We're in the third week of schools being closed and J hasn't had a maths of Danish lesson since before Easter. It's getting rather boring having to figure out the baby sitting duties, but to be honest, it's surprisingly easy to cope without the schools being open. It seems that friends and colleagues are also managing quite well so what is the point of the strike in the first place if it doesn't really cause any significant inconvenience. The teachers seems to have stopped their banner waving demonstrations as well now, I suppose they are enjoying their free time instead.
There are some side benefits that the state are saving a fortune in wages that they won't have to pay, but in the end, the kids are the ones losing out. For J it's just a bit boring and I am sure that he'll catch up, but for the older kids who are getting towards the end of their school days, they are missing out on a lot of learning and may not have the chance to catch up the missed ground.
I don't know the details of the grounds for the dispute. It relates to new rules potentially reducing the amount of preparation time that teachers are given for each hour that they teach. As I understand it, they all currently get something like 1½ hours prep time for each hour that they teach. For some age groups in some subjects that sounds reasonable. However, I think the government has decided that it may not be necessary to spend 1½ hours preparing a PE lesson for 8 year olds.
It seems that the solution will come in the form of a law being passed in parliament dictating what the teachers must do, but I find it hard to understand that a strike (or lock out as it formally is) was really necessary or beneficial for anyone.