The teachers’ strike has moved into its second week, although there are signs that the dispute may end as early as late Tuesday afternoon, after press time. If it doesn’t, the mayor plans to go to court to force the teachers back into the classroom. As well he should, because the strike was an affront to the city and, of course, to Chicago’s 350,000 students. Before they walked out, the teachers managed to water down some needed reforms—the city agreed, for example, to hire back some laid-off teachers regardless of their past performance in the classroom—and extracted an additional $74 million per year in salary hikes. Mr. Emanuel, for his part, insists on including standardized tests scores as part of teacher performance evaluations. The union, of course, hates this. Like their counterparts in New York’s schools, union leaders in Chicago oppose anything that even hints at accountability.

New York most definitely has a dog in this fight—his name is Rahm. Mr. Emanuel may have gone out of his way to antagonize the union, and he may have made this battle more personal than he should have, but in the end, what matters is who wins. If Mr. Emanuel wins, teachers’ unions across the country may be inspired to re-consider their chronic obstructionism. If the union wins, well, you can expect teachers in New York and elsewhere to become more aggressive in defense of archaic work rules and in opposition to evaluations and other forms of accountability.

Even as the strike unfolded in Chicago, a new film about union intransigence is about to open nationwide. The lead characters in Won’t Back Down are two mothers who come together to bring change to a failing urban school. Needless to say, the teachers’ unions are in an uproar—the truth may set you free, but it also can cause great discomfort. Randi Weingarten has lashed out at the film’s “blatant stereotypes and caricatures.” Apparently she believes any portrayal of out-of-touch union leaders who haven’t been in a classroom in decades is somehow a “caricature.”

It seems undeniable that public opinion is moving away from the world views of Ms. Weingarten and her fellow bosses. Leaders like Mr. Emanuel and Michael Bloomberg are demanding accountability, not excuses, and flexibility, not red tape, as they seek to bring public schools into the 21st Century. Neither party has a monopoly on reform, although it is significant that Mr. Emanuel, a Democrat and onetime chief of staff for President Obama, has become public enemy number one for teachers’ unions (replacing, of course, Michelle Rhee, the innovative former leader of Washington D.C.’s schools).

Unions have had many opportunities to adapt to changing public demands. But they have chosen to rely on old arguments, old rules, and old formulas. They say they care only about “the kids.”

Does anybody really believe that?

The most immediate benefit is easy to measure: With an evaluation system in place, the state moved closer to qualifying for $700 million in federal aid through President Obama’s “Race to the Top” funding mechanism. The feds were threatening to withhold the money if New York did not implement a required evaluation system. While the state still may have to clear up other issues before qualifying for the aid, it’s clear that the evaluation system is a major step in the race to the top.

This agreement, while not perfect, also has long-term benefits that will not be measured in terms of dollars, but in terms of better, more motivated teachers, improved lesson plans, and, in the end, better educated public school students. Teachers will be evaluated based on a combination of standardized test scores and classroom observations. New York City teachers who are judged to be ineffective will have the chance to appeal their evaluation and will have a chance to develop a plan to improve their performance.

The agreement also streamlines the dismissal process, allowing the city to move quicker to rid classrooms of ineffective teachers. That, ultimately, is the best result of this historic and welcome agreement.

While Mr. Cuomo received, and deserves, the lion’s share of praise for getting this deal done, it’s important to remember that Mayor Bloomberg has been demanding an effective evaluation system for years. He was not present when the agreement was announced, and the teachers union made a point of praising the governor without mentioning the mayor, but Mr. Bloomberg’s influence and persistence on this issue helped make it happen.

The teachers union wisely chose to negotiate with Mr. Cuomo rather than remain an obstacle to change. In a sense, the union had no choice: The governor said he would impose an evaluation system on his own if the union didn’t give in. Regrettably, it takes that kind of threat to get the union’s attention on matters of urgent reform.

Still, the deal was done, and New York is all the better for it. Union leaders have to realize that the worst thing they can do is support incompetence or ineffectiveness in the classroom. If the union is perceived as the protector of failure, it will continue to be a symbol of flawed education policy in New York.

Mr. Cuomo’s aggressive leadership sealed the deal on this agreement, but it’s important to note, too, that he chose to negotiate privately and patiently rather than fight this battle in public. Across the Hudson, Governor Christie has made a point of challenging New Jersey’s teachers union, but his bellicose style has become as much of an obstacle to change as the union’s short-sightedness.

So kudos to Mr. Cuomo for tackling the issue, and to the union for recognizing the need for effective evaluation.

The showdown still was underway at press time, but regardless of whether or not the governor and the union reach an agreement, a larger point remains: Once again, the teachers union, emboldened by its allies in the Democratic-controlled State Assembly, has resisted efforts to bring accountability into the classroom.

Unlike his fellow Democrats in the Assembly, Mr. Cuomo has shown that he understands the reactionary role the teachers union continues to play against the effort to bring much-needed reform to poor-performing school districts. Mr. Cuomo is acting on behalf of poorly served students and their parents. The union, of course, is simply trying to protect incompetent teachers.

The public knows who has New York’s greater interests at heart. A recent Sienna College poll showed that 71 percent support the governor’s school reform proposals. The union is thought to be a political powerhouse, but it should be no match for a mobilized and well-informed electorate sick of the status quo and those intent on preserving it.

The proposed evaluation system, which would incorporate standardized test scores as part of the process, has been delayed for nearly two years. The state agreed to implement an evaluation system in 2010 when it was awarded $700 million in federal funds as part of President Barack Obama’s “Race to the Top” program.

Mr. Cuomo would tie increases in state education spending to the implementation of genuine evaluation plans in individual districts. He has the full support of Mayor Bloomberg, who has made it clear that he wants a process that would allow the city’s Department of Education to move quickly in getting rid of bad teachers. Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott has emphasized that any such process has to be fair to teachers and ought to provide them with the resources they need to become better teachers. But at the end of the day, rigorous evaluations will provide administrators with a database for identifying teacher competency.

That’s an important step, and a necessary one. And once the state’s plan is in place, perhaps Mr. Cuomo can lead a discussion about merit pay in the classroom.

Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Cuomo have made it clear that they no longer will accept the union’s reactionary worldview that change is unnecessary. In separate speeches this week, Mr. Cuomo correctly noted that “we have to realize that our schools are not an employment program,” while the mayor argued that the “school system shouldn’t be run for the people that work in the school system.”

Both of the statements should seem obvious. To the union leaders who claim to represent the city’s public school teachers, the remarks by the governor and the mayor are nothing short of revolutionary. And it’s a revolution they continue to resist.

Mr. Bloomberg turned up the pressure big time in his annual State of the City address on Jan. 12, when he embraced the idea of merit pay for excellent teachers and vowed to find a way to rid the school system of poor-performing teachers. These ideas are, of course, anathema to the United Federation of Teachers and its leader, Michael Mulgrew. After the mayor spoke, Mr. Mulgrew offered nothing new in response; he dismissed Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal as little more than political theater.

Sadly, that’s the best Mr. Mulgrew could offer. But it’s important to keep in mind that unless the mayor acts with the requisite resolution, Mr. Mulgrew’s cynical, hollow words could prove true. It’s great that Mr. Bloomberg supports merit pay and has threatened the jobs of lousy teachers, but it’s quite another thing to follow up with actions. Mr. Bloomberg will be measured by his actions, not his words.

Surely he knows that, which is why he returned to the theme of school reform during a speech in Harlem on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. School reform is all about changing the culture (and the results) in inner-city schools attended by underprivileged children who need and deserve a better education than they currently receive. As Mr. Cuomo put it, “It is this simple: It is not about the adults; it is about the children.”

Of course, the union’s apparatchiks often say the same thing. When they resist accountability, cover up for incompetent colleagues, and game the system so that the interest of teachers come first, they piously claim to be acting on behalf of the children. By this point, of course, nobody actually believes such nonsense.

The mayor and the governor, on the other hand, genuinely seem to have the children’s interests in mind, which is why they seem more determined than ever to bring accountability into the classroom. It’s a fight they really must win, but a successful outcome is not guaranteed, unfortunately.

Take, for example, the seemingly simple matter of teacher evaluations. A state law passed in 2010 appeared to establish a framework for more rigorous evaluations designed to weed out poor teachers. But the union has managed to block the evaluation process in the city’s public schools, putting in jeopardy $700 million in federal funds that are contingent on the creation of rigorous evaluations. Mr. Cuomo has made it clear that he will impose such a system if the union continues to create obstacles. Districts that do not implement evaluations by next January will not qualify for an increase in state aid.

That’s precisely the kind of tough leadership New York’s school children need, and deserve. The union clearly disagrees. A spokesman said that the governor’s plan to tie increased state aid to the evaluation system was the “wrong approach,” which is another way of saying that it is an approach that puts children first.

As for the mayor’s proposals, he too is in for a fight. His colleagues in city government bowed to the power of Mr. Mulgrew’s union, with Public Advocate Bill de Blasio claiming that Mr. Bloomberg’s proposals were “needlessly provocative.” Does he believe that the system can be improved without provocation? If so, what evidence can he provide for this astonishing assertion? The reactionaries in the teachers union speak to the necessity of provocation. Unless confronted, they are more than content with a status quo that ensures that the incompetent are protected and the gifted unrewarded.

Mr. Mulgrew’s operation has no shortage of powerful allies in city and state government. They will fight fiercely to block the mayor’s proposal to reward top-performing teachers with $20,000 merit bonuses. And they will do everything they can to foil Mr. Bloomberg’s vow to fire as many as half the teachers in the city’s worst-performing schools.

Mr. Bloomberg knows that he has a battle in front of him. He also knows that with just two years left in his term, he has little time to lose if he wants to achieve radical reform. He will have to be necessarily provocative—in his words, and, more important, in his actions.

The mayor and the governor may not care for each other these days, but they surely have one thing in common: They know they’re in for a battle with the teachers union, and they know they simply have to win. For the sake of the children.

This may seem like common sense. But for the teachers union and, regrettably, for the New York chapter of the NAACP, these ideas are heresy. That’s why they joined forces to sue the city when the Bloomberg administration sought to close 22 failing schools while opening 15 new charters in existing school buildings. Fortunately, common sense has prevailed. State Supreme Court Justice Paul G. Feinman recently ruled that the city had followed all proper procedures, and so he denied attempts by the union and the NAACP to stop the city from moving ahead with the closings. The union vows that it will not give up on the suit, which is hardly a surprise.

The saddest part of this spectacle was the NAACP’s presence in the court as an opponent of charter school reform. Charter schools serve—and serve well— predominately minority neighborhoods. Their importance will become only greater as the number of Catholic schools continues to decline, leaving many neighborhoods without an alternative to a failing public school. But the head of the New York chapter of the NAACP, Hazel Dukes, recently lashed out at an African-American parent of a charter school student. Ms. Dukes, who was a political laughingstock during her time as president of Off-Track Betting two decades ago, actually accused the parent of “doing the business of slave masters.”

That sort of language, that sort of mentality, speaks to the character of some (though not all) critics who will say anything and disparage anybody in defense of the failed status quo. Ms. Dukes argued that those who are working to bring quality education into poorly served neighborhoods are the moral equivalent of slave owners, and those parents who send their children to charter schools are complicit in this new form of enslavement.

Ms. Dukes has not been a credible figure in New York’s civic life for many years, with good reason. (In 1997, she admitted to embezzling $13,000 from an O.T.B. employee who was suffering from cancer.) But the teachers union remains a powerful force on behalf of the status quo. Its leaders should give up on this case, but they surely will not. They can’t help themselves. What a shame.