The Anchorage School District has posted information about AEA contract negotiations on its web site (www.asdk12.org). I invite readers to visit this site which contains corrections to an advertisement that appeared in this paper. Although that advertisement had errors, its central message was true. Teachers should be paid more because of the important work they do. The same holds true for special education and related service professionals, librarians, nurses, custodians, bus drivers, central office administrators, food service workers, counselors, principals, teaching assistants, clerical workers, accounting department, and maintenance workers. It is true for all of the district’s employees who work hard to help meet our goal of Educating All Students for Success in Life.
Acknowledging that teachers should be paid more begs the more difficult questions: How do we balance very real revenue restrictions with the need for pay raises? To what extent should other jobs and services be sacrificed to provide raises?
The Anchorage School District can not raise local taxes, and we can not force the state to increase education funding. While we have received funding increases during the past few years, the largest portion of those increases has gone directly to pay increased retirement fund contributions. That money does go to teachers, but they do not see the benefit of those contributions until they retire. Some of the other state funding has been designated as “one-time” funds. It is irresponsible to use one-time money for pay increases unless there is a corresponding commitment to accept pay decreases when the one-time money runs out.
Since we do not control our revenue, our only option is to change spending priorities. Anything we do to increase teachers’ take home pay will necessarily decrease the amount spent elsewhere. Cuts to any other part of the budget will affect teachers and their students. If we cut the number of principals and assistant principals, teachers face more classroom discipline problems and will be tasked with more administrative duties. If we reduce maintenance and janitorial costs, teachers will be working in classrooms that are in disrepair and are cleaned less often. If we reduce busing costs, teachers will be teaching students who walked unreasonable distances in unsafe conditions to get to school. If we reduce curriculum support, teachers will have to spend more time learning and developing their own instructional materials. If we reduce substitute pay, it will be harder to find someone to fill in when a teacher is sick. Spending reductions in these and other areas can be made, but any reduction will have an impact on teachers.
The School Board will make the final decision about what cuts to make, but we prefer to first hear from the community. We all have a stake in quality education. What are parents, educators, and others in the community willing to sacrifice in exchange for increased teacher pay? Budget Review Teams are scrutinizing next year's budget to help us answer this question, but everyone can help by testifying or submitting comments as we develop our budget over the next four months.
Union members rejected the last offer agreed to by their negotiation team and their executive board. That is their right. Teams are returning to the bargaining table for the third time to try to reach a new solution. I am confident that both teams will approach this round with a renewed sense of commitment to a solution. Any agreement needs to fit within budget constraints that are already forcing sacrifices at the classroom level. It is going to require a great deal of compromise from both sides.
Jeff Friedman
President
Anchorage School Board
907-742-6699
friedman_jeff@asdk12.org
