How do Trump’s latest onslaughts, like sending the National Guard to DC and threatening to do the same to major cities with Black mayors, relate to US contract fights of education workers? The answers lie in how the Right’s current assault relates to what preceded Trump1 and Trump2, starting with an international project in education, organized by powerful elites, supported by both US political parties. Though the global nature of the first neoliberal assault seems distant in time and space from our local contracts and Trump’s ideological, cultural, social, political, and economic offensive, that history configures what we face now.

Decades ago, bipartisan neoliberal reforms in US education began with the World Bank in Washington, spread globally, then boomeranged back to this country with No Child Left Behind. The rhetoric of the neoliberal policies, was – and is – that its program, privatizing schools and controlling what’s taught with standardized tests, is essential for making the nation and individuals more competitive in the global economy, an especially vital change for historically under-served or poorly-served, low-income families of color. However, we know from copious evidence about harm done by these reforms, from school closures, to the narrowing of curriculum with testing, to privatization with charters, the policies most victimized the very communities they were touted as helping, low-income communities of color.

After years of resistance to policies destroying schools and the communities they served, parents and community activists battling school closures and funding cuts, along with the mostly separate struggles of education activists fighting charters and standardized testing, found a powerful ally in education workers demanding their unions embed social justice issues in fights for traditional contract demands. Sparked by CORE’s victory in a union election to lead the CTU and its electrifying strike in 2012, a new movement of social justice teachers unions developed, winning contracts that protected schools, teachers, and students, naming and pushing back on neoliberal policies that intensifed “educational apartheid.” Though not explicitly identified as such, these contract fights were challenges to a program of reforms imposed by the corporate managers of global capitalism, reforms that AFT and NEA accepted but were contested by education unions in much of the world, especially the global south. The courageous contract battles and strikes in the US that have joined social justice struggles to traditional economic demands still inspire and teach. Still, the changes neoliberalism made to education that we failed to defeat, including wide scale privatization with charters and domination of standardized testing, cemented a status quo to which we shouldn’t try to return, one that powerful forces in the Democratic Party advocating a revisited neoliberal project want to impose.

On top of these changes, we confront a phenomenon that is new in its comprehensiveness , including the autocratic usurpation of government. This project, supported by powerful elements of US capital, differs from what occurred during the neoliberal project that started in the World Bank and spread throughout the world. No union in this country has faced DOGE or Trump2. No teachers union in the world has successfully defeated an imperial power carrying out the “types of policies that are being implemented at the federal level right now.” Trump’s project is fueled by a new coalition of the billionaires (venture capital, private equity, investment banking) that are the heart of capitalism internationally, a coalition that raced to Trump after his election, joining with MAGA, Trump’s proto-fascist popular movement. The alliance of capital that has emerged since Trump’s election aims to control our society, including education, profit from looting the schools and the public sector, and gain control over what is taught and learned. Towards this end much of capital endorses Trump’s goal of destroying any vestige of DEI, normalizing White Christian nationalist supremacy and authoritarianism. Though neoliberal money continues to support DEI and Democrats, it does so because DEI serves its method of protecting capital’s profit and power, which differs from the assault Trump’s alliance has launched.

THE CONTRACT CAMPAIGN AS A PIVOTAL MOMENT

Is the contract campaign still important in this moment, in this new project, when authoritarianism (along with ICE and DHS raids and sending in the National Guard to augment/control local police) is not only knocking on the door but well into the house? Is the local contract important when many of the attacks we face are not negotiable with school districts? The short answer is “Yes!” for as long as we can bargain collectively, which is a right we have to fight to protect – or achieve in states that outlaw it for school employees. Some of the reasons are generic and apply to labor generally. The contract codifies and solidifies gains we win as workers. It’s a legal truce in the on-going struggles between workers and the bosses, which for education workers means the administration and the school board, or whoever has governmental oversight of the district. Bargaining for a contract is one of the most powerful organizing tools workers have when we understand the contract does not, on its own, bring about the improvements that were negotiated. Members have to exert their collective strength, in the school and district, to bring the rule of law into the school.

An informed, active membership makes the truce effective. Despite the fact that the contract is a legally-binding agreement, the reality is that contract provisions are only as strong as their enforcement. The tenacity of enforcement depends on how the contract is negotiated. Robust democracy in formulating contract demands creates space for members to consider, individually and collectively, what they, their schools and students need, and how they want the union to organize to achieve those goals. The local’s mobilization of members to win the demands they have decided to pursue establishes the new groundwork for subsequent contract enforcement, seldom easy and never ending. Often the contract wording can be subject to contradictory interpretations, and members alert to possibilities for interpretations that reinforce and extend favorable working conditions can organize to pressure for those readings of the text.

As one organizer for an NEA state affiliate commented, the contract campaign “holds a pivotal role and presents a unique opportunity” for workers to come together to decide what they want and need, and will fight for, collectively. It’s a “powerful tool for deep internal organizing, while also forging stronger coalitions with our communities,” layering “real coalition and community building on top of these deeper contract campaigns,” consciously bargaining for the common good.

What’s the role of union staff in the contract campaign? They can help with advice, information, and support – and shouldn’t be considered replacements for rank-and-file leadership. In the union universe we want and need, informed, active members drive the campaign for the contract from start to finish, debating and voting on demands, negotiating them in bargaining teams that have been elected (not appointed or selected by the leadership) for this purpose, and ratifying – or turning down – a tentative agreement after robust debate.

Everything I’ve written so far holds for unions generally. However, the contract has particular limitations and possibilities for education workers. Many of the conditions in schools that are most onerous are by law outside the scope of bargaining, so education unions need to push the envelope. This is especially true when it comes to conditions of labor that involve curriculum, instruction, and school organization. The limited scope of bargaining explains why the contract campaign has to be informed by critical research about the social, economic, and political contexts of education, research fused to members’ insights about what they and their students need. Critical research is different from the increasingly common function locals are giving to their research department, analytics, useful in planning campaigns but of limited value in formulating contract demands that emerge from classroom conditions and reflect national and international developments, in education, the economy, and politics.

Education workers’ insights about their classrooms, students, school, and district target immediate problems the union can address in the contract. What is often missed by the unions and education workers themselves is how these conditions mirror and reinforce far larger political and educational policies – reforms imposed in the neoliberal project decades ago . When the Coquille (Oregon) Education Association fought about a school reorganization that forced students and teachers from the self-contained classroom that is the norm for young children, into departmentalized scheduling used for older students – subject-specific classes taught by different teachers, elementary school teachers used the contract and union to halt the change. Teachers spotted the harmful effects on their teaching load and special needs students. However, they didn’t see they were also challenging assumptions capital has used globally to deform education: Push down academics (and benchmarks to assess skills) to younger and younger students, in the process diminishing or eliminating play and teachers’ professional judgment about curriculum. This transformation of education, defended by powerful elites decades ago as essential to make individuals and the economy more competitive in the global economy, is taken up in the agenda for schools Linda McMahon, Trump’s pick for Secretary of Education articulates – make schools serve the economy. Lost in most resistance to Trump’s agenda is how pedagogical ground already ceded to the Right, making children master skills and content at an earlier age, has significantly narrowed expectations of what’s “normal” for children. Since NCLB conditions of learning and teaching contradict what we know from developmental psychology about children’s individual differences, the wide range of abilities they have at a particular age. Children who don’t fit this narrowed definition of “normal” are pushed into special education, which gives them support for learning but at the price of our having created new bureaucratic structures. The critical research we need to scrutinize connections between testing, pushing down academics, and special education placements is just one of the many topics that has been marginalized because test results are the only accepted measure of achievement.

Keeping this context in mind clarifies that teachers in Coquille Education Association, a tiny local in Oregon, who work in a community with many Trump supporters, did what our national unions have not: They successfully challenged not only their school board and administration using the contract but also a major premise of what occurred before Trump, policies now assumed on the local, state, national, and international level. Their victory shows what can happen when education workers use the power of their union and their contract. However, maximizing learning from these victories requires understanding their historical significance, which has implications for future struggle. The local contract fight is where the struggle begins but understanding what’s been fought for and won extends well beyond the immediate, local struggle.

When bargaining for a contract doesn’t combine the synergy of members’ mobilization with community and parent support and insights from critical research, we are very vulnerable to imposition of harmful policies. That’s what occurred with introduction of standardized testing and is being duplicated with adoption of AI. The “common sense guardrails” AFT has produced are a foot in the door to discuss AI’s use but offer no assistance in formulating contract language that addresses its most dangerous elements. In fact, they are so general, several major tech companies endorse some of the principles in AFT’s guidelines. NEA’s statement of principles has stronger language about AI’s equitable use and creation – an issue on which some tech companies concur. Both NEA and AFT guidelines omit discussion of district funds being spent on AI, rather than on improving conditions of members’ work. Education workers’ understandable embrace of AI for work that appears to be clerical, drudgery, misses why these responsibilities can and should be opportunities to use our professional judgment to support students but require time to do so, like writing IEPs or narratives about student progress. NEA and AFT guidelines also ignore the huge dangers of this new privatization of education with edtech and the role of billionaires/capital/oligarchs in deciding what is taught and how. Finally, AFT’s recent partnerships with tech companies and its invitation to the World Economic Forum to write lessons for teachers “to create a curriculum that will lead to good jobs and solid careers in U.S. manufacturing” are a stunning abdication of leadership in contesting capital’s control of education. Our unions should ask with parents, students, communities “Is this the future we want for our students and the world in which they will live? Is the future that billionaires control what our students deserve?”

The information members need about the large picture is available, in sophisticated critical research. Before we allow AI’s introduction into schools, our unions should be helping teachers and parents to scrutinize issues of profit, data privacy, transformation of teachers’ work, surveillance, as well as assumptions tech companies make by feeding AI what they want. If your contract was recently signed and it doesn’t have the language on AI that’s needed, it might be negotiated as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Unfortunately, the vast majority of locals and state affiliates have missed the boat about AI, and it’s up to members (along with education activists and parents) to push them to step up – quickly.

EXPANDING SPACES FOR RESISTANCE AND CHALLENGING “ME-FIRST UNIONISM”

Although there are important exceptions, for instance the “solidarity strike” of UTLA supporting SEIU, the default setting in the US labor movement and unions of education workers, from pre-K through higher education, is, alas, competition not solidarity, what labor activist and author Andy Sernatinger identifies as “me-first unionism.” Unions compete with one another for members, dues, and power, which can lead to ugly jurisdictional battles, even between unions that share an employer and so many common interests, as has occurred in Chicago.

What one NEA staffer termed enlarging “horizontal” space requires developing alliances with other unions, especially difficult if the local labor scene is dominated by unions that buy into “me-first unionism” and the “business model.” In fact, developing mutually respectful alliances with other unions at the local level may present a higher bar for education workers than forming coalitions with community groups that share ideals about social justice and the common good. Many NEA locals do not belong to their local AFL-CIO labor councils, and the AFT constitution was altered so locals no longer need to affiliate with labor councils. However, the lack of formal connection to labor councils and other unions can be mediated by personal networks of members – another reason a mobilized membership is essential regardless of whether collective bargaining is legal, as Erin explains more fully in her substack on the red states.

Expanding horizontal space is often problematic for teachers unions because of the rivalries between locals of education workers in a single state, as well as between NEA and AFT state affiliates. Friction between teachers union locals in the same state often occurs over state funding formulas. Small rural and suburban locals can feel urban districts receive an unfairly disproportionate share of state money and push their state affiliates to lobby for realocations of the too-small pie. Given the likely stress on state budgets caused by the GOP’s massive cuts to services in its tax giveaway to the wealthiest few, we need public and personal efforts at coalition building with other teachers unions in the states. One way to address competition between locals is the California Teachers Association’s unprecedented campaign to coordinate bargaining among 32 districts, including the two largest locals in the state, Los Angeles and San Francisco, both of which are merged, affiliates of AFT and NEA.

Contracts with individual school districts will be funded by property taxes in most states and by state budgets highly stressed by demands from communities and public employee unions for revenue lost to federal cuts. And education funding is often the first or second largest expense in a state’s budget, making it a target if the state has a budget crisis. Advocacy calculators estimate how much money schools in each state may lose from Trump’s proposed 2026 budget for education, even when we take into consideration the change proposed in the Senate Committee. But what will happen in this coming school year as a result of cuts already made in the GOP’s massive budget bill and local districts’ on-going budget crises? For example, as EdSource reports, (please see the endnote about relying on EdSource and “independent media”) Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has decided to issue over $300 million dollars in bonds to deal with claims of sexual abuse that occurred over decades, an arrangement that will result in less money for students, which LAUSD hopes California will ameliorate. [i]

As the cuts in aid already passed by Congress are felt in the states and districts, we are likely to see more proposals from both parties to deal with budget crises in ways that deepen privatization, displaying the financial sector’s remarkable inventiveness in creating instruments and policies that yield profit at the expense of human need. As “moderate” (a.k.a. neoliberal) Democrats shift to support privatization of schools with charters and now, vouchers, we have to fight smarter and harder than before, in alliances on the state level for significant alterations in tax policy, reclaiming state and local revenues given away to corporations and financial elites. Financial strategies, like issuing bonds, give the banks profits we need for schools to operate, and when issued for operating expenses, added onto their longtime use for capital expenditures, the bonds substitute for the battle we have to organize in every state and in the country to tax the billionaires (and their octopus-like tentacles that control the economy) to support public education. We cannot escape these struggles on the state level. Delays in tackling creation of alliances between NEA and AFT affiliates and with labor and social justice movements on the state level endangers local contract gains that could be swept away by budget deficits. School district budgets are often patched together with funding from disparate state and federal grants, in addition to regular tax revenue. In some districts layoffs have already begun, whether for political reasons or in response to anticipated deficits, or because jobs were funded by grants that were time-limited.

UNION DEMOCRACY AND CHALLENGING “ME FIRST UNIONISM”

The urgency of this moment demands public discussion about strategies to defeat the Right, what alliances to make and with whom. Contradictory political assumptions about how education workers and our unions can defeat Trump, for example the role of mass demonstrations, reliance on the courts, electoral activity, and lobbying are driving organizing efforts. Zoom sessions to build enthusiasm and participation in demonstrations or convey information serve a purpose, as do conclaves by invitation only, hosted by locals, state affiliates, or the national unions. Yet underlying these calls for action are ideas that have yet to be made explicit.

A (deservedly) respected social justice teacher union officer argues we need a “united front,” meaning we cannot criticize AFT or NEA. According to this perspective, our political priority is defeating MAGA, which is fascism. Therefore, Teamsters union president Sean O’Brien who is a friend of MAGA can be criticized. In contrast, Randi Weingarten, who says she wants to fight fascism and endorses demonstrations that call out MAGA, cannot be criticized although she is a friend of tech billionaires who are pushing AI and support Trump, as well with the World Economic Forum, which is the home for the world’s most powerful billionaires, many of whom support Trump, including BlackRock, which has endorsed Trump’s authoritarian and imperial aims.

A full rebuttal of the “united front” analysis takes me well beyond my substack, so I will note only that the analysis and strategy emerging from it miss what has occurred with MAGA and Trump’s GOP since the election. The change has been signaled by Bannon’s shift on AI from opposition to endorsing Trump’s stance of support, and by Trump’s decision to hire “Heritage Foundation senior scholar E.J. Antoni to head the Bureau of Labor Statistics shortly after Antoni and Bannon called for a ‘MAGA Republican’ to take over the role. MAGA is part of Trump’s (uneasy, unstable) alliance. Though capital and MAGA are not the same, they are partners. Aligning with MAGA supports capital, and joining in partnership with big capital that supports Trump supports the alliance that includes MAGA. Teamsters should double down on O’Brien’s complicity with MAGA and Trump. Education workers should support Weingarten’s critique of MAGA and criticize her support of the billionaires that endorse Trump.

Union members have a right to know how elected officers represent them on strategy and to have informed debates about which alliances and policies are best for our locals, state affiliates, national unions, and the broader movement we must build to defeat Trump. Who should we work with in coalitions? Who do we want in the big tent to fight Trump? Why? When? For education workers the answers include potential allies other unions lack. For example, school boards and superintendents in many districts will join us in fighting for increased state funding, and their state and national organizations may do the same in pushing against federal cuts for schools. Some groups of administrators will join us in battles against censorship or discrimination against LGBTQ+ students and protection of immigrants. No union leaders have all the answers about who, when, and where we should seek alliances, and as is the case in the contract campaign, building a powerful movement depends on drawing on the knowledge and wisdom of members. Though connections that go beyond the local contract campaign, to the state, the national scene, and even international struggles may not be immediately apparent, unpacking them, illuminates possibilities about building broad-based movements to defeat authoritarian leaders.

These dangerous times require that we scrutinize many previously-held ideas and rules of engagement in politics, but the need to democratize our unions, from the local, through the national, is not one of them. In fact, we need robust democracy now more than ever, maximizing our strength, which resides in our collective voice and power.

LABOR DAY 2025

My next article will be published after Labor Day, an occasion that marks the vital importance of labor struggles for the entire society. Aside from choosing from the array of marches, rallies, and demonstrations education activists are being offered, I hope Labor Day will be a time for reflection about what we learn from the proud history of education workers while also summoning courage to explore what we need to do differently. I think the most pressing challenge is to insist our unions reject “me first unionism” and defend the most basic principle of unionism, solidarity in struggle. Combining solidarity with the fortitude and creativity we bring to classrooms can help us build the vibrant mass movements we need to re-imagine the schools and society we need for all kids, defeating the Right on all fronts.

---

[i] I am using EdSource purposely for this link for a cautionary note about a change in the media landscape. Many sources that claim to be “independent” news outlets covering education and seem to provide trustworthy content are funded by Right wing foundations as well as those previously thought of liberal. In other words, they’re the new neoliberalism. As legacy media put up pay walls, these outlets become more prominent. Note that this story contains no comment from United Teachers of Los Angeles, the LAUSD teachers union or advocates of progressive taxation. Its quotes are from pro-business and Right wing sources. EdSource receives funding from serious Right wing money. The critical stance towards the school district could be laying the groundwork for privatization. And attacks on teachers unions when they oppose it, as occurred in the worst days of the testing and charterization push. One of the funders of EdSource is the Kresge Foundation. Want to know its politics? Go to littlesis.org . I did this one for you and learned it gave money to Teach For America and supports social impact bonds : https://littlesis.org/org/66851-The_Kresge_Foundation

---