The Shrinking Middle: Is the strike in Chicago a reflection of politics in America?

We would not be much of an edublog if we did not weigh in on the teacher strike in Chicago. As someone who teaches in a district of charter schools that employ many of the reforms Emmanuel has been advocating in Chicago, I think I have an interesting perspective in how these things work.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/120911010941 -
chicago-teacher-strike-story-top.jpg

The teachers and the mayor were always pretty close on the money issue as well as the lengthening of the school day, it was the teacher evaluation and merit pay that seemed to be ruffling feathers. I work for a district that has some level of merit pay, where teachers are given a small bonus for high performances on their test scores.Our district employs longer school days, extended school years, and Saturday schools, all in the name of helping low performing areas work their way out of low performance. Much of the success or lack there of is based on high stakes testing, and research shows it is a very flawed way to evaluate the quality of an education, but difficult to fight due to entrenched interests at the state level. In my district, the stakes are not that high and they have found a happy medium. Our jobs are not on the line due to the testing, we receive ample coaching and a chance to improve before we are asked to leave. All of these factors should be essential in the reform efforts, and should be an encouragement to teachers facing these types of changes. Teachers, unlike many other businesses and their employees, are not completely in control of how well their students do on tests, and much of their home life will impact how well they score on a test on a given day. My wife is a doctor, and up to this point, she is not considered to be a worse doctor if her patient goes home and doesn't take her medicine (homework) and continues to be unhealthy (not studying for a test), but it seems like teachers are expected to do what doctors can't, for much less pay at that.
Michelle Rhee, former Head of DC Schools, is one of the major national advocates for this type of reform, and sounds off in support with a CNN education blog in an interview here. I think these types of reform get a lot about school improvement right. I think a little more time in a positive environment for kids who live in a negative one can be a good thing. The intentional culture of success and hard work created at schools can have a great impact on a student's commitment to work hard and do their best no matter the circumstances at home. She makes much of the U.S.'s poor test results when compared to other countries, and that seems to be her motivation for school reform. Diane Ravitch, Rhee's public foil and current professor of education at NYU, refutes much of these claims of international malaise in this article. Her points boil down to the fact that the U.S. has NEVER done well on these types of tests (even during our "Great Generation" in the 60s), and that when controlled for poverty, we do just as well as higher performing nations. The U.S. just educates a more diverse (and relatively poorer) population, and the results show in the international comparisons.She sights other systematic changes that fight the effects of poverty and offer students a holistic education as a place to focus school reform.
This brings us to the teacher strike. There are teachers advocating for more services for their students, higher pay, and smaller classes (which all teachers know make a difference), while school reformers advocate for a longer day and merit pay based on student test scores. I personally find it ironic that most of the countries to which we are often compared and lose don't employ these same high stakes tests to create their superior education, a point Ravitch makes in her article.Both sides make valid points, and my predisposition to assume good intentions makes me think they both just want the best for students. The real issue seems to be an inability to compromise, which has plagued this country for too long. Whether it is fiscal cliffs or the brink of nuclear war in the Middle East, it seems as if we have lost the ability to compromise. If I have learned anything in my year or so of marriage, it is the importance of giving some so you can get a lot. If I can't give up some but of short term happiness, then the marriage and my long term happiness suffers greatly; it is in my self interest to compromise. When the teachers and the system can't compromise, the ones who really lose out are the kids, which both sides claim to represent foremost. Can we find the middle, save our marriages, and the future of this country?