A Look at the 2012 Chicago Teachers’ Strike

A Look at the 2012 Chicago Teachers’ Strike

This is an updated version of the interview posted on the District Administration website at the time of the strike.

Longtime school superintendent Randall Collins, executive director of the District Administration Leadership Institute (daleadershipinstitute.com), shares professional insights on the Chicago teacher strike with Odvard Egil Dyrli, District Administration’s executive editor.

Randy CollinsThe facts are well-known: Karen Lewis, president of the 26,000-member Chicago Teachers Union and Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who appointed reform-minded Jean-Claude Brizard chief of the school system and who resigned in mid-October, were locked in a toe-to-toe stalemate resulting in a districtwide strike that stranded 350,000 students in the nation’s third-largest city. The historic strike ended in a matter of days, but many feel that the Chicago union and other unions across the country may pay a price for the walkout.

Dyrli: What was the Chicago Public Schools teachers’ strike really about?

Collins: On the surface, the strike was a labor dispute over job security, so laid-off teachers would be hired back by seniority, merit pay, and about tying teacher evaluation to student achievement as measured by test scores. Ultimately, the strike was part of a debate taking place across the county between teachers unions and education reformers pushing for teacher evaluation and tenure reform. This was therefore a bottom-line struggle on who controls schools and classrooms, and that affects every district.

What can other superintendents learn from the strike in Chicago?

Collins: I see two major messages: 1) negotiations must never be personal or based on personalities, which backs people into corners, and 2) how reform is implemented is of paramount importance. In Chicago, the Mayor tried to impose reform unilaterally, which absolutely did not work, and the union president resisted, perhaps influenced by what she thought happened in Rochester (where the teachers union gave Brizard a vote of no confidence, before he came to Chicago). I know and have worked with Jean-Claude on the AASA Executive Committee, and always found him to be reasonable. Frankly, the initial proposal to lengthen the relatively short school day should have passed without difficulty, but instead, it set the stage for a heated conflict. (And Brizard resigned soon after.)

Gil DyrliHow would you have handled the Chicago negotiations differently?

Collins: Brizard was surprisingly absent from the debate, which was a mistake, because I believe he would have presented a voice of reason. And Lewis predicted failure by proclaiming, “This is going to be a hot buttery mess,” when Brizard was appointed by the mayor to be the CEO. I was a superintendent for 30 years, and had to close several schools in my career, but my position was always to make sure everyone was represented at the bargaining table, and everyone was kept talking. And with the inevitable push-back on particular items, I worked hard to remain confident, composed and calm, because you will have to say the same thing hundreds of times. In contrast, the negotiations in Chicago remind me of wrestling matches where the contestants retire periodically to separate corners.

Why did the Chicago union resist tying teacher evaluation and merit pay to student achievement?

Collins: This is a direct result of our nationwide concern with public accountability, which has to involve schools too, but again it matters how such proposals are introduced and implemented. Many districts are willing to pay to get reform, but while teachers are, of course, willing to take the money, they may be unwilling to deliver the reform. Taking it a step farther, I support linking administrator bonuses to student achievement. There is also a growing national resistance to high-stakes testing, that superintendents will have to address.

A colleague said that if district administrators acted responsibly and ethically, unions would be unnecessary.

Collins: I would say that is somewhat accurate. But unions do much to improve schools, though I have found that the AFT is generally more open to change than the NEA. However, if the AFT is unsuccessful in stopping Chicago’s continuing reform efforts, the results will ripple across districts throughout the nation.

Do you have any concluding thoughts about the strike that you would like to share?

Collins: I believe it was not a good idea for the Chicago union to take on these issues at a time when they are receiving a healthy raise in an urban district where poverty and unemployment are common; it is not a hill that I would choose to die on. I also realize that my comments will not be entirely popular with colleagues, but that’s the way I feel, and I trust that the thoughts will initiate thinking. I look forward to talking with fellow administrators at the next DA Leadership Institute.

Send your comments to Randy Collins at RCollins@districtadministration.com


Advertisement