This paper examines a significant 2012 teacher strike involving 26,500 union members that lasted eight days and affected 350,000 students. The analysis explores the underlying causes of the dispute—primarily teacher resistance to standardized test-based evaluations and health insurance cost increases—alongside the economic and ethical pressures both sides employed during negotiations. The paper evaluates the dispute resolution process, concluding that the strike achieved meaningful concessions, including reducing the weight of standardized tests in evaluations from 45 percent to 30 percent, securing a 17.6 percent salary increase over four years, and protecting seniority-based pay. The paper considers whether the dispute involved illegal or unethical behavior, identifies third parties' roles, and assesses whether alternative resolution methods might have been more constructive.
On September 10, 2012, the 26,500 members of the Teachers Union went on strike. This strike was not primarily about higher wages; instead, it centered on teacher evaluations. Teachers objected to the district basing teacher pay on standardized tests that reflect student achievement. Stephanie Gadlin, a spokesperson for the Teachers' Union, stated that placing "too much emphasis on standardized test scores diminishes children's education and punishes teachers unfairly" (Liebelson, 2012). The strike lasted eight days, until September 18, and raised significant issues beyond evaluation metrics.
A second critical issue concerned health insurance costs. The school district planned to increase teachers' contributions to their health insurance premiums. Teachers demanded to maintain "existing benefits and sick days without increasing the contribution rate" (Liebelson, 2012). Additionally, teachers objected to the district removing a previously agreed-upon plan—negotiated through collective bargaining—that provided automatic pay raises based on years of service.
The strike's impact was substantial: 350,000 students received an unscheduled week off from school while teachers picketed in the streets. Their demands included additional changes: more teaching training, a timetable for installing air conditioning in student classrooms, a "fair recall procedure for laid off teachers and fair compensation for a longer school year" (Liebelson, 2012). The school district responded with what officials called a "fair and reasonable deal," offering a 16 percent salary increase (costing $320 million over four years), job security for laid-off teachers, and paid maternity leave. However, the teachers rejected this initial proposal (Liebelson, 2012).
The economic impact and pressure generated by the teachers union were substantial. A strike affecting 350,000 students creates immediate economic pressure on a school district, as maintaining school facilities during closure becomes expensive. More significantly, the school district faced a "$1 billion budget deficit" for 2013, placing pressure on both sides to reach a collective bargaining agreement (Davey et al., 2012). The district was asking its bureaucracy to increase teacher salaries—the average teacher earned $76,000—at a time of severe fiscal constraint.
Both sides employed ethical rhetoric alongside economic arguments. Mayor Rahm Emanuel "bluntly accused teachers of valuing their pocketbooks over the futures of thousands of schoolchildren," while union leaders "blasted the mayor as a bully trying to intimidate them into a bad deal" (Pearson, 2012). On Sunday, September 14, a tentative deal was reached, but the teachers union rejected it and continued the strike. Mayor Emanuel then "went before reporters to vow court action to force teachers back to work." The union responded by accusing the mayor of "trying to limit their rights to read the newly settled contract," and a judge refused to hear Emanuel's request for a court order (Pearson, 2012).
The legal landscape added further pressure. Illinois law "bars teachers from striking over noneconomic issues" (Davey, 2012). A court hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, September 18, but when teachers voted on September 17, the union agreed to return to work, effectively canceling the hearing. This demonstrates how legal constraints shaped negotiation timelines and pressures on both parties.
The strike-promoted collective bargaining produced measurable results. Before the strike, standardized test scores determined 45 percent of teacher evaluations. In the settlement, teachers successfully reduced this to "no more than 30 percent of teacher evaluations" (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). The new deal also provided an average raise of 17.6 percent over four years, falling short of the union's 30 percent demand but substantially above the district's initial offer.
The three-year contract (with an optional fourth year) included additional protections. Teachers would not face increased health insurance contributions, and they retained their previously negotiated seniority-based pay increases. Laid-off teachers gained better job opportunities than district officials had initially proposed, and teachers obtained stronger protections for their "own jobs and protections from intimidation by supervisors" (Pearson, 2012).
Both sides framed the settlement as a success. Mayor Emanuel declared that "this is in the best interest of our students, who need the very best teachers…it is in the interest of our teachers, who always strike to achieve the best results they can for their students" (Pearson, 2012). The New York Times quoted him further: "This settlement is an honest compromise. It means returning our schools to their primary purpose: the education of our children. It means a new day and a new direction for Public Schools" (Davey, 2012). The language of both parties suggested genuine relief at reaching agreement.
The available literature identifies parents of striking teachers' students as implicit third parties, though they were not formal negotiating participants. They remained present throughout the dispute as a background concern. Maura Robbins, a parent with two school-age children, expressed hope that "parents and teachers and administrators can now focus on the kids' learning" (Davey, 2012).
Union leadership understood the pressure mounting from public opinion. The 26,000 teachers, represented by hundreds of delegates with "vastly different views and concerns," had to carefully "balance the risk of losing public support" as the strike continued (Davey, 2012). Union delegates recognized that prolonged work stoppages erode community support, even for sympathetic causes. One delegate, Barbara Relerford, reflected this calculation, stating: "I think the power of the union has been amplified all over this nation. And we miss our kids. We're ready to go back" (Davey, 2012).
This statement reveals how third-party sentiment—parental concern, community expectations that teachers should prioritize students, and the delegates' own emotional connection to students—shaped the union's willingness to accept settlement terms and return to work after just eight days.
"Assessment of strike professionalism and good-faith bargaining effectiveness"
Teachers have historically resisted basing evaluations on standardized test scores, and this strike illuminates why. When teachers face evaluation through standardized test results, they often tend to "teach to the test." In this scenario, teachers focus on having students perform well on specific assessments, emphasizing test materials during the school year rather than teaching students to solve problems, think critically, and receive a broadly based education. The union's resistance to having 45 percent of evaluations based on standardized test scores reflected a deeper concern: that over-reliance on test-based accountability narrows curriculum and undermines educational quality.
The settlement's reduction of test-based evaluation weight from 45 percent to 30 percent represents a partial victory for this principle. While standardized tests remain a component of teacher evaluation, the compromise acknowledges the union's concern that excessive test-based accountability can distort teaching practice. The strike and its resolution demonstrate that teacher judgment and student learning outcomes extend beyond standardized measures, and that collective bargaining can serve as a mechanism for protecting broader educational values.
You’re 89% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.