Response to Chicago Tribune Editorial Board's CPS Teacher Absenteeism Editorial

This is a lightly edited version of the letter I sent to the Tribune's Editorial Board in response to their editorial about CPS teachers' absenteeism a few days ago. They did not publish my letter, but I present it here for your consideration.

Dear Chicago Tribune Editorial Board:

    As a teacher in a suburban Cook county school district, I take exception to the implication that I should feel jealous of the teachers in the Chicago Teachers’ Union as they engage in collective bargaining for higher salaries. You state that teachers in the union make a median of $95,000, which is above the national median. Although this is true, it elides the fact that Chicago’s cost of living is also above average for the nation. It stands to reason that if teachers are required to live in the city to teach in its public schools, then they should receive a salary commensurate with the cost of living in the city.

    The other part of your argument is that because over 41 percent of teachers were chronically absent, all teachers do not deserve raises as part of collective bargaining. That statistic may be shocking at first blush, but a further investigation into the reasons for teacher absences may be revealing. As the editorial states, this number does not include breaks and holidays. (It shouldn’t, as those are not instructional days.) To suggest that winter break, spring break, and other holidays are somehow enough time off from work for teachers is silly. Reasons for teacher absences can range from personal illness to caregiving for a child, parent, spouse, or other family member to personal days. The board implies that teachers can somehow schedule their illnesses or their obligations to their families around the provided breaks, which is ridiculous.

    More generally, the critique of teacher absences as some kind of symptom of what is wrong with the district misses the point. In her book Ghosts in the Schoolyard: Racism and School Closings on Chicago’s South Side, Eve L. Ewing, a former CPS teacher and current associate professor at the University of Chicago, argues that “any enterprise dealing with the care and nurturing of children is likely to be inefficient at times, and striving for efficiency often requires sacrificing things like care, patience, and flexibility” (p. 122). Simply put, the corporate cost-cutting model is in conflict with the care work central to educating children. Beyond that, there’s no reason to think denying the CTU’s request for a raise will cause teacher absences to decrease. That claim is unsupported by the evidence and reasoning provided.

In Solidarity,

Tall Rob

(Yes, I used my real name and address in the actual letter; I know the rules!)