I think it's worth a little discussion about the meaning of the word "bailout" and why it's so offensive when it refers to our schools
The term "bailout" is derived from pilots jumping out of a crashing plane. It took on its financial meaning in the Depression, to refer to government spending money to save a failing private enterprise
So to describe meeting teachers' contract demands, like more nurses and social workers, as a "bailout" of CPS is troubling in two ways. First, it presupposes that CPS is irrevocably failing, which a) sucks, b) is wrong, and c) flies in the face of the city's own recent narratives
But second, and maybe worse, it treats CPS like a business, not like a part of government. This is a longtime trend in Chicago (note that our schools are run by a "CEO") and it leads, among other things, to a balance-sheet austerity that is both harmful and nonsensical
"CPS has to live within its means." But it's the city that defines what those means are!
"There's not enough money for teachers and social workers" is just another way of saying "we've chosen to spend that money elsewhere" (+$120M for CPD) or "we're unwilling to pursue the revenues to pay for them" (progressive city income tax, corporate lease tax, etc.)
(and nurses and librarians and support professionals and SpEd teachers of course)
