Teacher Contracts Can Impair Reform

When it comes to improving schools, teachers are central to the success of many reforms. Yet, parents often don't realize that restrictive union contracts limit the ability of many schools to make changes and operate effectively.

Contracts negotiated at the district level often dictate what teachers can and can't do to the point that it can threaten the quality of your child's education. For instance, rather than matching a class with the most qualified teacher, placement is usually based on seniority. And, contracts can hinder teacher evaluation and make it difficult to fire incompetent teachers.

In some states, such as California, curriculum, testing and standards are creeping into collective bargaining negotiations. This could further tie the hands of policy makers trying to advocate for reform.

"Parents have very little idea about exactly how overarching and restrictive these contracts are," says Lance Izumi, director of the Center for School Reform at Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco. Unfortunately, key issues laid out in teacher contracts can make a difference in a school board's ability to act in the best interest of children.

Last year, PRI conducted a comprehensive study, Contract for Failure, which examined the impact of 25 years of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of California's schools. Collective bargaining is the process by which teacher unions negotiate pay and benefits for their members, typically district by district. Of the 460 districts studied, the report revealed that almost 75 percent of the teacher unions had too much power over curriculum, professional development, the scope of academic freedom, accountability, rewards based on performance, and teacher self-governance.

When issues of curriculum, standards - even course content and textbook selection - start to be put into a union contract, the public loses its influence because those negotiations take place behind closed doors. Instead, education policy should be debated in public hearings where parents can weigh in, suggests Izumi.

While many unions want to portray themselves as professional organizations concerned with protecting the occupation of teaching, they often
operate as power brokers defending special interests and fueling a bloated bureaucracy. And in California, the results have been devastating. Despite record spending levels, student achievement in the state has plummeted in large part because of the power of unions, according to the Contract for Failure.

What's happening in California is not unique. Most states have teacher unions and are impacted by collective bargaining agreements, adds Izumi.

Charter schools are not immune to the issues surrounding teacher contracts. While many charters are freed from such contracts, some have the option of hiring teachers who are subject to collective bargaining and others voluntarily adhere to union contracts.

For the influence of unions to change, parents need to get involved and educate themselves about their district's contract, says Izumi. If there is a problem area, speak up at a school board meeting and encourage that those issues be negotiated in the next contract round. Too often, teacher unions with large war chests pump money into school board races and try to exert pressure on members to side with unions, says Izumi. School boards need to hear opinions from all sides.

"If you look at a basic democratic level - people can express their policy wishes through electing people to school boards, but if there are these union contracts that blunt the ability of school boards to implement the vision of the voters - that blocks the potential for school reform," says Izumi.

For more information on the Contract for Failure, visit at www.pacificresearch.org.