Accountability under constraint: The relationship between collective bargaining agreements and california schools' and districts' performance under no child left behind

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 871-903

  Strunk, Katharine O ^a   McEachin, Andrew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Collective bargaining agreements; Education policy; Teachers unions

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960295400     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0002831211401006     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Balfanz R.,Legters N.,West T.C.,Weber L.M.Are NCLB's measures, incentives, and improvement strategies the right ones for the nation's low-performing schools?.American Educational Research Journal. 2007;44 (3): 559-593.
2. California Department of Education. (2006, September). PI training for PI status. Retrieved June 29, 2010, from http://www.cacompcenter.org/pi-ta/PI_YR3.pdf and from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/lp/vl/documents/pitrngyr4and5.docwww.cde.ca.gov/ta/lp/vl/documents/pitrngyr4and5.doc.
3. Carnoy M.,Loeb S.Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2002;24 (4): 305-331.
4. Chaing H.How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement.Journal of Public Economics. 2009;93:1045-1057.
5. Cullen J.,Reback R.Advances in microeconomics. 14th ed.Gronberg T.Jansen D., ed. Cambridge, MA: Emerald Publishing; 2006:.
6. Eberts R.W.How unions affect management decisions: Evidence from public schools.Journal of Labor Research. 1983;4 (3): 239-247.
7. Eberts R.W.,Stone J.A.Unions and public schools: The effect of collective bargaining on American education. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1984:.
8. Eberts R.W.,Stone J.A.Teachers unions and the productivity of public schools.Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 1987;40 (3): 354-363.
9. Elmore R.F.,Abelmann C.,Fuhrman S.Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Ladd H.F., ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 1996:65-98.
10. Figlio D.,Ladd H.F.Handbook of research in education finance and policy. Ladd H.F.Fiske E.B., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2008:166-182.
11. Figlio D.,Rouse C.Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-performing schools?.Journal of Public Economics. 2006;89 (2): 381-394.
12. Fuller B.,Gesicki K.,Kang E.,Wright J.Is the No Child Left Behind Act working? The reliability of how states track achievement. Sacramento, CA: PACE; 2006:.
13. Hamilton L.,Berends M.,Stecher B.Teachers' responses to standards-based accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2005:.
14. Hanushek E.A.,Kain J.F.,Rivkin S.G.Why public schools lose teachers.Journal of Human Resources. 2004;39 (2): 326-354.
15. Hanushek E.A.,Raymond M.Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2005;24 (2): 297-329.
16. Hess F.M.,Kelly A.P.Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today's schools. Hannaway J.Rotherham A.J., ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press; 2006:53-87.
17. Hess F.M.,Loup C.The leadership limbo: Teacher labor agreements in America's fifty largest school districts. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute; 2008:.
18. Hill P.T.,Lake R.J.Standards and accountability in Washington State.Brookings Papers on Education Policy. 2002;5:199-225.
19. Hoxby C.M.How teachers unions affect education production.The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1996;111 (3): 617-718.
20. Jacob B.A.Accountability, incentives and behavior.Journal of Public Economics. 2005;89:5 761-6 796.
21. Jacob B.A.,Levitt S.Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating.Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2003;118 (3): 843-877.
22. Koski W.S.,Horng E.L.Curbing or facilitating inequality? Law, collective bargaining, and teacher assignment among schools in California.Journal of Education Finance and Policy. 2007;2 (3): 262-300.
23. Ladd H.Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press; 1996:.
24. Ladd H.,Lauen D.L.Status versus growth: The distributional effect of school accountability policies.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2010;29 (3): 426-450.
25. Lankford H.,Loeb S.,Wyckoff J.Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2002;24 (1): 37-62.
26. Lee J.Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University; 2006:.
27. Levin J.,Mulhern J.,Schunck J.Unintended consequences: The case for reforming staffing rules in urban teachers union contracts. New York, NY: New Teacher Project; 2005:.
28. Loeb S.,Page M.Examining the link between teacher wages and outcomes: The importance of alternative labor market opportunities and non-pecuniary variation.Review of Economics and Statistics. 2000;82 (3): 393-408.
29. Loeb S.,Strunk K.O.Accountability and local control: Response to incentives with and without authority over resource generation and allocation.Education Finance and Policy. 2007;2 (1): 10-39.
30. Moe T.M.Collective bargaining and the performance of the public schools.American Journal of Political Science. 2009;53 (1): 156-174.
31. Petrelli M.J.Comment on standards and accountability in Washington state.Brookings Papers on Education Policy. 2002;5:226-228.
32. Price M.Teacher union contracts and high school reform. Seattle: University of Washington; 2009:.
33. Raudenbush S.W.,Bryk A.S.Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. 2nd ed.Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 2002:.
34. Reardon S.F.,Raudenbush S.W.A partial independence item response model for surveys with filter questions.Sociological Methodology. 2006;36:257-300.
35. Rouse C.E.,Hannaway J.,Goldhaber D.,Figlio D.Feeling the Florida heat? How low performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. Washington, DC:; 2007:.
36. Springer M.G.The influence of an NCLB accountability plan on the distribution of student test score gains.Economics of Education Review. 2008;27 (5): 556-563.
37. Strunk K.O.California teachers' union contracts and negotiations: Moving beyond the stereotype. Sacramento, CA: PACE; 2009:.
38. Strunk K.O.Are teachers' unions really to blame? The relationships between teachers' union contract restrictiveness, district resource allocation and student test scores in California.Education Finance and Policy.
39. Strunk K.O.,Grissom J.A.Do strong unions shape district policies? Collective bargaining, teacher contract restrictiveness, and the political power of teachers' unions.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2010;32 (3): 389-406.
40. Strunk K.O.,Reardon S.Measuring union strength: A partial independence item response approach to measuring the restrictiveness of teachers' union contracts.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 2010;35 (6): 629-670.
41. A blueprint for reform: Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: Author; 2010:.
42. Weisberg D.,Sexton S.,Mulhern J.,Keeling D.The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. New York, NY: The New Teacher; 2009:.