So…the Chicago teachers have gone back to work. Not sure if that’s good or bad
for their students. The record indicates they haven’t exactly done a bang up
job. In addition, as Scott Reader in the Argus-Dispatch noted, Chicago’s
teachers, on average, may not represent the “cream of the crop”, having
themselves scored rather significantly below national averages on the ACT tests.
Noted that the teachers didn’t rush back to classes after the tentative
agreement either. They had to take a couple days to closely examine the pact to
be sure they had squeezed as much gain from the tax payers as possible.
Couple things of interest surfaced during the strike which maybe each of us
should consider. From news reports, it appeared to this writer that, maybe,
learning wasn’t the overriding consideration of the Chicago school
system . . . either with the union or with many parents.
Providing free breakfast and lunch seemed a top priority such that schools were
kept open for that specific purpose. Secondly, the complaint of parents it
seemed most often aired by TV news clips was that this strike was costing them
money or was inconvenient because the schools’ role in providing “child care”
had been interrupted.
Oh . . . and incidentally . . . that the children weren’t “learning,” . . . I disagree. They were
learning but the lessons aren’t likely to do much for the social and economic
health of the Chicago area or of our nation in general.
Anybody disagree? DLH
