Reformers: Why Focus On A Strike Ban?

image from'm no defender of the status quo but I'm not understanding or agreeing much with the argument that a strike ban is necessary part of the reform bill being pushed through the legislature right now. Two major players in the reform world -- DFER and Michelle Rhee -- have both disavowed attacks on collective bargaining rights such as these. Discussion of strikes has been few and far between over recent years, as a quick look at Google News and Catalyst's archives shows.  I never felt like a strike was a real possibility during either the Lynch or the Stewart reigns, though a strike was authorized under Lynch and it's arguably something Lewis et al might be interested in doing.  don't see how a strike ban necessarily leads to better schools or even a longer school day. Most of all, I don't see how strike threats or actual strikes don't cut both ways pretty evenly -- parents and the public freaking out and pressuring both the Board and the teachers to come to agreement.  (I'm not even sure that CTU could get a strike authorized, given the economy, etc.) Are SFC and Advance Illinois basically saying that Board and City Hall negotiators such wusses they can't handle an even playing field?  Have Martin and Edelman gone rogue? This seems like a red herring to me -- a negotiating tool, perhaps, to soften the negotiations -- not something that's really needed.  If the reform legislation goes down, again, over this, again, it'll be pretty sad -- and a major setback for reformers.


Leave a comment
  • Alexander I am no longer sure of what "status quo" means in public education. We have school districts with longer and shorter days that are failing students, we have effectively bankrupt school districts with more children in classrooms all over America. We have better funded and managed charter schools with good outcomes and we have worse charter schools that are on the edge of collapse. We have alternative route certified teachers being used in most urban school districts many of whom are leaving education relatively rapidly and we have teachers who have been traditionally trained some of whom are academically weak and others of whom are stronger but who also leave more challenging schools for high performing schools in higher numbers than academically weaker teachers.

    What we now have is a reform status quo, it is more like a consensus with Arne Duncan cheering them on. They keep telling the public things will get better if only we do this or that and nationally k-12 education continues to decay. Maybe Stand for Children is now the status quo using a package of reforms cooked up by think thanks funded in good part by Gates. Stand for Children is a promoter of the status quo to come that promises poor children everything but works with the same forces that want to contain the costs of public education for these same poor children.

    Rod Estvan

  • am hearing the strike ban provision is gone from the bill -- anyone hearing the same thing or different?

  • Bill Gates FUNDED and WANTED small schools in the Chicago Public School system! Then Bill Gates didn't want small schools and didn't fund them, so Arne decided to close all of the small schools! Orr and South Shore small schools are now closed. Next to close will be the Bowen Campus! Then Little village and DuSable will be next! P.S.- CTU, fight for your right to strike, or it will be the beginning of the end!

  • who's that perspectives teacher leo smith who gave $25k to SFC? heather steans' husband

  • Arrived

    Well its here go over to the Illinois legislature web site and check out
    Senate bill 7 But make sure you also open amendment no 1 .

  • so the basics are: 75 percent vote to strike, harder to get tenure but still four years, modifications to LIFO, and a few other things --

Leave a comment