Defining “Comparable”: An Analysis of Reduction in Force Provisions in Ohio School Districts

Abstract

Guided by Honig and Hatch's (2004) conceptualization of bridging and buffering, we undertook an analysis of reduction in force (RIF) provisions from 546 Ohio teacher collective bargaining agreements. We asked the following question: Are the most disadvantaged school districts providing greater protections to tenured teachers when making RIF decisions? Logistic regression analysis revealed a negative relationship (p < 0.05) between the percentage of students within the district living in poverty and bridging to state efforts to reform the use of seniority alone in RIF decisions.

Keywords

Collective Bargaining Unions Education Policy Human Resources

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Atteberry

, Loeb

, & Wyckoff

(2013). Do first impressions matter: Improvement in early career teacher effectiveness (working paper). Charlottesville, VA: Center on Education Policy and Workforce Competitiveness. Retrieved from http://curry.virginia.edu/uploads/resourceLibrary/11_Atteberry_FirstImpressions.pdf

Ballou

(2000a). Teacher contracts in Massachusetts. Boston: Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Analysis.

Ballou

(2000b). Contractual constraints on school management: Principals’ perspectives on teacher contracts. In Ravitch

, & Viteritti

(Eds.), City schools: Lessons from New York. (pp. 89–116). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

Ballou

, & Springer

M. G.

(2015). Using student test scores to measure teacher performance: Some problems in the design and implementation of evaluation systems. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 77–86.

Bastian

K. C.

, Henry

G. T.

, & Thompson

C. L.

(2013). Incorporating access to more effective teachers into assessments of educational resource equity. Education Finance and Policy, 8(4), 560–580.

Bathon

(2013). Collective bargaining in public schools. In Gooden

M. A.

, Eckes

S. E.

, Mead

J. F.

, McNeal

L. R.

, & Torres

M. S.

Jr. (Eds.), The principal's legal handbook (5th edition) (pp. 569–582). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.

Berliner

D. C.

(2013). Problems with value-added evaluations of teachers? Let me count the ways! Teacher Educator, 48(4), 235–243. doi:10.1080/08878730.2013.827496.

Betts

J. R.

, Reuben

K. S.

, & Danenberg

(2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution of school resources and student achievement in California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

Boyd

, Lankford

, Loeb

, & Wyckoff

(2011). Teacher layoffs: An empirical illustration of seniority versus measures of effectiveness. Education Finance and Policy, 6(3), 439–454.

10.

Camburn

E. M.

(2009). Allocating more experienced teachers to leadership positions in schools: A double-edged sword? Journal of School Leadership, 19(6), 680–696.

11.

Clotfelter

C. T.

, Ladd

H. L.

, & Vigdor

(2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24(4), 377–392.

12.

Cohen-Vogel

, Feng

, & Osborne-Lampkin

(2013). Seniority provisions in collective bargaining agreements and the “teacher quality gap.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(3), 324–343.

13.

Cohen-Vogel

, Osborne-Lampkin

, & Houck

(2013). New data, old patterns: The role of test scores in student assignment. In Anagnostopoulos

, Rutledge

S. A.

, and Jacobsen

(Eds.), The infrastructure of accountability: Mapping data use and its consequences (pp. 129–144). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

14.

Cowen

J. W.

, & Fowles

(2013). Same contract, different day? An analysis of teacher bargaining agreements in Louisville, since 1979. Teachers College Records, 113(5), 1–30.

15.

Darling-Hammond

, Amrein-Beardsley

, Haertel

, & Rothstein

(2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappa, 93(6), 8–15.

16.

DiPaola

M. F.

, & Tschannen-Moran

(2005). Bridging or buffering? The impact of schools’ adaptive strategies on student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(1), 60–71.

17.

Eberts

R. W.

, & Stone

J. A.

(1987). Teacher unions and the productivity of public schools. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 40(2), 354–363.

18.

Fennell

M. L.

, & Alexander

J. A.

(1987). Organizational boundary spanning in institutionalized environments. Academy of Management Journal, 30(3), 456–476.

19.

Ferguson

R. F.

(1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal of Legislation, 28, 465–498.

20.

Ferguson

R. F.

, & Ladd

H. F.

(1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama schools. In Ladd

H. F.

(Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 265–298). Washington, DC: Brookings.

21.

Goldhaber

, & Hansen

(2010). Assessing the potential of using value–added estimates of teacher job performance for making tenure decisions. CALDER Working Paper 31. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

22.

Goldhaber

, & Theobald

(2013). Managing the teacher workforce in austere times: The determinants of teacher layoffs. Education Finance and Policy, 8(4), 494–527.

23.

Hanushek

E. A.

, Kain

J. F.

, & Rivkin

S. G.

(2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), 326–354.

24.

Harris

D. N.

, Ingle

W. K.

, & Rutledge

S. 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(1), 73–112.

25.

Harris

, & Rutledge

(2010). Models and predictors of teacher effectiveness: A review of the evidence with lessons from (and for) other occupations. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 914–960.

26.

Harris

D. N.

, & Sass

(2011). Teacher training, teacher quality, and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 798–812.

27.

Hill

(2006). The costs of collective bargaining agreements and related district policies. In Hannaway

, & Rotherham

A. J.

(Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today's schools. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

28.

Honig

M. I.

, & Hatch

T. C.

(2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30.

29.

Ingle

W. K.

(2015). How changes in teacher evaluation are reallocating principals’ time. School Business Affairs, 81(4), 15–18.

30.

Ingle

W. K.

, Willis

P. C.

, & Fritz

(2015). Collective bargaining agreement provisions in the wake of Ohio Teacher Evaluation System legislation. Educational Policy, 29(1), 18–50.

31.

Jackson

C. K.

, Rockoff

J. E.

, & Staiger

D. O.

(2014). Teacher effects and teacher-related policies. Annual Review of Economics, 6, 801–825.

32.

Jacob

B. A.

(2011). Do principals fire the worst teachers? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 403–434.

33.

Kahlenberg

R. D.

(2006). The history of collective bargaining among teachers. In Hannaway

, & Rotherham

A. J.

(Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today's schools (pp. 7–26). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

34.

Kane

T. J.

, McCaffrey

D. M.

, Miller

, & Staiger

D. O.

(2013). Have we identified effective teachers? Validating measures of effective teaching using random assignment. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

35.

Kennedy

(2010). Introduction: The uncertain relationship between teacher assessment and teacher quality. In Kennedy

(Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 9–42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

36.

Koppich

J. E.

(2006). The as-yet-unfulfilled promise of reform bargaining. In Hannaway

, & Rotherham

A. J.

(Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today's schools (pp. 203–227). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

37.

Koski

W. S.

, & Horng

E. 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(3), 262–300.

38.

Kraft

(2014). Teacher layoffs, teacher quality, and student achievement: The implementation and consequences of a discretionary reduction-in-force policy. Unpublished paper, Brown University.

39.

Kutner

, Nachtsheim

, & Neter

(2004). Applied linear regression models (4th edition). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

40.

Lankford

, Loeb

, & Wyckoff

(2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools. A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62.

41.

Lee

(2004). Seniority as an employment norm: The case of layoffs and promotion in the US employment relationship. Socio-economic Review, 2(1), 65–86.

42.

Lott

, & Kenny

L. W.

(2013). State teacher union strength and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 35, 93–103.

43.

Long

J. S.

(1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

44.

McCaffrey

D. L.

, Sass

T. R.

, Lockwood

J. R.

, & Mihaly

(2009). The intertemporal variability of teacher effect estimates. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 572–606.

45.

Menard

(2002). Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

46.

Moe

T. M.

(2006). Bottom-up structure: Collective bargaining, transfer rights, and the education of disadvantaged children. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. Retrieved from ERIC database. ERIC Document ED508944.

47.

Moe

T. M.

(2009). Collective bargaining and the performance of the public schools. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 156–74.

48.

Murnane

R. J.

, & Phillips

B. R.

(1981). What do effective teachers of inner-city children have in common? Social Science Research, 10, 83–100.

49.

Murphy

, Hallinger

, & Heck

R. H.

(2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: The case of the missing clothes? Educational Researcher, 42(6), 349–354.

50.

Myers

R. H.

(1990). Classical and modern regression with applications. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.

51.

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2010). Teacher layoffs: Rethinking “last-hired, first-fired” policies. Washington, DC: Author.

52.

Nye

, Konstantopoulos

, & Hedges

L. V.

(2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237–257.

53.

Ohio Department of Education. (2012). Ohio teacher evaluation system (OTES) training workbook. Columbus. OH: Ohio Department of Education.

54.

Peltzman

(1993). The political economy of the decline of American public education. Journal of Law and Economics, 36(1), 331–370.

55.

Peltzman

(1996). Political economy of public education: Non-college bound students. Journal of Law and Economics, 39(1), 73–120.

56.

Pogodzinski

, & Jones

(2014). Exploring novice teachers’ attitudes and behaviors regarding teacher unionism. Educational Policy, 28(4), 491–515.

57.

Pogodzinski

, Umpstead

, & Witt

(2015). Teacher evaluation reform implementation and labor relations. Journal of Education Policy, 30(4), 540–561.

58.

Rothstein

(2009). Student sorting and bias in value-added estimation: Selection on observables and unobservables. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 537–571.

59.

Rothstein

(2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 175–214.

60.

Rice

J. K.

(2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

61.

Rice

J. K.

(2013). Learning from experience? Evidence on the impact and distribution of teacher experience and the implications for teacher policy. Education Finance and Policy, 8(3), 332–348.

62.

Rowan

, Correnti

, & Miller

R. J.

(2002). What large scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525–1567.

63.

Rutledge

S. A.

, Harris

D. N.

, & Ingle

W. 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(2), 211–242.

64.

Steelman

L. C.

, Powell

, & Carini

R. M.

(2000). Do teacher unions hinder educational performance? Lessons learned from state SAT and ACT scores. Harvard Educational Review, 70(4), 437–466.

65.

Stevens

J. P.

(2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

66.

Strunk

K. O.

, & Grissom

J. 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(3), 389–406.

67.

Thompson

J. D.

(1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

68.

Wayne

A. J.

, & Youngs

(2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89–122.

69.

Weisberg

, Sexton

, Mulhern

, & Kelling

(2009). The widget effect. The New Teacher Project.

70.

Wilson

, & Floden

(2003). Creating effective teachers: Concise answers for hard questions. New York, NY: AACTE Publications.

71.

Wilson

, Floden

, & Ferrini-Mundy

(2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.

72.

Young

T. V.

(2011). Teachers unions in turbulent times: Maintaining their niche. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(3), 338–351.