skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Studies: Teachers Unions Hurt Students’ Future Earnings, Employment (Minorities Hardest Hit)
From From Jay P. Greene's Blog.
"(Guest Post by Jason Bedrick)
At this week’s annual meeting of the prestigious American Economic
Association, Stanford economist Caroline Hoxby chaired a paper session
titled, “New
Evidence on the Effects of Teachers’ Unions on Student Outcomes,
Teacher Labor Markets, and the Allocation of School Resources.”
I haven’t read these studies yet, so I won’t provide any commentary
on them, but I figured JayBlog readers would be interested to see these
two papers in particular:
“The Long-run Effects of Teacher Collective Bargaining”
by Michael Lovenheim (Cornell University) and Alexander Willen (Cornell
University)
This paper presents the first analysis of the effect of teacher
collective bargaining on long-run labor market and educational
attainment outcomes. Our analysis exploits the different timing across
states in the passage of duty-to-bargain laws in a
difference-in-difference framework to identify how exposure to teacher
collective bargaining affects the long-run outcomes of students. Using
American Community Survey (ACS) data linked to each respondent’s state
of birth, we examine labor market outcomes and educational attainment
for 35-49 year olds. Our estimates suggest that teacher
collective bargaining worsens the future labor market outcomes of
students: living in a state that has a duty-to-bargain law for all 12
grade-school years reduces earnings by $800 (or 2%) per year and
decreases hours worked by 0.50 hours per week. The earnings estimate
indicates that teacher collective bargaining reduces earnings by $199.6
billion in the US annually. We also find evidence of lower employment
rates, which is driven by lower labor force participation, as well as
reductions in the skill levels of the occupations into which workers
sort. The effects are driven by men and nonwhites, who experience larger
relative declines in long-run outcomes. Using data from the
1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, we demonstrate that
collective bargaining leads to sizable reductions in measured cognitive
and non-cognitive skills among young adults. Taken together, our
results suggest laws that support collective bargaining for teachers
have adverse long-term labor market consequences for students. [emphasis added]
In short, the paper finds evidence that teachers unions’ collective
bargaining reduce the future level of employment and earnings of
students, especially minorities.
But wait, there’s more!
“Unions, Salaries, and the Market for Teachers: Evidence From Wisconsin” by Barbara Biasi (Princeton University)
A careful study of teachers’ labor demand and supply, while extremely
relevant for policy, is challenging due to a lack of variation in pay,
as teacher salaries are usually set using steps-and-lanes schedules
based entirely on seniority and academic credentials. This paper
exploits the passage of Act 10 in Wisconsin in 2011, which changed the
scope of collective bargaining on teacher salaries, to study the effects
of changes in pay on teachers’ labor market, and on the composition of
the teaching workforce. As a result of this law some districts started
to individually negotiate salaries with each teacher, whereas other
districts continued setting salaries using seniority-based schedules. I
first document an increase in salary dispersion in individual-salaries
districts, and show that it is correlated with teacher value-added.
Teachers responded to changes in pay by sorting across districts or by
exiting: I find a 34 percent increase in quality of teachers moving from
salary-schedule to individual-salary districts, and a 17 percent
decrease in quality of teachers exiting individual-salary districts.
Building from this reduced-form evidence, I estimate the parameters of
teachers’ labor supply and demand using a two-sided choice model.
Simulating the model on different salary schemes shows that an increase
in the quality component of salaries in one district is associated with
an improvement in average quality of the teaching workforce, driven by
both in-movements of higher-quality teachers and out-movements and exits
of lower-quality teachers. An increase in all districts is, however,
associated with a smaller improvement, entirely attributable to exits of
lower-quality teachers. [emphasis added]
In other words, the study finds that, after enacting Act 10,
high-quality teachers in Wisconsin tended to move to districts that paid
them based on their individual performance, whereas low-quality
teachers gravitated to districts that paid for them staying alive an
additional year.
Whether these findings are robust or generalizable is an open
question that I’ll leave it to others to debate. But I do hope that
these studies receive the consideration that they deserve."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.