Josh Cowen is a Professor of Educational Policy at Michigan State University. He has spent many years as a voucher researcher and recently concluded that vouchers are a failed experiment, based on a multitude of research studies.
As soon as anyone becomes a critic of charter schools or vouchers, the choice lobby attacks them and claims they are paid by the teachers’ unions. I know this from personal experience. A few years ago, a choice lobbyist accused me of taking union money to buy the house I lived in; I assured her that I paid for my home all by myself.
Funny that the shrill well-paid lobbyists act as though unions are criminal enterprises, when in reality they have historically enabled poor and working class people to gain a foothold in the middle class, to have job security, health benefits, and a pension. They also give public schools a voice at the table when governors propose larger classes, lower standards for new teachers, or decreased funding for schools. I believe we need unions now, more than ever. Whenever I hear of a charter school unionizing or of workers in Starbucks or some other big chain forming a union, it makes my day.
Josh Cowen has undoubtedly been subject to the same baseless criticism from the same union-haters whose salaries are paid by plutocrats. He shares his thoughts here about teachers’ unions.
Here in Michigan, the Democratic legislature just re-affirmed our state’s longstanding commitment to working families by removing anti-labor provisions from state law. The move doesn’t apply to teachers and other public employees, because the conservative U.S. Supreme Court sided a few years back with Right-wing activists in their efforts to hinder contributions to public sector unions, but it’s still good news for the labor movement overall.
And I wanted to use their effort—alongside Republican efforts in other states to threaten teachers for what they say in classrooms—to make a simple point.
We need teachers unions. Other folks more prominent than me, like AFT’s Randi Weingarten, have made this point recently too. But I wanted to add my own voice as someone who has not been a union member, and someone who—although I’ve appeared with Randi on her podcast and count many union members as friends—has never been an employee or even a consultant.
If you want to talk dollars, The Walton Family Foundation once supported my research on charter schools to the tune of more than $300,000. Arnold Ventures supported my fundraising for a research center at Michigan State–$1.9 million from them. And the US Department of Education awarded my team more than $2 million to study school choice—while Betsy DeVos was secretary.
Think about that when I say school vouchers are horrific. And understand, I’m getting no support from teachers’ unions.
Instead it is I who supports them.
I’ve been studying teacher labor markets almost as long as school vouchers. Mostly my research has looked at teacher recruitment and retention. But I’ve also written about teachers’unions specifically. There’s a debate among scholars on what unions do and whether their emphasis on spending translates into test score differences. In the “rent seeking” framework economists use, the concern is that dollars spent on salaries don’t have direct academic payoffs.
There is no question that spending more money on public schools has sustained and generational impacts on kids. Research has “essentially settled” that debate, according to today’s leading expert on the topic.
But I want to branch out from dollars and cents and test scores to talk about teacher voice.
And I want to do that by raising a few questions that I’ve asked myself over the last couple years:
Why should the voice of a billionaire heiress from Michigan with no experience in public schools count for more than the voices of 100,000 teachers in my state’s classrooms every day?
Why should the simple fact that they work with children made by other people mean that teachers surrender their own autonomy and judgment not just as professionals but as human beings?
Why should educators have to work under what amounts to gag orders, afraid to broach certain topics or issues in the classroom? Some states are setting up hotlines to report on teachers as if they’re parolees, and a bill in New Hampshire would essentially give the fringe-Right Secretary of Education subpoena power to haul teachers in front of a special tribunal for teaching “divisive concepts.” This, after a Moms for Liberty chapter put out a bounty on New Hampshire teachers who were likewise divisive on an issue. Read: an issue of race or gender.
It’s not just threats to teacher employment. We know this. There are threats to teachers’ lives. How many teachers have died alongside their students—other people’s children—over the years in school shootings?
Why does the Right claim to trust teachers enough to arm them with guns in response to those shootings, but not enough to let them talk about race, gender, or any other “divisive concept?” Even some conservative commentators have worried publicly that we’re asking teachers to do too much. Why are we asking them to be an armed security force too?
‘In her recent history of “The Teacher Wars”, The New York Times’ Dana Goldstein noted that teachers formed unions, and fought for teacher tenure, to protect themselves not just professionally but personally. For free speech. To prevent harassment from supervisors—then as now, teachers were mostly professional women—and to keep from being fired for pregnancy or marital status.
So really, attacks on teachers are nothing new. Instead, teachers seem to be one of the few professions that it’s still acceptable in political conversation—even a mark of supposed intellectual sophistication in some circles—to ponder the shortcomings of the educators who work with our kids every day.
There’s nothing sophisticated about attacking hardworking, thoughtful, and dedicated people. And the only result of doing so will be the further erosion of our public, community schools. And that’s really the point. Just a few days ago, we learned that the big data that I and many others have gotten used to working with finally caught up to the on-the-frontlines warnings of educators everywhere: teachers are exiting the profession at unprecedented rates.
I’ve taken no money from teachers’ unions for any of the work I do. I’ve never been a member of a union—teachers’ or otherwise. Until now. Because after writing this today, I made a donation to my state’s primary teachers’ union and became a general member: a person “interested in advancing the cause of education…not eligible for other categories of membership.”
There’s a word for that in the labor movement. You hear it a lot here in Michigan, where I grew up and now teach future teachers in a college of education. That word is Solidarity.
Sign me up.
Bravo!
2 Bravos
I agree with everything he stated. Unfortunately the union I belong to in retirement is the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) that is actively trying to harm its retirees by pushing to force them from traditional Medicare into Medicare Advantage (Disadvantage) Plan to essentially pay for in-service raises in NYC. The UFT agreed with NYC in 2014 and again in 2018 to use money (1 billion+) from a “stabilization fund” that is funded by NYC to pay for in-service healthcare. NYC has agreed to replenish the fund if the union could cut retiree healthcare cost to the city. Mulgrew wanted this because he got a raise for teachers and de Blasio went along because he didn’t have to budget teacher raises. Retirees fought back in court and won twice. Retirees will be back in court again as NYC/unions attempt and end run around their losses in court. Beginning with Randi Weingarten and now Michael Mulgrew the UFT has been a disaster for its teachers and especially for the retirees. This is a union that may fail down the road. By the way, retirees cost NYC about 1/2 of one percent of its total budget. The contempt for retirees by NYC and especially from their union is unconscionable.
The real crime of the UFT and Unions in NY State was the
almost total opposition to Medicare for All proposed for a State Plan in 2019 . But I suppose you were okay with that.
The shedding of Public Employee retirement plans to Medicare Advantage Plans is not confined to teachers. The attack on Union Health Plans is not confined to Public Workers. Regardless of what contractual or statutory provisions existed.
The longest strike in the Nations History just ended when 1700 members of Local #3 IBEW NYC walked out . Spectrum Cable / Charter Communications the 17th largest corporation in the Nation refused to make contributions into their Hospitalization and Pension Funds.
The strike ended in failure, with the Union decertified .
Some but not by any means all took offers to be absorbed into other divisions of the Union with opportunity to advance.Others felt starting over was not an option.
Unions have great Healthcare Plans . Tim Ryan told us so in the Democratic Debates. As the Media turned on the others who supported M4All. The response should have been they have great Health Plans if they can keep them. Frankly until our Unions change their attitude of “close the door behind me ” I don’t want to hear complaints about losing benefits.
For the record my Cadillac retirement Health plan that costs me nothing was not affected . Yet another division of workers in my Union employed by the City is affected by the same change you are seeing . Rumor has it the Business Manager of my Union has seen the light after these events . He has been heard whispering our Healthcare is unsustainable we need Medicare for All . I am waiting for him to shout it .
Don’t get why you said I’m okay with unions not supporting Medicare for all in NYS.
Michael Brocoum
I am saying not supporting M4All is the biggest failure of our Unions and that is on the members as well as the Leadership . Whether you or I do , sadly most members could not be bothered . At least that has been my observation in my Union. They do get upset though when they perceive my cuts in benefits.
Unfortunately as an active teacher I didn’t have the time to really delve into health benefits because I knew they were good and assumed that benefits were protected by the union. When I discovered that my union leader, Michael Mulgrew, was pushing to reduce retiree benefits (secretly) I along with many others were couldn’t believe our ears. I cannot recall any other union actively trying to reduce benefits for retirees. Mulgrew now has made it okay to go after retiree benefits. Finally PHNP is pushing NYS to adopt Medicare for all which I support.
minor cuts (correction )
minor cuts
I guess I need to be careful here, but my experience with the NEA or AFT has not been good. I have served in Southern school districts my entire career where local chapters of NEA, AFT , and smaller teacher institutions are called “professional organizations.” My first encounter with teacher unions was in Chattanooga, TN in 1978 when a friend of mine and I, as high school seniors, spear headed an effort to convert our school board from appointed to elected. As part of the process we recruited numerous organizations that historically advocated for the city schools including the local AFT and NEA charters. This, I believe, is before Tennessee was “right to work” and the two organizations were pushing for collective bargaining in Chattanooga. We got both a referendum for an elected board and teacher collective bargaining at the same City Commission meeting that summer. What struck me as an 18 year old, was that these two organizations were rivals that allowed territory to dominate their relationship. Many citizens groups were amazed that we got them to work together on our school board initiative and I frequently witnessed their disdain for one another in meetings. Fast forward to North Carolina where I, as a young teacher, did not join the NCAE because there was no real value as it became obvious that state and local leadership was inept. While money went to the NEA, we rarely heard from the national organization and I simply could not afford the dues. The local AFT attempted to start a union prior to my arrival and teachers who participated in the effort were ostracized by the district. The justification I heard from other teachers was that I needed membership for legal protections, so I just joined a cheaper professional organization. As we moved into the standards insanity, It became obvious that the NEA and AFT were on the defensive. I often read about the compromises of National Unions on high stakes legislation with little vocal advocacy for teachers from unions or political allies. When Ted Kennedy signed up for NCLB it signaled Democrats no longer supported unions and I knew teachers were in trouble. Meanwhile, the NEA and AFT remained distinctive organizations with few changes in leadership and little visible collaboration. Teacher advocacy was not only divided but ineffective and, to a great degree, absent. When I moved to Alabama I surprisingly observed a more cohesive NEA so I joined. I later learned that it was simply better at getting us perks for nice hotels on the Gulf Coast. In my last year in Huntsville I got into a conflict with my district over contracts for independent employment that resulted in me getting written up. I immediately went to the local AEA rep and shared with him that principals were concerned that the new superintendent was just another manifestation of the previous administration that was profoundly autocratic. Later in that week I was shocked when I heard the superintendent repeat in a principals’ meeting what I had told the AEA verbatim and how this bothered her. I knew I was in trouble. When I got written up again and was told I needed to resign at the end of my contract, I made numerous attempts to get in touch with the AEA rep and never received a call back. I came to the conclusion I didn’t want to be there and left Huntsville. Our teacher unions seem to always have their backs against the wall. What I saw in Charlotte and Huntsville was successful efforts by district leadership to neuter the teachers voice when they would set up teacher organization offices in central office or nearby. I can’t speak to the effectiveness of local unions, because we didn’t have them in the South. What I can opine is that teacher support from unions nationwide is disjointed, lacks a comprehensive vision, and too often caters to the status quo. The way to give teachers voice would be for the NEA and AFT to coordinate. Forget the territorial issues and unite on support for school based educators. Then when it comes to right to work states, be present at state assemblies and be fervently outspoken in support of the needs of teachers. Also, there needs to be better coordination of legal resources for teachers and principals so they don’t feel as if they are on an island. This is particularly needed now that so many Southern and Midwestern states are enforcing their authority over teachers who have nowhere to turn. We can’t legally strike down here, but with the right resources, we could fight back. While the NEA and AFT have more power in union states they could enhance the value of membership in “right to work states” by showing up and being heard. This needs to be a unified effort. We are losing teachers to a great degree because teachers feel no one has their back. The NEA and the AFT need to support teachers no matter what and stop fecklessly appearing to compromise with corporate privatizers. If this initiative became obvious, perhaps union coffers would grow once again and teachers across the country could feel they were in this fight for the public schools together. Otherwise, the public schools are toast.
Previous to 2016, the AFT and the NEA in Massachusetts seldom collaborated. Two events that changed the dynamic were the election of a new NEA state president, Barbara Madeloni (whose precessor, Paul Toner, has gone on to greater glory at Teach Plus); and the Walton’s ballot bid to eliminate the charter cap in the state.
Madeloni’s motto is “when we fight, we win” and the solidarity formed with AFT’s Boston Teachers Union led us to victory over the deep pockets of privatization. NEA term limits its leaders, which AFTMA does not, but Madeloni’s successors are also fighters.
The two unions draw from different communities (AFT mostly urban), but have continued to back up one another and coordinated on passing legislation such as the Student Opportunity Act and the FairShare amendment to improve funding for public schools. Once in a while, I hear talk of becoming one union, but currently there’s little daylight between to two organizations, much to the chagrin of public ed opponents.
Something I learned as a building rep: when people would say, “what’s the union doing about X?” was to answer “you are the union”. I’m aware that I was fortunate that the BTU truly strove, still strives, to be inclusive and representative.
I had always thought of the NEA as more of a Professional association than as a Traditional Union. At least that was the way it seemed in the past. Raiding between Unions has always been a problem. It is why we see various internationals go in and out of the AFL-CIO coalition. But an outsider looking in would usually have little problem seeing who was trying to represent the interest of workers. When employers welcome the presence of one Union over another. Their motives are not usually altruistic. That holds in the Private and the Public Sector.
I have heard “what is the Union going to do ” forever. As Union Leadership begs for participation. 100s of phone calls to get a dozen to man an informational picket line.
Where do we start; although several states had passed Right to Work legislation in the early 40s . No State had the Right to do so before Taft Hartley in 1947. Regulating Commerce is strictly reserved for Congress . Congress can delegate what they wish to the states. Taft Hartley did that in 1947.
Of course none of this pertains to teachers. The National Labor Relations Act does not apply to Public Sector workers. But it does speak to the attitude of Citizens in a State toward Labor , toward workers toward the working class. Both Ak and NC rushed in in 47 , Al soon after in 53.
But a Union is only as strong as the willingness of its members to stand up to power, to employers. That holds true in the Public and Private Sectors. Organizing and negotiating was once a contact sport. Lives and freedom were put on the line. The NLRA put an end to that by
codifying in law the right to Organize.
“The denial by some employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce; (b) occurring in the current of commerce; (c) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of commerce.
The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries.
Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees.
Experience has further demonstrated that certain practices by some labor organizations, their officers, and members have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by preventing the free flow of goods in such commerce through strikes and other forms of industrial unrest or through concerted activities which impair the interest of the public in the free flow of such commerce. The elimination of such practices is a necessary condition to the assurance of the rights herein guaranteed
It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self- organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.”
Taft Hartley , Landrum-Griffin and numerous Court rulings have whittled away those rights and combined with changes and declines in certain previously highly organized industries like Extraction and Steel have gutted the Union movement . In the Public Sector laws were passed like the Taylor law in NY that Penalized Unions and members for striking .
But that said the history of labor requires being willing to sacrifice. If workers are not willing to put their employment on the line they have no power . The history of the South is abysmal and it is racial in this regard . As LBJ said to Bill Moyers . “tell the poorest White-man he is better than the best Black-man and he will empty his pockets for you ” .
That dates back to just after Bacon’s Rebellion. Race has been used to keep the working class down.
Even in the North teachers Unions organized many times only because there was little opposition. The UFT/AFT in NYC once one of the most powerful in the Country was bailed out by the rest of the Labor Movement in the City.
After a dismal failure of a strike and threatened firings of the few who walked out .The threat of those firings so outraged the most powerful Labor Leaders in NYC that they threaten to hand Nixon the 1960 Election if Democratic Mayor Robert Wagner jr allowed his School Superintendent to do so. The end result ;the fix was in the City Recognized the Union. Part of that story though was the leaders of the Cities Teachers Union movement at the time were warned:
“if you can’t get people to pay you dues you think they will walk out with you . I was not a fan of George Meany but he had a point . Those teachers were also told if you strike you better shut it down. Again out of 38 teachers at my Elementary School 2 were standing in the cold on that November day. (it used to be cold in Nov )
The Union is only as strong as its members willingness to stand up to power. If they are not willing, don’t blame the Union. The membership gets the leadership it deserves and vice-versa.
Solidarity!
This is powerful stuff. Thank you Diane for sharing it.
Are economists really still trying to link salaries to test scores? How silly.
Economics; the dismal science.
My favorite Economist Dean Baker says: “In no other profession can one be so wrong so often and keep a Job”.
yep
Re “A few years ago, a choice lobbyist accused me of taking union money to buy the house I lived in; I assured her that I paid for my home all by myself.”
This is a mistake. Never respond to such an accusation as if it were a valid statement. The correct response is “I sure hope you have proof of that because otherwise I will be filing a libel action against you.” Or possibly, “How the hell would you know?” followed by the above.
And, I too had a similar experience. The first time I had a political problem at the college I worked at, the union stepped up and got it resolved, even though I was not a member. The union officer was a fellow teacher, who turned out to be the big brother of a high school classmate of mine. I immediately joined the union (even though I had an anti-union attitude that I got from who knows where, possible bad press of the teamsters International, I don’t know). I subsequently because a board member, newsletter editor, local president, and chief negotiator for two teacher’s unions. (I did receive money from the union, via a bank shot. My union negotiated a full salary for union members who were partially released from their teaching duties to so serve.)
Steve, good advice. Thank you. I have lost count of the number of times I have been accused of being paid by unions.
What I find hilarious is that the same people who fling accusations have no shame about taking pay from plutocrats, who have grown rich by taking benefits away from working people. I long for the day when being a well-paid shill for the Waltons or Koch will be seen as a stigma.
It seems as if psychological projection has become a way of life for some! Cheers, my friend, keep fighting the good fight!
What I find hilarious is that the same people who fling accusations have no shame about taking pay from plutocrats
Haaaaa! Exactly!
Did the lobbyists express an opinion on police unions?
There are important distinctions to observe here. Police definitely deserve union representation. But many, if not all, medium-to-large cities in the U.S. have Fraternal Orders of Police. They generally represent and protect the very worst instincts and actions in policing. Often in the most vile of ways. Big difference between them a union that focuses on employment issues.
Almost all Unions represent workers in disciplinary matters. Few Unions are willing to extend that representation to criminal matters. The PBA at least here in NY does not seem to have those constraints. From shake downs and corruption back in the 70s and 80s to Riots at City Hall in 93, to ticket fixing scandals and assaults on unarmed Citizens at demonstrations and in encounters , the PBA has done what almost any other Union would be embarrassed to do. Most Unions try to at least claim “value on display” . The notion that we provide quality workers in exchange for our wages. if a worker was involved in Criminal action they would be abandoned till that was resolved. The spectacle of Police Demonstrations at a ticket fixing trial says there unions should be limited to negotiating wages and working conditions period.
I’m going on strike again soon! Yes! When we fight, we win! Time again to show the corporate raiders the power of the people. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-11/los-angeles-teachers-other-workers-plan-massive-three-day-strike-as-labor-woes-explode
This is an excellent post. I appreciate the links to articles with evidence backing up the author’s conclusions. I live in the supposedly “liberal” California’s Bay Area, where attacks on teachers and unions are becoming louder and more numerous. In my county, a new charter school is opening, and I’m shocked that so many neighbors are parroting the rhetoric of the school choice lobby. It’s true: we need unions more than ever!
Thank you, James.
Teachers’ unions can do a LOT! I’ve seen unions negotiate for libraries for grade schools, equal pay for elementary and secondary teachers; alternative schools; more democratic management; structured
…whoops. Structured grievance procedures; smaller class sizes; time for teacher preparation, etc. Teachers are actually the ones who know how kids learn and how to teach them–not politicians, bureaucrats, ministers, technologists, etc. Of course, public schools belong to the public, but they need to be operated by educators–mostly teachers, with appropriate checks and balances.