Trump's Plan to Demolish the DOE: A Deep Dive (Part 2 of 3)

The powerful role teachers' unions—namely the NEA and the AFT—have played a key role in shaping U.S. education policy. Are they bedfellows with the DOE?

If you didn’t read Part 1 of the series, you can read it here:

In the first part of this series, we explored the origins of the Department of Education (DOE) and how the push for federal oversight in education came about. One of the most significant influences behind the establishment of the DOE has been teachers' unions, particularly the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

These unions have historically wielded enormous power over educational policy and funding at the federal level. Their influence is often seen as a double-edged sword: while they advocate for better working conditions and funding for schools, their actions have typically prioritized teachers' interests over students' educational outcomes.

In this part, we’ll look at the origins and growth of these unions, their relationship with the DOE, and how they use their power and resources today.

The Origins and Growth of Teachers' Unions

The National Education Association (NEA), founded in 1857, and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), founded in 1916, were both established with the mission of improving conditions for teachers and advancing the cause of public education. Originally, both unions sought to professionalize teaching and improve teacher pay, working conditions, and job security. The NEA, in particular, started as an organization of school administrators before shifting its focus to representing teachers as well.

Key figures who shaped these unions include Horace Mann, whose advocacy for public education influenced the formation of the NEA, and Margaret Haley, a key player in the AFT’s early years, who fought for teachers' rights and unionization at a time when labor movements were gaining traction across the country. Their shared mission was to ensure that teachers were respected, well-compensated, and had the power to influence education policy.

However, as the unions grew in size and influence, their focus expanded beyond working conditions to include a strong role in political lobbying and shaping federal education policy, positioning themselves as the gatekeepers of the education system.

National Education Assn donations as of this posting

The Connection Between Teachers' Unions and the DOE

The relationship between the teachers' unions and the DOE has been fraught, with them typically fighting each other (Teachers want more money, DOE doesn’t want to give them more…typical bargaining). Ironically, the unions were instrumental in advocating for the creation of the DOE in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter.

The NEA and AFT supported Carter's campaign, as they saw the DOE as a way to ensure federal funding and oversight that would protect teachers' interests. In return, the unions gained a powerful ally at the federal level, which allowed them to influence education legislation and secure favorable policies, particularly regarding federal funding for public schools.

The DOE's establishment created a more centralized system where unions could advocate for consistent national standards and push for increases in funding that directly benefited their members.

For instance, they were key players in lobbying for the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and later iterations, which provided billions of dollars in federal aid to public schools.

So why would unions want the DOE if they fight so much?

What’s the normal reason? Money.

While unions could and did lobby individual state departments of education, having a centralized federal body meant they could advocate for broader, more uniform policies that would apply across the country. This eliminated the need to lobby 50 different state education departments with potentially conflicting outcomes.

So right there, they save money.

The federal DOE also opened up access to a larger pool of funding and grants for education, which states alone could not provide. Unions saw the opportunity to secure more federal investment in public schools, which would directly benefit their members by increasing school funding, potentially leading to higher salaries.

So more money. Nice.

It was a no brainer for them. At the time.

However, the unions have often resisted reforms that introduced accountability measures for teachers, such as merit-based pay and teacher evaluations tied to student performance.

Teachers' Unions Today: Power, Influence, and Funding

Today, the NEA and AFT are two of the most powerful unions in the United States, with millions of members and significant financial resources. Look at these stats between the two of them:

• The NEA has over 3 million members, making it the largest labor union in the country

• The AFT has over 1.7 million members

• From 2004 to 2016, teacher union lobbying donations grew from $4.3 million to more than $32 million.

• Studies show that candidates who are union-backed win about 7 out of every 10 board races. The majority of school board members rated unions as the most active group in their district.

It’s clear which way these groups lean, politically…

A large portion of the membership fees goes toward political lobbying, with both the NEA and AFT spending millions of dollars to influence elections and education policy at the federal and state levels.

And influence they do. Ten percent of the delegates at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) are members of teachers' unions, making them the largest organized blocs of Democratic Party activists.

“If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”
- Late Senator Mike Enzi

This political spending allows the unions to maintain their influence over education policy, often ensuring that policies that benefit teachers—such as salary increases, smaller class sizes, and job protections—remain in place.

However, these priorities often come at the expense of educational reforms that could benefit students. Critics argue that the unions focus too much on protecting teachers and not enough on improving the overall quality of education, especially in underserved communities.

The Lobbying Efforts and Union Priorities

The lobbying efforts of the NEA and AFT are primarily aimed at ensuring favorable policies for teachers, often at the cost of student-centered reforms. These unions have historically opposed policies such as merit-based pay, which ties teacher salaries to student performance, and charter school expansion, which they argue undermines public education. Instead, they focus on securing increased federal funding, advocating for smaller class sizes, and pushing back against standardized testing measures that hold teachers accountable for student outcomes.

The unions' ability to resist reforms that challenge their control—such as school choice and teacher evaluations tied to performance—allows them to maintain a tight grip on the education system.

In Part 1 of this series, we touched on the fact that the NEA and AFT, by and large, were against expansions of the ESEA through NCLB (No Child Left Behind) and eventually ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act).

But why exactly? Let’s take a look:

Union Priorities

Opposition to High-Stakes Testing and Accountability (NCLB)

The NEA and AFT likely disliked high-stakes testing because it threatened job security for teachers. Schools that consistently underperformed risked penalties, including staff changes, restructuring, or even closure. Teachers in these schools could face job loss or increased scrutiny based on factors deemed beyond their control, like student demographics or socioeconomic challenges. This undermined the stability and protection that unions work to secure for their members. By reducing the reliance on test scores for teacher evaluations and school funding, unions could protect their members from these external pressures​.

This focus on job security was showcased in “The Lemon Dance” from the document Waiting for Superman:

Support for Local Control and Flexibility (ESSA)

By supporting local control, the unions can influence policy more effectively at the state and district level, where they typically have stronger relationships and political leverage. However, they don’t want to lose out on that federal money. This gives them the best of both worlds.

Federal-size money. Local-size control.

With greater control in local hands, they could negotiate contracts and policies that benefit teachers (their members) without the constraints of rigid federal mandates. Additionally, by weakening federal oversight, unions could potentially minimize external accountability measures, thus ensuring greater job protection and less teacher evaluation tied directly to student performance.

And they are increasingly good at it.

Studies carried out by Stanford University’s Terry Moe looked at 500 candidates in more than 250 California school districts and found that 76% of elected officials were backed by the teachers unions. It was as powerful a fact as incumbency in winning elections.

Advocacy for Equity and Resource Allocation

The unions’ support for equity initiatives was likely motivated by the desire to secure additional funding and resources that would benefit public schools, where the majority of their members work. Securing more federal and state resources could lead to higher salaries, better working conditions, and smaller class sizes, which are union priorities.

And the resources are LARGE.

For instance, ESSER funds, part of the CARES Act, provided nearly $190 billion to schools.

Another example is the American Rescue Plan (ARP), which allocated $122 billion.

By advocating for increased funding, especially for schools in underserved areas, the unions could also bolster public school enrollments, a direct counterbalance to the rise of charter schools and school choice programs, which they often oppose​.

All this sounds good, but here’s the kicker.

According to a report by the Discovery Institute, equity policies actually erode educational standards by prioritizing equality of outcomes over individual achievement and excellence. In some cases, efforts to close achievement gaps have led to weaker advanced programs or a reduction in opportunities for high-performing students.

So is equity really helping students? Or just helping unions?

Resistance to Merit-Based Pay

Merit-based pay undermines the collective bargaining power of the unions by creating a system where individual teachers are rewarded based on performance, rather than following standardized pay scales negotiated by unions. These pay scales ensure equity among teachers and maintain union solidarity. Merit-based pay also ties compensation to student outcomes, which could lead to competition among teachers and weaken union unity, as some teachers could earn significantly more than others based on factors outside their control, such as class size or student demographics​.

New York’s The Equity Project (TEP) Charter School has successfully implemented a merit-based pay system, proving that significant teacher compensation can have a substantial impact on student outcomes.

Since its founding in 2009, TEP has prioritized hiring top-tier educators, offering them salaries far above typical rates. For instance, TEP’s starting salary for teachers is $140,000—more than double the national average. Additionally, teachers can earn up to $25,000 in annual bonuses based on performance​.

A four-year study found that TEP students demonstrated exceptional academic growth, achieving 1.6 years' worth of progress in math and substantial gains in science and English. TEP students have also consistently outperformed peers in New York City on state exams, with 14% higher growth in math compared to city averages​

The merit-based pay system helps attract and retain highly skilled teachers, which is a key factor in the school's success.

What a novel idea!

Focus on Professional Development

Professional development is one area where unions can ensure that teachers remain well-qualified, which bolsters their argument against merit-based pay and external accountability systems. By focusing on imprdoving teacher skills and qualifications, unions can advocate for higher salaries and better working conditions based on experience and professional growth, which are critical to maintaining strong teacher contracts and union influence​.

In most states, teachers need to complete a set number of professional development hours to maintain their teaching licenses or qualify for salary increases. These requirements can typically be met by enrolling in continuing education courses at colleges or universities or attending professional development sessions provided by state-approved organizations.

A wide range of groups offer these PD opportunities, including teachers' unions, specialized professional associations, educational companies, publishers, museums, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations.

By the way, did you see that?

Teachers Unions.

Yes, they make it contractually required for teachers to attend professional development (which must meet certain criteria), and they offer it (likely at a cheaper cost than their corporate rivals and sure to check all the boxes).

And the cost is not cheap either.

According to the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), districts annually spend $18,000 per teacher on average (this includes teacher pay for the time as well).

PER teacher.

You do the math.

Wrapping it all up

In essence, unions are not just fighting to save the DOE because they’re passionate about federal oversight. They're protecting their own survival. With no centralized federal body to support their efforts, they'd lose a critical ally in securing federal funds, influencing national policy, and maintaining their powerful foothold in education. Like a ship without an anchor, dissolving the DOE could set unions adrift, making them far more vulnerable to policy changes that could threaten their very existence.

So, for teachers' unions, the DOE isn’t just a department—it’s a lifeline.

What Would a DOE-Free Future Look Like?

In the final part of this series, we will explore Trump’s plan to dismantle the DOE and what that could mean for both the unions and the future of education in the United States. Without federal oversight, teachers’ unions would likely lose some of their influence, but states would gain more autonomy to shape their own educational systems.

And is that a good thing?

What would a DOE-free future look like for students, teachers, and public schools? And could removing the DOE lead to more innovative, localized approaches to education, or would it deepen the inequalities that exist today?

Stay tuned as we examine the pros and cons of dismantling the DOE in Part 3.