Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

Ohio Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Advanced Education
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Governance
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
  • Research
  • Policy
  • Commentary
    • Ohio Gadfly Newsletter
    • Ohio Gadfly Blog
    • Events
Ohio Gadfly Daily

Can ambitious education reforms boost political fortunes?

Aaron Churchill
7.29.2025
Do bold education reforms pay off at the ballot box blog image
Getty Images/24K-Production
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

Conventional wisdom holds that elected officials pay a political price when they champion bold education reforms. These efforts, after all, usually step on the toes of powerful interest groups—most notably, teachers’ unions, which can organize opposition and punish reformers at the ballot box. Here in Ohio, the supposed costs of seeing through tough-minded reforms has led lawmakers to backtrack as soon as they began to feel the political heat (think: academic distress commissions and reading retention).

But do bold reforms actually diminish electoral fortunes? A new study from Wisconsin sheds light, offering findings that should hearten policymakers seeking to shake up the status quo. Conducted by Yale professor Barbara Biasi and colleague Wayne Sandholtz, the analysis reveals that the school reforms led by Governor Scott Walker boosted his performance in subsequent statewide elections.

A quick primer on the Wisconsin context. Fresh off his first-term election in 2010, Governor Walker pushed through landmark legislation (“Act 10”) that weakened teachers’ unions and gave managerial authority back to district leaders. Among the provisions, the act dramatically narrowed the scope of collective bargaining to base wages only. This allows districts to determine teachers’ compensation above the base, whether tied to effectiveness, professional responsibilities, content area, seniority, or some mix of these and other factors. Act 10 also required annual union recertification by a majority of district teachers, a requirement that quickly reduced both the number of local unions as well as their membership. It also eliminated unions’ ability to strike and forbade them from automatically collecting agency fees (which the Supreme Court would later outlaw nationwide).  

These sweeping changes set off an uproar that attracted media attention and thrust Governor Walker into the national spotlight. The controversial measure also provoked a statewide recall election that put the governor’s career on the line. Yet beyond the political fallout, previous research (also by Biasi) has found that the act—as intended—significantly altered the way Wisconsin schools are run. Many school districts did indeed use their newfound pay flexibilities to better attract and retain effective early-career teachers by ratcheting up their pay, while also clamping down on seniority-driven pay raises. Most importantly, students benefitted from Act 10. State math scores, for instance, rose by 0.17 standard deviations five years after districts began implementing reforms.

Turning back to electoral impacts, Biasi and Sandholtz leverage the different expiration dates of districts’ pre-Act 10 teachers’ contracts to study the political implications for Governor Walker. In the years immediately after passage, some districts were “early treated”—they implemented Act 10 earlier, as their old contracts expired sooner than “late treated” districts, which still operated under the previous contract at the time of the election. This allows the analysts to look at vote shares in the early- versus late-treated districts. What do they find? The implementation of Act 10 increased the share of votes won by Governor Walker in the 2012 recall and his second-term race two years later. Specifically, they estimate that the reforms increased his vote share by 1.4 percentage points—about 20 percent of his margin of victory.

Why the boost? The analysts point to diminished union influence, but also evidence suggesting that voter gains were larger in districts where junior teachers received bigger pay raises and where student learning gains were stronger. In other words, educators and parents may have begun to sense the positive changes happening inside schools, and rewarded the governor at the ballot box. As the authors conclude: “The reform won votes not only by weakening unions, but also by improving the experience of public education for a significant share of providers [i.e., educators] and users.”

These findings don’t suggest that going big on education reform is entirely risk-free. Governor Walker, after all, faced a recall that would not have occurred sans Act 10. And unions have certainly defeated reformers in other places. Nevertheless, as the Wisconsin case demonstrates, pushing the envelope on education reform—and sticking to it—can be a winner, not only at the ballot box but also for parents and students.

Policy Priority:
School Funding
Topics:
Governance
Tags: Ohio Scott Walker Wisconsin
Aaron Churchill 2025 headshot

Aaron Churchill is the Ohio research director for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, where he has worked since 2012. In this role, Aaron oversees research  and commentary aimed at strengthening education policy in Ohio. He writes regularly on Fordham’s blog, the Ohio Gadfly Daily on topics such as…

View Full Bio

Related Content

view
Ohio charter news logo
School Choice

Ohio Charter News Weekly – 9.18.26

Jeff Murray 9.18.2026
OhioOhio Gadfly Daily
view
Gadfly Bites logo
School Funding

Gadfly Bites 9/18/26—Professor Kogan says: Always read the appendixes

Jeff Murray 9.18.2026
OhioOhio Gadfly Daily
view
Gadfly Guy

What we’re reading: September 18, 2026

The Education Gadfly 9.18.2026
NationalFlypaper
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]