Background: School leaders argue that to make the improvements in both quality and equity that government mandates demand, they need more flexibility with regard to personnel management—specifically, teacher assignment. According to some, such flexibility is constrained by collective bargaining between teachers unions and school districts.
Purpose: To examine how collective bargaining agreements govern the assignment of teachers to schools and classrooms and whether any observed variation among the agreements is due to district demographics and/or performance.
Research Methods:Sixty-six collective bargaining agreements between teachers unions and Florida's school districts were collected and analyzed for provisions germane to teacher assignment. The authors looked for contrasts among the contracts by district size, district socioeconomic status, district race, and district Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test performance with data from the Florida Department of Education.
Findings: Although staffing rules often favor seniority, contracts also grant administrators more discretion over transfers, reductions, and reassignments than critics have suggested. In addition, contracts are no more likely to restrict administrators' decisions about assignment in large, poor, minority, or low-performing districts than they are in other districts.
Implications for Research and Practice:Future research should consider whether teacher assignment looks any different in districts where contracts grant administrators discretion over teacher assignment. If so, what norms have replaced seniority as the primary basis for transfers, reductions, and reassignments, and do these norms hold promise for school improvement and equity? The authors encourage the development and testing of new systems that use teachers' past performance with different types of students to make evidence-based assignments.
Ballou, D. (2000a). Contractual constraints on school management: Principals'perspectives on teacher contracts. In D . Ravitch & J. Viteritti (Eds.), City schools: Lessons from New York (pp. 89-116). Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press.
2.
Ballou, D. (2000b). Teacher contracts in Massachusetts. Boston: Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Analysis .
3.
Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
Betts, J.R., Rueben, K.S., & Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution of school resources and student achievement in California . San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
5.
Bogden, R., & Bicklin, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). School district expenditures and fiscal stress . Retrieved on September 27, 2004, from http://www.albany.edu/edfin/CR02.BLW.ReportWeb.pdf
7.
Cibulka, J.G. (2000). The NEA and school choice. In T. Loveless (Ed.), Conflicting missions? Teachers unions and educational reform (pp. 150-173). Washington, DC : Brookings Institution.
8.
Coburn, C.E.2001. Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.
9.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
10.
Dreeben, R., & Barr, R. (1988). The formation and instruction of ability groups . American Journal of Education, 97(1), 34-64.
11.
Education Trust West. ( 2005). California's hidden teacher spending gap: How state and district budgeting practices shortchange poor and minority students and their schools. Oakland, CA: Author.
12.
Farber, H. (2006). Union membership in the United States. In J. Hannaway & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today's schools (pp. 27-51). Cambridge, MA : Harvard Education Press.
13.
Figlio, D. (2003). Testing, crime, and punishment (NBER Working Papers 11194). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research
14.
Figlio, D., & Winicki, J. (2002). Food for thought: The effects of school accountability plans on school nutrition. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
15.
Freeman, R.B., & Ichniowski, C. (1988). When public sector workers unionize. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
Gamoran, A., Nystrand, M., Berends, M., & LePore, P.C. (1995). An organizational analysis of the effects of ability grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 687-715.
17.
Gamoran, A., Porter, A.C., Smithson, J., & White, P.A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-income, low-achieving youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325-338.
18.
Goldschmidt, S., & Stuart, L.E. (1986). The extent and impact of educational policy bargaining . Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 39(3), 350-360.
19.
Guin, K. (2004). Chronic teacher turnover in urban elementary schools . Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(42). Retrieved August 12, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n42
20.
Guskey, T. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 6-11.
21.
Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., & Rivkin, S.G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), 326-354.
22.
Hess, F.M., & Kelly, A. (2006). Scapegoat, albatross, or what? The status quo in teacher collective bargaining. In J. Hannaway & A. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today's school (pp. 53-88). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
23.
Hess, F.M., & West, M.R. (2006). A better bargain: Overhauling teacher collective bargaining for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Program on Education Policy & Governance.
24.
Hill, P. (2006). The costs of collective bargaining agreements and related district policies. In J. Hannaway & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today's schools (pp. 89-109). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
25.
Johnson, S.M., & Donaldson, M.L. (2006). The effects of collective bargaining on teacher quality. In J. Hannaway & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today's schools (pp. 111-140). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
26.
Johnson, S.M., & Kardos, S.M. (2000). Reforming bargaining and its promise for school improvement. In T. Loveless (Ed.), Conflicting missions? Teachers unions and educational reform (pp. 7-46). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
27.
Kahlenberg, R.D. (2006). The history of collective bargaining among teachers . In J. Hannaway & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today's schools (pp. 7-25). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
28.
Kerchner, C.T. (1986). Union-made teaching: The effects of labor relations on teaching work. Review of Research in Education, 13, 317-349.
29.
Kerchner, C.T., & Caufman, K.D. (1995). Lurching toward professionalism: The saga of teacher unionism. Elementary School Journal, 96(10), 107-122.
30.
Kerchner, C.T., Koppich, J., & Weeres, J.G. (1997). United mind workers: Unions and teaching in the knowledge society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
31.
Kerchner, C.T., & Mitchell, D.E. (1988). The changing idea of a teachers' union. New York: Falmer .
32.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 38-62.
34.
Lieberman, M. (1997). The teacher unions: How the NEA and AFT sabotage reform and hold students, parents, teachers, and taxpayers hostage to bureaucracy . New York: Free Press.
35.
Loveless, T. (2000). The tracking wars. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
36.
Lyons, J.E., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Perceptions of the impact of accountability on the role of principals. Education Policy Analysis Archives , 14(16). Retrieved June 19, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n16/.
37.
Manna, P. (2006). Teachers unions and No Child Left Behind. In J. Hannaway & A. Rotherman (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today's schools (pp. 159-179). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
38.
March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factor in political life. American Political Science Review, 78, 734-749.
39.
McDonnell, L.M., & Pascal, A.H. (1978). Organized teachers and local schools. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 33(2), 33—44.
40.
McDonnell, L.M., & Pascal, A.H. (1979). Organized teachers in American schools (Document R-2407-NIE, pp. 56-57). Santa Monica, CA : RAND.
41.
McDonnell, L.M., & Pascal, A.H. (1988). Teachers unions and educational reform (Document JRE-02). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
42.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
Mitchell, D., Kerchner, C., Erk, W., & Prior, G. (1981). The impact of collective bargaining on school management and policy. American Journal of Education, 89(2), 147-188.
44.
Murnane, R.J. (1981). Teacher mobility revisited. The Journal of Human Resources, 16(1), 3-19.
45.
New Teacher Project. (2003). Missed opportunities: How we keep high-quality teachers out of urban classrooms . New York: Author.
46.
New Teacher Project. (2005). Unintended consequences: The case for reforming the staffing rules in urban teachers union contracts. New York: Author.
47.
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
48.
Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R.N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 570—608). New York: Macmillan.
49.
O'Reilly, R. (1978). Understanding collective bargaining in education: Negotiations, contracts and disputes between teachers and boards. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
50.
Powell, W.W., & DiMaggio, P.J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51.
Rees, D.I., Argys, L.M., & Brewer, D.J. (1996). Tracking in the United States: Descriptive statistics from NELS. Economics of Education Review, 15(1), 83-89.
52.
Rowan, B. (1982). Organizational structure and the institutional environment: The case of public schools. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 259-279.
53.
Rowan, B., & Miskel, C.G. (1999). Institutional theory and the study of educational organizations. In J. Murphy & K.S. Lewis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 359-383). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
54.
Rubin, H. (1970). Labor relations in state and local governments . Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 30(2), 14-28.
55.
Silverman, S. (2005, November 9). No Child Left Behind is becoming an issue in teacher contract talks around the country. Associated Press. Retrieved May 22, 2006, from http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1296342&page=1
56.
Simpkins, E., McCutcheon, A., & Alec, R. (1979). Arbitration and policy issues in school contracts . Education and Urban Society, 11, 241-254.
57.
Smylie, M. (1995). New perspectives on teacher leadership. The Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 3-7.
58.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures & techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
59.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60.
Tye, B.B. (1987). The deep structure of schooling. Phi Delta Kappan,69(4), 281-284.
61.
Tye, B.B. (2000). Hard truths: Uncovering the deep structure of schooling. New York: Teachers College Press.
62.
Vinovskis, M. (2000). Teachers unions and educational research and development . In T. Loveless (Ed.) Conflicting missions? Teachers unions and educational reform (pp. 211-239). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
