Advertisement

Assessing the Role of Teachers’ Unions in the Adoption of Accountability Policies in Public Education

  • Nandan K. JhaEmail author
  • Neena Banerjee
  • Stephanie Moller
Article

Abstract

We investigate the role of teachers’ unions in state policymaking in the context of No Child Left Behind. Our analyses of panel data show that political party control and region moderate the influence of teachers’ unions in the adoption of accountability policies by states. Our analyses of marginal effects show that teachers’ unions are not always against the adoption of stronger accountability policies and neither do they always align with the Democratic Party. Our findings suggest that the current dominant prescription in the policy debate for curtailing the collective bargaining rights of teachers’ unions is not fully substantiated.

Keywords

Teachers’ unions Collective bargaining Policy adoption No child left behind Accountability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Prof. Henry S. Farber of Princeton University for sharing data on collective bargaining index. We also thank Prof. Barry Hirsch of Georgia State University and Prof. David Macpherson of Trinity University for sharing their data on the percentage of teachers covered under collective bargaining agreements for each state in the US.

Funding

This study did not receive any funding, internal or external.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This research complies with all required ethical standards.

References

  1. Bascia, N. (2005). Teacher unions and educational reform. Fundamental Change, III, 225–245.Google Scholar
  2. Bascia, N. (2009). Teachers as professionals: Salaries, benefits and unions. International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 481–489.Google Scholar
  3. Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. The American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395–415.Google Scholar
  4. Berry, W. D., Fording, R. C., Ringquist, E. J., Hanson, R. L., & Klarner, C. E. (2010). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the US states: A re-appraisal. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 10(2), 117–135.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, W. D., Ringquist, E. J., Fording, R. C., & Hanson, R. L. (1998). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960–93. American Journal of Political Science, 10(2), 327–348.Google Scholar
  6. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14(1), 63–82.Google Scholar
  7. Brogan, P. (2014). Getting to the CORE of the Chicago teachers’ union transformation. Studies in Social Justice, 8(2), 145–164.Google Scholar
  8. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics using stata (Vol. 5). College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  9. Carini, R. M. (2008). New directions for the study of collective bargaining in schools. Journal of Collective Negotiations (formerly Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector), 32(4), 317–328.Google Scholar
  10. Casey, L. (2006). The educational value of a democratic voice: A defense of collective bargaining in American education. In J. Hannaway & A. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 181–201). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  11. Choi, Y., & Chung, H. (2016). Voice effects of public sector unions on turnover: Evidence from teacher contracts. Public Personnel Management, 45(2), 213–233.Google Scholar
  12. Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago (2009). Still Left behind: Student LEARNING in Chicago public schools. Retrieved from http://www.civiccommitte.org.
  13. Clarke, M. (2007). State responses to the No Child Left Behind Act: The uncertain link between implementation and ‘proficiency for all’. In C. F. Kaestle & A. E. Lodewick (Eds.), To educate a nation: Federal and national strategies of school reform. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  14. Compton, M., & Weiner, L. (2008). The global assault on teachers, teaching, and teacher unions. In M. Compton & L. Weiner (Eds.), The global assault on teaching, teachers, and their unions stories for resistance (pp. 3–9). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Coulson, A. (2010). The effects of teacher unions on American education. Cato Journal, 30(1), 155–170.Google Scholar
  16. Craw, M. (2008). Taming the local Leviathan. Urban Affairs Review, 43(5), 663–690.Google Scholar
  17. Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917–926.Google Scholar
  18. DiPrete, T. A., & Forristal, J. D. (1994). Multilevel models: Method and substance. Annual Review of Sociology, 200, 331–357.Google Scholar
  19. Eberts, R. W. (2007). Teacher unions and student performance: Help or hindrance? The Future Children, 17(1), 175–200.Google Scholar
  20. Eberts, R. W., & Stone, J. A. (1984). Unions and public schools: The effect of collective bargaining on American education. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  21. Epstein, N. (Ed.). (2004). Who’s in charge here? The tangled web of school governance and policy. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institutions.Google Scholar
  22. Farber, H. S. (2006). Union membership in the United States. In J. Hannaway & A. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Frandsen, B. (2011). The effects of public sector collective bargaining laws, Manuscript, Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  24. Freeman, R. B., & Han, E. (2016). The war against public sector collective bargaining in the US. Journal of Industrial Relations, 54(3), 386–408.Google Scholar
  25. Freeman, R. B., & Valletta, R. (1988). Why public sector workers unionize. In R. B. Freeman & C. Ichniowski (Eds.), The effects of public sector labor laws on labor market institutions and outcomes (pp. 81–106). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fuller, H. L., Mitchell, G. A., & Hartmann, M. E. (2000). Collective bargaining in milwaukee public schools. In T. Loveless (Ed.), Conflicting missions? Teachers unions and educational reform (pp. 110–149). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  27. Goertz, M. (2005). The state context for implementing the no child left behind act. Paper read at The Challenge of Education Reform: Standards, Accountability, Resources and Policy, Cancun, Mexico.Google Scholar
  28. Gray, V., & Hanson, R. L. (2008). Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  29. Grimes, P., & Register, C. (1990). Teachers’ unions and black students’ scores on college entrance exams. Industrial Relations, 30(Fall 1991), 492–499.Google Scholar
  30. Hartney, M., & Flavin, P. (2011). From the schoolhouse to the statehouse teacher union political activism and US state education reform policy. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 11(3), 251–268.Google Scholar
  31. Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2006). Scapegoat, albatross, or what. In J. Hannaway & A. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 53–87). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hirsch, B. T., Macpherson, D. A., & Winters, J. V. (2011). Teacher salaries, state collective bargaining laws, and union coverage. In Association for education finance and policy (AEFP) meetings, Seattle, March (Vol. 26, pp. 671–718).Google Scholar
  33. Holbrook, T. M., & LaRaja, R. J. (2008). Parties and elections. In V. Gray & R. L. Hanson (Eds.), Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (pp. 61–97). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hoxby, C. M. (1996). How teachers’ unions affect education production. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(3), 671–718.Google Scholar
  35. Hrebenar, R. J., & Thomas, C. S. (2004). Interest groups in the states. In G. Virginia & R. L. Hanson (Eds.), Politics in the American states (pp. 100–128). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lindy, B. (2011). The impact of teacher collective bargaining laws on student achievement: Evidence from a New Mexico natural experiment. The Yale Law Journal, 120, 1130–1191.Google Scholar
  37. Johnson, D. R., & Creech, J. C. (1983). Ordinal measures in multiple indicator models: A simulation study of categorization error. American Sociological Review, 48, 398–407.Google Scholar
  38. Kahlenberg, R. D. (2006). The history of collective bargaining among teachers. In J. Hannaway & A. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 7–25). Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kaufman, R. L. (1995). Taking structure seriously: The perils of ignoring structural error in contextual analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association. Washington D.C., August.Google Scholar
  40. Kim, J. (2003). The initial response to the accountability requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act: A case study of virginia and Georgia. Paper read at Annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, April 21–25, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  41. Kim, J.-O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Kleiner, M. M., & Petree, D. L. (1988). Unionism and licensing of public school teachers: Impact on wages and educational output. In R. B. Freeman & C. Ichniowski, (eds.), When public sector workers unionize (pp. 305–322). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lathan, J. (2011). An Unhappy Union? The High School Journal, 94(4), 135–137.Google Scholar
  44. Lovenheim, M. F. (2009). The effect of teachers’ unions on education production: Evidence from union election certifications in three midwestern states. Journal of Labor Economics, 27(4), 525–587.Google Scholar
  45. Lyons, J. (2008). Teachers and reform: Chicago public education 1929–1970. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  46. Manna, P. (2006). Teacher unions and no child left behind. In J. Hannaway & A. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 159–180). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  47. McDermott, K. A. (2003). What causes variation in states’ accountability policies? Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 153–176.Google Scholar
  48. McGuinn, P. (2006). No child left behind and the transformation of federal education policy, 1965–2005. Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  49. Moe, T. M. (2003). Politics, control, and the future of school accountability. In P. E. Peterson & M. R. West (Eds.), No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  50. Moe, T. M. (2006). Union power and the education of children. In J. Hannaway & A. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 229–256). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  51. Moe, T. M. (2009). Collective bargaining and the performance of the public schools. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 156–174.Google Scholar
  52. Moller, S., Alderson, A. S., & Nielsen, F. (2009). Changing patterns of income inequality in U.S. counties 1970–2001. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 1037–1101.Google Scholar
  53. Mooney, C. Z. (2001). Modeling regional effects on state policy diffusion. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 103–124.Google Scholar
  54. Mooney, C. Z., & Lee, M. H. (1995). Legislative morality in the American states: The case of pre-Roe abortion regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 599–627.Google Scholar
  55. Nelson, F. H., and Rosen, M. (1996). Are teachers’ unions hurting American education? A state-by-state analysis of the impact of collective bargaining among teachers on student performance. Institute of Wisconsin’s Future, Milwaukee. Technical Report.Google Scholar
  56. Nownes, A. J., Thomas, C. S., & Hrebenar, R. J. (1999). Interest groups in the states. In V. Gray & R. L. Hanson (Eds.), Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (Vol. 7, pp. 113–143). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  57. Peltzman, S. (1993). The political economy of the decline of american public education. The Journal of Law & Economics, 36(1–2), 331–370.Google Scholar
  58. Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (2003). No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  59. Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education (1st ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  61. Roscigno, V. J., Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Crowley, M. (2006). Education and the inequalities of place. Social Forces, 84(4), 2121–2145.Google Scholar
  62. Shelly, B. (2008). Rebels and their causes: State resistance to no child left behind. The Journal of Federalism, 38(3), 444–468.Google Scholar
  63. Smith, W. C. (2013). Framing the debate over teacher unions. Mid-Atlantic Education Review, 1(1), 17–26.Google Scholar
  64. Songer, D. R., & Davis, S. (1990). The impact of party and region on voting decisions in the United States Courts of Appeals, 1955–1986. The Western Political Quarterly, 43, 317–334.Google Scholar
  65. Steelman, L. C., Powell, B., & Carini, R. M. (2000). Do teachers unions hinder educational performance? Lesson learned from state SAT and ACT scores. Harvard Educational Review, 70(4), 437–477.Google Scholar
  66. Strunk, K. O., & Grissom, J. A. (2010). Do strong unions shape district policies? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(3), 389–406.Google Scholar
  67. Strunk, K. O., & McEachin, A. (2011). Accountability under constraint: The relationship between collective bargaining agreements and California schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 871–903.Google Scholar
  68. Superfine, B. S., & Thompson, A. R. (2016). Interest groups, the courts, and educational equality: A policy regimes approach to Vergara v California. American Educational Research Journal, 53(3), 573–604.Google Scholar
  69. Uebersax, J. S. (2000). Estimating a latent trait model by factor analysis of tetrachoric correlations. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/irt.htm.
  70. Vachon, T. E., & Ma, J. (2015). Bargaining for success: Examining the relationship between teacher unions and student achievement. Sociological Forum, 30(2), 391–414.Google Scholar
  71. Weiner, L. (2012). The future of our schools: Teachers unions and social justice. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.Google Scholar
  72. Winkler, A. M., Scull, J., & Zeehandelaar, D. (2012). How strong are U.S. teacher unions? A state-by-state comparison. Report Published by Thomas Fordham Institute. October.Google Scholar
  73. Wong, K. K., & Shen, F. X. (2002). Politics of state-led reform in education: Market competition and electoral dynamics. Educational Policy, 16(1), 161–192.Google Scholar
  74. Wright, G. C., Jr., & Berkman, M. B. (1986). Candidates and policy in United States senate elections. The American Political Science Review, 80(2), 567–588.Google Scholar
  75. Zumbo, B. D., & Zimmerman, D. W. (1993). Is the selection of statistical methods governed by level of measurement? Canadian Psychology, 34, 390–400.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceValdosta State UniversityValdostaUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations