Do Unions Belong in the Fight Against Corporate School Reform?

In the fight for public education, the forces of standardization and privatization are running scared.

They've faced more pushback in the last few years - especially in the last few months - than in a decade.

The Opt Out movement increases exponentially every year. Teach for America is having trouble getting recruits. Pearson's stock is plummeting. The NAACP and Black Lives Matter have both come out strongly against increasing charter schools.

They want you to believe that the corporate vultures preying on our public schools are really just misunderstood philanthropists.

So what's a corporate education reformer to do?

Answer: Change the narrative.

They can't control the facts, so instead they try to control the story being told about the facts.

It's a classic propaganda technique. As Malcolm X put it:

"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."

Their story goes like this - yes, there is a battle going on over public education. But the two sides fighting aren't who you think they are.

The fight for public schools isn't between grassroots communities and well-funded AstroTurf organizations, they say. Despite the evidence of your eyes, the fight isn't between charter school sycophants and standardized test companies, on the one hand, and parents, students and teachers on the other.

No. It's actually between people who really care about children and those nasty, yucky unions.

It's nonsense, of course. Pure spin.

They want you to believe that the corporate vultures preying on our public schools are really just misunderstood philanthropists. And those demanding a fair shake for their own children and communities are really just paid shills from a monolithic and uncaring bureaucracy.

In essence, they want you to believe two things:

1) Despite profiting off the system and zero evidence supporting the efficacy of corporate school policies, they're motivated purely by empathy.

2) Unions are evil by definition and they pervert everything they touch.

Put simply, unions are not perfect, but they are not evil. In fact, they are essential to the health of public education.

I'm not going to bother with the first claim here. There is an inherent bias from those who wish to change the laws so they can more easily profit off of schools without actually helping students learn and in fact exist at the expense of that learning. If you can't see through the propaganda wing of the Walmart corporation, the Broad Foundation and Big Daddy Bill Gates, you probably won't be very receptive to anything else I have to say.

Instead I will focus on the second claim, because it is the more pernicious of the two.

Put simply, unions are not perfect, but they are not evil. In fact, they are essential to the health of public education.

Many progressives are upset with teachers unions because of the current Presidential election. Both the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorsed Hillary Clinton in the primary election without what many would consider adequately polling rank and file members. For better or worse, the endorsements were top-down affairs reflecting the preference of union leaders.

That's not how unions are supposed to work. And it's having consequences for the way both members and non-members view teachers unions.

Critics infer from this that unions don't represent membership. They are de facto arms of the waiting Clinton administration and the neoliberal agenda.

There may be some truth to this, but it does not represent the whole picture. Not nearly.

Unions are like any other democratic organization. The larger the association, the further from the grassroots the decision making body.

In the mammoth national unions, decisions are made by representatives most removed from our schools. They probably were teachers or support staff at some point in the past, but that may be ancient history. Now they are professional leaders and therefore at a remove from the grassroots.

By contrast, in our local chapters, leaders are most often working classroom teachers. Decisions are made by those still meeting students' needs on a day-to-day basis. As such, they retain an authenticity and expertise that may be more cloudy in the large bureaucracies.

This isn't to say the national unions are by definition unconcerned with the needs of teachers and students. I'm sure that most of the NEA and AFT leadership who decided to endorse Clinton did it because they honestly believe doing so will help public education. And - who knows - they may be right. But what they forgot in this case was the democratic process they were tasked with preserving. As such, they may have to pay a price for their hubris when their terms are up.

In most cases, the leaders of national teachers unions are at too much of a remove to see what is best for our schools. And they usually know that. It is up to the rank and file to tell them what to do, and that's what happens every year at representative assemblies through various caucuses made up of work-a-day members. And if leaders overstep their authority it is members' duty to hold them accountable at election time.

So even though the national organizations are most likely to go astray, they often don't. Usually even these giants are trying to improve the situation in our public schools.

Opposition to privatization and standardization policies doesn't come from the leadership of the NEA and AFT. It comes from the grassroots.

However, it can't be denied that the most intense and passionate activism happens a bit closer to where the rubber hits the road. It's those local chapters that are there everyday and make the most difference. They are the heart and soul of unionism.

So when corporate education reformers sneeringly deprecate their opponents as mere unions, they're glossing over an important distinction. Opposition to privatization and standardization policies doesn't come from the leadership of the NEA and AFT. It comes from the grassroots. This is not a top down initiative. It is bottom up.

This is how it's always been. There is no political organization directing the fight to save public education. The Democrats certainly aren't overly concerned with reigning in charter schools. It was grassroots Democrats - some of whom are also union members - who worked to rewrite the party platform to do so. The Clinton campaign is not directing anyone to opt out of standardized testing. However, voters are demanding that Clinton be receptive to their needs - and some of them are union members.

There is no great union conspiracy to fight these policies. It's called public opinion, and it's changing.

That's what scares the standardizers and privatizers. They've had free run of the store for almost two decades and now the public is waking up.

They're desperately trying to paint this as a union movement when it's not. Unions are involved, but they aren't alone. And moreover, their involvement is not necessarily an impediment.

The biggest lie to have resonated with the public is this notion that teachers unions are only concerned with shielding bad teachers from justice. This is demonstrably untrue.

The needs of the community and the needs of teachers are the same.

Both want excellent public schools.

Both want the best for our students.

Both want academic policies that will help students learn - not help corporations cash in.

And both groups want good teachers in the classroom - not bad ones!

The biggest lie to have resonated with the public is this notion that teachers unions are only concerned with shielding bad teachers from justice. This is demonstrably untrue.

Unions fight to make sure teachers get due process, but they also fight to make sure bad teachers are shown the door.

In fact, in districts with strong unions, MORE bad teachers are fired - not less, according to a new study by economics Prof. Eunice Han from the University of Utah.

The study entitled The Myth of Unions' Overprotection of Bad Teachers concludes that when unions are strong and successfully bargain for higher salaries, they have an incentive to help ensure ineffective teachers don't receive tenure. In short, it costs too much to keep bad teachers on staff. It is in the interests of the collective bargaining unit to ensure those unfit to teach move along.

Moreover, Han also concludes that strong unions actually help reduce the dropout rate. It just makes sense. When you treat people like the professionals they are, when you give them autonomy and respect, they're free to concentrate more energy into their jobs than fighting to keep those jobs.

But unions stand in direct opposition to the efforts of corporate vultures trying to swoop in and profit off of public education. Teachers provide a valuable service to students. If your goal is to reduce the cost of that service no matter how much that reduces its value to students, you need a weak labor force. You need the ability to reduce salary so you can claim the savings as profit.

THAT'S why corporate education reformers hate teachers and their unions. We make it nearly impossible to swipe school budgets into their own pockets.

So do unions belong in the fight against corporate education reform?

Answer: Heck yeah! In fact, they are essential to it.