What did the New York Times say about the Chicago teachers?
Back a month ago, Chicago teachers stood up, struck, and backed their mayor down, at least a little.
That’s important. And big. There are lots of important stories. And important details. Other people have written about them, and will write about them. One day, maybe I will, too. But today a small detail, really a footnote, is on my mind.
“Teachers’ strikes, because they hurt children and their families, are never a good idea. … the strike is based on union discontent with sensible policy changes — including the teacher evaluation system required by Illinois law — that are increasingly popular across the country and are unlikely to be rolled back, no matter how long the union stays out.”
That’s important. And big. There are lots of important stories. And important details. Other people have written about them, and will write about them. One day, maybe I will, too. But today a small detail, really a footnote, is on my mind.
Chicago Teachers’ Folly
wrote the New York Times, in its own name.“Teachers’ strikes, because they hurt children and their families, are never a good idea. … the strike is based on union discontent with sensible policy changes — including the teacher evaluation system required by Illinois law — that are increasingly popular across the country and are unlikely to be rolled back, no matter how long the union stays out.”
In other words, “sit down and shut up”
“Mr. Emanuel … lengthened one of the shortest school days in the nation. …Chicago’s teachers are well paid, 
