Earlier this week, the Chicago Teacher’s Union announced that, if an agreement cannot be reached, October 11th will mark the beginning of the second strike in the district since 2012. Chicago’s mayor, the school district, and the teacher’s union are in the middle of contract negotiations that have been in the works for over a year. The issues are mostly financial this time; the union is fed up with budget cuts that have resulted in layoffs of librarians, school nurses, and teachers, plus district pension contributions have decreased while health insurance rates have increased. And of course, another major issue is pay raises. Chicago’s mayor said that if teachers strike, they are saying their pay raises are more important than their students’ academic achievement. One might look at it that way… if they’re not a teacher.

No one knows more about the importance of student achievement than educators. Granted, I have never been involved in a strike situation, and I am not a part of the union in my district (in the past I just thought they were a group of complainers), but I know for sure that my first thought when considering a strike would be, “what will this do to my students?” Well here’s the answer, and don’t think that teachers don’t consider all of this before they go on strike.

Countless studies have been conducted to determine the real effects of a teacher strike. Although most of those studies measure student achievement with standardized test scores (which is a whole other issue), they still illustrate the impact absent teachers can have. It seems that the higher the grade level, the worse the impact. It can be seen in reading and math test scores at the elementary level, but the adverse effects multiply in high school. At the high school level, students are in the midst of preparing for Advanced Placement exams, college applications, and/or a sports scholarship-- all of which they need their teachers for.

Think about the day-to-day impact. On a typical weekday, parents rely on their kids going to school while they are at work. For some, school provides two out of three meals per day. Plus, the logistics of finding childcare and transportation can be a nightmare for a parent or guardian. And finally, schools must meet the required number of school days per year; some districts may tack on any missed days at the end of the year, but others do not. This becomes a problem when some students start to fall behind others.

So this may come as a shock, but in general, teachers aren’t in it for the money. Believe me. As an educator, my #1 priority is my students (I think even they would tell you that), and I work/have worked with many teachers that operate the same way. But teachers are like everyone else-- we have to take care of ourselves and our families, and we have to stick up for that. It is interesting that this is often spun in a way that makes it seem as though it’s selfish to advocate for ourselves when we have dedicated years to the education system.

There has to be a point where “leadership” understands that in order to have a quality education system, there have to be quality educators. Just as there is a direct correlation between a teacher strike and a decline in student achievement, there is an equal correlation between teachers being treated as they should and an increase in student achievement. The mayor’s comments about teachers making a choice-- student achievement vs. pay-- is true. But isn’t that literally the hardest position to be in as a teacher-- caught between your dedication to your students and your livelihood? If anything, Chicago’s mayor is saying that he doesn’t care about the students, or education, if he isn’t willing to rally for educators.