More union influence = more bureaucratic growth

There’s a strong positive relationship between union density and administrative expansion, suggesting that unions “may play a critical role in explaining the ‘educational bloat’ that now pervades schools in the United States,” according to a new report by Corey DeAngelis and Christos Makridis with the Educational Freedom Institute.

The report explores the relationship between unionization and staffing patterns and the role of unions on educational resource allocation. Pulling from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data and the American Community Survey (ACS), DeAngelis and Makridis analyzed unionization, the expansion of administrative and support roles (non-teachers), and demographic characteristics from 2006 to 2023 to determine “whether union-driven administrative growth reflects genuine educational needs or the concentrated benefits of union advocacy at the expense of other stakeholders.”

In the context of K-12 education, teachers’ unions have successfully influenced decisions about funding, staffing, and operations, shaping the landscape of public schooling in ways that go beyond classroom instruction.

For example, public school districts in areas with stronger teachers’ unions were significantly less likely to reopen for in-person instruction during the lockdowns, even when private schools and less-unionized districts resumed operations.
…
The role of teachers’ unions in shaping resource allocation is particularly important for thinking about the phenomenon of “educational bloat,” or the disproportionate growth of administrative staff relative to teaching staff. While unions ostensibly advocate for classroom-related priorities, their influence often extends to administrative roles, potentially driven by demands for compliance, oversight, or additional support staff to alleviate teacher workloads.

The study, after controlling for a wide array of local demographic and economic characteristics and year fixed effects, found statistically significant increases in the staff-to-student ratios where union density, particularly from teacher-specific unions, was higher, and that most of the increase in the ratios came from administrative (rather than instructional) support. DeAngelis and Makridis state that teacher unions’ specific bargaining power in securing additional resources is a key driver of staffing growth.

Our analysis shows that union density is strongly associated with higher staff-to-student ratios and a disproportionate allocation of resources toward administrative staff. Moreover, we document how union influence drives year-to-year staffing growth and explore the mitigating effect of right-to-work (RTW) laws on these patterns.

While the authors note that RTW laws “may not be a panacea,” the study’s findings highlight the potential of RTW laws to curb staffing growth and “offer a policy lever to rebalance resource allocation and encourage more efficient use of taxpayer funds.”

“Policymakers must consider the unintended consequences of union influence on staffing patterns and explore reforms that prioritize instructional quality over bureaucratic growth,” according to DeAngelis and Makridis.

As I wrote here, Minnesota has seen significant growth in administrative staffing over the years, even as public school enrollment declines. New and burdensome mandates from the state legislature have certainly contributed to this growth, but it still raises questions about resource allocation, and whether it is happening wisely, particularly considering it doesn’t appear to translate into improved student outcomes. Spending on E-12 public education is Minnesota’s biggest general fund expenditure, and is expected to push nearly 39 percent for the 2026-2027 biennium. Yet, academic performance remains stagnant.

It’s a nationwide problem, too. Public school spending and staffing have significantly increased over the past several decades, yet academic achievement is static and U.S. performance on international assessments is declining.

“One possible interpretation of these results is that unions exert considerable influence over staffing decisions, which may reflect priorities that are not fully aligned with the interests of students and families,” conclude DeAngelis and Makridis.

While unions advocate for increased educational resources, our findings suggest that these resources often support administrative expansion, rather than classroom instruction. This misalignment may be exacerbated by the limited accountability mechanisms in the current public education system where families face high
transaction costs to opt out of poorly performing schools. Future research should look at how these staffing decisions affect student outcomes, such as test scores and post-graduation earnings.

Staff-to-student ratio, by right-to-work status