Sometime in the next few days, the decision in the Supreme Court case Janus vs. AFSCME will shape the future of public sector unions by determining if agency fees are legal. This is a big deal, especially for teachers’ unions. They stand to lose loads of money if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Janus.
Earlier this month, we released a slide deck report to inform the ongoing conversations about Janus and its outcome. Here are seven key facts from “Overview of the History and Status of Teachers’ Unions“ to help you understand union membership trends, teachers’ unions specifically, and the meaning of those pesky agency fees.
- Union membership has been declining for a long time
Click to enlarge. “Overview of the History and Status of
Teachers’ Unions,” slide 11.
Union membership peaked in the mid-1950s when 35 percent of wage and salary workers were in a union compared to only 11 percent today.
2. But it is mostly declining because of private sector workers
Click to enlarge. “Overview of the History and Status of Teachers’ Unions,” slide 12.
3. Yet there are still lots of unionized workers in lots of states
Click to enlarge. “Overview of the History and Status of
Teachers’ Unions,” slide 15.
In 26 states, more than one-quarter of public sector employees are in a union. In 11 states, more than half are. Continue reading
Photo via Wikimedia Commons
Shortly after the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) passed in December 2015, I predicted that the lack of federal requirements on teacher quality issues in the law would cause states to make changes to their teacher evaluation systems and laws. I was particularly concerned states would roll back the use of student growth measures — gains in student learning as shown through progress on assessments and/or student learning objectives over time, which are then used as one measure of teacher effectiveness. I argued that student achievement is a more robust and predictive measure of teacher quality than other measures such as classroom observations.
A little over two years later, a new policy snapshot from the Education Commission of the States (ECS) shows my prediction was partially right: In the 2017 legislative session, at least 20 bills/resolutions were enacted or adopted in 16 states addressing the purpose, design, authority, and progress of teacher evaluation systems. And while student growth measures are being reconsidered, they are largely not being abandoned.
Some of these newly introduced bills do not hamper the progress of teacher evaluation systems. For example, in Idaho, House Bill 300 provides funds to help districts comply with the state’s teacher evaluation requirements. But Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Utah completely removed student growth from teachers’ evaluations. While those are extreme cases, even Florida — a pioneer in the teacher evaluation space — made changes to its student growth component. Florida House Bill 7069 maintains the requirement that at least one-third of teachers’ evaluation be based on data and indicators of student performance, but removes the requirement that student growth be derived from the state’s value-added model — leaving the measure to district discretion. Continue reading
EdTrust-NY Report Cover – “See Our Truth”
This week, The Education Trust–New York released a report highlighting the lack of teacher diversity in the state’s schools. Specifically, the report reveals that one-third of all New York state schools have zero Latino or Black teachers. New York State is not alone. Lack of teacher diversity is a national problem. As the EdTrust report details, teacher diversity can improve achievement for students of color. So what can be done to address the problem?
The EdTrust report’s recommendations include, but are not limited to: creating more robust data collection systems and practices, improving recruitment and hiring strategies, and focusing on teacher retention. All of these are smart recommendations, but the focus on shorter-term solutions ignores one key part of the problem: teacher diversity problems start long before college students consider entering the teaching profession.*
The issue begins with the fact that black and Hispanic students graduate high school at lower rates than their white and Asian peers. In New York State, 89 percent of white students and 86 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander students graduate high school compared to 68 percent of black students and 68 percent of Hispanic students. When fewer black and Hispanic students graduate high school, there are simply fewer students from these backgrounds entering college to pursue the preparation necessary to become a teacher.
Furthermore—as the Urban Institute explains in a recent report that found this funnel problem to be prevalent across the country—teacher diversity issues are also exacerbated in the next step of the pipeline: getting to and through college. In New York State, 44 percent of white students and 51 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander students graduate high school earning a Regents diploma with “advanced designation” – the state’s diploma “recommended for students who plan to attend college after high school.” According to the most recent data, just 10 percent of black students and 14 percent of Hispanic students in New York State graduate with an advanced designation diploma.
In short, until the K-12 education system does a better job of ensuring that black and Hispanic students are college ready, there will continue to be a huge diversity gap between the nation’s public school students and the teachers who educate them – especially in diverse areas like New York State. To be fair, fully addressing teacher diversity will likely require a combination approach with long-term and short-term solutions. But the importance of K-12 schooling cannot be forgotten.
* Report authors recognize that New York must to do a better job of educating students of color so that they’re better prepared for college and career. The Education Trust has a plethora of reports detailing this issue.
Last week, two D.C. State Board of Education members wrote a memo to D.C. Public Schools’ new Chancellor — Antwan Wilson — asking him to focus less on district reform mandates and more on creating a culture of “transparency” and “support” in the district’s schools. The authors write that reforms such as teacher evaluation and school accountability based on student achievement have led to undesirable outcomes in the district, including higher teacher turnover. It is true that teacher turnover generally harms student achievement. However, what is true in general is not true in all places.
New data show that thanks to the teacher evaluation reform efforts in D.C. public schools (DCPS), teachers who exit the district tend to be lower performing:
Click to enlarge the image.
We also know from research that, on average, new teachers tend to be lower-performing than veteran teachers. But, that’s not what’s happening in D.C. The new teachers that D.C. has hired perform as well in their first year on the job as those they replaced:
A bill providing tax credits to teachers in California is making its way through the state’s legislature. Last month Andy Rotherham and I wrote that Senate Bill 807, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act, is a gimmicky way to pay teachers more and takes a one-size-fits-all approach to solving a targeted teacher shortage problem.
It looks like the authors of SB807 may have noticed our critique. Since its introduction, the legislation has been revised. Instead of exempting all teachers who remain in the profession for more than five years from paying state taxes, the revised legislation is focused on teachers in high-poverty communities. The new language gives teachers in high-poverty schools immediate state tax relief on half of their income in their sixth through tenth years of teaching.
Admittedly, the revised legislation is better than the original because it takes a more targeted approach to teacher shortage issues. But it’s still a bad idea. As Andy and I wrote, if California legislators want to pay teachers more, then they should just pay teachers more. Providing teachers with tax incentives is a confusing way to raise teacher compensation and doesn’t get at the foundational issues of under-resourced schools and misaligned, archaic state and district teacher compensation systems. This bill — in any form — tinkers at the edges of and distracts from larger issues in California.
This week the bill passed the California Senate Governance and Finance Committee with a unanimous vote, and it’s now headed to the Senate Education Committee. But California lawmakers would be better off if they stop trying to revive this bill and, instead, focus on the larger school finance problems in the state.