Teacher strikes are
horrendous. They are a challenge for families, who have to scramble for
childcare. They can be a nightmare for families who cannot afford to pay for
additional childcare. They can be disruptive to students, and life disruptions
can seriously impair student learning. They cost teachers paychecks -- at least
in the short term. And almost all teachers actually love children -- else
they could not bear to work them with all day every day -- and striking is not
nearly as psychically rewarding as teaching.
So, why do teachers
strike? Why don't school boards do what they need to do to prevent strikes?
Well, it is quite
complicated, and often needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis. But there
are some big historical and/or ongoing issues that you need to understand in
order to understand the individual context.
* Teacher union
contracts are not imposed on school districts. They are negotiated between the
two parties and agreed to by both parties.
* The compensation
model and teacher tenure predate
collective bargaining rights for teachers and union contracts by decades.
* An enormous amount of
what is covered in union contracts is a product of neither the union nor the
central office trusting principals. This has always been true. Today's
decentralizing movement should not hide the fact that districts have
historically pushed just as hard as unions to tie principals’ hands and deny
them discretion over policy and procedure in their own schools.
* There has been a
problem all across the country with principals failing to observe and evaluate
their teachers according to the procedures laid out in the contracts -- even
when it takes less than three hours and occurs less often than every year. This
failure of evaluation and documentation is what makes it take so long to remove
teachers. This does not simply fall on principals, as they are held responsible
for so much, are so poorly trained and so poorly supported that it is no
surprise that they can have trouble finding time to do this work. And when a
new principal comes to a school, s/he may inherit a situation where his/her
predecessor failed to observe and evaluate teachers for years.
(When I work with
principals closely, I always ask them if they personally have ever been unable
to remove a teacher they needed out of their building. They tell stories about
their peers, but I've yet to speak to a principal who admits to being unable to
do so him/herself. Not a single one, yet, in scores of conversations.)
* The recent
"accountability" movement looks to place blame for student
performance on teachers, schools and principals. However, it rarely -- never?
-- gives them the discretion over how to accomplish those goals that was
originally promised. It certainly fails to provide the capacity that makes
those goals even possible -- thus violating Richard Elmore's Principle of
Reciprocity. The centralizing tendencies of those who like the idea of
"accountability" runs counter to requirements of accountability. For
example, if Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the CPS system want to hold principals
"accountable" for test scores, as they say, they need to give principals
control over their budgets and over staffing. They claim that they that are
fighting to give them control over staffing. However, they want to tie the
principals' hands when it comes to evaluating their own teachers.
* Most individual
teachers get raises above and beyond those highlighted in media coverage of
teacher contract disputes. They get raises for advancing in their careers, as
defined in the salary schedules in the contracts. Whether you agree or disagree
with that approach, there are raises in there. The public disputes are about
shifting that entire salary schedule -- to adjust for inflation, to make the
profession more attractive, and to pay teachers closer to that a professional
salary. If you believe that teachers are underpaid or that starting teacher
salaries need to be higher -- as most do -- then you should be in favor of
these overall shifts. On the other hand, teachers should not claim that their
individual raises depend entirely upon these shifts.
* We all know that
teaching is hard, hard work. Working in front of dozens of children everyday,
being minutely observed by them and trying to act like a role model every
minute is incredibly draining. After classes are over, teachers have papers to
grade, lesson plans to write or revise, meetings to attend, phone calls to make
(e.g. to parents), classrooms to clean and the next day's lessons/activities to
set up. Teachers work long after the children leave school.
* Teachers do not have
three months off every year. They generally have 10-month contracts, yes. Some
teachers -- especially well-experienced teachers -- do not have to spend their
summers planning curricula, learning more about their subjects, attending
training and professional development. But many teachers do. Furthermore, many,
many teachers (most?) try to get back to school before they are supposed to, to
begin setting up their classrooms --which may have moved -- or prepare for
their new classes and grade-levels. Most teachers need multiple weeks before
the students arrive at the start of the year to get ready, and they are only
paid for one.
* All professionals
need insightful feedback to build on their strengths and to address their
weakness. And yet, it is an entirely human reaction to resist criticism. Amid
the traditional close your door and do
your own thing culture of schooling, there can be even more resistance to
evaluation. (To be honest, I was quite resistant to the obviously stupid
criticism I received as a teacher.) But there are legitimate reasons to want to
compare teacher performance, even across schools (e.g. targeting professional development,
identifying model teachers, etc.).
* Student test scores
do not measure school quality.
However, there are efforts to use statistical techniques to combine test scores
and other data to get closer to teachers and school quality. Yet these products
-- called "value-added analysis" (VAA) -- are not even close to being
ready for primetime. To take two disparate examples, VAA does not account for
the presence of known disruptive students or for HVAC issues in a particular
classroom -- both of which can significantly impact student learning. Until far
more of the known relevant factors are accounted for, VAA systems simply do not
achieve their goal. (Though, given valid tests that appropriately sample from
the content domain, fuller models, and sufficient data, VAA can be an incredibly useful tool.)
* Despite the rhetoric,
the United States has never led in the international comparisons of student
performance. PISA and TIMMS studies have consistently shown that US to be in
the middle of the pack of industrialized nations -- for their entire histories.
More recent research has show that when you control poverty levels, however,
the US is today first in the world on these tests. We have not declined, but we
have social problems that impact student performance.
Many (most? all? nearly
all? including myself) believe that our schools need to do better. Certainly,
we want our students to come out of school better prepared for citizenship,
their future careers and their lives as adults. Many parents need to learn how
to better support their children's' education. Societally, we need to value
education and scholarship more. We need better teachers and better teaching. We
need better leadership of our schools. We need better leadership of our school
districts. The visions have been lacking. The support for those in schools has
been poor. The necessities of creating engines of continuous improvement have
not been met -- either for students or for educators.
When reading or
thinking about the Chicago Teachers Union strike, keep all of this in mind. The
next time you hear about a teacher contract negotiation, keep all of this in mind.
And if you care to know more any any of these points, there is a ton of good
work out there to learn from.
