Which school do you want to support?
Teachers unions have tremendous influence in America’s public schools, perhaps nowhere more so than in California.
This lesson describes the major functions of these unions, and summarizes varying points of view about their role in student learning.
There are two main national teachers unions in the USA: the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Most California K-12 teachers are organized by the California Teachers Association (CTA), which is NEA-affiliated. California’s largest districts are dual-affiliated with both CTA and CFT, the state branch of the AFT. This may seem like detail, but it is an important one: there is more than one teacher union, and they exist at multiple levels: school, local, regional, state, and national. Although teachers unions work hard to align their point of view (which maximizes their power) they are complex organizations containing many divergent interests.
Teacher contracts in California districts are negotiated between the school board (represented at the bargaining table by local district administrators) and the teachers (represented by local union leaders). The negotiation process, called collective bargaining, has been in place since the passage of the Rodda Act in 1975.
In California, virtually every school district uses collective bargaining.
In California, virtually every school district (Clovis is the largest exception) uses collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is not used in all US states. Teacher contracts can be complex agreements that address more than pay. In California, many issues related to working conditions are subject to bargaining. (As an example, have a look at the 2017 bargaining blueprint for the union in Oakland.)
School district finances and contracts are complex. Both local unions and school districts rely on state organizations for technical support. The staff of the CTA and CFT provide negotiating support to their local affiliates. School districts hire consultants such as School Services of California. If you want to see what the contracts actually look like, check the National Council on Teacher Quality. It has posted copies of collective bargaining agreements for America’s 140 largest districts, and provides an orderly database to research the major provisions of these agreements.
Negotiating support is one of many services that the state teacher unions provide their affiliates. Another notable service is the state union's role in state education policy.
Both CTA and CFT are members of California's "Education Coalition," a group of education-related advocacy organizations. This coalition lobbies for education spending in the annual zero-sum budget battle with other budget priorities from prisons to health care to transportation. This is important work, particularly in California, which spends proportionally fewer tax dollars on education than most states do.
There is great sound and fury in education reform discussions about whether unions are “good” or “bad” for public education. Most old hands in the education arena (though not all) view this as a false dichotomy.
Teacher pay is higher in states with strong unions.
There is no question that states with strong unions, such as California, tend to pay teachers more than those with weaker unions. Teachers in strong-union states also generally have more generous health care benefits. For the big picture of how teacher pay in California has compared to other states over time, see the graph in Lesson 3.1.
Supporters of teachers unions also argue they ward off state micromanagement of the classroom. CTA lobbyists generally oppose bills that create hard and fast rules about what teachers can or cannot do. Usually they favor policies that place authority at the local level where districts and unions can work them out through collective bargaining. Among influential thinkers who support teacher unions, perhaps the most prolific and well-known is Diane Ravitch.
Total union dues and fees come to about $1,000
Among critics of unionism in education, one vocal figure is Terry Moe, who argues that unions’ interests are poorly aligned with those of students and taxpayers. In California, the most potent voice is probably that of Mike Antonucci.
At the local level, critics such as Moe argue that negotiations between districts and unions are structurally out of balance. The union’s power to call a strike is unmatched by any equivalent power from the district side. Districts cannot lawfully dismiss the striking teachers and hire replacements. Critics also note that unions make unapologetic use of the democratic process to influence the other side of the bargaining table by using their resources to support or oppose candidates for school boards.
At the state level, critics object to teacher unions’ capacity to raise funds for political action. A typical full-time teacher in a CTA-affiliated district pays over $1,000 in union dues annually. Of this amount, about 15% goes to the NEA, about 20% goes to the local affiliate, and the remainder goes to the CTA state organization. A portion of these resources supports the unions’ political efforts. School districts are not allowed to spend public money on political campaigns.
For decades, teachers in many states' public schools were obligated to pay union fees. The logic was that since their economic interests were being collectively represented at the negotiating table, they had to pay their fair share. After decades of fierce debate, in 2018 the US Supreme Court eliminated this obligation. It ruled in the Janus decision that union fees are a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, and that mandatory "fair share" fees for representation in collective bargaining are an unconstitutional form of compelled speech. This was a major reversal with big implications for the education system.
A little background is in order.
In 1977 the US Supreme Court had ruled unanimously in the case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that unions could collect mandatory fees from employees, including those that opted out of membership in the union. In the years that followed, about half of American states, including California, passed laws that allowed collective bargaining agreements to include "agency shop" agreements. Under these agreements, all employees paid "agency fees" or "fair share" fees, even if they declined to join the union as members.
Teachers cannot be required to pay union fees.
Not all states supported the "agency shop" approach allowed by Abood. Some states passed "paycheck protection" measures, requiring that unions gather an "opt in" commitment from each member in order to collect certain dues or fees from them. In 2015 the US Supreme Court took up review of the matter in the Friedrichs case. With one open seat on the court, it split 4-4. The issue was taken up again in the 2018 Janus decision, which reversed Abood in a bitterly divided 5-4 ruling. In effect, the Janus decision means that teachers cannot be required to pay fees related to their representation.
In their deliberations, justices on the Supreme Court expressed concern about the disruption of "labor peace". If dues are not collected from all teachers, some labor historians argued ominously, a functioning system might be disrupted. To unify their members, public labor union leaders might find themselves under pressure to become more militant in negotiations. Union opponents countered that the evidence of militancy is thin in states with "right to work" laws.
Teacher strikes are legal in California but thankfully they have been quite rare. In the wake of the Janus ruling, the word "strike" was uttered frequently in Los Angeles in 2018-19. The threat of strikes and other actions seems certain to change the relationship between districts and unions. Parent groups might want to view the Janus ruling as a reminder not to take the relationship between the school district and the teachers union for granted.
For more about Janus, and why it matters to parent leaders, see New Rules for Teachers Unions in the Ed100 blog.
Over decades, union membership in America has declined significantly, including in California.
Generally, union membership rates tend to be higher in California than in other states, partly because of the strength and organization of the state's teachers unions. After the Janus ruling, some predicted that masses of teachers would stop contributing to their unions. So far, the losses have been minor.
Teachers unions aren’t going anywhere, and even after Janus they have tremendous power.
Anyway, there isn’t persuasive evidence that the absence of a union is any more of a magic answer than any other one-shot education reform wish.
Teachers unions are stable
The leadership of teachers unions tends to be stable over time, with a strong tradition of seniority. School board members have limited terms. Administrators may come and go. Teachers, by contrast, work in a system that directly discourages moving. When teachers stay with a district, they gain seniority and move up the pay scale. The individuals involved in union leadership generally stay put and stay involved for many years.
The long experience and steady perspective of union leadership creates an opportunity for teacher unions to play a strong role in education change, when a consensus for change can emerge. The Teacher Union Reform Network (TURN) is an informal national organization of union leaders that meets regularly to discuss ideas for change.
Change is not a simple matter for a huge organization. CTA has more than 300,000 members and it grapples with the operational challenges of any large organization. Its governing body is the 731-member State Council, a regionally elected body that meets quarterly. In most cases, the voters in these elections are current CTA members currently working as teachers. In some districts, controversially, retired teachers also may cast ballots. (This is controversial partly because retired teachers and current teachers may have different interests on issues like budgets and pensions.)
Nimbleness is out of the question.
There are only a few conference halls in California large enough to host a CTA state council meeting in real life. Like Congress (for perspective, a policymaking body about half its size), the State Council uses a highly structured deliberative process that includes standing committees, speechmaking, and internal politics. Decisions are ultimately brought to the full 731 delegates for a vote. CTA staff and executive leadership are guided in their actions by a massive policy manual that the organization takes quite seriously.
Changes to CTA policy must go through the State Council, a process that takes time. Many points of view exist within the organization, and it can take quite a while for ideas to bubble to the surface in the form of policy changes. Nimbleness is usually out of the question, but in the pandemic of 2020, the organization found ways to make decisions virtually.
Search all lesson and blog content here.
Login with Email
We will send your Login Link to your email
address. Click on the link and you will be
logged into Ed100. No more passwords to
Your Email Address
Ed100 Requires an Email Address
Language of Preference
Are you one of the leaders in a PTA, PTSA, PTO or Parent Group?
Please tell us how you help:
You will be going to your first lesson in
Your Ed100 Team
Hmm. Looks like you are already a user. We can send you a link to log into your account.
Login with Email
Your Email Address
address. Click on the link and you will be
logged into Ed100. No more passwords to