Once they opposed automatic pay raises for principals, now school board's OK with them

I'm SHOCKED that a politician would make strong comments before an election to help them get votes and then completely change course once elected!!

How many of these people have promised change only to give in to the status quo over the years? Collins says he gave in because making such a change is "really hard to do". Nice commitment to your word. Nothing has changed since Collins and DiBrienza made their statements pre-election. How are they just now realizing that it might take some work to make changes in the system?

This is the same reason that so many other items will continue to languish. It's why sexual assailants and bullies will continue to get away with their actions, why teachers will never agree to fully implementing things like Schoology or pay attention to a student's 504 or IEP.

By the time parents have had enough, their kids are out of th system and there's no reason to fight, or parents just give in and count the days until they're out of PAUSD.

In the meantime the district shuffles bad teachers and administrators like the Catholic Church shuffles priests and they continue to plod along getting their guaranteed raises no matter how they perform. In a year or so, the district will moan about budget cuts and a lack of revenue, and then magically property taxes will be "better than expected" and bonuses and raises will be passed around again.

A more "positive" partnership --- yeah, for the ones getting the raises.

Me too raises --- doesn't this just place managers, (principals?) administrators, now in the position of being cheerleaders for the teachers union getting raises? I thought they were supposed to be managing the teachers, and overseeing budgets, hiring and so forth, the things that managers do. Doesn't this just create a conflict of interest, co opting them as big cheerleaders for teachers union raises? Is that an appropriate role for this group? So this just makes it clear how they are all on the same side - the teacher's union side --- and the School Board supporting this also makes it clear whose side they're on --- the teacher's union, the staff, rather than on the side of those supplying the $$, the constituents who elected them, and oh yeah, the students.

Hmm....accountability....fiscal management....most expensive per pupil/per year cost in Calif ($20k/student/year before the new raise)....and now me too raises for management....and now more administrative positions added and no one subtracted....the gravy train seems endless.... GREAT JOB SCHOOL BOARD!! In the pocket of the teacher's union and now the managers! Wasn't Todd Collins elected for his fiscal management experience and he spouted talk about accountability? Hah!

@Walter Hays dad --- Stanford GUP has always been about getting a new revenue source for the teacher's union. How would they keep up their salary level if all these new students get added and new teachers need to be hired, without increased revenue?

The corruption is just about complete. Well done school board! Maybe you can find a way to get paid too and tie it to the teachers union raises!

Everybody could use a bit of extra cash these days as the cost of living has increased somewhat.

Principals have expenses too!

I see. Unrest. So lock step increases (never decreases) for everyone regardless of performance or position. Sounds like....the Soviet Union.

Great work responding to threats...never mind about your constituents.

It is difficult to understand what Don Austin is trying to do with this. There are two models for "principal" - one model is the "first among equals" type of "super-teacher" that small schools used to have? The other model is the high-level manager of a great big school that needs lots of managment? Since Palo Alto consolidated all the small schools back in the late 70's-early 80's into a smaller number of larger schools, I would assume that principals are supposed to act like real managers-- which normally would include budget management as well. The new salary proposal seems very inconsistent.

“Betrayal is advancing myself at the expense of the one who I committed myself to advance.”
― Craig D. Lounsbrough