Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 501–525 | Cite as

New roles for teachers unions? Reform unionism in school decentralization

  • Morgaen L. Donaldson
  • Anysia P. Mayer
  • Casey D. Cobb
  • Kimberly LeChasseur
  • Anjale Welton
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Of late, teachers unions have worked together with district management in new and notable ways. This paper examines the role of teachers unions in shaping the Together Initiative (TI), which seeks to increase autonomy and broaden decision making in urban schools in one northeastern state. In general, state-level union leaders have taken more consistently reform-oriented stances than those adopted by their district-level counterparts. We found that district-level union leaders supported TI’s growth and were willing to work with district leaders to reform schools in districts where labor-management relations had been collaborative in recent years and in schools where union leaders trusted the principal. Where labor-management relations were less positive and the union viewed principals as more arbitrary, union leaders practiced more industrial-style leadership.

Keywords

Labor relations School reform Teachers unions Urban schools 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Bascia, N. (1990). Teachers’ evaluations of unions. Journal of Education Policy, 5(4), 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bascia, N., & Rottmann, C. (2011). What’s so important about teachers’ working conditions? The fatal flaw in North American educational reform. Journal of Education Policy, 26(6), 787–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brill, S. (2010). Teachers’ Unions’ last stand? The New York Times. Retrieved April 9, 2013 at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/magazine/23Race-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
  5. Brimelow, P. (2003). The worm in the apple: How teachers unions are destroying American education. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  6. Casey, L. (2006). The educational value of democratic voice: A defense of collective bargaining in American education. In J. Hannaway & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  7. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.Google Scholar
  8. Creswell, A., Murphy, M., & Kerchner, C. (1980). Teachers, unions, and collective bargaining in education. San Francisco: McCutchan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  9. Donaldson, M. L., & Papay, J. P. (2012). Reforming teacher evaluation: One district’s story. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.Google Scholar
  10. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Hannaway, J., & Rotherham, A. J. (2006). Introduction. In J. Hannaway & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  12. Heckman, P., & Peterman, F. (1996). Indigenous invention: New promises for school reform. The Teachers College Record, 98(2), 307–327.Google Scholar
  13. Hirsch, B., & McPherson, D. (2011). “Union membership, coverage, density and employment by state, 2010” data sources: Current population survey (CPS) outgoing rotation group (ORG) earnings files, 2010. Retrieved March 1, 2012 at http://www.unionstats.com/.
  14. Johnson, S. (1983). Teacher unions in schools: Authority and accommodation. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 309–326.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, S. M., & Donaldson, M. L. (2006). How collective bargaining influences teacher quality. In J. Hannaway & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, S. M., & Kardos, S. M. (2000). Reform bargaining and its promise for school improvement. In T. Loveless (Ed.), Conflicting missions? Teachers unions and educational reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, S. M., Donaldson, M. L., Munger, M., Papay, J., & Qazilbash, E. (2007). Beyond the basics: Teachers union leaders respond to change. Washington, DC: Education Sector.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, S. M., Donaldson, M. L., Munger, M., Papay, J., & Qazilbash, E. (2009). Leading the local: Teachers union presidents chart their own course. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 374–393.Google Scholar
  19. Kahlenberg, R. (2006). The history of collective bargaining among teachers. In J. Hannaway & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kerchner, C., & Koppich, J. (1993). A union of professionals: Labor relations and educational reform. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kerchner, C., & Koppich, J. E. (2007). Negotiating what matters most: Collective bargaining and student achievement. American Journal of Education, 113(3), 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerchner, C., Koppich, J., & Weeres, (1997). United mind workers: Unions and teaching in the knowledge society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Koppich, J. E. (2006). The as-yet-unfulfilled promise of reform bargaining: Forging a better match between the labor relations system we have and the education system we want. In J. Hannaway & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  24. Levin, H. (1998). Accelerated schools: A decade of evolution. In A. Hargreaves, A. Liebermann, M. Fullan, & D. W. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 807–830). Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. McDonnell, L., & Pascal, A. H. (1988). Teachers unions and educational reform (Document R-2407-NIE). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  26. Merriam, S. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Pearlman, B. (2000). Smarter charters? Creating Boston’s pilot schools. In E. Clinchy (Ed.), Creating new schools: How small schools are changing American education (pp. 38–48). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  29. Poole, W. L. (2000). The construction of teachers’ paradoxical interests by teacher union leaders. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosow, J. M., & Zager, R. (Eds.). (1989). Allies in educational reform: How teachers, unions, and administrators can join forces for better schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  31. Rowan, B., & Miller, R. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional change: Implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 252–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor the challenge of leading 21st-century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stevenson, H. (2007). Restructuring teachers’ work and trade union responses in England: Bargaining for change? American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 224–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Stulberg, L. M. (2010). The teachers union-charter impasse: Moving forward from the New York caps fight. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18, 24.Google Scholar
  36. U.S. Department of Education (2009). Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. Retrieved 12/31/12 at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/statecomparisons/.
  37. Vernez, G., Karam, R., Mariano, L. T., & DeMartini, C. (2006). Evaluating comprehensive school reform models at scale: Focus on implementation. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  38. Vergari, S. (2007). The politics of charter schools. Educational Policy, 21(1), 15–39.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morgaen L. Donaldson
    • 1
  • Anysia P. Mayer
    • 1
  • Casey D. Cobb
    • 1
  • Kimberly LeChasseur
    • 1
  • Anjale Welton
    • 2
  1. 1.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.University of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options