For at least two decades, studies have demonstrated that the least experienced and credentialed teachers are concentrated in poor, minority, and low-performing schools. Some blame provisions in collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between teachers unions and school districts that favor senior teachers. Seniority preference rules, they say, exacerbate the “teacher quality gap” by allowing experienced teachers to transfer. Using data from Florida, the authors analyze whether and how CBAs influence the distribution of teacher quality within school districts, paying special attention to staffing rules that grant preferences to senior teachers. They find little evidence that the within-district variation in teacher quality between more and less disadvantaged schools in Florida is explained by the determinativeness of union contract rules.
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: John Hopkins University Press.
3.
BallouD. (2000b). Teacher contracts in Massachu setts. Boston: Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Analysis.
4.
BoydD.LankfordH.LoebS.RockoffJ.WyckoffJ. (2008). The narrowing gap in New York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high-poverty schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Manage ment, 25(4), 793–818.
5.
BoydD.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2005). The draw of home: How teachers’ preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), 113–132.
6.
BrunnerE.ImazekiJ. (2010). Probation length and teacher salaries: Does waiting pay off?Industrial Relations and Labor Review, 64(1), 164–180.
7.
ChaS.Cohen-VogelL. (2011). Why they quit: A focused look at teachers who leave for other occupations. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(4), 371–392.
8.
ClotfelterC.LaddH.VigdorJ. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24(4), 377–392.
9.
Cohen-VogelL. (2011). Staffing to the test: Are today’s school personnel practices evidence based?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 483–505.
10.
Cohen-VogelL.Osborne-LampkinL. (2007). Allocating quality: Collective bargaining agreements and administrative discretion over teacher assignment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 433–461.
11.
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.
12.
Cohen-VogelL.RutledgeS. (2009). The pushes and pulls of new localism: School-level instructional arrangements, instructional resources, and family-community partnerships. In CrowsonR.GoldringE. (Eds.), The new localism in American education: The yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Vol. 108, pp. 70–103). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Cohen-VogelL.SmithT. (2007). Qualifications and assignments of alternatively certified teachers: Testing core assumptions. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 732–753.
14.
Darling-HammondL. (2003). Access to quality teaching. An analysis of inequality in California’s public schools. Santa Clara Law Review, 43, 1045–1084.
15.
EllsasserC. W. (2008). Teaching educational philosophy: A response to the problem of first-year urban teacher transfer. Education and Urban Society, 40(4), 476–493.
16.
EschC.Chang-RossC.GuhaR.HumphreyD.ShieldsP.Tiffany-MoralesJ. (2005). The status of the teaching profession. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
FengL. (2010). Hire today, gone tomorrow: New teacher classroom assignments and teacher mobility. Education Finance and Policy, 5(3), 278–316.
19.
FiglioD. N. (2006). Testing, crime and punishment. Journal of Public Economics, 90(4–5), 837–851.
20.
GrossB.DeArmondM.GoldhaberD. (2010). Seniority rules: Do staffing reforms help redistribute teacher quality and reduce teacher turnover? (CRPE Working Paper #2010-1). Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
HarrisonC.Cohen-VogelL. (2012). The politics of teacher reform: Analyzing causal narratives surrounding state adoption of performance-based evaluations, performance pay, and tenure elimination. Peabody Journal of Education, 87(5), 517–534.
23.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), 326–354.
24.
HessF. M.KellyA. (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). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
25.
HessF. M.WestM. R. (2006). A better bargain: Overhauling teacher collective bargaining for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Program on Education Policy & Governance.
26.
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. 7–46). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
27.
ImazekiJ. (2005). Teacher salaries and teacher attrition. Economics of Education Review, 24(4), 431–449.
28.
JohnsonS. M.DonaldsonM. L. (2006). The effects of collective bargaining on teacher quality. In HannawayJ.RotherhamA. (Eds,), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 111–140). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
29.
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.
30.
KerchnerC. T. (1986). Union-made teaching: The effects of labor relations on teaching work. Review of Research in Education, 13, 317–349.
31.
KerchnerC. T.MitchellD. E. (1988). The changing idea of a teachers’ union. New York: Falmer.
32.
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(3), 262–300.
33.
LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 38–62.
LevinJ.QuinnM. (2003). Missed opportunities: How we keep high-quality teachers out of urban schools. New York: The New Teacher Project.
36.
LiebermanM. (2000). The teacher unions: How they sabotage educational reform and why. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books.
37.
LiuE.JohnsonS. M. (2006). New teachers’ experiences of hiring: Late, rushed, and information-poor. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(3), 324–360.
38.
LiuE.RosensteinJ. G.SwanA. E.KhalilD. (2007). When districts encounter teacher shortages: The challenges of recruiting and retaining mathematics teachers in urban districts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(3), 296–323.
39.
McDonnellL. M.PascalA. H. (1978). Organized teachers and local schools. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 33(2), 33–44.
40.
McDonnellL. M.PascalA. H. (1979). Organized teachers in American schools (Document No. R-2407-NIE). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
41.
McDonnellL. M.PascalA. H. (1988). Teachers unions and educational reform (Document No. JRE-02). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
42.
MoeT. M. (2005). Bottom-up structure: Collective bargaining, transfer rights, and the education of disadvantaged children. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.
43.
NelsonH. F. (2006). The impact of collective bargaining on teacher transfer rates in urban high-poverty schools. New York: American Federation of Teachers.
44.
Osborne-LampkinL.Cohen-VogelL. (2012, February). “Spreading the wealth”: How principals use data to populate classrooms. Tallahassee: Data Infrastructure Conference, Florida State University.
45.
RoseH.SonstelieJ. (2010). School board politics, school district size, and the bargaining power of teachers’ unions. Journal of Urban Economics, 67, 438–450.
46.
RutledgeS. A.HarrisD. N.ThompsonC. T.IngleW. K. (2008). Certify, blink, hire: An examination of the process and tools of teacher screening and selection. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(3), 237–263.
47.
ScafidiB.SjoquistD.StinebricknerT. (2007). Race, poverty, and teacher mobility. Economics of Education Review, 26(2), 145–159.
48.
SimpkinsE.McCutcheonA.AlecR. (1979). Arbitration and policy issues in school contracts. Education and Urban Society, 11(2), 241–254.
49.
StraussR.BowesL.MarksM.PleskoM. (2000). Improving teacher preparation and selection: Lessons from the Pennsylvania experience. Economics of Education Review, 19(4), 387–415.
50.
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(3), 389–406.
