Search results

Randall W. Eberts, Ph.D., is the executive director of the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, Michigan.Mary Hatwood Futrell, Ed.D., is president of Education International (EI), headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, and dean of the Graduate School of Education and Human Development at George Washington University, Washington, DC.Bob Harris, M.A., Dip.T (Sec.), (Australia), advanced study at the Institut Universitaire des Hautes Etudes Internationales, Geneva, is a former EI executive director and current senior consultant based in Nyon, Switzerland.Ronald D. Henderson, Ph.D., is the director of the Research Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Rachel Hendrickson, Ph.D., is the higher education coordinator in the Membership and Organizing Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Kevin Hollenbeck, Ph.D., is a senior economist and director of publications at the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, Michigan.Susan Moore Johnson, Ed.D., is Carl H. Pforzheimer, Jr., Professor of Teaching and Learning at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Charles T. Kerchner, Ph.D., is Hollis P. Allen Professor of Education at the Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California.Julia E. Koppich, Ph.D., is president of Koppich & Associates, an education policy research and consulting firm, in San Francisco, California.Carrie M. Lewis, J.D., is a senior writer-editor in the Government Relations Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Christine Maitland, Ph.D., is a former higher education coordinator for the National Education Association who now works on higher education issues with the NEA’s Pacific Regional Office in Burlingame, California.Christine E. Murray, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Education and Human Development and dean of the School of Professions, State University of New York College at Brockport.Diane Shust, J.D., M.S.Ed., is the director of the Government Relations Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Joe A. Stone, Ph.D., is W. E. Miner Professor of Economics at the University of Oregon, Eugene.Wayne J. Urban, Ph.D., is Regents’ Professor of Education in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at Georgia State University, Atlanta.Fred van Leeuwen is the general secretary of Education International, Brussels, Belgium.Maris A. Vinovskis, Ph.D., is Bentley Professor of History, senior research scientist at the Institute for Social Research, and faculty member of the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Paul Wolman, Ph.D., is a senior policy analyst in the Research Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.

The public has long been led to believe that the connection between teacher unions and quality education is negligible or even a contradiction in terms. For an example of that view, one barely needs to go beyond the title of a 1996 U.S. News & World Report cover story, “Why Teachers Don’t Teach.” The story essentially tells the public that the teacher unions bear most of the blame, that they have used their money and muscle to preserve their own privileges and to stave off efforts at reforms aimed at improving educational quality. The two major teacher unions, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA), are the main targets of this criticism.

Teacher Unions and Education Policy: Retrenchment or Reform? is the third volume in the series Advances in Education in Diverse Communities: Research, Policy and Praxis. A sound compilation of research and analysis by individuals who are well acquainted with the role of the teacher union movement in public education in America, this new volume has tremendous currency in discussing some of the most daunting issues of education and schooling today. In recent years, the public has been exposed to a barrage of pejorative views of labor unions, in general, and teacher unions, in particular – views that by and large condemn the unions as obstacles to efficiency and quality. This new volume also presents some of the contradictions and problems of our public education system and of the role that teacher unions play in it. But in contrast to the views of the unions’ foes, this volume has at its heart a concern to understand what the teacher unions have already contributed toward building a quality public education system for all children and to illuminate the objectives and potentials that the unions still must realize.

Soon after Dal Lawrence became the first president of the Toledo Federation of Teachers (TFT) in 1967, he began an effort to expand the union’s role in teachers’ evaluations. Throughout most of the 1970s, the union pressed for greater job protection as well as a peer evaluation program for new teachers; a proposal that the school district refused repeatedly over that decade. In the 1981 contract negotiation, however, the district declared itself willing to include the issue, provided that the union would consider an intervention program for nonperforming teachers. This agreement – now in its third decade, despite a number of conflicts between the district and the union over the years – provided a framework for a totally new process of teacher assessment based on peer evaluation, the Toledo Plan (American Educator, 1984; Bradley, 1998b; Lawton, 1996). In the Toledo Plan, for the first time, teachers would be evaluating each other’s work, with real consequences for those who were not able to successfully meet agreed-upon expectations. “The idea of a teacher union evaluating members of its own bargaining unit was so controversial,” noted Gallegher, Lanier, and Kerchner (1993), “that the TFT president Dal Lawrence waited several months before telling a shocked American Federation of Teachers (AFT) executive council what he had done” (p. 158).

Certain features of collective bargaining have, over time, promoted uniformity and sometimes inflexibility in teacher policy and negotiated contracts. From the start, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) – passed in 1935 to regulate unionization and collective bargaining in the private, industrial sector – served as the template for state labor laws regulating education. The framers of the NLRA never had the needs of the public sector or schools in mind. Yet the 35 states that now require collective bargaining for teachers have drawn on the NLRA’s procedures and standards. For example, they have used the NLRA for defining how teachers organize and are represented; what constitutes an unfair labor practice; and how obligatory membership or dues provide union security (e.g. agency shop, union shop). They have also drawn on the NLRA to define what range of issues can be bargained; whether strikes are legal; and what processes are used to resolve an impasse (e.g. mediation, fact finding, binding arbitration, or all three).¹ Although the laws of the 35 states show some important variations, their similarity is more striking than their differences. Jessup (1985) concluded that the narrow scope of bargaining established by New York’s Taylor Law “severely restricted the range of concerns teachers could productively bring to the bargaining table” (p. 195).

During the NEA’s early years, the higher education community formed the core of the organization’s leadership, and higher education issues in turn represented a key area of NEA policymaking. The late 19th and early 20th century Association was fundamentally a professional group with a large teacher membership but little teacher representation in its leadership. In fact, it was only after the first 100 years of the NEA’s existence that the organization made an effective transition toward becoming a labor union, led by teachers and faculty members and focusing its primary energies on collective bargaining – first in the K-12 arena and soon after in higher education. Most recently, the NEA has sought to synthesize the two roles – that of professional association and union.

The NEA did not begin as a teachers’ organization, as such. Rather, the organization began in 1870 as a federation of four organizations representing distinctly different perspectives: the American Normal School Association, the National Association of School Superintendents, the Central College Association, and the National Teachers Association (Elsbree, 1939, pp. 264–265, 500). Only the last of these groups, the NTA, formed in 1857 from 10 state teachers’ associations, actually represented teachers, and for roughly the first 100 years of its existence, the NEA was controlled by administrators rather than teachers, frequently worked against teachers’ interests (especially when they conflicted with administrative or supervisory priorities), and opposed collective bargaining. Although the NEA lobbied fairly effectively on the state level on issues such as increasing expenditures on education, consolidating and professionalizing administration of school districts, and establishing certification and standards for teachers, its unwillingness or inability to support candidates for federal elections made it relatively less successful on the national level.

Evaluating the political influence of a teachers’ union is, necessarily, a somewhat subjective task. It appears to me that the teacher unions’ power, as measured by their membership strength, has remained healthy and in fact increased slightly since 1988. The most recent public figures for the NEA and the AFT indicate that the two organizations are collectively nearing four million members – counting the NEA’s membership of 2.7 million and the AFT’s just over one million (Newman, 2000). As a measure of the unions’ ability to mobilize teachers, however, those numbers may overstate the case for power. In the AFT, approximately half of its membership now comes from teacher aides and other non-teaching personnel such as school bus drivers (Keller, 2002). Even so, the number of teachers who are members of the NEA and AFT is considerable, and any explanation of a diminished political influence on the part of those unions must deal with the issue of their large memberships.