I was excited and filled with hope when I landed a job as the superintendent of a small suburban school district. My ideal, if not naïve, attitude set my compass squarely on creating a climate in the school — one where the teachers, even those whom in my opinion not the best, and the kids, including those who were labeled “trouble,” somehow connected to impart knowledge and excite a “learning community.”

Then, out of nowhere, I was hit with a sack of potatoes and knocked to the ground.

“Let me introduce myself. I am Ken Foreman, the president of the teacher’s union. I am here to inform you that the teachers will not report for work tomorrow.”

Now what was I to do? I was responsible for assuring the education of the kids. I was responsible for implementing the policies and wishes of my employer, the board of education. I was responsible developing a positive working relationship with the teachers so that they would feel good about being at my school and, in turn, be excited about teaching. My only thoughts were, “How can teachers just walk out on the kids?” and “How can I keep the school open?” The kids and parents were depending on me.

It was never about the kids

My little district wasn’t comparable to the third largest school district in the country. But in looking at what went wrong, there were similar principles at work. When I was hired, the teacher’s union and the board of education had hit an impasse over salaries. The union leadership — against many of the teachers’ simple desire to teach — wanted to show muscle and bully the board into a pay increase by using the kids as insignificant objects. If kids stayed home, parents would be upset and put pressure on the board to settle.

I also came to realize that the battle between the board and the union had nothing to do with educating children. If the issue was really about what’s best for our kids, the board and union would have worked together to determine what was necessary to improve education in our district — be it hiring more remedial education teachers for kids with disabilities, adding a half-day Saturday tutoring program, or expanding art and music programs — and then do an honest determination of whether the money was there to do these things. What happened, instead, was that the teachers wanted more money, and the board said, “We don’t have any more to give you.” In reality, funding was available; the board didn’t want to have to go back to voters and try to justify a tax increase to fund raises.

In Illinois, it is illegal for public employees, including teachers, to strike over anything other than wages. This is where it gets murky. The Chicago Board of Education and the Chicago Teachers Union had been negotiating since November over class size, the way teachers are laid off and recalled, and compensation for working a longer school day. The law requires alternative dispute resolution (not a strike) as the means for resolving issues such as these. Alternative dispute resolution failed after, in my opinion, meager attempts to make it work. I am not sure that the strike was justified on the grounds of salary. Was the union acting in the best interest of kids, or was it using kids for the interests of its membership? Nearly 25% of the teachers voted against the strike. It seemed to me that the union was — just as I had experienced — using the students as pawns to get what it wanted.

Beyond classroom instruction

During the Chicago strike, the board created places for the 400,000 students who receive breakfast and lunch through the National School Lunch program to get meals they would ordinarily receive if school were in session. Only about 1% of the students took advantage of these “Children First” sites, but the board understood its obligation and provided an opportunity. But two casualties of the strike — services for kids with disabilities and the safety of Chicago schoolchildren — left kids on the streets. I don’t know if any students experienced street violence during the time they could have been in school, but statistics indicate that when kids are in school, they are safer than being on the street. As for students with disabilities, federal and state laws require implementation of individual education programs. When school is out, these students lose out. The longer they are out of school, the less likely they are to recover their losses.

I kept my school open by bringing in substitute teachers and volunteer parents. At least 85 percent of the students reported for school and we conducted a somewhat normal day. By that evening, the board and union had reached an agreement. I don’t even remember what it was, but I do remember the effort to keep the school open for the good of the kids. Bullying and power plays never benefit students. They only create difficulties after the storm settles. For months following the one-day strike in my little district, my efforts to build a climate of respect and learning were thwarted. There was resentment that I was able to keep the school open for the kids.

I had spoiled the union’s bully plan, but as an education leader, I did the right thing.