Teacher Unions a Very Controversial

Teacher Unions

A very controversial topic today is that of teachers and labor unions. The public is undecided as to whether collective bargaining has a positive effect on their children's education. Teachers' unions have are getting rough treatment from critics on all sides. Conservatives as usual are accustomed to hating them, Unfortunately liberals (their traditional defenders) are on the offensive. The debate if very polarized, with Republicans being critical and Democrats being supportive. Even teacher's pensions are coming under attack in liberal states such as California that used to be the point of the spear in the fight for better pay and working conditions for teachers ("Under attack -," 2011).

Unfortunately, there has been little quality research on the role of teachers unions in the promotion or hindrance of educational reform. The critics of teacher unions argue that they impede school reform. Teacher advocates now point out the hypocritical nature of calls for cuts in teach pay on the part of people (this author has Republicans in mind) while they simultaneously call for the bailout of speculative banking institutions. Unfortunately, children seem to be lost in the various agendas for and against the issue. Union negotiators, we need to be aware of the things that are the responsibilities of collective bargaining and the issues that are brought on by the school district bureaucracy itself. In this way, the unions can concentrate on solving issues that they actually have caused. School districts will not have the opportunity to delay reforms that need to be instituted to mitigate overcrowding caused by school district consolidations.

A Break for Another Possible Cause, School District Size

In the journal of Economics of Education Review, there was a study that looked at the relation between school district size and the quality of the student user experience. After, controlling for various characteristics of the student population and other incidental environmental factors to include school and class size, it appears that increases in school district size appears to have a hindering effect on educational achievement (Driscoll, Halcoussis & Svorny, 2003, 194-195). The biggest impact was found to be on the middle school student's performance (ibid., 197-201). Data results from California point toward the reduction of school district size, school and class size at an elementary level both as potentially being important to the cause of educational reform (ibid., 201).

It does not take much imagination to imagine that smaller class sizes and more time meant for students might have something to do with educational quality than the liberal ideology of the teacher's or the teacher union negotiators. Whatever the importance in the attraction and retention of teachers of a high quality, there is little evidence that the unions and collective bargaining have ultimately led to improvements in physical aspects of teachers' work. The Researchers have found evidence that higher class size is to be associated with increased teacher turnover. Unfortunately, this suggests that the schools may lose their very best teachers if the classes are too large. However, the reduction of class size across a school district (even by one or two students) (Pynes & Lafferty, 1993, 167).

While the above information does not let collective bargaining and teacher unions off the hook as a factor positive or negative in the quality of education featured in schools, it does give a segue into the wilderness of reactionary, knee-jerk disinformation that does usually follow the issue. Teacher unions have been blamed for all or most of the problems in the schools. Certainly, any organization or person in the schools is involved in some way. However, the extent, pro-or con that the unions and collective bargaining have in the equation will be considered in the rest of this essay.

This is especially the case when one considers that between 1940 and 1990, the overall number of the nation's school districts fell drastically due to consolidation. Many of the consolidations were between small, rural districts. The consolidations reflected a widespread acceptance at the time of the theory that small districts lacked the fiscal efficiency and professional leadership to run modern school districts. According to the research, it was the expansion of state governments' role in education that led to larger and more bureaucratic district organizations in the U.S. Also, this consolidation was accomplished over the protests of concerned parents (Driscoll, Halcoussis, and Svorny, 2003, 2). This fight for smaller class size is one that teachers have argued for in collective bargaining since the 1970s (Kahlenberg, 2006, 17).

Therefore, the stereotype of teacher unions as being only concerned about money for the teachers is untrue. In this issue, teacher collective bargaining has been fighting for an issue that parents have seen as critical for many years and that affects the student user experience. The above research demonstrates that the school workplace can spur or impede the development of effective teaching and increase the possibilities for school improvement.

There are answers to the question in the research literature about the effects of teacher unions on the effectiveness of educations in the public schools. The problem (as in many issues) is that there is evidence to support both sides of the issue. In the opinion of this author, this may be due to a lack of clarity based on the limits of the research. Frequently, this results from the great variation in labor policies from state to state and district to district. This gets in the way of meaningful generalizations about the collective bargaining in reducing or improving teacher quality. However, an examination of empirical evidence that is available and the conditions that currently exist can provide useful insights into the effects of collective bargaining upon education.

Public vs. Private Collective Bargaining

First, we need to explore issues about collective bargaining in general so we can understand collective bargaining for teachers in particular. What complicates the issue considerably are the differences between collective bargaining as it occurs in the public as opposed to the private sectors.

In general, things have not been good for collective bargaining since the 1980s. A few statistics will illustrate the point. In 1974, one in four workers in both the public and private sectors in the United States were members of a labor union. In the next 30 days until 2004, the private sector percentage of workers that were employed had dropped to 8.2% and union membership among public sectors workers had risen to 37.1% (Farber, 2006, 27).

Undoubtedly, the public sector has fared better that the private sector, a supreme irony since much of the changes happened during Republican administrations in the White House that supposedly would trim government waste. Indeed, until very recently, the trends have going in favor of public sector workers in terms of pay and benefits.

Of course, pay is a big issue. In U.S. culture and society, pay is tied to social status. It is therefore known to influence individual decisions about whether or not to enter and then stay in the teaching profession. Although other factors (such as working conditions), may also be important in teacher career choices, pay rates have gotten a much greater share of the research attention, in part because research data about salaries is much more readily available and have been reliably recorded over time. Researchers have widely studied whether collective bargaining has affected overall pay levels and the structure of pay, with a demonstrated relationship between union security and earnings (ibid, 47)

Therefore, the effect of collective bargaining on pay is demonstrably positive. It is no mystery that pay affects individuals career decisions and that a school district that offers higher pay has an opportunity to select from a larger and a stronger pool of candidates

. Thus, one can argue that if collective bargaining has led to higher salaries, it has also helped school districts attract better teachers. In empirical studies designed to examine whether collective bargaining leads to higher pay, analysts have repeatedly found a positive effect. On top of this, public sector jobs are more stable, possibly the biggest incentive of all in bad or good times to stay the course with a job or career choice (ibid, 50).

While Farber admits that his research is faulty in adjusting for variances in the pay for public sector workers based upon which state they are in, we should be able safely to draw a positive relationship between union membership and higher pay levels (ibid). Also, the ability of a union to negotiate on the part of the public sector worker increased with the legal enabling of the device of collective bargaining in a given state (ibid). Given this issue, a case study of an individual school district will be considered below.

Based upon the research that has been conducted, there is now evidence that collective bargaining modestly increases teacher pay. If higher wages therefore lead to higher-

quality teachers, one would also probably conclude that overall bargaining has a positive effect.

Research also shows that collective bargaining leads, on average, to decreases in student-

teacher ratios. Since smaller class size has been shown to positively affect student learning, at least in the early grades, one might also infer that this affects teachers' work positively. Further, researchers have found a positive relationship between collective bargaining and increased preparation time for teachers, which many educators believe is essential for good teaching and collaborative work among colleagues within a school.

Collective Bargaining, Unions and Teacher/Educational Quality

In a March 1999 study of Texas Schools, teacher salaries were shown to have a modest impact on teacher mobility and upon student performance. The authors of the study found that teacher mobility was more affected by the characteristics of the students, including income, achievement and race.

Salaries are also more weakly related to performance on teacher certification tests. This appears to be relevant only in districts where there are high levels of hiring (ibid., 30). The study found that certification tests were not significantly related to student achievement (ibid., 34). The only significant relationship that they found between salaries and student achievement involved existing experienced teachers and not in the case of new hires or for probationary teachers (ibid, 45).

Given the case study, at least in the state of Texas, the relationship between collective bargaining and educational quality is amorphous at best. This has not however excused teacher's unions from being blamed for problems in schools and education with regard to educational quality.

In an article by Frederick Hess and Andrew Kelly, the authors try to find a middle ground between the two extremes on the issue. While it does not address the political implications of collective bargaining, it does look at the effects of contracts on where it hits schools the most, in the budget sector. The advantages of this study were the statistics were gathered by interviewing over 50 national, local and state school district and union officials. In this framework, the study analyzed sample contracts from 20 districts and the press coverage related to these contracts (Hess and Kelly, 2006, 54).

As the study authors point out, very little is usually covered in the press about what the contracts actually cover (ibid, 55). What is interesting is that collective bargaining did not find its way onto the scene in K-12 levels until the 1960s. Therefore, prior to then, the school districts had free reign in setting contracts, retirement packages, etc.

In 1960, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) organized a teacher's strike in New York City over pay. By the next spring, the teachers received generous increases and so the reputation of the UFT rocketed and there was a sharp rise in union membership in New York. Such successes fueled the growth of the UFT's parent, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and membership rose from 125,00 members in 1966 to 580,000 members in 1981. This was approximately a five-fold increase. With such successes, the National Education Association (NEA) embraced collective bargaining as well and throughout the 1970s, collective bargaining became more and more the norm in school districts around the country (ibid, 56).

Many of today's local teacher union leaders have been teaching in their districts since the first collective bargaining agreements were signed in the late 1960s to early the 1970s. They can remember as to why particular provisions were bargained. Consequently, it is not difficult to understand why teachers might be reluctant to relinquish their hard-won gains. Being schooled in adversarial labor negotiation tactics, While there are comfortable with the standard topics of industrial contracts (i.e., wages, subjects). Such subjects might also include peer review and/or professional development. However, this old generation of union leaders is soon to retire. There is a new cohort of leaders emerging who do not have the same tie to the past.

Such a younger generation began remaking labor unions in the 1980s and 1990s (Kahlenberg, 2006, 19).

Prospective teachers must consider a whole range of working conditions in their decision on whether or not to take a job. Some of these are directly addressed in collective bargaining. Examples might include whether the school building is sound or functional, whether the teaching assignments and loads are executable or whether or not there is time set aside to for class preparation or to work with colleagues. Some people might become excellent teachers who never consider the teaching career option because school are broadly portrayed as horrible workplaces. However, those persons who have chosen to teach recognized how the working conditions differ from school to school and district to district and then they often seek out a school setting where they can perform their best work (ibid, 18).

In the above study, teachers in states where there was collective bargaining allowed generally received more money. However, local conditions affected the quality of the contracts as much as state statutes (Hess and Kelly, 2006, 59). The study found that teachers are very influential in school board elections giving hem significant power vs. school district management teams. (ibid,. 64). For whatever reason, teacher strikes have been on the decline (ibid, 67-68).

This would mean that one stereotype of teacher unions is the disruption of the school year due to strikes. The reality would appear exactly the opposite, that is that collective bargaining is actually a stabilizing factor in the uninterrupted presence of teachers in the classroom environment. Although pay is obviously important, it can not function alone in drawing teachers into classrooms or in retaining them once they are present. Based upon the study above, there is considerable evidence that working conditions for teachers affect both who enters teaching and who stays.

To sum up, the assessment of the overall impact of collective bargaining and teacher labor unions upon teacher quality is of course challenging outside of the financial sector.

Unfortunately for all, there is not consistent evidence about whether or not the quality of the teaching force has either improved or diminished as a result of collective bargaining. This has been partly because conducting research about this topic is very difficult and little research work has been done of the financial sector. As noted above, many of the findings are inconclusive because collective bargaining practices and local teacher contracts can vary widely from district to district and state to state. All of this results in beliefs and gut reactions about the relationship between collective bargaining and teacher quality that are shaped more by rhetoric and ideology than by disinterested, scholarly investigation and thorough inquiry.

Beyond those basic findings, however, little can be said with confidence about the relationship between collective bargaining and teacher quality, except that policy and practice vary widely. Some outcomes of local bargaining, such as those that reinforce the single salary scale, strengthen the district's reliance on seniority, reject differentiated roles for teachers, or guarantee dogged defense for competent and incompetent teachers alike are likely to compromise the quality of teaching. Such positions mimic those of industrial labor, which served as the template for much of educational labor relations. A

different set of policies and practices, however, develop when those who bargain the contract recognize that certain features of teaching cannot be addressed with conventional labor approaches.

Such research approaches support experiments with regard to performance-based pay.

These create incentives for school teachers to work in the hard-to-staff schools, to limit seniority-based adders and also differentiated roles for teachers. Provisions like these are likely to attract the enterprising individuals who simplify seek opportunities for professional growth and influence.

In the first case, a person might argue effectively that collective bargaining has a negative effect upon teacher quality. Secondly,

Thus, collective bargaining has produced varied outcomes that appeal to different types of teachers in different settings. This is important for one to recognize because this means that the effects of collective bargaining are always not fixed. The ways in which unions and school leaders approach labor relations and its particular provisions are included in the contract.

This determines a great deal about whether the teacher's schools will further attract the kind of committed teachers who will serve students well.

Case studies that document the history of progressive reforms suggest that they result, not from dramatic, one-time changes in contract language, but from steady and productive labor-management relationships developed over time (ibid, 23).

Often in such districts there is continuity of leadership on both sides of the bargaining table. The participants have a long-term allegiance to the district, its community, and its students. Union and school leaders recognize that respect, candor, and trust are essential in their joint enterprise and they know that they have a shared stake in the schools' success. Their work is about solving tough problems, not splitting the difference between extreme positions (ibid., 19).

However, there is a lot that can disrupt the communication flow in productive labor relations. This might include rapid turnover rates among school teachers or teacher union leaders that can thereby derail talks on promising negotiating initiatives. This makes it very hard for anyone to be able to curry support among school teachers for subsequent further reforms. Also, sudden, deep budget cuts can certainly lead to very extensive layoffs among school teachers and the angry distrust of the school management.

An

authoritarian school superintendent or a hostile union president can all of a sudden halt all the forward motion in school district-wide efforts to improve schooling. Such a reform approach to union collective bargaining requires that both labor and management to recognize that if the teachers are to work as teaching professionals, they must also be treated as professionals. Often, the management treats school teachers like hired hands while labor treats school teachers like factory workers. Neither Whether teacher union leaders in the future will be any more progressive than their There is some evidence that the large cohort of teachers entering replacing. These new entrants are less concerned about job security and more interested in career development. They are less certain that unions are essential and more likely to believe that schools should decide, one by one, how to operate. As the center of gravity in the larger teaching force shifts toward less experienced teachers, there may be a consequent shift in the kind of union leader these teachers prefer. It is not yet clear

In part, the outcomes will depend on what the school management does. Unions first gained their strength among school teachers because the school officials were perceived to be punitive, arbitrary and politically influenced in their decisions. Today, a school superintendent who acts with disregard and disrespect for the professional and personal needs of school teachers can easily

drive them to the conclusion that they need a hard-line union leader. When school teachers perceive that the school administrators are acting in high-handed manner, they often support,

(however reluctantly) the principles and personalities of organized labor. Thus,

although it is possible that the turnover in teaching could lead to flexible and creative labor-management relations serving both teachers and students, this is by no means a certain (Hill, 2006, 106-107).

Some severe critics of teacher unions are impatient with the Unpredictable and the slow course of change. These people contend that teacher unions introduce undue barriers for school administrators seeking to improve teacher quality. They also argue that school district decisions about teacher pay, assignments, hiring, assignment and working conditions, professional support and dismissal procedures should all be in the hands of school management. There are at least two problems with this stance. One is that collective union bargaining is a well-established policy that can not easily be repealed. The other is that school districts will not improve without the teacher's dedicated efforts. There is no reasonable alternative, but to improve the labor relations, collective bargaining and the resulting contracts (ibid.).