We extend the work of Cowen and Fowles by examining contracts in Kentucky school districts with collective bargaining. Using document analysis, we sought to answer the following research question: Do key provisions of teacher contracts change over time? We also examine the most recently negotiated contract in Louisville schools (2013-2018). We find that it is far more likely for the provisions to remain substantively unchanged across Kentucky school districts, with some districts more active in negotiating substantive change than others. We find that teacher seniority rights generally diminished in teacher assignment and transfer provisions, except in reduction in force decisions.
AlmondG.PowellG. B. (1956). Comparative politics: A developmental approach. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
2.
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 Johns Hopkins University Press.
3.
BallouD. (2000b). Teacher contracts in Massachusetts. Boston, MA: Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Analysis.
BaughW. H.StoneJ. A. (1982). Teachers, unions, and wages in the 1970s: Unionism now pays. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 35, 368-376.
6.
BillJ. A.HardgraveR. L. (1981). Comparative politics. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
7.
BowenG. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
8.
BrunnerE. J.SquiresT. (2013). The bargaining power of teachers’ unions and the allocation of school resources. Journal of Urban Economics, 76, 15-27.
9.
CaseyL. (2006). The educational value of democratic voice: A defense of collective bargaining in American education. In HannawayJ.RotherhamA. J. (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 181-202). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
10.
ChilcoteR. (1981). Theories of comparative politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
11.
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.
12.
Cohen-VogelL.Osborne-LampkinL. (2007). Allocating quality: Collective bargaining agreements and administrative discretion over teacher assignment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 433-461.
13.
CowenJ. W.FowlesJ. (2013). Same contract, different day? An analysis of teacher bargaining agreements in Louisville, since 1979. Teachers College Records, 113, 1-30.
14.
CowenJ. W.StrunkK. O. (2015). The impact of teachers’ unions on educational outcomes: What we know and what we need to learn. Economics of Education Review, 48, 208-223.
15.
DobbinF. (1994). Forging industrial policy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University press.
16.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-195, §2, 129 Stat. 1177 (2015).
17.
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.
18.
GoldhaberD.TheobaldR. (2013). Managing the teacher workforce in austere times: The determinants of teacher layoffs. Education Finance and Policy, 8, 494-527.
GonzalezM. A. (2017, January17). NEA president: Betsy DeVos is dangerously unqualified to serve as education secretary. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/69582.htm
21.
HallP. A.TaylorR. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44, 936-957.
22.
HartneyM.FlavinP. (2011). From the schoolhouse to the statehouse: Teacher union political activisim and US state education reform policy. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 11, 251-268.
23.
HessF. M.LealD. L. (2005). Schoolhouse politics: Expenditures, interests and competition in school board elections. In HowellW. G. (Ed.), Beseiged: School boards and the future of education politics (pp. 228-253). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
24.
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.
25.
HirschB. T.MacphersonD. A.VromanW. G. (2001). Estimates of union density by state. Monthly Labor Review, 124(7), 51-55.
26.
HowellF. J. (2014). Entropic management: Restructuring district office culture in the New York City Department of Education. Urban Review, 46, 725-746.
27.
HoxbyC. M. (1996). How teacher unions effect education production. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 671-718.
28.
IngleW. K.WillisP. C.FritzJ. (2015). Collective bargaining agreement provisions in the wake of Ohio Teacher Evaluation System legislation. Educational Policy, 29, 18-50.
29.
IngleW. K.WillisP. C.HerdA. (2017). Defining “comparable”: An analysis of reduction in force provisions in Ohio school districts. Journal of School Leadership, 27, 68-93.
30.
IngramP.ClayK. (2000). The choice-within-constraints new institutionalism and implications for sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 525-546.
LecoursA. (2005). New institutionalism: Theory and analysis. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
34.
LovenheimM. F. (2009). The effect of teachers’ unions on education production: Evidence from union election certifications in three Midwestern states. Journal of Labor Economics, 27, 525-587.
35.
MalinM. H. (2012). Papers from the Associations of the American Law Schools 2012 Annual Meeting Section of Labor Relations and Employment Law: Sifting through the wreckage of the tsunami that hit public sector collective bargaining. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 16, 533-629.
36.
MannaP. (2006). Teacher unions and No Child Left Behind. In HannawayJ.RotherhamA. J. (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 159-180). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
37.
MoeT. M. (2006). Political control and the power of the agent. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 22, 1-29.
38.
MoeT. M. (2009). Collective bargaining and the performance of the public schools. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 156-174.
39.
MoeT. M. (2011). Special interest: Teacher unions and America’s public schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
40.
MonroS. (2007). New Institutionalism and sexuality at work in local governments. Gender, Work, and Organization, 14, 1-19.
41.
MurphyJ.HallingerP.HeckR. H. (2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: The case of the missing clothes?Educational Researcher, 42, 349-354.
42.
OrrúM.Woolsey-BiggartN.HamiltonG. G. (1989). Organizational isomorphism in East Asia. In PowellW. W.DimaggioP. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 361-389). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
43.
PogodzinskiB.UmpsteadR.WittJ. (2015). Teacher evaluation reform implementation and labor relations. Journal of Education Policy, 30, 540-561.
RoseH.SonstelieJ. (2010). School board politics, school district size, and the bargaining power of teachers’ unions. Journal of Urban Economics, 67, 438-450.
46.
SeilerM. F.ChiltonK.AlexanderA.CissellG.LandyB.NelsonD.. . . YoungP. (2010). Analysis of collective bargaining agreements in Kentucky districts. Frankfort, KY: Legislative Research Commission.
47.
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.
48.
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.
49.
TinsleyH. E. A.WeissD. J. (1975). Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgements. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 358-376.
50.
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.
51.
VijgeM. J. (2013). The promise of new institutionalism: Explaining the absence of a world or United Nations environment organization. International Environmental Agreements, 13, 153-176.
52.
WangY. (2016). Homology and isomorphism: Bourdieu in conversation with New Institutionalism. The British Journal of Sociology, 67(1), 348-370.
53.
WillisP. C.IngleW. K. (2016). Profiles of merit pay provisions in Ohio school districts. Leadership & Policy in Schools. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/15700763.2016.1232835
54.
WinklerA. M.ScullJ.ZeehandelaarD. (2012). How strong are U.S. teacher unions?Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
55.
WintersJ. V. (2011). Teacher salaries and teacher unions: A spatial econometric approach. ILR Review, 64, 747-767.
56.
WisemanA. W.AstizM. F.BakerD. P. (2014). Comparative education research framed by neo-institutional theory: A review of diverse approaches and conflicting assumptions. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 44, 688-709.
57.
YoungT. V. (2011). Teachers unions in turbulent times: Maintaining their niche. Peabody Journal of Education, 86, 338-351.
58.
ZwerlingH. L.ThomasonT. (1995). Collective bargaining and the determinants of teachers’ salaries. Journal of Labor Research, 16, 467-484.
