In a meeting held at Evergreen Community College Monday night, teachers from the Kent School District gathered to weigh their options.

The teachers have been striking since August 26, demanding more funding to help shrink class sizes and help special-needs students.

At the initial court hearing last week, the school district argued that state law prohibits strikes by public employees because such strikes  have the potential to cause harm.  The attorney for the teachers union argued that a strike is nothing more than an inconvenience. King County Superior Court Judge Andrea Darvas sided with the district and ordered teachers to return to  the classroom, ruling that the strike is illegal and is harming children, parents, and school-district employees.

Teachers insist the district is not negotiating in good faith.  They want more money and smaller classes, and note on their web site that teachers in other nearby school districts make more money. Until the district meets those demands, they say, they aren't going back to work.

Many teachers spoke out forcefully at Monday's meeting, while others sat quietly, watching and listening to their co-workers vent.  "Let's go back to work" is not a popular opinion—those who hold it keep their mouths shut, one first-year teacher confided.

In the heart of the Kent Valley, hours before teachers decided to continue their strike, another meeting was held to address the strike and its impact.  There were no teachers, administrators or lawyers.  Instead, roughly two dozen parents gathered to discuss the impact of the strike on their families.

One mother, who sat in the corner with a friend, seemed inconsolable.  "She is afraid she'll lose her job because she doesn't have child care and she doesn't know when the children will go back to school," her friend explained to me.

Across the room, yet another woman was discussing how many children she could watch during the week, so that other parents could go to work.

In still another corner, a group of fathers pondered their legal options.  "I don't understand," said one, "the judge said they must teach. How can they refuse to teach our children?"

Some discussed hiring a lawyer.  Others considered holding a press conference.

"No," objected one father, "if we speak up, teachers will just say we don't care about them, and then they'll target our kids all year."  He looked at me directly, "no names in your article."

It's not a request.

Another mother expressed concern for her daughter, a senior.  "We fully expect her to go to college, and there are deadlines she has to meet for applications—have [the teachers] thought about kids like her at all?"

"I want the teachers to have more money, and yeah, it would be nice if the kids had smaller class sizes," said a neighbor of mine, "but not having the kids in school?  They obviously don't give a damn about these kids."

A second mediator is now tackling the impasse in which union and district officials find themselves, and Governor Christine Gregoire's office has also begun applying a bit of pressure by encouraging both sides to work in good faith to reach a resolution as quickly as possible.

Kent teachers have opted to defy the court order and remain on the picket line.

And so the tension rises.

SoulNerd blogs at The Sable Verity.