Weiner 2012

• Not very analytical, but good use of concepts, free-flowing, like an easy reader for teachers
• Protecting the heart of teaching
• "our responsibility to do right by our students is at the heart of teaching...tachers are pressured to carry out mandates that harm kids." (15)
• a good teachers union has special moral and political respnsobilities because of teachers' work (21)
• to destroy teachers autonomy is to destroy an important space for training and discussing civil rights, social justice, critical thought, and ideas of freedom (21)
• teachers reproduce society, students are forced to be in schools, and thus forced to be exposed to either good or bad teachers (22)
• teaching is caring (24-25) and teachers need to work with parents and the community (26-27)
• argues teachers are "idea workers", and that unions protects teachers' freedom to teach ideas, even those the union may not like (30)
• neoliberalism has painted teachers' uniosn in a bad light, but it gives them the opportunity to increase the purview of their bargaining beyond merely wages and hours (31)
• Building a social movement union
• campaigns have been successfully built around halting school closures in many cities (38-39)
• expanding the issues on which teachers' union advocate (39-40)
• teachers' unions must package demands of salary and benefits with class size to make sure they aren't utterly sacrificing students' interests (47-48)
• Unions need to have courage, be caring, and critique (64-72)
• teachers and studnets are "victimized" by the lack of democracy in schools, which hinders teachers and schools' ability to work creatively and help their studnets (116-117)
• 
  

Moore Johnson 1984

Johnson, Susan Moore. Teacher Unions In Schools. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1984.

• data from 1979-1980
•  Reallocated authority:
• the school is no longer the principal's empire (my term), now informal authority and collaboration with teachers is used more often, though most principals say that was always the better way to run a school (57)
• Bargaining and Bureaucratization
• there was a clear trend toward centralized administration of contracts, but particularistic labor relations at teh school-level continued (82)
• Grievance procedures had made some schools more hierarchical, but many schools also resolved disputes more informally (82-83)
• "pesonalities conitnued to be more important than roles" (83)
• the experieces suggest there are strong influences within schools against massive centralization, and feelings that teachers/education demanded autonomy rather than control (83)
• Defining a Teachers' Job
• teachers look to contract to protect them from unreasonable work demands (made by administrators) (108-109)
• careful balance between limiting administrator abuse and over-emphasizing limiting teachers obligations. the former is necessary, the latter can hurt school's effectiveness (109)
• restricting teachers' obligations makes more work for administrators (109)
• Maintaining Staff Comepetence
• everyone in a district (teachers, admin, etc) thinks unions are responsible for the continued employment of bad teachers (133)
• principals can still  hve some power in trying to upgrade teachers, but it gets pretty hard to summarily dismiss a teacher
• Accommodation in the Schools
• "teachers like to be part of a winning team" (163)
• teachers seem OK with both partial democracy and partial authoritarianism...they don't want to be abused, but will work with principals who expect a lot from them
• Conclusion
• schools have not become bureaucratic factories due to unionization (165)
• teachers are a bit ambivalent about unions
• protects tem in some cases
• but they see themselves as professionals as well
• and they realize that the contract can't regulate everything (166)
• individual personalities and local-level constellations are still really, really important to how a school actually functions (167-8)

Skocpol 1985

Theda Skocpol "Bringing the State Back In: Current Research" 3-37.
in
Evans, Peter B., Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

• social science had (in 1985) become very society centered, and the state wasn't well understood as an actor with agency
• the Weberian view of the state demands we see the state as structuring state-society relations AND affecting relations within civil society, though it is not totalizing in the sense that other organizations can have similar influence (7-8)
• why do states formulate and purse their own goals? (i.e. why do states go beyond the demands of civil society) (9-10)
• basic needs of manitaining order internally and form external threats
• social inclusion counts as part of this
• corporatist regimes in Peru and Brazil as a way to limit internal social conflict (10)
• state autonomy is not a fixed structural feature in of any governmental system, it can come and go, beause the state tranforms over time, can gain and lose power in relation to societal forces, and can gain or lose autonomy in the same way (14)
• the state can never truly be disinterested (15)
• state capacities should be understood as relational rather than objectively measurable...they are only as powerful as those other organizations over whom they hope to prevail, or influence (19), ESPECIALLY SOCIOECONOMIC OR SOCIOCULTURAL CONTEXT
• the design of a state can also have important implications on the patterns and structure of civil society...that is to say, the way a state is structure can influence the way a society works (21)
• conclusion: (28)
• states can be coneived of as
• organizations with their own goals that they are more or less able to achieve, or
• "configurations of organization" that structure action and influence politics of all classes in society

Cooper, Westcott and Lansbury (2003)

from Cornfield and McCammon 2003

• Australia
• states enacting neoliberal economic policies, rolling back some of the legislative protections unions had historically enjoyed (188-190)
• the results has been more confrontation between employers and unions (190)
• the response is greater organizing

Cornfield and McCammon 2003

Introduction from their edited volume

• they use a union-centered approach that places labor organizations and their actions as the center of a web of constraining and facilitating social reactions (2)
• but they also see three important social relations in revitalization, between unions and 1) workers, 2) employers, and 3) the state (3)
• "the state influences the the amount of political opportunity for the expression of labor actions." (11)
• sees labor as attempting to regain its autonomy from the state in certain parts of the GS (like venezuela and Mexico) (14-16)
• but these are all labor movements themselves pushing away from the state, not teh state pushing labor unions out
• 
  

Molina Romo 2005

Molina Romo, Óscar. (2005) "Political Exchange and Bargaining Reform in Italy and Spain." European Journal of Industrial Relations 11(1): 7–26.

• In the conclusion
• labor reforms in Italy and Spain were crafted by policy concertation between employers, unions, and the government took an active role (sometimes even by forcing reforms) (20)
• but the intervention of the government gave the trade unions political leverage, and allowed for political exchange, to improve the outcomes of reforms (20-21)
• this is a little different, as the government taking an active role in this reform resulted in the government opening itself to feeling the wrath of unions
• earlier reforms in the 1980s had left unions with weakened industrial power but continued political power, this they were able to leverage into protecting their bargaining structures in the 1990s (22)
• THE POINT, here, is that
• the government didn't take a very active role, but did so in careful negotiations with unions and employers, and
• in this case, when faced by a political challenge from unions, the government gave in to demands (22)

Silvina and Abregú 2005

Gvirtz, Silvina, and Victoria Abregú. 2005. De la tragedia a la esperanza: hacia un sistema educativo justo, democrático y de calidad. Academia Nacional de Educación.

• Introduction
• education should have two goals: teach people how to learn, and teach them how to live together (6-7)
• the school forms citiznes (7)
• education system has high coverage but not high retention rates (9)
• Chapter 1
• a bit of hsitory
• teh state was heavily involved in creating and administering the education system in the 1800s, it allowed everyone in to primary, but saved upper levels for a minority of students (16-17)
• in teh 1960s and 1970s society changed, new technology grew, and public schoolsdidn't keep up with the times.  this was the start of the middle class c=slowly migrating to private schools (18-20)
• this also meant the state was less able to meet its responsibility of educating studenets (20)
• private schools were more disciminatory, if only in that their fees limited enrolment (21)
• the dictatorships didn't do much to combat this, while democratic governments tried to recentralize schooling and fix the problem (21)
• 1990s reform (23-32)
• supposed to give some autonomy back to the schools, let them decide how to teach at the school level (28-29) MAYBE THIS MEANS GIVING BACK TO INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS SOME POWER AND CONTROL OVER THEIR WORK?
• hope was to put provinces in charge of curriculum design, just have some big goals at the federal level (29-30)
• but the fedeeral "guide" just became what everyone used as the curriculum itself (30)
• the implementation of these reforms seemed to fall short of the goals, and in some ways just increased bureaucratization (32)
• data on inequality of income between private and public schools, (35)
• richer people in private schools, significantly so
• schools don't really have much autnomy, they have been very centalzied under the provinces, even private schools! (40)
• they also argue that there is a political problem, because the government isn't taking it's responsibility to educate everyone equally (40)
• introduction to the second part of the book
• this section brings up three paths that should be done in order to provide basic pilars for improving education system:
• redefine government running or education to de-bureaucratize the system (44)
• redefine the school as a space of socio-educative and community center, 
• equalize conditions in all schools to allow quality education in every school
• chapter 2
• government needs to find a careful balance between equality of access and results of education (48)
• government should set clear goals
• schools should be given some flexibility to address their own peculiar needs
• entire system should have responsibility for results of education
• government should work to either equalize education across schools, or at leat compensate worse schools to try and make them better (48-49)
• create incentives to allow good policies in schools to be rewarded (49)
• community should become a collaborative partner for schools (49)
• what the national education ministry should be donig (52-55), mostly helping, coordinating, measuring, being a resource, but not being heavy handed, but also paying for things
• this model favors de-bureaucratization (55)
• really important to increase teachers' capacity to teach, in schools, out of schools, and in universities (58)
• provincial level ministiries should
• work to coordinate the macro and the micro levels (61-2)
• generate strategies of cooperation among schools (62)
• create broad strategies to improve schools in their province
• work to fund their schools
• chapter 3
• ideas to change the schools (and ministries) from pyrmaidal and bureaucratic to open and democratic (63)
• need:
• more decentralized decisionmaking, allow schools to vary their work a bit (64)
•  start having community groups that have a voice in the schools (66-67)
• and others
• mostly about creating new work positions, like director of pedagogoy
• Consejos escolares (70-73)
• these arent' always good, might just back uup authoritarian principal (70)
• should include parents, students, graduates, administrators, teachers, and members of the community (71)
• not just for fundraising, but to make sure the decisions the school is tyaking are good
• EVERYONE muist be involved, every sector, as education is something that is shared among all secotrs (72)
• decision-making still mostly in the hands of the director(s) of the school (73)
• change school culture (74)
• clear goals with measurements
• get participation of the families (75)
• chapter 4
• consider the school as a center of communtiy and social education 975)
• get students, school projects involved in their community, too (79)
• give exta aid, food, etc to schools that are in especially poor areas (80)
• make the buildings, supplies better and equal across schools (82)
• improve the formation and careers of teachers (84-86)
• improve salarty (85)
• create better career paths for them (85-86)
•