Opposition Unites in Bid to Oust Milosevic

Los Angeles teachers won a victory important to themselves last week when the Board of Education, at the urging of Supt. Roy Romer, ended the practice of “me-too” raises. That inflexible precedent automatically gave other school district employees the pay hike negotiated by United Teachers-Los Angeles. The teachers union opposed one-size-fits-all raises, and we agree. Raises should be determined by performance.

Teachers deserve to be paid much more, and this year they can expect a double-digit increase because of the healthiest state treasury in years. Gov. Gray Davis and the California Legislature approved $1.8 billion for school districts largely for teachers’ raises. That ample slice of the pie should, however, come with accountability and measurements of progress attached.

Salaries, including raises, represent the largest item in the LAUSD’s $8.4-billion budget. Pay hikes are typically financed from the district’s general fund. Ending the “me too” Policy, which began in 1976, could make a larger share available for raises for the teachers; in any case, each major group, from teachers to administrators to clerical and blue-collar workers, will have to make its own case.

The teachers union prevailed specifically at the expense of 2,000 principals and administrators. Their union, the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, had already reached a “me-too” deal with the district that was signed by interim Supt. Raymond C. Cortines and Howard Miller, the former chief operating officer, before they left last month.

The administrators’ deal was expected to be approved by the school board, but in a surprise move, a majority rejected it Tuesday at Romer’s request. The new superintendent says he wants to bring more businesslike practices to the school district. He wants factors such as skill level and salaries in other districts to be considered in determining pay raises. He’s right, and it took guts to side with an antagonistic teachers union-long at odds with district management-over administrators, who are a schools chief’s natural allies.

The teachers did not help their cause during the board meeting; many disrupted the proceedings with slogans and shouts, an oddly unprofessional display.

When the teachers’ contract is on the table, LAUSD negotiators should recall the words of teachers union President Day Higuchi at the Tuesday meeting. He is now on the record opposing “one-size-fits-all” raises for administrators and others. Why, then, is the union still demanding identical annual increases for all of its own members, regardless of performance?

Before a new contract is signed, Romer and the Los Angeles Board of Education should insist on tying at least a share of the money to advances in student performance-not to the highest score but the most progress-and the restoration of principals’ authority to assign teachers and organize faculties. Excellence should have a payoff for teachers, as in any other profession.