How Teachers’ Unions Influenced the Education Department’s Direction

Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, expressed her deep frustration over President Trump’s intention to eliminate the U.S. Education Department.

Her anger is understandable; both the AFT and its counterpart, the National Education Association, have benefited from the department’s consistent growth since 1980. Thus, proposals to dissolve it present a direct threat to the financial stability of both unions.

Each increment in educational funding from Washington bolsters union interests.

For numerous issues plaguing the American education landscape, unions often attribute the problems to a shortage of teachers, subsequently lobbying for increased taxpayer funding as a solution.

This cycle has repeated itself since the Education Department was established in 1980: Spending per student has progressively risen, schools have increased their hiring, yet challenges continue to exist.

Difficult economic conditions, like the 2009 recession or the COVID-19 crisis, have allowed unions to label any proposed budget cuts as detrimental to student achievement.

However, despite the increasing number of staff hired, achievement gaps persist.

Current test scores in mathematics and reading are at or approaching historic lows.

Nonetheless, unions have consistently influenced lawmakers to allocate more funds.

When schools closed early during the pandemic, for instance, unions highlighted teacher shortages, prompting federal legislators to authorize almost $190 billion for additional school funding.

Many administrators allocated this funding toward salary increases and signing bonuses for teachers who changed schools.

Now, districts have exhausted their temporary COVID relief funds, and unions are again signaling shortages — even though public school enrollments have declined since 2019, alongside stagnant achievement levels.

Additionally, many new hires are not teachers: The proportion of school administrators has surged over the last fifty years, with non-instructional staff increasing by about 700%, compared to 243% for classroom instructors.

The Education Department is tasked with executing federal education laws through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and distributing congressional appropriations to schools under these laws.

Every aspect of the law necessitates further spending and hiring, even when its initiatives fail to yield success.

For instance, research has shown that high-quality educators—those who significantly improve student outcomes—can greatly influence student success.

However, research does not provide a conclusive explanation of what makes an effective teacher.

Despite this, the AFT runs a “Professional Learning Program,” primarily supported by federal funding. Professional teacher development falls under Title II of ESSA, and the unions’ advocacy for increased funding has yielded $2 billion in 2020 alone.

At the same time, findings indicate that Title II programs are not effective in enhancing student achievement.

Dismantling the Education Department would help to terminate federal grants for union-favored initiatives, such as teacher training focused on “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

Last month, the Trump administration eliminated $600 million in such grants.

Moreover, the AFT asserts that DEI provides justification for extending its political influence beyond schools.

The union boasts about its collaboration with public pension funds, state treasurers, policymakers, and advocacy groups to “integrate racial justice.”

DEI is not solely a moral imperative for unions; it serves as a rallying point for increasing public spending both within and outside the education system, despite numerous surveys indicating that DEI efforts are ineffective in altering personal attitudes and behaviors.

The AFT has also pressed Congress to boost funding for Title I, the federal allocation aimed at assisting students in low-income areas, despite data showing that its programs — costing over $17 billion in the 2021-22 school year alone — do not improve student learning.

President Jimmy Carter established the Education Department more than 40 years ago as part of an agreement with teachers’ unions, who saw a financial windfall.

Eliminating the department would help break the cycle of shortages and unnecessary hiring, thereby reducing the opportunities that unions exploit to advocate for ever-increasing educational spending — and, in turn, their budgets.

Our four-decade experience shows that larger budgets for teachers’ unions do not correlate with improved student test scores.

It’s time to concentrate our educational resources on genuine improvements for America’s children, rather than on enhancing the financial status of union leaders.

Jonathan Butcher is the Will Skillman Senior Research Fellow in education policy at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.