I must take issue with the opinion piece submitted by Ari Ioannides that appeared in the Feb. 22-25 edition of The Park Record. In the commentary, Ioannides expresses his support for the recently passed Utah H.B. 267, which prohibits collective bargaining by public employee unions. This bill affects teachers, firefighters, police,and other public employees.
Mr. Ioannides claims public funds shouldn’t be used to support unions’ administrative operations. Mr. Ioannides needs to clarify this statement as the Utah teachers’ union, Utah Education Association, is reportedly funded solely by union dues, money raised by their political action committee, and voluntary contributions. Also, Mr. Ioannides focuses on the role of collective bargaining for wages performed by unions. In addition to compensation, collective bargaining advocates for working conditions, benefits, disciplinary procedures, retirement and health benefits, and more.
In my view, Mr. Ioannides has misused a scholarly piece by E. Jason Baron entitled Union Reform, Performance Pay, and New Teacher Supply: Evidence from Wisconsin’s Act 10 to bolster his argument.
I hold an earned doctorate in education with an emphasis on quantitative research methodology and held various upper level administrative and faculty positions during my nearly thirty years in academia.
In my last position as the assistant vice president of institutional research and assessment, and director of strategic planning for California State University, Long Beach, I often witnessed non-academics becoming frustrated by academic research.
When I taught statistics at the graduate program level, I somewhat jokingly told my students a peer-reviewed journal article must contain three elements: a colon in the title, a cautionary statement the presented research could only be applied to the population studied, and the article must conclude with the statement, “the need for further research is clearly evident.”
Mr. Ioannides has clearly not grasped the inherent limitations of scholarly research. He quotes Dr. Baron’s study of Act 10 in Wisconsin, legislation quite similar to Utah H.B. 267, to support his stand against collective bargaining by public employee unions. Ioannides writes, “opponents (to H.B. 267) argue that ending collective bargaining will deter people from becoming teachers and hurt student achievement. However, real-world data suggests otherwise.”
Ioannides notes that Baron’s study showed a 20% increase in the share of college students pursuing teaching degrees in Wisconsin after the passage of Act 10. He goes on to quote Dr. Baron: “Even though Act 10 had negative, disruptive effects on student achievement in the short run, the present study suggests that the reform may have led to an increase in the quality of prospective teachers in the state.” Please note the use of the words “suggests” and “may” in Baron’s conclusion.
In the concluding paragraph of the study itself, Baron writes: “A few words of caution are in order. First, using the number of graduates from university-based TPPs (teacher preparation programs) is far from a perfect measure of new teacher supply. Not all graduates from TPPs seek to obtain a job in the public education system. Some may decide to teach in private schools or work outside of the education sector altogether. Furthermore, even if graduates do wish to enter the public education system, they may seek to teach in a different state than the one in which they completed their preparation.”
Dr. Baron also notes: “The literature has yet to reach a consensus regarding which traits of individuals at the time of hire fully capture future teacher quality. The findings in this study regarding impacts of Act 10 on the quality of perspective new teachers should thus be interpreted with caution.”
These types of cautionary statements are evident in virtually every academic research study and rightly do not make absolutely definitive conclusions. Dr. Baron is essentially warning against the use of a selective “sound bite” from this 41-page research paper.
Mr. Ioannides certainly has a right to his opinion. According to the National Education Association’s 2024 Educator Pay Data, Utah ranks 23rd in average teacher salary, over $6,000 less than the national average. It’s entirely possible the already mediocre ranking could fall further without the benefit of collective bargaining.
Utah used to have the advantage of a relatively low cost of living. This distinction has nearly evaporated in the last two decades. Hopefully, Utah will still be able to attract competent educators despite lack of representation at the bargaining table.
Vincent A. (Van) Novack
Park City