The educational consultant moderate-liberal Democrat ponders the aftermath of the Chicago public school teachers' strike, which was suspended last week: "In
practice the city gave a lot of ground on key issues to get kids back in
school. Sure, in 2014 thirty percent of teachers evaluations will be
based on how much students learn. But that’s state law in Illinois! It’s
illegal for the contract to do less. Evaluation results will not be
especially consequential anyway. Mediocre teachers can keep their jobs
year after year and the great teachers in Chicago will not be protected
during layoffs, which will still be determined largely based on
seniority rather than effectiveness."
He adds: "It’s unclear meanwhile how the city
is going to afford the 17 percent raise it committed to – especially at
the same time Chicago’s teacher pension fund is nearing insolvency.
The city won on some issues, too, by protecting principal autonomy and
maintaining a sensible policy on guaranteed jobs when there are layoffs
because of the downsizing everyone can see coming. But, overall it’s
hard to see the agreement as anything but a substantial victory for
[Chicago Teachers Union president Karen] Lewis and one that will resonate far beyond Chicago."
More: "They know the 'reform unionism' field is littered with the bodies of
union leaders voted out of office after appearing too accommodating with
management or school reformers. But reform unionism had a powerful
pragmatic argument in its favor: Until the Chicago strike the political
choice for unions looked like accommodation and collaboration or
irrelevance. Last week Lewis added a third credible option to the mix –
strident resistance."
Andrew Rotherham: "Why The Chicago's Teachers' Strike Matters For National Education Reform Efforts"
