The California Teachers Association is more interested in extending its power than educating our youth. It shows.

The California Teachers Association, the state’s most powerful union, is seeking to expand its considerable power through Assembly Bill 2160, which would give unions a greater say in everything from curriculum to local academic standards. The public should understand that teacher union contracts already undermine the power of duly elected officials, restrict principals, and hinder student achievement.

In San Francisco, for example, the teacher union is involved in virtually every aspect of school and district management. The school district’s contract mandates that union representatives be included in any district task force, committee, or group that deals with curriculum and instruction.

Few education decisions are more important than placing the right teacher with the right students. But like many contracts statewide, San Francisco’s makes seniority, not performance, a primary factor in teacher assignments and transfers. The result is a system that places the needs of a few adults above those of many children.

Research confirms that teachers are the most important factor in a child’s education and that the effects of poor teachers on children’s academic performance are devastating. But the seniority system allows poor-performing teachers to remain in the classroom and still receive a salary increase.

Union contracts also affect how teachers are evaluated. In San Francisco, a principal’s observation of a teacher in a classroom cannot be at random, but must be scheduled. The forms for evaluating teachers are in the contract too, which makes evaluations “grievable.”

The grievance procedure defines the process that must be followed for a teacher or the union to seek redress of a claimed contract violation. All contracts in the 10 largest school districts in California, including San Francisco, allow for binding arbitration to settle complaints. This process hands the final decision about grievances, which under many contracts can include virtually anything, to a non-elected, non-accountable arbitrator. It erodes the authority of the elected school board and violates the interests of voters. Taxpayers also pay a heavy price.

In an average California district a full 85 percent of the operating budget is tied to teacher and employee salaries and collective bargaining contracts. Districts with the most restrictive clauses regarding school and classroom management spend a much higher percentage of their budget on salaries and benefits.

The collective bargaining system, and its own power, is what the California Teachers Association seeks to extend with a measure opposed by educators as a dangerous power grab. Even the Sacramento Bee writes that “those who support it…brand themselves enemies of public education.” While legislators seek to make up their mind on AB2160, there are other matters for them to consider.

Before the Rodda Act authorized collective bargaining in California schools in 1975, the state was a national leader in education. Now California ranks with bottom-feeders such as Mississippi. But somehow the teacher unions, who constantly resist reform, oppose parental choice in education, and call for more spending, have not been held accountable. Neither has the utility of the collective bargaining process been fully debated, as it should.

California legislators should consider repealing the Rodda Act. In many districts, teachers function well without union representation. Districts with no teacher contracts or union representation also score higher on the state’s student assessment test (SAT-9). These are not just small districts but include Clovis, the largest district in Fresno County. Individual districts and their teachers can also consider decertifying the union, as some have done.

Failing that, lawmakers can look to limiting the scope of collective bargaining to clearly defined areas, primarily salaries and benefits, the more traditional scope of employee unions. Tenure based on seniority rather than performance should be abolished, as was done in Georgia. Binding arbitration should be eliminated. The dismissal process for incompetent teachers, which can take years and costs districts hundreds of thousands of dollars, should be streamlined.

Perhaps the most urgently needed reform is that the state Department of Education should publicize the contents of teacher union contracts. That way legislators, parents, and the media will know what is going on behind closed doors. But the bigger picture is already clear.

The interests of a powerful union are not the same as those of California’s students and their parents. The youth of today represent the state’s future and their education should not be negotiable.

Examiner columnist Sally Pipes is the President and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, a California-based think tank. She can be reached via email at spipes@pacificresearch.org.