State Teachers’ Unions Turn to Bradley to Halt Era of Declining Power

It has been an odd era for the leaders of teachers’ unions and their members.

In Washington and in Sacramento, union officials, who in the 1970s enjoyed a growing political clout, have found themselves on the outs in the ‘80s. Leaders of the National Education Assn. are barely on speaking terms with William J. Bennett, the Reagan Administration’s education secretary, a position that exists largely because of the NEA’s influence with former President Jimmy Carter.

Sharp Salary Increases

In California, the leaders of the state’s largest teachers’ union have never met with Gov. George Deukmejian, whom they once labeled a “scrooge” on public education.

Yet teachers themselves have rarely gotten more public attention--and, more important, larger salary raises when compared to inflation. In the past four years, the state’s budget for elementary and secondary schools has gone up by $5.8 billion, and according to the figures compiled by the California Teachers Assn. (CTA), the average salary for instructors has increased at nearly twice the the rate of inflation since 1983.

Nevertheless, about 450 CTA officials meeting in Los Angeles this past weekend painted a bleak picture of public education in California. Most complained that classes are far too large and salaries still too low for education to compete for talent with other professions.

In voting Sunday morning, the union, whose 150,000 members teach in the public schools, community colleges and California State Universities, endorsed Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley in his race against the incumbent Republican governor.

“We need a drastic improvement in the salary schedule if we are going to attract and retain people in teaching,” said Ed Foglia, a Santa Clara County teacher who was elected CTA president on Saturday. “Bradley has been consistently supportive of our positions, and he seems more willing to make that kind of push.”

Deukmejian’s education record is “really bad,” said Ralph Flynn, the union’s executive director. “Given the amount of revenue available to the state, what he has done is the absolute minimum. He had an opportunity to make some quantum breakthroughs (to improve public education). Instead, he’s gone along grudgingly. We’ve had to fight him for every buck. And he’s gotten off very cheap.”

Union officials say the state has made no progress in reducing the size of its classes, which are among the largest in the nation. They also say the higher salary figures are “partly a statistical fluke.” Flynn says that is because the teaching force is aging and because the extra money includes additional pay for a slightly longer school year.

“Morale among teachers is as low as I’ve ever seen it,” said Wayne Johnson, who was recently reelected as president of the United Teachers of Los Angeles, the state’s largest teachers’ union local.

“They have watched a steady deterioration of public education over their careers, and the slide has gone on whether it’s Democrats or Republicans who are in office. I think teachers feel deserted and distrustful of all politicians,” he said.

Although Johnson characterized Deukmejian’s education record as “not all that bad,” he said the local union, which represents 27,000 city teachers, will probably endorse Bradley on April 30.

In reply, William Cunningham, Deukmejian’s education adviser, said he was “amazed” that the union leaders “don’t acknowledge the commitment he (Deukmejian) has made to education. This governor has made the greatest effort for improving education funding (of) any governor in the history of this state.”

The Department of Finance says the state budget for the public schools was $11.1 billion in 1983 when Deukmejian took office. His proposed budget for 1987 calls for spending $16.9 billion. The percentage of the state general fund devoted to the public schools has also risen, from 35.8% in 1983 to 39.3% in 1987.

“I don’t know how in the world they could say they haven’t seen much of that money,” said Cunningham of the teacher leaders, “since a significant percentage of it went into salary improvements for teachers.”

In particular, the teachers fault Deukmejian for having vetoed bills the past two years that would have reduced the size of classes in some high school English or mathematics classes.

Curiously, however, the CTA two weeks ago sharply condemned a bill in the Senate Education Committee that proposed a partial remedy to the class-size problem.

The bill, sponsored by Senate Education Committee Chairman Gary K. Hart (D-Santa Barbara), called for spending $60 million in the first year to reduce classes in one high school subject in one grade and adding more money over the next eight years--a total of $500 million--until 20 students was the norm in the key senior high school subjects of English, mathematics, science and history.

The state Department of Education reports that the average class in the state’s elementary schools had 28 children in 1985, while the average senior high class had 29 students. Simply shrinking all classes in California by just one student would cost $160 million, state officials say. The extra money would be needed to hire more teachers.

Hart’s bill would also allow schools to try out a “peer evaluation” system where teachers could take a role in evaluating new instructors. In addition, Hart proposed doubling, to 10%, the percentage of teachers who could qualify as “mentors” and earn an extra $4,000 per year.

CTA officials gave Hart’s bill the union’s “strongest mark of disapproval” in testimony April 9, saying its “piecemeal” attempt to reduce the size of classes would “defuse public pressure for genuine reform.”

Fear of Divisiveness

The notion of teachers evaluating their peers was dismissed as “a bad idea . . . which would spawn divisiveness and lower morale on school faculties.”

“We don’t want teachers observing and evaluating other teachers. That’s the job administrators are paid to do,” said Foglia.

In 1982, the union opposed a Hart bill that created California’s basic skills test for new teachers and fought against the “mentor teacher” plan to reward outstanding instructors.

Four years ago, the union also opposed the election of both Hart, a former teacher and then Santa Barbara assemblyman who was seeking a Senate seat, and state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig. The two, along with Assemblywoman Teresa Hughes (D-Los Angeles), turned out to be the key figures in the passage of California’s huge education reform act in 1983.

On Sunday, despite sharp criticism of Hart, the teachers voted to endorse him and Honig in this campaign.

CTA’s rival, the smaller California Federation of Teachers, has regularly supported the education reforms, including the test for new teachers and the proposed “peer evaluation” plan.

“I think they (CTA officials) are uncomfortable with the idea of a trade union talking about professional issues,” said Miles Myers, president of the CFT, which has 30,000 members in the schools and community colleges.

Nevertheless, Myers also criticized Deukmejian for not moving to reduce the size of school classes and says his union will endorse Bradley next weekend because the Los Angeles mayor is more likely to favor greater education funding.

Although the union leaders are unanimous in their support of Bradley, they candidly acknowledge that their members do not appear excited about the upcoming election.

“There’s not overwhelming enthusiasm out there. We have a major selling job to do with our own members,” said Flynn. He said Deukmejian has “been sufficiently clever to formulate his education package in a way that makes it look better than it is.” Moreover, many teachers think Bradley has little chance of winning, he added.

Flynn said Sunday that union officials have not decided yet how much money or how many workers they can contribute to Bradley’s campaign. A key task over the next several months, he said, will be to persuade teachers to vote their interest as teachers, “not as suburban taxpayers or the wives or husbands of farmers.”

“They won’t vote with us if it is just our preference. We have to show them there’s a clear and present danger,” he said.