Classroom, Community, and Contract: A New Framework for Building Moral Legitimacy and Member Activism in Teacher Unions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
T he face of the teacher union has changed. In many countries today, teacher union members are less active than ever before. After sustained growth in union membership and activism and subsequent expansion of benefits and bargaining rights in the early 1900s through the 1990s, teacher union membership has remained relatively fixed in the past 20 years, and member engagement in the United States, Canada, England, Australia, and other countries has been jeopardized by policy decisions that limit collective bargaining, privatize public schools, and standardize educational programs (Boyd et al. 2000; Buras 2010; Compton and Weiner 2008; Cooper 2000; Farber 2006; Hargreaves and Fullan 2012; Hypolito 2008; Murphy 1990; Rincones 2008; Robertson 2008; Rousmaniere 1997, 2005; Urban 1982). Teachers who have recently entered the profession tend to favor nontraditional and marketbased policies opposed by teacher unions, such as the elimination of tenure and seniority, using student test scores to evaluate teachers, and enacting nontraditional salary structures such as pay for performance or bonus pay (Farkas et al. 2003; Feistritzer 2011; Yarrow 2009). Newer teachers are also less likely to be active in the union, owing, in part, to their lack of connection to union values, lack of understanding of the role collective bargaining has played in securing better working conditions, and questioning of the union’s moral legitimacy in its protection of teachers and teachers’ rights (Bascia 2008; Chaison and Bigelow 2002; Popiel 2013). These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.136 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".