LAUSD’s spend-now trap

If you were given an allowance to feed yourself for the week, would you parcel it out to last seven days or spend everything the first two days and assume that, when you’re broke and hungry, people will give you more money? Strange to say, the second choice is favored by many these days at Los Angeles’ schools.

The federal stimulus money coming to the LAUSD is supposed to see it through for two years, but it will only last that long if the district makes giant staffing cuts. Unions and some parents are pushing to save some of those jobs by having the district spend all or most of the stimulus money the first year.

Nobody wins under either scenario, but prudence should prevail. The spend-now proponents have little idea where the money will come from the second year, which could leave the district on a financial precipice.

The potential loss of thousands of teachers, not to mention key support staff, would be a harsh blow to schools that this last year have significantly improved their students’ test scores. The teachers left behind could expect substantially bigger class sizes, as well as dirtier campuses and less reliable computers. But when it’s a choice between harsh cuts now and harsher cuts later, we’d rather cut now.

School district managers are promoting a plan to use a bigger portion of the stimulus money the first year than previously envisioned, but only if unions agree to make concessions such as furloughs or pay cuts the second year to cover the shortfall. That’s OK, but a smarter move would be a hybrid: some labor concessions the first year to save more money, and larger ones the second year if the dreaded financial cliff materializes. Concessions should include more than straight dollars and cents; they also should change union rules so that managers could retain the most qualified teachers. The district should not let go of talented teachers and replace them with instructors who might have more tenure but lesser qualifications. The schools are still emerging from the years when some high school math classes were taught by rotating substitutes. Even in rough financial times, going backward on this is unthinkable.

It isn’t fair to expect teachers, who aren’t the highest-paid professionals in the best of times, to take the brunt of the district’s financial troubles. But nothing about the current fiscal crisis is fair. Sharing the pain through contract concessions is the unions’ best prospect for keeping teachers employed and everyone’s best chance of providing children with the best possible education in the most trying times.