The Fordham Institute recently published a comprehensive study comparing the power of teacher unions across all 50 states. The report’s authors—Melissa Arnold Lyon, Sandy Frost Waldron, and Rebecca Jacobsen—compiled data on 59 indicators that capture unions’ resources, political involvement, policy wins and losses, and perceived influence, as well as the extent to which state labor and bargaining laws empower them.
One can quibble with some of the methodology, of course. The indicators capturing “policy wins and losses” may say little about union power, as we don’t know what policies a state would have adopted in the absence of unions’ political efforts. For example, Ohio might well have adopted universal education savings accounts by now—and perhaps it would have done so long ago—had it not been for union opposition. Similarly, as the authors acknowledge, survey respondents’ perceptions of union strength may not be fully grounded in reality.
Nonetheless, the authors’ methodological choices are reasonable, their analysis is systematic and transparent, and the rankings generally validate political wisdom (e.g., that blue states tend to have stronger teacher unions). For those of us who have monitored the diverging paths of Ohio and Wisconsin since 2012, the results are a stark reminder of what could have been.
How powerful are teacher unions in Ohio?
Overall, according to the report and Ohio’s online profile, Ohio ranks 17th nationally in terms of overall union power, which lines up with its specific rankings in terms of union resources and membership (16th) and unions’ political involvement (17th).
How can it be that a red state with a long-standing commitment to school choice finds itself in the top third in terms of union power? The analysis confirms what we’ve long known: Ohio has one of the most stifling collective bargaining laws in the country. According to the report, Ohio is among the five states “with bargaining policies most favorable to teacher unions”—ranking just a notch ahead of California.[1]
Ohio unions’ power to bargain over salaries and a broad range of school district policies—further bolstered by their power to strike—means that school boards and superintendents often have limited discretion over how district schools are run. Moreover, as a prior analysis demonstrates, the Ohio districts most burdened by collectively bargained salaries and policies are those that can least afford it: large urban districts that need managerial flexibility to deal with serious problems, such as declining enrollments, half-empty school buildings, and low student achievement.
Divergent paths: Ohio vs. Wisconsin
To fully grasp the significance of Ohio’s position, one can look to Wisconsin as an example of what might have been.
In 2011, both states stood at educational and fiscal crossroads. Wisconsin passed Act 10, which fundamentally altered public-sector collective bargaining by limiting it almost exclusively to base wages, disallowing the inclusion of rigid salary schedules in agreements, requiring annual union recertification, and ending the automatic collection of union dues. That same year, the Ohio General Assembly passed Senate Bill 5, a similarly comprehensive package aimed at reforming public-sector collective bargaining rules and eliminating public employees’ right to strike.
However, while Wisconsin sustained its reforms through intense political challenges, Ohio’s SB 5 was repealed by a union-backed referendum before it ever took effect. It is conceivable that, had Ohio exempted fire and police from its bargaining reforms as Wisconsin did, they would have remained intact. My colleague Vlad Kogan thinks the critical difference was the availability of a citizen-initiated referendum in Ohio, whereas Wisconsinites were limited to attempting to recall the governor. Whatever the precise cause, the point is this: Ohio’s reforms died, while Wisconsin’s lived.
Fordham’s report documents what happened next. Wisconsin experienced the biggest decline in union membership in the country, from 98.34 percent of the state’s teachers belonging to a union in 2012 to 44.57 percent of its teachers in 2026. Meanwhile, Ohio’s union membership rate remained relatively steady, declining from 91.48 to 88.38 percent of the state’s teachers—a modest decline in the wake of the 2018 Janus decision, which enabled teachers to opt out of their unions without incurring a financial penalty.
Correspondingly, between 2012 and 2026, Wisconsin unions’ financial contributions to state political parties plummeted by 87 percent (from 1.93 to 0.25 percent of total contributions) while, in Ohio, they declined by a more modest 32 percent (from 3.02 to 2.07 percent).
These trends track with changes in students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) eighth-grade math test, which research indicates is a strong predictor of long-term student outcomes such as higher incomes and educational attainment, and lower teenage motherhood, incarceration, and arrest rates. In 2011, Wisconsin and Ohio both ranked 14th nationally in terms of their students’ average scale score on the eighth-grade NAEP math test. However, by 2024, Wisconsin ranked second while Ohio ranked tenth. These rankings are volatile from year to year—and trends between the two states are similar on other NAEP exams—but Ohio and Wisconsin appear to be on different trajectories on a test that is predictive of long-term student wellbeing.
Is there a causal relationship between the decline in union power and student achievement in Wisconsin? Yes, it turns out there is. Rigorous research confirms that Wisconsin’s Act 10 led to a decline in union resources and political power, as well as corresponding increases in student achievement. Research also provides evidence that declines in union power in fact caused improvements in student achievement. As Barbara Biasi’s earlier research indicates, an important part of the story is that superintendents with newly acquired managerial discretion were able to attract and retain good teachers.
The diverging paths between Wisconsin and Ohio seem to hinge, at least in part, on Ohio’s failure to implement its 2011 bargaining reforms.
* * *
This new evidence should serve as an urgent wake-up call for Ohio lawmakers. Fordham’s report shows empirically that Ohio is an outlier in terms of the strength of its labor and collective bargaining laws. If we are genuinely committed to giving every child in Ohio an excellent education, we must address the underlying statutory structures that enable teacher unions to put a stranglehold on district management.
Fifteen years ago, Ohio failed to reform its labor laws. The data now show the cost. Wisconsin’s trajectory demonstrates that structural labor reform is entirely achievable and transformative. It’s time for Ohio policymakers to align collective bargaining laws with the needs of our students.
[1] The report also claims Ohio is one of only four states that have “enhanced” unions’ collective bargaining power since 2012, by mandating that school districts collectively bargain if teachers vote to unionize. But, as I pointed out in a prior post, this has been a requirement since the collective bargaining law was enacted in 1983.
