Teachers tend to plan pregnancies with summer due dates. Could a LAUSD policy change that?
In teacher's lounges across California, the same advice is whispered year after year: Plan your babies around summer vacation.
Unlike private sector employees in California, teachers and other public employees do not have access to the state's paid family leave or state disability insurance programs. This leaves teachers — 73% of whom are women — under a complex set of benefits that require them to use up all of their sick time. Although their jobs are protected for 12 weeks, many cannot afford to take it. Planning a pregnancy around summer vacation allows teacher parents to tack on the summer months, when school is out of session.
'It seems crazy to time a reproductive choice around your work schedule," said Maya Suzuki Daniels, an English teacher at San Pedro High School. Daniels got lucky, giving birth to her son in July. But she had to go back to work just two weeks after school began, when her son was about 8 weeks old — she couldn't afford to take the time off.
But a new resolution passed unanimously by the Los Angeles Unified School District board this week seeks to bolster paid family leave for teachers and other district workers, and improve parental support in an effort to make LAUSD a "district of choice" for employees in the midst of a statewide teacher shortage.
Read more: With Head Start in jeopardy, Trump administration threatens child care for 800,000 kids
In addressing paid family leave for teachers, the board is attempting to make progress on an issue that has bedeviled the Legislature. Lawmakers have passed two separate bills that would have provided paid leave after a birth; the first was vetoed in 2017 by Gov. Jerry Brown, and the second was vetoed in 2019 by Gov. Gavin Newsom, citing costs. A third attempt, Assembly Bill 65, introduced by Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters), is making its way through the Assembly.
An appeal to teacher-parents
The LAUSD resolution was introduced by school board members Tanya Ortiz Franklin, Kelly Gonez and Karla Griego — all of them moms.
'We now have a school board that has five moms on it who have some experience being on school staff while having children," Gonez said. 'We know that parenthood is joyful, but we also know the challenges it comes with in a very tangible way.'
"Parental Package: LAUSD as an Equitable Employer of Choice for Thriving Families" addresses a spectrum of parental needs — including infertility support services, paid time off, lactation spaces and child care — but is only the first step. The resolution requires the district to study the reproductive health and parenting needs of employees and come up with a plan of action by November.
This includes determining the cost of providing 12 weeks of paid family leave and researching the possibility of the state paying instead.
The resolution also calls for the district to take several immediate actions, including improving lactation spaces, identifying liaisons at each site to help employees navigate a confusing set of benefits from the district, and finding providers that offer affordable and backup child care for workers.
The effort also aims to improve staff retention and recruitment at a time when hiring enough teachers can prove challenging — especially in an expensive city where the rising cost of having a family outpaces a teacher's salary.
Read more: Can a baby struggle with their mental health? How this hospital is helping L.A.'s youngest
"These are things that will make it so much easier for our employees to stay with the district and to build their families while they continue to build their careers with the district," Gonez said. "It's not only good for them, but it's also good for the district, because increased retention means consistency in the staff at our school sites, and that reaps benefits for students as well."
The current state of parental leave for teachers
For two decades, California has provided paid family leave for private sector employees who pay into the state disability insurance and paid family leave programs. Private sector workers can access eight weeks of partially paid leave after the birth of a child or to care for an ailing family member. Those who give birth can also access an additional six to eight weeks of paid leave through the state disability insurance program. These benefits have been bolstered in recent years, including paying a higher percentage of worker salaries.
But public sector employees, including teachers, are exempt from paying into these programs and, therefore, are not eligible to receive the benefits. Unions can opt in through labor negotiations, but this is rare.
This leaves teachers under a complex system after the birth of a child. Their jobs are generally protected for 12 weeks, but they must run through their accrued sick days before getting "differential pay" of at least 50% for the rest of the time, according to the California Teachers Assn.
Newer teachers, or those who have already used up their sick days, may have no accrued sick days to use. After health insurance premiums and other costs are taken out of their paycheck, many are left with little to live on, said Erika Jones, an LAUSD teacher and CTA secretary-treasurer.
Read more: A pediatrician's dilemma: Should a practice kick out unvaccinated kids?
'It's very common to get pregnant and have no pay," Jones said. 'I have been in lunch rooms where women are in labor, dilated, and trying to work until the very last minute because they don't have enough days.'
Jasmin McGregor, a social worker at Audubon Middle School who shared her story in a video shown at Tuesday's board meeting, struggled after she had a baby last May.
"Money was very much a stressor during my pregnancy and postpartum period," she said. "It became very difficult for me and that is one of the reasons I did not take the full 12 weeks of parent bonding. Because I didn't have any more money."
Legislative efforts to provide paid leave for teachers
Research has shown that women who have access to paid leave are more likely to return to their jobs after having a baby. Yet the Legislature's two previous efforts to extend paid family leave to teachers have failed.
"When it comes to teachers, they've been totally abandoned in this regard," said Liz Morris, co-director of the Center for WorkLife Law at UC College of the Law, San Francisco. "Failing to provide paid leave for teachers is shortsighted, because [it] goes a long way in retaining teachers.'
In 2019, Newsom vetoed a bill that would have provided teachers with six weeks of paid maternity leave. 'Providing every California worker with paid family leave is a noble goal and a priority for my administration,' he said in his veto message. 'However, this bill will likely result in annual costs of tens of millions of dollars and should be considered as part of the annual budget process and as part of local collective bargaining.'
This legislative session, AB 65 would provide 14 weeks of paid leave to school and community college employees. The bill, which is estimated to cost about $120 million annually, would be paid for through Proposition 98 general funds and has the support of the teachers unions.
But opponents, including the Assn. of California School Administrators and the California School Boards Assn., say the law would be unaffordable for districts because there is no dedicated funding source and would exacerbate staffing shortages.
Instead, parental leave should be bargained through teacher union negotiations, said Dorothy Johnson, legislative advocate for the Assn. of California School Administrators. "To have a blank check for this level of leave — there's no way to really plan or prepare for it from a staffing or financial standpoint, which in the end hurts students.'
This article is part of The Times' early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sizewell C power station to be built as part of UK's £14bn nuclear investment
The biggest nuclear programme in a generation will 'get Britain off the fossil fuel rollercoaster', the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, has said, announcing £14.2bn to build a new nuclear power station and a drive to build small modular reactors. The multibillion-pound investment at Sizewell C on the Suffolk coast, which has been long expected, will create 10,000 jobs and power the equivalent of 6m homes. Nuclear will be one of the key investments Rachel Reeves will champion at Wednesday's spending review, which the chancellor hopes will overshadow uncomfortable decisions for the government including the U-turn on the winter fuel payment and a major row over police funding. Miliband said the 'golden age' of nuclear investment was critical to the government's net zero goals, which will probably require a significant increase in electricity demand, and said that it would not detract from investments in renewables. 'I'm doing this because of my belief that climate change is the biggest long-term threat facing us,' Miliband said. 'The truth is that we have this massive challenge to get off fossil fuels. That is the central driving ambition of the government's clean energy superpower mission. We know that we're going to have to see electricity demand at least double, by 2050. 'All of the expert advice says nuclear has a really important role to play in the energy system. In any sensible reckoning, this is essential to get to our clean power and net zero ambitions.' The announcement comes as part of the £113bn of new capital investment Reeves will announce in the spending review that the Treasury hopes will be the key theme – and enough to stave off further disquiet over expected cuts to day-to-day spending. On Monday, it emerged that all departments had settled with the Treasury after a deal was done with the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, who was deeply dissatisfied with funding for policing. The Home Office could still be forced to cut the overall number of police officers in the aftermath of its lengthy spending review negotiations with the Treasury. Whitehall sources said the department had been asked to look at all options including reducing officer recruitment, which would mean an overall cut in the headcount. On Monday morning, Cooper was the last minister still to reach a deal, with reports suggesting greater police spending would mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget. On Monday afternoon, a source said that cuts to police numbers remained 'a possibility'. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has also privately complained to the Treasury about Met police funding and a failure to finance any of the capital's key transport infrastructure requests. On Monday evening it emerged there were concerns that some English regions, including London, would lose money to support local economic growth and tackle poverty through schemes such as the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, Growth Hub funding and the Levelling Up Fund. A source close to the London mayor said: 'If the Treasury go ahead with this cut it would be incredibly shortsighted. They say they want economic growth but their actions in failing to invest in new infrastructure in the capital and cutting local growth funds will actually damage our economy, not improve it. 'They say they want regional mayors to be the drivers of growth but then remove their levers to achieve growth.' Earlier on Monday, Reeves formally announced plans to restore the winter fuel payment to all pensioners with an annual income of £35,000 or less, after a furious backlash to the government's most unpopular policy to date. While the reversal was welcomed by Labour MPs worried about pensioner poverty and the political toxicity of the issue, there were concerns the £1.25bn price tag would mean more tax rises or spending cuts this autumn. The green light for the development at Sizewell C marks the end of a long 15-year journey to secure investment for the plant since the site was first earmarked for new nuclear development in 2010. Campaigners argued the development of the site would be hugely expensive compared with investment in other energy sources and would create only short-term job opportunities. The government announced Rolls Royce as the winners of a long-running competition on Tuesday for a bid to build one of Europe's first small modular reactor (SMR) programmes – a model that some in government hope could eventually attract private investment, especially from tech companies, which might build SMRs to power datacentres. The FTSE 100 manufacturer Rolls-Royce was the long-running favourite to be chosen to build the first British SMRs. Reeves will confirm the nuclear investment in her address at the GMB congress on Tuesday, including £6bn of investment to the nuclear submarine industrial base to deliver on recommendations in the strategic defence review. The investment also includes £2.5bn over five years for research and development of fusion energy. Combined, the Treasury said they would be vital to the UK's energy security, replacing the UK's dependency on fossil fuel markets with homegrown power. 'We need new nuclear to deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance, because that is the only way to protect family finances, take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis,' Miliband said. He said projects such as these were also essential for making the economic case to voters that the transition to net zero would not come at a cost to their families. 'There aren't enough industries in this country that provide good jobs at decent wages with strong trade unions. Nuclear is one of them. This is absolutely about delivering the kind of economic change right across the country,' he said. He said investment in fusion in Nottinghamshire would be directly on the site of the old West Burton coal-fired power station. 'That is the transition in action – from an old coal-fired power station to a new fusion prototype plant,' he said. So for climate, for energy security, for jobs, I genuinely think this is the right choice.' Miliband has argued for nuclear power to be a part of tackling the climate crisis since 2009. As energy secretary in the last Labour government, he said he was brought up in a family that opposed it, but he now saw it as vital. 'I didn't expect to have to become the energy secretary again to make it happen,' Miliband said. 'We've been too slow, definitely. This is also about accepting the role of government because this is going to be majority state-owned and state invested. 'Hinkley was done under a different model. That is a way of lowering the cost of capital, getting a return for the taxpayer. So I think there have been real missed opportunities in the last 14 years.' Sizewell C was one of eight sites identified in 2009 by Miliband as a potential site for new nuclear. The project was not fully funded in the 14 years that followed under subsequent governments. The Treasury said that combined with the ambition to build SMRs, it would deliver more new nuclear to the grid than over the previous half century by the 2030s. Campaigners opposed to Sizewell C said they believed the development would end up as 'HS2 mark 2' with years of overspending and delay. Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said: 'Ministers have still not come clean about Sizewell C's cost and, given negotiations with private investors are incomplete, they have signed away all leverage and will be forced to offer generous deals that undermine value for money.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
SNP opposition to new nuclear power stations ‘makes no sense', says Miliband
Scotland will not get a 'golden age of nuclear' while the SNP holds firm in its opposition to new nuclear power stations, Ed Miliband has said. The Energy Secretary said Holyrood's position 'makes no sense', as Labour MP Gregor Poynton claimed the policy had cost workers and taxpayers north of the border 'billions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-skilled jobs'. SNP MP Kirsty Blackman described the UK Government's new £14.2 billion investment into Sizewell C in Suffolk as a 'splurge', when she pressed Mr Miliband on whether the Government will back the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. Mr Miliband said the Sizewell development along East Anglia's North Sea coastline will 'power the equivalent of around six million homes with clean homegrown energy for 60 years, and it will be a jobs and growth engine for Britain, supporting 10,000 jobs in the peak construction and creating 1,500 apprenticeships'. It is one of several nuclear projects which the Government has backed, which also include a prototype fusion plant at West Burton, Nottinghamshire, and a partnership between Rolls-Royce and Great British Energy – Nuclear to rollout small modular reactors. Mr Poynton, the MP for Livingston, told the Commons: 'Scotland was once a pioneer in nuclear energy and should be again, but due to the SNP Scottish Government's outdated, backward, quite frankly bizarre opposition to nuclear energy, turning away billions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-skilled jobs. 'So, does the Secretary of State agree with me this is yet another way the SNP Scottish Government has lost their way?' Mr Miliband replied that Mr Poynton was 'so right', and added: 'People in Scotland will be looking at these announcements and saying, 'well why isn't it us that are benefitting from this? Why are we not even in the race?'' The Scottish Government, led by SNP First Minister John Swinney, has a policy of opposing the building of new nuclear power stations. Lillian Jones, the Labour MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, criticised the position as an 'ideological block on nuclear power, blocking billions in investment, blocking thousands of well-paid, secure Scottish jobs, and blocking growth'. In his response, Mr Miliband said: 'We can announce a golden age of nuclear with our investments but not in Scotland, because of the position of the SNP Government. 'It makes no sense.' Aberdeen North MP Ms Blackman had earlier said: 'This £14 billion splurge on English nuclear power plants comes on top of £22 billion for English carbon capture and storage, while there's nothing for Scotland's Acorn project. 'With Grangemouth (oil refinery) allowed to close, with a fiscal regime that is ruining north-east energy jobs, this latest announcement shows that Scotland isn't just an afterthought, it isn't a thought at all. 'If nearly £40 billion can be found for English energy projects, why is it that money is never found for Scotland's carbon capture project?' Mr Miliband replied: 'Well look, I think maybe there is an SNP change in position coming. If she wants to have a conversation about Scottish nuclear power stations, then absolutely. 'We're in favour of the Acorn project and we'll be saying more about this in the coming weeks. 'But let me just say to her – on nuclear power, they've really got to think again. 'They are absolutely sticking their heads in the sand when it comes to this. This is about jobs, it's about investment, it's about clean energy, they should really rethink.' In an earlier statement, Mr Miliband said: 'The Government is taking decisive steps today to usher in a new golden age of nuclear for Britain.' He added: 'For too long, our country has not made the crucial energy – or indeed other infrastructure investments – we need. A short-sighted failure to invest for which the British people have paid the price in lower living standards, insecurity and declining public services. 'This week's announcements symbolise a decisive change in approach, to invest in the future – the right choice for energy security, the right choice for jobs, the right choice for climate and our children and grandchildren, the right choice for Britain, investment, not decline. 'This Government has made its choice.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Hamas Telegram groups radicalizing Americans
Telegram group chats with hundreds of thousands of subscribers are posting daily propaganda directly from Hamas — and potentially radicalizing anti-Israel activists here in America. The Post monitored two major English-language Telegram networks — Resistance News Network and Gaza Now In English, with more than 100,000 and 200,000 subscribers respectively — over the past week and observed dozens of daily updates purporting to be from spokespeople for Hamas, Hezbollah and terrorist military brigades. NY Post columnist Rikki Schlott shares this story.