It is not surprising that teachers unions feel under siege today. They are facing criticism from both the political left and right. Some of the criticism comes from those who want to see teachers unions banished from the educational scene. But the unions' critics also increasingly include organizations involved in education reform that are otherwise strong supporters of organized labor, such as The Education Trust and the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights.

As Jane Hannaway and I noted in Collective Bargaining In Education, this increased attention to teachers unions is a consequence of the evolution of education policymaking. Today a rough consensus around standards, accountability, and public school choice options governs education policymaking, and policymakers are now turning their attention to more complicated subsurface education-reform issues such as teacher quality and intra-district school finance. And while the teachers unions surely are not to blame for all of our educational problems, they are the most powerful players in public education policymaking at the state and local level. So it is not surprising that they are the focus of greater attention from analysts across the ideological spectrum.  

The teachers unions frequently respond, "Well, what would you have us do differently if you don't just want us to go away?" It is a fair question. Critics ought to discuss the roles they see for teachers unions in an increasingly pluralistic public education system, where traditional school districts are just one provider of public education. Here are three ideas for new roles for teachers unions in such a system that offer ways they can add real value for students while moving away from today's adversarial and increasingly outdated model of bargaining.

First, unions need to continue to advocate on behalf of their members. Like other vocations, a professional voice on behalf of teachers is important and an atomized teacher workforce with no collective voice or leverage is not desirable. At the state and local level, that role obviously extends to attention to working conditions and ensuring that teachers receive due process protection and are treated fairly in any adverse employment action. But advocacy for teachers and protection of their basic interests is not synonymous with reflexively defending traditional collective bargaining provisions and teacher credentialing systems. It is possible to have union contracts that are more flexible but still protect the fundamental rights of teachers. And improving teacher preparation and modernizing licensure and credentialing is a national imperative.  

Second, there are services that teachers and school districts need today, and will continue to need in the future, that teachers unions might in fact be better positioned to provide than school districts. Teacher recruitment and professional development and induction for teachers are two examples. It is no secret that much of what passes for teacher professional development is scandalously vapid and demeaning to teachers. Who better to step in and fill that void than teachers unions? Likewise, school district human resource departments are notoriously problem-ridden. The New Teacher Project has shown how they contribute to staffing problems in urban schools. Teachers unions could establish job banks and serve as placement agencies, and thereby improve the quality of teacher recruits and build brand loyalty for the unions in the process.  

Third, why shouldn't teachers unions participate alongside the many other organizations that are running charter schools? The most fundamental service in public education is schooling itself. Initial teachers union forays into charter schooling did not fare well. In one high-profile example, an attempt by the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, to open several charter schools floundered several years ago. But this year the union in New York City, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), is opening two charter schools. Such initiatives can again build union brand loyalty and, more importantly, can help youngsters in underserved communities. Unfortunately, the initiative, led by UFT President Randi Weingarten, has been met by many UFT members and within the teachers union community with more skepticism—and, in some quarters, open hostility—than encouragement.   

That is unfortunate because Weingarten's charter initiative puts her union at the edge of where change is happening today. But the controversial nature of what she's doing illustrates how difficult change is in education. Yet all of the ideas above, and Weingarten's charter school initiative, focus on providing educational services of one kind or another. As America's public school districts move from being top-down, 20th century command-and-control organizations to being more networked and horizontal in their operations it is essential that they can access services they need. The future of today's established public education institutions depends on their willingness and ability to become high quality service providers rather than institutions that exist merely because of their formalized place in state and local statutes and policies.

The teachers unions must learn to separate friendly critics and reformers from their genuine foes. Some critics do wish to see unions severely curtailed or eliminated. Many others, however, merely believe substantial reform is necessary for public education to survive as an institution with broad public support, but would rather see reform happen with the teachers union rather than to them. When union activists paint all their critics with the same brush, they simply marginalize themselves in the education reform debate and bring more criticism on themselves. That is unfortunate because there is a vital role for teachers unions in 21st century public education, if only they would more vigorously embrace it.