Making Teachers Unions Work for Students -- And All Teachers

This weekend I attended a seminar on charter schools given by a school director of a highly-regarded charter school on the East Coast. As many charter leaders do, he compared the role of the charter movement in public education to the role of Federal Express in forcing the U.S. Postal Service to modernize. And, as many charter leaders also do, he showed a bit of genuine anger when asked about the unions: "Teachers unions," he said, "are the devil."

When I pressed him on the comment -- asking how a non-unionized school could serve as a model given that teachers unions are unlikely to magically vanish -- he admitted that he ought to "dial down the rhetoric" and that he would be fine with unions were they to undergo major reform. His real beef with the unions is their strident support of tenure and seniority and their hostility to merit pay. Were they to confine their advocacy to lobbying for better salaries, health insurance, and pensions, he said, he would have no problem supporting them.

Our discussion ended with what may be an emerging consensus for what the educational sector should -- and perhaps ultimately will -- look like in terms of labor relations. And though it's not exactly what the unions want, it's worth noting that their private-sector counterparts would surely kill for management that is happy with unions that lobby for higher compensation.

As many educational reformers -- most notably Washington D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee -- have pointed out, there is no rational reason for tenure in modern public education; as it stands, the practice serves to protect teachers, no matter how poor a job they are doing. Tenure was originally instituted as a progressive reform to insulate faculties from big city machines and their penchant for stocking government jobs with patronage hires. But even in Chicago, the most machine-dominated major city in the country, it's unlikely that ending tenure in the public schools would result in clouted applicants flocking to LaSalle Street, letters from ward committeemen in hand.

Similarly, the structure of compensation within education is so absurd that it invites scorn from all but the teachers who benefit from the system. Currently, the only two variables that matter in terms of determining a teacher's salary are the number of years he or she has been teaching and whether he or she has a masters degree. The quality of a teacher's instruction and the subject that he or she teaches -- compare the difficulty of finding a physics or calculus teacher to finding a physical education or health teacher -- are entirely irrelevant.

At the same time, data from the Paris-based Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation indicates what we have long known: that the United States significantly underpays its teachers when compared to its industrialized peers. In fact, Chicago is one of the few cities in the country that compensates its teachers at a reasonable rate; the short school day combined with the nationally-competitive salaries means that Chicago teachers end up with one of the highest wage rates in the country. If the Chicago Teachers Union were to focus on ensuring that its members continue to receive fair salaries and benefits, I doubt many people would take any issue with its activities.

Getting unions to prioritize compensation and not the strictures that constrain schools would require a tectonic shift in their priorities, but precedent for such reformed advocacy does exist. After all, no less a labor hero than Al Shanker, the heterodox president of the American Federation of Teachers, supported rigorous standards for teachers and proposed a sensible merit pay system.

More recently, the successful charter operator Green Dot, led by a former finance chairman of the Democratic Party, has made teachers unions part and parcel of its efforts. (For a sense of how positive Green Dot's union relations are, check out this picture of Green Dot chief Steve Barr and current AFT President Randi Weingarten.) The Green Dot teachers contract is just 30 pages and provides good salaries and benefits; it does not, however, provide for tenure or lock-step compensation.

Though there is likely broad political support for moving toward more considered labor policy in education, one large question persists: how can we actually make this happen? After all, even in Washington, a relatively small city led by a hard-charging superintendent, scaling back tenure and seniority rules has proven to be extraordinarily difficult. The answer might lie in stealing a page from the idealistic trade union agitators who spend decades campaigning for union democracy, often at great personal risk.

Many CPS teachers, particularly those who do not benefit from the current seniority rules, would likely support a system that involves the end of tenure and the adoption of merit pay in place of compensation based on seniority. Just as dissident factions within the Steelworkers, Mine Workers, and Teamsters organized and ran outsider candidates in the 1970s to make their unions more open and internally democratic, the hundreds of dues-paying CPS teachers who dislike the CTU for its role in entrenching ineffective teachers could play a crucial role in moderating their union.

In speaking out, organizing a dissident caucus, and perhaps even running outsider candidates for union leadership positions, such teachers would not only help provide crucial political space for a reformist chancellor like Rhee, they would show that unions can be reasonable and, crucially, part of the solution. And in so doing, they would help repair the image of teachers unions that has been so damaged by unreconstructed union leaders -- those who reject accountability while wishfully thinking that taxpayers will forever write larger checks in support of the public schools.

 

Comments

[K Kasper]

I do not believe in people commenting on unions when they themselves are not a part of a union. Your ability to compare and contrast is based on anecdotal evidence at best.

[BrunoBehrend]

Kasper's comment is illogical. "You've never been part of government, so you really have no right to comment on government."

The looming bankruptcy states like CA and IL are hardly "anecdotal evidence" of union power. I don't need to be a union member to compare the US system of educational apartheid to Sweden's system of money following the child to know the Sweden's system is both educationally and morally superior.

Unions make education insanely expensive, and for what? Do we concentrate on the best education system for our society, or do we engage in the unachievable goal of making an ever growing number of teachers, administrators, and mandate-driven government employees richer at taxpayer expense?

As an American concerned about the future of the nation (and how we educate our children falls in that rubric), I will "comment" to my heart's content on unions, curricula, taxes, and anything else that touches on the economic and cultural betterment of my country.

For the rest of you, please don't fall for the...

"If you aren't a _______, you can't comment on ____________ness." canard.

If it involves your tax dollar, your child, or your culture, you can (and SHOULD) comment all you want. You should "kick the darkness until it bleeds daylight."

[BrunoBehrend]

While uninvolved parents are a cause of numerous education problems in the US, there is nothing wrong with placing a large portion of the blame squarely on teachers unions, and their absurd sense of entitlement.

As a society, there is nothing wrong with valuing and funding an "educated populace." Most agree that it is a good investment in the future. However, lifetime employment, political protection from competition, bloated pensions, tenure, and bloated administrative budgets are NOT such investments.

The "Education­/Governmen­t Complex" shares far more similarities to the "Military/­Industrial Complex" than differences.

Money should follow the child, not fictitious and expensive entities called "school districts."

Pick a state, study it's funding base, and convert all funding to direct scholarships to the student by adjusting state and local taxes (get rid of the property tax). As money follows the child, compensation issues become secondary.

It is about connected neurons, not a protected class of government employees. As for the 'district system,' it is morally unjustifiable. First, 'local control' is mostly a myth, as state standards, and federal standards override any local control. Second, they amount to nothing less than "education apartheid" and clearly violate both the spirit and the letter of the Equal Protection Clause.

http://extremewisdom.com/wp-content/uploads/fundamental_execsumm.pdf (a potential answer)

[Endersdragon]

I just wish teachers unions would stop forcing every kid that can't afford to escape it to stay in public schools. I have a friend named Z who has been scared away from the public school (teachers didn't / couldn't / wouldn't understand him or teach to him, and students made him quite socially isolated). Now he is going to a private school, but his mom is working class, so who knows how long she will be able to afford it. She might be able to homeschool eventually (which is illegal in other locals) but then he losses social interaction he needs (ADHD, not asperger's in case you were wondering, but close) and who knows what she would do with his twin brother. If he was failing in public schools she could try to sue for them to foot the bill (which would cost more then the private school before all is said and done) but as long as he maintains a C average it doesn't matter what he is capable of... something is wrong with that to me. The school spent a boatload of money on him when he was in public education, far more then the average kid (individual aide, ready access to the resource room which was only used by a few kids, etc.) why not spent part of that money to let him go to another school. This is one of many (including mine) cases of why I find myself constantly hating teachers unions.

[mdmich]

Again, teachers' unions are not the culprit. If the school is not adequately serving your friend, it is either because the school administrators have not handled his rights properly as a special ed student and/or because the school and district do not have the resources to handle special ed properly. And why is that, because, as I said below, the schools are underfunded!

Give us the buildings, supplies, equipment, text books, parental support and administrative support that students receive in good charter schools and your friend will be able to thrive. And most "regular" public schools won't even take him because they have totally inadequate facilities to handle special education students.

[Endersdragon]

Again, as long as he is making a C average schools don't care. From the schools perspective they moved him up from a D or even F average to a C average... so from the schools perspective they are doing their job. Who cares if he is smart enough to get As in just about every class.

Who cares if he is falling asleep in a lot of his classes because the teacher is lecturing endlessly and thats just not how he learns.

Who cares if he is made to feel infereior and alone from every other student in the school, thats not the schools responsiblity anyway. Just fyi, there was recently another study done that came to the conclusion that 90% of kids on the autism spectrum are bullied, and past studies have been done saying that 90% of kids with asperger's (closely related to his form of ADHD) are bullied on a DAILY basis.

Who cares that just about every special needs kid I have ever talked to has their own Wendy Portillo story (look it up if you don't know what that is).

Who cares that there is another school out there that can educate him better and for less. Who cares that such a school could educate him his way, and make him feel like he belongs. That is taking governmental dollars going away from teachers un... I mean public school teachers and that just isn't acceptable.

[Endersdragon]

But beyond that scapegoating on charter schools on all those problems is pathetic. Is it lack of money that causes teachers to bully students? Is it lack of money that keeps teachers from saying bullying is wrong and fighting against it? Etc.

Just give him the choice, irregardless of his funds, of where he wants to go to school, thats all I am moving for... but teachers unions would fight it to eternity.

[mdmich]

Enough already with blaming teachers and teachers' unions for poor education. The charter schools y that work do so because they have good administrators, good facilities, a supportive and safe environment, and good teachers. The schools in Northwest Cook County have teachers' unions and are great. And we would work like Green Dot schools with a collaborative relationship between the union and administration.

The only reason to blame teachers and teachers' unions for poor education in Chicago and other urban areas (which is where the problem exists in this country) is because then the politicians and taxpayers can ignore putting the money into fixing and securing the schools, building parental support, providing up-to-date books and equipment, and recruiting quality administrators and top teachers (that takes money, too, in a competitive environment). If urban schools would spend $9000+/pupil like the successful charter schools and those in NW Cook County, instead of $5,500/pupil in Chicago, then they would succeed. And if you don't believe me, walk into a school on the south side or in south Cook County and you'll see my point.

But the money does not exist in urban areas dependent on real estate taxes to fund the schools. Only by raising state with a fair state income can we raise the funds really needed to turn around are schools. Is anyone willing to do that? Or do you just want to continue to unfairly beat up on the teachers.

[jrynk68]

Teachers do great work and I empathize with them with today's children and parents, but there union bosses help contribute to today's problems. The only solution in their eyes is more money from the government. Where have I heard that before?
http://bni-lwp.blogspot.com/
http://bni-lwp.blogspot.com/

[BLBass]

I agree on the goal, but I have yet to hear reform advocates put forward a realistic path toward it.

The bottleneck is compensation. As state employees, teachers' undercompensation is inextricably linked with our collective taxphobia. I haven't studied the history of teachers' unions -- and your story of the origins of tenure agreements is certainly a plausible one -- but in today's America teachers are simply unable to make progress on equitable pay for their education/effort, and so union advocacy goes toward compensating their members for poor pay by providing enhanced job security. It's not a best-case solution, and AFT, etc., should absolutely be more willing to consider alternate models, but until teacher pay is freed from its current constraints it's the only legitimate option.

Unions have a responsibility not to be obstructionist, but in the current environment any other stance on the part of teachers' unions would be opposed to their members' best interests, and thus a failure in collective bargaining and probably a firing offense for the officials responsible. The solution is not to bash teachers' unions but to develop alternative models and prove that they are scalable. This is exactly what charter schools are good for, since they are not obligated to hire unionized educators. That said, treating unionization as an obstacle to expanding the role of successful innovations is counterproductive and probably the source of the tension between the charter movement and established unions.