Reward Teachers, but Not at the Expense of Education

There is no question that teachers, the cornerstone of all efforts to improve public education, need better pay. All members of the educational community are in agreement on this fact, but any districtwide pay increase must be implemented in a way that is prudent, sustainable and that does not divest children--or teachers themselves--of the many other tools they need to be successful.

For this reason, we are extremely concerned about the proposed contract agreement--details of which were announced Tuesday--between the teachers’ union and the Los Angeles Unified School District. The district leadership, including staff and some board members, is proposing massive new spending on union contracts that would result in millions of dollars in cuts in educational programs and services that directly affect our children.

Teachers in the LAUSD should receive a substantial increase in pay. However, we cannot support a contract that would greatly increase teacher salaries at the expense of textbooks, counselors and schools that are clean and functional and that could compromise important instructional initiatives like the district’s new reading program, which has already resulted in marked gains in student achievement.

In addition, while we recognize that increased salaries are important in teacher recruitment and retention, we don’t believe that salaries alone help attract and retain good teachers. Teachers--like students--are affected by the conditions and resources in their schools. They all need clean bathrooms, enough textbooks and less-crowded facilities. Teachers also need professional development, materials and sufficient support services to help them do their jobs effectively. Unfortunately, the district may have to make cuts in all these areas in order to fund the proposed contract.

While we are deeply concerned by the proposed cuts for the current year, we are equally troubled because the terms of the proposed agreement are simply not sustainable. The district leadership has failed to consider the effect of the financial costs of the contract in a multiyear context or in terms of a broad strategic vision. Critical concerns, like anticipated future cost increases, have been overlooked. For example, we need to ensure that we have the money to open the 98 schools that the district must build in the next five years.

This is why we cannot embrace the proposed agreement. We must keep in mind the best interests of the students we were elected to serve, as well as our obligation to be fiscally responsible.

In 1989, the school district assumed that the economic growth of the late 1980s would continue. They bet on the future, gave large, unsustainable increases and had to push through deep and painful cuts. We do not want to repeat that mistake. We cannot depend on anticipated state or federal money that may never come. Any significant increases to teacher salaries must be made with a strategic, multiyear view toward improving public schools.

The proposed contract would seriously jeopardize the priorities collectively set by the board over the past 18 months. As we all work together to reform public education in Los Angeles, we must find a way to reward our teachers without punishing our students.