Answer

Union Report: The National Education Association

Union Profile

Unions exist mainly to represent the workers’ interests. Primarily, workers form the membership of any union irrespective of its location. However, each union focuses on a specific industry. In the United States, unions exist under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 which is the leading statue under federal labor laws.  The Labor-Management Reporting and the Disclosure Act of 1959 is also part of the nation’s labor law, which governs the rights of the members. Despite there being many unions in the US, the National Education Association (NEA) of the United States is one of the earliest unions in the nation that continues to serve the needs of various workers. 

The National Education Association (NEA) has 2,952,972 members making it the largest union in the US.  The NEA caters for the interests of public employers in the education sector comprising teachers of public schools, support professionals within the education industry such as bus drivers, nurses, cafeteria workers, librarians, as well as secretaries. The union also represents the interests of college learners who may be preparing to be teachers as well as retired educators. 

The NEA has been in existence for over 160 years after it was founded in 1857. Currently, it is headquartered in Washington.  NEA is led by the president, who enforces the mission of the union, which is advocating for the interests of all educational professionals while uniting the members in ways that helps them fulfil the public education promise, which is preparing every learner to succeed in an independent world that is diverse. Under the president, there is the executive committee, as well as the board of directors that are responsible for the union’s policies. The policies of the NEA are set through a delegation of elected representatives from both state, student coalitions, and local affiliates who make up the Representative assembly.

Legal Disputes

NEA Lawsuit over No Child Left Behind Funding

In April 2005, the National Education Association, in collaboration with other nine school districts, filed a lawsuit against Margaret Sellings, who was the secretary of education at the time.  The central conflict in the legal battle was that NEA, as well as the involved schools, felt that federal funding for the No Child Left behind (NCLB) policy was not sufficient to cover all the educational requirements needed.  Concerns over the funding of NCLB had been asserted in various sessions, but no significant legal move had been taken. In filling the lawsuit, NEA hoped that the court could validate its claims and direct the Ministry of Education to desist from enforcing the NCLB and other related regulations until the time the federal government will be able to offer sufficient funds to cater to all learning requirements under the NCLB policy.

Primarily, the enforcement of the NCLB by the ministry of education was affecting the usual functioning of various schools. Notably, the schools were spending more on catering to an increased number of learners and educational requirements (Munich & Testani, 2005). Therefore, during federal reimbursement, schools endured losses. Thus, the long term impact of the experience was that schools could fail to offer quality education as they become overwhelmed financially.

The outcome of the lawsuit was determined in two courts. During the first ruling in November 2005, the lower court dismissed the case, stating that the Ministry of Education used the negotiated ruling to ensure that all states and schools agreed to use their resources to help meet the additional needs of the NCLB Act. However, the NEA, together with the other plaintiffs, appealed, and after two years, the Supreme Court ruled in their favour stating that states should never use their resources to cater to the requirements of the NCLB Act.

NEA Lawsuit against Florida’s Teacher Evaluation Procedure: Cook V. Stewart

The Florida Educational Association (FEA) and the National Educational Association (NEA) filed a lawsuit in April 2013 that sought to challenge the procedure of evaluating teachers in Florida. The NEA was against the procedure in which teachers were assessed based on test scores of learners, especially those whom they did not teach or those undertaking subjects that the teachers do not offer.  Primarily, the lawsuit was brought forward by seven tutors with sufficient experience and accomplished in the area of education (National Education Association, 2016).  The defendant was the Florida Commission of Education, Florida schools board, and the State board of education. Ideally, the defendants had been responsible for implementing the testing procedure that was being contested.

The lawsuit did not prompt adverse reactions from either the plaintiff as well as the defendant. However, the concern in having the litigation by the seven accomplished teachers was that the assessment was flawed, and it could result in poor judging of the teachers. Moreover, there were concerns by many Florida teachers that the evaluation was being pushed by politicians and not academicians in the state.

In May 2014, a federal judge ruling turned down the challenge by the NEA and FEA against the teacher evaluation system in Florida. Ideally, in the ruling, the US district judge agreed that the evaluation system had many issues (National Education Association, 2016). However, he felt that the issues did not make the system unconstitutional. As such, it could continue to be used in the state.  In response to this, the NEA indicated that it would continue to challenge such evaluations within the education system.

Bain V. California Teachers Association

Over the years, NEA has had various legal battles with members regarding paying the union fees. Some battles result from members who exited the union while others who ceased working within the education sector and wanted to continue participating in union activities while not paying. One such battle that ended in litigation was the lawsuit by three Californian teachers against the California Educational Association, an affiliate of NEA titled, Bain v. California Teachers Association (Justia US Law, 2018). In the suit, the plaintiff argued that the requirement for members to pay union fees in order to participate in the political matters of the union was unconstitutional as it violated their rights to free speech.

The lawsuit, which was filled in late 2016, did not elicit adverse reactions from both the defendants, who were the union members, and the plaintiffs, who were three teachers within the state. Ideally, the teachers continued working as the case progressed. However, when the decision was made in June 2018, all the plaintiffs had retired. 

The retirement of the polities affected the decision of the federal court’s 9^th circuit as the judge argued that the case was moot (Justia US Law, 2018).  As such, it ceased to be valid. Despite this, the attorney representing the plaintiffs insisted that the case was valid, and he planned on arguing it using other plaintiffs who were still actively employed in a sector represented by NEA or any of its affiliates.  As such, the issue remains unsolved as some teachers represented by NEA feel that the union takes political stands, some of which do not align with the needs and preferences of the members.