Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Duquesne Teachers Strike at Their Own Risk
Parents in the Duquesne school district have had to deal with a number of distractions over the past few years. Their failing school district had been taken over by a state board of control and their high school shuttered with students split between two nearby districts. Now they may have to contend with striking teachers.
But unlike the typical teacher strike, for which Pennsylvania leads the nation, this one pits the teachers against a management team and not a school board. The teachers’ claim they have worked with three different management boards (the first in-house, the second from Pittsburgh Public Schools, and the current from the Allegheny Intermediate Unit) without successfully agreeing to a new contract. But who are they striking against? Even though the district is being managed by a team from outside the district, they are still under the control of the state Department of Education.
The strike should not be over money as the District spent more than $17,000 per student with state and federal taxpayers picking up 66 percent of that amount. This per pupil amount is one of the highest in the state. Furthermore the return on investment has been substandard as Duquesne is one of the worst performing districts in the state—so much so that the high school has been closed. Thus these teachers operate a district that ranks near the bottom of the state academically but near the top in per pupil expenditures—if anything taxpayers should strike against the teachers.
Striking against the state may prove detrimental in the long-run. Unlike a traditional school board where members live in the community and can be pressured by parents, this may not the case with either the management team or the state control board. They could be immune from community pressure. Since state law (Act 88) mandates the length of strikes so that the full 180 day school calendar is completed by the end of June, the board of control could choose to ignore the strike. The parents, who would have to find care for their children who would otherwise be in school, may then apply pressures to the teachers themselves to end the strike.
Finally a strike may force the closure of the middle and elementary schools—putting the teachers out of work. Since it appears that the closing of the high school has been successful, the state may follow suit with the other schools and lay off the remaining teaching staff.
This may be one strike where the power does not lie with the union, but rather the state control board. The control board can force the teachers to the bargaining table and require them to live within the District’s financial means. It should be able to ask for and receive concessions on salaries and other perquisites such as health care. This could be a turning point in bringing the District back to fiscal solvency. Or it could be the end for the Duquesne School District.
But unlike the typical teacher strike, for which Pennsylvania leads the nation, this one pits the teachers against a management team and not a school board. The teachers’ claim they have worked with three different management boards (the first in-house, the second from Pittsburgh Public Schools, and the current from the Allegheny Intermediate Unit) without successfully agreeing to a new contract. But who are they striking against? Even though the district is being managed by a team from outside the district, they are still under the control of the state Department of Education.
The strike should not be over money as the District spent more than $17,000 per student with state and federal taxpayers picking up 66 percent of that amount. This per pupil amount is one of the highest in the state. Furthermore the return on investment has been substandard as Duquesne is one of the worst performing districts in the state—so much so that the high school has been closed. Thus these teachers operate a district that ranks near the bottom of the state academically but near the top in per pupil expenditures—if anything taxpayers should strike against the teachers.
Striking against the state may prove detrimental in the long-run. Unlike a traditional school board where members live in the community and can be pressured by parents, this may not the case with either the management team or the state control board. They could be immune from community pressure. Since state law (Act 88) mandates the length of strikes so that the full 180 day school calendar is completed by the end of June, the board of control could choose to ignore the strike. The parents, who would have to find care for their children who would otherwise be in school, may then apply pressures to the teachers themselves to end the strike.
Finally a strike may force the closure of the middle and elementary schools—putting the teachers out of work. Since it appears that the closing of the high school has been successful, the state may follow suit with the other schools and lay off the remaining teaching staff.
This may be one strike where the power does not lie with the union, but rather the state control board. The control board can force the teachers to the bargaining table and require them to live within the District’s financial means. It should be able to ask for and receive concessions on salaries and other perquisites such as health care. This could be a turning point in bringing the District back to fiscal solvency. Or it could be the end for the Duquesne School District.
