A Progressive Policy Institute analysis found that states with stronger teachers’ unions were disproportionately represented among those with weaker early-literacy policies and reading performance, although researchers noted that union strength and partisan control alone do not explain the differences among states.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A new analysis from the Progressive Policy Institute has identified a relationship between the strength of teachers’ unions and states’ adoption of early-literacy reforms, with many of the states scoring lowest on reading policy measures also having influential education labor organizations.
Rachel Canter, PPI’s director of education policy, compared state teacher-union strength with the adoption of 18 early-literacy policies recommended by education reform organization ExcelinEd. According to a Fox News report, her analysis found that eight of the 10 states at the bottom of the literacy assessment had strong teachers’ unions, while only four states in the top 60% of the rankings had unions classified as strong.
The findings represent a correlation rather than proof that union strength causes lower reading performance. The pattern also contains notable exceptions, including states with strong unions that have performed comparatively well and states with weaker unions that have struggled.
Maryland, which has Democratic leadership and a strong teachers’ union, has posted stronger reading results, while South Dakota, a Republican-led state with less union influence, has struggled. Those differences indicate that labor strength and political control are among several factors affecting literacy outcomes.
Still, the broader pattern identified by Canter was substantial.
Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Indiana — states generally governed by Republicans and characterized in the analysis as having comparatively weaker teachers’ unions — were among the stronger performers on literacy policy and outcomes.
Maine, New York, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington and Rhode Island were among the weaker-performing states cited in the analysis.
Canter found additional differences when she examined the number of recommended literacy policies adopted by states. Democratic-led states had implemented an average of nine of the 18 policies she reviewed, while Republican and politically competitive states had adopted an average of 13.5.
Canter said the political influence of organized labor can make education reforms more difficult to implement in states where teachers’ unions have substantial power.
“Democrats, however, don’t often ask me how to replicate Mississippi’s success,” Canter said. “They ask if it’s possible at all, given the power of teachers’ unions in their home states.”
Her analysis argues that unions can influence not only legislation but how new policies are carried out inside classrooms. Changes involving teacher training, student testing, retention policies, instructional requirements and accountability can face resistance when educators or their representatives believe the measures impose excessive workloads or reduce professional discretion.
Mississippi has become one of the most frequently cited examples in the national debate over reading instruction.
Beginning more than a decade ago, the state introduced a collection of reforms rather than relying on a single change in curriculum.
Those measures included literacy screenings for students from kindergarten through third grade, reading coaches, individual intervention plans and a requirement that some third-graders who failed to demonstrate adequate reading proficiency be retained.
Mississippi also expanded training for teachers, strengthened licensing requirements and adopted structured, evidence-based reading instruction that emphasizes phonics and other components commonly associated with the “science of reading.”
Canter, who spent years advocating for education reforms in Mississippi before joining PPI, has argued that the state’s improvement resulted from sustained implementation of numerous policies rather than one isolated program. PPI’s earlier review of Mississippi described the gains as the result of nearly two decades of policy changes involving reading instruction, accountability, teacher support and early-childhood education.
Mississippi’s performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress improved substantially over that period. Canter has said the state moved from near the bottom nationally to among the stronger states in several tested subjects and grades by 2024.
An outside review by the National Education Policy Center agreed that Mississippi’s NAEP performance had improved but cautioned that some of the closing of the gap with other states also reflected declining national performance. The review examined several possible contributors, including accountability policies, reading instruction and instructional coaching.
Canter argues that the willingness to enact and consistently enforce those reforms distinguishes Mississippi and several other Southern states from jurisdictions that have moved more slowly.
“States dominated by Democrats have been slower to embrace similar reforms,” Canter said. “Organized labor might explain some of this gap.”
Teachers’ unions also play a significant role in electoral politics. Federal political-spending data have historically shown the National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers and related organizations directing substantially more money toward Democratic candidates and liberal political groups than toward Republicans and conservative organizations. A 2023-24 OpenSecrets summary, for example, classified the two largest national teachers’ unions as liberal-leaning and showed the overwhelming majority of their tracked political contributions and outside-group spending going to Democrats or liberal groups.
That political relationship has become part of the debate over why some states have adopted reading reforms more quickly than others.
Supporters of Mississippi-style policies argue that screening students early, training teachers in structured literacy, providing intensive intervention and requiring students to demonstrate reading proficiency before advancing can improve long-term academic outcomes.
Teachers’ unions and educators have at times objected to specific reforms on grounds that mandates can increase workloads, limit professional discretion or impose consequences on teachers and students without addressing other factors affecting academic performance.
The PPI analysis does not establish that political affiliation or union strength alone determines how well children learn to read. Instead, Canter’s findings identify a pattern in which states with weaker union influence have, on average, adopted more of the early-literacy measures she examined.
Multiple Southern states have since adopted policies modeled in part on Mississippi’s approach, including stronger phonics-based instruction, student screening, literacy coaching and intervention requirements.
Those states also make up a substantial share of the higher-performing jurisdictions identified in PPI’s analysis, while several states with stronger organized labor remain among those that have adopted fewer of the recommended reforms.
For Canter, the central question is whether states can reproduce Mississippi’s gains by combining evidence-based reading instruction with the broader accountability and implementation measures that accompanied it.
Her analysis suggests that political resistance, including opposition from organized labor, can influence how quickly those changes move from legislation into classrooms — while the exceptions among both Democratic- and Republican-led states show that no single political or labor factor determines student literacy results.
Original article
Comments