Features

Teachers Want More Money, Smaller Classes By MARY WRENN Commentary

Friday March 25, 2005

Becky O’Malley’s latest editorial demonstrated a surprisingly shallow understanding of the current contract negotiations between teachers and the Berkeley Unified School District and the realities of teaching in Berkeley.  

Ms. O’Malley suggests that teachers’ unions are protecting “seriously inadequate teachers,” though she doesn’t make it clear whether she thinks this applies to Berkeley.  

The Berkeley Federation of Teachers (BFT) does not want the teaching profession to be undermined by people who do not have the capacity to meet the challenges of the job. The BFT initiated and is working diligently to implement a peer assistance and review program, which is a nationally recognized approach for dealing with ineffective teachers.  

Under this program teachers get intensive support to improve their teaching abilities. Teachers who are unable to improve after a year of this support can be terminated by the superintendent. It may interest readers to know that the BFT has taken the position that principals ought to do more observations to evaluate teachers while the district has argued for fewer evaluations.  

Ms. O’Malley also wonders if class sizes are really that bad in Berkeley. In the last two years class sizes in Berkeley schools have increased tremendously. Many classes at the high school have close to 40 students. Like Ms. O’Malley’s granddaughter’s class in Santa Cruz, fourth and fifth grade classes and middle school classes have 32 to 34 students.  

Having more students in a class means that teachers have less time to spend with each student and must spend more time grading and assessing progress.  

The BFT has asked that class size limits be specified for each grade level. When 72 percent of Berkeley voters supported Measure B, they certainly thought they were voting for reduced class sizes. Yet, the district has refused to commit to class size limits. 

Class size is not the only issue where the school district and the BFT disagree. The last time teachers received a pay increase was September 2002. Teachers received no increase in the 2003-2004 school year and have received no increase in the current school year. To add insult to injury, the latest school district proposal would effectively be a pay cut for a large majority of the teachers in the 2005-2006 school year.  

While the district has trumpeted their offer of an inadequate 1.2 percent raise, they have failed to mention that their latest proposal includes a hard cap on health benefits that would require teachers to pay 75 percent of benefits premium increases beginning this year. The net effect would be a cut in take home pay for teachers who have not received a pay increase in two years. With no offer to pay for even a fraction of premium increases beyond next year, teachers will inevitably face even larger pay cuts into the future. 

In many other districts teachers are receiving pay increases without cuts in health benefits. The latest example is the Los Angeles School District where the recently negotiated tentative agreement calls for a 2 percent raise with no increase in teacher contributions to health or retirement benefits.  

The teachers’ union recognizes that the governor’s reneging on his promises to make up for cuts in the education budget limits the district’s ability to fully compensate teachers for the increase in the cost of living that has occurred since their last raise. However, this does not mean that the district cannot make up for a portion of the ground that teachers have lost to inflation.  

On top of the $8 million dollars Berkeley Unified is getting from Measure B to reduce class size, the school district is also receiving an increase in funds from the state of more than 4 percent for the coming school year. Teachers deserve their fair share of this increase in funds. The district’s refusal to offer teachers their fair share demonstrates that for the School Board the classroom is not a priority. 

Becky O’Malley should be asking the School Board to explain why administration is a higher priority than the classroom. BUSD Superintendent Michele Lawrence is one of the most highly paid superintendents in the entire state. According to the most recent data available from the state, Ms. Lawrence’s salary of $185,000 is way above the average for districts of Berkeley’s size, which was $136,519. Ms. Lawrence also received a generous housing allowance, which assisted her purchase of a home in Berkeley.  

Meanwhile Berkeley’s teachers, especially younger teachers who are just starting out, have trouble affording rents, let alone mortgages in Berkeley. While the cost of housing continues to increase, the school district proposes to reduce teachers’ take home pay.  

Maintaining competitive teacher compensation is not currently a priority for the School Board. Berkeley Unified ranked dead last among neighboring districts last year in terms of teacher salary expenditures per student and was only average in teacher benefits rankings. Meanwhile, 20 local school districts have given fair cost of living raises to their teachers this school year and Berkeley has not. 

Many factors affect the achievement of students in school and, as Ms. O’Malley pointed out, many are beyond the scope of the public schools. Certainly socioeconomic status, the support students receive from their families and other related factors have an impact on student performance. But, research has shown that the single most important school-related factor in the achievement of students is the quality and experience of the classroom teacher. Does the school district expect to attract and retain the best and brightest teachers while it proposes to cut benefits and take-home pay? 

 

Mary Wrenn is currently teaching at Willard Middle School and is the secretary for the Berkeley Federation of Teachers. Both of her children attended Berkeley Public Schools. 

 

s