The Negative Effects of Teacher Unionization on Long-Term Student Outcomes

Teacher unionization has long been a disputed topic in public education. Supporters argue that unionization leads to more equitable rights and labor standards for teachers, increased teacher productivity, and improved short-run outcomes for their students (Ravani 2014; Wydra 2018). Opponents point to the potential prioritization of teacher labor interests over the educational needs of students. This debate escalated with a recent strike led by the Chicago Teachers Union, which demanded city intervention to increase support staff positions in schools, reduce class sizes, offer greater housing supports for students experiencing housing instability, and more.

The unionization of teachers has continued to push the needle toward educational equity within our public and private education institutions, and the goal of the union’s strike was no different. However, the question remains: what were the costs to the 300,000 Chicago Public School students who were out of school until a final deal was reached (Wittich and Hendrickson 2019)? Michael Lovenheim and Alexander Willén recently authored one of the first comprehensive studies which may help us understand the unintended consequences of teacher labor actions and how the union’s strike may impact students across Chicago in the future (Lovenheim and Willén 2019). Using a wave of teacher duty-to-bargain laws passed between 1960 and 1987, the authors assessed the relationship between different levels of student exposure to teacher unionization and students’ long-term labor market outcomes, such as annual earnings, unemployment levels, and labor force participation.

The passage of duty-to-bargain laws provides a useful starting point of analysis, as most teacher unions were small and did not play a major role in contract negotiations on behalf of teachers or their students prior to 1960. Between 1960 and 1987, 33 states passed duty-to-bargain laws which required states to negotiate “in good faith” with teacher unions, greatly strengthening teachers’ ability to bargain for collective goals (Ibid.). To determine the long-term effects of these laws, Lovenheim and Willén observed the ten-year labor market outcomes for students exposed to duty-to-bargain laws at varying ages and compared them with the labor market outcomes for students in states which did not pass duty-to-bargain laws during this period (Ibid., 293). After ten years of exposure to duty-to-bargain laws, Lovenheim and Willén concluded that annual earnings for men decreased by $2,134, or almost 4%, and labor force participation declined by nearly 7% (Ibid., 304, 307).

While the study found negative effects of teacher unionization for men, it found minimal effects on earnings and labor force participation for women. The study did not find any significant effects of duty-to-bargain on other outcomes, such as unemployment or educational attainment levels, for either men or women (Ibid., 309). However, the authors found that the negative effects of teacher unionization were particularly pronounced for students of color. While the annual earnings of all men were reduced by nearly 4% ten years after exposure to duty-to-bargain laws, annual earnings for Black and Hispanic men decreased by nearly 10% (Ibid., 313). The magnified effects of teacher collective bargaining on students of color could have significant implications for Chicago, as nearly 85% of Chicago Public School students identify as Black or Hispanic (Chicago Public Schools, n.d.).

Lovenheim and Willén linked teacher collective bargaining with negative effects on students’ future labor market outcomes, particularly for men and people of color. However, the cost of teacher unionization for students–nearly $213 billion in annual earnings nationally (Ibid., 322)–often goes unaddressed at the negotiation table between localities and union executives. Despite these costs, this study does not call for the elimination of unions; rather, it highlights the need for urgency in negotiations not only for the sake of teachers and support staff, but most importantly, for students.

---

Lovenheim, Michael F., and Alexander Willén. 2019. “The Long-Run Effects of Teacher Collective Bargaining.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 11 (3): 292–324. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170570

Chicago Public Schools. n.d. “At-a-Glance CPS Stats and Facts.” Accessed October 20, 2019. https://cps.edu/About_CPS/At-a-glance/Pages/Stats_and_facts.aspx

Ravani, Gary. 2014. “Why Public Education Needs Teachers Unions.” EdSource. Accessed October 20, 2019. https://edsource.org/2014/why-public-education-needs-teachers-unions/65723

Wittich, Jake, and Matthew Hendrickson. 2019. “CTU Strike, Day 4: Talks to Continue, but Lightfoot Would Be ‘Surprised’ if Classes Resume Monday.” Chicago Sun-Times. last updated October 19, 2019. Accessed October 20, 2019. https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/10/19/20922231/chicago-teachers-strike-day-3-ctu-cps-labor-bargaining-contract-lightfoot

Wydra, Abigail. 2018. “Teachers’ Unions Improve Student Achievement: Insights from California Charter Schools.” Chicago Policy Review. https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2018/01/20/teachers-unions-improve-student-achievement-insights-from-california-charter-schools/