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

Abstract

We extend the work of Cowen and Fowles by examining contracts in Kentucky school districts with collective bargaining. Using document analysis, we sought to answer the following research question: Do key provisions of teacher contracts change over time? We also examine the most recently negotiated contract in Louisville schools (2013-2018). We find that it is far more likely for the provisions to remain substantively unchanged across Kentucky school districts, with some districts more active in negotiating substantive change than others. We find that teacher seniority rights generally diminished in teacher assignment and transfer provisions, except in reduction in force decisions.

Teachers’ Unions, Collective Bargaining, and the Response to COVID-19

“…Prior research on CBAs shows that contracts are resistant to change without a large precipitating event serving as an impetus for revision Pascal 1979, 1988;Cowen and Fowles 2013;Ingle and Wisman 2018;Strunk and Marianno 2019;Strunk et al 2018). Pascal (1979, 1988) study changes to content in 151 teacher CBAs from two time periods (between 1970 and 1975, and between 1980 and 1985) and find few substantive modifications.…”

Red for Ed Teacher Movements: Exploring Roles and Symbols in the Politics of the Superintendency

“…Teachers and the unions that represent them form a third source of community political power. Cowen and Fowles (2013) and Ingle and Wisman (2018) utilize new institutionalism to deconstruct the specifics of teacher contracts in Kentucky, suggesting that macropolitical realities at the state-level lead to a form of isomorphism in local teacher contracts that changes little over time. Cowen and Strunk (2015) argue that the macropolitical context of states such as Kentucky weakening teacher rights and collective bargaining raises the question of whether union bargaining is "good" or "bad" for education.…”

“…This shift from microlevel to macrolevel politics carries implications for superintendent roles and decision-making within the political drama. The microlevel politics of the superintendency have been fairly well explored including the superintendent and school board relationship (Fusarelli, 2006;Mountford, 2004;Peterson & Short, 2001;Tallerico, 2000;Thompson, 2014;Webner et al, 2017), school and business partnerships (Bennett et al, 2014;Bennett & Thompson, 2011), relationships with intermediary organizations (Honig, 2004), and the relationship with local contracts and unions (Cowen & Fowles, 2013;Cowen & Strunk, 2015;Ingle & Wisman, 2018). However, in his exploration of superintendents' use of Twitter, Hurst (2017) notes that "little has been written on the prominence or practice of macropolitical engagement by superintendents" (p. 5).…”

Negotiating the Great Recession: How Teacher Collective Bargaining Outcomes Change in Times of Financial Duress

“…Required or permitted in 45 states (Sanes & Schmittt, 2014), collective bargaining negotiations establish legally binding contracts that dictate workplace procedures that impact every aspect of teachers’ work (e.g., teacher compensation, class size, leaves, seniority and staffing, the school day and year schedule, and general working conditions; Eberts, 2007; Hill, 2006; Strunk, 2012). Furthermore, research suggests that CBAs are fairly inflexible to change (Cowen & Fowles, 2013; Ingle & Wisman, 2018; McDonnell & Pascal, 1979; Strunk, et al, 2019). Once established, contract provisions can only be altered through subsequent negotiations, and the working conditions and compensation levels ensconced therein are difficult to alter as unions and district administrators are resistant to cede ground on the protections they have secured.…”