Unions Reluctantly Endorse Reforms at Problem Schools

A hastily launched program to turn around 10 under-performing Los Angeles city schools is angering some union members, who warn that the district will face labor strife if it does not proceed carefully.

Despite their protests, however, leaders of the teachers and administrators unions have tentatively endorsed the reform plans submitted to the state Friday. They mostly fault the district for seeking quick solutions to problems that they say have been ignored for years.

The district has promised the state a variety of initiatives, such as revamping curriculum and retraining teachers.

“We’re not fighting it,” said Eli Brent, president of Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, the union of 2,300 school administrators. “We’re supporting anything that will help kids to learn.”

Although leaders of the 43,000-member teachers union also are extending wary support, some hard-line members say the plans impinge on the teachers’ contract and should be formally negotiated.

“I hope this does not blow up, that the district will sit down with us,” said Mike Cherry, a vice president of United Teachers-Los Angeles, which shut the district down in a 1989 strike and threatened a strike last year to gain a pay increase averaging more than 15%. “If not, I do see a fight.”

The reform plans were prompted by state audits that found the 10 schools substandard in academics, as well as health and safety. Principals at about half of the schools are being transferred, demoted or forced into retirement. So far, one teacher has been transferred, and district officials said other teacher transfers are being considered.

Already, the district’s reforms have resulted in the filing of one grievance by a teacher. Union officials said they are prohibited from discussing individual cases, but they pledge to fight any staff changes that violate contract requirements.

“We’ll go to the full extent of our legal right to make sure our members are treated fairly in all these situations,” said UTLA President Day Higuchi.

The agreements for the 10 schools put both unions in the delicate position of trying to balance their oft-repeated support for reform with their traditional role in protecting members’ rights. Some of the provisions require significant concessions from teachers, for example, forcing them to change the way they teach or adding days to the school year for professional development.

The dilemma hits the teachers union at a particularly sensitive time. UTLA is in the final stages of an election for new officers. The first round of voting for four candidates who are seeking to succeed Higuchi is next month.

“This is a huge issue,” said Joshua Peshtalt, an English teacher at Manual Arts High School who writes an opposition newsletter that is supporting a hard-line candidate for president.

Peshtalt dismisses the state audits and the district’s follow-up as “scapegoating for much more serious problems the state has been unwilling to address, such as funding and class size.”

Current UTLA leaders, who have long been pushing their own version of reform, are still miffed that the district never pursued a similar proposal that they made jointly with the administrators several years ago. It would have created intervention teams of teachers and administrators to shape up troubled schools.

“Had we been engaged in a cooperative effort with the schools that are showing signs of stress, we wouldn’t be looking at these 10 schools now,” Higuchi said.

His counterpart at the administrators union had the same complaint.

“The part that hurts us, that is disappointing and almost insulting, is that we have been alerting the district as to schools that need help, and nothing has been done,” Brent said.

Supt. Roy Romer said he consulted the unions in shaping the plans and believes he can count on continued support.

“I expect the unions to be cooperative in this because this is what we need to make the schools better,” he said.

State and national teachers union leaders are watching the reforms in Los Angeles as a precursor of actions soon to come to other districts under California’s school accountability plan and the new national law requiring standardized testing and evidence of improvement in every state.

Past efforts at such radical reform have often turned out badly, they said, because schools were overhauled too fast, with inadequate follow-up.

Wayne Johnson, president of the California Teachers Assn., said the Los Angeles reforms look “arbitrary and egregious” to him.

“It doesn’t look like there has been a major effort to sit down with the teachers and say, ‘What is wrong here and how can we work together to fix it?’ ” said Johnson, who, as former UTLA president, led the union through the 1989 strike.

Sandra Feldman, president of the American Federation of Teachers, is reserving judgment. She has spoken out in favor of school redesign, but said, “It’s very hard to do it right. You have to involve all the constituencies, be sure that people get all the information that’s available and that they feel involved in being part of the solution.”

In Los Angeles, representatives of both unions sat in on the talks as the agreements were drafted and made suggestions.

The agreement for Mt. Vernon Middle School originally required all teachers to reapply for their jobs or be transferred. Based on UTLA’s objection, the final language reads that the teachers must sign a “commitment letter.”

But there were no formal negotiations, and the unions did not sign off on the documents.

In an interview, Romer acknowledged that some of the provisions probably conflict with elements of the unions’ contract and must be negotiated.

He said he expects the unions to cooperate because their leaders know that the actions are necessary to avoid more drastic reforms, such as breaking up the district.

“If we don’t improve, we’re out of here,” he said, “us and the unions.”