There has been much controversy about whether or not public school teachers should have the right to strike. Some people believe that the right to strike should be unrestricted, while others feel that this right must be limited. In this essay I will argue that the right of public school teachers to strike should be curtailed.
             My main argument will be that when public school teachers strike, the education of children is interrupted. If the education of children is interrupted, then they won't have the same opportunities as their peers. If children don't have the same opportunities as their peers, then parents will question the spending of their tax money and might look for better schools. When teachers strike the ability of schools to achieve their objectives in a high-quality way is compromised. Therefore, if public school teachers strike, then students won't have the opportunity to perform well.
             A strike is a means through which employees demand changes because they are dissatisfied with aspects of their jobs. Teachers want higher salaries, better working conditions, and job security. Their demands serve their own interests and essentially, not the interests of their students. Teachers are supposed to be advocates for students and the educational system. Once teachers go on strike they are no longer advocates for children. There is an immediate interruption in the educational process for those students involved. "Some people will argue that strikes were not just manifestations of self-interest; they showed that teachers cared enough about their students to insist on having sufficient resources" (Cutler, 2000, p. 182). Unless teachers have the right to strike, how can they fight for their own rights and create change within the educational system. I would respond to this objection as follows: the results of the strike may provide benefits for the teachers, but the process creates obstacles...