Confusing signals from teacher union

AS the teachers’ strike in Oklahoma moves through its second week, the question persists: What, exactly, will it take to end the walkout? Equivocation from union leaders makes that question difficult to answer.

It’s worth noting that the Oklahoma Education Association threatened a walkout unless the Legislature promised $1.4 billion in new revenue over a three-year time frame. After the Legislature provided about 90 percent of the education portion of the OEA’s first-year demand, the union followed through on the walkout anyway.

The OEA, which in February had pleaded for $5,000 pay raises, demanded $10,000 raises over three years, $200 million in additional education funding, money for health care agencies, and raises for state employees. As the April 2 walkout deadline neared, the Legislature passed the largest teacher pay raise plan in state history — it averages $6,100 per teacher, with the most veteran teachers able to make an additional $8,000. Lawmakers also funded pay raises for state workers and for school support staff, and provided millions of dollars for textbooks and general school funding.

That wasn’t enough for the union, and so the walkout began with a focus on getting more funding for classrooms. As Week 1 of the strike wrapped up, the push was for the Legislature to eliminate the capital gains tax deduction, which could provide about $100 million, and for the governor to veto a repeal of a hotel-motel tax worth about $45 million.

On Friday, OEA President Alicia Priest told reporters the strike would end if those two issues were addressed. However, what wasn’t at all clear was whether Priest expected all of that new revenue to go to education.

If none of the capital gains revenue went to education, she was asked, would she be OK with that?

“The reality is that we all need funding because of the cuts to all services,” she said. “We are here asking for funding for education because investing in education is investing in the economic future of our state. So, we must fund our children’s future.”

So, she’s asking for 100 percent of the capital gains funding to go to education?

“I’m saying we need … a veto of the hotel-motel repeal and we need to pass capital gains in order for the walkout to end,” she said.

Then what portion of capital gains money would need to go to education?

“I’m not … So, we need funding for public education, as well as our core services,” Priest said. “We all must work together to get this done.”

To be clear, a reporter asked again, if the governor vetoed the Legislature’s repeal of the hotel-motel tax, and the capital gains tax exemption were removed but none of that money went to the student funding formula, the walkout would end?

“I don’t think that that’s it at all,” she said. “I think that we have to get them passed and work on getting funding to public education.”

Then on Saturday, the OEA’s chief lobbyist said the group wants another $100 million to $150 million but, “We are not demanding that it all be for public education.” Yet isn’t that what the strike is supposed to be about?

It may not get its wish, but the union needs to spell out to lawmakers exactly what it’s seeking. The OEA owes some clarity to its members, who are at the Capitol lobbying in good faith, and to students and parents who are bearing the brunt of the union’s strategy.