September 18, 2012
-
Chicago Teachers Union Strike
I’ve been mulling things over for awhile on the teacher’s strike here in Chicago. I thought that negotiations over the weekend would prove fruitful, but no deal has been reached as of 9/17/2012 and even if the CTU (Chicago Teacher’s Union) ends the strike, the deal must be accepted or the teachers can walk again. Below is a link that details a study done by CTU and how education should be reformed.
http://www.ctunet.com/blog/text/SCSD_Report-02-16-2012-1.pdf
The study brings up many valid points and paints (or at least prints) a compelling story about education in Chicago. It’s certainly about the kids, and how they need to be better served with small class sizes and a wealth of educational opportunity. Of course there is the less politically charged “respect and development of professionals,” aka fair compensation. But according to many facebook posts as well as news articles, this strike is not about money. It’s about the kids.
Let’s be honest. At the end of the day, it’s all about money. Everything the CTU proposes will require money. This is problematic because neither Illinois nor the city of Chicago has enough of it to go around. Thus, there is the impasse. The city has to decide how to allocate finite resources which conflicts with what CTU wants the city to do. One is a question of resource management while the other is about education.
Or at least it’s supposed to be. Let’s be honest about a second thing. The CTU is looking after its constituents. It’s what a union does, but the rhetoric makes it seem like it’s for the children’s sake. While I am sympathetic to the teachers’ and think that they should get a “fair contract,” the sticking points in the new contract are NOT about the kids. It’s about job security, which the unions are supposed to protect.
Now, should teachers’ jobs be beholden to standardized tests? Probably not, since as has been pointed out, environmental conditions affect learning. This is unfair since different schools will have different environments based on how well they are funded and what programs available to the children. An un-air conditioned room with a huge class size is atrocious. The environment however, is also not the sole indicator of children’s ability to learn. The teachers need to somehow be held accountable. This isn’t anything ground-breaking since all professions have some type of evaluation, and if the strike is about the students, then their performance matters. Performance is especially important because getting a high school education may not be enough to cut it in the global world, and teachers must deal with this daunting task. They must be able to teach in a way that fosters student interest because eventually they will have to perform on an ACT, SAT, GED, GRE, GMAT, MCAT, or LSAT. And you know what? These are all standardized tests.
If indeed the issues at stake were about the children, then wouldn’t one proposal be no increases in salary and benefits or heaven forbid DECREASES to the average salary of $71,236 (according to the Illinois Interactive Report Card of Northern Illinois University) in order to finance school infrastructure and programs? Of course not. Why? Because the 1% should pay its fair share of taxes through a progressive tax (of which, is not really fair in the wording of progressive. A flat tax is “fair.”). Furthermore, the CTU report has come up with creative solutions to raise even more money, which would affect the not only the top 1% but the top 5%. A statewide capital gains tax on top of the federal capital gains tax? A financial transaction tax on trades? The report points to past tax rates, so the possibility does exist, but these seem unlikely as revenue sources because of the difficulty of passing such legislature (The study did not say what was done with capitial gains and dividends, ie whether they were reinvested or not). Spending cuts in other areas of the state/city budget is more feasible, but the school system is going to need more than just $300 million from the 5% saved from the 6 billion sent to the Pentagon. School infrastructure is not listed in the graph of school improvements.
Which is to say again, the issue in the strike is about money and how to use it. Are the children caught in the middle of it? Yes, but neither side should be using them as collateral in a bargaining agreement. The CTU proposals do a lot of things. Primarily among them will be more jobs, but not everyone can be hired. Choices will have to be made among personnel, infrastructure, and programs with limited resources from viable sources. This means that “privatization” of education must also be in the mix through corporate sponsorship because Property Taxes can only do so much.
So am I for or against the strike? All things considered, I lean toward against the strike. I do think that the issues brought up by the CTU study are important and should be addressed, but I don’t think that’s what the strike is about. I have not heard anything where CTU has demanded proper school environments as part of its contract. Given adequate funding, school environment is a priority, but there isn’t adequate funding. Furthermore, the strike is not about proper legislature to raise revenues to pay for all of the above. The issue boils down to resource management, both in terms of money and human power, and unfortunately the CTU might be bargaining for something that the city doesn’t have.
More resourses:
