By Dennis Sparks

Journal of Staff Development, Spring 2000 (Vol. 21, No. 2)

(Editor's Note: A biography of Julia Koppich follows at the end of this article.)

JSD: In United Mind Workers, you and your co-authors point out that teachers’ unions have an unprecedented opportunity to be something different than what they have been in the past.

You wrote, "We argue here that the task of unionism is not simply in sustaining the existing institution through political protection or confidence-building public relations, but in constructing a successor to industrial education." What is the successor that unions must help construct?

Koppich: We know that large, bureaucratic school districts issuing edicts to schools isn’t very successful. We know that schools in which a single person tries to make all the important decisions doesn’t work well. We’ve learned from both experience and research that we need to find better and more productive ways to use and value teacher expertise and to create settings focused on student achievement rather than adult comfort.

While I’m not saying that students in charter schools perform better than those in other public schools, I think their size and the fact that they put decision making in the hands of people who are closest to students teaches us something about the ways in which other public schools could be organized. Schools must have the authority to make fundamental decisions about staffing and about the allocation of resources. Only then can they reasonably be held accountable for student achievement.

This brings us to unions. Ninety percent of public school teachers in this country belong either to the National Education Association or the American Federation of Teachers. This gives teachers and their unions an unprecedented opportunity to shape what education reform looks like, what the successors to industrial education and industrial unionism look like, and to play a significant role with school systems and parents in making high student achievement a reality. And in recent years we’ve seen the leaders of both the NEA and the AFT increase the attention they’ve given to, and the importance they’ve placed on, improving student learning.

JSD: How do you respond to people who say unions ought to focus on traditional issues such as salary, benefits, and working conditions, and that mechanisms other than collective bargaining should be used to improve schools?

Koppich: A near exclusive focus on compensation and working conditions was appropriate for unions in the 1960s and ’70s. It’s the historic gains in traditional areas which have allowed teachers and their unions to focus today on issues of student achievement. What teacher unions did early on was to pave the way for this new era of unionism, an era in which improving student learning is part and parcel of what unions are about.

When people talk about collective bargaining, they have in mind an industrial notion of bargaining. Remember, when teachers adopted collective bargaining as their organizing strategy, they were transferring the only model they had – collective bargaining in the industrial workplace – to the schoolhouse setting. But that was then and this is now.

Just as many industrial unions have evolved to a different kind of unionism, with workplace teams, shared decision making, and even union officials sitting on corporate boards, so, too, are teacher unions evolving a different kind of collective bargaining and a different kind of unionism more suited to the expectations and demands of education today. The next version, or the next evolution, of collective bargaining can be whatever teacher unions and their school district counterparts want it to be.

JSD: In United Mind Workers, you and your co-authors wrote, "In education, it is the system that is broken, not the teachers. Rethinking teaching work is the toughest challenge of all."

Koppich: It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about huge school districts like Los Angeles or New York or small school districts, their organizational structure is pretty much the same. Since 1983 when A Nation at Risk was released, we’ve gone through three phases of reform. The first phase, from 1983 to 1988, was an intensification of doing things the way we’ve always done them. Achievement would improve, people thought, if we did things faster and harder and with more scrutiny by the state.

From the late 1980s with the publication of the Carnegie report, Teachers for the 21st Century through the mid-1990s, the focus was on improving salary, modestly increasing teachers’ decision-making authority, and paying more attention to professional development, even though it was usually the wrong kind of professional development. Now, we’ve finally figured out that to fundamentally improve student achievement we have to focus on teaching and how it’s organized. The public agrees. A 1998 Harris poll found that 90 percent of Americans believed that the most important factor in improving student achievement is having a well-qualified teacher in every classroom.

Teaching isn’t what it used to be, or at least what we used to think it was – work that could be done by anyone with little training or preparation. There was an assumption, based on the so-called process-product research of the 1970s, that all kids would learn if we just equipped teachers with a pre-identified and identical set of teaching behaviors and skills that they could use with any group.

We know now, largely from brain research, that this assumption is fatally flawed. Students learn at different rates and in different ways. Teachers must be able to diagnose student needs, provide appropriate interventions, and understand how each child learns. This takes an enormous amount of skill and knowledge. We know teachers must be well versed in the subject matter they teach and the methods they use to teach those subjects. We also know that teachers must understand how people learn and have a wide-ranging repertoire of instructional strategies from which they can choose, based on the needs of their students.

What all of this means is that those who say students aren’t achieving because teachers are not competent have either misdiagnosed the problem or are attempting to find a simple solution to a complex issue. When we changed the expectations for students – when we made high achievement for all students the sine qua non of education reform – we changed the expectations for teachers and teaching as well. Improving student achievement will require, at a minimum, conducting teacher preparation differently, providing different kinds of staff development than are now the norm, and thinking very differently about the nature of teaching.

JSD: What is the union’s role in creating the kind of teaching that you describe in United Mind Workers – more complex, less isolated, and explicitly connected to knowledge generation?

Koppich: As I indicated, good teachers know their subjects well and can adjust their teaching to their students’ learning needs. They also work with their colleagues; they don’t just go into their classrooms and close the door. They participate in good professional development structured around building subject-matter knowledge and subject-based pedagogy. They talk with their colleagues about instructional strategies. They make decisions based on what’s in the best interest of their students.

Unions have an enormous role to play here. First, the message they send is important. If the NEA and AFT send the message to their members that, as union members, their most important function is helping students do better academically, that alone will begin to make a difference. It gives permission to teachers and their local unions to expand their focus from simple bread-and-butter issues to issues more central to the teaching profession.

Teachers want their students to succeed. They are constantly looking for help and support, but they don’t always get it from their school districts. They could get it from their unions. Unions, for example, could also take a role in offering good and useful professional development. They could work with colleges and universities to restructure teacher education. And they could become more aggressive about advocating for non-traditional union approaches, such as moving important decisions to school sites, differentiated staffing in situations where that makes sense, and new ways of compensating teachers.

JSD: Turning back to your book again, you wrote, "Ultimately, rethinking teaching will require changes in time, money – and most important – beliefs. Teaching as we know it and unionism as we know it are belief systems, codified and carried by law and tradition but belief systems nonetheless." Where will the time and money be found and how can those belief systems regarding time, money, and unions be changed?

Koppich: Providing time and money will require a fundamental commitment by policymakers, the public, and by teachers and their unions to the quality of teaching. We need to think much more carefully about how to restructure the school calendar and teachers’ daily schedules. Teachers should work a 12-month calendar with a month’s vacation. That doesn’t mean teachers ought to be in the classroom for 11 months of the year. The additional time could be spent, for example, working with colleagues to analyze student work and develop collaborative strategies to help students meet academic standards. And teachers would have time for professional development – the right kind of professional development designed to answer the question: What do we need to know more about and know how to do better in order to boost student learning?

We also, I think, need to let go of the notion that in order for students to be educated there must be a certified teacher in front of those students every minute of every day. I say that with some trepidation because I’m in California where 10 percent of the teaching staff have little or no preparation for teaching. That’s not what I’m advocating.

But I do believe that it’s possible for teachers’ roles to be changed so that they supervise a group of adults with some training and experience who assume some classroom responsibilities, thus freeing up teacher time for activities such as curric-ulum development, professional development, and working with colleagues.

What kinds of people am I talking about? Maybe college students who want to become teachers but would like a little classroom experience before they decide. Maybe teacher aides who’ve worked in classrooms for some time and have the appropriate knowledge. These are adults who have not earned the right to be called teachers but who do have worthwhile contributions to make in classrooms. In United Mind Workers, we call this creating a career ladder with teaching at the top.

In sum, I think we need the political will to change. We also need to think critically and strategically about the extent to which traditional structures help or hinder the kinds of improvements we want to see. And then we need to be unafraid to act on what we learn.

JSD: How do districtwide contracts need to be changed to reflect the kinds of things you’re talking about?

Koppich: Districtwide contracts have served a useful purpose. When unions and districts first began to negotiate contracts in the late 1960s and into the ’70s, it was often the first time the union and school board specified in writing salaries, benefits, class size, transfer procedures, and teachers’ due process rights. Not surprisingly, districtwide contracts supported, and continue to support, centralized decision making. After all, in most districts, money continues to be allocated from the district office, staffing is done by someone in the district office, and professional development decisions are made by somebody in the district office.

But if we are to see improvements in student achievement, we must move decision making authority to the school site. Teachers and principals should make decisions about matters such as class size, how money is spent, who’s assigned to the school and under what circumstance, and how instructional time is organized. That means changing the nature of the collective bargaining contract.

We suggest in United Mind Workers that districts and unions need to develop a slender district-level contract which includes, for example, mutually agreed-upon measurable student achievement goals, a quality review process for low-performing schools, a salary schedule that compensates teachers for knowledge and skills, a system of peer review of teacher practice, and a minimum school year calendar. Most other matters, including how money is allocated, what the complement of staff is, how the school is organized for teaching and learning, and what kind of professional development is needed would be decided at the school site. These decisions should be made by teachers and principals based on their knowledge and understanding of what it will take to improve student achievement. If we’re serious about holding schools accountable for achievement, then we must give them the tools and resources they need and the right to make their own decisions.

JSD: What do all of these structural innovations look like in practice?

Koppich: We have some examples, but only a few, or at least only a few of which I’m aware. Let me first say that no district or local union has yet totally embraced the notion of a slender district-level contract with more expansive school decision making. A few places may soon move in that direction with AFT President Sandra Feldman’s advocacy for streamlining contracts. But we’re not there yet.

Nonetheless, we do have a number of good examples of teacher unions and their districts developing and implementing programs that certainly move us down the road I’ve been describing. For instance, the teachers’ contract in Minneapolis focuses very intensely on improving student achievement and describes the responsibilities of the district, the school, and individual teachers. The contract places heavy emphasis on ongoing professional development. And Minneapolis has rethought teacher tenure so that tenure is something teachers must earn through a rigorous process of peer review of classroom practice and development of a professional portfolio.

Several districts – Toledo, Cincinnati, and Columbus, Ohio; Poway in suburban San Diego County in California; and Mt. Diablo, a suburban district in the San Francisco area, to name just a few – have implemented comprehensive peer assistance and review programs. These combine professional development and evaluation, and provide support and evaluation for beginning teachers, professional development often in lieu of the classic administrator evaluation for experienced teachers whose practice is not in question, and assistance culminating in evaluation for permanent teachers who are in professional jeopardy. These systems tend to be much tougher, much more rigorous than what passes for teacher evaluation in most school districts.

Some unions and districts have also begun to rethink teacher compensation. Rather than paying teachers for time on the job and college credits accrued, these districts are working to develop new salary schedules that will pay teachers for knowledge and skill, or pay them based on agreed-upon measures of improved student achievement. Seattle, Denver, and Cincinnati are among the districts involved in this effort.

Some unions have tackled head-on the issue of low-performing schools. Cincinnati and Minneapolis, for example, have provisions in their contracts to provide intensive assistance to these schools and, yes, even to close them – or in Minneapolis’ words, ‘’fresh start’’ them – if necessary.

The United Federation of Teachers, the AFT affiliate in New York City, is focusing a great deal of attention and considerable resources on union-offered professional development. The UFT also has recently announced that it will take on the task of developing curriculum guides for teachers that are aligned with state standards.

The contract between the Seattle Education Association and the Seattle school district moves to schools most of its money and the discretion to decide how it will be spent. And Hammond, Ind., has long had an essentially non-expiring contract. In other words, the contract doesn’t end after two or three years, thus initiating another round of full-blown negotiations, but instead continues for a decade with, of course, opportunities to make mid-course corrections along the way. The contract thus becomes more of a living document rather than a static set of rules and regulations.

So there are some very bold things going on out there. Many, perhaps most, are focused on improving teacher quality to improve student achievement. And all of the examples I’ve cited were either initiated by the union or came about as a result of a close partnership between the union and the district.

JSD: Many people perceive unions, at least their local unions, as being more concerned about wages, benefits, and self-protection than about kids. When a union becomes serious about playing a new role in school reform, how does it alter this perception?

Koppich: We’re a bit schizophrenic in this country. If you look at public opinion polls, people are quite supportive of unions. They believe workers need the kinds of supports and protection that unions historically have provided. But there is also a very anti-union mentality in this country. From this perspective, unions are seen as intractable, regressive, and generally impeding progress.

Teacher unions have made some inroads in terms of the public view of what they are and what they do, but it’s slow going. If we think back to Albert Shanker, the late president of the AFT, we see a man who was viewed for many years as a hot-headed unionist. And he was. But, in the 1980s, he saw that things were changing, which gave the union a chance to grab onto some issues that people were concerned about. Shanker evolved into a statesman and a potent spokesperson for education reform. NEA President Bob Chase and AFT President Sandra Feldman also have become important spokespersons for this new view of what unions should do.

What should unions do? Unions must provide leadership in building coalitions in which unions are seen as supportive forces for the right kinds of change. They must build partnerships with people who are their natural allies, including community groups and parents. Union leaders must argue intelligently and cogently for programs that make sense for students and against those that are not good for students.

The forces that would like to destroy public education are not going away. They’re articulate, vocal, well organized, and they have money. Teacher unions, it seems to me, have two options. They can take the next step in union evolution and become the organizations that are credited with helping to bring about a newly-effective and revitalized public system of schooling. Or they can advocate for the status quo and find that, when the history of this era is written, they stood in the way of progress and served as unwitting accomplices to those who would end public education. I’m betting they choose the first option.

Position: President of Julia E. Koppich and Associates, a San Francisco-based education consulting firm.

Education: B.A. in political science from the University of California at Davis and a M.A. and Ph.D. in educational administration and policy analysis from the University of California at Berkeley.

Professional history: She taught in the San Francisco Unified School District and later became staff director for the San Francisco Federation of Teachers. She was on the faculty of the Graduate School of Education at the University of California at Berkeley, director of Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) at UC-Berkeley, and has been a visiting scholar at the Claremont Graduate University. She also has held the O’Leary Chair in fiscal management at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Consultant: She has been a consultant to the U.S. Department of Education, the National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, National Governors’ Association, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy (at the University of Washington).

Specialization: Her areas of specialization include education policy analysis, teacher education and the teaching career, and public sector labor relations.

Books: She is the author of numerous articles and two books: A Union of Professionals (with Charles Kerchner) (Teacher College Press, 1993) and United Mind Workers: Unions and Teaching in the Knowledge Society (with Charles Kerchner and Joseph Weeres) (Jossey-Bass, 1997).

To continue the conversation with Julia E. Koppich, write her at 1474 11th Ave., San Francisco, CA 94122, (415) 661-8102.