Labor-Management Collaboration: Impact on Student Achievement

Saul Rubinstein

California Labor Management Initiative

May 9, 2015San Diego

Overview Identify Key Principles for Successful Union-

Management Collaborative Partnerships Link between Partnerships, Educator

Collaboration & Student Performance Impact of Partnerships on Union-Management

Relations Impact of Partnerships on Knowledge Transfer

and Adoption of Innovation Unions as Value-Adding Networks Policy Implications and State Initiatives

Create a Network of Educator Collaboration Across NJ and within Districts

Union-Management Partnerships and Educational Quality

An Approach to Public School Reform/Improvement based on:

District-level & School-level Union- Management Collaboration

Empowering Educator Collaboration in Schools Innovation from Educators Within Districts &

SchoolsFocus on Teaching and Learning

.

.

Taylor: Mass Production Industrial Model 1913-73

SManagement

Labor

Thinks

Does

Divide Complex Knowledge into Simple Parts

Create Narrow Standards for Each Part

Separate Classes of Employees: Thinkers & Doers

Invent Management for Division of Labor & Compliance

School Reform Necessitates a Shift from Mass Production Thinking & Organization

Mass Production Industrial/Factory System failed: Not responsive or flexible in face of global competition Lacked a focus on quality & customers Undervalued knowledge & contributions from workforce

We must reintegrate outdated industrial mass production division of labor that separates “thinking” and “doing”

Increased importance of all employees’ input: Voice, Participation, Expertise, Empowerment Quality of Decisions & Implementation

Employees not interchangeable parts – Professionals Team-based structures – Group vs. Individual Focus

Why Partnership?

Quality of Decisions People Closest to the Problem

Quantity of Solutions – More Resources Devoted to Improvement

Quality of Implementation – More Support Motivation through Voice

Full ParticipationPartial ParticipationPseudo Participation

Institution for Conflicting Interests: Collective Bargaining

U M

Institution for common interests?

Partnerships

U M

(Teaching Quality and Student Achievement)

Study of Long-term Collaborative Partnerships (Rubinstein & McCarthy 2011)

Urban and Rural, NEA and AFT, North and South, East and West, Wealthy and Poor

Sustained for More than 10 Years Culture of Union-Management Collaboration Recognition of Common Interests Focused on strategies to improve teaching and

learning Organizational Infrastructures: Input into

Planning, Problem Solving, Decision Making

Common Patterns around Four Themes:

Motivation to Collaborate

Strategic Priorities

Supportive System Infrastructure

Sustaining Factors

Motivating Collaboration: Crisis or Pivotal Event Recognition of common interests

Crisis is here now

Overcame obstacles or pivotal events/strike

Movement away from adversarial relationships

Looked for opportunities to do things differently for teachers and students

Focus on Strategic Priorities Emphasis on System Quality: Substantive

Problem Solving, Innovation, & Willingness to Experiment

Curriculum, Evaluation, Peer Assistance & Review, Mentoring, Professional Development, K-12 Articulation, Cross-Disciplinary Integration, Scheduling, New Teacher Orientation, Coaching, Teaching Academies, Textbook Selection, Instructional Practice, Technology Planning

Focus on Student Learning & Performance

Supportive System Infrastructure Embedded Culture of Collaboration & Inclusion Organization & Systems Change not a Program Collaborative Structures at District & School-levels

Joint Building-level Teams, School Improvement Committees, Leadership Teams, Grade-level & Department Teams

Shared Decision Making, Management & Effective Implementation

Joint Learning Opportunities Dense Internal Organizing by Partnership as a

Quality Network

Sustaining Factors

Community engagement Support from board of education Long-term strong leadership

Internal labor markets – promotion from within

Leadership development

Succession planning Support from national union Supportive contract language

Key Elements of Partnerships

Aligned Interests Culture of Collaboration Strategic Focus on Teaching and Learning Organizational Structures District & School-Levels Training & Capacity Building Strong Leadership, Development & Succession

Planning Community and School Board as Partners

Partnership as a Structure to Find Solutions and Implement Them

Tests Show Gaps but Not How to Fill Them

Partnerships are Based on Creating Solutions Focus on Organizational Systems Education System as a Collective Enterprise Not an

Individual Practice, and the Union is Central to the Network of Teachers

Improvement is Team-based not Individual Human Capital = Skills; Social Capital =

Relationships

Union-Management Partnerships as an Antecedents to Educator Collaboration

Partnerships are potential catalysts/antecedents to professional collaboration in public schools.

Partnerships build educator social capital.

How Unions Add Value: Create a positive climate for partnering with

administration. Natural networks that can foster collaboration

among members. Provide democratic representation that builds

trust. Create infrastructures with administrators for

problem solving and effective implementation.

Direct more resources toward Improvement Enhance communication & information Sharing.

Implications for Locals & Districts Engaging in Partnerships

Partnership as a vehicle, not an end in itself Management as a task not class of employees Balance representation and partnership

roles/management Rethinking Local Structures & Roles & Resources Mobilize & Internally Organize Members Capacity Building/Training: Collaboration, Problem

Identification, Joint Decision Making, Problem Solving, Planning, Implementation, Team Building

30 schools, 1100 Educators, 21,000 Students 46% of Students Qualify for Reduced/Free Lunch 25% of Students English Language Learners Long-term Union-Management Partnership California Academic Performance Index (API)

Data (2011-2012) Standardized Tests in Math, English, Social

Studies, Science Graduation & Drop Out Rates

School Climate/Partnership Survey (2011) Social Network Data (2011)

Social Capital vs. Human Capital

ABC Unified School District/ABC Federation of Teachers(Rubinstein & McCarthy 2014)

Statistically Significant: P< .01 Controls for SES Explains 54% of Variation in

API Improvement

Partnership and Performance

Statistically Significant Association between Partnership, API Performance in 2012 & Improvement Partnership Factor Can Account for 76 Points on

2012 API – Moving from 1(Low) to 4(High)

1% Decrease in Poverty Increases API by 2.23 Points – 223 Points Moving from 100% to 0

ABC has average Poverty rate of 45.5% (Free/Reduced Lunch), so Eliminating Poverty in District would Increase API by 101 Points

Partnership Quality Leads to Performance Improvement

Partnership Quality is Associated with Greater School Level Teacher Communications on:

Student Performance Data

Curriculum Development, Cross-Subject Integration or Grade-to-Grade Articulation

Sharing, Advising and Learning about Instructional Practices

Giving or Receiving Formal or Informal Mentoring

Partnership Quality and Density of School Communications

School Network Communication Density is Associated with Student Performance 2012 & Improvement from 2011 to 2012

Moving from a school communication density of 17% to 30% is associated with an increase of 9 API Points

Moving from a school communication density of 17% to 69% is associated with an increase of 36 API Points

Middle School with Density of 69%

Communication Frequencies: Union Building Reps and Principals by High and Low Partnership Schools

Communication Formality: Union Building Reps and Principals by High and Low Partnership Schools

Partnership as Organizational Network

Union as a Boundary-Spanning Network Sharing and Diffusing Knowledge & InnovationMcCarthy and Rubinstein (Working Paper 2014)

Unions & Partnerships as Boundary-Spanning Networks for Innovation

Teachers in Schools with Stronger Partnerships are More Likely to Know About & Implement Innovations from Other Schools

Unions Reps who are Better Connected to other Union Reps Facilitate this Knowledge Transfer

Knowledge Transfer Strongest when Partnership is Strong & Union Reps are Better Connected

Adds Value to Knowledge Transfer through their Contributions to Organizational Social Capital

Research Findings Formal Union-Management Partnerships

Improve Student Performance Including in High Poverty Schools

Partnerships Lead to More Extensive Collaboration between Teachers

More Extensive Teacher Collaboration Improves Student Performance

Partnerships Lead to More Frequent and More Informal Communication between Union Representatives and Principals

Partnerships are Institutional Networks for Information Sharing & Diffusing Innovation

Policy Implications Innovations will not diffuse, be sustained or

become institutionalized without widespread support from state and federal policy.

Incentivize collaborative approaches to:Evaluation, mentoring, professional

development, common core, peer assistance and review

Create waivers/mandate relief for collaborative reform efforts

Create incentives for pilot innovations

Policy Implications Need Institutional Support:

Learning Networks across districts interested in collaborative approaches linking experienced districts with inexperienced ones

State-level resources to build capacity: training, skill development, facilitation

Need state & regional conferences to demonstrate collaborative approaches to school improvement; provide technical support; & publicize examples/models of best practice

Research on innovation that works & share findings widely

State-Level Initiatives

Massachusetts Education Partnership Consortium for Educational Change – Illinois Labor-Management Initiative - California NJ Collaborative School Leadership Network

All Stakeholders: NJEA, AFTNJ, NJ School Boards Assn, NJ Assn School Administrators, NJ Principals Assn, State Assembly & Senate, Community, Rutgers, 20+ Districts

Need to Link these Initiatives for Mutual Support and Learning

Next Steps in Research

Expand Study to Include More Districts Looking at Teacher Outcomes (Turnover,

Transfers, Leaving Profession) Examine Patterns of Grade & Subject-level

Collaboration and Student Performance Examine Inter-school Networks and

Collaboration including Role of Union as Network in Facilitating Adoption of Innovation across Schools

Study State-level Collaborative Efforts

Questions/comments: saul.rubinstein@rutgers.edu