The teachers' contract and its relationship to the District’s financial problems
by thenotebook on Jul 10 2013 Posted in Commentary
by James Lytle
In an op-ed piece in the Inquirer on July 7, three Philadelphia civic leaders argued that Philadelphia schools must get help, then went on to support the financial package emerging from Harrisburg and City Hall to address the District’s financial crisis. The largest part of this $273 million package is the “$133 million in projected savings from a new collective bargaining agreement to be negotiated with the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers.”
Why, one might ask, are teachers expected to be the solution for a problem not of their making? Somehow the notion has been put forth and reinforced that Philadelphia teachers are excessively compensated and should rightly make concessions to balance the District’s budget.
So it might be useful to consider the facts. Most important is that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania took control of the District in 2001. The PFT contract now in effect and the two that preceded it were all approved by the state’s agent, the School Reform Commission. To blame the PFT for contract costs and provisions is to overlook the inconvenient fact that the state created the circumstances it now wants to reverse.
In terms of teacher salaries, Philadelphia teachers, on average, earn 15 to 20 percent less than teachers in surrounding counties. (While starting salaries are comparable, salaries for experienced teachers top out at a much lower level.) If the salary reductions being proposed are put in effect, then Philadelphia teachers will be even less competitive with their suburban counterparts.
Then consider that working conditions in Philadelphia schools are more difficult than those in the suburbs. Class size is larger; there are fewer books, materials,