Education Reform Movement

Introduction

Historically, unions have a long and proud presence in the United States. They have served as a powerful force for change, providing support for transition eras, such as during women’s suffrage and Civil Rights movements. Unions have also broadened the scope of professionalism for teachers, while also securing the rights and benefits of those who dedicate themselves to serving students (Bascia and Osmond, 2012). However, the question has been raised about the actual effectiveness of unions regarding actually increasing student academic achievement. Education reform movements are ever changing, and the reach of the powerful unions cause contention in some minds. Ultimately, are teacher unions and school quality potential allies

or inevitable adversaries?
Position and Rationale
To a certain extent, teacher unions have stymie reform efforts, but only minimally.

In fact, it can easily be argued that unions play a very significant role regarding the direction reform movements go. Furthermore, it must be noted that they do not completely shut down all reform efforts. While one might argue that collective bargaining is a particular significant threat to current reform efforts, teacher unions ultimately serve to improve the quality of education for all stakeholders beyond simply focusing on employee benefits and rights.

Teacher unions have been in place for well over a hundred years. Bascia and Osmond state that “the earliest form of the NEA can be traced back to 1857, and the first local branch of what became the AFT came into being in 1897” (2012). As the number of teacher associations engaging in collective bargaining expanded throughout the latter of half of the 20th century, so did the scope of rights, protections and benefits contained within the agreements. Class size limites, mandated evaluation procedures, and a guaranteed voice in curriculum decision became common provisions. Furthermore, rules about staff decision-making processes, preparation time for teachers, and the use of regular professional development sessions also took center stage (Bascia and Osmond,

2012).
Just as education has changed over the past one hundred years, so has the direction and focus of teacher unions. Collective bargaining was directly challenged by reform initiatives including No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top (Bascia and Osmond, 2012). The federal government provided some policy flexibility and freedom from the restrictive policies traditionally found in teacher union contracts. For example, teachers may be removed after four years of not making adequate yearly progress. This has caused the unions to relook at their practices and philosophies and what they stand for. Historically, not every education reform movement was a good idea (i.e. women still could not attend high school and college for quite sometime even after Mann’s common school movement). Currently, with equity reform, standards reform, and school choice, teachers unions serve as a sounding board, a checks and balances method in a way, to keep reformers focused and in line with what educators know is right for students.
Indiana University Bloomington conducted research regarding the correlation between teacher unions and student achievement. They found seventeen prominent studies have looked into the relationship, and that twelve of those studies reported favorable union effects instead of harmful effects (Carini, 2002). Several studies found math, economics, and SAT scores in unionized schools improved more than in non-unionized schools. Moreover, increases in state unionization led to increases in state SAT, ACT, and NEAP scores and improved graduation rates (Carini, 2002). However, this has not been studied on a large scale. Potential reasons Carini attributed to the success of raised achievement rested in the idea that instructional standardization follows unionization and may transform schools. It is difficult to correlate the standardization without further research on the matter.
Opponents of unionism note the idea that unions raise the costs of education, make it more difficult to remove ineffective teachers, and lead to more conflicted relationships among teachers, principals, and district administrators (Carini, 2002). However, one must be cautious on placing all the blame on the teacher unions. Whitmire wrote extensively regarding the idea that we live in a target-rich environment, and that unions are not the key villains in all school-based disputable scenarios. He argues school leaders are just as much to blame as the unions (2011). Whitmore reminds readers that unions do not force administrators to build aggressive teacher evaluation systems, keep administrators from closing schools, and doesn’t keep administrators from firing weak teachers. He argues that school district officials use unions as their excuse to avoid seriously evaluating teachers and laying off teachers, even suggesting that school officials are “just not willing to fight” (2011). In this target-rich environment, it is imperative that the blame game is avoided at all cost and the focus is on students and student achievement above all else.
Conclusion
Teacher unions are an important component of the modern-day education world.

With all eyes counting on education reformers to improve student achievement and success, teacher unions work to balance new ideas with reality. All the blame for school system failure must not rest at the hands of teachers unions. There are many stakeholders and circumstances that ultimately make the education field unique. Teachers unions are not halting the school reformers every move and effort. In fact, teachers unions play a large role politically and socially working to improve education and working conditions of the teachers. They have never taken a backseat, and in an imperfect business centered-around human beings and human ideas, it is never a bad idea to have a support system who can look at the details and double check

everything.