than money.

And just because the district has a reserve funds and property tax revenues are increasing is no reason to hand out raises. As we all know, property tax revenues can go down. Do the teachers give back those raises if/when that happens? Of course not.

If the Union doesn't like what the District is saying about negotiations they can write their own "newsletter". Enough with fighting about things that really don't matter.

Do other districts in the area have this retention problem? The paper keeps saying that we have a problem but it doesn't say if this is unique to us or if its a regional thing.

The Teachers and the District have a fundamental difference of opinion, as to how total compensation fares relative to nearby districts. The teachers like to refer to MVLA and PAUSD, too of the best funded districts in the entire state. Our district compares our compensation to other districts with similar student populations. It is too bad they cannot find common ground, but most teachers don't seem to acknowledge the way districts are required to utilize multi-year projections. As taxpayers, in the face of expiring revenue sources, should we expect the District to budget reserves at the minimum required by law? If those assumptions were to prove incorrect, we'd go back to the bad old days of March layoff notices for everyone. As I recall, Teachers did not much like that approach either.

@Otto Maddox - Do you really think that teachers in our area are getting paid exorbitant amounts of money unnecessarily? There are teachers commuting in from HOURS away to teach our children, because they can no longer afford to live, not only in Mountain View, but anywhere nearby. Does this sound like a population that is getting paid enough to serve our community, our children, our future?

Not only does paying our valued teachers fairly demonstrate pride in our schools and community, but retention of good teachers affects the quality of education our schools provide, which in turn affects (as may appeal to those without children in public schools) property value, desirability of our neighorhoods, and quality of life among residents.

True, retention does not only depend on compensation, and financial incentive alone will not be enough to attract or keep teachers if the learning/teaching environment is dysfunctional. But compensation IS an important surrogate for the respect we show these crucial members of our society (in the workplace, we expect our salary to correlate with our perception of our worth, and increase correspondingly with experience/performance, correct? Isn't it appropriate for MVWSD teachers to compare themselves to others in our locality and w/ similar cost of living?), and in the setting of transient suboptimal work environment (or school board) an adequate compensation could possibly sway some teachers to stay. But we DO also need to make our schools a better place to work. Also important for retention is an environment in which teachers feel respected, invested in the community (which would probably improve if they could actually afford to live/rent here), and involved in decision-making, with opportunities for (and recognition of) growth/innovation/leadership, as well as effective leadership and a sense of collaboration amongst leaders/teachers/community -- many of these are probably lacking given our recent dysfunctional school board.

I recall at a school board meeting, a real estate agent commented that housing prices within X elementary school boundaries were skyrocketing, and (paraphrasing) the quality of that school should thus to be protected as those people "deserved" their money's worth in education. Our entire area is ballooning in cost, value, and population, and all of its children deserve a great education. I hope with this rapidly growing, increasingly wealthy community, we recognize how important it is for us to protect and improve the quality of (ALL of) our public schools. We start by improving both teacher compensation AND the teaching/learning environment.

Actually Old Steve, you are incorrect. As someone familiar with the districts being used for comparables, Palo Alto and Mountain View Los Altos HS district are never used for the reason you cited. However, the district specifically chose school districts not remotely geographically close for their comparables. Most teachers will go to neighboring school districts for new teaching positions - not Santa Rosa or one of the other school districts used in the Hanover report.

Also the cost of a 1% pay increase for teachers is less than $250,000. The district has over $18 million in reserves. I don't see how this pay increase would wipe out their reserves in three years.

@ Parent supp...

Those are mostly pretty good points I can generally support. The one thing I have not seen anywhere on any of these comments is as follows: We as a community need to take responsibility for the actions and/or inactions of OUR Schoolboard, because collectively, we did elect them. Even if as individuals we did not personally vote for the members we personally find most dysfunctional, we all bear some responsibility for our elected officials, it is just basic civics. We did not pay enough attention, or we did not campaign hard enough, or we decided to let somebody else run....

@Teacher,

Have you seen what the increasing contributions to PERS & STRS does to reserves? How about the Prop 30 money that starts to go away next year. How about the Parcel Tax money that goes away in 15 months? I know a 30 year old who used to teach in this district, until last year. Now she teaches at a Nevada Charter School and has just purchased a home in Reno for about 1/3 a Mountain View condo. No potential raise can solve that problem. When will teachers acknowledge that less professional work is required on an annual basis than expected in other local professions? I bet I match your total hours during the week, but 48 weeks a year, with only 8 paid holidays. The people pricing teachers out of housing work 60 hour weeks with an average of 3 weeks of PTO a year. My high school econ teacher taught me that time is money.

@old steve, so now we really know how you feel about teachers. I always find it comical that people think teachers have it easy. If it's so easy, why don't you teach? Guess what as a teacher, when do you think I grade papers? Lesson plan? Make phone calls home? None of this can be done when I'm supposed to teach. Many of my week-ends and after school are taken up by what is expected of me as a professional.

I get it old steve, you don't think teachers are worth it. Teachers hear that message loud and clear.

@Teacher,

I did not infer teachers are not worth it. My work day is before 8 to after 6, 48 weeks a year, and I make a little more than MVWSD top scale after 35 years as a professional, just for comparison. So I did some checking-based on Dr. Clark's budget presentation of March 3rd and a little high school math, the raise being offered by the district, when extended through the multi-year projections, looks more like a total compensation of about $4 million to me. That is a different number than $250,000 you quoted above, that is why they call it negotiations. Most professional employment is merit based on the individual, some of us can be fired on two weeks notice. How about a 2% raise for all teachers, 10% each year of those judged to be in the top 5% of a district's faculty. I know most teachers work hard and earn their money, but taxpayer funded salaries and benefits also accrue to those who "work to rule".

Union leaders -- Please share how the salary of administrators in comparable districts compares to the pay of MVWSD administrators.

The financial hardships teachers in the MV face are not uniform. There is a very different experience between the teachers who rent and the teachers who own, that more or less mean that retention among newer teachers is more difficult.

I very much hope the school board does not let ago of the teacher housing idea. Cooper Park alone could house 1/3 of MVWSD's teaching force by the district's own estimates: Web Link Even MV private schools have already begun building teacher housing: Web Link

Too many past negotiations in our district used positional bargaining, versus an newer approach that recognizes the emotional side of any negotiation, which includes the need to feel heard and respected. More on emotional negotiations from the Harvard Negotiation Project: Web Link

Regrettably, MVWSD (MVWSD Salary Schedule: Web Link ) can never compete with MVLA (MVLA Salary Schedule: Web Link ). Yet MVWSD does own vacant land, and it cost nothing to recognize the emotional side of the issue.

MVEA does put out a negotiations update. It's biased too. That's part of negotiating.

Chris -- Neither the union nor the district uses MVLA as a comparable. This issue is confusing enough. Let's only suggest or report accurate information.

@old steve - you misread. The cost of a 1% salary increase for teachers (not all staff) is under $250,000 multiply that by 10. That 1% includes what it costs the district for any increases to retirement as well. Many teachers are on campus from 7 in the morning until 5 in the evening - working six or seven days a week because all of the stuff that comes with teaching they have to do on their own time. Many teachers hate missing any school - even when sick because unlike other jobs, they have to prepare for the substitute and guess what? They also have to grade any work done by students for the sub. MVWSD is in competition with 32 other school districts within Santa Clara County. If they don't make teachers a priority, they will lose them.

@Teacher, I have been following district budgets for 24 years (thus the Old handle). I'm pretty good at math. I am not disputing your hours as stated above or your projected outcome as to not valuing teachers. MVEA wants to minimize the budget impact of Teacher compensation, my goal is to realistically assess it for the long term. I've been in Silicon Valley since before it was Silicon Valley. Boom & bust is our natural ecology. If public agencies try to chase the boom, they usually wind up riding the bust into the ground. We have pension problems now because of prior decisions trying to sweeten pensions instead of adjusting salaries. Personally I am fine with raising local revenue for higher salaries, but our state's tax framework does not make that easy. Lastly, it would be unfair to only give teachers raises, as many classified staff members struggle even harder against our local cost of housing. So my calc's used the district's 3% offer, applied to salaries and benefits, for both classified and certificated, and applied it to each year in the multi-year projections. I believe that more honestly reflects the financial impact to the district.

This is exactly why I am (happily) no longer with the district. I was not laid-off or fired, just disappointed and unable deal with this dysfunctional organization. My pay was low, but I knew that going in and wanted to give this area a chance. It's shockingly sad how there is a serious lack of focus with curriculum, leadership, and teacher respect in this community. The district needs to hire innovative administrators that will do their job. Google and Apple will continue to hire the best and brightest from outside of the country and the locals will continue to groan. I tried my best to bring progressive activities into my classroom and was met with frowns by the admin. You are all better off sending your kids to private school. Very sad. Good luck!

13 out of 33 teachers leaving Crittenden, and Graham this year has a ton of turnover as well. That's almost 40% turnover of teachers. This is unsustainable. We can't have it both ways. If we want to live in Mountain View, enjoying the great parks, downtown, weather, economic success AND have great schools, we need to share in the wealth. Mountain-View Whisman sorely lags behing MVLA when it comes to pay, yet this is the school district into which our kids directly feed.

There's a reason the superintendents have changed every few years in MV-Whisman. The great irony is that by playing the short game and saving a few bucks now, the superintendent rather than appeasing the community and voters, is setting itself up for failure by facing unhappy parents, teachers and a community. Myopic, stupid and politics at its worst.

I'm sorry that MVWSD lost the teacher above, but I do think his/her view doesn't capture the changes that are happening in the classroom. Stevenson has always been active with progressive learning, especially Project Based Learning (PBL). Monta Loma and Crittenden both have teacher-led teams diving in the PBL as well.

I caused some friction with my on-going comparisons of MVLA and MWSD, but I bring up the differences between MVLA and MVWSD, not because it should be a negotiation piece between teachers and staff, rather, the public needs to know the reality that both MVWSD teachers and district leaders share the same core values, yet find themselves in this annual fight because of the MVWSD budget is simply too small to adequately serve all the student needs and pay for educators to live in this region.

I would accept MVWSD budget restraints without objection if every public school was facing the same, but when another district in our same city, serving the same kids, albeit older, get to avoid this annual fight, that tears at our community every Spring, I am sadden by this inequity.

There are always ways to address any problem, and I hope we can address this year’s teacher talks with reverence for our teachers, but when you are a poor district, there are always problems.

MV doesn't have to have underfunded schools, but it would take bold actions like heavier community investments in MVWSD or unifying the K-8 and 9-12 school districts in MV.

Perhaps district staff would be happy with a lower pay increase or lower salary if there was compensation in the form of respect and support from district office administrators. The principal at Crittenden is an egotistical and arrogant man who offers no sense that you as an employee are valued. This is echoed by district office administrators who make it clear that you are completely replaceable. This is a district who slaps you on the hand for going above and beyond. No sense of value, respect, or appreciation.

I have had a completely opposite experience with district administrators. They are care deeply about the students of this district and treat employees with respect. I have never seen anyone be slapped on the hand for going above and beyond. On the contrary, people are encouraged to think outside the box. Maybe you should look at yourself to see why you had an opposite experience?

I never said "..teachers in our area are getting paid exorbitant amounts of money".

I referred to a district report stating they were paid on par with similar districts.

I don't recall promising to pay public employees enough money to live in the town they work. When did this promise get made? God knows we can't afford to keep any such promise.

I'll never knock people for trying to make as much money as they possibly can. But when it's my money I'm allowed to question everything.

I feel the teachers are fairly compensated. It's a public school, I'm not expecting private school performance. What's even more interesting is I knew two private school teachers. They both make less than their public school counterparts (in actual pay as well as benefits) but loved their work environments so much they were OK with it.

See how that works? I think our district has severe leadership problems. I think those problems start at the very top.. just look at our Board of Trustees. They couldn't lead a conga line.

Otto, your argument is ridiculous. Your point seems to be, " I know someone who earns less than a public school teacher, therefore the low pay of MVWSD teachers is not a problem."

It's up to each and every person to decide what is adequate pay for their family. This article points out that many MVWSD teachers are disgruntled with the annual struggle to be paid what they would be paid in other neighboring districts.

Many teachers are leaving over this, and I don't blame them. It isn't just about money, its in part due to tax payers within our district making a stink about how "their money" shouldn't be wasted on teacher salaries. The value that teachers have within our community is shockingly low.

My local district pays considerably better than MVWSD and conveniently wasn't even included in the special report that the district spent over $100,000 that compared MVWSD to Santa Rosa.

"resident of another community" is either totally misinformed or is being purposefully inaccurate. $100,000 was not spend on a special report on compensation. Your local district may have higher revenue per student. This would allow higher salary spending per teacher. Or perhaps you are inaccurate in that also by a factor of four?