The homepage of the Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District (LGSUHSD) website reveals a clear vision for the direction of the district: “Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District is a model of excellence in our community.”
In recent weeks, however, some teachers and community members are increasingly questioning district leaders’ decisions. Complaints brought up at recent board meetings include the attrition and loss of certificated staff, teacher pay and attrition, the expansion of district office staff and a lack of transparent communication.
Another issue that raised concerns at the Sept. 24 meeting was the board’s decision to approve an increased pay and benefits contract for superintendent Bill Sanderson, who is now in his third year in the position. The contract included an 8% salary raise of $23,000 for a total annual pay of $308,448; a waiver of all credential requirements for the position; and medical, dental, vision, disability and health insurance until age 65, regardless of his employment status with the district.
At the same time, an explosion of issues and complaints from groups including the music department and MSET robotics have come to head in a series of meetings this month.
Saratoga Music Boosters (SMB) held open-mic town halls on Oct. 9 and Oct. 13 discussing concerns such as the complete cancellations of this year’s concerto competition and CMEA festival as a result of policy changes. The district hosted its own open-mic town hall on Oct. 14 in the SHS library to discuss similar issues, and will host another forum on Oct. 22 at 6 p.m. An online petition drawing more than 1,000 signatures has circulated demanding transparency, diligence from the board and engagement with the community from the superintendent.
The view of the various parties clashed during a regularly scheduled board meeting on Oct. 15, where more than 200 students, parents and community members attended both online and in-person, delivering more than an hour total of public comments airing their grievances on district policies.
Students, parents, and community members gather in an adjacent room to watch the board meeting on Oct. 15. The meeting room filled up completely, with 18 students delivering public comment on the music program and MSET robotics.
Teachers emphasize issues with staffing and compensation
While the district has consistently produced significant academic outcomes, being ranked the third best district in California by Niche, teacher compensation has lagged behind some other local districts since 2018, resulting in several longtime staff members moving to nearby districts with more competitive pay.
For instance, in 2022, former athletic director and head football coach Tim Lugo left the district to assume a similar role at the Mountain View-Los Altos (MVLA) High School District, and, months later, former guidance counselor Alinna Satake did the same. MVLA offers base salaries that are up to $20,000 higher than those at LGSUHSD, and the difference in pay reaches as far up as $40,000.
Another grievance is the declining number of educators at the two schools. Compared to two school years ago, certificated staffing — which includes teachers, guidance counselors, school psychologists, program specialists and speech and language pathologists — has seen a decline by 11.5 FTE, or full-time equivalents, according to Jennifer Young, president of the District Teachers’ Association (DTA).
Heightened awareness has focused on the number of guidance counselors at the schools in recent months. When SHS guidance counselor Toni Jones — who worked full-time last year — resigned over the summer for personal reasons, the district chose to make the new position a 60% job. Current district employee Mary Carol Bernal was then hired for the position in the early part of the fall semester. She also works 40% at the district’s Middle College program.
According to Young, the latest change was made to align with a district staffing goal to reduce guidance counselors at an “overstaffed” Saratoga High, balancing counselors’ workload with the “significantly higher” caseloads of Los Gatos High counselors.
Some teachers have voiced opposition to this decision, calling for greater equity by hiring more guidance counselors. They argue that these decisions have led the remaining SHS counselors — Eileen Allen, Brian Safine and Frances Saiki — to be flooded with work this year.
During public comments at the Sept. 24 board meeting, AP US History and World History teacher Mike Davey noted that on multiple Saturdays, while he coaches the basketball team, he has seen the guidance counselors working in the office. He added that their working hours sometimes stretch from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. throughout the school week in order to complete recommendation letters in the fall.
“Our counselors take on an enormous amount of [work] alone,” Davey told the board. “By [reducing the amount of counselors], the district has added immeasurable hours. There seems to be a big divide between the district office and the schools. I can’t tell you how demoralized [the counselors] are.”
Some teachers have also seen a significant increase in class sizes, which they believe results in a less effective learning environment for students, even as they complain that the district office has grown in size.
The DTA’s negotiated 2024-25 school year contract with the district specifies a mutual goal to maintain the total number of students that a 1.0 FTE general education teacher teaches “at or below 165 beginning at the end of the first six-week grading period.” For some teachers, who teach five classes, this means an average of 33 students per class.
Kirk Abe, who teaches World History and AP US Government and Economics, said he has between 33 and 35 students in all five of his periods. According to Abe, who has taught at the district for over 32 years, these are the largest class sizes he has ever experienced, with his average class size increasing from around 29 in the 2020-21 school year to more than 34 this year.
He noted that this has led to increased difficulties in giving meaningful feedback, as well as an inability for students to participate during in-class discussions.
At the Sept. 24 board meeting, Abe urged the board to re-evaluate how money is spent at the district, citing a lack of funding toward classrooms in order to prioritize the well-being of students.
“I can only imagine if [district] funds were used for what they were intended for — helping in the classroom,” Abe told the board. “What exacerbates this is my understanding of increased spending on district office expenses. How is this helping students?”
Community probing reveal lack of classroom spending
Teacher salaries and benefits remain a major point of contention, despite the passage of the parcel tax in the spring and the accompanying 8% raise teachers received. California Education Code EC 41372 mandates that 50% of every high school district’s expenses on education contribute to paying teachers’ salaries.
However, one anonymous community member recently brought to the board’s attention budget reports of the district’s unaudited actuals from the 2023-24 fiscal year that revealed that the district spent only 45.40%, meaning the district underpaid teachers by $3.5 million.
The unaudited actuals report for the 2023-24 fiscal year show that the district missed the form CEA requirement by 4.60%, or $3.5 million.
According to Chief Business Officer (CBO) Ruben Fernandez, the deficit was corrected to only around 2%, or around $1 million, after the form was reviewed by county officials. During the Sept. 10 board meeting, he attributed the teacher-salary spending gap to “direct pupil services costs that do not count towards the minimum spend.”
In other words, over the past few years, increased spending on areas such as mental health and well-being for students has outpaced teacher compensation.
Specifically, Fernandez associated this year’s deficit to the transition from contracted services to hiring full or part-time employees including psychologists, speech pathologists and other positions. The DTA has called this rationale into question, saying these salaries do not make a significant enough difference to justify the deficit, and teachers say this reasoning doesn’t answer the fundamental question of why teacher compensation was lacking in the first place.
Fernandez added that around 24% of high school districts in the state did not meet this spending requirement in the 2022-23 fiscal year, and that the district has been getting much closer to missing the requirement since the pandemic. For example, during the 2018-19 fiscal year, the district exceeded it by around $2.9 million, but during the 2022-23 fiscal year, the district exceeded the requirement by only about $550,000.
Despite this year’s deficit, the district is currently in the process of finalizing a waiver with the county office of education to avoid penalties. According to Fernandez, as long as the district is able to show that it has competitive salaries and benefits compared to at least three nearby districts, the county will not reserve the funds that were not spent for teacher pay, allowing it to continue spending the same amount next year. The form is expected to be completed by mid to late October, he said.
Tensions rise between district office and teachers, following superintendent salary raise
Following negotiations from early 2024 between the DTA and district representatives, a raise of 8% for all certificated staff was agreed upon late in the spring semester. This came after the district originally countered the DTA’s offer of a 13% raise with only 1%, citing concerns about deficit spending and a lack of funds.
But the passing of the increased parcel tax in June appears to have shifted the narrative. Although these negotiations were originally limited in scope to teacher pay, the final deals included an 8% raise for all employees of the district, with the California School Employees Association (CSEA) — representing classified staff such as maintenance and clerical workers — reaching a similar agreement.
While deals like these are usually a result of “me-too” clauses that give district employees the same compensation increase as teachers, no such agreements exist within the district. Instead, the district office has cited “past practice” or “past precedent” to justify similar administrative raises.
Additionally, while the 8% raise represents an increase of nearly $23,000 for the superintendent, staff at the lower end of the salary range — especially CSEA staff who do not have teaching credentials — receive significantly smaller raises.
Data obtained from the DTA shows that, compared to other local districts LGSUHSD spends the fourth most on administrator salaries from its total budget, compared to the eighth most for teacher salaries.
“Comparable districts” refers to “districts that attract teachers from our area, including districts who have hired former LGSUHSD teachers due to higher salaries.”
Over the past five years, the proportion of district spending on teacher salaries has decreased by around 5%, while the 8% raise this year represents a small reversal of this trend.
The issue of teacher compensation has intensified with the added context of increased salaries and expansions at the district office in recent years. The lumping of all district employees within the negotiated 8% raise, combined with the newly approved job description for a Director of Fiscal Services, raised doubts about the district’s previous concerns on a lack of funds for teachers.
On Oct. 7, an email from Sanderson notified staff that the job search Director of Fiscal Services would be put on hold as a result of these concerns, with the district instead “looking at the different functions and personnel within our Business Services Department to see how we can best support the needs of our district.”
Still, while certificated staff has declined by 11.5 FTE, the district office has expanded its staff by seven employees in the past eight years, some of whom receive salaries and benefits of more than $200,000 a year.
And in the final minutes of the Sept. 24 board meeting, the board approved an amended contract for Sanderson by a 5-0 decision. It officially puts his 8% raise into effect, even as five community members spoke in opposition to it during that meeting.
While pay for superintendents nationwide has historically risen in the past few years, Sanderson’s pay falls closest to the average pay for those overseeing California districts of more than 20,000 students. The two-school district currently enrolls 3,261 students between Los Gatos and Saratoga High School, a number which has declined by 230 in the past two years.
Sanderson’s revised contract also signifies two shifts from past practices: a waiver of all credential requirements, which, according to California Education Code 35028 include “both a valid school administration certificate and a valid teacher’s certificate” and insurance fringe benefits until age 65 — regardless of his employment status.
Both of these were not present in any of Sanderson’s contracts from the past two years, including his original one.
A recent article by the Los Gatan revealed that his teaching certifications in both South Carolina and Georgia expired more than 15 years ago. The article also suggests that he only ever obtained a temporary teaching certificate to teach in San Francisco and that he currently does not have any permanent ones.
“Most California superintendents have a valid California Administrative Services Credential, and many do not have current teaching credentials,” said Diane Siri of Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates, the search firm which found Sanderson, in a statement to the Falcon. “[Sanderson] exceeds the qualifications of many current superintendents having been a successful Assistant Principal, Principal, and Assistant Superintendent before being selected to lead the LGSUHSD from a large and competitive field of candidates.”
SHS parent and SMB President Alicia de Fuentes spoke up in opposition to the decision for the 8% raise, citing an ongoing internal investigation into the superintendent’s performance; his regular absence at booster presidents’ meetings; and a lack of open communication with the community regarding changes to district policies on international field trips, facility rentals and school-connected organizations.
The Falcon reached out to the DTA with questions on the district’s mission; they stated that no matter the intentions of the district, a lack of attention toward input from teachers has eroded trust, giving some staff the impression that there is no longer any interest in developing relationships between teachers and the district office.
“It feels like a slap in the face to the many teachers who have been part of the district for a long time and who helped earn the district the reputation the [district office] administration intends to preserve,” the answer from DTA leadership said.
