Because union interests are narrowly defined (unlike, for instance, those of the business community), teachers unions can go after an issue with laserlike focus, and they are quite adept at drawing on the publicвЂ™s generally supportive view of teachers. And once the stipulations are passed, there is generally no clock ticking on a lawвЂ™s expiration as there would be if the provision were part of a collective bargaining agreement.ДЇor a number of reasons, the unions have had considerable success in passing teacher-friendly legislation in spite of frequent opposition from school districts in a state or even the department of education. Kennedy issued an executive order that allowed federal workers to bargain collectively, and one by one states followed, affording unions substantial bargaining power by the mid-1970s.ДЄs unions matured, their leaders realized that it is more efficient to lobby state legislatures on particular workplace provisions than to negotiate the conditions into hundreds of individual contracts. The public-sector labor movement took hold in the second half of the 20th century when, in the face of poor working conditions and low wages, unions began lobbying for collective bargaining rights. What best explains increasing legislative involvement in teacher governance is the rise of teachers unions. That power has steadily increased over the decades, especially in recent years, as federal initiatives like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top have pushed states to assume more authority over education. The contract certainly still plays a big role in determining a teacherвЂ™s pay, work schedule, and benefits, but the power behind the policies with the most impact on teacher quality, such as tenure and performance assessment, lies with states.

Local control-although it is still brandished when expedient-is today more myth than reality, at least when it comes to matters involving teachers.

While teacher contracts may flesh out the details of school rules and rights of teachers, states are in the driverвЂ™s seat. In OhioвЂ™s case, state law dictates that teachers on continuing contracts and those with greater seniority should have preference, language that is effectively emulated in 14 other states in the country. In fact, when it comes to seniority rules, and many other core aspects of teachersвЂ™ employment, the contract is not the problem. To the surprise of some district superintendents, contract negotiations are not likely to offer much relief. Ann Mullin, senior program officer for education at ClevelandвЂ™s George Gund Foundation, told the cityвЂ™s Plain Dealer, вЂњThereвЂ™s something wrong when a state law forces removal of teachers without regard to their effectiveness in the classroom.вЂќДЄcross the country, many cash-strapped districts fretting over likely layoffs are eyeing seniority rules as they hammer out new contracts. Among the first were a number of teachers who had been handpicked to staff the districtвЂ™s 10 new вЂњinnovationвЂќ schools. The stateвЂ™s hard-and-fast seniority rule-last hired, first fired-provided Cleveland school officials with little wiggle room for deciding which teachers had to go. There wasnвЂ™t a whole lot of mystery about which teachers among ClevelandвЂ™s 3,500-member teaching force would be the ones to lose their jobs. When the Cleveland, Ohio, school board had to make radical cuts in its budget last spring, it was forced to eliminate 540 teaching jobs. Video: Emily Cohen talks with Education Next.

Book invisible contracts