LAUSD: Trust Isn’t Enough

It always comes down to money. Can the Los Angeles public schools afford to give a double-digit pay raise to teachers without making deep cuts in instructional programs, computers and maintenance of restrooms? Schools Supt. Roy Romer promises to find the additional $100 million needed to pay for the new contract without touching the reading program or shortchanging students on textbooks. But the reform members of the school board are raising serious questions for which Romer has deficient answers. And while the sorry administrative history of the Los Angeles Unified School District is not Romer’s fault, we need to hear more than “Trust me.”

School board President Genethia Hudley Hayes and members Caprice Young and Mike Lansing are asking about the cost of the proposed contract agreement with United Teachers-Los Angeles, which represents 43,000 teachers, counselors and school nurses. How can the district spend $300 million--more than $100 million above the amount budgeted for raises for teachers--without cutting millions from educational programs and services that directly affect students?

There can be no doubt that good teachers deserve more. The LAUSD needs to pay better salaries to improve the quality of teaching, which should be the highest instructional priority for the low-performing district. The proposed raise would give an additional average of 12% to veteran teachers--but would also give 7% to uncredentialed teachers. Worse, the retroactive salary deal is only good for a single year, which means the teachers union will be back at the bargaining table in July asking for more.

UTLA members are expected to vote on the proposed contract settlement in mid-February. Afterward, the school board too must approve the accord before it can go into effect. A majority of the seven-member board has already indicated support for the deal.

The pay hike should be spread over three years to give the superintendent time to develop cost-saving efficiencies in a district known for squandering money. A little history is in order here: In 1989, after teachers went on strike, the district approved a contract that promised an 8% raise each year for three years. When a subsequent recession left Sacramento awash in red ink, teachers were forced to give back 10%. In exchange for the loss in pay, the contract stripped management authority from principals, who could no longer assign faculty.

The terms of the contract settlement tentatively agreed to this week would moderate that harmful and antiquated policy, which dictated that teachers be assigned to classrooms based on seniority. Principals should be able to organize schools based on the needs of students, and this change is an important start.

Romer claims victory because of the union give-back to management and because the deal promises labor peace. A strike would be averted next month, but what about this time next year?