Why Teacher Strikes Are Good for Students

In any democratic country, the rights of workers to engage in industrial action to ensure a fair wage and decent working conditions are protected by law. Whether it is ‘work to rule’ or outright strike action, many of the world’s most successful nations have a long history of industrial action, and most still experience frequent worker strikes.

In a healthy democratic society, when union-employer negotiations fail, workers have the right to ‘down tools’ to petition their employers for better wages, better working conditions and better treatment.

There is a strong argument that many of the world’s strongest economies are strong because of a the continuing effects of industrial action. If employers are forced to pay a fair wage, living standards inevitably rise. But if these employers are not challenged in this way, and if they can get away with minimising ‘staffing costs’, they will.

It is no different in the realm of education. A quick Google search reveals that just in the last few years, Denmark, Ghana, the UK, the USA, Kenya, Australia, South Africa, Nigeria and many others have had, or are considering strike action.

Yet whenever we do have teachers going on strike, the objections (usually from parents, headmasters and the education authorities) goes something like this…

Why do teachers strike, don’t they care about their students?

It is such a simple and seemingly strong argument that it actually prevents many teachers from joining strikes. But it is quite clearly fallacious, and quite simply wrong.

Teachers should go on strike exactly because they do care about their students.

How on earth can this be true? The answer is quite simple:

Teachers should go on strike to model the behaviours they want to instil in their students: standing up against injustice, making difficult decisions, and insisting on being treated with dignity and respect – despite such actions being very difficult and unpopular.

Those who are generally against striking teachers are government departments, school heads and parents, simply because it makes their lives difficult. Parents want their children in school, and principals want to minimise disruptions and the authorities want to keep wage costs down. The majority of teachers will submit to the rhetoric and bullying to stay in the classroom, rather than to stand up for what’s right. But if we transferred this lesson to our students, we would take education backwards by at least 30 years. Do parents really want this? Do principals? Does civil society?

But there’s more to it. The only way to make a decent wage in teaching is to get promoted, but as you get promoted, you step further and further away from teaching. So to make a decent living in teaching, you need to be promoted out of the classroom. How does that make even a little bit of sense? If the best teachers were paid better, they would stay in the classroom. How can that be bad for education?

Better salaries will also attract better teachers to the profession, and motivate those who are already there, hence, long-term, education benefits, even though there may be problems in the short-term.

In essence, teacher strikes are a crucial part of a wider revolution in education. If all teachers can see the value of understanding the deeper issues, of taking relevant action and overcoming seemingly insurmountable challenges, then they can transfer this mindset to the classroom, and challenge students to do the same thing.

Granted, education is an essential service, but this cannot be used as an argument against collective industrial action. It is exactly because it is such an essential service that we must fight to make it even better.

Finally, I consider it an essential part of any wage deal that teachers commit to assuming more responsibility for offering their students the best education possible. In exchange for receiving a fair wage, teachers need to commit to enhancing their skills through committed professional development and to applying the principles of a more relevant and child-centred education. If this can be made a contractual obligation, just think of how education will benefit…


I look forward to your comments.



  1. More than anything teachers need support as they go out on strike. If you ever knew , or knew about, a teacher who supported students and changed lives or just made people feel good and taught some good stuff…you need to get out there with them.

    I don’t know if it is good for the economy or bad for the economy -the economy sucks anyway-to support teachers and kids…but I do know what the right and just thing to do is.


  2. Although we technically live in a democracy the reality is that the governing party (whichever affiliation) can change laws and voting demographics to suit its needs. Greed rules, the masses get angry, strike (which is their right), destroy lives and property (which is not their right) which in turn alienates them.
    I am all for better teacher remuneration but it should be based on performance, Not pass rates but student participation & motivation, meaningful teacher professional development,innovative teaching despite lack of resources etc. Amazing teachers are found in our poorest schools they deserve great rewards.


  3. I’m deeply ambiguous about the idea of strikes strengthening an economy. I would rather look to Norway as an example of how to run the teaching and learning profession.

    In principle, I agree with the right to strike. I believe that humans should earn a living wage, and should have access to mechanisms to ensure that a living wage can in fact be earned.

    But I think strikes and the whole union movement are about pandering to the lowest common denominator. Mediocre workers get blanket protection. Exceptional workers get subjected to the ‘tall poppy syndrome’. Wages shift according to negotiated averages, rather than on merit. Those who merit bigger increases are denied them in the interests of the weak average.

    I would rather see VERY well paid teachers, in seats endowed by corporations, working in a merit system. I would like corporations to TRIPLE the salaries of teachers, making the profession attractive to the excellent people who DON’T become teachers. I would like to see the many many bad teachers currently in the system rooted out by sheer pressure to perform. I would like to see students fighting for places in universities to become teachers.

    At the same time, the right to strike is immensely important. But it’s countered by ‘the right to sell my labour to someone else in the market’.

    Teachers are generally a disempowered bunch. They’re like poets. They do what they do (some of them) cos they love what they do. And they treat themselves as enthusiastic amateurs. And their employers see this and exploit it.

    To an employer, a teacher is a thing that gets a certain amount of money, gets increases every year vaguely in line with inflation, and fulfills a need or two. The teacher adds no value to the business of education. A teacher, to an employer, is generally just a basic resource.

    It is the individual teacher’s duty and responsibility to change the employer’s attitude. But it requires some serious business skills and insights from a teacher in order to effect such a change.

    In my experience, teachers keep quiet when bullied by management. They also don’t hang out in the business sections of the bookshops.

    More than unions, teachers need self-esteem and business training.


Share your thoughts:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s