Knowing how policy-induced salary schedule changes affect teacher recruitment and retention will significantly advance our understanding of how resources matter for K–12 student learning. This study sheds light on this issue by estimating how legislative funding changes in Washington state in 2018–2019—induced by the McCleary court-ordered reform—affected teacher salaries and labor market outcomes. By embedding a simulated instrumental variables approach in a mixed-methods design, we observed that local collective bargaining negotiations directed new state funding allocations to substantially increase certificated base salaries, particularly for senior teachers with 16 years or more of teaching experience. Variability in political power, priorities, and interests of both districts and unions led to greater heterogeneity in teacher salary schedules. Suggestive evidence shows that state average teacher turnover rate was significantly reduced in the first year of reform. The McCleary-induced salary increase particularly reduces mid-career teachers’ (8–15 years of teaching experience) mobility rate and late-career teachers’ (23+ years of teaching experience) leaving rate. The McCleary-induced base salary increase has mostly null effects on teacher hiring in the first 2 years of implementation.
AkerlofG. A.YellenJ. L. (Eds.). (1986). Efficiency wage models of the labor market. Cambridge University Press.
2.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (2017). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 263–308). Westview.
3.
BoydD.GrossmanP.IngM.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303–333.
4.
BrittonJ.PropperC. (2016). Teacher pay and school productivity: Exploiting wage regulation. Journal of Public Economics, 133, 75–89.
5.
BrunnerE.HymanJ.JuA. (2020). School finance reforms, teachers’ unions, and the allocation of school resources. Review of Economics and Statistics, 102(3), 473–489.
6.
CandelariaC. A.ShoresK. A. (2019). Court-ordered finance reforms in the adequacy era: Heterogeneous causal effects and sensitivity. Education Finance and Policy, 14, 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00236
7.
ChingosM. M.WestM. R. (2012). Do more effective teachers earn more outside the classroom?Education Finance and Policy, 7(1), 8–43.
8.
ConradC.NeumannA.HaworthJ. G.ScottP. (1993). Qualitative research in higher education: Experiencing alternative perspective and approa-ches. Ginn Press.
9.
CookJ.LavertuS.MillerC. (2021). Rent-seeking through collective bargaining: Teachers unions and education production. Economics of Education Review, 85, 102193.
10.
CostrellR. M.PodgurskyM. (2010). Distribution of benefits in teacher retirement systems and their implications for mobility. Education Finance and Policy, 5(4), 519–557.
11.
CowenJ. M. (2009). Teacher unions and teacher compensation: New evidence for the impact of bargaining. Journal of Education Finance, 35, 172–193.
12.
CowenJ. M.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.
13.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. P. (2017). Desi-gning and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
14.
EbertsR. W.StoneJ. A. (1984). Unions and public schools: The effect of collective bargaining on American education. Lexington Books.
15.
EdinK.PirogM. A. (2014). Special symposium on qualitative and mixed-methods for policy analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33, 345–349.
16.
FalchT. (2011). Teacher mobility responses to wage changes: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment. American Economic Review, 101(3), 460–465.
17.
FeldmanM. S.RafaeliA. (2002). Organizational routines as sources of connections and understandings. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 309–331.
18.
FirestoneW. A.GonzálezR. A. (2007). Culture and processes affecting data use in school districts. Teachers College Record, 109(13), 132–154.
19.
GlaserB. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.
20.
GoldhaberD. D.BrewerD. J. (1997). Why don’t schools and teachers seem to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservables on educational productivity. Journal of Human Resources, 32, 505–523.
21.
GoldhaberD. D.GrossB.PlayerD. (2011). Teacher career paths, teacher quality, and persistence in the classroom: Are public schools keeping their best?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(1), 57–87.
22.
GoldhaberD. D.LaveryL.TheobaldR. (2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 293–307.
23.
GrissomJ. A.StrunkK. O. (2012). How should school districts shape teacher salary schedules? Linking school performance to pay structure in traditional compensation schemes. Educational Policy, 26(5), 663–695.
24.
GuarinoC.BrownA. B.WyseA. E. (2011). Can districts keep good teachers in the schools that need them most?Economics of Education Review, 30(5), 962–979.
25.
GutheryS. (2018). The influence of teacher unionization on educational outcomes: A summarization of the research, popular methodologies and gaps in the literature. The William & Mary Educational Review, 5(1), 14.
26.
HanushekE. A. (2016). School human capital and teacher salary policies. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1(1), 23–40.
27.
HendricksM. D. (2014). Does it pay to pay teachers more? Evidence from Texas. Journal of Public Economics, 109, 50–63.
28.
HendricksM. D. (2015). Towards an optimal teacher salary schedule: Designing base salary to attract and retain effective teachers. Economics of Education Review, 47, 143–167.
JacksonK. C.JohnsonR. C.PersicoC. (2016). The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(1), 157–218.
31.
JohnsonR. C.TannerS. (2018). Money and freedom: The impact of California’s school finance reform on academic achievement and the composition of district spending [Technical report]. Getting Down to Facts II and Policy Analysis for California Education.
32.
LafortuneJ.RothsteinJ.SchanzenbachD. W. (2018). School finance reform and the distribution of student achievement. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10(2), 1–26.
33.
LoebS.PageM. E. (2000). Examining the link between teacher wages and student outcomes: The importance of alternative labor market opportunities and non-pecuniary variation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(3), 393–408.
34.
MalenB. (2006). Revisiting policy implementation as a political phenomenon. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation (pp. 83–104). State University of New York Press.
35.
MaxwellJ. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.
36.
McGeeJ. B.WintersM. A. (2019). Rethinking the structure of teacher retirement benefits: Analyzing the preferences of entering teachers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(1), 63–78.
37.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary education and other related programs, by function and subfunction: Selected years, 1990-91 through 2016-17. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_236.20.asp
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage.
42.
PritchettL.FilmerD. (1999). What education production functions really show: A positive theory of education expenditures. Economics of Education Review, 18(2), 223–239.
43.
RoseH.SonstelieJ. (2010). School board politics, school district size, and the bargaining power of teachers’ unions. Journal of Urban Economics, 67(3), 438–450.
44.
ShoresK. A.CandelariaC. A. (2020). Get real! Inflation adjustments of educational finance data. Educational Researcher, 49, 71–74. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19890338
45.
ShoresK. A.CandelariaC. A.KabourekS. (2023). Spending more on the poor? A comprehensive summary of state-specific responses to school finance reforms from 1990–2014. Education Finance and Policy, 18(3), 395–422. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00360
46.
SunM. (2018). Black teachers’ retention and transfer patterns in North Carolina: How do patterns vary by teacher effectiveness, subject, and school conditions?AERA Open, 4(3), 1–23.
VigdorJ. (2008). Scrap the sacrosanct salary schedule: How about more pay for new teachers, less for older ones?Education Next, 8(4), 36–43.
50.
Washington State Department of Retirement Systems. (2020). Teachers’ retirement systems (TRS) plan. https://www.drs.wa.gov/plan/trs3/
51.
WestK. L.MykereziE. (2011). Teachers’ unions and compensation: The impact of collective bargaining on salary schedules and performance pay schemes. Economics of Education Review, 30(1), 99–108.
52.
WinklerA. M.ScullJ.ZeehandelaarD.FordhamT. (2012). How strong are US teacher unions. A state-by-state comparison. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
53.
ZabalzaA. (1979). The determinants of teacher supply. The Review of Economic Studies, 46(1), 131–147.
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.
