Have been reading up a bit this afternoon on the Chicago teachers strike, and really want to better understand what's going on. Most stories just quote Rahm Emanuel, a few picketing teachers, and an angry parent or two, cite a somewhat mysterious $70,000-$80,000 average salary number(*), and call it a day.

I know there's a lot of back story here (both on teacher unions in general and on Chicago specifically) that isn't always included in major media summaries — I'd love to find some niche Chicago blogs or writers that have some real context for this. Please add them or link to their stories here if you know them.

Help me understand: What's going on with the Chicago teachers strike?

* Also, I looked into the salary number a bit. The Journal says $70k (online.wsj.com) and USA Today says $76k (usatoday.com) but the real number seems to actually be $74,839. See this report from the district (cps.edu), which is also cited here in a CNN article (cnn.com).

Thanks also to Noah Chestnut for also tweeting a link to a great Chicago Mag story on historical teacher salary figures (chicagomag.com).

I'd add the following local sites to your reading list.

Libby, you're right in suspecting there is more to this than initial MSM articles.

Not to be an Education Week homer, but my colleague Stephen Sawchuk does a good job laying out most of the contentious points here.

blogs.edweek.org

Salary and pay increase is an issue, but the Chicago strike is moreso rooted in controversial education reform initiatives pushed by the mayor, like extended school days and years, more aggressive teacher evaluations, and a weakening of tenure.

It's also worth noting the national landscape, here. Teachers' unions across the country are losing bargaining power and facing membership declines amid bipartisan support for school choice and teacher eval policies.

At least regarding smooth resolution of the dispute, I think Rahm's the most contentious possible person to have in office. I suspect one reason this strike is really occurring is to show Rahm the unions won't be bullied (for better or worse).

Rahm symbolizes an approach to negotiation that is a) dismissive of prior agreements (see refusal on 4% pay raise) and b) de-regulative/liberal. i.e., he agrees that performance is the only viable vocabulary for assessment. He and Obama agree with Bush for all intents and purposes. Charter schools are an outgrowth of this: narrow down obstacles to "performance" and that's exactly what you'll get-whatever performance is supposed to mean.

All this means is I don't know where to go from here.

re: Rahm, I do mean "symbolizes." I don't know a lot of the ins-and-outs of the situation (which is why I'm glad to be invited to this thread). But I think what Rahm *appears* to stand for is stoking a lot of anxiety. He is a hot-headed pragmatist, a neo-liberal, all that, and from the perspective of a union member, you've got to be worried. no?