This comment concerns the situation with Detroit schools and their strike (I mean sick out). I write this mostly because of a comment Joe made on the program Morning Joe. He was quite critical of the teacher action and suggested that teachers cared more about themselves and their money than their students. Hmm ….
As an educator, statements such as this concern me and I tried to better understand the situations by seeking other sources. As I understand the situation, the prime reason for the strike/sick out was the statement of the city that they did not have money to pay teachers after some point in mid-summer. If this happened, those teachers who received their salary over 9 months would be paid in full but those who asked to receive their salary spread across 12 months would not. At this point in the school year, it would mean those teachers paid across 12 months for their work during the school year would have completed their contractual obligation in full but would then not be paid in full for this work. Does this seem appropriate to you?
There were other issues – a request for detailed information regarding how the city found itself in this situation and why were teacher salaries the focus of the shortfall, but this request was dropped once the city said they would honor the teacher contracts.
I would think the worst case scenario should have required that the city terminate the school year at that point when they could not honor the commitment they had made to the teachers. This would harm the teachers and the students, but it would at least be a fair response to a difficult situation. It would have also avoided the implication that the situation was the fault of the teachers rather the economy or those responsible for budgeting.