https://danvillesanramon.com/square/print/2017/06/26/school-board-looking-at-reorganizing-educational-services-department


Town Square

School board looking at reorganizing Educational Services Department

Original post made on Jun 27, 2017

The San Ramon Valley school board is set to talk about restructuring the district's Educational Services Department on Tuesday night.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, June 26, 2017, 2:11 PM

Comments

Posted by Stella
a resident of Danville
on Jun 27, 2017 at 10:59 am

Raises? I am dumbfounded!


Posted by What??
a resident of Danville
on Jun 27, 2017 at 12:54 pm

Unbelievable that the Superintendent makes over $300,000 a year just in salary alone, and how many other "administrators" make over $200,000 a year. No wonder the district is always crying "we are broke" and demanding additional parcel taxes from us residents. No Mas! Vote No on parcel taxes.


Posted by Scott Hale
a resident of San Ramon
on Jun 27, 2017 at 2:32 pm

Scott Hale is a registered user.

why is the new superintendent getting a retro raise of 3% to the day HE was hired? He agreed to the offer at the time, no sure why he's in line for a retro raise? Must be nice, sheesh.


Posted by Doug
a resident of San Ramon
on Jun 27, 2017 at 7:04 pm

Totally agree, the Supt should not be seeing a retro, nor should any of the other district administrators. Word on the street, no money for teachers but bump up the highest paid people. This makes no sense, but not much in SRVUSD this year has.


Posted by Gail
a resident of Danville
on Jun 28, 2017 at 11:52 am

As a former employee of SRVUSD, I find it nauseating that most service employees who work FAR HARDER than any administrator does on a daily basis, make approximately 10% of what an administrator is salaried.
They also don't receive medical or dental or paid time off.
Classified employees are practically indentured servants.
And have their wages decided upon by these folks who are completely out of touch with the reality of the average employee in their district.
Nobody making over $100,000K in the district should have the right to decide to vote against raises and benefits for the people that are the glue holding the district together.
We clean your bathrooms, your classrooms and your children; it behooves you to keep the people serving children directly well paid. Working in education should not require a vow of poverty.

And yet, the district administration is ALWAYS CRYING POOR to line their own fat pockets and never to pay their employees fair, LIVING wages.
#reasonsileftmycareerinspecialeducation


Posted by FancyMae
a resident of San Ramon
on Jun 28, 2017 at 2:11 pm

At GAIL:

Gail,

I understand your frustration about being paid a low wage. But, please check facts before posting. On the SRVUSD.net website, the classified contract is available and is public knowledge. Employees do receive 12 vacation days per year and can get up to 20 vacation days once they have worked for ten years. Also, full time employees do receive FULL medical coverage, as long as they choose Kaiser.

I agree, administrators do make a lot. But, they have earned their position by obtaining multiple degrees above a bachelors degree.


Posted by District Teacher
a resident of San Ramon
on Jun 28, 2017 at 8:01 pm

FancyMae,

The contract sounds well and good on the district website, but what that contract doesn't show you is how many classified employees are only employed at part-time status so that they don't get the benefits coverage listed there. Paraprofessionals are vital to the success of special education students at our schools, but very few are employed at what is considered full-time. This means that they work about 29 hours a week and get paid little for the hard work they actually do. That is why it is so hard for schools to find and hire paraprofessionals in our district.


Posted by FancyMae
a resident of San Ramon
on Jun 28, 2017 at 9:18 pm

District Teacher,

Your post is correct. You are the master of the obvious.


Posted by District Teacher
a resident of San Ramon
on Jun 28, 2017 at 10:48 pm

FancyMae,

I guess I see zero point to your initial post then other than to justify the superintendent's raise? Or were you just jumping on the chance to prove Gail wrong? (Even though she isn't really)


Posted by C. R. Mudgeon
a resident of Danville
on Jun 29, 2017 at 9:10 am

I'm going to limit myself to just two comments:

1. There's zero justification for retroactive raises. Since these employees didn't quit during the past year, their pay during that past period was clearly adequate.

2. I also had to laugh (or was it cry?) over the "longevity" bonuses (or were these actual pay increases?), granted every three years for "sticking around".... Actually, the need for these is due to the fact that teachers and administrators have pension portability, meaning that they can hop around from district to district, and keep their pension "years of service" intact. In the private sector, this doesn't happen, so the potential loss of accrued pension benefits serves as a motivator to stay at the same company. The teacher and administrator pension plan makes it easy to job-hop, at least within the state, in turn leading to the need for longevity bonuses. A great deal, except for the taxpayer!


Posted by Scott Hale
a resident of San Ramon
on Jun 30, 2017 at 9:45 am

Scott Hale is a registered user.

certainly a new superintendent does not deserve a retro increase to the day he began. He accepted the offer as-is and his job did NOT change during the year.

Retro pay is usually (for union workers) when one contract expires and a new one begins and the new contract wasn't signed when the first contract expired. Retro to the day old contract expired.

As to longevity raises. Aren't those to keep teachers where they are since, you know, there is a huge shortage of said teachers in California? Seems fair. Cheaper to give raise, then to recruit, no?