Eidelson makes space for healthy criticism of teachers' unions, particularly those who emphasize “a narrow ethic of professionalism rather than a broad ethic of solidarity,” but suggests that this isn’t the case for the CTU, who has strong parent and student support. This aligns with Myers’s argument that an emphasis on the service aspect of the job would result in a more positive view of teachers by the general public, including parents and students. Speaking to how professionalization necessarily means distancing an occupation from other “less deserving” ones, Myers writes, “elitism is foreign to most teachers” (10). On the contrary, and as discussed by Eidelson, the CTU’s approach was to unify their communities around shared goals. A notable part of Eidelson’s article is how the CTU’s former leadership’s disapproval of CORE rested on the belief that it would “hand off” power to the community. What Eidelson's account of the strike seems to show is that the merger of power between the community and teachers is what made their strike so successful. 

Eidelson’s account of the strike also aligns with Nuñez et al.’s assertion that “teachers’ working conditions are students’ learning conditions” (3). In the article, Eidelson, quoting a teacher, brings attention to the fact that Rahm Emanuel’s own children went to a private school that embodied many of the CTU’s demands for CPS. Another teacher featured in the article said the situation was “a clash between competing visions for how to improve schools,” which calls to mind the four ways of viewing education discussed by Nuñez et al. Again, Eidelson highlights how the CTU’s efforts took into account the needs of students and parents as well as teachers.