Culver City School Adjuncts: Five Assertions ACE Should Address

The Association of Classified Employees' "demand to bargain" against the Culver City Unified School District over parent-funded adjuncts is being discussed at length.

There are serious ethical issues around this dialogue that is essentially about our children. Since the CCUSD board will soon make decisions regarding the future of the highly regarded adjunct program, it makes sense for concerned parties to try to focus on the real issues.

Many disputed facts can be resolved quickly. They are presented here as five assertions. The very act of exploring them would serve to move real discussion forward. 

1. Unionization of adjuncts will result in reduced in-class hours.

Adjuncts are completely parent funded. The pool of money used to pay all the expenses of the adjunct program is painstakingly raised with bake sales and individual donations. It is limited. If each unionized adjunct costs 50 percent more with higher wages and labor burden, then each donated dollar only buys two thirds of what it did before.

Parent donations are elastic. As the price increases, demand decreases. Parents will donate less as each donated dollar buys less. If you increase the price of adjuncts, many parents will simply conclude they cannot afford to support the program.

All parties like to express support for the adjunct program. However, the very real possibility that unionization will end the program must be front and center to any discussion.

2. Unionization of adjuncts will be to the detriment of students.

If a union employee does only two-thirds of the parent-funded adjuncts' work, the students receive one-third less of the benefit. However, if the argument is that union employees are supposed to be better than the current adjuncts, is the union employee 150 percent as effective? Since the value of adjuncts is the time students spend listening to native speakers, it is illogical to think union employees can provide the same benefit in a third less time.

3. Unionization will be to the detriment of adjuncts.

The adjuncts have had the option of unionizing for decades but have never chosen to. If unionized, and if the program continues to exist at all, adjuncts will work fewer hours but the total money they received will be less. Any talk about a ‘living wage’ is a smokescreen. Currently almost all the money that parents donate goes directly to the adjuncts. If the union is allowed to confiscate these donations, money will be siphoned off for union dues and overhead costs.

ACE has not even acknowledged that the administrative work currently done by parent volunteers will be done by city employees; paid for by the same parents who no longer have control over their program. This further reduces money available for adjuncts and total donations are likely to shrink significantly or disappear, leaving adjuncts without jobs. (See assertion 1)

4. Unionization will be to the detriment of teachers.

If teachers benefit from adjuncts in class, having fewer hours of support will be a sad loss to overworked teachers. (See assertion 1)

5. The one party that will benefit from unionizing adjuncts is ACE.

Union power relies on its ability to suppress alternatives to the union. Increasing membership, collecting dues and defending turf is vital to the union. Adjuncts are not teacher’s aides and take no jobs from union workers. However, ACE stands to benefit with the crippling or destruction of the volunteer adjunct program. ACE has the power to severely affect our children’s education, but it is only answerable to its members. Parents have no opportunity to debate directly with ACE.

ACE President Debbie Hame states that there is misleading information being disseminated. Sadly, this is true. She has made a continued effort to frame this issue around a single school: El Marino. This appears to be an effort to distract and divide parents who now realize that this is a district-wide issue, potentially ruining parent funded positions at all Culver City schools.

Hamme also complains about 20 positions at El Marino. However, there are 20 part-time positions of three hours or less per day at El Marino. That equates to 7.5 full-time positions -  not 20 - for a program that serves over 750 children.

Further Hamme's concerns about ‘disparity’ between schools are at best overstated. Instead of encouraging the formation and growth of parent-funded positions at other schools, the union has acted to effectively suppress the emerging parent groups at Linwood Howe and La Ballona schools from putting adjuncts in their classrooms.

In order to move any reasonable discussion forward, these five assertions must be addressed directly and with candor. Not doing so simply confirms deep mistrust fulminating in the community. Unless ACE can address these simple assertions, everything else the union says rings hollow.

Sincerely,

Bryan Tjomsland

Editor's note: Letters may be edited for brevity and clarity.

Be sure to like Culver City Patch on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.