Looks like Pleasanton district staff is taking a page out of the Livermore School District book and plans to deficit spend to force a Parcel Tax.

Shouldn't the consultant review of compensation come before the proposed approved 2.5% raise? And if that applies to management - didn't Haglund just get a 1yr retroactive 2% raise a few days into the job?

If we're overcrowded, why would readmission be on the table for 2 students?

I really don't think there should be any raises, especially for management (decision makes on a new school), until after that issue is settled.

“On the other hand, southern schools’ enrollment are expected to remain stable or even decrease.”

Given the failure to predict the change in the north, I don’t know that this prediction is credible.

Providing the cost associated with raises below. With the teachers’ raises, belt tightening was predicted. Haven’t seen where that will occur yet, so adding these amounts will be cause for concern as more gets tightened.

*The board will hold a public hearing on and consider approving a tentative agreement with the Classified School Employees Association (CSEA) for the 2018-19 fiscal year. In line with the recently approved agreement with the Association of Pleasanton Teachers (APT), a major component of the CSEA agreement is a 2.5% raise, retroactive to July 1, 2018.

Web Link

* Trustees will also consider approving a 2.5% raise for management/confidential employees, along with for unrepresented classified employees.

Web Link

Web Link

PP, I would guess the review of compensation is to determine if we are low on pay and if so, by how much and whether we should pay more. The superintendent’s contract is separate and is likely to be up for this raise and another bonus. That may also be true of deputy superintendent and/or assistant superintendents.

If they are our students, I think we mostly have to accept the students if they’ve met the requirements (likely after suspensions). I am supposed to get the breakdown of interdistrict transfers this week, after the meeting, unfortunately.

I figured, a little tongue and cheek on my part as well.

I really don't see how any administrative office can accept a raise when they've essentially stolen our bond money (at this point) with no effective plan for building a new school.

I also think they need to make a stand on drawing new school lines - I may not like the outcome, but from putting myself in their position if I'm being screamed at to solve a problem, and that is one of the tools I have to address it, I'm not doing my job if I'm not pursuing that (and it should come in concert with a new school at the same time anyway - but can be executed in advance of to help with immediate constraints).

@ Pleasanton Parent: I'm with you on the boundary changes. The district needs to seriously look at that. I do think, though, when a family buys a house, the schools are part of the decision making equation in that purchase. It doesn't seem right to change that on people after they've spent so much money. We specifically bought a house on the Amador side of town because my kids were interested in programs that were stronger at that school (band, Comp Civics at the time). We'd have been very unhappy if they changed the boundaries on us midstream.

Isn't there a way to grandfather in the boundary changes? That would at least get the ball rolling for new residents in the years to come. Amador has like 700 more students than Foothill. And then there are all the other issues stated previously with elementary and middle schools. The district should change the boundaries but phase it in over time. That way we also don't have families with siblings split between different schools of the same level.

JC, grandfathering is how it’s been done in the past. The question usually is whether you allow only those at the given school to stay or whether you allow all the unenrolled siblings to follow also. That obviously can take far longer.

I agree with both of you, but this is where the community needs to give a little- someone will get "negatively " impacted by a boundary change even with grandfathering, but it has to happen to support the community ask that improves education (housing values still in tack).

Does anyone know the number of illegals who attend our schools or the number of children of illegal aliens (anchor babies) who attend our schools?

Should have never given up that property in Valley Trails, at the least it would have been a better traffic flow at drop off and pickup then what is being proposed at Donlon school. Same old story where the property is sold, too many homes are built on that property with the kids in those new homes being squeezed into our overcrowded schools.

John Paul - I’ve heard eleventy two percent

PP,

2%? The number is lower than I thought and probably not a drain on our resources. The reason why asked is that my gardener lives in Pleasanton and his 4 children attend our schools. He does not pay taxes so I wondered the overall situation.