When the recent Newark school strike ran on and on for eleven weeks, everyone wondered why it took so long for the issues to be settled. A Very brief New York Times item (May 25) provides a significant clue: "The Newark Board of Education said today it was short $2.1 million to complete the fiscal year ending June 30." This money shortage exists in spite of the fact that the Newark Board saved $7 million on nonpayment of teacher salaries during the strike. These facts make it quite apparent that Mayor Kenneth Gibson had to close the schools of Newark because of a lack of funds and that by provoking the Newark teachers Union to strike, he shifted the blame for shutting down Newark's schools from himself to the teachers.

Is it possible that Mayor Lindsay wants to solve New York's financial problems in the same way? Last week, the Mayor's Corporation Counsel issued an opinion that the Board of Education agreement with the UFT with respect to More Effective Schools and other experimental programs was not binding!

But no amount of legalistic squirming can nullify the obvious. Page 2 of the UFT-Board reads: "The Board will continue to present intensive experimental programs for educational excellence such as the More Effective Schools, the All Day Neighborhood Schools, the five new primary schools, and the strengthened program in the Kindergarten through 2nd grade in Special Service Schools. The Board will also continue the Experimental Elementary Programs initiated during the 1968-69 school year upon recommendation of a work group composed of representatives of parent and community groups, chosen by agreement of the Board and the Union, and chaired by an eminent elementary school educator selected from outside the school system by the Superintendent of Schools. Beginning in the 1970-71 school year, the Board will establish and maintain ten additional More Effective Schools."

The More Effective Schools And Class Size Limits -- Contract Obligations To Protect The Children

Unfortunately, this move to repudiate a binding agreement is not only the provocation by the city administration. There are hundreds of collective bargaining contracts which the city has entered into. When Mayor Lindsay presented four budget options ( each dependent upon the actions of Albany with respect to increased state aid and increased city taxing power), each guaranteed the fulfillment of all these contractual obligations -- with one exception: the UFT contract. Under two of these options the limitations on class size (32 in elementary schools, 33 in junior highs, and 34 in high schools) would be violated on a wholesale scale.

There is no rational basis for treating salary provisions in union agreements as binding while abrogating agreements on More Effective Schools and class size limits. It should be remembered that the latter provisions were induced in the contract because teachers agreed to use part of the moneys available in the negotiations to improve school conditions instead of applying these moneys to salaries and fringe benefits.

Twice in the last four years there were similar attempts to break the union and violate the contract. These efforts failed; instead, the city itself came to the edge of disaster. To prevent a tragic replay of New York 1967, 1968 and Newark 1971, he mayor must abide by the UFT contracts as he is abiding by the hundreds of other contracts.

In previous confrontations, the city was partially successful in pitting parents and minority groups against the union, falsely charging the union with seeking teacher benefits at the expense of the children. Should another confrontation occur, the issue will be clear: The preservation of the union contract is the only protection that children have against oversized classes and chaotic school conditions.