By Charles Barone, Director of Federal Policy
In a piece in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis and AFT President Randi Weingarten gave themselves a grade-inflated “gold star” for their role and that of their members in the recent strike. They make a couple of good points about the substantive parts of the agreement. But they devote far too much space to the cathartic value of the strike for teachers and in doing so crowd out other points that deserve, at the very least, equal space.
First, striking may have been a feel-good moment for teachers, but there’s no denying that it came at the expense of children and their parents. As a former clinician and direct service provider in both public school and community settings, I found that the most important thing one did, especially for the most disadvantaged children, was to show-up when you’re supposed to. Striking teachers repeatedly referred to the troubled and, in some cases, dangerous neighborhood and home environments of students as an obstacle to effectively educating them. You would think the last thing teachers would want to do is throw them back into such situations on short notice with less, and in some cases no, adult supervision.
Surveys showed most parents supported striking teachers. Parents, however, also made significant economic and personal sacrifices, in large part because CTU decided to strike first rather than try to resolve outstanding issues. The least you might have expected from Lewis and Weingarten was gratitude for the hardships endured by children and parents. Apparently that was less important than a few extra paragraphs trumpeting their victory.
Second, disagree as they may with the reforms the mayor and school officials sought, the agreement both sides reached in the end differed from what the city proposed originally only by degree, not by kind. There will be a longer school day. Teachers will be evaluated based, in part, on student gains on achievement tests in basic academic skills. Principals will have more autonomy in choosing their staffs. Chronically low-performing schools will be subject to interventions including, in extreme cases, being replaced by other higher-quality schools. While it may have slowed the pace of reform, CTU did not change the trajectory.
Third, the equity issues involved in such things as teacher evaluations and school staffing are not even mentioned by Lewis and Weingarten. Many people seem unaware of, or uninterested in, the fact that whatever one thinks of a seniority-driven staffing system, it generally works to the disadvantage of children in high-poverty schools. Many, but certainly not all, teachers do not teach in such schools by choice. Since those with more seniority tend (again, not invariably) to choose more desirable and less difficult places to teach, the schools with the highest concentrations of disadvantaged students tend also to have the least experienced and effective teachers. First year teachers can be effective, especially if they have completed highly selective alternative preparation programs. But none of this changes the fact that the vast majority of first-year teachers find themselves woefully unprepared. It’s no wonder so many are angry and frustrated.