Teacher Unions

Teacher Unions
John McCollow, Independent Scholar

https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.201
Published online: 26 September 2017

Summary
Teacher unions (or alternatively “education unions”) are organizations formed to protect and advance the
collective interests of teachers and other education workers. What the collective interests of educators entail and
how they should be pursued have been and remain active matters for debate within these organizations. Different
unions at different times have responded differently to these questions, for example, in relation to the degree to
which an industrial versus a professional orientation should be adopted, and the degree to which a wider political
and social justice agenda should be embraced.

Several ideal-type models of teacher unionism have been identified, as well as various strategic options that these
unions might employ. A spirited debate is ongoing about the legitimacy and power of teacher unions. One
perspective portrays them as self-interested special interest groups, and another as social movements advocating
for public education. The status of teacher unions as stakeholders in educational policymaking is contested, and
union–government relations occur across a spectrum of arrangements ranging from those that encourage
negotiation to those characterized by confrontation and hostility.

Internationally, education unions face significant challenges in the early decades of the 21st century. Neoliberal
economic and industrial policies and legislation have eroded the capacity of unions to collectively organize and
bargain, and the global education reform movement (GERM) has created a hostile environment for education
unions and their members. Despite these challenges, education unions remain among the most important critics of
GERM and of global neoliberal social policy generally. The challenges posed and the strategies adopted play out
differently across the globe. There is evidence that at least some unions are now prepared to be far more flexible in
adopting a “tapestry” of strategies, to examine their internal organization, build alliances, and develop alternative
conceptions of the future of education. Researchers, however, have identified certain internal factors in many
teacher unions that pose significant obstacles to these tasks. Unions face difficult choices that could lead to
marginalization on the one hand or incorporation on the other.

Keywords: teacher unions, education unions, globalization and education, neoliberalism and education, education reform
and teachers, teaching conditions, teachers’ work

Subjects: Education, Change, and Development, Educational Politics and Policy, Globalization, Economics, and Education,
Education and Society

Page 1 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

Introduction

Teacher unions (or alternatively, “education unions”) are organizations formed to protect and
advance the collective interests of teachers and other education workers (and can include
members in noneducational roles and industries). Teacher unions are organized in a number of
ways at local, regional, and national levels. While union membership density varies considerably
across various locales, generally teacher union membership rates are among the highest union
membership rates in each of the countries in which they operate. As of 2016, 396 of these
organizations—representing some 32.5 million educators and support professionals in education
institutions from early childhood to university level in 171 countries and territories—were
1
affiliated with Education International (EI).

In many jurisdictions, there are several different organizations of teachers. These may compete
with each other for members, or they may divide membership by educational sector (e.g.,
primary/secondary/tertiary) or employer (e.g., public/religious/private), or in some cases (e.g.,
Fiji) along racial/ethnic lines. A multi-union context can have a significant influence on how
unions respond to philosophical, political, and strategic issues; in some cases, differences over
how these issues should be addressed form a key historical basis for the existence of different
2
unions.

“Models” of Teacher Unionism

3
On one level, “teachers are workers, teaching is work, and the school is a workplace.” However,
the status of teachers as employees is complicated by the fact that teaching is: located (primarily)
in the public sector; it is “white-collar work,” carried out by a majority female workforce, and
“knowledge work,” which has as its object the development in students of the “capacity for social
practice,” an objective that has both socially reproductive and emancipatory potential and which,
4
therefore, is subject to contestation. Despite a body of research on teachers’ work, the issues
5
arising from these “complications” have not to date been satisfactorily theorized. Similarly,
despite analyses drawing on various research paradigms (e.g., sociology, industrial relations,
labor history, economics, and political science), theorization of the nature and role of teacher
unions remains very much a work in progress.

Inevitably, writers about teacher unions adopt a normative position that is either sympathetic or
6
antagonistic to these organizations (whether or not this position is explicitly acknowledged).
This means that analysis is often combined with advocacy, for example, in defense of teacher
unions, in support of a particular model of teacher unionism, or, conversely, for greater
restrictions on their activities. The relatively recent work of Bascia and Stevenson—working on
their own or in collaboration with colleagues—is notable in that it considers both teachers’ work
and teacher unionism, combines theoretical and empirical dimensions, and adopts an
7
international perspective. While sympathetic to teacher unions, this work recognizes their
failures and limitations. Moe is a noteworthy leading exponent of the case against teacher
8
unions.

Page 2 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

What the collective interests of educators entail and how they should be pursued have been and
remain active questions and matters for debate within these organizations. Different unions at
different times have responded differently to these questions, for example, in relation to the
degree to which an industrial versus a professional orientation should be adopted, what the
nature of these agendas should be, and the degree to which a wider political and social justice
agenda should be embraced. They are human organizations—composed of individuals and groups
in differing circumstances, with different backgrounds and different priorities—shaped by
various internal and external historical, political, social, legislative, and economic factors that
vary across localities and time.

While teacher unions—particularly those operating independently of employer or state control—

in African, Asian, South American, and eastern European countries have a more recent genesis,
9
teacher unions in many Western countries can trace their origins to the late 19th century as
teaching became an activity conducted mainly under the supervision of public schooling systems
rather than individual schools.

When reformers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century created the
bureaucratic organizations that are the basis for today’s school systems, they drew upon
then-popular scientific management techniques and bureaucratic organizational models
to centralize decision making, specialize offices and staff roles, and develop rules
governing production . . . [resulting in] centralized, highly structured procedures and a
sequenced curriculum compatible with an assembly-line view of the educational
process . . . Within these school systems, educational administrators asserted their
authority over teachers by claiming special “scientific” expertise . . . Teacher bargaining
rights initially grew out of demands for protection from arbitrary or sexist treatment by
10
administrators.

This is not to say that remuneration was not also a motivator of collective organization. Writing
of the formation of Australian teacher unions in the 1880s, Spaull notes that, in addition to
grievances arising from highly centralized and bureaucratic structures, teachers were concerned
11
about a “decline in economic rewards’ of teaching.” The National Union of Teachers (NUT) in
England was established in 1870 (as the National Union of Elementary Teachers) in response to a
12
system of payment by results, which was both a remuneration and a control issue.

While some of these 19th-century organizations called themselves “unions,” most are more
accurately described as “collective associations,” since they rarely exhibited “unionate”
characteristics such as engagement in collective bargaining and industrial action, or
13
identification/affiliation with the broader labor movement or with a labor party. In Spaull’s apt
14
phrase, they made “use of some, though not all, of the methods of trade unions.” The methods
adopted differed from place to place. The NUT was arguably the most unionate, and by 1896 it was
15
able to stage a successful strike. In the main, however, 19th-century teacher organizations
confined remuneration-related activity to lobbying and concentrated mainly on expanding and
protecting the prerogatives of teachers by promoting the professional dimensions of teachers’
work.

Page 3 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

An important and long-standing debate within teacher unions is the degree to which
“professional issues” should provide a focus for union activity. Carter, Stevenson, and Passy
conclude that “the history of teacher unionism in many different contexts can be presented as the
struggle “to reconcile a commitment to ‘professional’ concerns with a similar commitment to
16
so-called ‘bread and butter’ concerns of pay and conditions.” In the United States, for example,
the long eschewal by the National Education Association (NEA) of industrial activity in favor of
involvement in educational and professional matters played a role in the establishment and
17
growth of the then more industrially oriented American Federation of Teachers (AFT). More
recently, teacher unions have often (simplistically and inaccurately) portrayed professional
18
concerns as “inseparable [from] and complementary [to]” the unions’ industrial agendas. The
adoption of a discourse of professionalism has been criticized as gendered, undermining rank-
and-file industrial activism, embedding a culture of educational and political conservatism and
accommodation, and inhibiting the development of links with other socially progressive
19
movements.

As Carter et al. observe, “discourses relating to teacher professionalism . . . not only change over
20
time, but . . . at any one time they are contested and challenged.” Notions of teacher
professionalism and their relationship to teachers’ status as employees continue to be
problematic issues for teacher unions.

In the second half of the 20th century, a focus on the improvement of members’ pay and
conditions using collective bargaining (made possible by changes to industrial legislation),
industrial campaigning, and strikes, in a manner consistent with other labor unions, became a
prominent feature of many teacher unions’ activities and in many instances delivered real
improvements in teachers’ remuneration, job security, and working conditions. Various writers
21
have identified this approach as an “industrial model” of teacher unionism. As noted by Moe,
the emergence of industrial teacher unionism in the United States coincided with significant
membership growth, and his research indicates that union collective bargaining for improved pay
22
and conditions is seen by members as the most important aspect of union activity. In certain
legislative regimes, however, industrial activity of this nature was and is severely constrained. A
report compiled for EI in 2013, which surveyed practices in nineteen countries, concluded that
“genuine collective bargaining in the sense of ‘joint regulation of employment terms following
voluntary negotiations between parties with equal bargaining rights’ is not widespread . . . for
23
teachers.”
24
The issue of collective bargaining alternatively excites passionate support and fierce criticism.
From one perspective, it provides an important avenue by which teachers can exercise some
influence on the work they do. From another perspective, collective bargaining in public schools
is seen as unaccountable to the general public and inherently inappropriate and harmful,
allowing teacher unions to exercise excessive influence in a public policy area, delivering
numerous inflexible rules and procedures, and adding considerable additional costs and
25
inefficiencies, making it “virtually impossible to get bad teachers out of the classroom” and
26
routinely being used to block necessary educational reform.

Page 4 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

Moe cites research conducted separately by Hoxby and himself to support his contention that
27
collective bargaining has a “large negative impact” on student achievement. He acknowledges
28
that other research on the matter is far less conclusive. As Battistoni points out, aside from
discounting a good deal of research evidence inconsistent with his own, Moe’s assessment of the
negative impact of collective bargaining pays insufficient heed to the myriad other factors at play
and is based on a very narrow definition of what “good schooling” entails (i.e., student results on
29
externally developed standardized tests).

Even among those sympathetic to teacher unions, there are criticisms of collective bargaining as
failing to recognize the professional and “caring” dimensions of teachers’ work and their desire
30
to exercise professional judgment. Bascia, following Carlson, describes it as a “compromise” in
which teachers are granted a voice in relation to salaries and conditions, while accepting their
exclusion from decision making related to curriculum, educational funding, and other managerial
31
matters. The effect, according to Weiner, is that teacher unions are made complicit with a
32
system that perpetuates educational inequality.

While Moe ascribes the rise of collective bargaining for teachers in the United States largely to the
33
effects of changes in labor laws (and provides data to support this contention), Koppich and
Callahan note that it was a response to a situation in which:

[w]ages of college-educated teachers were lagging substantially behind those of blue-

collar factory workers. In addition, teachers were chaffing under nearly uniformly poor
working conditions . . . School district officials were perceived as being arbitrary,
34
punitive, and politically motivated.

Collectively bargained agreements

created a modicum of fairness in a bureaucracy by applying equitable across-the-board

treatment, uniform policies and standardized procedures. And they protected teachers
35
from arbitrary and capricious actions of the employer.

These features of collective agreements remain. Whatever its shortcomings, the improvements
generated for teachers through collective bargaining and the inherent dangers of abandoning it
ensure its appeal to rank-and-file members and make a willing abandonment of it by teacher
unions a big ask. A survey of American teachers conducted by the Public Agenda Foundation
found that 81% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed with the following statement: “without
36
collective bargaining teachers’ salaries and working conditions would probably be worse.”
Another survey of American teachers conducted by Moe yielded a similar result: 81% of union
members in areas where collective bargaining was not allowed agreed that they would “like to see
37
collective bargaining adopted” in their area. Further, despite the criticisms, “union members
overwhelmingly believe that collective bargaining is either positive or neutral in its consequences
38
for public education.”

Page 5 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

Notwithstanding Moe’s view that teacher unions retain unparalleled power, since the 1980s
growing restrictions on union activity, combined with neoliberal education reforms, have created
a context in which the limitations of an industrial approach have become clearer and the
importance of developing a strong voice on professional and educational policy issues has been
39
recognized. As Weiner observes, the “post war compact” between capital, the state, and labor,
which allowed the industrial model to emerge and flourish, has been largely repudiated by capital
40
and the state.

The late president of the AFT, Albert Shanker, who had led the strike in 1960 that arguably
cemented the industrial approach as a mainstay of American teacher unionism, was an advocate
from the early 1980s for the proposition that teacher unions needed to acknowledge problems
within the schooling system and develop solutions to them. Kerchner and Mitchell, Kerchner and
Koppich, and Kerchner, Koppich, and Weeres developed a case for “professional unionism” as an
41
alternative to the industrial model. The Teacher Union Reform Network (TURN) was founded in
1995 and is a network AFT and NEA locals that seeks to “create new union models that can take
42
the lead in building and sustaining effective schools for all students.”

In the late 1990s, Bob Chase, then president of the largest American teacher union, the NEA,
championed a “new unionism” in which the NEA would not only engage critically with the
education reform movement but would become a champion of reform itself “by fundamentally
43
recreating . . . [the] NEA as the champion of quality teaching and quality public schools.” Bascia
characterizes this approach as entailing two key components: an attempt to build relationships
with powerful educational players and to capture the “moral high ground” in educational
44
debates.

While critical of the industrial model of teacher unionism, advocates of professional unionism did
not generally advocate the abandonment of industrial activity. For example, Chase argued that
45
the “traditional [industrial] agenda remains important.” However, in his view, “industrial-
46
style, adversarial tactics simply are not suited to the next stage of school reform.” Collective
bargaining, where practiced, would continue, but the style would shift from a positional
47
“winner-take-all” approach to an interest-based “win-win” approach.

The professional model of teacher unionism attracted criticism from both critics and supporters
of teacher unions. Moe, who calls it “reform unionism,” argues that it is “fanciful and
misguided” because it “is not rooted in a genuine understanding of union leadership and
48
organization.” In his view:

Its fatal flaw is that it assumes union leaders can be persuaded to ignore, or give short
shrift to, the bedrock occupational interests on which their organizations are based—
notably, teachers’ most primal concern for job security, wages, benefits, and rights and
49
prerogatives in the workplace—and leaders are never going to do that.

In Moe’s view, the rhetoric of union leaders in support of the professional model was
disingenuous. He describes Chase’s call for a “new unionism” as “little more than a self-
50
interested strategy designed by a public relations firm.”

Page 6 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

Others saw it as an “expression of weakness,” an accommodation of the neoliberal educational

reform agenda, and as moving “the balance dramatically [away from] member advocacy and
51
unionism.” Writing in 2015, Stevenson claimed that “this approach to teacher unionism retains
a purchase in some academic circles, but has gained relatively little traction outside of a number
52
of union locals in the United States.” This statement fails, however, to take into account the
experience of a number of unions, in Europe and South America for instance, which have
developed (in some cases over an extended period) procedures and mechanisms for participating
53
in the development and implementation of educational policy. These unions have arguably
developed models of professional teacher unionism that do not trace their provenance to debates
about the effects of a previous history of industrial activity and disputation.

A dichotomous view of industrial versus professional models of teacher unionism can be

misleading. Most teacher unions pursue both industrial and professional objectives. Bascia notes
the lack of research interest in unions’ work in the area of teacher professional development,
54
despite its being a common and significant feature of union activity.

The industrial model is often characterized as “adversarial” versus the “cooperative” approach
encouraged by the professional model. For Stevenson, however, both the traditional industrial
and the professional models of teacher unionism are “fundamentally conservative insofar as both
represented attempts to manage state-teacher relations within the constraints of the existing
55
economic and social system.”

Writers such as Peterson and Weiner argue that while the professional model of teacher unionism
correctly emphasizes the importance of professional and educational policy issues, it provides an
56
inadequate basis for teacher union reform. They make a case for “social movement
57
unionism,” which:

views itself as part of a broader movement for social progress rather than merely focused
on narrow self interest. It calls for participatory union membership, education reform to
serve all children, collaboration with community organizations, and a concern for
58
broader issues of equity.

The concept of social movement unionism has been developed in relation to labor unions
generally. It draws on the socialist notion of working-class activism—that workers’ struggles
should be seen in the context of wider struggles for social justice—in contrast to the narrow
“business unionism” that characterizes unionism in the United States; on Gramsci’s ideas of
59
“hegemonic” and “counterhegemonic” discourses ; and importantly on forms of union
organization in the Global South where unions have links to decolonization or liberation
60
movements. The key features of social movement unionism are the following: it is locally
focused and based; encourages collective actions that go beyond strikes or workplace activities;
builds alliances in the community and beyond; embraces emancipatory politics; and develops
61
transformative visions. It can be said to derive from the insights that “the origins of
62
collectivism [lie] in perceptions of injustice,” that these perceptions and the responses to them

Page 7 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

provide the basis for creating a union agenda, and that this agenda can extend to matters well
beyond the immediate worksite. There is a “linkage between workplace, civil society, the state
63
and global forces.”

In education, this approach is based on “grassroots organizing, community coalition building

64
and mobilization around an alternative vision of education.” Stevenson and Gilliland espouse a
teacher unionism based on a “new democratic professionalism” that does not seek to emulate the
exclusionary practices of “traditional” professions such as law and medicine, but is based on a
commitment to creating, re-creating, and demystifying teachers’ professional identities and
65
work, and building alliances with students, parents and the wider community. This involves
both engaging members in collective action and restructuring unions themselves to make them
66
less bureaucratic and more democratic.

A further feature of this model of unionism is a recognition of the effects of globalization and an
emphasis on building international solidarity. Many regional and national teacher unions,
individually or in cooperation with other organizations, are involved in work beyond the borders
of their respective countries to support education, teachers, and teacher organizations. Kuehn,
for example, describes the international work of the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation
(BCTF), which includes participation, along with U.S. and Mexican unions, in the Tri-national
Coalition in Defense of Public Education, set up in opposition to the North American Free Trade
67
Agreement (NAFTA). The Australian Education Union (AEU) operates an International Trust
68
Fund. The NUT in England publishes a quarterly newsletter reporting on its international
solidarity campaigns and activities, and organized an international conference on educational
69
reform in 2014. EI and its regional subgroups promote international solidarity through
campaigns and conferences. In 2016, EI cooperated with the Kenya National Union of Teachers
(KNUT) to produce an exposé of the activities in Kenya of Bridge International Academies, a
70
business that provides for-profit private schooling. These activities notwithstanding, it is
probably still the case, as the General Secretary of EI observed in 2001, that “most classroom
71
teachers in the North have never heard of EI.”

Social movement unionism as a model remains a project in need of considerable further

development.

Teacher Union Strategies

Carter, Stevenson, and Passy suggest that teacher union strategies can be classified under three
72
broad headings: rapprochement, resistance, or renewal. They acknowledge that such
classification “inevitably involves simplification” and that the categories are not “neat and tidy”
73
but involve “complexity and sometimes . . . contradictions.” Unions may deploy more than one
of these approaches over time or even simultaneously. Bascia suggests that unions employ a
74
“tapestry” of these strategies.

Page 8 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

Rapprochement strategies “go with the grain on the new educational agenda and seek to
75
maximize gains for their members within that.” In employing a strategy of rapprochement, a
union is not necessarily endorsing an educational reform but, rather, is making a pragmatic
decision that it is better to “have a seat at the table” where it can exercise some influence on the
extent and nature of the reform as it affects members. Teacher unions in Norway, Finland,
76
Belgium, and Sweden, for example, have had ongoing participation in education policy forums.
The “Teacher Accord” between teacher unions and the Australian government in the 1990s and
the “social partnership” between some teacher unions and the government in England in the first
77
decade of the 21st century are examples of less enduring arrangements. At the international
level, EI’s involvement with organizations such as the World Bank, UNESCO, the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the World Trade Organization (for
example, its co-sponsorship with the OECD of the annual International Summit on the Teaching
Profession) can be categorized as rapprochement.

A survey of seventeen teacher unions in sixteen countries carried out in 2012 on behalf of EI
indicates the limitations of rapprochement as a strategy. Only three unions characterized their
relationship with government as “highly positive”; three characterized it as “guardedly
78
positive”; nine as “mixed”; one as “hostile”; and one as “minimal.”

Resistance occurs where unions actively oppose and reject educational policy and reform, either
because of their potentially negative impacts on members’ pay or conditions, or on educational
grounds. Unlike in a rapprochement approach, where negotiation is the primary focus of activity,
the “repertories of action” utilized by unions that adopt a resistance approach can include
various forms of industrial action (legally sanctioned or unsanctioned) or legal/judicial
79
challenges to the reforms. Resistance as a strategy has some built-in limitations. While it can be
a powerful approach when utilized effectively, it requires a union to have sufficient “muscle” to
sustain an adversarial position. Social and economic change and neoliberal policies have in many
cases reduced the capacity of unions to wield this muscle. Further, resistance is an inherently
reactive strategy.

Renewal strategies involve unions examining and modifying their own aims, structures, and
practices in the light of emerging challenges. For example, a union may seek to take advantage of
a decentralization of decision making to empower workplace representatives and to invigorate
heretofore bureaucratic modes of operation. Renewal might also entail the proactive development
of policy agendas, rather than simply responding to government/employer agendas.

Tactics that can be pursued across all three strategic orientations include research production and
dissemination, media campaigns, engagement with other social groups and the public at large,
and donations to political parties—though the nature of these activities may vary depending on
80
the strategy they are designed to support. Workplace organizing can be a feature of both
resistance and renewal strategies, but it is less commonly associated with a rapprochement
strategy.

The strategic orientation of a union is determined by various factors internal and external to the
organization that can be ideological, political, and practical. A hostile political climate may render
rapprochement strategies unavailable, or, conversely, a climate in which the role of unions is

Page 9 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

acknowledged and facilitated, and which has delivered benefits to union members, may
encourage continued rapprochement between the union and the employer/state (and discourage
exploration of other options). Factors such as membership density and dispersion, the union’s
financial situation, its history of success and failure, and whether the union competes for
members with other unions may be key factors. In the English multi-union context, Stevenson
argues that strategic decisions have often been informed by “calculations of individual union
81
advantage” vis-à-vis other teacher unions (i.e., in relation to membership recruitment). The
largest South African teacher union, the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union (SADTU),
emerged during the struggles against apartheid and has embraced a broad social and political as
82
well as educational agenda. It has been described as a “trade union social movement.” The
second largest South African teacher union, the National Professional Teachers’ Association of
83
South Africa (NAPTOSA), has generally tended to focus primarily on professional issues.

The Perceived Legitimacy of Teacher Unions

Views on the legitimacy and power of teacher unions vary considerably. Factors contributing to—
or detracting from—teacher unions’ perceived legitimacy (and thus to the power and scope of
their influence) include: the legal and legislative framework within which they operate, which can
range from recognition and even encouragement of their role to severe restrictions on their role
and even their outlawing; public, media, and government attitudes to teacher unions (and to
unions generally); public, media, and government attitudes to public schooling and to teachers;
union community engagement; the extent and depth of coalitions that the unions have developed
with other activist groups; and membership density and activism.

There are two main—and opposing—perspectives on teacher unions. One perspective portrays
them as “special interests pursuing a self-interested agenda”; the other views them as
84
“encompassing social movements advocating for public education.” As noted by a number of
85
writers, in recent times the former view appears to be gaining traction: teacher unions have
86
increasingly been portrayed as “illegitimate, unprofessional, simplistic and selfish.”

The view that teacher unions are “encompassing social movements” must be said to express a
potential rather than an inherent characteristic. As noted by Carter, Stevenson, and Passy, “there
is nothing automatically ‘progressive’ about teacher union resistance and there are many
examples of teacher unions mobilizing powerful forces in support of sometimes reactionary
87
causes.” For example, Weiner argues that the AFT has “aligned itself with the right-wing of the
labor movement in regard to [support for American] foreign policy, supporting military
incursions from Vietnam onwards and the suppression of labor unions that appeared to be too
88
left-wing.” She also claims that “acceptance of systemic racism has been a part of the union’s
discourse and agenda,” arguing that “teacher unionism’s incapacity to name racism in schools—
89
and teaching—has had very destructive consequences.”

Even though Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right of all
workers to organize into trade unions, the legitimacy of teacher unions remains a matter of
contention. Moe, for example, portrays teacher unions (in the United States) as very powerful

Page 10 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

“special interest groups” that have successfully exercised “provider capture” of policy
90
determination and implementation at the expense of the interests of the general public. Their
involvement in collective bargaining, political campaigning, and other activities on behalf of their
members is harmful to education. In his view, they are not legitimate stakeholders in educational
policy development since they always put self-interest ahead of any other consideration. They
consistently act to slow down, subvert, or block necessary schooling reforms. His thesis is that
public education would be in a much better state if it were de-unionized. Moe’s focus is on
improvement of the (U.S.) schooling system; he is unconcerned about teachers’ pay and
conditions, which he apparently sees as irrelevant to educational quality and which he portrays as
91
much better than commonly thought.
92
Moe’s conclusions relating to teacher unions have been challenged. Bascia notes that “it is both
ironic and troubling that teacher unions’ traditional concerns about compensation and working
conditions are perceived . . . as ‘self-interested’ . . . when these factors are so clearly fundamental
93
to attracting and retaining individuals to teaching careers.” There are further criticisms of
Moe’s positions: notably, his depiction of institutional decision making is oversimplified and
categorical; he defines “teacher interests” very narrowly; he tends to let ideological preferences
influence his interpretation of data; he overestimates teacher union power and influence, while
failing to adequately account for the impact of other players and factors; he portrays neoliberal
educational reforms such as vouchers, increased standardized testing, merit pay, and charter
94
schools as unproblematically positive; and his position is antidemocratic. Importantly, Moe
ignores the ideological dimensions of teacher union opposition to his preferred education reform
agenda. As Casey (2012, p. 126) notes, teacher unions have a long-standing commitment to a
conception of education as a “public good, essential to the development of an educated citizenry
95
and to the democratic self-rule of that citizenry.” This stands in stark contrast to the market-
based assumptions informing the reforms Moe supports.

A not uncommon allegation pertaining to the legitimacy of teacher unions is that many members
96
are coerced into joining and/or are unsupportive of the agenda adopted by union leaders.
However, surveys of American teacher union members have shown that the overwhelming
majority describe their membership as voluntary and express support for the way in which their
97
union represents their interests. Moe comments: “whatever the unions may do in promoting
their special interests . . . these interests are the teachers’ own interests and the unions are
98
generally doing things that teachers want them to do.”

Bascia suggests that how teaching is conceived of as work influences how the role and legitimacy
of teacher unions are conceived. Where teaching is seen as primarily “technical work . . . [rather
than] as intellectual work,” the role of teacher unions is seen as exclusively industrial, and
99
attempts by them to participate in policy are seen as “insubordination or irrelevance.”

It is true that teacher interests do not necessarily coincide with student interests, but it is also
true that the quality of the learning environment and the morale of the teaching workforce have
significant implications for student learning. Teachers can play important roles in the
development of “evidence-based” policy in various ways, including the provision of: data;
practitioner perspectives on the design, resourcing, and implementation of interventions; and

Page 11 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

feedback on the effects of interventions. While “teacher professionalism” is a problematic

concept, it does capture a key aspiration of most classroom practitioners: their commitment to
100
making a positive difference in the lives of their students.

It can also be argued that social movement unionism provides a basis for teacher unions to move
beyond self-interest by specifically linking their agendas to wider struggles for social justice,
rather than simply assuming that what is good for teachers is good for students, or exploiting the
101
occasional opportunity to link self-interest and public interest.

Bascia notes that the agendas of teacher unions in relation to educational reform are no less
susceptible to wrongheadedness than those of other stakeholders and that a number of internal
102
and external factors can keep them from participating effectively as partners in reform.
Nevertheless, effective implementation of reforms in schools must involve the thoughtful
engagement of teachers exercising their professional responsibilities to critically examine and
improve their practices—otherwise, these reforms may “stop at the classroom door.” For
Stevenson and Gilliland: “Teacher unions . . . as the independent and democratic organizations
that represent teachers’ collective voice, are not only at the heart of a new democratic
professionalism, but must be central to both making the case for it and mobilizing teachers to
103
achieve it.”

The view of Stevenson and Gilliland notwithstanding, the status of teacher unions as
104
stakeholders in educational policymaking is “fragile and contested.” In some contexts, this
role has been accepted and recognized by governments; in others, such interventions have been
seen as outside of the purview of their role. Verger et al. depict union–government relations as
occurring across a spectrum of models, traditions, and legal frameworks ranging from those that
encourage “negotiation”—where “a non-imposing attitude by different stakeholders and a
regular forum for negotiation . . . are conducive to the adoption of consensual reforms”—to
“confrontational” frames—“characterized by overt conflict, the lack or absence of dialogue, and
105
the hostility of standpoints.” While “models of engagement can vary in the same country with
the passage of time and according to the ideology of government . . . these models usually enjoy
106
some level of continuity.”

Verger et al. note that, in relation to government privatization reforms, teacher unions are rarely
able to adopt an agenda-setting role; rather, they are relegated to a reactive and critical role. This
feeds into the public perception that they are inherently antagonistic to reform and affects their
107
perceived legitimacy and credibility. Similarly, Bascia notes that teacher unions have
sometimes reacted in kind when employers and governments have sought to portray their role as
exclusively industrial—as a means of rationalizing their exclusion from educational policy
forums—by “playing hard ball”: adopting aggressive industrial tactics, reinforcing the
perception that they prioritize industrial dimensions of teaching at the expense of its
108
professional and educational dimensions.

The framing of a teacher union’s campaign in the public arena can be an important factor
109
affecting its perceived legitimacy. Poole cites the example of a strike undertaken by the Nova
Scotia Teachers Union in 1995 that was strongly supported by both the membership and the

Page 12 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

public at large; she concluded that “the public supported the teachers’ cause . . . because the
110
issues went beyond teachers’ economic welfare.” Similarly, Johnston, in comparing successful
and unsuccessful teacher union campaigns against charter schooling in Kentucky and Oregon,
respectively, identifies the capacity of the union in the former state to frame a discourse that
111
connected with public concerns as a significant factor in the outcome. The disastrous Newark
teachers strike of 1971 demonstrated in stark terms the costs a teacher union incurred when it
112
alienated local community opinion.

Verger et al. report that “the inclusion of TUs [teacher unions] in the discussion of education
reforms is significantly linked to the likelihood of the TUs supporting and contributing to these
113
reforms and, consequently, to a more successful implementation.” Gindin and Finger argue
that, in some Latin American countries at least, teacher union cooperation with neoliberal
114
educational reforms, such as teacher incentive schemes, has resulted in better policies.
Similarly, Bascia and Osmond argue that “teacher union-government collaborative relations are
115
of significant value to attempts to improve educational quality.”

Where teacher unions have been involved in the policy development process, however, there has
been criticism that they have been coopted by the educational establishment. Poole sees this
cooption of unions to the cause of neoliberal reform as inherently in contradiction, and thus
116
damaging, to their role of representing the interests of their members. As Fairbrother et al.
note, management of the “twin risks of marginalization and incorporation” is a major ongoing
117
problem for unions. Young considers the decision of unions to embrace neoliberal educational
reforms (while attempting to reshape them) as an understandable and pragmatic strategy that
allows them to “maintain the different resource dimensions of their niche and, in doing so,
118
survive.” Bascia and Osmond identify three ways in which teacher unions attempt to balance
their advocacy roles with involvement in collaborative policy development: identifying issues of
mutual interest to teachers and governments; augmenting or extending government reforms;
and engaging in parallel development and implementation of government-initiated and union-
119
initiated reforms.

The Challenge of Neoliberalism

Internationally, teacher unions face significant challenges in the early decades of the 21st
century. Over thirty years of neoliberal social, economic, and educational polity have increased
the stakes of debates about the nature and role of teacher unions. Neoliberal reforms have
reduced the capacity of teacher unions to organize, significantly changed the conditions under
which teachers are employed and work, and altered the nature of the schooling received by
students.

While acknowledging that, as a project, it is “neither seamless or undifferentiated,” Fairbrother

et al. describe neoliberalism as entailing a repudiation of a mixed economy in favor of a more
robust “free-market” capitalism, encouraging marketized and international economic and
120
financial arrangements, and reshaping government policies toward these ends.

Page 13 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

While the adoption of neoliberal policies has seen a dramatic reduction in the membership
density of unions in the private sector in liberal market economies, in terms of membership
121
teacher unions have tended to fare much better. However, teacher unions have not been
unaffected. Teacher salaries and conditions have suffered, and, as is the case for other trade
unions, the economic and industrial policies and legislation arising from neoliberalism have
eroded the capacity of unions to collectively organize and bargain. Further, a key goal is to recast
public institutions—such as schooling—on a market basis. This can include the introduction of
competition, outsourcing, structural devolution, and privatization. Further, in the delivery of
public services, economic considerations such as achieving fiscal savings and increasing
productivity are to be prioritized. Employment within the public sector is less secure, and the
scope of industrial relations is restricted to promote individual over collective decision making
and foster greater flexibility. The latter goal can include marginalization of trade unions.

Governments have often sought to portray the imposition of neoliberal reforms as a “necessary
122
and nondiscretionary” response to globalization. An important element of the appeal of
neoliberal reforms is their capacity to be portrayed as ideologically neutral technocratic solutions
123
to various problems. In fact, neoliberalism’s commitment to the market values and its
subordination of social democratic ideals are deeply ideological.

The manifestation of neoliberalism specific to education has been called the global education
124
reform movement or GERM. GERM has promoted, among other things, fiscal discipline in
education funding, a focus on the economic role of education, competition, choice, accountability
(including through high-stakes testing), corporate-style managerialism, marketization, and
125
privatization. The GERM agenda is being strongly pushed by venture capitalists, corporations,
corporate-connected philanthropies, and international financial organizations such as the World
Bank and International Monetary Fund (which make its adoption a precondition for assistance to
“developing” countries). It has been widely adopted by a range of governments of various
political persuasions.

The effects of GERM on teachers have included casualization of employment, work

intensification, and increased levels of scrutiny, governance, and control that have “stripped
126
[teaching] of its pedagogical richness and complexity.” These reforms reduce working
127
conditions and introduce vulnerability, “heterogeneity,” and fragmentation into the teaching
workforce that undermine unions’ capacity to collectively organize and bargain. As evidenced by
Moe, marginalizing the voice of the teaching profession in the development of education policy is
128
often an explicit aim.

The GERM has been criticized for its adverse and destabilizing effects on educational provision of
its emphasis on defunding and restructuring schooling; its emphasis on schooling as a tradable
commodity and marginalization or exclusion of its broader civic, cultural, democratic, and
emancipatory dimensions; its support for corporate rather than democratic modes of operation;
the increased social, economic, and cultural segregation arising from its market-based policies;
and its prioritization of that which is directly and easily measurable and the consequent
narrowing of the curriculum (i.e., an emphasis on literacy, numeracy, and science to the
129
detriment of other curriculum areas) and standardization of educational practices.

Page 14 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

While neoliberalism presents considerable challenges for teacher unions, it is also true that
teacher unions have been among the most important critics of GERM and of neoliberal social
130
policy generally. The challenges posed and the strategies adopted play out differently across
131
the globe, but engagement in educational policy debate is now generally a key feature of teacher
union activity. To date, teacher union policy work has largely been confined to critiquing
neoliberal reform in education. Attempts to formulate alternative visions of education that are
more than defenses of the status quo, such as Evers and Kneyber’s or MacBeath’s explorations of
132
possible futures for the teaching profession, are at this stage rare. Even in the absence of a
coherent alternative to GERM, however, teacher unions’ defense of “teachers’ autonomy and the
space this creates in schools for critical thought and for ideas of social justice” offers hope for a
133
better future.

Conclusion

Debates about the nature and role of teacher unions will continue. The future of teacher unions is
by no means assured. Social and economic changes—in particular, industrial and educational
changes wrought as a part of the ascendancy of neoliberalism—pose significant challenges. An
important part of the GERM agenda will increasingly be to delegitimize and disempower teacher
unions, a development that some commentators would see as not a bad one.

To survive and thrive in the face of these external challenges will demand adept responses and
organizational change. There is evidence that at least some unions are now prepared to be far
more flexible in adopting a “tapestry” of strategies, to examine their internal organization, to
134
build alliances, and to develop alternative conceptions of the future of education. Researchers,
however, have identified internal factors in many teacher unions that pose significant obstacles
135
to these tasks. Many teachers cling to relatively traditional views of their profession and union,
established unions are prone to hierarchical, bureaucratic structures that make bottom-up
renewal difficult, and all unions face difficult choices that could one day lead to marginalization
on the one hand or incorporation on the other.

For those concerned about building alternatives to GERM, securing the continued existence,
renewal, and strength of teacher unions presents as an important part of that project.

Select Bibliography
Bascia, N. (Ed.). (2015). Teacher unions in public education: Politics, history, and the future. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Carter, B., Stevenson, H., & Passy, R. (2010). Industrial relations in education: Transforming the school workforce. New
York: Routledge.

Compton, M., & Weiner, L. (Eds.) The global assault on teaching, teachers and their unions: Stories for resistance (pp.
177–191). New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

Page 15 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (2003). Stand by me: What teachers really think about unions, merit pay, and other
professional matters. New York: Public Agenda Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.publicagenda.org/files/
stand_by_me.pdf <http://www.publicagenda.org/files/stand_by_me.pdf>.

Kerchner, C., Koppich, J., & Weeres, J. (1997). United mind workers: Unions and teaching in the knowledge society. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moe, T. M. (2011). Special interest: Teachers unions and America’s public schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution.

Peterson, B., & Charney, M. (Eds.) (1999). Transforming teacher unions: Fighting for better schools and social justice.
Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.

Weiner, L. (2012). The future of our schools: Teachers unions and social justice. New York: Haymarket Books.

Notes

1. Education International (n.d.). Website. Retrieved from https://www.ei-ie.org/en/ <https://www.ei-ie.org/en/>. EI

membership is generally available only to “national organizations composed predominantly of teachers and
education employees” (EI website, emphasis added). Not all national teacher unions are affiliated with EI, and there
are, of course, significant local and regional teacher organizations that are not in themselves eligible for EI
membership—though they may be affiliated with a national organization that is.

2. See discussions below of the multi-union contexts of the United States, England, and South Africa.

3. R. Connell, Teachers’ work (Sydney, Australia: George Allen & Unwin, 1985), 69.

4. R. Connell, Transformative labour: Theorizing the politics of teachers’ work. In M. Ginsburg (Ed.), The politics of
educator’s work and lives (pp. 91–114) (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995), 97.

5. A. Reid, Understanding teachers’ work: Is there still a place for labour process theory? British Journal of Sociology of
Education (November 2003), 24(5), 559–573.

6. For the record, the author is sympathetic to teacher unions.

7. See, for example: N. Bascia, The next steps in teacher union and reform. Contemporary Education (Summer 1998),
69(4), 210–213; N. Bascia, Triage or tapestry? Teacher unions’ work toward improving teacher quality in an era of
systemic reform: A research report (Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington, June 2003).
Retrieved from http://www.education.uw.edu/ctp/sites/default/files/ctpmail/PDFs/TriageTapestry-
NB-06-2003.pdf <http://www.education.uw.edu/ctp/sites/default/files/ctpmail/PDFs/TriageTapestry-NB-06-2003.pdf>;
N. Bascia & P. Osmond, Teacher union governmental relations in the context of educational reform (Brussels: Education
International, 2013). Retrieved from https://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/Teacher_Union_Study.pdf <https://
download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/Teacher_Union_Study.pdf>; H. Stevenson, Restructuring teachers’ work and trade
union responses in England: Bargaining for change? American Educational Research Journal (2007), 44(2), 224–251; B.
Carter, H. Stevenson, & R. Passy, Industrial relations in education: Transforming the school workforce (New York:
Routledge, 2010); and H. Stevenson, Teacher unionism in changing times: Is this the real “new unionism”? Journal of
School Choice (2015), 9(4), 604–625,

Page 16 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

8. See, for example: T. Moe, Collective bargaining and the performance of the public schools. American Journal of
Political Science (January 2009), 53(1), 156–174; and T. M. Moe, Special interest: Teachers unions and America’s public
schools (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2011).

9. Synott (p. 81) gives the following dates for the establishment of teacher unions: USA—1857; England—1870; Greece
—1872; New Zealand—1883; Australia—1889; Canada—1890; to which might be added Denmark—1874; Scotland—
1847; Finland—1893. J. Synott, Some recent developments in international teacher union studies. New Horizons in
Education (November 2002), 107, 78–90.

10. N. Bascia, Perspectives on teacher unions: History, discourse, and renewal. In N. Bascia (Ed.), Teacher unions in
public education: Politics, history, and the future (1–8) (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 2–3.

11. A. Spaull, The origins and formation of teachers’ unions in nineteenth century Australia. Melbourne Studies in
Education (1984), 26(1), 134–168, 146.

12. National Union of Teachers (NUT). Website, NUT history page (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.teachers.org.uk/
members-reps/your-union/about-the-nut/nut-history <https://www.teachers.org.uk/members-reps/your-union/about-
the-nut/nut-history>.

13. R. Blackburn & K. Prandy, White-collar unionization: A conceptual framework. British Journal of Sociology (1965),
16(2), 111–122.

14. Spaull (1984), 137.

15. NUT (n.d.).

16. Carter et al. (2010), 12.

17. M. Murphy, Blackboard unions: The AFT and the NEA, 1900–1980 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991).

18. Carter et al. (2010), 12.

19. See, for example, Murphy; and L. Weiner, The future of our schools: Teachers unions and social justice (New York:
Haymarket Books, 2012).

20. Carter et al. (2010), 8.

21. Bascia (1998); B. Peterson, Survival and justice: Rethinking teacher union strategy. In B. Peterson & M. Charney
(Eds.), Transforming teacher unions: Fighting for better schools and social justice (pp. 11–19) (Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking
Schools, 1999); Stevenson (2015). The “industrial model” of teacher unionism and the alternative “professional” and
“social justice” models discussed subsequently are, of course, ideal types rather than empirical depictions.

22. Moe (2011).

23. N. Wintour, Study on trends in freedom of association and collective bargaining in the education sector since the
financial crisis, 2008–2013 (Brussels: Education International, 2013).

24. W. J. Urban, Collective bargaining. In T. C. Hunt, J. C. Carper, T. J. Lasley, & C. D. Raisch (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
educational reform and dissent (pp. 179–180) (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2010a); and J. E. Koppich & M. A. Callahan,
Teacher collective bargaining: What we know and what we need to know. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, D. N. Plank, & T. G.
Ford (Eds.), Handbook of educational research (pp. 296–306), American Educational Research Association (New York:
Routledge, 2009).

25. Moe (2011), 205.

Page 17 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

26. Moe (2011). See also M. Lieberman, The teacher unions: How the NEA and AFT sabotage reform and hold students,
parents, and taxpayers hostage to bureaucracy (New York: The Free Press, 1997); P. Brimelow, The worm in the apple:
How the teacher unions are destroying American education (New York: HarperCollins, 2003).

27. Moe (2011), 211–212; Moe (2009); C. M. Hoxby, How teachers’ unions affect education production. Quarterly Journal
of Economics (August 1996), 111(3), 671–718.

28. Moe (2011), 209–211.

29. R. M. Battistoni, Review symposium: Teachers unions and public education. Perspectives on Politics (March 2012),
10(1), 122–123.

30. Koppich & Callahan (2009); and Weiner (2012).

31. N. Bascia, Pushing on the paradigm: Research on teachers’ organizations as policy actors. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider,
D. N. Plank, & T. G. Ford (Eds.), Handbook of educational research (785–792). American Educational Research
Association. (New York: Routledge, 2009), 788.

32. L. Weiner, Reimagining and remaking education: Remarks to the NUT—Teacher Solidarity. In G. Little (Ed.), (2015).
Global education “reform”: Building resistance and solidarity (pp. 113–119). Manifesto Press (ebook), 115. Retrieved
from http://www.periglobal.org/sites/periglobal.org/files/Global%20Education%20Reform.pdf <http://
www.periglobal.org/sites/periglobal.org/files/Global%20Education%20Reform.pdf>.

33. Moe (2011).

34. Koppich & Callahan (2009), 298.

35. Koppich & Callahan (2009), 299.

36. S. Farkas, J. Johnson, & A. Duffett, Stand by me: What teachers really think about unions, merit pay, and other
professional matters (New York: Public Agenda Foundation, 2003), 17. Retrieved from http://www.publicagenda.org/
files/stand_by_me.pdf <http://www.publicagenda.org/files/stand_by_me.pdf>.

37. Moe (2011), 76.

38. Moe (2011), 80.

39. See, for example, Bascia (1998).

40. Weiner (2015), 116.

41. C. Kerchner & D. Mitchell, The changing idea of a teachers’ union (Lewes, DEL: Falmer Press, 1988); C. Kerchner & J.
Koppich, A union of professionals: Labor relations and educational reform (New York: Teachers College Press, 1993);
and C. Kerchner, J. Koppich, & J. Weeres, United mind workers: Unions and teaching in the knowledge society (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997).

42. Teacher Union Reform Network (TURN) (n.d.). Website. Retrieved from http://turnweb.org/ <http://turnweb.org/>.

43. B. Chase, The new NEA: Reinventing the teachers unions for a new era. Address to the National Press Club,
Washington, DC, February 5, 1997. Retrieved from http://www.eiaonline.com/ChaseNewUnionism1997.pdf <http://
www.eiaonline.com/ChaseNewUnionism1997.pdf>.

44. Bascia (1998), 211.

45. Chase (1997), 2–3.

46. Chase (1997), 2–3.

Page 18 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

47. Koppich & Callahan (2009).

48. Moe (2011), 244.

49. Moe (2011), 244.

50. Moe (2011, 248.

51. Teacher unionism: Bob Chase is attacked. Rethinking Schools (Summer 1997), 11(4). Retrieved from http://
www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/union/unltr.shtml <http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/
union/unltr.shtml>.

52. Stevenson (2015), 609.

53. See, for example: Bascia & Osmond (2013); D. Vaillant, Education reforms and teachers’ unions: Avenues for action
(Paris: UNESCO—International Institute for Educational Planning, 2005). Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0014/001410/141028e.pdf <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001410/141028e.pdf>; J. Gindin, & L.
Finger, Promoting education quality: The role of teachers’ unions in Latin America. Paper commissioned for the EFA
Global Monitoring Report 2013/4, Teaching and learning: Achieving quality for all (Paris: UNESCO, 2013). Retrieved
from http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/lesliefinger/files/gindin_and_finger_2013.pdf <http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/
lesliefinger/files/gindin_and_finger_2013.pdf>.

54. Bascia (2003), 25. She notes that teacher unions have sometimes stepped up to provide professional development
in contexts where access to employer-provided or funded development is limited.

55. Stevenson (2015), 609.

56. Peterson (1999); Weiner (2015); Weiner (2012).

57. Peterson (1999) calls it “social justice unionism.”

58. Peterson (1999), 11.

59. Stevenson (2015).

60. Unlike the “industrial” and “professional” models of teacher unionism, which draw almost exclusively on
experiences in North America and the United Kingdom. Links with liberation movements have not proved
unproblematic. In South Africa, for example, the ongoing links between the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union
(SADTU) and the African National Congress (ANC) became strained once the ANC assumed government and initiated
policies (such as neoliberal education reforms) with which SADTU disagreed. See S. Mannah & J. Lewis, South African
teachers and social movements old and new. In M. Compton & L. Weiner (Eds.), The global assault on teaching,
teachers and their unions: Stories for resistance (pp. 177–191). (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).

61. P. Fairbrother, Social movement unionism or trade unions as social movements. Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal (2008), 20(3), 214.

62. J. Kelly, Rethinking industrial relations: Mobilization, collectivization and long waves (London: Routledge, 1998), 2.

63. Lambert, quoted in Fairbrother (2008), 215.

64. G. Little & H. Stevenson, From resistance to renewal: The emergence of social movement unionism in England. In
G. Little (Ed.), 87.

65. H. Stevenson, & A. Gilliland, The teachers’ voice: Teacher unions at the heart of a new democratic professionalism.
In J. Evers & R. Kneyber (Eds.), Flip the system: Changing education from the ground up (Abingdon, Oxon, U.K.:
Routledge, 2016) (in association with Education International).

Page 19 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

66. Stevenson (2015), 610.

67. I. Kuehn, Teacher solidarity across borders is essential in response to the impact of neo-liberal globalization. In G.
Little (Ed.), pp. 33–40.

68. Australian Education Union (AEU) (n.d.). Website, international page. Retrieved from http://
www.aeufederal.org.au/our-work/international <http://www.aeufederal.org.au/our-work/international>.

69. NUT (n.d.) Website, international news page. Retrieved from https://www.teachers.org.uk/international/
news <https://www.teachers.org.uk/international/news>; G. Little (Ed.), (2015).

70. Education International (EI) and Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT), Bridge vs. reality: A study of Bridge
International Academies for-profit schooling in Kenya (Brussels: Education International, 2016). Retrieved from: https://
download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/Bridge%20vs%20Reality_GR%20Report.pdf <https://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/
WebDepot/Bridge%20vs%20Reality_GR%20Report.pdf>. Bridge also operates in Uganda, Nigeria and India.

71. Van Leeuwen, quoted in Weiner (2012), 167.

72. Carter et al. (2010). See also L. M. McDonnell & A. Pascal, Teacher unions and educational reform (Washington, DC:
RAND Corporation, 1988). McDonnell and Pascal classify union options as “resistance,” “accommodation,” or
“shaping.”

73. Carter et al. (2010), 13–14.

74. Bascia (2003), 16.

75. Carter et al. (2010), 14.

76. Bascia & Osmond (2013).

77. Bascia & Osmond (2013).

78. Bascia & Osmond (2013), 33.

79. A. Verger, C. Fontdevila, & A. Zancajo, The privatization of education: A political economy of global education reform
(New York: Teachers College Press, 2016), 164.

80. Verger et al. (2016), 165–166.

81. Stevenson (2015), 616. See also M. Compton, British teacher unions and the Blair government: Anatomy of an
abusive relationship. In Compton & Weiner (2008), 237–249.

82. S. Mannah & J. Lewis, South African teachers and social movements old and new. In Compton and Weiner (2008),
177–191.

83. H. Samuel, A history of the search for teacher unity in South Africa. In Compton and Weiner (2008), 227–235.

84. Gindin & Finger (2013), 3.

85. For example: Bascia & Osmond (2013); Gindin & Finger (2013); T. V. Young, Teachers unions in turbulent times:
Maintaining their niche, Peabody Journal of Education (2011), 86(3), 338–351.

86. Verger et al. (2016), 171.

87. Carter et al. (2010), 14.

88. Weiner (2012), 91.

Page 20 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

89. Weiner (2012), 92. Books that examine American teacher unions and issues of race include W. Urban, Gender, race
and the National Education Association: Professionalism and its limitations (New York: Routledge Falmer, 2000); J. E.
Podair, The strike that changed New York: Blacks, whites and the Ocean Hill-Brownsville crisis (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2002); J. Perrillo, Uncivil rights: Teachers, unions and race in the battle for school equity (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2012); and S. Golin, The Newark teacher strike: Hopes on the line (New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press, 2002).

90. Moe (2011).

91. Moe (2011), see pp. 155–173 in particular.

92. For example: Battistoni (2012); R. D. Kahlenberg, Bipartisan, but unfounded: The assault on teachers’ unions.
American Educator (Winter 2011–2012), 14–18; and P. Frymer, Review symposium: Teachers unions and public
education. Perspectives on Politics (March 2012), 10(1), 124–126.

93. Bascia (2003), 23.

94. As Bascia (2003, pp. 27–28) notes, making unquestioned compliance with externally determined policy directions a
criterion for determining fitness for participation in educational policy forums is a perverse and counterproductive
assumption.

95. L. Casey, Review symposium: Teachers unions and public education. Perspectives on Politics (March 2012), 10(1),
March 2012), 126.

96. Kahlenberg (2011); Casey (2012).

97. Farkas et al. (2003); Moe (2011).

98. Moe (2011), 69, emphasis in the original.

99. Bascia (2003), 29.

100. Teachers who are in the game for the money and fame have made a serious miscalculation.

101. See Weiner (2012), 104.

102. Bascia (2003).

103. Stevenson & Gilliland (2016), 109.

104. Verger et al. (2016), 158.

105. Verger et al. (2016), 160. Carter et al. (2010, 12) remind us that there are still places in the world where ‘activism
within a teachers’ union is an act of courage and defiance that risks harassment, intimidation, and even
assassination’.

106. Verger et al. (2016), 160.

107. Verger et al. (2016), 175.

108. Bascia (2009), 787.

109. Verger et al. (2016), 168–169.

110. W. L. Poole, The teacher unions’ role in 1990s educational reform: An organizational evolution perspective.
Educational Administration Quarterly (April 2001), 37(2), 186.

111. J. B. Johnston, Resisting charters: A comparative policy development analysis of Washington and Kentucky,
2002–2012. Sociology of Education (2014), 87(4), 223–240.
Page 21 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

112. Golin (2002).

113. Verger et al. (2016), 159.

114. J. Gindin & L. Finger (2013). Promoting education quality: The role of teachers’ unions in Latin America. Paper
commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/4, Teaching and learning: Achieving quality for all. Paris:
UNESCO. Retrieved from http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/lesliefinger/files/gindin_and_finger_2013.pdf <http://
scholar.harvard.edu/files/lesliefinger/files/gindin_and_finger_2013.pdf>.

115. Bascia & Osmond (2013), 7.

116. Poole (2001).

117. P. Fairbrother, J. O’Brien, A. Junor, M. O’Donnell, & G. Williams, Unions and globalization: Governments,
management, and the state at work (New York: Routledge, 2012), 13.

118. Young (2011), 349.

119. Bascia & Osmond (2013), 6.

120. Fairbrother et al. (2012), 3–4, 19–22.

121. J. Kelly, Trade union membership and power in comparative perspective. The Economic and Labour Relations
Review (2015), 26(4), 526–544.

122. Fairbrother et al. (2012), 9.

123. Fairbrother et al. (2012), 22–28. This is, for example, how Moe (2011) treats neoliberal education reforms.

124. P. Sahlberg, Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? (New York: Teachers
College Press, 2011).

125. F. Rizvi & B. Lingard, Globalizing educational policy (London: Routledge, 2010); and B. Lingard, W. Martino, G.
Rezai-Rashti, & S. Sellar, Globalizing educational accountabilities (New York: Routledge, 2016).

126. Stevenson and Gilliland (2016), p. 108.

127. Verger et al. (2016), p. 167.

128. Moe (2011).

129. Sahlberg (2011); Rizvi & Lingard (2010).

130. Verger et al. (2016).

131. Compare, for example, the situation in Myanmar where a fledgling union with coverage of less than 4% of
teachers struggle to survive in a country with little experience of democratic governance or collective organization of
workers, to that of Finland, where teachers are more than 95% unionized and are well-respected professionals whose
place in education decision making is recognized.

132. J. Evers & R. Kneyber (Eds.), (2016). Flip the system: Changing education from the ground up, Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge (in association with Education International); and J. MacBeath, Future of teaching profession (Brussels:
Education International Research Institute, 2012). Retrieved from https://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/
EI%20Study%20on%20the%20Future%20of%20Teaching%20Profession.pdf <https://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/
WebDepot/EI%20Study%20on%20the%20Future%20of%20Teaching%20Profession.pdf>.

133. Weiner (2012), 21.

134. See, for example: Bascia & Osmond (2013); Bascia (2015); Little (2015).
Page 22 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023
Teacher Unions

135. See, for example: Weiner (2012).

Related Articles
Urban School Reform in the United States

Globalization and Education

Teacher Activism in the U.S.

Postwar School Reforms in Norway

Page 23 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 11 February 2023