Analysis: Act 10 curtailed union power, benefited students

The influence of teacher unions in Wisconsin was substantially restructured following the passage of Gov. Scott Walker’s 2011 Budget Repair Bill (commonly known as Act 10) — and students benefited, according to a recent paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research.

In “The Political Consequences of Controversial Education Reform: Lessons from Wisconsin’s Act 10,” researchers Barbara Biasi and Wayne Sandholtz found that the reform significantly raised student math test scores over time, and improvement was more pronounced for economically disadvantaged students. (Biasi and Sandholtz’s study isn’t the first to find positive benefits from Act 10 on student test scores.)

“In particular, we demonstrate that weakening the bargaining power of teacher unions and introducing pay flexibility for teachers led to important increases in student learning, especially among disadvantaged students…,” the authors note. “A possible explanation for this finding is that pay flexibility helped districts attract and retain high-quality teachers.”

Prior to Act 10, the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) negotiated between a district and union determined teacher salaries using rigid salary schedules based only on the number of years taught and educational attainment. Act 10 “prohibited collective bargaining over teachers’ salary schedules, giving school districts flexibility in setting individual teacher pay,” continue the authors. This allowed teacher pay to be based on other factors besides seniority and academic credentials, such as performance.

Changes in student math test scores since a union CBA expired

But opposition to Act 10 was — and still is — strong among teacher unions because it significantly reduced their power in the state. For one, unions are required to stand for annual recertification elections, which has restored workplace democracy (something that is a very limited idea in Minnesota).

Annual union recertification elections give teachers the right to vote for their representation in the upcoming collective bargaining for the school year. If teachers are not satisfied with the union, they can assess their exclusive representative relationship through a secret-ballot recertification election. Educators have a greater voice in the future of their union, and it creates greater accountability for unions. Unions cannot take members and their money for granted.

Union recertification legislation in Minnesota is something our state policymakers should seriously consider. Pending other changes, such as replacing the rigid “steps and lanes” salary system with a multiple-measure pay system, it would at least give educators the opportunity to evaluate the union and decide whether it is best meeting their needs.

Wouldn’t this result in better service for teachers and in turn better service for students, too?