Stephen Davis: Eye on Education
Teacher unions – it seems that everyone (or nearly everyone) has an opinion about their influence on public schooling. Anyone who follows the news knows that teacher unions are frequently in the news. For example, just recently teachers in the Los Angeles Unified and Oakland Unified school districts went on strike over wages, benefits, and other working conditions. In addition, across the nation teacher unions have pushed back against increasing state and local political disputes (sometimes referred to as “culture wars”) over the banning of books, religion in the curriculum, LGBTQ rights, critical race theory, and other issues like vouchers, charter schools, etc.
According to Cecily Myart-Cruz (The Nation), “Over the past few years, we’ve seen a larger movement of workers across the country advocating for better working conditions, fair pay, and workplace improvements, with roughly a quarter of major work stoppages occurring in the public education sector.”
Since the onset of public sector collective bargaining in the 1960s there has been an ongoing argument between liberals and conservatives over the effects of teacher unionism on public education. Conservative scholar Terry Moe from Stanford University maintains that teacher unions “are not in the business of representing the interests of children, and no one should expect them to do that.” In contrast, NYU professor Diane Ravitch states that, “the union is necessary as a protection for teachers against the arbitrary exercise of power by heavy-handed administrators.”
While the range and scope of public school goals, systems, and practices are very broad, few would argue against the proposition that the most critical dimension of schooling is how well children learn. With this in mind, what impact (if any) do teacher unions have on student achievement? Do they help or hinder learning?
A closer look at this question reveals that both notions may be true.
Robert Carini (National Education Center, University of Colorado) discussed several common reasons why unionism might increase student achievement.
Unions,
- push for higher salaries and benefits which helps to attract and retain good teachers
- give teachers a greater sense of professionalism and dignity
- provide a collective voice to express ideas and concerns
- enhance morale and job satisfaction
- support practices that boost student achievement (lower class size, instructional planning time, etc.)
- induce management into being more effective
- increase teacher participation in organizational decision making
In contrast, Carini shared several reasons why unionism may decrease student achievement. Unions,
- raise the cost of education and pull resources away from other instructional materials and resources that raise achievement
- shield ineffective teachers from dismissal
- protect teacher rights on the basis of seniority rather than merit or competence
- impede principals’ autonomy and flexibility to manage schools
- foster adversarial relationships between teachers and administrators
- discourage “out-of-the-box” solutions to complex educational problems
- use their political clout to block educational reforms that threaten union interests
On their face, such claims of help or hindrance may make intuitive sense. However, there is a pronounced lack of rigorous empirical evidence to support or refute either side of the issue. According to Carini, since the onset of public sector collective bargaining in the 1960s there have been only 17 prominent research studies that examined the links (if any) between teacher unions and student achievement (predominantly on standardized tests).
To prepare this column, I searched the Internet for research on this topic and found that most studies were weak methodologically. The crux of the problem is that it is literally impossible to draw a bright line (statistically) between union membership, union activities and how well students learn. There are simply too many variables beyond the realm of teacher unionism that can affect achievement (e.g., parents’ education, socio-economic status, peer influence, student health and wellbeing, instructional practices, state funding, community values/involvement, etc.).
Ultimately, unpacking the copious array of variables that influence how well students learn and then separating out the specific ways that unionism directly influences achievement is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
As they say, “The jury is still out.”
Stephen Davis is a career educator who writes a column that publishes every other Wednesday in the Daily Republic. Reach him by email at [email protected].