A teacher’s response to a school board member’s take on the strike
Given that OEA had shown a willingness to strike over very little, and also that their position on Community Schools had come from language from outside of Oakland that was not reflective of Oakland’s experience, nor respectful of other groups and perspectives with important interests at stake, I was firm in my stance that Oakland Unified should not include the Community Schools language as part of the bargaining. — Oakland School Board Director Sam Davis
From the picket line in front of our school this past May, another teacher and I wrote an open letter to our school board representative, Sam Davis. We expressed our disappointment in his comments about our strike on social media and the news, and explained why we believe striking (in part) for more equitably shared governance in our district was worth it.
Mr. Davis responded privately, and after the strike, published his own “Take on the Oakland Teachers’ Strike of 2023,” with continuing disdain for Oakland teachers’ insistence on contractual power over the common good.
I’m happy to go back and forth with Mr. Davis on this point. Fundamentally, democratic debate is important because living in community is both infinitely complex and absolutely required for our survival. Often, we organize ourselves into two opposing camps or parties for the sake of building strength and efficiency, but we don’t have to.
For example, in determining the most effective strategy for educating Oakland’s children, some will argue that “effective” means preparing children to enter the real world, while others argue that it means preparing children to transform the real world. Me personally, I think we should be trying to figure out how to best nurture the drive, discipline, and know-how it’s going to take for young people to resist cycles of oppression and contribute to building more humane systems. Honestly, I bet Mr. Davis and I are close to being on the same team on this question, given that Mr. Davis acknowledges that “the actual enemy are the structures of capitalism that keep funding for education and broader social change too low both in California and across the country.”
That said, I have to take exception to Mr. Davis’ approach, particularly what in psychology would be called his “illusion of explanatory depth”– basically, “You don’t know what you don’t know.” Thus, let me do as I say and admit some of what I don’t know about how to effectively educate Oakland’s children: I don’t know anything about elementary education; I really think kindergarten teachers must have magic powers. I don’t know what it’s like to tackle the master schedule for Oakland Tech’s 1,800 students; I’m in awe of folks who can solve that humongous logic puzzle. I have no idea what it’s like to be a parent getting an alert about a shooting on my kid’s campus. Two areas I know for sure that I know less about than Mr. Davis does are district finances and “fine legal distinctions.”
What I do know is the field of literacy studies. I know how to design classroom instruction that empowers teenagers to see how their existing skills as sophisticated readers of the world can be leveraged toward becoming better readers of the word. I know how to get teenagers who hate school, and especially writing, to collaboratively write love stories and read them aloud for feedback in front of the whole class. I know how to build authentic, supportive community among teenagers who don’t know each other — even in the context of a highly segregated school system, in the aftermath of a global pandemic, in the midst of an epidemic in teen depression and anxiety — even on a Friday in May. I also know burn-out and the depression that comes from working past the point of exhaustion but still not meeting kids’ needs. I know how to mentor new teachers and I know fear for colleagues hospitalized by the emotional weight of this job. I know that my insights are incredibly valuable in a democratic discussion of how to most effectively educate Oakland’s children.
Mr. Davis’ comments about the strike — a glaring example, the quote I opened with — suggest that he thinks teachers are either unaware of how structural inequity is playing out in the lives of OUSD students, or worse, that we don’t care about our students or that we’re reckless with our responsibility for their well-being. Ouch, Mr. Davis. We can disagree on process without coming for each other’s character.
Teachers don’t like canceling science fairs (that we have worked our asses off to put on) either. We wouldn’t believe it was necessary if the bosses would have real discussions with the workers like equals. To his credit, in a personal response to our open letter to him, Mr. Davis conceded,
I know I have often been snippy in my comments to you on social media during the strike, and I apologize for that as well. Last year, during the school closure controversy, I stayed off social media entirely, but by being on social media during the strike, I have learned a lot about what to do and what not to do. It does tend to bring out the worst in all of us, well, I will just speak for myself and say, it sometimes brings out my bad side, and that of another board member… I hope to be more positive and reasonable online in the future.
I work with impulsive people who say things they don’t really mean all day, and I am prepared to extend grace to Mr. Davis for his tone that week. Reading his (~3,800 word) reflection, though, it’s clear that Mr. Davis still isn’t hearing us. (Indeed, he also told us in his response, “I have to admit to only skimming your [~1,200 word] article.”)
If I’m understanding him correctly, Mr. Davis is saying that by striking to get shared governance in our contract, teachers are asking for undue privilege in district decision-making processes. I’m unclear as to how he would assess the legitimacy of his and other board members’ power. Mr. Davis is not in everyday relationship with the kids, parents, and coworkers in other unions that he falsely suggests that we’re trying to get a leg up on. Actually, our proposal called specifically for including kids, parents, and our co-workers in other unions on district steering committees.
To be clear, I’m not trying to suggest that we predominantly white, middle class teachers are some oppressed class that felt the strike’s disruption or understand inequity in Oakland at the same level as many of our kids and families. Mr. Davis and I agree that Oakland kids and families deserve better than what they’re getting from us. Unfortunately, Oakland kids and families are not (yet) organized enough to demand that the powers-that-be do something different by shutting down the school system that is causing them harm. Striking is an alarm bell teachers’ unions can pull, a signal to all stakeholders that our schools are in crisis. Striking is a time-honored practice for calling attention to injustice because it disrupts. Over and over, Mr. Davis has shamed us for pulling it, telling us we’re not on fire. I have to disagree.
His reflection also accuses teachers of importing “jarring” ideas about the common good from outside of Oakland. It’s true that our union is coordinating with teachers’ unions in other places. I would have thought that that Mr. Davis’ progressive politics would have room for this kind of grassroots organizing.
It’s clear from Mr. Davis’ social media that he cares deeply about Oakland and our schools. I don’t think he showed a “bad side” as much as he showed gaps in his understanding and a lack of humility about that. We need Mr. Davis’ efforts (as we need effort from as many elders in the village as possible), and I appreciate that he uses his platform to lift up some of the brilliance in our schools. For our school’s first faculty meeting after the strike, he treated us to enchiladas. I have to admit that I didn’t eat any; I was still too mad to break bread with him. Now that I have had a week of summer to begin to decompress, I have more room for forgiveness and moving forward in this on-going dialogue, toward true democratic collaboration.
