Defining “Comparable”: An Analysis of Reduction in Force Provisions in Ohio School Districts

Abstract

Guided by Honig and Hatch's (2004) conceptualization of bridging and buffering, we undertook an analysis of reduction in force (RIF) provisions from 546 Ohio teacher collective bargaining agreements. We asked the following question: Are the most disadvantaged school districts providing greater protections to tenured teachers when making RIF decisions? Logistic regression analysis revealed a negative relationship ( p < 0.05) between the percentage of students within the district living in poverty and bridging to state efforts to reform the use of seniority alone in RIF decisions.

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

“…We found that teacher seniority rights diminished in teacher assignment and transfer provisions in some Kentucky CBA school districts. This is a similar finding to prior qualitative and quantitative research studies that examined collective bargaining provisions in Ohio (Ingle et al, 2015; Ingle et al, 2017). This finding does not support criticisms that teachers’ unions undermine educational accountability policies (Ballou, 2000a, 2000b; Hill, 2006).…”

“…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).…”

“…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. Subsequent quantitative analysis of RIF provisions in a larger sample of Ohio districts found that higher levels of poverty was associated with a decreased likelihood of bridging to state reform efforts to use performance outcomes in making reductions in force decisions (Ingle, Willis, & Herd, 2017). Some Ohio school districts negotiated merit pay provisions that were wide-ranging in the design and specifics of the programs (Willis & Ingle, 2016).…”

“…Historically, RIFs have been determined by seniority provisions, such that teachers with the least seniority are the first ones laid off through what have become known as last in , first out or last hired , first fired practices (Goldhaber & Theobald, 2013). Recent research (Ingle et al, 2017) revealed that Kentucky’s neighbor to the north, Ohio, enacted teacher evaluation legislation stipulating that when RIFs are required, school boards “shall not give preference to any teacher based on seniority, except when making a decision between teachers who have comparable evaluations” (OH Rev Code § 3319.17). Kentucky’s teacher evaluation laws have no such stipulation.…”

Exploring the Politics of Collective Bargaining and Unions in Education

“…Research studies of CBAs have relied upon various forms of analysis, including qualitative studies, ranging from content analysis of select provisions (e.g., Ingle et al, 2015;Pogodzinski, Umpstead, & Witt, 2015), legal analysis (e.g., Umpstead, Pogodzinski, & Lund, 2013), and analyses of interview data undertaken with policy actors, such as human resource directors and teacher association presidents (Youngs, Pogodzinski, & Galey, 2015). In terms of quantitative analysis, studies range from descriptive analysis (e.g., Cohen-Vogel & Osborne-Lampkin, 2007) to inferential analyses of the relationships between coded/operationalized provisions and various outcomes (e.g., Cohen-Vogel, Feng, & Osborne-Lampkin, 2013;Ingle, Willis, & Herd, 2017;Koski & Horng, 2007;Strunk & Grissom, 2010;Strunk & Reardon, 2010). Goldhaber and Theobald (2013) contend that existing studies of CBAs and outcomes, such as teacher distribution and student achievement, focus on select subsections or provisions to the exclusion of others.…”