Collective Bargaining Agreement Provisions in the Wake of Ohio Teacher Evaluation System Legislation

Abstract

Guided by Honig and Hatch's conceptualization of bridging and buffering, we analyzed the first teacher collective bargaining agreements negotiated after the enactment of the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System to understand how state law has shaped provisions for teacher evaluation, compensation, reductions in force (RIF), transfers, and contract renewal. We found surprising variation in provisions across districts. Most notable was how districts defined comparable evaluations in making RIF decisions. Bridging districts provided the greatest protections for the most accomplished teachers, regardless of seniority. In contrast, buffering districts have RIF provisions based on seniority.

Extending the Work of Cowen and Fowles: A Historical Analysis of Kentucky Teacher Contracts

“…Once a new contract is negotiated, the prior contract becomes irrelevant and consigned to history. Indeed, prior research of collective bargaining in Ohio (Ingle et al, 2015; Ingle et al, 2017; Willis & Ingle, 2016) noted that comparisons between prior and current contracts is not easy as current contracts replace prior ones in the State Employment Relations Board database. Turnover in district superintendents, boards of education, and local teacher association leadership may also contribute to losses in institutional history and sources of data (prior contracts).…”

“…Pogodzinski et al (2015) found that amidst state-level reforms of teacher evaluations and collective bargaining rights, there remains local variation in the design and implementation of local teacher evaluation systems and the extent to which teacher unions were involved. Following changes to teacher evaluation policies in the state of Ohio, Ingle et al (2015) examined provisions in the first wave of CBAs negotiated after teacher evaluation legislation went into effect. Notably, Ingle et al found surprising variation in how districts defined “comparable evaluations” in making RIF decisions, with some districts clinging to seniority in spite of state law and others agreed to greater protections for the most accomplished teachers regardless of seniority.…”

“…Likewise, broader political and legal forces at the federal and state level fluctuate, seeking to shape the scope and tenor of local collective bargaining (Cowen & Fowles, 2013; Malin, 2012). In recent years, several states in traditional union strongholds (e.g., Wisconsin, Michigan) have passed right-to-work legislation and many others have debated such legislation, seeking to diminish unions’ political power and resources (Cowen & Strunk, 2015; Ingle, Willis, & Fritz, 2015). Among these were legislative efforts in California, Wisconsin, and Ohio, which led to acrimonious public demonstrations and debate.…”

Teacher evaluation reform implementation and labor relations

“…More specifically, using the State of Michigan as a case, we aimed to do the following: (a) identify variation in teacher evaluation systems across districts, (b) describe the extent to which teachers and teacher unions were involved in developing local teacher evaluation systems, (c) report on district administrators' critique of their teacher evaluation systems, and (d) evaluate the association (through correlation analysis) between measures of labor relations climate with variations in teacher evaluation systems, the extent of union involvement, and the administrators' critique of those systems. Although recent research has focused on how collective bargaining influences local policies (Anzia and Moe 2014;Cohen-Vogel, Feng and Osborne-Lampkin 2013;Ingle, Willis and Fritz 2014;Koski and Horng 2007;Strunk and Grissom 2010), this analysis specifically focuses on the association between local teacher evaluation policy and labor relations climate when the topic of teacher evaluation was recently barred from collective bargaining.…”

Industrial action involving teachers’ unions in Norway and Denmark: comparing bargaining trends and outcomes

“…The idea of the inter-party collaboration is to reduce the negative effects of inherent conflicts of interest which in some instances can disrupt processes (Moene & Wallerstein, 2002). Negotiations take often place in connection with collective and centralised tariff agreements (Ingle, Willis, & Fritz, 2014) and through agreements on working conditions (e.g. the overall framework agreement which establishes fixed periods of truce during the lifetime of agreements between employer and employee organisations).…”