Guided by Honig and Hatch’s conceptualization of bridging and buffering, we analyzed the first teacher collective bargaining agreements negotiated after the enactment of the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System to understand how state law has shaped provisions for teacher evaluation, compensation, reductions in force (RIF), transfers, and contract renewal. We found surprising variation in provisions across districts. Most notable was how districts defined comparable evaluations in making RIF decisions. Bridging districts provided the greatest protections for the most accomplished teachers, regardless of seniority. In contrast, buffering districts have RIF provisions based on seniority.
BallouD. (2000a). Contractual constraints on school management: Principals’ perspectives on teacher contracts. In RavitchD.ViterittiJ. (Eds.), City schools, lessons from New York (pp. 89-116). Baltimore, MD: The JohnHopkinsUniversity Press.
BathonJ. (2013). Collective bargaining in public schools. In GoodenM. A.EckesS. E.MeadJ. F.McNealL. R.TorresM. S. Jr. (Eds.), The principal’s legal handbook (5th ed., pp. 569-582). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.
7.
BettsJ. R.RuebenK. S.DanenbergA. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution of school resources and student achievement in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
8.
BlaseJ. J.BlaseJ. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 130-141.
9.
BlumentrittT. P. (2003). Foreign subsidiaries’ government affairs activities: The influence of managers and resources. Business Society, 42, 202-233.
10.
BuckleyK.MarionS. (2011). A survey of approaches used to evaluate educators in non-tested/grades and subjects. Dover, NH: NationalCenter for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.nciea.org/publications-2/
11.
CareyK. H. (2014). Anderson’s Ohio school law manual. New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis.
12.
CarnoyM.LoebS. (2003). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305-331.
13.
Cohen-VogelL.FengL.Osborne-LampkinL. (2013). Seniority provisions in collective bargaining agreements and the “teacher quality gap.”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 324-343.
14.
Cohen-VogelL.IngleW. K. (2007). When neighbours matter most: Innovation, diffusion and state policy adoption in tertiary education. Journal of Education Policy, 22, 241-262.
15.
Cohen-VogelL.Osborne-LampkinL. (2007). Allocating quality: Collective bargaining agreements and administrative discretion over teacher assignment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 433-461.
16.
Cohen-VogelL.Osborne-LampkinL.HouckE. (2013). New data, old patterns: The role of test scores in student assignment. In AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS. A.JacobsenR. (Eds.), The infrastructure of accountability: Mapping data use and its consequences (pp. 141-161). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
17.
CowenJ. W.FowlesJ. (2013). Same contract, different day? An analysis of teacher bargaining agreements in Louisville since 1979. Teachers College Record, 113(5), 1-30.
18.
CrumK. S.ShermanW. H. (2008). Facilitating high achievement: High school principals’ reflections on their successful leadership practices. Journal of Educational Administration, 46, 562-580.
19.
DanielsonC.McGrealT. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
20.
Darling-HammondL.Amrein-BeardsleyL.HaertelE.RothsteinJ. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation: Popular modes of evaluating teachers are fraught with inaccuracies and inconsistencies, but the field has identified better approaches. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8-15.
21.
DeBoerJ. (2012). Centralization and decentralization in American education policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 510-513.
22.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
23.
DiPaolaM. F.Tschannen-MoranM. (2005). Bridging or buffering? The impact of schools’ adaptive strategies on student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 43, 60-71.
24.
EdelmanL. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1531-1576.
25.
ElmoreR. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
FennellM. L.AlexanderJ. A. (1987). Organizational boundary spanning in institutionalized environments. The Academy of Management Journal, 30, 456-476.
28.
GallagherH. A. (2004). Vaughan Elementary’s innovative teacher evaluation system: Are teacher evaluation scores related to growth in student achievement?Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 79-107.
29.
GlickmanC. D.GordonS. P.Ross-GordonJ. M. (2013). The basic guide to supervision and instructional leadership (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
30.
GoldhaberD.LaveryL.TheobaldR.D’EntremontD.FangY. (2013). Teacher collective bargaining: Assessing the internal validity of partial independence item response measures of contract restrictiveness. SAGE Open, 3(2), 1-16.
31.
GoldhaberD.PerryD.AnthonyE. (2004). The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) process: Who applies and what factors are associated with NBPTS certification?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 259-280.
32.
GoldhaberD.TheobaldR. (2013). Managing the teacher workforce in austere times: The determinants of teacher layoffs. Education Finance and Policy, 8, 494-527.
33.
HanushekE. A. (2007). The single salary schedule and other issues of teacher pay. Peabody Journal of Education, 82, 574-586.
34.
HanushekE. A. (2011). The economic value of higher teacher quality. Economics of Education Review, 30, 466-479.
35.
HarrisD. N. (2011). Value-added measure in education: What every educator needs to know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
36.
HarrisD. N.AdamsS. (2007). Understanding the level and causes of teacher turnover: A comparison with other professions. Economics of Education Review, 26, 325-337.
37.
HarrisD. N.IngleW. K.RutledgeS. A. (2014). How teacher evaluation methods matter for accountability: A comparative analysis of teacher ratings by principals and teacher value-added measures. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 73-112.
38.
HarrisD. N.RutledgeS. (2010). Models and predictors of teacher effectiveness: A review of the evidence with lessons from (and for) other occupations. Teachers College Record, 112, 914-960.
39.
HarrisD. N.SassT. R. (2009). The effects of NBPTS certified teachers on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28, 55-80.
40.
HarrisD. N.SassT. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 798-812.
41.
HaziH. M.RucinskiD. A. (2009). Teacher evaluation as a policy target for improved student learning: A fifty-state review of statute and regulatory action since NCLB. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(5), 1-22.
42.
HessF. M.KellyA. P. (2005). An innovative look, a recalcitrant reality: The politics of principal preparation reform. Educational Policy, 19, 155-180.
43.
HessF. M.WestM. R. (2006). A better bargain: Overhauling teacher collective bargaining for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Program on Education Policy & Governance.
44.
HillP. (2006). The costs of collective bargaining agreements and related district policies. In HannawayJ.RotherhamA. J. (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 89-109). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
45.
HolyokeT. T.HenigJ. R.BrownH.Lacireno-PaquetN. (2009). Policy dynamics and the evolution of state charter school laws. Policy Sciences, 42, 33-55.
46.
HonigM. I.HatchT. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30.
47.
HoyW. K.MiskelC. J. (2013). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (9th ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
48.
IngleW. K.JohnsonP. A.GivensM.RampeltJ. (2013). Campaign expenditures in school levy campaigns and their relationship to voter approval: Evidence from Ohio, 2007-2010. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12, 1-36.
49.
IngleW. K.RutledgeS. A.BishopJ. L. (2011). Context matters: Principals’ sensemaking of teacher hiring and on-the-job performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 579-610.
50.
JacobB. A.LefgrenL. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26, 101-136.
51.
JohnsonS. M. (2001). Can professional certification for teachers reshape teaching as a career?Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 393-399.
52.
JohnsonS. M.KardosS. M. (2000). Reforming bargaining and its promise for school improvement. In LovelessT. (Ed.), Conflicting missions? Teachers unions and educational reform (pp. 7-46). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
53.
KaneT. J.McCaffreyD. M.MillerT.StaigerD. O. (2013). Have we identified effective teachers? Validating measures of effective teaching using random assignment. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
54.
KennedyM. (2010). Introduction: The uncertain relationship between teacher assessment and teacher quality. In KennedyM. (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 9-42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
55.
KimballS. M.MilanowskiA. (2004). Examining the relationship between teacher evaluation and student assessment results in WashoeCounty. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 54-78.
56.
KoppichJ. E.HumphreyD. C.HoughH. J. (2007). Making use of what teachers know and can do: Policy, practice, and national board certification. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(7). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/55
57.
KoskiW. S.HorngE. L. (2007). Facilitating the teacher quality gap? Collective bargaining agreements, teacher hiring and transfer rules, and teacher assignment among schools in California. Education Finance and Policy, 2, 262-300.
58.
LankfordM.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools. A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37-62.
59.
LevineA. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York, NY: The Education Schools Project, Teachers College.
LortieD. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological perspective. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
62.
LouisK. S.FebeyK.SchroederR. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high schools: Teachers’ interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 177-204.
63.
LouisK. S.LeithwoodK.WahlstromK.AndersonS. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. St. Paul: University of MinnesotaCenter for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
64.
MarczelyB. A. (1991). Frequency with which tenured teachers are evaluated and quality of instruction. Education, 112, 295-298.
65.
MarzanoR.WatersT.McNultyB. (2011). Leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
66.
MavrogordatoM. (2012). Educational equity policies and the centralization of American public education: The case of bilingual education. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 455-467.
67.
MayH.SupovitzJ. A. (2011). The scope of principal efforts to improve instruction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 332-352.
68.
McCaffreyD. L.SassT. R.LockwoodJ. R.MihalyK. (2009). The intertemporal variability of teacher effect estimates. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 572-606.
69.
McDonnellL. M.PascalA. H. (1978). Organized teachers and local schools. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 33, 33-44.
70.
McLaughlinM. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
71.
MedleyD. M.CokerH. (1987). The accuracy of principals’ judgments of teacher performance. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 242-247.
72.
MenzarM. B.NighD. (1995). Buffer or bridge? Environmental and organizational determinants of public affairs activities in American firms. The Academy of Management Journal, 38, 975-996.
73.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
74.
MeyersC. (2012). The centralizing role of terminology: A consideration of achievement gap, NCLB, and school turnaround. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 468-484.
75.
MilanowskiA. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student assessment: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 33-53.
76.
MitchellD. E.KerchnerC. T.ErkW.PriorG. (1981). The impact of collective bargaining on school management and policy. American Journal of Education, 89, 147-188.
77.
MoeT. M. (2009). Collective bargaining and the performance of the public schools. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 156-174.
78.
MurnaneR. J. (1975). The impact of school resources on the learning of inner-city children. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
79.
MurphyJ. (2012). Homeschooling in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
80.
MurphyJ.HallingerP.HeckR. H. (2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: The case of the missing clothes?Educational Researcher, 42, 349-354.
81.
NatrielloG. (1984). Teachers’ perceptions of the frequency of evaluation and assessments of their effort and effectivess. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 579-595.
82.
New Teacher Project. (2005). Unintended consequences: The case for reforming the staffing rules in urban teachers union contracts. New York, NY: Author.
83.
OgawaR. T. (1998). Organizing parent-teacher relations around the work of teaching. Peabody Journal of Education, 73, 6-14.
84.
Ohio Department of Education. (2012). Ohio teacher evaluation system (OTES) training workbook. Columbus: Author.
Ohio School Boards Association. (2002). Labor relations primer. Columbus: Author.
87.
PainterS. R. (2000). Principals’ efficacy beliefs about teacher evaluation. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 368-378.
88.
PetersonK. D. (1987). Teacher evaluation with multiple and variable lines of evidence. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 311-317.
89.
PetersonK. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
90.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
91.
PogodzinskiB. (2013, April). How labor management relations and human resource policies affect teacher assignment in urban school districts. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.
92.
PrinceC. D.SchuermannP. J.GuthrieJ. W.WithamP. J.MilanowskiA. T.ThornC. A. (2009). The other 69 percent: Fairly rewarding the performance of teachers of non-tested subjects and grades. Washington, D.C.: Center for Educator Compensation Reform. Retrieved from http://www.cecr.ed.gov/guides/other69Percent.pdf
93.
RiceJ. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
94.
RockoffJ. E.StaigerD. O.KaneT. J.TaylorE. S. (2010). Information and employee evaluation: Evidence from a randomized intervention in public schools (NBER Working Paper No. 16240). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
95.
RothsteinJ. (2009). Student sorting and bias in value-added estimation: Selection on observables and unobservables. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 537-571.
96.
RothsteinJ. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125, 175-214.
RutledgeS. A.HarrisD. N.IngleW. K. (2010). How principals “bridge and buffer” the new demands of teacher quality and accountability: A mixed methods analysis of teacher hiring. American Journal of Education, 116, 211-242.
99.
SaltzmanG. M. (1988). Public sector bargaining laws really matter: Evidence from Ohio and Illinois. In FreemanR. B.IchniowskiC. (Eds.), When public sector workers unionize (pp. 41-78).Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
100.
ScottW. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
101.
SnyderT. D.DillowS. A. (2012). Digest of Education Statistics, 2011 (NCES 2012-001. NationalCenter for Education Statistics, Institute of EducationSciences, U.S. Department of Education). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
102.
Southern Regional Education Board. (2003). Good principals are the key to successful schools: Six strategies to prepare more good principals. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
103.
SpillaneJ. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 141-179.
104.
SpillaneJ.ReiserB.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387-431.
105.
StakeR. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
StodoloskyS. (1984). Teacher evaluation: The limits of looking. Educational Researcher, 13, 11-18.
108.
StrunkK. O.GrissomJ. A. (2010). Do strong unions shape district policies? Collective bargaining, teacher contract restrictiveness, and the political power of teachers’ unions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 389-406.
109.
StrunkK. O.ReardonS. (2010). Measuring the strength of teachers’ unions: An empirical application of the partial independence item response approach. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35, 629-670.
110.
ThompsonJ. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
111.
TinsleyH. E. A.WeissD. J. (1975). Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgements. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 358-376.
112.
TinsleyH. E. A.WeissD. J. (2000). Interrater reliability and agreement. In TinsleyH. E. A.BrownS. D. (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 95-124). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
113.
van den BoschF. A. J.van RielC. B. M. (1998). Buffering and bridging as environmental strategies of firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 7, 24-31.
114.
WayneA. J.YoungsP. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89-122.
115.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
116.
WeisbergD.SextonS.MulhernJ.KellingD. (2009). The widget effect. Brooklyn, NY: The New Teacher Project.
117.
WestphalJ. D.ZajacE. J. (1994). Substance and symbolism in CEOs’ long-term incentive plans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 367-390.
118.
WilsonS.FlodenR. (2003). Creating effective teachers: Concise answers for hard questions. New York, NY: AACTE Publications.
119.
WilsonS.FlodenR.Ferrini-MundyJ. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
120.
WintersM. A.CowenJ. M. (2013). Who would stay, who would be dismissed? An empirical consideration of value-added teacher retention policies. Educational Researcher, 42, 330-337.
121.
WiseA. E.Darling-HammondL.McLaughlinM. W.BernsteinH. T. (1985). A study of effective practices. The Elementary School Journal, 86, 60-121.
122.
YoungI. P. (2008). The human resource function in educational administration (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
123.
YoungT. V. (2011). Teachers unions in turbulent times: Maintaining their niche. Peabody Journal of Education, 86, 338-351.
