Public education has a long and sordid history in the United States since its inception. Although free and high-quality education has long been identified as a pillar of a functioning democracy, the path to that goal has been rife with innumerable stumbling blocks. Once recurring issue has been the perpetual underfunding and undervaluing of teachers and other support staff who are entrusted with the education of America’s future. In the wake of the disastrous impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education, teachers across the country have gone on strike for better conditions and compensation.
But some naysayers assert that the strikes have gone too far, believing that teachers are asking for too much and the students suffer as a result. When the Seattle school district went on strike this fall, Liz Wolfe wrote an article for Reason Magazine criticizing the teachers’ demands for higher compensation saying:
“The pay scale for SPS teachers, which depends on tenure and educational attainment, ranges from roughly $60,000 to $123,500 annually for 7.5 hour workdays (37.5-hour workweeks) and a shorter working year than people in the private sector typically endure."
At first glance, this sounds like a reasonable criticism: how can anyone possibly complain when making six figures for working less than 40 hours a week? But the truth is, how far that salary goes varies greatly based on where you live. One of the sticking points for the Seattle teachers union is that not all wages are keeping pace with Seattles’s cost of living. They may be on to something there: Seattle is ranked among the most expensive cities in the US, with the cost of living clocking in about 50 percent higher than the national average. In fact, investigations into the amount of money required to live a happy life in Seattle was a whopping $117,180 per year. With that perspective, having the minimum salary of $60,000 or almost half of what is required for a satisfactory lifestyle does sound like a reason to go on strike.
However, even this argument takes very narrow view of what the teachers were striking for. Analyzing the union’s demands beyond wages, one begins to see a more complete story that looks less like a bunch of selfish teachers looking for an easy raise and more like a group of burned out educators determined to do good and provide support to their community. Besides wage increases, the teachers union required: better interpretation and translation services for multilingual students, improved special education staffing ratios, capping class sizes and adding more mental health staffing. Everything on that list directly benefits underserved students who lack agency to advocate for themselves. Striking for student is quite literally against the law: it’s called truancy. So, one of the only ways to improve conditions for the students is for teachers to go on strike. Thus the framing for Wolfe’s article, which would have the reader believe he students are forced to suffer for the teachers’ demands, is disingenuous. Missing five days of school is a sacrifice worth making if it means smaller class sizes and more support staff.
So why do people like Wolfe fixate so heavily on the monetary aspect of striking? With the looming UPS strike, all any critics seem to talk about are salaries without acknowledging the fact that a major issue triggering the strike is that UPS vehicles still do not have any A/C. So often, these detractors take a shut up and stop complaining attitude. The comparison that Wolfe makes between the working year of teachers to that of that of the private sector is especially illustrative of this. The implication is, we have it worse than you do and we aren’t complaining. Whether teachers really have it easier than the private sector is highly dubious, but even if it were completely true, that does not prove the teachers’ demands unreasonable. Is it unfair for amazon workers to demand sufficient bathroom breaks just because worker conditions in other countries are far worse? The answer is no: both things can be true at the same time. The fact is, those in the private sector are also in an unfortunate situation; they are overworked, exploited and expected to be grateful for it. Ultimately, the answer is not to point fingers at teachers who are advocating for better conditions, but the larger political system that is failing to provide them with adequate resources to do their jobs. Perhaps the suits need to stop framing teachers as greedy fat cats and organize a strike of their own. I, for one, would be all for it.
I do agree that teachers should be better paid for their job. Being a teacher is such an important role in our society today and we need to continue having them. I do believe if we don't compensate with a higher raise for them, some eventually will quit and find another job. I can't even image having not enough teachers in our school in the future. Finding a solution to this as soon as possible can end strikes like this one and prevent future ones from happening, or worst, teachers quitting their jobs.
It's outrageous that teachers get this this treatment despite having one of the most emotionally draining yet important jobs. Teachers strike all the time and are hardly acknowledged. It's interesting to think about how gentrification contributes to this as it dramatically increases the cost of living in areas in and around big cities.
I agree that teachers are horribly compensated, especially considering how important their job is for the fabric of, well, everything. However, I do think it's a more complicated for teachers to go on strike than for other careers. When teachers go on strike, it negatively impacts children in a very developmentally formative part of their lives. A job as valuable as teaching comes with a lot of responsibility. Even if the strike is for improved conditions for students, isn't it still even worse for those kids to not access to their teachers during the strike? Ideally, I wish we wouldn't even need to talk about measures teachers can take to improve their situations. Still, I'm wary of striking as a…