Striking for nine days in 2008, teachers in Bellevue carved a distinctive path through the contradictory movements for professional reform unionism and national accountability. In addition to compensation, Bellevue’s teachers struck over the top-down prescriptive management epitomized by the Gates Foundation supported “Curriculum Web.” Where district administrators envisioned the web as a community resource, teachers complained that its detailed daily lesson plans hamstrung their ability to teach effectively. Teachers returned to work only when a memorandum of understanding was signed recognizing their authority to deviate from the district’s web-based curriculum. To achieve reform minded goals, teachers relied upon traditional union militancy.
Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations (Dunlop Commission). (1994). Report and recommendations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
9.
ElfersA. M.PleckiM. L. (2009). Taking stock of Washington’s teacher workforce: An assessment of conditions prior to the economic downturn; Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy (CSTP); Seattle: University of Washington.
10.
FoucaultM. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Random House.
11.
GordonD.EdwardsR.ReichM. (1982). Segmented work, divided workers, the historical transformation of labor in the United States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
HashimotoM. (1981). Firm-specific human capital as a shared investment. American Economic Review, 71(3), 475-482.
13.
JacobyDaniel F (2010). Teacher Unionization in School Governance, Educational Policy, 0895904810374852 First Published Online on September 6, 2010, dol: 10.1177/089590481037485210.1177/0895904810374852.
14.
KahlenbergR. D. (2007). Tough liberal, Albert Shanker and the battles over schools, unions, race and democracy. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
15.
KearnsD. (1988). Winning the brain race: A bold plan to make our nations schools competitive. Dubuque, IA: Kendal/Hunt Publishing.
16.
KerchnerC.KoppichJ.WeeresJ. (1997). United mind workers, unions and teaching in the knowledge society. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17.
KerchnerC. T.MitchellD. (1988). The changing idea of a teacher union. Philadelphia: Flamer Press.
18.
KoikeK. (1987). Human resource development and labor-management relations. In YamamuraK. (Ed.), Political economy of Japan (Vol. 1.). 289-330. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
ParkerM.SlaughterJ. (1992). Should the Labour Movement buy TQM?Journal of Organizational Change and Management, 6(4), 43-56.
22.
PleckiM. L.ElfersA. M.KnappM. S.LoebH.PerkinsC.BoatrightB. (2003). Who’s teaching Washington’s children?;Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy (CSTP); Seattle: University of Washington, College of Education.
23.
PooleW. (2000). The construction of teachers’ paradoxical interests by teacher union leaders. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 93-119
24.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system. How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
25.
RobertsonS. (2008). Remaking the world neo-liberalism and the transformation of education and teachers’ labor. In ComptonM.WeinerL. (Eds.), The global assault on teaching, teachers and their unions, stories for resistance (pp. 11-30). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
26.
StevensonH. J.CarterB. (2009). Teachers and the state: Forming and reforming the partnership. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 41(4), 311-326.
27.
StreshleyW.DeMitchellT. (1994). Teacher unions and TQE. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
28.
WebbP. T. (2006). The choreography of accountability. Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 201-214.
29.
WeinerLois (2000). Research in the 90s: Implications for Urban Teacher Preparation, Review of Educational Research. Vol 70, No. 3 (Autumn, 2000), 369-406.
