I’m pretty sure most of us here have seen the Chicago teachers’ strike. I’m pretty much neutral on whether the strike was “for the students” or for themselves. I think it depends on the situation, and people tend to be good at convincing themselves that they are taking an action for motives other than self-interest when it is really nothing but just that, but it would be unwarranted to claim to know their motivations since it’s a multifaceted complex issue where both sides have legitimate points of view. Plus, I think it’s fair to say that every organization deserves to have the right to bargain for its best interests, while at the same time recognizing that that doesn’t mean they have the right to get everything they want.
I’m wondering whether it’s legal for students to organize into a union and strike over “unfair grading/evaluation procedures,” increases in homework load or a sentiment that the present homework load is already too large, inclusion of certain programs and curricula, etc. If students decided to collectively bargain by saying that they weren’t going to show up for school unless (insert reason), wouldn’t this technically be a criminal act?
I’m not advocating for creating chaos and anarchy. I support the right for teachers to strike. But if teachers constitute a group that has this right, shouldn’t students in Chicago be allowed to “strike?” I place my argument solely on the fact that all groups in organizations should have a voice, and that if the “right” to strike exists only for one group, and not for another, in a relationship, then that is not really a right but a privilege.
What do you think? If we take collective bargaining and striking for public employees to its ultimate extension, our institutions would grind down to a halt. Would you say that a mass strike by students could be/would be an effective way to send a message (its counterpart for teachers, whether we agree with it or not, is surely politically effective). Also, would you think that this would be politically acceptable and generally appropriate?
I tend to think that the teacher-student relationship is an unequal one in which the authority and social role of the former entitles it to privileges in having the right and ability to speak out without sanction…and I say this as a “positive” rather than “normative” statement. I don’t really have a basis to say what that relationship “should” be.
Long answer: K-12 students are not a corpus of paid employees who have the power to unionize, collectively bargain, or withhold a service in exchange for their demands being heard - they are people who are compelled by law to attend class.
Nope. Minors don’t have rights like adults do, and are not paid.
However, It is unlikely that any school of decent size could manage to arrest or prosecute every student for truancy. Additionally, if all the students “strike” it would garner media attention very quickly. If their cause had even the slightest bit of merit, it would rapidly become a hot point of debate. Americans don’t much care for authoritarian crackdowns on the public exercising the democratic process.
Without comment on the grade-school angle, I was part of a group of grad students who did basically this, once. We had an absolutely terrible teacher for one particular class, and collectively walked out to complain to the department head. It was rather quickly resolved, to our satisfaction.
But, the whole point of that relationship is to benefit the student. That’s one big difference between what you’re describing and an employee strike; it seems to me it’d be more like a boycott than a strike.
A couple of years after I graduated, quite a large number of students - more than 100, I’m sure - walked out in protest of the firing of the school’s dean of discipline. No idea how it turned out though. For what it’s worth, Notre Dame High School in Lawrenceville, NJ.
Several of the answers bring up that students aren’t paid. Would we expect that the answer could be different in those schools experimenting with paying their students?
Can unpaid interns strike?
In other words, is being paid the determining factor, or only one factor, to know if someone can strike?
My mom’s high school struck in (I think) 1977 due to (again, I think) an excessive number of snow days that had to be made up, extending the school year into late June or July. They all walked out, and the school board backed down on making up all those school days.
In Illinois today, and I believe in 1977 as well, school is only mandatory before age 16. So there is nothing stopping a strike among the upper high school grades. And what are you going to do if the younger grades walk out too? Give them all detention?
At the risk of making the thread too specific, I’m wondering this, too. See, my kid goes to a CPS school, currently on strike, and the mayor is trying to get an injunction to force the teachers to go back to the classroom. I’m rather wondering if it would be worth it to keep my daughter home if they do, in an act of, yes civil disobedience and solidarity with the teacher’s union, but I’m not sure what “it” is likely to be. A phone call from the principal? Cops at my door? A fine? Prison time?
She’s in second grade, and her understanding of the finer nuances is dim, but she knows her teacher is protesting things like not having books on the first day of class and the risk of being fired because of student test scores, and she supports that. Do I use this as a teaching moment? Honestly, it depends on what the consequences are likely to be…
Thank you! Good to know. I’ll let her know that if she chooses to “strike”, it will require writing a letter to her school and the mayor’s office explaining why (otherwise, it’s just ditching), and she’ll have to do some community service. *I *will require community service for each day of her “strike” even if it’s not 9 days, because I don’t see how it’s civil disobedience if you get to sit home and watch TV all day.
Well, age matters a lot here. If you’re in college and don’t want to go to class, don’t go. If you want to get your whole class to join you, knock yourself out. In HS, as others have noted, seems like it’s simple truancy.
It’s reasonable to not allow minor students to leave school, regardless of their political concerns, for safety reasons.
If they want to strike, they could safely and legally do so by announcing to their teachers that they were on strike, and refusing to participate in class. Truancy law says you have to show up to school. I don’t believe that failing to participate in class is against the law (though I might be wrong).
WhyNot, I think if your 2nd grader wants to strike and write a protest letter, this could be a great teachable moment. And if you’re supervising, then the safety issues of kids walking out of school aren’t a problem.
In eighth grade our whole school protested the reduction of teacher’s salaries (or wiping of all raises,depending upon seniority) by walking out of class, walking around the perimeter of the campus and then returning to class. Well, most of us returned.
We did this for several days until the issue was resolved and the teachers themselves asked us not to do it again. “The administration has asked us to keep you in class” changed to “We are happy with the deal, appreciate your support, and thank you for your efforts; no further action is necessary.”
I missed those little walks afterwards. There was a sense of unity that faded rather more quickly than I had expected.
So leaving school at 3pm is fine, but leaving at noon is a safety issue? I don’t buy it. The reason we have truancy laws is because of ignorant meth heads who don’t bother to take their kids to school. In the past, it might have been farmers who valued work over education for their kids.
I personally know a truant officer. Most of the kids she works with want to go to school, but their parents either won’t take them, or refuse to let them go. The rest have drug problems. As noted above, skipping a day isn’t truancy. It’s either playing hookey or, apparently, a strike based on principles.
Our kids aren’t allowed to leave at the end of the school day without a parent (or parent analogue) making direct eye contact with the teacher at the door of the school. The first few days they have a checklist and have to check each student off; later weeks they recognize the parent and wave, sending each kid out individually.
I know, I think it’s ridiculous, too, but there you have it. The school is legally responsible for them until they return them to me, and they’re “concerned for safety.” So yes, given that paranoid environment, there’s no *way *they’d let the kids walk out and leave during the school day with no parent there to retrieve them.
