I am writing this letter in response to George Laase’s article in the March 8, 2018 Culver City News. Mr. Laase has made many incorrect charges against the teachers, the district and the Culver City Board of Education. I will start by stating that I am a retired principal from the district and I served as president of the Management Association of Culver City Administrators for several years.
I did NOT benefit from the pay increase that teachers received 5 years ago, as I retired in 2006. For many years both the teachers and administrators were poorly paid in comparison to the other districts in Los Angeles County.
We were in the bottom quartile in salary for years. This was not only discouraging for our employees, but made it difficult to attract the best educators into the district.
Five years ago the district and staff had an agreement that would bring teachers up to the median Los Angeles County salary. Mr. Laase, you might have forgotten your math, but the median is the point where you are in the middle of the salaries for all of the districts in Los Angeles County.
The actual percentage that was negotiated was 21% over 5 years, not the 39% that you stated. Our pay scale was so low that it required a 21% increase just to bring us to the middle of the pack!
Your statement about the number of teachers who make over $100,000 per year is very misleading, because you have included health benefits and retirement contributions in that total. The number of teachers whose actually salary is $100,000 is very low.
I don’t understand your statement “that many veteran teachers decided to leave the district while the going was good”. If the salaries are so high why are they leaving? Would they give up seniority and a good salary to go to another school district? That seems unlikely to happen.
Also, you obviously do not understand the golden handshake. This is an incentive to get veteran teachers to retire early. Yes, they get an extra $20,000, but they are replaced by younger teachers whose salaries are considerably lower. You cannot take the golden handshake money and go to work in another district.
It is true that since the contract was signed in 2012, there have been changes in funding and increased district costs to the retirement fund.
There was no way to forecast that these increases would occur and now the district needs to decide how to deal with the shortfall. You suggest that the agreement be ripped up or staff take a reduction in salary. I don’t know if they can legally do either.
Mr. Laase, you state that this should be all about the kids and I ask why does there have to be a choice? The parcel tax will allow us to continue all services for the students while paying our staff what we feel rightly they deserve. How many times have we heard about how great Culver City Schools are? Who do you think deserves the credit for that? The teachers do!
The parcel tax being proposed will help replenish the reserve fund for the district. For about $.30 a day each homeowner can help ensure the financial solvency of our budget. I think bringing the teachers up to the median level in salaries was a terrific goal and it will help our district continue to be the shining light that it is.
Marvin Brown, Ed.D
