Breaking the Cycle: Gender, Class, and the Battle Over Teacher Compensation
As contract negotiations approach for the second-largest school district in the country, which holds over $6 billion in reserves, the stakes are high for both the Union and its members. These negotiations are likely to focus on critical aspects of compensation, with the district expected to claim financial constraints to push for concessions. One likely target is the elimination of family medical benefits, a move that would significantly reduce overall compensation for teachers. While the district may frame this as a necessary cost-saving measure, it’s important to recognise that this issue goes far beyond budgetary concerns.
The push to cut benefits is deeply connected to the historical undervaluation of teaching as a profession, which has long been considered “women’s work.” This perception, rooted in gender biases, has led to the devaluation of teachers’ labour, with the assumption that they do not need full compensation because teaching is merely a supplementary income. At the same time, the broader economic strategy of wage suppression, often used by the ruling class to control inflation, plays a significant role in keeping teacher pay low. These forces, both gendered and economic, reveal that the fight for fair teacher pay and benefits is not just a local or administrative matter—it is a battle against long-standing structural inequities that continue to devalue the profession.
Gendered Nature of Teaching and its Impact on Pay
The gendered nature of teaching has a long history, with the profession often being framed as “women’s work.” This framing has led to the devaluation of teaching, treating it as secondary or supplementary income rather than a vital, skilled profession. Historically, teaching has been seen as a “hobby” for married women whose husbands are the primary earners, a perception that continues to influence how teachers are compensated today. This outdated mindset underpins the argument that teachers do not need full compensation, including benefits like family medical coverage, because their income is not viewed as essential for supporting a household.
The assumption that women cannot be the primary breadwinners is not only outdated but shameful. It disregards the realities of countless female teachers who head households and support families on their salaries. Yet many school districts, including potentially my own if the administration gets its way, still fail to offer family medical benefits. This reinforces the harmful idea that teachers, particularly women, do not need to provide for their families. It’s a glaring oversight, especially in a district with numerous Title 1 schools, where many teachers work with students from low-income backgrounds. In fact, given the high number of Title 1 schools, our district is effectively the number one poverty-wage employer in the county. That reality is especially stark when considering the district sits on over $6 billion in reserves, underscoring the disconnect between the financial resources available and the refusal to properly compensate the workforce tasked with educating the next generation.
Wage suppression through gendered expectations
Wage suppression in teaching is deeply tied to gendered expectations, as female-dominated professions have historically been underpaid and undervalued. This pattern is clear in fields like nursing, caregiving, and especially teaching, where the feminisation of the workforce has contributed to the perception that these jobs do not require fair compensation. Teaching is often viewed through the lens of outdated gender roles, where the work is seen as nurturing or a form of caregiving, rather than a skilled, professional occupation. As a result, the need for competitive pay and comprehensive benefits is frequently dismissed or downplayed.
This undervaluation is further exacerbated when it comes to benefits like family medical coverage. The assumption that teachers, many of whom are women, do not need to provide for their families reflects these antiquated gender roles. By targeting family medical benefits, the district is essentially reinforcing the belief that teachers’ incomes are supplementary and that they are not the primary providers for their households. This not only devalues the profession but also dismisses the economic realities of many teachers who are single parents, primary earners, or part of dual-income households where their benefits play a crucial role. Removing these benefits isn’t just an attack on compensation; it’s an attack on the very idea that teachers deserve the same financial security and support as any other profession, perpetuating the notion that their work—and by extension, their livelihoods—are less valuable.
Wage Suppression as a Tool for Class Control
Wage suppression has long been a tool used in the United States to maintain economic control and reinforce class hierarchies. Depressing teacher wages is part of a broader strategy that has been applied across various industries, from prison labour to ‘minimum wage jobs’ and even the exploitation of child labour. The primary goal is to keep wages, and by extension, consumer spending, as low as possible, effectively stalling wage growth for large segments of the workforce. By keeping wages depressed, those in power can control inflation and prevent the working class from gaining enough economic power to challenge the system.
Teachers, as public-sector workers and one of the most visible labour forces, are a prime target for this wage suppression. Teachers play a vital role in public education, a key pillar of society, yet they are economically disempowered through stagnant wages and the ongoing threat of reduced benefits. Suppressing teacher wages has a ripple effect, weakening broader labour movements and limiting the ability of teachers—and the working class more generally—to push for fairer compensation. In many cases, teachers are being priced out of the very neighbourhoods in which they work due to unchecked property value inflation, further exacerbating their financial struggles.
My district’s hints at eliminating family medical benefits is part of this larger strategy. By chipping away at benefits and overall compensation, the district amasses reserves while eroding the real wages of its teachers, especially as inflation continues to rise. This tactic reflects the ruling class’s approach to maintaining the economic divide between themselves and workers. The suppression of teacher wages and benefits is not just an issue of financial management—it is a deliberate effort to limit the power and influence of public-sector workers, keeping them economically vulnerable and less able to challenge the inequities of the system.
My District’s Likely Tactic: Crying Poverty
As negotiations begin, my district is likely to deploy a familiar tactic: crying poverty despite sitting on $6 billion in reserves. This strategy isn’t new—it's part of a calculated approach to justify cuts to teacher compensation whilst masking the district’s financial reality. The likely target this time is family medical benefits, which the district may present as a necessary cost-saving measure to balance the budget. The argument will likely be framed around “fiscal responsibility” and “tightening the belt,” despite the glaring contradiction of massive reserves that remain untouched. Cutting family medical insurance, however, amounts to a significant pay cut for teachers, particularly those (like me) with dependents, forcing us to either absorb higher out-of-pocket costs or forego essential coverage for their families.
The Union must recognise and push back against this tactic, framing it as an attack on teacher compensation and, by extension, our livelihoods. The superintendent, with a history of neoliberal and corporate-style decision-making prior to his arrival in the district, is no stranger to imposing top-down measures that align with broader neoliberal and neocolonial agendas. His own salary and benefits package stand in stark contrast to the cuts he seeks to impose on the district’s teachers, further highlighting the hypocrisy of claiming financial hardship. As someone imported from outside the community, the superintendent’s approach often lacks an understanding of or connection to the local context, and he has repeatedly pushed through initiatives that reflect a corporate-style governance model more focused on “efficiency” than on the well-being of the district’s educators and students.
For the Union, this is more than a financial battle—it’s about pushing back against a narrative that devalues teachers as secondary earners, reinforcing the gendered expectation that they are not primary breadwinners. The removal of family medical benefits not only represents a financial loss but also sends a message that teachers’ roles as providers for their families are not important. The Union must frame its resistance in terms of fairness, equity, and the need to preserve the dignity of the teaching profession, rejecting any attempt to balance the budget on the backs of the very people who keep the district running.
Union Response and Negotiation Strategy
In the face of potential cuts to family medical benefits, the Union’s response must be both strategic and unwavering. Benefits are not a ‘luxury’ or an ‘extra’—they are a crucial part of total compensation that reflects the professional and personal needs of teachers. Attempting to frame benefits as something that can be sacrificed in exchange for wages is a false dichotomy, one that the Union must resist. Teachers are professionals, and like any other professionals, they deserve compensation packages that reflect the fact that many of them have families to support. Cutting benefits like family medical coverage isn’t just a cost-saving measure—it’s an attack on the financial stability of teachers and their ability to provide for their loved ones.
The Union’s strategy should centre on reframing the narrative. This is not merely a fight for individual benefits but a broader societal issue that highlights the value of teachers in the community. Teachers are essential to the development and future of society, and full compensation—wages and benefits alike—is critical to attracting and retaining qualified, dedicated educators. Any reduction in benefits, particularly family medical coverage, is a direct attack on the dignity of the profession and undermines efforts to build a strong and stable teaching workforce.
Moreover, teachers’ unions remain some of the most powerful unions left in the country at a time when organised labour has been systematically weakened. With fewer unions standing in defence of workers’ rights, it is time for teachers’ unions to flex their collective power. By standing firm and making it clear that benefits are non-negotiable, the Union can send a strong message—not only to the district but to the broader public—that teachers will not accept being undervalued or pushed into financial insecurity. The Union’s power lies in its ability to unite the teaching force and demand the respect and compensation that teachers deserve. Now, more than ever, that power must be wielded to protect the integrity of the profession and the well-being of the educators who are its backbone.
Final thoughts …
To wrap it up, my Union has a critical role to play in standing firm against my district’s attempts to reduce teacher compensation, particularly if it means cutting family medical benefits. By framing this battle within the broader context of gender and class inequities, the Union can strengthen its bargaining position and remind both the district and the public of the deep-rooted issues at play. This fight is not just about securing financial security for individual teachers—it’s about pushing back against the long-standing devaluation of a profession that has been feminised, underpaid, and exploited as a tool for class control. Teachers, many of whom are their family’s primary breadwinners, deserve to be compensated in a way that reflects their indispensable role in society.
Maintaining family medical benefits is not simply a negotiation point—it’s a statement that teachers should no longer be treated as secondary earners or expendable workers. These benefits are essential to the financial and personal stability of teachers, and cutting them would signal a regression to outdated, harmful perceptions of the profession. By refusing to accept these cuts, the Union is not only protecting its members but also challenging a system that has historically undervalued teachers and their contributions. This moment is an opportunity for the Union to flex its considerable power and set a precedent for how educators are treated, reminding everyone that teacher compensation—wages and benefits alike—is a matter of justice, respect, and recognising the essential role teachers play in shaping the future.