Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Why I’m Sending My Kid to School During the Teachers’ Strike
Politics / Education Robert Gammon — Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:54 PM
The Oakland teachers’ union plans to hold a one-day strike on Thursday, April 29 because of the school board’s decision not to offer raises this year. Even though the district will keep its schools open and staff them with qualified substitutes, many parents plan to keep their kids away from school out of solidarity with the teachers and because they don’t want to put their children in the middle of a labor dispute. But keeping kids out of the classroom is exactly what the teachers’ union wants, and so it’s one of the reasons why I plan to send my child to school that day.
First, let me say that I’m generally pro-union. I believe unions can be a positive force in our society. I’m a longtime former active union member and my partner has been a union member for the past eleven years. I also genuinely believe that Oakland teachers are, on average, underpaid and that they deserve raises. But the reality is that the cash-strapped Oakland school district simply can’t afford them.
It was only just last year that Oakland public schools emerged from state control after requiring a huge bailout six years earlier. In 2003, the district discovered that it had overspent its budget by $57 million. The district then was taken over by the state and given a $100 million line of credit. But the state only made matters worse by overspending and increasing the district’s deficit to more than $70 million. Now, the district must give the state $6 million every year to pay off the debt — a payment that other districts don’t have to make.
Back in 2003, state auditors concluded that one of the primary reasons for the exploding deficit was that district officials had failed to properly account for a 24 percent raise awarded to teachers a few years earlier. After the state takeover, the teacher raises stopped, and Oakland teachers note that their salaries have not kept up with neighboring districts. The average teacher salary in Oakland is about $53,000, while it’s more than $60,000 elsewhere.
Now that the district is under the control of the locally elected school board again, board members are being cautious about not overspending and forcing the district back into insolvency. In contract negotiations, the board originally offered a pay cut proposal, but then softened its stance to a no-raise plan. The teachers union, by contrast, has demanded a 15 percent raise over three years.
A recent fact-finding panel concluded that the district should offer small raises even though it acknowledged that the district can’t really afford it. The school board then unanimously rejected that conclusion, noting that it faces a $37 million deficit next year after it had already made tens of millions in cuts. The district, like most others, is facing declining tax revenues because of the recession.
It’s a common story in California. We underfund our schools and our local governments — no matter what the Tea Partiers say. But that’s not the fault of the Oakland public schools. They’re not going to get more money from the state — even if teachers strike for weeks, months, or the next year. And so for the district to give teachers money it doesn’t have would be foolish. It would be like a family that just emerged from bankruptcy deciding to charge up the credit card again.
Moreover, part of the problem is the teachers own doing. In 2008, they helped defeat an Oakland parcel tax that would have given them raises because some of the money would have also gone to non-union charter schools. And the teachers’ union plans to oppose another parcel tax this year for the same reason. In other words, teachers could have had their raises a long time ago if they weren’t so dead set against people not being in unions.
But also think for a moment about what teachers are doing to kids and their families. Keeping children home on Thursday or finding alterative child care will be a hardship for thousands of working Oakland families. Or what about families where the parents are jobless? After all, nearly one out of every five adults in this city is out of work. What does an unemployed parent say to their kid about why their teacher is demanding a raise when they don’t even have a job?
But what troubles me the most is that teachers know that many parents will just tell their kids to support their teacher so as not to create a rift between the child and his or her instructor. I mean who wants to tell their kid that their primary educator is wrong? Or worse, who wants their kid to feel like they’re betraying their teacher — and friends who stay home — by going to school during a strike? What do kids do when other children give them a hard time for crossing the picket line?
The problem is that teachers are betting that parents will want to avoid this type of angst and will keep their kids home. That, in turn, will put pressure on the school board because the amount of money schools receive is dependent on how many students show up for class. In short, the teachers’ union is exploiting the situation for monetary gain.
Now, I realize that striking is one of the few ways that unions can exert pressure to get what they want. That’s why strikes usually work, at least in the short-term. But striking now is a mistake. If the school district was flush with cash that would be one thing. But it’s not. It can’t afford it, and neither can our kids.
Comments (17)
Showing 1-17 of 17
like
dislike
WHY I’M SENDING BOB GAMMON A LETTER ABOUT IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM
Bob – I would like to ask: Did you do ANY research on this topic before writing this irresponsible editorial piece?
I am an Oakland public school parent. I’m also a college professor. I have become increasingly upset about the crisis in California’s educational system. California is the 8th largest economy in the world. So why should it have an educational system that ranks at the very bottom in the nation? Of course, I do a lot of reading on the subject, but I decided I needed a more in-depth research experience. So, I organized one of my graduate student classes around the issue of California governance, with a focus on the funding of K-12 and higher education. I had leaders of non-partisan political groups, political scientists from local institutions such as Stanford, and representatives from the California legislature come and speak (and be interrogated) by my students. We also took advantage of lectures and conferences offered at the Commonwealth Club, UCBerkeley, and in Sacramento.
Your piece is representative of the level of ignorance operating among Californians today about how their government works – or doesn’t work – and why. Understanding cause-and-effect, accountability, and historical context are important when analyzing such complex issues as the failure of our public education system.
It’s very easy to make teachers the enemy. But OUSD and its BOE have offered incompetent leadership for years – it has funded “silver-bullet” consultants and curricula packages that have squandered our resources and offered mind-numbing lesson plans, rather than investing in the classroom to keep good, creative teachers. I don’t see mention in your piece of the 55% that OUSD has not fulfilled – or the percentage of its budget that it has spent on such non-teacher services in comparison to other districts.
Tony Smith and our BOE are still beholden to state administrators – their jobs depend on whether they are making the state happy or not. Therefore they are not politically in a position to put their necks on the line where their necks should be.
My experience at the strike at my local elementary school had no relationship to the scenario you painted in your article. Parents dropped their kids off at the front of the school per usual and sped off to their next destination. There were no administrators or district subs there to help the students know where to go or what to do. You know who did? The striking teachers. They escorted the kids one by one as they arrived, taking them to the auditorium where children who were attending school on strike day were supposed to go. The teachers left the picket line, put their arms around their kids, and escorted them in. There was music playing, kids who had accompanied their parents to support the strike playing, lots of honking from supporters in cars, taxi cabs, and trucks (the kids’ favorite – loud horns), a lot of donuts, fresh baked goodies, free coffee, and good will. I was proud to participate in such a display of solidarity between the people who care about our children the most – the parents and the teachers.
Finally, per your facile remarks on the parcel tax, have you done any research on the history and impact of charter schools in Oakland and in the nation at large? Have you visited any of these schools in Oakland? Have you examined how they survive as “small schools”? Have you noticed that they don’t have to provide special education programs and can choose not to deal with more “challenging” students? Have you noticed that due to their special arrangements, they can guarantee smaller class sizes – the precise issue that the OEA, the Teachers Union, is fighting for? Have you noticed the administrative complex that is forming around charter schools, the salaries of the people who run these non-profits, and how they are funded? How many charter schools enjoy significantly higher budgets than regular public schools and why? Have you thought about the fact that almost half of the CA budget goes to education and what a financial opportunity that might represent to an entrepreneurial-minded business community? (think of the private industry that has formed around other public service sectors, like the prison system). Have you thought about what will happen if the public school system becomes more and more fragmented, more and more “privatized,” more and more determined by niche markets? What that means for “out-of-date” concepts like democracy and the commons, civic discourse, and equal opportunity?
Finally, I need to ask if you were present at the meeting last Wednesday night when the BOE voted to impose the contract? I was. If you missed it, consult the videotape. I watched how, after the BOE voted unanimously to impose the contract, they began to ask which contract they had just imposed, and what was going to happen now? They seemed surprised when Tony Smith began to talk about returning to the bargaining table. Tony Smith asked the General Counsel for OUSD to explain it. She didn’t do a great job, so he called in Troy Christmas to clarify. Generally, it is a good idea to know what one is voting on and what the outcomes will be before one votes, agreed? It was embarrassing, but really, more frightening than anything.
If you are going to do some more investigative reporting on education, here are some things I’d like to learn more about and I think would be important for the residents of Oakland to learn more about:
1) The connection between state governance issues (particularly the 2/3 rule) and education funding.
2) The impact of increased class sizes on learning at all age levels, not just K-12.
3) The political influence on education policy of the work of foundations (Broad, Rogers, etc).
4) charter school/public school issues
4) And if you’re looking for a more immediate and local topic, how about asking OUSD what its immediate actionable plan is? There was little vision expressed by the BOE at the meeting about what their plan was other than getting “fiscally responsible.” What else is going on, or about to happen, besides imposing the teachers’ contract? I’ve heard Tony Smith needs to close schools – small or underenrolled schools are not seen as being economically feasible now. What does this mean for charters and the small schools run by Oakland Schools Foundation? That is largely how they define themselves – as small. Are they exempt?
As a journalist, you have access to people and information that common citizens don’t. Make the most of it.
Dr. Karen Fiss
Oakland Elementary School parent
All I want to say is that we hear all about what teacher want and how their wants of at least smaller class size go unheard and they are being unfair. Has the media reported how Tony Smith and the board both have had raises within this time? Has any of the board member offered to come into a classroom and get students to achieve without the extra hands and by the way we going to give you more students and expect the same success. I only wished I had the funding to give to teachers to allow them to be out the classroom and let all the wizards in our district educate our children!
PLEASE get your facts straight before bragging to us all about how you're voting with your child's day for the good of education.
OUSD will not lose a DIME of ADA over this strike: state law allows districts to use ADA for either of the previous two years, and we didn't strike last year. The district actually comes out ahead: my school had 20 striking teachers who deliberately chose to forgo a day's wages to make a point about the crisis in our district. And ONE substitute who got 300 bucks for showing two movies.
Mr. Gammon-
Shame on you. If you are so pro-union than you understand first and foremost that an injury to one is an injury to all. Do not be confused by the district, there is money! I was born and raised in Oakland, attended Oakland Public Schools and came back to teach in Oakland. I feel for my student's parents who have lost their jobs and I sympathize with parents who had to struggle for one day to find a safe place for their kids, but please do not confuse school with a day care center. Teachers teach, period! And we deserve, no demand to be compensated for our professional services. Most of my students stayed home and were happy to support myself and my colleagues. Were you outraged when Tony Smith was hired and immediately given a raise? Are you outraged that the OUSD school board gets full benefits for part time work, or that they gave themselves a raise? There is something wrong with being the lowest paid teachers in Alameda county by $10,000. Stand with us so that we can make Oakland Public Schools GREAT! -In solidarity
Cry me a river. No, we can't afford the schools the way they're structured now, and no, they're not underfunded. Education spending has gone up at all levels at a rate far outstripping inflation + population growth, and it has to stop. What have we gotten for all that money? Test scores etc are flat to declining, etc etc. There are maybe 5-6 decent grade schools in Oakland and that's it. 90% of the system is a failure. It's time to close it down and start over.
Bob,
You must not be a parent or you are that confused parent at Peralta School. It doesn't look like you did your homework and think this is just about raises. Good journalist look at the WHOLE picture.
I am working in the teaching profession, but I am not working with a contract. I am highly qualified.I am happy to be working but at present I cannot pay my rent, my car payment, my insurance and a few credit cards within one month's time. So I am behind on my car payments and I am paying penalties with each car payment I manage to pull together. I will be supporting the strike because if I am picked up for a full time contract I do want to put some distance between myself and the cycle of poverty. Did I mention one of the reasons I need a paycheck larger than my transportation and shelter needs is so I can begin paying back all my student loans.
I am a bit confused how the strike is going to benefit the already problem plagued district? Next week, begins the state mandated tests for the district. I think if amyone had the children's best interest they would NOT be on a strike. They would be teaching. This is unbelievable. I thought people became teachers to make a change not to add to the chaos and bully one another. IT is no wonder that people laugh at Oakland!!!
Yes, but the bottom line is OUSD DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY!!! Regardless of how noble the union's intentions may be (which I don't believe for 1 second), the bottom line is you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip!
Skyline2ndYearTeacher,
The demand for smaller class sizes during a budget crisis is even more short-sighted than demanding raises. It's simple mathematics. If you have smaller classes, then you need more teachers.
For example, if you take two classes with 30 students each (60 kids), and shrink them to 20 students each (40 kids), then you need another teacher for the other 20 kids. Assuming that the two original teachers make $50,000 each (a total of $100,000), if you reduce class sizes, then you'll need to hire another teacher for at least $40,000 (the starting pay in Oakland). But that increases the district's salary costs from $100,000 to $140,000. So it would be much cheaper to just give the original teachers a $10,000 raise each. Then the costs only go up to $120,000. It's simple arithmetic, and it would make sense if the district could afford it. But if you demand raises and smaller class sizes, it's a recipe for financial disaster.
In 2003, before the state takeover, the school board commissioned a report from School Services of California to compare Oakland's teacher salaries to other large California districts. The study found that Oakland had more teachers per student than other large districts. In other words, Oakland's class sizes were already smaller than the other districts. If Oakland changed to larger class sizes, it could afford to pay higher salaries. But you can't do both, and none of the other large districts do, according to the study. That is, they don't pay high wages and have small class sizes, too. To do so would be economic suicide in California.
I've taught for ten years. I've worked in three different countries. My evaluations are always outstanding. I feel successful, and I love my job! Parents treat me with respect and kindness, my boss values me and encourages me to pursue professional development, my students thank me when they leave my classroom...I adore them. I teach in a public school. It's a safe and happy place. And, there is no way I'd work in OUSD. Without good teachers, schools don't have a chance and neither do kids. The teachers who work in Oakland public schools make personal sacrifices to do so because, yes, the grass really is greener on the other side. If they don't feel supported by kids and parents, what's the point? How long can a professional be expected to be a martyr?
Have you listened to the Union's argument? Yes, salary is part of the reason why we're striking, but we're also very concerned with the removal of the cap on class sizes.
As a ninth grade teacher at one of Oakland's biggest high schools, I already struggle with individualizing my curriculum for students ranging from third to twelfth grade reading levels, and for English Language Learners to Special Education Students with Individualized Education Plans. I work 10 hours a day to try to reach the needs of this diverse population and get paid for six, but I don't mind because that is what I signed up for. If my classes get any bigger, I will still try to meet the needs of these children, but there is a limited number of hours in the day and students will suffer.
Teaching is a stressful job, but it is the most rewarding job I've ever had -- there's nothing like seeing a struggling student reach the learning target, and sharing that "a-ha" moment with children is priceless. The numbers tell me that I will see fewer "a-ha" moments with larger class sizes.
As a new teacher, I see the value of my job. I also see that I can spend an extra 5 minutes on the freeway and be guaranteed smaller class sizes and $10,000 more per year by working in a district which values me as an employee. Studies show that teachers really begin to refine their practice and become optimally efficient educators after about five years of experience. Many Oakland teachers leave the district before they reach that five-year mark. I implore those of you with students in Oakland to ask your children how many new teachers they have had. Do you really want Oakland to be the teacher boot camp for the Bay Area? Oakland has a history paying to recruit and train new teachers, who then leave after their contracted time is up to spend their prime years as educators in another district. Not much of an investment.
Today, as I juggle administering the CST and consoling students who were at the funeral which was open fired upon yesterday, please consider keeping the teacher attrition rate down by supporting a fair contract.
Wow, I'm a third grade teacher in Oakland and writing that if the students and parents don't support the teachers it might cause a rift shows just how disconnected you are from the issues around the new contract. The students at my school are interested and want to know about why we are striking, it's not just about a raise for teachers, which the mediator suggested should be about 3 % not 15 %, and after they learn about the issues they and their parents have only shown support.
I was recruited out of NYC to teach in Oakland and I have to say the lack of community support for teachers here is truly disheartening. Take the post above, you find all of this distasteful? Come on, how about the both of you come volunteer at the Title 1 school I work at when there are 27 students in my room next year because you agree with the school board, who I believe, see me as disposable.
Charter Schools are private institutions that sap private funds from public schools. They can kick out any child they deem unworthy or uncooperative, which the public school down the street cannot do and would never conceive of doing. Charter Schools do not get reviewed publicly until 5 years after they begin operating. They are not even required to hire college graduates as teachers and principals, let alone ones with credentials. Plenty are found to be grossly failing the children they served and are shut down after five or more years, but not before doing a great disservice to hundreds or thousands of children. The Oakland teacher's union opposed the defeated and proposed parcel taxes that would allow more public money to go to these unaccounted for charter schools.
Bob, this is only one example of the misinformation and ignorance you are spouting. Did you even contact anyone at the union? If so, you seem to have ignored the facts they presented you with, such as the more than Seventy Million Dollars spent on consultants who have no direct impact on the classroom (except to drain precious monies), if any positive impact at all.
Bob, I rarely agree with you. But in this instance,well, we're darn near holding hands.
That the union would hold the district hostage is a travesty, a profound violation of the pact between school and community.
This sense of entitlement by teachers, in a time of incredible economic anxiety, is most repugnant.
Author Archives
-
Jerry Brown’s Optimism Has Been Costly
- May 18, 2012
-
A’s Planned Move to San Jose Looks Dead
- May 17, 2012
- More»
