The Effect of Teachers’ Union Contracts on School District Efficiency: Longitudinal Evidence From California

Abstract

While the effect of teachers’ unions on school districts continues to be debated, the research literature provides few definitive conclusions to guide these discussions. In this article, we examine the relationship between teachers’ union contracts and school district efficiency. We define efficiency as the ratio of short-run productivity (student performance on standardized exams) to expenditures. We estimate a series of school district fixed effect models using measures of district collective bargaining agreement (CBA) restrictiveness tied to longitudinal outcomes. We find that CBA restrictiveness is positively associated with expenditures on students, instruction, instruction support services, and teacher and administrator salaries over time. We find no significant relationship between CBA restrictiveness and student achievement. Finally, we find a negative relationship between CBA restrictiveness and district efficiency. Given the small magnitude of our effect sizes, we conclude that weakening union rights may not produce large gains in efficiency and may come at substantial political costs.

What Teachers’ Unions Do for Teachers When Collective Bargaining is Prohibited

“…In their recent meta-analysis of 19 studies with 77 estimates of union wage effects, Merkle and Phillips (2018) find that teachers’ unions produced an average wage impact estimated around 2–4.5% and observe that the union effects are confounded by the measures of union status, either at the individual or district level, and legal frameworks for labor-management relations. Marianno, Bruno and Strunk (2021) find that CB restrictiveness is positively associated with expenditure on students and educators.…”

Power in a Pandemic: Teachers’ Unions and Their Responses to School Reopening

“…When members from the teachers' union have a seat at the bargaining table, they have a voice in policies that affect working requirements for their teacher membership, and thus the opportunity to proactively shape a school district's policy agenda. Because CBAs dictate almost all aspects related to teachers' responsibilities including professional development requirements, required work hours and breaks, classroom assignments, and evaluations, unions policy influence can be quite expansive (Ballou, 2000;Goldschmidt & Stuart, 1986;Marianno et al, 2021;Moe, 2009;Strunk & Reardon, 2010). Once negotiated, CBAs go before the school board for final ratification.…”

“…First, teachers’ unions negotiate CBAs with school district administrators. Forty-four states permit collective bargaining, and these contract negotiations provide a venue for teachers’ unions to exert considerable influence on a variety of local education policy decisions (Marianno et al, 2021; Moe, 2009; Strunk & Grissom, 2010). CBAs can cover a broad range of issues from the allocation of district funds to the basic day-to-day duties of teachers (Ballou, 2000; Strunk et al, 2018).…”

Public School Teacher Contracts and State-Level Reforms: Assessing Changes to Collective Bargaining Restrictiveness Across Three States

“…Previous research on CBAs has suggested that districts with stronger unions and more restrictive contracts have greater expenditures (Eberts, 1983; Eberts & Stone, 1984; Marianno et al, 2021; Strunk, 2011), stemming in part from higher teacher salaries and benefits (Brunner & Squires, 2013; Hoxby, 1996; Winters, 2011). Earlier work has also shown that restrictive CBAs have either null or adverse effects on student outcomes (Marianno & Strunk, 2018; Moe, 2009; Strunk, 2011; Strunk & McEachin, 2011; see also Cowen & Strunk, 2015, for a more complete review of this literature).…”