Home - Vermonters for Better Education Home - David Kirkpatrick's pages Index School Choice Articles

With all of the discussion of teacher unions, pro and con, little attention has been given to the independent groups. At the state level three of them, in Georgia, Texas and Missouri, are larger than the affiliates of either the National Education Association (NEA) or American Federation of Teachers (AFT). The Association of Texas Professional Educators (ATPE) is not only the largest in that state, and the largest such in the nation, but is still growing very rapidly. From the 75,000 members it had two and a half years ago, when I wrote a study of the independent groups, it has soared to more than 90,000 today and Doug Rogers, its Executive Director, said in late 1999 that they may hit 100,000 this year.

But if the state independent groups are little known, the local ones are virtually invisible. While Myron Lieberman refers to them as Local Only Teacher Unions (LOTUs), many would reject that designation because they do not regard themselves as, and do not act like, teacher unions, thus the LIEA designation here.

Most of them are found in Ohio and Indiana. The Akron Education Association, the largest of this group, and which does act as a union, was voluntarily unified with both the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and the NEA in the early 1970s but voted to become independent in 1976, after the NEA began requiring unified membership. Although its dues have been less than $150, compared to the $500-600 teachers may pay in total local-state-national dues in a unified group, its 2,000 members give it the funds to have two full-time officers and other advantages that come from a significant budget. Its president, Bill Seigferth, has said that, "a strong local has little need for the clout of the state and national union, and the clout of the state and national union can do little to help a weak local."

But independence is practical at a much smaller level. Ohio's Kent Education Association also has dues of only $150, which had remained unchanged for eight years at the time of my study. Like Akron it was a unified NEA affiliate until after that became required, becoming independent in 1981. Yet it has a sizable reserve legal defense fund and provides many services more economically than the unified associations. Where, for example, the NEA and probably spend a million dollars or more for their research divisions, the Kent EA rents computer services as needed from nearby Kent State University, reportedly spending as little as $200 a year for their occasional need for information. While the Akron EA may be correctly defined as a union, because it has gone on strike and requires non-members to pay an agency fee, the Kent EA does neither. Believing, like most independent associations, in voluntary membership, its president, Donna Hess, said "We get our members the old fashioned way; we earn them."

There are others in Ohio, such as in Solon, while in adjoining Indiana, a state with a lower total population, ten of its 200 school districts have independent local education groups.

There are several possible constituencies for such independence including, but not limited to, those who object to unions, to affiliation with the AFL-CIO, to industrial-type unions where cafeteria workers and other support staff are members along with teachers; to the social and/or political agendas of the NEA and AFT; to mandatory membership at any level; or to paying dues or $500 or more per year, especially when they realize that such high levels are not necessary in order to have an effective organization.

While Lieberman believes that "non-union teacher organizations will not be a significant presence unless they embrace collective bargaining or unless the teacher bargaining laws are repealed or amended," he suggests this applies mostly at the state level because he adds, "Local only teacher unions do not depend on such repeal or amendment, an enormously important strategic consideration." Independence, even if coupled with voluntary membership and rejection of union tactics such as the strike, does not preclude the local group from negotiating for its membership which, at least under the present public school system, is probably something that few teachers will want to avoid entirely.

Lieberman, and his colleague Charlene Haar, are currently seeking local teacher groups that would like to at least consider regaining their independence rather than being subject to mandatory unified membership, and resulting controls from the state or national level that leave them little options of their own. Their Education Policy Institute is as 4545 Connecticut Ave, NW, #628, Washington, DC 20008. The Institute also has a website: http://www.educationpolicy.org.

Toward that end, an increasing awareness of the existence of those who are already functioning successfully without affiliations is certainly a helpful, even necessary, first step. Another would be some linkage, however informal or unstructured, so the independent groups could be aware of each other's existence and share information. Effective independence does not, and should not, require isolation.

(Some of this is adapted from pages 26-27, of the much more extensive Alternative Teacher Organizations, which I prepared for the Reason Public Policy Institute, 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd, Suite 400, Los Angeles, CA 90034, (310) 391-2245, website: www.reason.org, and published by them as Policy Study 231, September 1997)