Teachers Union Closes L.A. Schools Yet Again
Public sector unions squeeze final gains out of a district that's been bleeding students yet constructing expensive new buildings for two decades.

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the country's second-largest, closed its doors Tuesday on the first of a three-day solidarity strike by teachers who are backing a 30 percent pay raise plus $2 per hour "equity wage adjustment" for custodial workers represented by the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Keeping kids locked out of schools has become quite the specialty for United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA). The union struck for six days over contract negotiations in January 2019, then successfully pressured LAUSD leadership to keep school buildings closed for more than a year after the COVID-19 pandemic hit, despite Southern California's famously temperate and ventilatable weather.
Still more students would have been turned away from the schoolhouse doors had the pesky legal system not gotten in the teachers' way. In the fall of 2021, as part of the long-awaited full reopening of government-run public schools, the LAUSD imposed one of the nation's only vaccine mandates on students ages 12 and up. That requirement was scheduled to be backed by the physical barring of an estimated 34,000 unvaccinated students in December 2021, but the district postponed enforcement at the last minute, then was successfully sued by the parent of a non-compliant 12-year-old.
A few setbacks notwithstanding, the UTLA received a remarkable number of pandemic-era concessions—an extra $500 monthly childcare stipend, mandatory weekly testing of students and staff, outdoor masking requirements, and so on.
In completely related news, LAUSD schools are facing chronic absenteeism, "astounding declines in academic performance," and consecutive-year enrollment drops of 4 percent, 6 percent, and 2 percent, which—because school funding is tied to enrollment numbers—is setting up the district's budgetary situation to be what Superintendent Alberto Carvalho has described as "Armageddon" and "a hurricane of massive proportions."
The enrollment wipeout has been numerically awesome to behold. Twenty years ago, LAUSD peaked at 747,000 K-12 students, almost all of whom were taught by the government-managed, union-staffed monopoly. By 10 years ago, that was down to 656,000, of which 567,000 (or 86 percent) were in traditional schools, the rest in independently run charters. Now LAUSD-run schools educate just 422,000 kids, and charters are up to 113,000.
Reduced birthrates, slowed immigration, family-unfriendly housing prices and stalled population growth all contribute to the shrinking of the student pool, but as the charter explosion attests, families that have the option of escaping their unionized school are taking it. And untold thousands of kids are just plain missing.
What makes the post-2002 enrollment cliff-dive not just an advertisement against public sector unionism but an injustice-generating citywide catastrophe of boneheaded central planning, is that the LAUSD embarked on a $20 billion, eminent-domain-abusing school-construction frenzy—characterized as "the largest public works project in the western United States"—right around 2002. Hundreds of businesses, more than a thousand residents of affordable housing, the historic Ambassador Hotel and beloved Hollywood Star Lanes (of The Big Lebowski fame) … all bulldozed out of the way by government in order to educate non-existent kids.
"The impact on this town is monumental," then-school superintendent Roy Romer gushed about the building spree to the overly credulous L.A. Times in 2004. "It is literally going to change the face of Los Angeles." Not in the way that he and virtually all of L.A.'s political class intended.
You might think that UTLA would be a tad more shy about once again closing down their horridly performing, increasingly unpopular schools whose dwindling student body bears the scars of the past three lousy years. That is, if you haven't been paying attention to teachers unions. The best that can be said about this week's outrage is that it hastens the evacuation from government-run K-12, the shrinkage of available funding for unionized teaching jobs, and the explosion of school choice. Hope those short-term payouts were worth that long-term institutional self-destruction.
Related: "What Really Drove Los Angeles Teachers to Go on Strike."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good.
Another fine advertisement for school choice.
and getting the hell out of blue states
Illinois would still be under COVID lockdown if they could justify it
The unions are just waiting for the Feds to take over the pension funds.
Pubic-"servant" employee unions run amok... To the absolutely clear detriment of all of us! But "small government conservatives" are WAAAAAY too busy shitting bricks about abortions and "Drag Queen Story Hours" to pay much attention to this severe problem!
^Agreed^
Now I feel all cheap and dirty.
Because L.A. is a deep red city in a deep red state right?
The culture war nonsense seems endemic to the south.
If what's left of the opposition in CA is making noise about anything, it's not getting repeated past the walls of whatever room they're doing it in. Local media around the State barely pays any attention to the state Gov't, because they don't want the public to know there's any opposition left and also don't want the NPCs to get woken up by hearing anything about what the clowns they elected are actually doing. Plus it's not a great look that the big problems "aren't top 10 priorities" for Newsom or that so many of the policies that he did prioritize have been held up and/or overturned by the courts for violating various parts of the US constitution.
Public sector unions squeeze final gains out of a district that's been bleeding students yet constructing expensive new buildings for two decades
The construction of public schools is a political and economic activity that at best has only a tangential relationship with educating students.
Why would they care? They are government workers in California. They'll get paid no matter what
immigrants (mostly illegal) have no idea how bad the public schools are in LA..they think this is the America they read about when they left their countries. Besides these immigrants, kids from single moms (often black) make up most of the students. Maybe the immigrant parents will get the hell out of the LA school systems. LA is a fucking hole is most places.
Could be worse. They could have a candidate running for mayor who will give them everything they've ever dreamed of, like Chicago does.
You mean that their wildest dreams will come true? Vote for Pedro!
Closing down the LA propaganda centers will probably benefit the students. We know that it won't hurt the students since the LA Unified School District believes that knowledge is racist.
Yep. Teachers unions are all about quality education, as long as they get paid.
In a free society, striking workers take a risk that pressure from walking out will get management to cave in to striker demands. But management can also fire all the strikers.
Let's try that in LA.
When you make a living with Guns (Gov-Guns) there is no motivation to be an asset to anyone. Only a motivation to USE Guns and STEAL MORE…
That is exactly why this nation wasn’t founded on Communism and Socialist structures…. Guns (Gov-Guns) don’t make/supply sh*t. Their only asset to humanity is to ensure Liberty and Justice for all.
That principle is tossed on it’s head when Gov-Guns randomly STEALS from some to give to others. The obviousness of it is a criminal “armed-theft” bank robbers career and it’s a zero-sum resources game.
MORE ?blessings? of Commie-Education.
"Public sector unions squeeze final gains out of a district that's been bleeding students yet constructing expensive new buildings for two decades."
^^^^^^^^
I guess at some point, once all reasonable parents who want an actual education for their children have withdrawn them from public school systems, someone will have to ask these teachers if “the juice was worth the squeeze”?
...as the charter explosion attests, families that have the option of escaping their unionized school are taking it.
What is it that such families are "escaping"? What exactly makes a "unionized school" so bad? Just saying that unions ruin public schools is not saying anything.
The best that can be said about this week's outrage is that it hastens the evacuation from government-run K-12, the shrinkage of available funding for unionized teaching jobs, and the explosion of school choice.
Great, so parents now have school choice. How are they going to choose the best school for their children? What qualities will a good school have that a bad school will lack? Should they look at the experience and training of its teachers? Test scores of students presently at the school or in the recent past? Safety records for the facilities? Financial audits of the school to be sure that it is being managed well and won't close in the middle of the year? Details of the curriculum available publicly and fairly easy to find?
Charter schools, at least, usually have that information available to the public to the same extent it is available for regular public schools. But in states with vouchers, that could be far from the case, like it is in Florida.
And all of that is still forgetting something else important. What happens when the school a parent chooses won't accept their child? Perhaps it doesn't have enough room. Or it could have requirements on students or parents that the family can't meet. Or it could be that it doesn't provide transportation that the family could use and they can't find their own option. Or, it could be a private religious school that teaches things incompatible with the family's beliefs. Or it could even discriminate against the student or family because of its religious beliefs.
The "free market" won't answer those questions all of the time. That isn't the point of free markets. You don't see companies finding a way to make and sell new cars for $5000 to meet the demand of people with low incomes. If there is no profit to be made in that niche, then no business will create a supply. People that can only afford a few thousand dollars for a car are left with ones 10 years old or more as their choice. And if they can't afford even that much, they are stuck finding transportation elsewhere, such as public transportation. (And guess who subsidizes that.)
A free market for K-12 education would be no different. It would fail in the basic mission of publicly funded education - to provide a quality education to every child, regardless of the family's means.
Germany's schools are tax-funded, but the government schools don't have a monopoly. They're effectively on a 100% voucher system, and it's working perfectly.
They also fund higher ed on the taxpayers' backs, but not everyone gets into college, and if you flunk out, you're gone.
-jcr
Germany’s schools are tax-funded, but the government schools don’t have a monopoly. They’re effectively on a 100% voucher system, and it’s working perfectly.
Great, what are the details of how their voucher system works? I would think those details would matter a great deal.
Should teachers be armed so they can shoot anyone walking into the school they don't like? JasonT20 thinks they are free to shoot whoever they may feel threatened by. Just like Ashley Babbit.
Huh, I didn’t think Sevo would bother with sock puppets
Asshole, you imagine I'm the only one who noticed your slime? This is the lefty shit who supports murder as a preventative measure:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Basically, the school tells the government how many kids they have attending, and the government pays them accordingly. Some of the more posh schools charge parents fees above the subsidy, but that's not very common. The government-operated schools have to compete, so they do their jobs. If a school in Germany ever graduated someone who couldn't read, they wouldn't be able to bitch and moan for more funding. It would be a ghost town as soon as the news got around.
-jcr
If a school in Germany ever graduated someone who couldn’t read, they wouldn’t be able to bitch and moan for more funding. It would be a ghost town as soon as the news got around.
This was one of my questions, you may remember. Do they really have to wait for "news to get around"? Or is there data available for parents to look at before they send their kids there? What progress monitoring do they do once they are there? I would hope more information is available than the grapevine, since waiting years to find out whether your kid is learning anything is not acceptable.
Ok, what you're missing here is that German schools don't pass kids who flunk.
There's no data on how many graduates can't read, because if they can't read, they don't graduate. If it ever happened, it would be a massive scandal and headline news for months.
waiting years to find out whether your kid is learning anything
If your kid is in danger of flunking a grade in a German school, you get called in for a conference. It's not business as usual like it is in any Democrat shithole in the USA.
-jcr
A free market for K-12 education would be no different. It would fail in the basic mission of publicly funded education – to provide a quality education to every child, regardless of the family’s means.
Revealingly the traditional government system also fails this standard yet no left wingers care about that. It's yet another standard they apply only to their enemies. Along the same lines I've always loved the argument that charters or vouchers "leave kids behind" no matter how small that group is when their preferred alternative is to leave many multiples more kids behind.
These differential standards occur because they don't actually care about the education, they only care about control of the education system as a spoils program in return for reliable Dem votes and activism.
Where did I say that I don’t care about inequities in a traditional public school system? Advocates of school choice promote it as a cure for these problems and I am pointing out reasons to be skeptical of that. I am also pointing out that it is essential to start any discussion about solutions with a detailed understanding of the problems. How much detail do we ever see in articles like this about what makes regular public schools “fail” in the first place?
Where did I say that I don’t care about inequities in a traditional public school system?
When we conclude someone is a racist do we accept the defense "where did I say I am racist?" or do we judge their comments? It's revealing how leftists invoke whatever standard supports their preferred conclusion regardless of whether it makes sense.
Also note the weasel word "inequity" which he chooses so he can point to the left's obsession with racial balancing but which excludes the simple failure to educate.
But to answer the question no one has to say they don't care about education in the traditional system, they simply have to not apply the same scrutiny to the current system as they apply to any reform. Anyone actually concerned about education would judge them by the same, responsible standard. Instead while leftists vehemently oppose any change which threatens their control of the system they spend essentially no effort attempting any reform to the massive existing failures. Instead they conclude improvement must be shunned because improvement cannot be achieved for all students at the same time. They invoke this standard specifically because it can never be met and thus the entrenched system is permanently protected.
"When we conclude someone is a racist do we accept the defense “where did I say I am racist?” or do we judge their comments? It’s revealing how leftists invoke whatever standard supports their preferred conclusion regardless of whether it makes sense."
Jason is a raging piece of shit, and really, really stupid besides.
Where did I say that I don’t care
We infer it from your support for the status quo.
-jcr
Let me see if I understand you and Marshall's belief that I don't care about problems with public education. I am skeptical of your preferred solution, so I want things to stay as they are. Similarly, if I am skeptical that a homeopathic solution to treat someone's flu, then I must not care that they are sick, got it.
I have my own ideas of what is wrong with public education and possible solutions. But Reason is constantly publishing articles that do little more than claim that school choice will fix everything because parents will be able to choose the best schools, QED. If no one around here is willing to offer more evidence and explanation of why we should expect school choice to work these kinds of wonders, then why should I believe that it will? If no one will answer the questions I am asking to probe how they imagine it will work if expanded to a truly large scale, why should I support expanding it that much?
Your approval is neither sought nor required. Competition for any good or service means that incompetence is eventually punished with failure.
-jcr
Sure. I am one person with one vote, no different than you. I do find it fairly obvious that you aren’t interested in public education other than as a political debate, though. Not once did you give an answer to any of my questions that I would expect a parent to ask as well.
For the German system, you kept arguing that a school that would graduate a child that couldn’t read would fail due to competition and word getting around. But, really, is that the criteria a parent would look for to choose a school? Whether their kid would graduate able to read? That you focus only on the bare minimum tells me that you really have no idea how a parent is supposed to choose between schools that are below average, average, or above average. No practical advice a parent could actually act on.
There are public school systems in the USA where less than half the students learn to read. That isn't "below average", it's failing and a waste of public funds and resources. I consider it outright child abuse to keep students in a jail-like school that can't even teach them to read.
"What is it that such families are “escaping”? What exactly makes a “unionized school” so bad? Just saying that unions ruin public schools is not saying anything."
Most recently and notably, the Teacher's Unions kept the schools closed for almost two full school years to supposedly protect the students from being wiped out by a virus with a hospitalization rate of 0.001% for those under age 25.
Meanwhile the children of almost all state/local government officials (and if the rumors are true, around 70% of LAUSD teachers) were safely back attending classes at their private schools which re-opened after only closing for a partial semester in the spring of 2020.
Meanwhile the children of almost all state/local government officials (and if the rumors are true, around 70% of LAUSD teachers) were safely back attending classes at their private schools which re-opened after only closing for a partial semester in the spring of 2020.
What do you have to back up that claim? It seems implausible to me that such large numbers of teachers could afford to send their kids to private schools, given the cost of living in California. Average teacher salary in LAUSD (DuckDuckGo search) ~$65k - Average private elementary school tuition in LA County - $16k/year.
And school choice has been around a lot longer than COVID*, so what else were parents looking to escape?
*(hospitalization rate for 5-17 year olds has been 0.01% since the start of the pandemic, from what I could find. Yes, very low. So schools only have children in them? And those children don't go around adults outside of school? - I'm not defending keeping schools closed for so long. In hindsight, it was never necessary. Spring of 2020 when the pandemic started was understandable given the uncertainty, but schools should have been fully open the next Fall to any that wanted to be there. In Florida, where parents had the choice whether to send their kids to school in person in the 2020-2021 school year, large numbers of parents kept their kids at home as their choice. I couldn't quickly find the data, but I think it was around half +/- 10%. Nationwide there were still around 40% of all students learning only at home in March 2021)
Wait, aren't children going to starve to death with schools closed? I guess the genocide only happens if the wrong people try to cut the "free" lunch programs.
The LAUSD schools are still operating "grab and go" meal service for the 300k students (and tens of thousands of families) who the State have made dependent on government for sustenance (and shelter, health care, transportation, etc.). They did the same thing through the Covid shutdowns.
Even when they're only teaching 1/3 of the students to read, write, and count past 10 with their shoes on, they make sure to broadcast the lesson that permanent dependence on the State is a virtue and that being part of the 1-2% who pick up the tab is criminal.
Public sector unions are a cancer upon society and should be illegal. The only limiting factor on private sector unions is that at some point the company goes out of business (see: Interstate Bakeries). If the public wanted to raise teacher salaries they'd do that at the ballot box. Allowing the teachers to demand it themselves is a subversion of democracy.
Public sector unions are literally the worst. None of the justifications for unions, either Left or Right, make any sense in the public sector. Government is not eebil industrial capitalists, so who are they striking against? Oh yeah, the taxpayers. It's not class warfare either, as California teachers are solidly middle class. Not affluent, but don't believe the stories of destitute teachers. It's bullshit. So all public sectors do is extract more taxes out of the taxpayers.
The strongest unions in California are Teachers (public sector) and Prison Guards (public sector). Server workers is up there, but they take a distant third place.
My dad was a teacher for forty years, and he abhored the union. He did not have to join but he was still forced to pay dues. A law that was recently removed. A good chunk of his salary went to fatcat union bosses and political candidates.
I recall hearing that when Scott Walker ended mandatory union dues in Wisconsin, 2/3 of teachers stopped paying them. Being compelled to pay to buy hookers and blow for mobsters and politicians is obscene.
-jcr
I recall hearing that when Scott Walker ended mandatory union dues in Wisconsin, 2/3 of teachers stopped paying them.
Those 'reforms' also neutered the unions ability to bargain completely. They were left only being able to negotiate for pay, with increases capped at around inflation, iirc. That 1/3 continued to pay dues to a union that couldn't bargain much of anything for them is actually better than expected.
Oh, and police and fire unions weren't affected by those reforms, I think. I wonder if their memberships saw any decrease?
That 1/3 continued to pay dues to a union that couldn’t bargain much of anything for them is actually better than expected.
It's tragic that 1/3 of the people entrusted with the care of children are stupid enough to volunteer to have their paychecks skimmed by the likes of the NEA.
-jcr
I feel like I'm not getting the full story. According to salary.com, the starting salary for teachers in Los Angeles is 47k per year, and on average they earn 64k per year. But according to the teacher's union, most of the union members (many of whom I assume are not teachers) earn just 25k per year, which I agree isn't enough in an expensive city like Los Angeles.
https://19thnews.org/2023/03/lausd-school-worker-teacher-strike/
The teachers are striking in "solidarity" with hourly employees earning wages that low, I think. Custodians, cafeteria workers, and the like. That is the $25k number.
Double it for their PT status.
If they think they offer more value than what they're getting paid they're more than welcome to *earn* without using Gov-Guns.
I am making ????150 every hour by working on the web at home. A month ago I have gotten $19723 from this activity. This activity is exceptionally astounding and its normal income for me is superior to anything my past office work. This activity is for all and everyone can without much of a stretch join this correct now by utilize this link.
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://salarycash710.blogspot.com/