It’s union power, not safety issues, that’s determining which US schools reopen this fall

This article was originally published in the New York Post.

It’s back-to-school season, but millions of students won’t be going back to the classroom. Teachers are fighting tooth and nail to prevent reopening public schools for in-person learning — in the name of safety. Yet our just-released study suggests that these reopening decisions have more to do with influence from teachers’ unions than safety concerns.

In New York City, the Department of Education’s proposal to offer families a hybrid of part-time in-person instruction and remote learning starting Sept. 10 met with fierce opposition. Teachers’ groups poured into the streets to protest the plan, including with props such as fake body bags. Mayor de Blasio pushed back the opening after threatened strikes.

It’s happening nationwide. New data published at Education Week indicate that 78 percent of the nation’s 50 largest public districts aren’t planning to reopen with any in-person instruction.

Using data on the reopening decisions of 835 public districts covering about 38 percent of all students enrolled in K-12 public schools in the country, our study finds that school districts in places with stronger teachers’ unions are much less likely to offer full-time, in-person instruction this fall.

For example, our models indicate that school districts in states without right-to-work laws are 14 percentage points less likely to reopen in person than those in states with such laws, which prevent unions from requiring membership.

A 10 percent increase in union power is associated with a 1.3 percentage-point lower probability of reopening in person. In Florida, for example, 79 percent of 38 school districts in the Education Week dataset are planning to offer full-time in-person instruction to all students. However, in New York, a state with much stronger teachers’ unions, none of the 21 school districts included in the dataset are planning to do the same.

We also find that a one percentage point increase in union membership at the state level is associated with a 1.5 percentage point lower probability of reopening in person. Then, too, a 10 percent rise in union workers at the county level is associated with around a one percentage point decline in the probability of reopening in person in the fall.

These results are remarkably consistent across various analytic models and even after controlling for differences in county demographics, including age, gender, marital status, race, population, education, political affiliation, household income and COVID-19 cases and deaths per capita.

By contrast, reopening decisions are unrelated to COVID-19 risk as measured by recent cases per capita and deaths per capita in the county. That is also consistent with recent evidence that the biggest factor in what people believe about the pandemic is political affiliation — not COVID-19 risk or even demographic factors, such as age and race.

None of this means that teachers’ unions have bad intentions. Pushing against reopening schools in person could make sense from cost-benefit analysis, if it minimizes health risks for union members while maintaining about the same level of benefits in terms of job security and wages. In fact, virtual instruction can mean ­more benefits for union members: It can reduce their child-care responsibilities, hours of direct instruction and commute times.

The problem is that teachers aren’t the only stakeholders in the reopening debate. Keeping schools closed hurts families that need in-person options. Plus, ­remote learning provided by public districts may turn out to be a disaster for many students already falling behind.

A better solution: Governments should fund students directly, so they can take their education dollars to the schools of their choice. After all, education funding is supposed to be for educating students, not protecting traditional public schools when other options are available. School districts have the power to choose their own reopening plans. Let’s give families a choice, too.

Civil unrest isn't just fueling political partisanship — it's undermining the economic recovery too

Originally appeared in The Hill, September 3, 2020

The United States is suffering from not only a public health crisis, but also an identity crisis. Many of the principles that were once honored are now under attack. Basic rules, such as law and order, have been characterized as racist and sources of systemic injustice.

While we need to vigorously continue the search for a vaccine and pursue smart policies that allow for a permanent reopening of the economy, we also need to obtain safety and security in our cities once again. Already, many people are fleeing the cities. In addition to the impact that remote work has had on the decision about where to live, more residents are growing concerned about the safety for themselves and their families—and “voting with their feet” by moving elsewhere.

But, what about the small businesses that cannot just pick up their bags and go?

To understand the quantitative effects that civil unrest has been having on the economy, I collected data on small businesses (e.g., employment and hours worked) from HomeBase and the intensity of Black Lives Matter riots from Google Trends across 47 metropolitan areas. Although BLM search queries are an imperfect measure for the intensity of riots, it is a reasonable proxy if residents respond to civil unrest by searching online for information in their area either out of support or fear.

Using these data between June and August, I found that a 10 percent increase in BLM search intensity is associated with a nearly percentage point decline in the number of hours worked among employees in the business, relative to pre-pandemic levels. Results are similar when using other measures of small business activity, such as business shutdowns or overall employment. Moreover, results are similar when focusing on a narrower window of time (e.g., July to August).

Why is there such a strong negative association? For starters, small businesses are concentrated in the retail and hospitality sectors. If people are afraid to go out to eat or shop, then consumption on local goods will decline. Even from a practical perspective, we’ve seen how many of these protests, in addition to turning violent, have even led participants to halt traffic and block off roads. And, since economic sentiment is a powerful driver of demand for retail services, uncertainty and civil strife is likely to lead to more precautionary behavior among residents and prospective investors.

These are not just conservative talking points. Even Portland’s police chief has pointed out that the violence has taken away from the BLM movement, prompting many people to turn away from the movement — even if they don’t want to publicly voice their reservations.

Unfortunately, what we’re seeing unfold before our eyes is not a new phenomenon and should not come as a surprise. For example, recent research found that peaceful protests from the civil rights movement led to greater political support for civil rights, whereas the violent protests had the opposite effects. Moreover, others have found that violent riots during the 1960s led to persistently lower values for black-owned property. In fact, these declines are estimated to have contributed to a 10 percent loss in the total value of black-owned residential property in urban areas.

One of the big differences that we’re stuck with today – for better or for worse – is the presence of social media, which can amplify some of the loudest (and most harmful) voices. For example, my research has found that the decline in consumption over the pandemic was roughly twice as large because of the fear-factor that spread throughout social media. If we were all behaving “rationally” based on our local experiences, consumption would not have fallen so much. The same goes for these riots: bad news spreads more rapidly, causing even more fear and uncertainty. If we want to have a genuine economic recovery, we’re going to need to do more than just find a vaccine. We will need to return law and order to our cities so that people feel safe and secure.

Fortunately, we don’t need to repeat the mistakes of the past. We have timeless principles to stand on that have endured even more tumultuous times, ranging from the domestic implosion during the Civil War to the threat of Nazi Germany during World War II. If we learn from the past and listen to one another, we’ll emerge out of the current economic and social crisis even stronger than before.

Christos A. Makridis is an assistant research professor at Arizona State University, a non-resident fellow at Baylor University, and a senior adviser at Gallup. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @camakridis.