The Politics of Collective Bargaining Agreements: Examining Teacher Quality, Personnel Autonomy, and the Impact on Black Students

• In Event: 41.071 - Learning While Black: Addressing the Educational and Social Deprivation of Black Students in Schools

Abstract

Teachers unions’ collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with local school districts have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. Critics of teachers’ unions and their use of collective bargaining have argued that provisions of CBAs hinder school improvement and reform efforts (Eberts, 2007; Lewis, 2013). Specifically, some provisions of CBAs place constraints on the personnel decision making of school administrators. CBAs may constrain school administrators’ ability to select or hire teachers; observe, supervise, and evaluate teachers; and if need be, terminate teachers’ employment.
Concern over the constraints placed on school administrators by CBAs is heightened in schools serving high poverty, high minority student populations. Research has shown that children of color and low-income children in such schools are much more likely to be taught by less experienced, less effective teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Sanders & Rivers, 1996). As administrators in these schools often face greater difficulty with attracting and retaining effective teachers (Achinstein, Ogawa, & Sexton, 2010; Berry & Hirsch, 2005; Prince, 2003), measures that further limit principals’ ability to staff schools with high quality teachers are particularly concerning. This paper considers some of the specific personnel challenges brought on by personnel-restrictive CBAs in low-income, predominantly Black schools. The authors use site-based management theory in its analysis. Site-based management theory calls for the placement of budgeting, staffing, and curricular decision making at the school-level rather than at higher levels of education governance (i.e. central office, state education agency) (Levey & Acker-Hocevar, 1998), which would consider the specific educational needs of the student population. The paper concludes with considerations and recommendations for change in policy and practice.

Authors

• Wayne D. Lewis, University of Kentucky

• Madelyn Roeder, University of Kentucky