A bit ironic to see the Achievement Gap story and the Budget/Negotiations story together on the same headline page. Teachers should consider the perception that creates for those in competitive private sector professions. If our organizations lack of success at such an important metric was widely known in our industry, compensation increases would be hard to come by. I am not assigning responsibility, simply pointing out the perception and disconnect.

It's a truly difficult issue. I, for one, am a bit tired of the old adage that, "everyone else pays more." Everyone else (typically Los Altos and Palo Alto) employs very different funding formulas. Our budget and salaries need to reflect our realities. That may mean our teachers will continue to make less than teachers in other districts. That doesn't mean our schools can't be as good or better. And teachers simply have to do what's right for their families. If that means they need to seek employment in other districts, I would understand that. I'm not necessarily bothered by teacher turnover. Administrator turnover is more troubling. We have great administrators. We also have such great teachers. But if we can't afford to keep them, then we'll simply have to construct a method of professionally developing younger teachers who may be willing to work for less. For the moment, that might be our reality.

I think we need to separate the issues of salary from the achievement gap. The article in the voice gave a brief synopsis of the research conducted at Stanford which was exhaustive and comprehensive.

The NY times ran an article that provides an interactive and searchable database of every district in the nation. This is a serious problem across the nation and the study points to the primary factor in academic success as being income/ethnicity. In fact, the gap persists even amongst high performing/high income areas. The data suggests that teachers, curriculum, administrators, facilities, and technology are not the primary factors contributing towards the widening gap in academic success.

Web Link

The salary gap is another issue entirely. The only way to avoid the churn in staff is to be competitive with salary and benefits. This is basic business at its most fundamental level. When a teacher can seek employment and perform the exact same function 10 miles to the south of MVWSD or 5 miles to the north and receive 15-20% more pay, MVWSD will not become a place where teachers come to stay and invest in our community. MVWSD will continue to be a training ground where new teachers come, learn, and then leave. Not only will new teachers not choose to stay, but veteran teachers will also leave as this income gap grows. At the high end of the salary schedule MVWSD teachers currently earn 18,000 K LESS than teachers in Santa Clara. Furthermore, Santa Clara teachers will receive a 9.5% increase for next year. I do not understand how they can afford to compensate their teachers adequately (even with the increase in STRS and cost of benefits) where MVWSD cannot.

How is it that this town, home of the super rich tech giants, has serious budget issues in its schools?

MVWSD will not attract and retain the best and brightest until they start paying stipends for NBCTs! Start making student achievement top priority (via highly qualified teachers) and maybe you will see a change.

Union District also just gave their teachers a 9% raise and there unrestricted reserves are around 14 to 15%.

Year after year this district holds onto outrageous reserves and tells it teachers they can't afford to pay them better. It's time that the school district stops being a bank and start spending money on its employees and not for an attorney who lives in Southern California and flies up only for negotiations.

Does the community know about this?

This reserve idea is the problem. Uninformed board members and the administration thinks a reserve this large is a good idea. Really, it's just a waste of taxpayer money. Earning interest at 0.2% while the teachers go underpaid. Disgusting.

Also, just look at their hypotheticals. They say the property tax revenue will go up
10%, but the city figures 12%. Ok, so up the offer from 4% on-schedule and 2% onetime
to 4% on schedule and 4% one-time. If the property tax revenues fall short of 12%, then
THAT's the time to worry about a potential shortfall in future years. Doing so now
is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. No need for a bath if you're going to throw out the baby. These teachers will walk to another job. Please get real. Stop being so darn stupid. These reserve funds aren't going to bail you out if someday the revenues plummet. Then if and when that should happen, then you have to think about layoffs. But until then, the teachers need to be paid properly. Take a look at MVLA. It's not just that they get more money. They don't have the monster reserves. Why not? Because they aren't reasonable or prudent.

If you have these large reserves, it's going to be hard to negotiate a reasonable continuation of the Shoreline Regional Improvement district special property tax base. So you will gain literally nothing, and in fact you might lose.

@Reservations about Reserves. I'm informed enough, as a read-all-the-reports Board Member to know that your estimate of 0.2% interest on Reserves, is high. The last I read on this - it was about .05% and it was also uninsured for investment loss (the County Treasury Pool).

Palo Alto USD just had an interesting contract signed where they specifically tied 'up to 2% salary Bonus' contingent on the property tax revenue going up as projected - if it goes down, the 2% disappears or gets reduced to 1%.

This is on top of their Base salary schedule percent increases (multi-year)
They also are a year behind MVWSD in their contract/pay schedule. 1 year is retroactive (while we already matched PAUSD +%5 in 2014-15)

Somebody wrote about 'comparisons within 5 miles.' That's useful, maybe 10 mi also. But 'all high school teachers salaries' - compared to elementary school teachers? Is that useful?

The Board asked for and got a more realistic set of Budget Assumptions. We abandoned the lowball estimating of the past (IMO) when we adopted the new Budget Assumptions a few days ago.

but, that's just my Opinion
for I'm only 1 of the 5 MVWSD Trustees, Steven Nelson

here is link to PAUSD teacher contract, as reported by Palo Alto Weekly.
Web Link

note "12 percent" means 5% retroactive (2015-16), 4%, 3% in another two years (Base salary schedule)

plus Bonus in next and in two years of up to 2% per year contingent on property tax revenues

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?