Skip to main content

Teacher union legitimacy: Shifting the moral center for member engagement

Journal of Educational Change volume 14, pages 465–500 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

This mixed-method case study explored teacher union members’ beliefs about the teacher union and their reasons for being active or inactive in the union. Findings suggest that teacher unions have gained pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy (Chaison and Bigelow in Unions and legitimacy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 2002), but that participants’ perceptions of the union’s moral legitimacy (Chaison and Bigelow in Unions and legitimacy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 2002) influenced their beliefs about the union. Specifically, participants’ beliefs about the union’s role in job protection, especially the protection of ineffective teachers, and social-professional supports (or lack of) strongly influenced their decisions to be active or inactive in the teacher union. These findings have implications for how effectively teacher unions are able to engage current members and sustain member engagement in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. The term professional community is defined by Bascia (1994) as member-defined conceptions of “we” and “they” within a “commonality based on mutual support of the same broad endeavor” (p. 7). Teachers within a professional community share a common identity based on a shared set of values, norms, and perspectives about the work they have in common and may even extend beyond work-related interests (Little 1993, 2003). This commonality may be based on identification with other teachers in the same department, school, or district, or on less formal factors based on issues, ideals, or values (Bascia 1994; Little 2003; Little and McLaughlin 1993).

  2. For this study, I defined the term traditional union, based on the literature, as a separation of labor and management within a hierarchical work structure (Kerchner and Caufman 1993; Koppich 2006) where labor and management engage in adversarial, win-lose concession-based negotiations and rely largely on political and public influence and threats of strikes or job actions to protect their interests—which typically include wages, benefits, working conditions, and job protection, as outlined in the collective bargaining agreement (Boyd et al. 2000; Hess and Kelly 2006; Kerchner and Caufman 1993; Koppich 2006). Traditional unions also typically lack the collaborative, shared leadership style of progressive or professional unions (Kerchner and Caufman 1993; Koppich 2006) and depend on active union members to engage in picketing, rallying, and strikes as public demonstrations of solidarity, strength, and power (Gaffney 2007; Kahlenberg 2006; Urban 1982).

  3. Political action was defined in the survey as engaging in one or more of the following activities: stuffing envelopes for political elections, making phone calls for political elections, union picketing or attending union rallies.

References

  • Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2011). The future of teaching in Alberta. Retrieved on May 5, 2012 from http://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Research-Updates/PD-86-20%20The%20Future%20of%20Teaching%20in%20Alberta.pdf.

  • Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2012). The new work of teaching: A case study of the worklife of Calgary public teachers. Retrieved on May 5, 2012 from http://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Research-Updates/pd-86-23%20New%20Work%20of%20Teaching%20-%20Calgary.pdf.

  • Bascia, N. (1994). Unions in teachers’ professional lives: Social, intellectual and practical concerns. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bascia, N. (2008). What teachers want from their unions. In M. Compton & L. Weiner (Eds.), The global assault on teaching, teachers, and their unions: Stories for resistance (pp. 95–108). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). New York: Pearson.

  • Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, W. L., Plank, D., & Sykes, G. (2000). Teacher unions in hard times. In T. Loveless (Ed.), Conflicting missions: Teacher unions and educational reform (pp. 174–210). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buras, K. L., et al. (2010). Pedagogy, policy, and the privatized city: Stories of dispossession and defiance from New Orleans. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, L. (2006). The educational value of democratic voice: A defense of collective bargaining in American education. In J. Hannaway & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 181–201). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaison, G., & Bigelow, B. (2002). Unions and legitimacy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission on Effective Teachers and Teaching. (2011).Transforming teaching: Connecting professional responsibility with student learning. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Retrieved on May 5, 2012 from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/Transformingteaching2012.pdf.

  • Compton, M. (2008). Interview with Thulas Nxesi, president of education international. In M. Compton & L. Weiner (Eds.), The global assault on teaching, teachers, and their unions: Stories for resistance (pp. 211–215). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compton, M., & Weiner, L. (2008). The global assault on teachers, teaching, and teacher unions. In M. Compton & L. Weiner (Eds.), The global assault on teaching, teachers, and their unions: Stories for resistance (pp. 3–9). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, B. S. (2000). An international perspective on teachers unions. In T. Loveless (Ed.), Conflicting missions: Teacher unions and educational reform (pp. 240–280). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaffney, D. (2007). Teachers united: The rise of New York State United Teachers. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldhaber, D. (2006). Are teachers unions good for students? In J. Hannaway & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 141–157). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

  • Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006, February). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2006). Scapegoat, albatross, or what? In J. Hannaway & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 53–87). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hypolito, A. M. (2008). Educational restructuring, democratic education, and teachers. In M. Compton & L. Weiner (Eds.), The global assault on teaching, teachers, and their unions: Stories for resistance (pp. 149–160). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. M. (1984). Teacher unions in schools. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. M. (1987). Can schools be reformed at the bargaining table? Teachers College Record, 89(2), 269–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. M. (2004). Paralysis or possibility: What do teacher unions and collective bargaining bring? In R. D. Henderson, W. J. Urban, & P. Wolman (Eds.), Teacher unions and education policy: Retrenchment or reform? (pp. 33–50). Boston: Elsevier JAI.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. M., & Kardos, S. M. (2000). Reform bargaining and school improvement. In T. Loveless (Ed.), Conflicting missions: Teacher unions and educational reform (pp. 7–46). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahlenberg, R. (2006). The history of collective bargaining among teachers. In J. Hannaway & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 7–25). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerchner, C. T., & Caufman, K. D. (1993). Building the airplane while it’s rolling down the runway. In C. T. Kerchner & J. E. Koppich (Eds.), A union of professionals: Labor relations and educational reform (pp. 1–24). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppich, J. E. (2006). The as-yet-unfulfilled promise of reform bargaining: Forging a better match between the labor relations system we have and the education system we want. In J. Hannaway & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 203–247). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppich, J. E., & Kerchner, C. T. (1999). Organizing the other half of teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 315–340). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M. (2000). The teacher unions: How they sabotage educational reform and why. San Francisco: Encounter Books.

  • Little, J. W. (1999). Organizing schools for teacher learning. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 233–262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913. Retrieved on February 23, 2010, from Platinum Periodicals (Document ID: 382835501).

  • Little, J. W., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannah, S., & Lewis, J. (2008). 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, L. (2000). Worker activism after successful union organizing. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, L. M., & Pascal, A. (1988). Teacher unions and educational reform. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moe, T. M. (2000). Teachers’ unions and the prospects for better schools. Palo Alto, CA: Hoover Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moe, T. M. (2006). Political control and the power of the agent. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 22, 1–29. Retrieved on November 29, 2006 from http://jleo.oxfordjournals.org.arugula.

  • Murphy, M. (1990). Blackboard unions: The AFT and the NEA 1900–1980. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Poole, W. (2001). The teacher unions’ role in 1990s educational reform: An organizational evolution perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 173–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popiel, K. (2010). Protection, voice, trust and change: An exploration of active and inactive teacher union decision-making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.

  • Rincones, R. (2008). The context of teachers’ democratic movements in Mexico. In M. Compton & L. Weiner (Eds.), The global assault on teaching, teachers, and their unions: Stories for resistance (pp. 217–220). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, S. L. (2008). “Remaking the world”: Neoliberalism and the transformation of education and teachers’ labor. In M. Compton & L. Weiner (Eds.), The global assault on teaching, teachers, and their unions: Stories for resistance (pp. 11–27). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Rousmaniere, K. (1997). City teachers: Teaching and school reform in historical perspective. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousmaniere, K. (2005). Citizen teacher: The life and leadership of Margaret Haley. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, T. (2004). Union democracy and successful campaigns: The dynamics of staff authority and worker participation in an organizing union. In R. Milkman & K. Voss (Eds.), Rebuilding labor: Organizing and organizers in the new union movement (pp. 62–87). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban, W. J. (1982). Why teachers organized. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban, W. (2000). Gender, race and the NEA. New York: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, L. (2008). Building the international movement we need: Why a consistent defense of democracy and equality is essential. In M. Compton & L. Weiner (Eds.), The global assault on teaching, teachers, and their unions: Stories for resistance (pp. 251–268). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weingarten, R. (2010, January 12). A new path forward: Four approaches to quality teaching and better schools. Speech delivered in Washington, DC. Retrieved on May 5, 2012 from http://aft.org/pdfs/press/sp_weingarten011210.pdf.

  • Yarrow, A. L. (2009). Teaching for a living: How teachers see the profession today. Retrieved on January 24, 2010 from http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/ teaching-a-living.

  • Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Kara Popiel

  2. Yonkers Federation of Teachers, Yonkers, NY, USA

    Kara Popiel

  3. 301 Birch Lane, Irvington, NY, 10533, USA

    Kara Popiel

Authors
  1. Kara Popiel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kara Popiel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Popiel, K. Teacher union legitimacy: Shifting the moral center for member engagement. J Educ Change 14, 465–500 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9208-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9208-7

Keywords

  • Moral legitimacy
  • Teacher activism
  • Teacher unions
  • Union legitimacy
  • Union protection