A few weeks ago I was at a conference when Diane Ravitch made the point that if teachers unions are such obstacles to reform, how can we explain Massachusetts, a "strong union" state that boasts highest-in-the-country NAEP scores and dramatic gains for poor and minority kids over the past decade? It was a provocative, compelling comment, and a bit of a conversation-stopper. (In some ways the inverse of this conversation-stopper, about the South.)
I've been mulling about it ever since, wondering if she's right that we reformers have exaggerated the unions' negative role. To help me think through this question, I reached out to some friends, including Bryan Hassel, Jay Greene, Andy Rotherham, Greg Forster, Marty West, and Jamie Gass, who each provided thoughtful responses. And I've concluded that no, Diane isn't right. My sense of equilibrium is returning. Here's why.
First, when it comes to state policy, the Massachusetts teachers unions have been remarkably weak over the past fifteen years. They accepted the 1993 reform bill, as it came attached to hundreds of millions of dollars in new spending. But from all accounts it appears that they thought they'd be able to delete the reform elements over time. And they tried, battling the standards, the tests, the accountability, the higher standards for new teachers, the charter schools, everything. And time and again, they lost. That's partly because Massachusetts had (an improbable) string of Republican governors in the 1990s and 2000s, and that's partly because of reform-minded Democratic legislators (like Tom Birmingham). And now that a Democrat has taken over the governor's chair, the union is starting to get its way. Here's how Massachusetts reformer Jamie Gass explains it:
What was unique about education reform in Massachusetts??was that in??addition to a great law,??between 1993 and 2006,??we had solid (bi-partisan) state leaders like??Tom Birmingham, Mark Roosevelt, Tom Finneran,??Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci,??John Silber, Abby Thernstrom, Roberta Schaefer, Mike Sentance, Sandy Stotsky, Bob Costrell,??Jim Peyser, and Dave Driscoll. All these folks could and did say "no" to the unions for 15 years. Having governors, legislative leaders, board of education members, and a??commissioner who were aligned for the common purpose of improving student achievement and keeping the unions' strength??in check made all the difference in Massachusetts.
Second, when it comes to union influence on the ground, at the district level, it's not at all clear that the "strong states" versus "weak states" distinction makes any sense. As the National Council on Teacher Quality has shown, teachers associations in "right to work" states regularly get provisions into state law that their "strong union" peers get through local collective bargaining. It's true that principals are handcuffed in Massachusetts when it comes to issues like "last hired, first fired," tenure protections, and (the absence of) differential pay. But principals in virtually all "weak union" states are similarly handcuffed, because teachers have succeeded in getting laws passed that have the same effect. As Jay Greene told me, the unions' goal "is to ensure as little policy variation across states as they can on their core issues." Or as Greg Forster says poetically:
The dysfunctional policies of the unions have been so deeply ingrained in the education system that even where unions are nominally "weak" you still find flat salary schedules, unbreakable tenure, etc.--the whole union agenda. So when we compare "strong union" states with "weak union" states, it's not really a fair comparison. It's like trying to find out whether arsenic is poisonous by giving one patient a full dose and the other patient a half dose. If they both die, do you shrug your shoulders and assume the deaths must have been caused by something else?
Third, for all the progress Massachusetts has made, we'll never know if the Bay State could have seen even greater gains if it had combined its smart reforms with a serious effort to untie principals' hands when it comes to teacher hiring, firing, and pay. Nor do we know what would have happened to the NAEP scores if a Democratic governor had been elected six or ten years ago, and strangled reform in its crib. Here's Gass again:
If in the gubernatorial elections in 1994, 1998, or 2002, a Democrat had won, [the state's education reform law] would likely have been seriously watered-down. This would have been especially true in 1998 [Scott Harshbarger] and 2002 [Shannon O'Brien]. Even still, between 1993 and 2006, reformers (Dems and GOP alike) were constantly beating back efforts by the unions to derail MCAS, academic standards, charters, teacher testing, district accountability, etc.
So here's the bottom line: Diane is right that squashing the teachers unions is not necessary in order for states to make incremental progress. But she's not at all right that Massachusetts proves union power to be irrelevant. As Bryan Hassel wrote, "It seems less like a case of 'unions aren't a problem' than a case of 'there's way to advance reform even if unions are strong.'" Which might even??be giving too??much, since, as I argue above, the Bay State's unions haven't even been all that strong.
But let's solve this one empirically; we might have a true natural experiment underway. The Massachusetts teachers unions are enjoying a resurgence. Let's see what impact that has on Massachusetts's policies--and NAEP scores--down the road.
