I’d like to add that all but 1.5% of the raise in the 2002 settlement was covered by new state moneys. OUSD only had to adjust the budget to cover the 1.5%. They neglected to do it, which was a (small) factor in the 2003 meltdown.

There was also a 6.25 percent increase in the 2006 contract — according to our news story from the time — though teachers agreed to pay up to $700 a year for health care, when they previously paid nothing.

Getting a $100 million line of credit isn’t really a great place to begin raising salaries. According to OUSD’s information, raises came again in 2005-06 at 6.25% – http://publicportal.ousd.k12.ca.us/199410331174255857/blank/browse.asp?A=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=57315. I think that was after a long contract fight too. The current contract fight began in 2008. It seems OEA and OUSD have a timeliness problem.

As for your question, “Where were voices like yours,”

I’m not sure these were good times financially for OUSD, and
I made the assumption that OUSD was accepting the low salaries that come from its perpetually low class sizes and its proliferation of schools and resulting overhead.
Raise the class sizes and cut schools like other districts and I assume there would be more money available for salaries. Seems to work in my current district and all over California.

I thought small schools and small class sizes were a good idea, but I didn’t fool myself that they had no impact on salaries and overhead.

BTW, sounds like West Contra is giving their raises back and taking health care caps to boot. Careful for what you wish for. http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-12-16/bay-area/17224273_1_contract-tuesday-night-new-contract-west-contra-costa

I have no trouble with that thought, but my understanding is the Board doesn’t put anything up, but instead supports (or doesn’t) a coalition proposal. What I think is silly is if the coalition doesn’t want to separate the issues (for whatever reason), OEA would be opposed to the point of forgoing compensation.

Surely, OUSD needs to look at it’s spending priorities, but I would say keeping salaries flat in this economic time is signaling exactly that given what other districts/employers are doing. I mean with a $100 million loan, declining enrollment and $85 million in cuts to make, why else would OUSD be the only district in the area not cutting salaries and benefits?

The issue in Oakland is not just seeking a new “meaningful” source for financing Oakland teacher raises but getting the District to alter its current spending priorities, so that $80,000 for Washington D.C. lobbyist to speak to Barbara Lee’s people about funding Oakland security with some of her earmarks funding, will no longer be a priority in these hard economic times.

The School Board is capable of putting on the ballot a request for funding only Oakland Public School teachers and non-teaching employees with a parcel tax increase matched to inflation.

Now if such a clean parcel tax measure, devoid of payout to charter schools, was to pass, there would be a meaningful and ongoing source of funding future OUSD pay raises as inflation returns. OUSD, receiving more money for salaries than local charter schools, would also be more competitive and in the long run better salaries might increase the closing of charter schools instead of Oakland Public Schools.

To say that the charter school forces have the political muscle to prevent passage of additional parcel tax for OUSD teaching and non-teaching employees if they are left behind can only be proven at the ballot box.

So I say the Oakland School Board should put a clean request for a parcel tax for OUSD teaching and non-teaching workers on the ballot box and let Oakland voters decide.

And, if charter schools want a piece of the parcel tax revenue, let the School Board support them and put their request on the ballot as a standalone charter school parcel tax measure. However, let the charter schools that would benefit from such a measure passing pay the cost of the election rather than OUSD. The failed Measure N parcel tax that would have provided $1.8 million a year to some charter schools cost OUSD thousands in payout to Alameda County but not one dollar of those thousands was charged to the charter schools that would have benefited.

Jim Mordecai

You could be accurate in everything you say and still public district schools LOSE. As you allude, charter schools are in a better position to raise private funds to sustain themselves. Parents want them – rightly or wrongly. They are not going away. That is a union dream, particularly in a city where the traditional public schools are failing in the eyes of many parents.

So what does the union do? Well, they essentially take the position that BOTH boats should sink. “If you are gonna get $0.10 then I don’t want $0.90.” Yeah, that sounds rational. Given the ability of charters to fundraise, it puts district schools in a relatively WORSE position. So, it looks like OEA takes out a pistol and shoots itself in the foot so it will have the right to shoot charters in the foot too. Brilliant!

This also makes all the screaming and hollering about raises seem secondary to punishing parents for sending their kids to charters or trying to kill the very schools that some parents want as an option. What does that say?

OK, let’s see the alternative. Say OUSD lays off another 100 non-teaching employees to give teachers a 2% raise. Aside from increasing Oakland’s unemployment rate, does that make parents more likely to send their kids to OUSD? Or say, OUSD closes 25 schools instead of 20 to get the money. Does that improve the quality of teaching? Does it even make a meaningful financial contribution to the employees it rewards?

As I’ve said before, I’m all for raises, but I’d rather talk about meaningful raises from a significant source of money than cutting off my left pinky so I can have an extra finger on my right.

“In 2008, the school district almost got Oakland voters to approve a parcel tax specifically to raise teachers’ salaries. The teachers union actively opposed it, mainly because part of the money would have paid for charter-school teachers’ raises as well.

The teachers union is dead-set against any increased funding for charter schools, which are drawing a growing number of students out of Oakland’s public schools.

The Chronicle is inaccurate when it says the Measure N parcel tax measure if passed would have paid for charter-school teachers’ raises…”

If you read the ballot measure, $1.8 million a year of Oakland parcel tax money would have gone to the highest performing charter schools but there was nothing in the language that required the charter schools receiving the money to pass that money on to charter school teachers.

Chronicle got the part about the Oakland Education Association opposing charter schools right. And, good for the democratically governed Oakland Education Association voting for a policy that opposes financing corporate charter schools that are publicly financed and privately managed with little public accountability.

The idea that charter schools of Oakland have the power to deny pay raises for Oakland Public School teachers is speculation. However, the opposition of unions to Measure N blocked its passage and that was not speculation but a historic fact.

Charter schools are in competition with public schools and it makes no sense for public schools to support financing their competition.

And, it makes no sense to support mixing charter schools and public schools request for parcel tax funding. Each should appeal to the public separately for funding and provide the Oakland voters with the opportunity to vote on each separately.

Jim Mordecai