Elementary and secondary education policy making in the U.S. states is heavily influenced by the political bargaining of various actors, with teacher unions one of the most important actors. Yet previous studies that assess the impact of teacher unions on education reform use problematic measures of their direct political influence, instead opting for broader measures of membership or collective bargaining power. By contrast, the authors measure teacher union political activity by calculating the percentage of campaign contributions to candidates for state office that come from teacher unions. Using this measure, the authors find that increased teacher union political activity greatly reduces the chances that states enact reform-oriented education policies such as school choice and performance pay for teachers, while previous measures of teacher union strength bear little relationship to a state’s adoption of these reform policies. These findings highlight the importance of paying careful attention to how political influence is operationalized in studies that assess the role organized interests play in shaping U.S. state policies.
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. 1977. 431 U.S. 209.
2.
BerkmanMichaelPlutzerEric. 2006. Ten Thousand Democracies: Politics and Public Opinion in America’s School Districts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
3.
BerryJeffrey. 1997. The Interest Group Society. New York: Longman.
4.
BerryWilliam D.RingquistEvan J.FordingRichard C.HansonRussell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States.” American Journal of Political Science42:145–60.
5.
ConleyDavid T.2003. Who Governs Our Schools? Changing Roles and Responsibilities. New York: Teachers College Press.
EpsteinNoel, ed. 2004. Who’s in Charge Here? The Tangled Web of School Governance and Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
8.
GoodmanGeoffrey. 2009. School Choice Yearbook 2008–2009. Washington, DC: Alliance for School Choice.
9.
GrayVirginiaLoweryDavidFellowesMatthewMcAteeAndrea. 2004. “Public Opinion, Public Policy, and Organized Interests in the American States.” Political Research Quarterly57:411–20.
10.
HirschBarry T.MacphersonDavid A.. 2003. “Union Membership and Coverage Database from the Current Population Survey: Note.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review56:349–54.
11.
HrebenarRonald J.ThomasClive S.. 2004. “Interest Groups in the States.” In Politics in the American States, ed, eds. GrayVirginiaHansonRussell L.. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 100–128.
12.
HunterKennithBrunkGregory G.WilsonLaura A.. 2002. “Organizing for Public Policy Effect: Aggregate Affiliated Interests in the American States.” Public Organization Review2:117–39.
13.
JacobyWilliam G.SchneiderSaundra. 2001. “Variability in State Policy Priorities: An Empirical Analysis.” The Journal of Politics63:544–68.
14.
LasswellHarold D.1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: McGraw-Hill.
15.
LaxJeffrey R.PhillipsJustin H.. 2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review103:367–86.
16.
MannaPaul. 2006. School’s In: Federalism and the National Education Agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
17.
MannaPaulTydgatK. C.. 2008. “Gatekeepers to the Classroom: The Influence of State Teacher Standards Boards on State Teacher Policy.” Presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans.
18.
MayhewDavid R.1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
McGuinnPatrick J.2006. No Child Left Behind and the Transformation of Federal Education Policy, 1965–2005. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
20.
MintromMichael. 1997. “Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation.” American Journal of Political Science41:738–70.
21.
MintromMichael. 2000. Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
22.
MoeTerry M.2006a. “Political Control and the Power of Agent.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization22:1–29.
23.
MoeTerry M.2006b. “Union Power and the Education of Children.” In Collective Bargaining in Education: Negotiating Change in Today’s Schools. RotherhamAndrew J.HannawayJane. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 229–255.
24.
MoeTerry M.2009. “Collective Bargaining and the Performance of the Public Schools.” American Journal of Political Science53:156–74.
National Center on Education Statistics. 2006. “Common Core Data: Information on Public Schools and School Districts in the United States.” http://www.nces.ed.gov/ccd/ (accessed September 15, 2009).
27.
National Council on Teacher Quality. 2009. “Teacher Rules, Roles and Rights Database.” http://www.nctq.org/tr3. (accessed September 15, 2009).
National Institute on Money in State Politics. 2009. “Political Giving Database.” http://www.followthemoney.org (accessed April 1, 2009).
30.
NodineThadJimesCynthia. 2009. “The Governors Speak: Summary of State-of-the-State Addresses of the Governors.” Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/GOVSPEAK0904.pdf (accessed September 10, 2009).
31.
OrndorffMary. 1998. “3 PACs Have $1 Million War Chests: Doctors, Teachers, Business Owners Giving Big to Candidates.” Birmingham News, April21, 1B.
32.
RoseLowell C.GallupGeorge. 2001. “The 33rd Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward Public Schools.” Phi Delta Kappan83 (1): 41–58.
33.
ShellyBryan. 2008. “Rebels and Their Causes: State Resistance to No Child Left Behind.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism38:444–68.
34.
ShenFrancis K.WongKenneth K.. 2006. “Beyond Weak Law, Strong Law: Political Compromise and Legal Constraints on Charter School Laws.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.
35.
ShoberArnold F.MannaPaulWitteJohn F.. 2006. “Flexibility Meets Accountability: State Charter School Laws and Their Influence on the Formation of Charter Schools in the United States.” Policy Studies Journal 34:563–87.
36.
SwansonChristopher. 2008. Diplomas Count 2008: School to College: Can State P–16 Councils Ease the Transition?Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education.
37.
VallettaRobert G.FreemanRichard B.. 1988. “The NBER Public Sector Collective Bargaining Law Data Set.” In When Public Employees Unionize, eds. FreemanRichard B.IchniowskiCasey. Chicago: NBER and University of Chicago Press, 399–420.
