Mr. George Laase has been peppering Culver City publications rehearsing his fear of paying a few dollars more to maintain the excellence of our schools. March 8 became the turn of Culver City News (page 4).
His anxiety, exaggerations, omissions and selective memory lead him to a false and imprudent conclusion. As such, his screed reminds me of Jonathan Swift’s observation that “Falsehood flies and truth comes limping after it….”
So here, limping to the Letters to the Editor section is a bit of the truth.
Let’s begin with some factual context:
- Culver City Schools are rated among the very best in the state by California School Ratings, which rates nearly ten thousand public schools around the state, using their Academic Performance Index scores.
- State funding to CC Schools ranks in the bottom third in California, below $8,000/pupil vs. nearly $10,000 per pupil at Beverly Hills Unified. Despite the gap in state funding our schools boast a graduation rate of 98%.
- Culver City Schools have attracted and continue to attract dynamic and highly qualified teachers, 235 hold Master’s Degrees and ten hold Doctorates.
Mr. Laases’s implicit point seems to be, “I don’t want to have to pay anything extra for this excellence and so, you shouldn’t want to either.” His explicit arguments seek to paper his miserliness over, but they are weak arguments, at best, and at worst, wouldn’t get him very far in a Culver City school classroom debate.
For example, he argues against the plan which raises the salaries of Culver City Schools’ faculty only up to the median teachers’ salary in L.A. County. Really? We should not pay this outstanding faculty salaries commensurate with those of their peers in Los Angeles County? For this “outrageous” plan, he blames Superintendent David La Rose for being a “teacher-advocate”. What? The Superintendent should be a teacher-enemy?
Laase contends that local homeowners will be asked to payout $1.5 million/year for the next seven years. The CCUSD website says that it is considering a parcel tax for the November 2018 ballot, and no amount has been determined. (A notice by the school district in this newspaper states that the Board will consider development fees on new construction on March 13.)
Moreover, the $1.5 million number cited by Mr. Laase, even if eventually correct and even if levied against current homes, is an aggregate of very small increases in property levies, and further neglects the huge increases in value of Culver City properties. We who are fortunate enough to own homes here in Culver City are accumulating equity that far outpaces small amounts levied that support our community’s children and their teachers in our schools.
Laase performs some rhetorical contortions in simultaneously condemning the Culver City Schools for paying higher salaries to experienced teachers, while condemning recent retirements as an exodus of talent. He then criticizes the schools for hiring 171 new first and second year teachers, and frets about their “lack of real classroom experience”. Well, let’s leave out the second year teachers, who, by definition, have at least one year of “real classroom experience.”
As a retired teacher with over 40 years experience in both high schools and colleges in two states, I can tell you that in good school systems like ours, new teachers are hired very carefully, and often come with prior teaching experience or related experiences.
Moreover, teaching faculties are a kind of brotherhood/sisterhood, where we mentor and share with new hires. No new teacher is set adrift in a good school, and good schools are what we have, even if we have to pay a bit more for them.
Laase jumps on the pension envy train, contending that the growth of the State teachers Retirement System is causing “unsustainable” costs to the CCUSD, but that’s not true, either. Active teachers contribute as equal partners with the state and the state funded schools. Because of reforms and the 2014 funding plan in AB 1469, STRS is reaching full funding while reducing risks which could lead to asking school districts for increases in funding.
I wonder if Mr. Laase has attended a Culver City School. If he has, he should know that it is important to gather facts and ask questions of key persons involved in an issue. I wonder, has he spoken with even one teacher, one CCUSD Board member, one parent of a culver City school student, one student…? If so, how could he conclude that the CCUSD is simply trying “to enrich the district adults at the expense of our students”?
If a small property levy is presented on the November ballot, I am confident that our community will vote to support our schools, teachers, and students.
Bruce Lebedoff Anders