Blaming the Los Angeles School Board for the Labor Woes of Teachers Is Unfair

Had labor writer Harry Bernstein begun--and ended--his Dec. 6 column (“L.A. School Board-Teacher Harmony Is a Possible Dream”) with the second-to-last paragraph, I would have applauded his understanding of the current dispute over a new teachers’ contract.

Quoting: “But to achieve real peace and progress, teachers must be prepared to accept major responsibilities and realistically face the honestly presented problems that a tight budget proposes.”

However, in contrast to that conclusion, the bulk of the column attempts to place blame on the Los Angeles City Board of Education and myself. Indeed, taking his Dec. 6 and Dec. 13 (“L.A. School System Can Learn From Dade County, Fla.”) columns into account, it appears that Bernstein is not fully familiar with our current well-publicized contract proposals.

When he compares the divisiveness in Los Angeles to the “delightful harmony” in Dade County schools (my former employer), Bernstein neglects the fact that harmony and cooperation were achieved in Dade County because the union was willing to accept the challenge of change. This was not only because the Dade County board and district management altered their fiscal and instructional decision-making processes. The change came about because of purposeful and cooperative efforts by all parties--the union, district managers, myself and the board.

In contrast, the “belligerent” stance of the UTLA (United Teachers-Los Angeles) leadership in Los Angeles, as the column points out, “does little to increase the trust between teachers and administrators that is so essential in resolving problems and, in the long run, creating a power-sharing system.”

Surely, docking the pay of teachers who choose to participate in a work stoppage or partial strike of duties that are in their present contract cannot be considered, as Bernstein calls it, “retaliation” or “escalation.” We know of no employers who continue to pay salaries or wages to workers who fail to perform their contracted duties. Moreover, the California Public Employee Relations Board recently completed its investigation of the district’s charges relating to UTLA’s work stoppage, and has formally cited UTLA’s conduct as unlawful.

On another matter, Bernstein’s statement that board members merely rubber-stamp the salary recommendations of my staff is incorrect. In fact, the most recent salary proposals were initiated by the board.

Teacher salaries are our top financial priority in Los Angeles, just as Bernstein says is the case in Dade County schools. But while he lauds Dade County’s teacher salaries as higher than ours, just the opposite would be the case if our offer were accepted.

Comparing the three-year salary proposal we made to teachers in October and the current three-year teacher agreement in Dade County, these amounts would be in effect by the third year (1990-91): Minimum salary--Los Angeles, $27,397, versus Dade, $26,500; maximum salary with master’s degree and longevity pay: Los Angeles, $52,448, versus Dade, $46,400. The first and second years of our proposal are also significantly higher.

Finally, Bernstein lavishes praise on the “power-sharing” system of Dade County as the reason for harmony in that district and takes the Los Angeles board to task for opposing the idea. In fact, we have offered Los Angeles teachers a significant power-sharing, school-based management proposal which not only builds upon, but is more comprehensive and far-reaching than the system in Dade County.

We believe that our contract negotiations with teachers should be--and can be--concluded successfully and with a minimum of rancor. But it takes both sides, and that’s why we take exception to the one-sided analysis in the Times’ columns.

LEONARD M. BRITTON

Los Angeles

The writer is the Superintendent of Schools for the Los Angeles Unified School District.