

Read more about Teaching
insight
Newsletter
Subscribe to Ed Post Insights, where we dig in weekly on a timely issue in the education sector.
In states that permit agency fees (there are about 20), a teacher may decline to be part of a union but must still pay those fees. If the Supreme Court rules that those agency fees are unconstitutional, and many teachers do not voluntarily pay, local unions will be deprived of resources needed to negotiate and enforce bargaining agreements.The issue is fairly straightforward. Should teachers have to pay dues to unions they do not necessarily choose to join? And further, should teachers benefit from the collective bargaining agreements unions fight for while not being a contributing member of said union? It is not the merits of the case itself that interest me at the moment. Rather, it was a strange assertion of Paige’s later in the piece that caught my attention. According to Paige, when so-called "education reformers" criticize unions as impediments to improving our nation’s education, what they are really saying is “if union power were minimized and collective bargaining rights weakened or eliminated, school leaders would be able to enact sweeping changes that could disrupt public education’s status quo.” Paige is wrong. As someone who would likely be labeled an "education reformer," I don’t want a weaker union; I want a stronger ally.
Subscribe to Ed Post Insights, where we dig in weekly on a timely issue in the education sector.