Accountability under constraint: The relationship between collective bargaining agreements and California schools’ and districts’ performance

Strunk, Katharine O. , & McEachin, Andrew. (2011). Accountability under constraint: The relationship between collective bargaining agreements and California schools’ and districts’ performance under No Child Left Behind. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 871-903.

The authors here stop short of actually blaming what they call “restrictive” collective bargaining agreements between teachers’ unions and school districts for districts’ being under Program Improvement (PI) , though they present data here that seem to show a relationship between the amount of detailed regulation of everyday aspects of teachers’ work life found within a district’s collective bargaining agreement and that district’s likelihood to be on PI. That is, districts on PI tend to have the more “restrictive” agreements. However, such districts also tend to have higher populations of children in poverty, children of color, children for whom English is not the home language, and children who are struggling with math and reading. Schools with high populations of this type are often in urban areas where poverty and crime are daily challenges. Such schools are perceived by many, including teachers, as having difficult working conditions. The authors do explore these additional factors, and state that “strong” or “restrictive” (interestingly, the authors use both of these very different adjectives) collective bargaining agreements may be necessary to keep and attract teachers to school districts with difficult working conditions. The positive side is that teachers are protected so they can do their jobs. The negative side is that, according to the authors, administrators at the district and school level may be restricted from taking actions that could improve student achievement at their schools, such as removing teachers who are deemed ineffective, making changes in the length of school days and years, evaluating teachers in ways not specified in the agreements, and a myriad of other provisions that could be a part of those agreements. A collective bargaining agreement is a legal document, and violating that agreement can lead to legal consequences. Strunk and McEachin’s picture is of school administrators stuck between a rock and a hard place. They are held accountable for their schools not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), but they are kept from doing what they need to do to effect change because of the fear of legal action from teachers’ unions.

The subtext of this article seems to be this: If only those nasty teachers’ unions would just be more flexible, and give the administrators more leeway to do their jobs, then we could help more children learn! Although the authors here couched their words carefully, and stopped short of laying blame, I could not help thinking that an anti-union agenda was at work in this article. I am not saying that unions have never been guilty of being inflexible, or of negotiating minutiae, “straining at gnats and swallowing camels” at times when collective bargaining agreements are put together. It would be nice if teachers were truly seen as professionals in today’s world, and unions were not necessary, and teachers and administrators could sit down in an atmosphere of trust and be sure that everyone truly had the students as their first priority. Unfortunately, that is not reality. No Child Left Behind has fed the fires of adult conflicts that end up affecting children. No Child Left Behind is all about accountability, and accountability as defined by No Child Left Behind translates as laying blame and imposing sanctions. In practical terms, those sanctions are imposed at the high cost of livelihoods and careers. Administrators have to protect themselves; teachers have to protect themselves. Teachers find themselves in an inferior financial and power position, though they have completed years of education, work long hours (often in difficult conditions), make difficult professional decisions, and often must endure a lack of respect from various stakeholders. Many teachers have made sacrifices to do what they love doing, working with children and making a difference. Yes, we have deadbeats and slackers in the teaching profession, but I do not think most teachers are like that. Without the protection of unions, though, I don’t know if we will be able to convince anyone to enter the teaching profession. It is already a “hard sell” to convince them to seek employment in the districts where they are most needed, and who can wonder at their reluctance, if they are to go to teach in those districts, only to be blamed and treated capriciously by administrators? Who needs it?

I hope the article here was not intended as a dig at unions, but at times it certainly sounds that way here. No mention of funding sources for the research is made here, but I wonder about that as well. The authors state that little research has been done on the relationships between collective bargaining agreements and districts’ ability to respond to accountability concerns. That paucity of research may stem at least in part from the possibility that many educational researchers are former teachers who have been members of unions in the past, and who know that unions are necessary. Unions and collective bargaining agreements may be necessary evils, at times, but they are necessary. A better solution than a lukewarm plea for unions to be more flexible would be to remove the culture of blaming that No Child Left Behind and the whole accountability movement, in an attempt to emulate the business culture, has fostered and fed. Schools are not the same as businesses, and accountability is not as easy as blaming someone for poor performance, and then forcing compliance and/or removing that person from his or her position. The problems in our schools stem from poverty and inequity of long standing, and until we can sit down together in an atmosphere of trust and problem-solving, with the children’s best interests the top priority, we have no hope of improving our schools and our nation. I don’t hold out much hope of that happening any time soon.