[ad_1]
L The 31,000 teachers in Angeles end their first week of strikes with no end in sight. This is despite the fact that the teachers' union and the school district, the second largest country in the country, want to spend more money. The problem is that the district can not afford financially or legally spend as much as the union demands.
The Los Angeles United Teachers and the Los Angeles Unified School District both want to receive higher teacher pay, reduce class size, and hire more support staff. But these items are expensive and fit into the tax wall created by the great promises made to retirees about benefits. Retirement and health benefits of retirees now threaten the insolvency district when it gains access to the union position.
In this regard, the Los Angeles teachers' strike is only the most recent and striking example of retirement costs that "crowd out" other priorities in the districts. schools and local governments in the country.
The increase in costs related to inheritance is at the root of many issues contested by the strike. Since the district must spend more on promises to retirees, it can not afford to spend so much on teachers and staff here and now.
That's why Los Angeles teacher salaries, though high by national standards and mediocre by California standards, are modest considering the cost of living in Los Angeles . This explains why some classes are bigger. This explains why many schools have had to work with fewer nurses, librarians and support staff.
Consider that state legislation to address underfunding of California's state pension system has forced employer contribution rates to steadily increase from 8.25% in 2013 at 19.1% next year.
Pension contribution rates also increase for non-teaching employees in the California Public Employees Retirement System. Meanwhile, retiree health care costs will rise from $ 306 million this year to $ 450 million in 2023 to address an unfunded liability of $ 15.2 billion.
As a result, the benefits paid to teachers and other district employees are retired. Everyone has less money here and now, but those who spend their entire career in the district are well rewarded. For example, the district pays about 18.5% of a teacher's salary for retirement benefits.
As a result, Nat Malkus of the American Enterprise Institute predicts that in just two years, the district's pension expenditures will absorb one-third of its budget.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the increase in wages (the union has asked for a 6.5% increase over the salary arrears and the district has proposed a 6% increase) will result in a further increase largest of pension commitments.
To top it off, every day of a strike costs the district millions of dollars, as California funds schools on the basis of daily school attendance.
Faced with these realities, the union states that the district is bluffing and has money. That indicates about $ 2 billion in reserves that the district has on hand. But spending on reserves could be illegal and not a decision of the Los Angeles County Education Office, which oversees the school district's finances.
Deep down, the fight in Los Angeles is about how the money is spent. The truth is that more money is and will be spent in California schools. It's just that money will pay past promises rather than current salaries, more staff and resources for students.
It is an affliction that is not unique to Los Angeles or California. To avoid cost cutting, the union is betting that the state will bail out the district if things do not add up. Other school districts and local governments are hoping for the same thing.
That said, it remains to be seen whether any new spending on Los Angeles schools will improve their performance and the best prospects for the 600,000 children they serve.
Daniel DiSalvo is a researcher at the Manhattan Institute and Associate Professor at City College New York-CUNY.
[ad_2]
Source link
