by Lance T. Izumi, Fellow in California Studies
Pacific Research Institute
April 2, 2002

Announcer lead: Time for Perspectives. Lance Izumi says that the scope of collective bargaining between school districts and teacher unions should be reformed.

Up in the State Legislature, the California Teachers Association is sponsoring legislation that one long-time Sacramento columnist has termed the most dangerous education proposal of the year. The bill, AB 2160, would expand the scope of collective bargaining to include non-wage-and-benefit issues such as curriculum, textbooks and academic standards. The battle over the bill is likely to be bloody.

Although the speaker of the Assembly and the chair of the Assembly education committee are carrying the CTA’s bill, the school boards association, key business organizations, and most of the state’s major newspapers are opposing it. For example, the Sacramento Bee says that the CTA bill is “an all-out frontal attack on citizen control of the public schools.” Opponents argue that allowing curriculum and other policy decisions to be made behind closed doors in union contract negotiations undermines the democratic process and shuts out the important input of parents.

In its PR campaign, the CTA claims that teachers know what’s best for students. Remember, though, that many teachers have opposed phonics reading programs that have increased student performance, supported discredited bilingual education, and continue to promote fuzzy “new, new” math that drives parents crazy. Since the CTA compares teachers to doctors, one wonders if the union would be willing to allow malpractice suits against its members if its bill passes.

As the CTA bill is debated, Californians should be aware of the negative effect of collective bargaining on public education. My own organization, the Pacific Research Institute, has just released a study of school district collective bargaining in California. The study analyzed hundreds of teacher union contracts and found that all too often the unions have used collective bargaining to neuter school board authority, protect bad teachers, restrict principals, emphasize seniority over performance, and limit teacher evaluation and accountability.

If collective bargaining is part of the problem of educational quality in California, then the solution is probably not to expand its scope.

With a perspective, I’m Lance Izumi.

Lance Izumi is the Director of Center for School Reform at the California-based Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. He can be reached via email at lizumi@pacificresearch.org.