Labor-Management Collaboration: Impact on Student Achievement Saul Rubinstein

1. Labor-Management Collaboration: Impact on Student Achievement Saul Rubinstein California Labor Management Initiative May 9, 2015 San Diego

2. 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

3. Union-Management Partnershipsand 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 & Schools • Focus on Teaching and Learning

4. .

6. .

7. Taylor: Mass Production Industrial Model 1913-73 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 Management Thinks S Labor Does

8. 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• Lacked a focus on quality & customers • Undervalued knowledge & contributions from workforce • We must reintegrate outdated industrial mass production division of labor that separates “thinking” and “doing” • Increased importance of all employees’ input: • Voice, Participation,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

9. 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 Participation • Partial Participation • Pseudo Participation

10. Institution for Conflicting Interests: Collective Bargaining M U

11. Institution for common interests? Partnerships (Teaching Quality and Student Achievement) U M

12. 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

13. Common Patterns around Four Themes: • Motivation to Collaborate • Strategic Priorities • Supportive System Infrastructure • Sustaining Factors

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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

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

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

25. Partnershipand Performance Partnership Quality Leads to Performance Improvement • 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

26. 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

27. Partnership Quality and Density of School Communications

28. 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

29. Middle School with Density of 69%

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

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

32. Partnership as Organizational Network

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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. Next Steps in Research Questions/comments: saul.rubinstein@rutgers.edu 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