Friday for the LAUSD situation was supposed to be a normal day- whatever you interpret that to be. For those of you that still watch television for your main news, you might have noticed there was still lots of commotion at the Beaudry headquarters with the LAPD coming in to arrest people, apparently all or mostly teachers. There were about 25 arrested for civil disobedience, roughly meaning that the police said the actions were in violation of law (like blocking traffic and such) and that they would be arrested if they did not move out immediately. The didn't and the UTLA president A.J. Duffy was one of them - and the story was so widely covered that I won't bother to put up any links or attribution.
The whole demonstration still seems oddly counter productive since there were other plans presented to save more jobs for teachers. So you really wonder what the purpose of the actions that the UTLA took on Friday, other than to get news coverage. In that regard, it did succeed. But the real message is what? It was more for show, in my opinion, after the court decided that the contract terms between the union and the district included a "no-strike" provision. What would a strike do for the LAUSD- the agency that has the responsibility to educate students? What would it do for the students? Mainly just cost lots of money for substitute teachers, possibly cause parents to keep students home (and the "ADA"- "average daily attendance" would drop, losing more dollars for each school), wasting much time AT school for those still there- all in all, a cost to taxpayers, disruption to schools and overall an expense for the single purpose of avoiding layoff of teachers.
This really reminded me of the protest about a month ago by activists demonstrating in Lincoln Heights against CVS pharmacy policies that kept condoms locked up. The activists said locking these items up was part of the idea of a genocidal move against Latinos to help the spread of AIDS and HIV, and that the displays should be unlocked. The response was simple. These items tend to be easily shoplifted. Were Latinos too shy to ask for assistance to buy condoms? The underlying labor issue of having an election for union representatio was brought out as the real reason for targeting that store. THAT was clearly a publicity stunt. It was not like CVS has the only condoms in the city and Rite-Aid drug store is two blocks away- move your business to them if it bothers you. That's just one of many alternative to the problem, if you want to call it that. But the L.A. Times went for it as a quirky story and covered it over other more legitimate choices in the local news. That demonstration really lost a lot of credibility for that organization (actually for both organizations, the L.A. Times and the protest organizers) for what IS a real health issue. Denial is still a big response to the AIDS and HIV issue by Latinos, but this protest was devalued its legitimacy.
The teachers union similary works against the teachers' interests by trying to portray all other things except the real one as the issue. When you look at the picture, it comes down to their real message to the District: "Do whatever it takes to keep all jobs for teachers" and that is the bottom line. The message is not "minimize" impact" or "improve efficiency" of the dollars available, or "ensure continued operation of the schools." It's "Don't lay off any teachers."
Over the weekend, the L.A. Times columnist Sandy Banks wrote a piece about this situation that addresses what's happening here. "Is all this really for the children? It's hard to believe that packing classes or protecting teachers' jobs is best for students." Sandy Banks, May 16, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks16-2009may16,0,1941822.column Sometimes Banks is very good at what she says and at other times, I think she is completely off the mark for whatever the reasons are that influence her. This time I think she got to the heart of the idea, but she is still a bit uncommittal, avoiding the placement of blame for any actions, but describing what motivates and concerns people involved. Banks leaves the conclusion for the reader to draw, but she might as well have taken the next step and added that to the story. It's something that might give you another view to help sort out the issues.
As a completely different source, but with some much stronger and conflicting views, you could read, "Los Angeles School Board eliminates thousands of teachers’ jobs,"
by D. Lencho, 9 May 2009, in the World Socialist Web Site, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/teac-m09.shtml
The article attacks the union and the district, and while they are at it, it includes the administration and throws in some facets of billionaires in Los Angeles, apparently for contrast sake. Some of the points raised and facts presented are absolutely clear, but the problem I see here is that the overall picture is "goal-oriented" so that they push their view of how things should be handled and that is through socialism. So if you think that UTLA was looking for socialism to any extent, it sure wasn't the case in the view of this author. I think a lot of what they write here is really useful in supporting the idea that layoffs need to be spread all around, including teachers. The omission of the fact of declining enrollment in LAUSD schools over the decade with increases in LAUSD personnel is overlooked. The story is put together well, aside from some of the conclusions drawn. The idea of making the union for not being more disruptive in a strike scenario, making them a villain to their members is interesting.
If the idea is getting attention, the UTLA did that. If that included getting some more support for their position, I would have to grade the work as a "Fail" and schedule a parent conference to see what can be done to find a successful outcome for the students.
Posts
