How much are the striking Chicago teachers concerned with the children’s education, and how much are they concerned about themselves?
The teachers are picketing outside schools where the students are trying to learn, which doesn’t exactly help create a conducive environment for studying, so it would appear that the students’ best interests are not of primary concern for the teachers. Meanwhile, it is come to light that one of the significant reasons the negotiations have been stalled is that one of the provisions the district is asking for would mean 28% of the teachers’ union leadership losing their jobs in one to two years.
Kinda looks like the unions are looking out for their own, and the hell with the pubic, doesn’t it? But then, what else do unions do these days?
One teacher who was interviewed while picketing said:
What really squeaks my chalk, Anna, is, it’s bad enough when politicians suggest we’re in it for the money, which we are not (ahem), but every day, people saying that we’re hurting their children by being out here … and I’m a parent, I get it. The routine’s being disrupted but our job is to teach, not to babysit and there’s no better way of teaching being American than standing up for what is just. I would not want my own students to grow up and work for wages that are unfair or conditions that are untenable, I know my teachers did not want that for me … anyone who’s angry at us for being out here, you don’t know what a real education is supposed to do, you don’t know what a real education is and you don’t know what a real education looks like!
A real education must mean making sure your union buddies stay employed while your students starve for learning.
One parent fed-up with the teachers called it like it is:
If you care about the kids why not try to resolve this while the kids are getting their education, because other than that, they’re losing.
There was a time when being a teacher implied a high degree of unselfishness.
Not in Chicago.