On Monday, January 14th, over 30,000 teachers within the LA Unified School District went on strike, leaving at least 600,000 students without a teacher. The strike was centered around reducing classroom sizes, gaining more resources for students, and increasing teacher pay. After days of students being without a teacher and hundreds of thousands of students not showing up to class, negotiation began on January 17th. The teachers and the LAUSD along with the LA Unified’s Board of Education eventually agreed after 21 hours of negotiation to increase teacher pay by 6%, reduce classroom sizes, and provide other support such as an increase in counselors, nurses, and librarians.

While the strike eventually gave the teachers their desired results, the overall effect the movement had on the LAUSD was significant. With only 200,000 of the 600,000 students attending each day, the district lost around $20 million a day. This drains significant funding that these teachers will need in order to pay for the desired changes, like increased pay. Not only did the strike negatively affect the district’s funding, but it also left students without a proper education for days. While some parents purposely kept students home to drain funding from the district, others were left with no choice but to drop their child off at school. These students were left at a hugely understaffed school and not properly watched after. Either way, every student was missing days of quality education.

This strike is the first one in LAUSD since 1989. Similar to this event, that strike brought about significant improvements for teachers, including a 20% raise, better yard supervision, and better medical benefits for retired teachers.

While strikes within the LAUSD have apparently proven to be successful, it raises the question of future implications for the district. This disruptive and financially draining occurrence might become the norm for implementing change within school districts. While it is undeniable that the changes these teachers are requesting are well justified and will only benefit students in the long run, the means by which teachers reach the agreement with the district take a negative toll on parents and students alike.

Teachers are vital to educating future generations and, obviously, it is most ideal to have the best classroom conditions for teachers and students. While it is important for teachers to have an avenue to reach administration so that change can be implemented, a strike is not always the most fiscally sound choice. In order to see such change happening without as drastic of a toll on the district and students, it is imperative that the district and teachers alike develop better means of communication.

<Emily Chang/ West Ranch High School 10th Grade>