Although charter schools are frequently afforded flexibility from many state laws that govern traditional public schools, a growing number of charter school teachers have now unionized and introduced collective bargaining to the charter sector. Using data from a detailed content analysis of teacher CBAs from California, we compare the restrictiveness of CBAs in 75 unionized charter bargaining units to the restrictiveness of CBAs in 31 nearest neighbor traditional public school district bargaining units. We find that independent charter CBAs are much more flexible than the CBAs of traditional public school districts, but charter school CBAs of bargaining units combined with traditional public school districts are comparably restrictive.
AbleidingerJ.HasselB. C. (2010). Free to lead: Autonomy in highly successful charter schools. Issue brief, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535213.pdf
2.
BuddeR. (1988). Education by charter: Restructuring school districts. Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.
ChubbJ. E.MoeT. M. (1988). Politics, markets, and the organization of schools. American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1065–1087.
8.
CookJ.LavertuS.MillerC. (2021). Rent-seeking through collective bargaining: Teachers unions and education production. Economics of Education Review, 85, 102193.
9.
CowenJ. M.FowlesJ. (2013). Same contract, different day? An analysis of teacher bargaining agreements in Louisville since 1979. Teachers College Record, 115(5), 1–30.
FreemanR. B.MedoffJ. L. (1984). What do unions do. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 38, 244.
15.
GoldhaberD.LaveryL.TheobaldR. (2014). My end of the bargain: Are there cross- district effects in teacher contract provisions?ILR Review, 67(4), 1274–1305.
16.
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).
17.
HartC. M. D.SojournerA. J. (2015). Unionization and productivity: Evidence from charter schools. Industrial Relations A Journal of Economy and Society, 54(3), 422–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12097
18.
HenigJ.HolyokeT.BrownH.Lacireno-PaquetN. (2005). The influence of founder type on charter school structures and operations. American Journal of Education, 111(4), 487–588. https://doi.org/10.1086/431181
19.
HessF.LoupC. (2008). The leadership limbo: Teacher labor agreements in America’s fifty largest school districts. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED500316
20.
HessF. M.KellyA. P. (2006). Scapegoat, albatross, or what? The status quo in teacher collective bargaining. In HannawayJ.RotherhamA. (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 53–88). Harvard Education Press.
21.
HuertaL. A.ZuckermanA. (2009). An institutional theory analysis of charter schools: Addressing institutional challenges to scale. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 414–431.
22.
HussarB.ZhangJ.HeinS.WangK.RobertsA.CuiJ.DiligR. (2020). The condition of Education 2020. NCES 2020-144. National Center for Education Statistics. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED605216.pdf
23.
JabbarH. (2018). Recruiting “talent”: School choice and teacher hiring in New Orleans. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(1), 115–151.
24.
JabbarH.ChaninJ.HaynesJ.SlaughterS. (2020). Teacher power and the politics of union organizing in the charter sector. Educational Policy, 34(1), 211–238.
25.
JochimA.LaveryL. (2021). Worth the bargain? Collective bargaining agreements in unionized charter schools. Journal of School Choice, 15(2), 248–267.
26.
JohnsonS. M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. Basic Books.
27.
JohnsonS. M.DonaldsonM. L.MungerM. S.PapayJ. P.QazilbashE. K. (2009). Leading the local: Teachers union presidents chart their own course. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 374–393.
28.
JohnsonS. M.KardosS. M. (2000). Reform bargaining and its promise for school improvement. In LovelessT. (Ed.), Conflicting missions? Teachers unions and educational reform (pp. 7–46). Brookings Institution Press.
29.
KahlenbergR. D. (2007). Tough liberal: Albert Shanker and the battles over schools, unions, race, and democracy. Columbia University Press.
30.
KahlenbergR. D.PotterH. (2015). Restoring Shanker’s vision for charter schools. American Education, 38(4), 4.
LubienskiC. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 395–443.
33.
LubienskiC.LeeJ. (2016). Competitive incentives and the education market: How charter schools define themselves in metropolitan Detroit. Peabody Journal of Education, 91(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2016.1119582
34.
MalloyC. L.WohlstetterP. (2003). Working conditions in charter schools: What’s the appeal for teachers?Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 219–241.
35.
MariannoB. D. (2021). A negotiated disadvantage? California collective bargaining agreements and achievement gaps. Educational Researcher, 50(7), 451–462.
36.
MariannoB. D.BrunoP.StrunkK. O. (2021). The effect of teachers’ union contracts on school district efficiency: Longitudinal evidence from California. Sage Open, 11(1), 2158244020988684.
37.
MariannoB. D.KilbrideT.TheobaldR.StrunkK. O.CowenJ. M.GoldhaberD. (2018). Cut from the same cloth? Comparing urban district CBAs within states and across the United States. Educational Policy, 32(2), 334–359.
38.
MariannoB. D.StrunkK. O. (2018). The bad end of the bargain? Revisiting the relationship between collective bargaining agreements and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 65, 93–106.
39.
MatsudairaJ. D.PattersonR. W. (2017). Teachers’ unions and school performance: Evidence from California charter schools. Economics of Education Review, 61, 35–50.
40.
McDonnellL. M.PascalA. (1988). Teacher unions and educational reform. Publications Department, The Rand Corp.
41.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
42.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In MeyerM. W.ScottW. R.RowanB.DealT. E. (Eds.), Environments and organizations (pp. 78–109). Jossey-Bass.
43.
MurphyM. (1992). Blackboard unions: The AFT and the NEA, 1900-1980. Cornell University Press.
RenzulliL. A.BarrA. B.PainoM. (2015). Innovative education? A test of specialist mimicry or generalist assimilation in trends in charter school specialization over time. Sociology of Education, 88(1), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040714561866
52.
StrunkK. O. (2011). Are teachers’ unions really to blame? Collective bargaining agreements and their relationships with district resource allocation and student performance in California. Education Finance and Policy, 6(3), 354–398.
53.
StrunkK. O. (2012). Policy poison or promise: Exploring the dual nature of California school district collective bargaining agreements. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 506–547.
54.
StrunkK. O.CowenJ.GoldhaberD.MariannoB. D.TheobaldR.KilbrideT. (2022). Public school teacher contracts and state-level reforms: Assessing changes to collective bargaining restrictiveness across three states. American Educational Research Journal, 59(3), 538–573.
55.
StrunkK. O.CowenJ. M.GoldhaberD.MariannoB. D.KilbrideT.TheobaldR. (2018). It is in the contract: How the policies set in teachers’ unions’ collective bargaining agreements vary across states and districts. Educational Policy, 32(2), 280–312.
56.
StrunkK. O.McEachinA. (2011). Accountability under constraint: The relationship between collective bargaining agreements and California schools’ and districts’ performance under No Child Left behind. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 871–903.
57.
StrunkK. O.ReardonS. F. (2010). Measuring the strength of teachers’ unions: An empirical application of the partial independence item response approach. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(6), 629–670.
58.
StuitD. A.SmithT. M. (2012). Explaining the gap in charter and traditional public school teacher turnover rates. Economics of Education Review, 31(2), 268–279.
59.
TorresA. C. (2014). Are we architects or construction workers?” Re-examining teacher autonomy and turnover in charter schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(124), 124.
60.
UrbanW. J. (2004). Teacher politics. In HendersonR. D.UrbanW.WolmanP. (Eds.), Teacher unions and education policy: Retrenchment of reform (pp. 103–123). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
61.
VergariS. (2007). The politics of charter schools. Educational Policy, 21(1), 15–39.
WohlstetterP.SmithJ.FarrellC. C. (2013). Choices and challenges: Charter school performance in perspective. Harvard Education Press.
65.
WohlstetterP.WenningR.BriggsK. L. (1995). Charter schools in the United States: The question of autonomy. Educational Policy, 9(4), 331–358.
66.
WooD. S.MariannoB. D. (2021). After the vote: Unionization’s effect on Chicago’s charter schools. In D’AmicoD. (Ed.), Walkout: Teacher militancy, activism, and school reform (pp. 175–198). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
