The Word Is Flexibility

Los Angeles appears to be drifting toward a teachers’ strike. It can be headed off, and the prospects for that are brighter with the disclosure that Los Angeles schools could get an extra $33 million from the state because of higher-than-anticipated tax payments. Even with this new money, however, the Los Angeles Unified School District and the United Teachers-Los Angeles must show more flexibility in negotiations than either has been displaying.

It may seem naive to suggest that the two sides sit down again, each prepared to give on a major point, but the possibility of new money should provide incentive for new talks. Otherwise, positions will harden between now and May 30 when the union plans to strike unless it demands are met. The school board refuses to improve its offer; several board members think the offer is already too generous.

The major issues are pay, duties in addition to teaching and teacher involvement in school planning. Swirling around those specifics is also a general frustration that teachers express at being over-supervised, under-appreciated and underpaid. Some complaints are valid. But they should not have to strike to make their case, and they should probably not be as anxious to strike as they seem to be because the board’s salary offer is, in fact, a generous one.

The district has offered the teachers a 20% raise over three years, retroactive to last June. That would increase starting pay for teachers from the current $23,440 a year to $28,427 by 1990. The district has said it would have to make $80 million in cuts, everything from educational programs to equipment purchases, to pay these salaries. Such deep cuts now may not be necessary. The teachers also want a larger role in making decisions at each school, a demand the district says it wants to meet; the dispute is over how big the role should be.

Teachers might be more willing to compromise if they felt the district had tightened its belt by holding down administrators’ salaries. At least 35 administrators earn $90,000 or more a year. Yet a teacher with 20 years’ experience and a Ph.D. would earn only $52,030 by the third year of the proposed contract.

Then there are the contested cars. The district says it provides cars for 51 administrators and the seven elected school board members at an operating cost of $163,000 a year. The union claims the district spends $3.5 million a year on automobiles for 158 administrators. The district should not be providing cars for any administrators. It would suffice to pay for mileage when they use their own cars. Symbolism matters.

The school board in turn might be more willing to compromise if teachers resumed the duties that go with the territory of teaching. Anybody who goes into education should know that among the things teachers do is watch over the playground and hand out grades. They also have to meet with parents and attend back-to-school nights, because that is how parents learn who is teaching their children. Nothing cements public support for schools quite so much as rapport between parents and teachers.

It’s still not certain what additional state money may be available. What is certain is that unless both sides in the Los Angeles school dispute compromise, public support for the entire system will be badly eroded.