-.--- -- 0. \
9~fiQ-,...-..,. . .. .‘*”-9-Iu-—Iov-O"o' .- "'QOM-\~.foqeyo-7vvv'qr-
. . .l .‘ “at! N
c‘ ' .' h- ‘r v '
, .'Z
l s ’
‘ .

mug?" w-~-~.~'—“,*-.,-, . ”-7-” .v . . r-..o‘._ - . -

”on.

.i -.o Or‘. .
.ns ‘fln ‘
\

' ‘
‘-.
._,.
".
r2»
r1.

ha

. o

#15:"5‘ f!-

.v. o ‘
-. .n

. 3;". h,“ .z

u
-
o
,
. o
l' .
2“.
..
n.
".
. .,.
‘. ‘-
’ In.
‘ I

A sway or ATTITUDES AND PROBLEMS RELATING °
T0 STATE-WIDE YENURE AND COMPULSORY
BARGAINENG FOR TEACHERS m momma:

Thesis for theDegrea of Ed. D.
MICHiGAN STATE UNWERSHY
JACK E. MEEDER
1968

r

O l u ‘
. . . .
l
_ - o
v u a ' '.
a ‘ . ,
. ' ' a I ' ‘ '
. v' - -
.. . : ' .5 _ - r. . . ’ ' -
.. u . . ’ _“ ‘ .. n . . .
.. . l .' ,
, , . v n
. . . . . I .
. . , ~ . .
O V C . D O I ‘ _
- l ' - .. .. . .
a n , - ' I ' ’ : ;\. ' '," A ' 5“ - ‘.v- v
v v 1 l C o .' J . . ¢ A . — o a 9
g . . ¢ . .{ x 5 . u . , a . o ’ , - 4 - -. ‘
o v o 0 o . . o I ‘ , - . r I , . , - . . -
. ~ - ' ‘ . r Y - - n s ’ o o
4 ‘ I ‘ ' 0 ' - , , . c 0 ‘ - n ' o ' ‘
‘. . . ~ , . - . , I. l ., . , . _ ,
4 -. .1 v-1 '1. v . . -o‘ I ' ‘ "' - ' ' f - . -
. p.. .. . ‘_,, .... ~ . w. ‘ . .' - a n -c
, . . ‘ -.v.: r a! ' ' . . -- ..‘,'.:, x ' a: .o\'
. 1-.0 _ A. I . c r . , al, v - '
’ .‘ - . . . .' . ._ .. .
. o . ¢ 1 o- n u . v a 0. a
, . -o o - ..-. u . .
, . . > ' o ‘
'. .. . ...‘0' u- . . A .
. I. - v o';.‘n— ‘f -u . . c ' ., _
- I I .. ‘ -a. ' l .. '_I'O‘I" -‘ I .‘r '
a v - ‘ g1 ..’ .O'l .-. , ~ v - .
u l t I ' - . .
. ,... ,.(4_.I - |(' q A ‘ I A‘.."-".I 2,: .I 5.>\.1'|-'. ‘3 4 I» f “'.T '-l-.I~('I[C$‘)

1

' §
.“~..
. ~
‘ ..o
-_-_
_ .
-
-‘-
- . .
3’,
a

m Mlfiifllfl’lfi’l‘l’iifll’fllfllWT{UfiflfIflfilfl'flflflfllifiIu ..

3 1293 10629 6993

This .is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A Study of Attitudes and Problems

Relating to State-Wide Tenure and Compulsory
Bargaining for Teachers in Michigan

presented by

“ It

Jack E .3 Meeder

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ed. D. degree in Ed. Admin.

Date fl

0-169 ‘

 

LIB R A R Y
Michigan Scam
University

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or betore date due.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

LALL__

v .r?
. x
.5} if 1
L "F .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/E qual Opportunity Institution
I

Allah-3|“... -‘I n 1

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF ATTITUDES AND PROBLEMS
RELATING TO STATE-WIDE TENURE AND COMPULSORY BARGAINING
FOR TEACHERS IN MICHIGAN

by Jack E. Meeder

This study describes educator and school board attitudes regarding
mandatory state-wide tenure for the Public School teachers of Michigan.
It relates the 1964 tenure law to the 1965 law granting compulsory
bargaining rights to teachers. The inconsistencies that resulted are
described. Problems arising from both laws are explored.

The research was based primarily on three questionnaires to 539
educators and school board members. Selected interviews with
persons who had important responsibilities relating to tenure and
compulsory bargaining were a part of this research.

Major findings are that educators and school board members
were in favor of tenure for teachers. Teachers are more secure but
there is great doubt that tenure will improve teaching. The super-
intendents of 59 Michigan School Districts that had tenure previous to
the State-wide Law, were certain that tenure had not lowered the
teaching performance in their districts. Appeals to the State Tenure
Commission had not increased because of the new tenure law. Late

resignations arising from the new law were not a severe problem.

Jack E. Meeder

Enough teachers are not being retained to indicate that tenure can work
to weed out incompetents.

There is a severe conflict between the Mandatory Tenure Law and
the Compulsory Bargaining Law in Michigan. Individual contracts and
master contracts resulting from bargaining are in great disharmony.
The major conflict results from the fact that individual contracts are
required by law. Tenure rights are derived from individual contractual
status. But, teachers are withholding individual contracts pending a
master contract negotiated by their local bargaining unit. If individual
contracts are withheld past certain dates Specified in tenure law, can
teachers claim tenure rights? The Courts and the Legislature will
have to reduce these conflicts.

It is clear that tenure protection and compulsory bargaining rights
have vastly increased the economic powers of teachers. It is not

yet clear whether the status of teaching as a profession will be advanced.

A STUDY OF ATTITUDES AND PROBLEMS
RELATING TO STATE-WIDE TENURE AND COMPULSORY BARGAINING

FOR TEACHERS IN MICHIGAN
BY

Jack E. Meeder

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
College of Education

1968

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my appreciation to the members of my
graduate committee, Drs. Clyde M. Campbell, Carl H. Gross,
Fred Vescolani and John Useem for the time and effort they
have given on my behalf. In particular, I wish to thank Dr.
Campbell, chairman of the committee for his stimulating ideas
and encouragement over the past twenty years. Dr. Gross and
Dr. Vescolani have been teachers of Special inspiration dur-
ing my graduate years. My brother, John, deserves mention
for reading and criticizing.

My wife, Arlene, and my three sons, Curt, Chris, and
Matt, deserve special praise for their help and for abiding

with the usual problems of the graduate student, husband and

father .

Four hundred and eighty educators and school board mem-
bers took their time to help me with this study. Without

their help, this thesis could not have been written.

ii

CHAPTER

II

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE PROBLEM 0 O O O O O O O O 0

Statement of the Problem
The Need for This Research
Methods

Assumptions

Definitions

Background of the Problem
Significance

Overview

A REVIEW OF TENURE LITERATURE . . .

Introduction

A Major Study by Scott

Two Studies by National Teacher's Organizations
Appeals

The Status of Teachers in Other Nations

Some Research and Philosophical Arguments
Summary of the Review of the Literature

DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . .

Introduction: Justification of Selected
Respondents and Sizes of Schools

Sources and Questionnaires

The Justification of Tenure Questionnaire I

Distribution of Questionnaires and Sampling

Assumption

A Survey of Tenure Districts

Cases Coming Before the Tenure Commission

Interviews with the Tenure Commissioners and
Others

Second Questionnaire to School Superintendents

Smnmary

iii

PAGE

wH-QO‘mqur—t

Hg...

g...
vb

l4
14
20
23
29
31
32

35

35
36
37
38
39
40
40

40
41
42

CHAPTER

IV

PAGE

THE ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . .

Introduction
Questionnaire I: Interviews
The Returns of Questionnaire I
Question One of Questionnaire I:
(Supervision of Teachers)
Group Comparisons
Comparisons by School Size
Question Two of Questionnaire I:
(Elimination of Inadequate Teachers)
Group Comparisons
Comparisons by School Size
Question Three of Questionnaire 1:
(Security of Teachers)
Group Comparisons
Comparisons by School Size
Question Four of Questionnaire I:
(Upgraded Profession)
Group Comparisons
Comparisons by School Size
Question Five of Questionnaire I:
(Inadequate Teachers)
Group Comparisons
Comparisons by School Size
Question Six of Questionnaire I:
(Unjustified Teacher Dismissal)
Group Comparisons
Comparisons by School Size
Question Seven of Questionnaire I;
(Defects in the Law)
Group Comparisons
Comparisons by School Size
Question Eight of Questionnaire I:
(Comments of Tenure)
Group Comparisons
Comparisons by School Size
A Summary of Questionnaire II to Superintendents
of Those Fifty-nine Schools which
had Tenure under the Original 1937
Optional Tenure Law

iv

45

45
46
48

50
50
50

52
52
54

54
54
56

56
56

sea

58
58
62

63
63
66

66
67
72

72

72
74

76

CHAPTER PAGE

IV (continued)
Interviews with the Tenure Commission and
Ex-officio Secretary 78
Harry A. Lockwood 78
Miss Gladys Davis 79
Chalmer Young 80
Mrs. Marian Gibson 80
Albert C. Johnson 81
Alexander J. Kloster 81
Interview with Michigan Education Association
Representatives 82
Results of Questionnaire III 86
The Results of Questionnaire III for Small
Schools 87
The Results of Questionnaire III for Middle-
sized Schools 89
The Results of Questionnaire III for Large
Schools 89
Comparison Between Schools of the Results of
Questionnaire III 92
A Summary of Questionnaire III 92
A Review of Appeals to the Tenure Commission
During the School Year 1964-65 94
Summary of the Inquiries 95
V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 99
Background 99
Tenure Literature 99
Five Inquiries 100
Questionnaire I 100
Conclusions for Questionnaire I 105
Conclusions for Questionnaire II 106
Conclusions Regarding the Interviews with
the Tenure Commission 106
Conclusions Regarding Interviews with Michigan
Education Association Representatives 107
Conclusions for Questionnaire III 107
Summary of the Appeals to the Tenure Commis-
sion During the School Year 1964-65 109
Conclusions Regarding the Hypotheses 109
Recommendations 110

CHAPTER PAGE

VI TENURE AND COMPULSORY BARGAINING IN .
MICHIGAN 1 l4
Justification for Adding this Chapter 114
Introduction 114

An Analysis of the Michigan Compulsory Bar-
gaining Laws--Public Acts 282 and 379 118
The Relationship of Compulsory Bargaining

to Tenure 119
The Impact of Bargaining on Significant Groups 123
The Public 123
School Boards 125
Superintendents and Principals 128
The Legislature 132
Teachers 133
The Department of Education 134

The Michigan State Labor Mediation
Board 137
Some Consequences of Compulsory Bargaining 138
Unionism 141
Professional Practices Acts 142
Summary 143
Recommendations 145

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR CHAPTERS I-V . . . 178

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR CHAPTER VI . . . 183

vi

LIST OF APP ENDIC ES

PAGE
APPENDIX A
Letter to Sixty Superintendents to Instruct
the Distribution of Questionnaire I 147
Cover Letter for Questionnaire I 148
Tenure Questionnaire I 149
Questionnaire III (to the Original Sixty Superintendents
who were sent Questiomiaire I) 150
APPENDIX B
Questionnaire II (to Fifty-nine Superintendents
Whose Districts were Tenure Districts Prior
to 1964) 151
APPENDIX C
Numbers of Teachers and Enrollments of the Schools
Surveyed by Questionnaires I and II 152
APPENDIX D
A Summary of Recent Changes in the Teacher Tenure
Act of 1937 (Act No. 4 of the Public Acts of
the Extra Session of 1937) 153
Legislative Proposals in 1965 154

APPENDIX E

Letter from the Tenure Commission Regarding the
Cases from September, 1964, to September, 1965 155

Decision and Order of the State Tenure Commission--
Anne Lash versus Board of Education, School

District of the City of Dearborn 156

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES (concluded)

PAGE
APPENDIX E (continued)
Decision and Order of the State Tenure Commission--
Bobby Jack Young versus School District of
the City of Hazel Park 164
APPENDIX F
The Michigan Teacher Tenure Act 170

viii

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table .

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

10:

11:

.12:

13:

14:

15:

LIST OF TABLES

A summary of twenty-four interviews to
test Questionnaire I

A summary of the number of returns of
Questionnaire I

Summary of Question 1, Questionnaire I
Summary of Question 2, Questionnaire I
Summary of Question 3, Questionnaire I
Summary of Question 4, Questionnaire I

Summary of Question 5, Questionnaire I
Small Schools (less than 100 teachers)

Summary of Question 5, Questionnaire I
Middle-sized Schools (100-200 teachers)

Summary of Question 5, Questionnaire I
Large Schools (over 200 teachers)

Summary of Question 6, . Questionnaire I

Summary of Question 7, Questionnaire I
Small Schools (less than 100 teachers)

Summary of Question.7, Questionnaire I
Middle-sized Schools (100-200 Teachers)

Summary of Question 7, Questionnaire I
Large Schools (over 200 teachers)

Per cent answering Question 7, Question-
naire I

Summary of Question 8, Questionnaire I

ix

PAGE

47

49
51
53
55

57

59

60

61

64

68

69

70

73

75

Table

Table

Table

Table

16:

17:

18:

19:

LIST OF TABLES (concluded)

Summary of Questionnaire III, Dismissals
and Resignations, Small Schools

Summary of Questionnaire III, Dismissals
and Resignations, Middle-sized Schools

Summary of Questionnaire III, Dismissals
and Resignations, Large Schools

Comparisons between different size schools
for Questionnaire III

PAGE

88

90

91

93

CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM

Statement of the Problem

 

The years 1964-65 marked the beginning of a new era for teachers.
Michigan, in particular, was foremost among states giving new statu-
tory rights to teachers. The new laws gave teachers security and
power, which began an extraordinary change in their status. One law
granted tenure rights to public school teachers; a second law granted
collective bargaining rights. School boards and educators were greatly
concerned with these new laws. What would their effect be on education?

State wide tenure, granted by the legislature in 1964, generally
gave teachers permanent status in a school district after serving a
short probationary period of two years. No teacher, on tenure, could
be dismissed arbitrarily. School boards were now required by law to
follow definite procedures before dismissing teaching personnel.

The 1964 tenure act revisions were followed in 1965 by another
radical change. Public Act 379, the Michigan Public Employment Rela-
tions Act, a law regulating management and labor relations in industry,
was altered to include public employees. Teachers, who had long

maintained that they were distinct from laborers, accepted the powerful

2

methods of labor to gain better working conditions and better salaries.
Public Act 379 gave teachers the right to negotiate with management.
New responsibilities and pressures were now placed on teachers,
administrators and board members. The threat of withholding teach-
ing services was suddenly thrust upon ill-prepared school boards and
administrators. This sudden addition to teacher rights was the reason
Chapter VI was added to this study at a late stage. It seemed important
to consider compulsory negotiations in relation to the tenure rights.

This study is designed to probe the impact of tenure of Michigan
Education after the new tenure law had been in effect for one year.
The general hypothesis is: Mandatory tenure was desired by teachers,
administrators and board members because of a desire to improve
teaching and to give teachers greater security. This general hypothesis
was examined by eight minor hypotheses which form the basis of this

study. They are:

1. Tenure will result in better supervision of teachers.
2. Tenure will help eliminate poor teachers.

3. Tenure will give teachers greater security.

4. Tenure will upgrade the profession.

5. Tenure was needed because inadequate teachers are

too numerous .

6. Tenure was needed to protect teachers from
arbitrary dismissal.

7. School size has an influence upon attitudes toward
tenure.

 

8. Tenure does not effect teacher performance
adversely.

The Need for'This Research

 

The Michigan teaching profession underwent a major change in the
school year 1964-65. All of the more than 1, 000 school districts came
under provisions of a mandatory tenure law. Only 59 districts had
experienced tenure under provisions of the optional law. The experience
of these 59 districts should provide indications of the possible effects
of the law on those districts of the state without tenure experience.

This was a unique time to examine the views of educators and others
as teachers attain provisions of a tenure law.

Although the conditions of 1964-65 will never be repeated, this
study, hopefully, can describe significant attitudes and beliefs covering
tenure in Michigan near the conclusion of the first year of implementation.
Later studies of tenure in Michigan would have the benefit of this work.

This dissertation is a status study. The main effort will be given
to an examination of attitudes relating to tenure. During the last
quarter of the 1964-65 school year, a questionnaire was used to elicit
the views of public school educators and school board members from
sixty school districts in the state of Michigan. What are educators'
views of tenure as they observe the change from an optional tenure
state to one in which all of Michigan's public schools are required to

comply with a tenure law? The views of educators and board members

4
will provide significant perceptions of the application of tenure for

teachers.

Methods

The eight specific hypotheses listed in the statement of the problem
were the basis for the two questionnaires which were developed. These
questionnaires provided for anonymity of reapondents as well as for
positive, negative or neutral responses. The first questionnaire was
used with 480 educators and board members who were concluding their
first year of experience with the tenure law. A second questionnaire was
used to elicit the opinions of the 59 superintendents of schools in Michigan
which had experienced tenure under the local option law of 1937.

Interviews were also held with individuals in positions of reapon-
sibility related to the implementation of tenure. The five members of
the tenure commission and their secretary were interviewed. Key
members of the Michigan Education Association were interviewed.

Accordingly, the case load of the Tenure Commission as represented
by appeals from local school board decisions was reviewed. This pro-
cedure would provide additional evidence of how well the tenure law
was working. A poor tenure law would likely cause an increase in
appeals from school board decisions to the Tenure Commission.

A questionnaire was designed to ascertain whether the tenure

law was functioning to eliminate inadequate teachers and whether teacher

CHAPTER II

A REVIEW OF TENURE LITERATURE

Introduction

 

The literature on tenure consists of only a few works of national
interest. There is only one major book. It was written in 1934. There
are .twostudies by the two major national teachers organizations. These
three works will be reviewed in some detail.

There are numerous articles relating to various phases of tenure.
One detailed study of appeals in Pennsylvania will be reviewed and
compared with the national and Michigan scene to illuIninate this impor-r-
tant"a.spefct<0f tenure.

A few articles of importance to Michigan will be reviewed. A
brief review of the international aspects of tenure will provide a larger
perspective. A text on personnel problems which contained an excel-

lent chapter devoted to teacher tenure will be instructive.

A Major Study by Scott
Cecil Winfield Scott wrote a major work about tenure in 1934. 1

Its full title is: Indefinite Teacher Tenure A Critical Study _o_f t_}_1_€;

 

Historical, Legal, Operative and Comparative Aspects. This

 

1Scott, 0p. cit.
14

15

dissertation, published by Columbia University, had one major objective:
". . . to ascertain what provisions should make up an indefinite tenure
law or what guiding principles should control the framing of one that
aims at the greatest possible protection of the interests of all groups
concerned . . . . "Z

This major purpose was subdivided into six minor ones.

1. To trace the development of tenure.

2. To analyze existing laws and to evaluate them.

3. To identify the fundamental problems of tenure.

4. To identify problems further and to exhibit legal aspects

through a study of cases of appeal of dismissal by

school boards .

5. To compare six European countries with American states
having tenure.

6. To develop recommendations for tenure. 3

Scott stated that (in 1934) there were inadequate studies in the
area of tenure. The best study at that time (according to Scott) was by
Holmstedt. 4 He had compared New Jersey under tenure with Connecti-
cut, a non-tenure state. The major conclusions were that tenure
caused inadequate teachers to be dismissed earlier, that tenure may

have stabilized teacher mobility very little, that with or without tenure,

 

2Ibid., p. 2.
3Ibid., p. 2, paraphrased.

4Holmstedt, Raleigh w. , "A Study of the Effects of the Teacher
Tenure Law in New Jersey, " Contributions to Education No. 526,
Bureau of Publications, Teacher' s College, Columbis University, New
York, 1932.

 

 

 

16
teachers showed the same amount of interest in professional growth and
”that protection is the chief value of the New Jersey law. "5
Tenure and civil service are regarded to have a close relationship.
”Teachers in European countries are, generally Speaking, regarded as
civil servants, having legal protection in their positions; but only
twelve American states and the District of Columbia have accorded
teachers in this country such legal protection. "6 Scott gives state
teacher organizations affiliated with the National Education Association
the main credit for the enactment of tenure laws while also giving
minor credit to the American Federation of Teachers. 7
He evaluated the tenure laws of these twelve states and the District
of Columbia by the following criteria developed from a study of the
1
literature: I

1. c.'omprehensive--applies to all districts in a state
and to all instructional personnel,

2. assures competent educational personnel (properly
certified),

3. facilitates the administration of educational personnel
(transfer, suSpend or dismiss an employee when needed),

4. guarantees teachers just treatment (allows change for
improvement and gives orderly dismissal procedures).

 

5Scott, op. cit., p. 5.
61bid., p. 9.

7Ibid., p. 25.

8Ibid. , mostly paraphrased from the conclusions of Chapter III.

17
Scott concluded that existing tenure laws were decidedly imcomplete
and inadequate on the basis of the criteria. ”Provisions omitted most
frequently from the laws are these:
1. state-wide application
2. transfer regulations
3. a requirement of written resignation and time notice

4. a warning to unsatisfactory teachers and the opportunity
for improvement

5. a written board decision after a hearing with a fixed time
limit

6. provision for appeal to higher educational authorities. "9
Referring to serious defects in these thirteen tenure laws, Scott
mentions that seven fail to mention teacher qualifications, five fail
to mention Specific causes for dismissal and eight make no provision
for appeal from dismissal. 10
The operation of the tenure laws of this time (1934) are summarized
in Chapter IV. The biggest problem created by tenure is that of
removing undesirable teachers from office. In some large cities,
e.g. Duluth and St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Newark, New Jersey,

11

whole years pass without the dismissal of a single teacher. Other

91'bid. . pp. 46 and 47.
101bid., p. 43.

llIbid., p. 67.

18
points mentioned in this chapter included:

1. the difficulty of showing that tenure stabilizes
the profession, increases its drawing power
or increases teacher interest in professional
improvement;

2. ”local boards rather commonly drop probationers
to prevent their gaining permanent status. "12
The probation period was a trial rather than a
training period.

3. Unsatisfactory teachers were frequently
transferred or asked to resign so that dismissal
was unnecessary.

Scott summarizes the cases of appeal from 1906 to 1931. These
appeals were either to the Commission of Education, the State Board
of Education, the Supreme; Court or the Appellate Court. Eight of the
thirteen states that had tenure had no provision for appeal.

There were 137 cases appealed during these years. Of these,
New Jersey (the oldest state to have tenure) had 73 cases. The most
cases appealed in one year was eight in New Jersey in 1914. But the
average appeals per year in each state was less than one. Those
states which provide for appeal in addition to their court systems had

nearly all such cases. 13

 

12Ibid. , p. 68. (It's well to bear in mind that these were depression
daYS. Unlike today there was a teacher surplus because higher paying
1013 Opportunities had been closed to large numbers of college trained
People.)

13
Ibid. , see both pages 74 and 46.

 

21
eleven are shown as non-tenure states. (The 52 ”states" include the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.)
Generally, the tenure states are the most populous states. It
is noteworthy that North Carolina, now a non-tenure state, repealed
continuing contract status for teachers in 1955. South Carolina did
likewise the same year. 18 Seven of the non-tenure states are in the
South, two in New England and two in the Rocky Mountain area.
Thirteen of the twenty-one tenure states give some right of appeal. '
Eight states provide for no appeal from a local board's decision. 19
A court review of the local board's decision may be possible in some
circumstances. Only treee states provide tenure commissions. These
are Oregon (in each district), Michigan (a State Tenure Commission)
and New York (for village superintendencies 4, 500 pepulation or over).
This lack of the right of appeal was listed by Scott as one of the
most serious defects of tenure law back in 1934. At that time eight
of twelve tenure states had no provision for appeal, compared to
eight out of twenty-one in 1963. The ratio had changed from two out
of three to about one in three among tenure states which have no appeal

provisions .

 

13Ibid. . pp. 39 and 41.

19These states are Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Wisconsin.

22

A third book was produced by the National Education Association. 20
This is a short complete review of tenure and the application of laws
to probation, dismissal of probationary teachers, tenure rights, tenure
procedures and appeals from school board decisions. Citations of the
laws for each state are listed plus citations of tenure cases from 1946
to 1956.

A good summary statement of the arguments for tenure is given
and here paraphrased:

Tenure builds morale and security, gives freedom from

petty reprisal, releases full energy, provides for orderly

dismissal, does not create a protection for the incompetent,

increases freedom to participate in public affairs and

blunts punitive movements due to vacillating public Opinion

and resentments of special groups.

Establishing tenure commissions is described as a short-term
movement with several being eliminated in the past few years and no
new ones established. 22 The argument for tenure commissions or
appeals to other higher authority is compelling, however. "The purpose
of providing appeal to higher educational authorities is to expedite

decisions. Court actions are expensive. There is the added advantage

of placing teacher tenure in the hands of professionally trained rather

 

20Trends 13 Teacher Tenure through Legislation and Court Decisions,
National Education Association, Washington, D. C. , 1957, 48 pp.

 

 

21Ibid., p. 43.

22Ibid. , p. 37. Michigan has the only state-wide Tenure Commis-

sion.

23
than legally trained persons. "23
A reminder is given that some states have withdrawn tenure rights
and that the tenure law can generally be altered by legislative action in
rather decisive ways. The acts of one legislature do not bind the

next. 24

Appeals

The Department of Public Instruction of the State of Pennsylvania
provides a bulletin which is a kind of gauge against which appeals can
be measured. This bulletin is a complete listing of opinions (#1-83)
of the State Superintendent arising through appeals from decisions of
local boards of school directors. 25 Forty-seven decisions were in
favor of teachers, twenty were in favor of boards of school directors.
Fifteen were cases of no jurisdiction and one appeal was dismissed
because of late filing.

Fifty-five of the above cases were appealed from the State Super-
intendent's decision to either the Supreme Court, Superior Court or

Court of Common Pleas. The State Superintendent's decision was

 

23Ibid., p. 37.

24115161., p. 9.
25Opinions_ of _t_he Superintendent o_f Public Instruction Under t_1_1_e

Teachers' Tenur—e Law, Bulletin 20, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Public Instruction, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1952.

 

 

 

291bid., p. 23.

24'

upheld 26 times and reversed 17. The rest of the cases had various
other dispositions. 27

This pattern in Pennsylvania is not unlike that shown by Scott
prior to 1934. Excluding New Jersey, with 73 total appeals at that
time, most states which had provisions for appeals had experienced
fewer than three appeals per year. Michigan, in the period from 1937
to 1959 had 27 teacher appeals to the three-member commission. Of
these, 14 were completed. Twelve were in favor of teachers, two
in favor of boards of education. One teacher and eleven boards appealed
to the Supreme Court. The Tenure Commission was upheld ten times
and the eleventh case thrown out when the board granted the teacher
tenure.28

Rosati also gave a distribution of the appeal cases. Thirteen
appeals were from one district, three appeals were from another
district, three more appeals were from another district, two from a
fourth district and one from each of five other districts. One case,
involving the University of Michigan, was dismissed for lack of juris-
diction by the Tenure Commission. 29

Procedures are a major problem in tenure protection as well as

in the operation of dismissal procedures. A booklet issued by the

 

Z7IbIcL, p. 24.

28Rosati, J. A. , "Results of the Tenure Law, " Michigan Education
Association Journal, Vol. 36, p. 265, February, 1959. (Mr. Rosati was
chairman of the tenure commission at that time.) .

 

 

29Ibid., p. 265.

25

National Education Association clarifies the "Essentials of a Proper

School Board Hearing. "

9.

Adequate notice and statement of charges.
Presence of counsel.

Testimony of witnesses under oath or affirmation.
Right to subpoena witnesses.

Restriction of evidence to charges.

Right of argument on evidence and law.
Stenographic transcript of evidence and argument.

Consideration of evidence and argument by the entire
school board.

Vote of majority of entire school board. 30

Peter R. Ellis wrote a review of Supreme Court cases and Attorney

General's Opinion on tenure in Michigan. 31 The significant decisions

of the Supreme Court are listed:

1.

Administrators are denied tenure as administrators
by a 1941 amendment to the act. (Strut vs. Ferndale
Board of Education, Michigan Reports, Vol. 361, p. 82.)

 

30Essentials if _a_ Proper School Board Hearing, National Education
Association, Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom, Washington,

Dc Co,
31

 

 

1945.

Ellis, Peter R. , "A Review of Supreme Court Cases and Attorney

General's Opinions on Tenure. " An unpublished term paper for Dr.
Herbert Rudman, College of Education, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan. (no date).

26

A policy requiring all teachers to have a three-year
probation, instead of the normal two-year period as
provided by law, was held to be illegal. (Wilson vs.
Flint, Michigan Reports, Vol. 361, p. 691.)

The right of the Tenure Commission to hear a case
de novo (receive new evidence) was established by
the Rehberg case. (Rehberg vs. Melvindale School
District, Michigan Reports, Vol. 330, p. 541.)

In the case of Wilson vs. the Board of Education
(District No. 1 fractional) of Royal Oak Township,
the principle was established that the Court should
not decide questions of fact brought before the Tenure
Commission, but only whether adeguate proof was .I'
present to substantiate a decision. 2

Roudi gives us a summary of attorney general's opinions on Michigan

Tenure (here greatly condensed).

lo

33

Tenure hearing costs may not be paid by the Department
of Public Instruction. (No. 4959, August 13, 1946)

Contracts should be issued to tenure teachers.
(June 14, 1940, unnumbered)

After two years probation, a unanimous vote of the
board is needed to refuse tenure. 3'4 (No. 782, May 26, 1948)

A simple majority of a board may require a third year of
probation. (No. 782, May 26, 1948)

 

32Ibid. , p. 4.

33Roudi, Ralph C. , "Sources of Tenure Information," Michigan
School Board Journal, Vol. XI, No. 12, February, 1965, pp. 10-13.
(Mr. Roudi, superintendent of the Carson School District at Romulus,
Michigan, is currently preparing a dissertation at the University of
Michigan on the Tenure Commission in Michigan.)

34‘Teachers with tenure may be dismissed by a simple majority

110W .

A unanimous vote was required only during the implementation

stage of state-wide tenure. Teachers with less than two years probation
have their destiny controlled by a simple majority of the board of

education.

(Interpretive comment by J. E. 1M.)

10.

11.

12.

13.

15.

27

The Tenure Commission does not lose jurisdiction of a case
once an appeal is filed although more than 60 days elapse
before a hearing. (No. 987, June 20, 1949)

The probationary period may begin during a school year (like
in February, at the time the teacher actually begins work).
It ends two years from that date. (No. 1126, May 17, 1950)

Costs for a Tenure Commission stenographer is a proper
charge against the general fund of the state. (No. 2406,
January 13, 1956)

Costs of a Tenure Commission hearing may not be assessed
to either party. (No. 2406, January 13, 1956)

The Tenure Commission must return the record of an appeal
to a circuit court to which further appeal is made. (No. 2406,
January 13, 1956)

A board of education must notify the Tenure Commission in
writing when placing a teacher on third-year probation.
(No. 2992, August 12, 1957)

The Tenure Commission should not interpret law or render
Opinions except during a case of appeal. (No. 2987, May 23,
1957)

A first-year probationer, who is not notified 60 days prior

to the close of school that his services will be discontinued,

is entitled to another year of employment. (No. 3297, October
15. 1958)

A board of education must give a good cause when dismissing
a teacher by giving the required 60-day notice prior to the
close of school. (No. 3297, October 15, 1958)

The entire Tenure Commission need not be present during
all phases of a hearing. (No. 3201, January 31, 1959)

A teacher who intends to file an appeal to the Tenure Com-
mission must do so within 30 days of the decision by the
board of education. (No. 3372, June. 9. 1959)

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

28

Probationary teachers have the right of appeal to the
Tenure Commission. (No. 3372, June 9, 1959. NOTE--
this seems no longer to be true by a change in the Act

in 1963).35

A teacher's right of appeal is not restricted to a decision
after a formal hearing of a board of education. (No. 3372,

June 99 1959)

Where a private hearing has been requested, the content
of the hearing at the board level and Tenure Commission
level is restricted until a decision is final and no further
appeal is possible. (No. 3296, September 1, 1959)

A teacher may request a private hearing by the Tenure
Commission. (No. 3296, September 1, 1959)

A board may not require three years of probation as a
matter of policy. (No. 3467, December 19, 1960)

A teacher returning to a district which adopted tenure while
the teacher was not employed by the district, cannot claim
tenure status. (No. 3511, January 30, 1961)

A tenure teacher returning from a leave of absence can
take a position for which he is qualified even if it requires
a probationer to be released. (No. 3609, February 7, 1962)

A tenure teacher returning from a leave of absence has the

same rights as if he had been continuously at work--he can

be transferred, the same as all tenure teachers into a posi-
tion he is qualified to fill. (No. 3609, February 7, 1962)

 

35The case of Young vs. Hazel Park (decided in June, 1965) by the
Tenure Commission does not clear up this problem of probationer

appeals .

Young was deemed a tenure teacher because of improper

notification and was unanimously upheld by the Commission by this
line of reasoning-~that is--he had served the required probation and
not being properly notified, was now a tenure teacher.

29

Rosati provides us with a worthy summary of the Michigan Tenure
Law. ”The tenure law provides for demotion and dismissal only for
reasonable and just cause, a term not defined by any court of last
resort as applied to a tenure case. This wording provides school boards
with greater latitude than any specifically enumerated causes. In any
event, the burden of proof remains with school boards. "36 Under
a true tenure law in any state, the principle that a tenure teacher is

an adequate teacher until proven otherwise should be understood.

The Status of Teachers in Other Nations

 

A review of tenure literature would not be complete without refer-
ence to teacher tenure in other countries. Scott summarizes his
study of American tenure practices compared with European witha

series of six statements paraphrased here:

1. European countries generally require greater training
for tenure status, especially at the secondary teaching
level.

2. Selection of teachers is done by central authorities

in Europe while it is locally done in the United States.
Competitive examinations are used in Europe although
no American states do this.

3. Probation requirements are similar, but gaining tenure
status in Europe is often more difficult, because of
the devise of temporary or non-permanent positions
except in England and Wales.

36Rosati, op. cit., p. 265.

30

4. Transfers between systems in EurOpe is somewhat
easier because of the administrative organization.

5. A European teacher is often a civil servant and may
have more prestige. Penalty scales for breaches of
discipline are more elaborate in European nations.
6. All countries of Europe have standardized salary
schedules while only seven states plus the District
of Columbia have such protection here. Pension
regulations are found in all European systems while
only seven states plus D. C. have pensions in the
United States. 37
Further information on the comparative tenure status of American
and foreign teachers is found in a more recent book which indicates
that foreign teachers enjoy greater tenure security than do U. S.
teachers. 38 "The American teacher does not have the absolute security
of tenure which the French or Australian teacher enjoys. "39 "The
English teacher has security of tenure, a reasonably good salary
relative to the cost of living in the country, and the prOSpect of a
. . . H40
sat1sfactory pens1on when he retires.
In the Soviet Union "Dismissal of a teacher, for other than political

reasons, can only come after a special commission, half of whose

members are selected by the administration and half by the union

 

37Scott, op. cit., pp. 137-138. (This is the status about 1930.)

38Cramer, John F. and Browne, George S. , Contemporary
Education, A Comparative Study c_>_f National Systems, Harcourt, Brace
and'Co., New York, 1955, p. 232. '

 

 

 

39Ibid., p. 232.

401bid., p. 270.

33
more per cent of American teachers have varying forms of tenure
protection. Every state has a different law requiring detailed study
by anyone exPecting to understand its application.

Many of the state laws are described as inadequate by a
reasonable definition of tenure. Provisions for appeal from school
board decisions were considered inadequate in 1934. In 1963, of
the twenty—one states having tenure, only thirteen provide for appeal.
Only three states provide for tenure commissions with Michigan
having the only such commission with a state-Wide jurisdiction.

Among those states providing for appeal, the number of cases
appealed is small, generally averaging about three cases per year.

A review of appeal cases in Pennsylvania and Michigan indicates
that the application of the law by school boards requires careful
attention to detail. The burden of pruning the profession of undesirables
falls upon the boards of education through their school administrators.

Most incompetents are probably weeded out without resort to the
full application of tenure law. Both the state and national teachers!
organizations profess (with sincerity and wisdom) that incompetents
must not be allowed to teach. It is apparent that few cases of appeal
get to the argument of the competency of the teacher, but often are
related to the application of specific provisions of tenure law.

On the Western European scene, tenure protection is stronger
than in the United States. These countries have a central administra-

tion of schools and a civil service heritage. Even in Russia, except

 

34
for the ominous "political reasons, ” teachers are relatively secure.
Some research reported by Weber indicates that tenure for teachers
has few of the negative results attributed to it by those opposing
tenure. Careful screening and coaching of probationers, and a good
school administration working closely with the teaching staff is recom-

mended as sufficient to insure adequate teachers.

 

46Weber, op. cit., Chapter 8.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Introduction: Justification of Selected Respondents and Sizes of

 

Schools

In Chapter I, it was made explicit that the purpose of this study
was to examine the impact of state-wide mandatory tenure in Michigan.
(See Chapter 1, Statement of the Problem.) The design of this study
requires that the significant reference groups be surveyed. Their
understanding of and feelings about tenure will be Significant factors
in the functioning of the tenure law. The eight reference groups
described in the next section (under Sources and Questionnaires) are
a cross section of the educational groups most affected by tenure.

Sixty schools were selected, from which the eight reference
groups responded. The schools were randomly drawn from stratified
groups. The stratified groups represent school sizes which are
arbitrary, but designed to identify small, middle-sized and large
schools. Conant helps define small schools by saying that schools
with a graduating class of less than one hundred are too small to be

comprehensive high schools. 1 A school of this size would have about

 

1Conant, James B. , The American High School Today, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc. , 330 West 42nd Street, New York 36, New
York, p. 38.

35

36
seventy teachers depending on the drop-out rate and whether tuition
students were involved. Small is defined in this study as a school
with less than one hundred teachers. A student body in proportion
to that number of teachers would generally have less than 2, 500
students.

Large schools were defined as those with more than two hundred
teachers. These schools would enroll 5,000 students or more. The
graduating class would normally be well over 200 students. Middle-
Sized schools were then described as those with more than one hundred

but less than two hundred teachers.

Sources and Questionnaires

 

Eight reference groups were surveyed by'Questionnaire I shown
in Appendix A. These eight groups are: Elementary probationary
teachers, elementary tenure teachers, elementary principals, secon-
dary tenure teachers, secondary principals, superintendents and
school board secretaries. These eight groups represent a cross
section of public school people most interested in teacher tenure.

The eight groups were equally drawn, one each, from Sixty school
districts randomly chosen from the three sizes of schools. The three

sizes of schools again are: 1. schools with less than 100 teachers,

 

2See Appendix C for a summary of the schools selected.

37
2. schools with 101 to 200 teachers, and 3. schools with over 200
teachers.

Each of the 3 sizes is represented by 20 schools, with one
reSpondent for each reference group from each school. Overall,
then, there are 20 schools times 8 reference groups, or 160 possible
reSponses to each question for each strata of school size (480 possible
reSponses to each question from all 3 sizes). Since there are 8 ques-
tions in the questionnaire, the possible reSponses would total 8 x 480
or 3840 reSponses.

There are 20 possible responses from each of the eight reference
groups for each strata of schools; and 60 possible reSponses from
each reference groups for all 3 strata of schools

The tabulations for these questions are in Chapter IV.

The Justification of Tenure Questionnaire I

 

A thoughtful study of the questions from Questionnaire I will
reveal several things. The questionnaire is brief enough to elicit
reSponses. The questions themselves were tested through twenty-
four interviews and are comprehendable. There are two open-ended
questions (seven and eight) which allows for eXpression that might
be omitted in the first six questions. The first six questions get at the
fundamentals that are involved in any discussion of the need for and

the effect of tenure.

38

Distribution of Questionnaires and Sampling

The distribution of Questionnaire I was handled by writing a cover
letter (see Appendix A) to the 60 superintendents whose schools had
been selected. The superintendents were asked to distribute six of
the questionnaires with cover letters (see Appendix A) which explained
the general nature of this study to the six appropriate reference
individuals. The superintendent was instructed to give each question-
naire to the teacher, or principal, who would fall first alphabetically
in the category listed. This latter provision was to try to rule out
personal selection and thus maintain a more truly representative
answer. The same questionnaire was mailed directly to the 60 school
board secretaries. 3 The superintendent was asked to respond too,
making the total of eight reSponses from each district.

The 60 schools were drawn from the Michigan Education Associ-

 

ation Teacher Salary Schedule Study 1964-1965. 4 This listing of 574

 

 

schools ”represents about 95% of the estimated public school teachers

 

 

3The Michigan Education Directory and Buyers Guide, 1964-65.
109 1/2 Washington Avenue, Lansing 16, Michigan, was used to get
these names and addresses.

 

4Michigan Education Association Teacher Salary Schedule Study
1964-1965, Michigan Education Association, Box 673, East Lansing,
Michigan.

 

 

39
in Michigan in 1964—65. "5 This list of 574 schools shows the number
of teachers in each district. Excluding Detroit, the 59 optional tenure
districts (districts which had tenure under the 1937 optional tenure law)
and the Upper Peninsula, three separate lists of schools were made
with the number of teachers as criterion. There were 363 schools
with less than 100 teachers; there were 67 schools with more than
200 teachers; and there were 144 schools with between 100 and 200
teachers. From these three lists random number tables were used
to select 20 schools in each category. This procedure helps guarantee

random 5 election.

As sumption

 

An assumption made in using three sizes (of schools was that there
might be a difference in feeling among the reference groups in regard
to tenure based upon school size. Generally, the schools which had
adopted tenure under the optional law of 1937 had been large. Perhaps
this was just because larger number of teachers were more likely to
organize and use their power. There was also a notion that small
schools had a larger teacher turnover which might somehow be related
to arbitrary board action. The responses to Questionnaire I may reveal

differences in attitude by size of school.

 

5Ibid. , p. viii.

40

A Survey of Tenure Districts

 

Fifty-nine schools had had experience with tenure under the 1937
optional tenure law. The superintendent of each of these schools
was sent a brief questionnaire (see Appendix B). Two questions were
asked of theSe superintendents: 1. Has the 1964 (mandatory law)
Teacher Tenure Act made any significant changes for your district?
If yes, describe briefly. 2. 'I-las tenure had any affect on the quality‘
of teaching performance in your district? If yes, is it a higher or a
lower performance for the staff as a whole? This questionnaire
concluded with a request for "any further comments. "

This survey gives a professional opinion regarding the fundamental
philosophical question of ”security" versus ”an entrenched profession"

in relation to quality of Service.

Cases Coming Before the Tenure Commission

 

During the period since the beginning of optional tenure, an average
of less than two cases per year were appealed to the tenure commission.
The number and type of these cases are compared with the first year

of experience under the 1964 mandatory tenure law.

Interviews with the Tenure Commissioners and Others

 

The five tenure commissioners were asked to reSpond to the fol-
lowing general questions: What aspects of the present tenure law are
ambiguous, are giving trouble or are likely to cause problems in the

future ?

41
Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, Alexander Kloster, 6
was asked to answer the above question. He is the secretary of the
State Tenure Commission acting for the ex-officio secretary--the
State Superintendent of Public Instruction. The five tenure commis-
sioners are described in Chapter IV with their responses.

In addition, staff members of the Michigan Education Association

were asked to respond to the same question asked of the tenure

commis sioners .

Second Questionnaire to School Superintendents

 

The last phase of the data gathering for the study was a brief
questionnaire mailed to the same 60 school superintendents whose
schools were selected for Questionnaire I. This questionnaire was
mailed in late June, 1965, because the tenure act provides that teachers
may resign prior to 60 days before September 1 of the ensuing school

year. These superintendents were asked to supply the following

information:
1. How many teachers were placed on a third year
probation?
2. How many first-year probationers were not offered

contracts ?

3. How many second-year probationers were not
offered contracts ?

 

6Names Acting Superintendent of Public Instriiction after this
interview.

7See Appendix A.

42
4. How many tenure teachers were dismissed?

5. How many tenure teachers were encouraged to
leave and resigned?

6. How many teachers gave written notice of the intention
not to return 60 days prior to September 1? Was this
a problem?

7. Any suggestions or comments?

This data is presented in tabular form in Chapter IV. This

information, at the conclusion of the first school year under mandatory

tenure, gives vital information needed to see how the law is functioning.

Summary

This study proposes to find out how the important reference groups
of the state of Michigan view teacher tenure and what improvements,
if any, need to be made in the law. The question of whether school
size influences attitudes was also to be exPlored. The answers to
these questions are to be found by five different inquires: Questionnaire
Iwas given to 480 individuals representing 60 school districts. The
60 school districts were chosen as a stratified random sample with
twenty districts in each of three Size categories. One category
represented public schools of less than 100 teachers, one represented
schools with between 100 and 200 teachers, and one represented schools
with over 200 teachers. Eight individuals representing an entire cross
section of staff members including the school board secretary of each
school, were to fill out the questionnaire. Except for superintendents

and school board secretaries, and in some cases principals, there was

43

an element of randomness in the selection of six of the respondents
based upon alphabetical position rather than personal selection . 8
These eight individuals were listed as, elementary probationary
teachers, elementary tenure teacher, elementary principal, secondary
probationary teacher, secondary tenure teacher, secondary principal,
superintendent and school board secretary.

The other four -methods of inquiry may be described briefly as:
1. A brief questionnaire to those 59 superintendents of schools which
had tenure under the local Option law to test the effect of tenure (in
their Opinion) on the quality of teaching performance; 2. Interviews
with the five tenure commissioners and their ex-officio secretary
plus two eXperts from the Michigan Education Association and the
Executive Director of the Michigan School Board Association; 3.
A review of cases coming before the tenure commission after the
advent of the mandatory tenure law; and 4. A second questionnaire,
Questionnaire III, to the 60 superintendents of schools selected to
answer Questionnaire I. 9 This questionnaire was to find out how
many probationary and tenure teachers are being dismissed and if

resignations of teachers are a serious problem.

 

8Good, Carter V. , and Scates, Douglas E. , Methods ngesearch,
Appleton-Century-Croft, New York, 1954, p. 601. (They refer to '
this as systematic sampling.)

 

98cc Appendix A for Questionnaire III.

44
The next section, Chapter IV, will be used to give an accounting

Of these proposed inquiries.

CHAPTER IV

THE ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Introduction

 

To recapitulate briefly, this chapter will describe the results of
five inquiries designed to test assumptions or to elicit information
about the functioning of tenure in Michigan.

1. Questionnaire I contained eight questions for 60 members of eight
respondent groups ranging from school board secretaries to first
year probationary teachers in three sizes of schools. This
questionnaire was tested by 24 interviews, three from each type
respondent group.

2. Questionnaire II was sent to all 59 superintendents of schools which
had experienced local-Option tenure prior to the advent of state

”mandatory tenure under the 1964.1aw. The effect of, tenure on
these veteran tenure groups was sought.

3. Interviews with the five Tenure Commission members and their
ex-officio secretary, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction
are paraphraSed. Interviews with two eXperienced men from the
Michigan Education Association regarding problems real or poten-
tial are described. The Executive Director of the Michigan

Association Of School Boards was also queried and his response is

presented.
45

46

4. Then, at the conclusion of the first year of mandatory tenure, the
60 superintendents, in the original stratified random sample of
schools, were sent Questionnaire III. The answers tO this query
will illuminate the area of resignations and dismissals of teachers
during the first year of state-wide tenure.

5. The last investigation will compare cases coming before the Tenure
Commission during the 1964-65 school year (under mandatory

tenure) with previous years under the 1937 local Option law.

Questionnaire I: Inte rviews

 

Twenty-four interviews were held to test the questions in Question-
naire I. For convenience these interviews were held in nearby schools.
Three individuals representing each reference group (such as board
secretaries and elementary probationary teachers) were interviewed
prior to mailing the 480 questionnaires. The results are summarized
in Table 1, page 47. This sampling indicated that the questionnaire
would work. The results of the sampling also follow the general
pattern from the mailed sample with 335 returns.

The attitude of the total group of 24 individuals was favorable
toward tenure. Comparisons by school size or within reference groups

was not useful with a sample of this size.

grnind~nuqnfiJlfi \u Nuns-1..-. \u nail-U... awhiv han.t.fi>.H-Uxu nu— .N-~..Hl\Al«.qul¥\.-..~ -fisu .\Al.fi*fi~.§~s~§-I§ -\ 5. Ni OUHA.\1\.N.

“7

33.330de 5 can: 935

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hoe-mac ozu
ma Q. a o 6.359 no mama» H99»
gunfimod obflpwwen .353: 6.5550 c: 33.?on p.33 25. no 95580 a 323 .w
.cowpmnpmficfifim one. no ma nowmmomona on» mfiofiuoa mo amen-5 93 38m
one 5.933.? 009 on on. magnum ma wagons Symon. pm Quechua mooa strangeness—B oneness“. 3303
me: convenes.“ Sohteng no scheme» a and on canon m we nowmflooe 3856-53» 268 .5303 Epfigfim
A55 93 933 flow 25 .Heoaocd m.“ ecoavwcwflmou new mpoenpnoo mo send one. 3.3
know .mficmammu you. open up: 9.3 me $303 5.393 .m g eves SH one. page genome“.
oflmm Sou 330389.38 one phonemes. pawn Sow £0398 BB @525. 333 some museum. Epfigam
new on gum ohms; $33.3. upwnomme omega sea pcommna one. 5 30306 men 59» HH .w
hand
0 o E. To 6.91m.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.n.o.m.NJ Acosta breaded
. .Hsoaaeosoaaao "whereas. $0333» nun pseudo 09.35 .32" mung
Hades." do.» 50 mdwmmflsmwv genomes. powwwpmsnnd .Ho momma hams 30m .0 muonomoe 5.3283
1.30.5 Ecooem
o o 2. To a £641.me so H .o.o.~.o.o .e1
m m m J an .oaoameosaaaao anmom £28m scan .4... o ”humans. «Somme masseuse
m. m m em. on no: egos.» .33 do.» pens. 33m .39» no one 985.39 has 30: .m @359 gnooem
9
w mflumwo
m H 6 NH 682328 AB sogao -fisa endoscope.
on on omega on A3 condemns Adv mun Scammmmonm masses. use .4
. menopause Huoazm
H H a ma 0.33m mmcH A3
confide o: E own-fie on Q: ondoom 0.88 A3 and anemones .m 3.2309
room venom Hoonom
3 m m H Space—swam 8. 9303.36 0.35 A3 Segue on on
ownmno on A5 Bung? hummus egos Amy who genomes. openneumcH .N
games—ounce mm
H a .3 m . .0203 A3 anonw some 5” m
cognac on A3 0985 on 3v .3309 93 an.” genomes. Ho cowmflrnomsw .H museum oocunomon w
e o a.
98.55. 2833.20 uneconoamem
H 3.3503350 pump 3 2.35.895 Southeast» mo 53:» 4 “H 0.3.3.

 

48

The Returns of Questionnaire I (To 60 schools which were new to tenure)

 

Sixty'questionnaires were sent to sixty school board secretaries.
This was also true for each of seven educator respondent groups. The
lowest return was from school board secretaries of schools with less
than 100 teachers. Only nine of twenty responded for a low of forty-
five per cent. These questionnaires were sent via first class mail
directly to board secretaries. None were returned as addressed
incorrectly or unknown, so it is assumed that all were received. The
highest return was from middle—sized schools. There were eighteen
returns from the twenty questionnaires sent to both superintendents
and secondary principals for a ninety per cent return in these two
'classes of reSpondents. Table 2, page 49, is a chart of the returns.

Table 2 shows that small schools returned sixty-three per cent,
middle-sized schools returned seventy—five per cent and large schools
returned seventy—three per cent.

Four hundred eighty questionnaires (Questionnaire I) were sent.
Three hundred thirty-five were returned for an overéall return of
seventy per cent.

In analyzing QueStionnaire I, it is well to keep in mind, mat the
respondents were having their first experience with tenure. It should
also be kept in mind that each category of reSpondent has a different
perspective. For instance, the word ”staff” would mean a larger
group of teachers to a superintendent or board member than it would

to an elementary principal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.
on mmm oww me c: on: me me: on: _ mo 02 on: 30:00 030
‘ . £000 00m 30009
I: In llllll i IIII -i | il i ill! ll liltim illiiiil ll
00 a... 8 S 3 cm 8 2 on _ mm 2 om 22330. tacos
_ u0nonnH >n0un050nm
3 Ne . 3 O0 2 om me 2 8 A 3 2 om 3000000.
. “ 0.2508 >H0un080flm
_ i n
me E. 8 _ ms 2 cm 3 S cm c 8 .2 on 20%...
fl unaunm >H0E050Hm
S 3. 8 on E om E 3 on _ 8 2 om 200003. 398.:
_ u0nonnm >h0vaoo0m
E a. 8 me 2 S 00 S 8 . 8 2 on 200980.
a 0.3508 >H0vnoo0m
a
N0 E. 8 Q0 3 on 8 2 cm ._ me .2 cm 2&3
__ . unwunu >u0vnoo0m
mm 00 oo _ mu ma om co g cm M ow A: on 0300:00500m5m
mm mm 8 _ 00 2 om om 2 o0 me 0 om 03303
_ uo0m ©n0om Hoonum
J 1 s w 1 1 s I 1 s r 1 I s
a a a a a a a a a _ a a a
1. .4 V 1+ .4 u 1. 1. u a 1. 1. U.
n % n 1 n % n 1. n % n 1. _ n % n 3.
1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 x
u u u u u u u u
a a a a a a a a
b. P a P P P b» a P “Pl
00305850050 _ 00305550050 00309330050 m 003050030050
finovnom00n 09$ _ 0023000 CON n05 0.0053000 counoo: _ 00030000 c3 G05
£000 no: 00008 _ 00083 0Hoonom owns 0Hoonom 0050:0332 . 0005 039.3% 202.5

 

 

H 05053030000 mo 09230.” HO song: 0:» mo >MOE§0 < ”N 0309

 

50

Question One of Questionnaire I: Supervision of teachers is

 

(a) better (b) no change (c) no Opinion (d) worse.

Table 3, page 51, shows the answers to the question of supervision
of teachers. The pattern shows clearly that all groups believed that
supervision was either better or had not changed. Very few (six)

thought it was worse and twenty had no opinion.

Group Comparisons

 

The pressure of supervision should show most clearly upon
probationary teachers. Their answers do not reveal an indication
of this pressure.

The tenure teachers are the groups which consistently and by the
largest percentage felt that supervision had shown ”no change. " Only
twenty-two elementary and secondary tenure teachers felt supervision
was better compared to sixty who answered ”no change. ” Note, too,
that only one thought supervision to be worse.

Elementary and secondary principals, upon whom the burden of
supervising would fall most heavily, were evenly divided into two
groups. About half of each group thought supervision was better;

the other half said no change.

Comparisons by School Size

 

Small schools indicated a decided tendency to answer ”no change”

in supervision. Seven of the respondent groups in small schools (all

51

.2030G0 0: 02200

.GoH0H>n0m50 :000002022? 300 02209202392 0220*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o 2N ONH hmH m 2» Hug mm m m 8 mm mm m. o 8 mo om 34.808
loll . HVH HVH _ o IIWIIImI 2» _ 0 ml m 0 ‘IM m o N 0.202.20Hu0nonnH 8.20022050Hm
o o a... S o o 2 m o o 2: m __o o 2. 2. 0.2220000.
_ — * 0.2222208 82022220222032.
H “o HN HN _ o o 8 w _ H o o 0H0 025m .. o c w Hy 0H0m322HnnH >200G050Hm
2 0 02 2 _ o N m e _ 2 m m m m o m 0 m 28022380 00020880
H H mm NH _ H o 8 m _ o H HH m ‘o o 3 N 0.2023008 0.2222208 >H0Hucoo0m
_
o o 0N NN _ o 00 8 w I o o m CH ”a 0 HH Hy 3.030223% 820.202.2035
2 o mm 3 _ 2 o 0 0 _ o o 0 2: _o o 0 0 332530200050
0 N 22 S _ 2 2 2V 0 _ 2 o N p ”o 2 m m 32.23380 2:80
l
H _ 8
00022 MEWJWWF 000...,
I O D 1. .4 O 3 1.. m .4 O 3 12. _1 O 3 1.
2002 “manunmwnn EMWR
m. .m m. .w ... aw _ 1. u
m . w a _ w . _ w .2
W l 0.202303 2:
0.202303 oom n0>o 0.22303 GounooH _ 2023 003
3038 0393M 09204 " 0Hoo23m 0050:0332 _ 0Hoo23m 2080.0.

 

 

 

00.203va 2232230 on A”: 0w22023 on HA: H0302“. A3 0H 0.202300» mo G0H0H>20m50 .0350» .20HUGD

H 03023030050 .H non—00.90 mo 8.20%.“... ”m 0308

 

52
except superintendents) show ”no change" as their predominant choice
of answers. The total shows that twice as many felt "no change” to
be true as compared to ”better. " Middle size and large schools were
nearly evenly divided between the two answers ("better" vs. ”no change”).

"Worse" and ”no opinion” drew few reSponses.

Question Two of Questionnaire I: Inadequate teachers are (a) more

 

easily eliminated (b) no change (c) no opinion (d) more difficult to
eliminate.

Table 4, page 53, shows the answers relating the Opinions of the
eight reference groups regarding the question of eliminating inadequate
teachers. The over-all pattern of answers indicated that under mandatory
tenure dismissing teachers is "more difficult" (111 responses) followed
by ”no change” (100 reSponses). In third place is the answer "more
easily eliminated" (sixty-eight responses) followed by ”no Opinion"
(forty-eight responses). The pattern is fairly mixed then, but ”more

difficult" and ”no change" are clearly the most prevalent answers.

Group Comparisons

 

Only two groups failed to follow the over-all pattern of answers
listed above. Secondary and elementary probationary teachers show
a slight tendency to answer that the elimination of teachers is easier
under tenure. Even in those two groups, however, equal numbers of

respondents answered "more difficult. ”

.53

00200000 002

.203000 00 0000
.0000000» 220 00 000200

.02000p 00 02 2000009 000 0000003 00 0000000 00200000 0200 0002 0020000 00000000000 0>2m*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

222 02 82 8 mm 22 22 2m 2m 8 mm on an 02 on 22 0222.92.
02 m 2 22 2 2 2 m 2 m 2 2 N m m N 20822282 2.3220520
222 m 22H m 22 02 m N m m .H 22 m H m m 0.2000009 0.20002. 22.03.002.208
2 2 2. 22 2 mm 0 m m 2 m m m 2 2. *2 020028200 2.3282020
22 2 22 22 m 2 2 2 m 2 n 22 0 m 2 0 22820382 2.5880
m N. mH Q N N m H H 4 0 Q m H m H mhmflodom. ohm—22208 Encomw
22 m 2.2 a 2 .2 2 m 2 2 m *2 2 m N 2. 022228200 2.82.580
20 m 22 2 0 o 2 m 2 N 2 *2 22 2 0 2 3808222222200
02 2 22 m 0 *o m *2. m m m *2 m N N N 32.23280 22.8022
200.00.. 0.000,. 0000.. 20.0022
02.0.2. 220.22. 020.2... 1.2.0...
2.2....” “lam” 2....m2 10.22
m m m m m s m m a m w m
1. O a 2.... O 8 a... O 9 2.... O 9
u u u u
0200000p OOH
02000000 oom 20>0 02000000 CON-OOH 0000 000H
0H0poe 0H0000w 0m202 0H0000m 00020-0Huvflz 0H0000m HHmsm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000020220.op 020022220 0200 60V 0020200 00 202

0w0000 00 ADV 00000202H0 hH2000 0000 H0v 020 0200000» 090000000H

H 0020000200000 .m 00200000 20 2000000

2: 0Hnas

 

54

Comarisons by School Size

 

The smallest number of respondents in each size of school answered
”no opinion. ”

Small schools showed the greatest variation between the answers
" easier” (fourteen) and ”more difficult" (thirty-nine), although this
followed the general pattern of the other two sizes of schools. Thus.
small school respondents indicated that getting rid of inadequate teachers
was more difficult. (This may be related to the fact that in smaller
schools, peOple seem to know the total situation or parts thereof in

a more personal way.)

Question Three of Questionnaire I: Teachers are (a) more secure

 

(b) no change (c) no Opinion (d) less secure.

Table 5, page 55, summarizes the returns. Over-all, 176 responses
indicate that teachers are now "more secure” followed by 120 responses
indicating "no change. " Small numbers of reSpondents indicated ”no

opinion" (twenty-five) and ”less secure” (eleven).

,Group Comparisons

 

In every group except superintendents, "more secure” was the
prevailing answer. Among superintendents, a slightly larger number
Of responses (twenty-five) indicated ”no change” rather than "more
secure" (twenty). Principals and superintendents probably view teachers

as being secure while teachers are not so sure.

55

.003000 00 0000

.000000 000H 00.0H003 000000000000 0000 00000 00000000000 039*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 mm 022 022 2 22 om 02 m 2 O2 20 0 2 on 00 022202
2 m 0 2m 2 m2 2 2 o N 2 a o N 2 m 000002200000.2002003020
N 0 22 20 *0 2 2 0 o o m 02 o 02 m 0 00020002 002002 2002000020
0 2 02 20 o 2 m 0 o o 2 02 0 mo 2 0 0200200200 2002000020
0 m 22 22 2 2 m m o 2 w m *2 m m i m 000002200000 200000000
m H 22H mm 0 0o 2 m m o 2.2 0H 0 H m 0 00000009 00000.2. 2200000000
2 m 22 mm o m 0 m 2 N m 02 2 o o 2 0200200200 200000000
2 2 mm 02 o N 0 m 2 2 m 2 o o 22 22 3808202022220
0 m m 00 o N m 0 o 2 m 0 o o 2 0 00200200000 00000
2.2000 mmmm 2.000 0.000
S.“ m 9 $00” M0000“ “00%
S . S Sym.U..S d...u. d.U.
W W 8mm S St S
w m. an m a m a a a 20 “W W a
0 .od 0 OT..cd O O 2.3 0
mm .m :92 mmam moan
8 3 a 8 8 9 an M
00000000 00H
00000000 oow 00>o 00000000 OONnOOH 0000 000H
0H0009 0H0000m 0m00q 0H00000 00000-0H00flz 0H00000 HHOEm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.000000 000H 20v 0000200 00 20v 0w0000 00 ADV 000000 0000 602 000

H 0020000200000 2m 00000000 00 2000000

"m 02000

00000009

 

56

Comparisons by School Size

 

Both small and middle-sized schools indicated a definite tendency
to answer "more secure. " In large schools, however, ”no change”
was practically equal in reSponses with ”more secure" (forty-nine
and fifty). (Large schools probably already had many characteristics

of tenure in their baord policies or in practice.)

Question Four of Questionnaire l: The teaching profession is (a) up-

 

graded (b) no change (c) no opinion (d) downgraded.

One hundred thirty-two respondents felt that the profession was
"upgraded” by tenure. A like number (133) replied ”no change. "
Thirty-eight had ”no opinion" and thirty answered "downgraded“. "

Table 6, page 57, summarizes question four.

Group Compa ris ons

 

Superintendents showed the greatest range of difference between
the two prevailing replies. Only nine felt the profession was ”upgraded"
compared to twenty-nine who replied "no change. ” In reverse. the
elementary probationers showed the greatest range of difference with
six answering “no change” and twenty-one indicating ”upgraded. ”
Board members, too, showed a reluctance to answer "upgraded. "

No large number in any group indicated that the profession was
”downgraded. ” Board members and superintendents were slightly

higher in this reSponse than the other groups.

H e.~ .4H0..~0vd.a& 10500qu I 1N unaduu IhfiII-fiu Iv ft \EnlluI-Illfii

57

003000 00 0390
003000 00 0000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

02 02 R2 222 02 02 02 22 0 22 cm 02 m 0 22 22 0.20000
2 2 0 2m 2 2 m 0 2 m 0 0 0 m m 0 000002000000 0000000020
2 m 02 02 2 2 m 0 2 02 2 2 o 0 2 0 00000002. 000000 2000000020
0 2 02. 00 2 20 m 2 2 2 2 0 o 2 0 0 0200200200 200000000020
2 m 02 22 2 2 0 m 2 2 m 2 2 2 m 0 000002000000 000000000
2 m 22 02 2 m m 0 2 02 2 2 o 02 2 0 00000000 0000000 200000000
2 2 02 02 N n 2 2 2 .0. 0 0 . 0 2 m 0 0200200200 000000000
0. m 02 0 m 0 0 2 o 0 22 N m 2 0 2 00000000500000
2 2 22 0 2 o m 2 0 0 m 2 2 o 2 2 00200000000 00000
wwwmjmmwm W000 0.0000
0.00.0 0.00.0 000.0 00.0mm
. p I. 0 0 0 ... 0 0 0 .0
a m. m m. a m a u e m a
.0. o 0 2‘ .2. o. 0.... p .0 u. 0.... p 0 o. 0.“ p
“r u D. u 0. u D; u
00000000 002
00000000 oom 00>0 00000000 oo~nooa 0000 0002
020000 0200000 00.002 028200 0002002002: 028000 22000

 

 

 

.00000m0300 20v 00H0000 00 20V 0m000o 00 20v 00000w00 20v 02 0020000000 M0000000 009

H 0020000200000 0: 00000000 «0.0000000 no 02009

58

Comparisons by School Size

 

The pattern of answers was quite consistent across all three
sizes of schools. The prevailing answers were nearly equal--either
"upgraded" or ”no change. " ”No opinion" and ”downgraded” each had

a few reSponses from all three sizes of schools.

Question Five of Questionnaire I: How many teachers are on your

 

staff that you feel should not be teaching?

It should again be noted that the word staff would sometimes refer
to a larger group for a superintendent than for a secondary principal.
The reSpondent group and school size should be considered when
studying the responses. Tables 7, 8 and 9, pp. 59, 60 and 61, show
the reSponses.

The most frequent answer for all groups was none (0). The median
across all groups is 1. 06 and the average is 2.05. The range across
all groups shows that only two people felt that there might b_e as many
as twenty people on their staff who should not be teaching. (See the

footnotes in Table 8 for these two responses.)

Group Comparisons

 

All groups show a consistently low number in answer to the question
whether looking at the mean, median or mode.

When grouped together the three secondary respondents (principals,
tenure and probationary teachers) generally show a larger mean, median

and mode than do the corresponding groups at the elementary level.

59

mcoflpwanoado mom vmma pqwoqcazw

mnoprHdono ca 0005 noz*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 0m. 00.H 0-0 0H<a0a
0 0 00. 0-0 Huosmna 00 H0 :.m.~.H.0.0.0.0.0.0 muocoHpanoum humpcmsuHm
0 0 0:. 0-0 «.maH.H.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 00000000 muscma humpqmsmHm
H H 00. 0-0 Auozmca 00 H0 «Hm-H.H.H.H.H.0.0.0~0 mHmmHocHgm anwgcmsmHm
H+
0 H 0H.H 4-0 *0.H“m.~.H.H.H.H.0.0.0.0 mumaOHpmnopm humugooom
m m.H m~.H m-o m“: .an no N .~.~.~ .00 no H .H.H.0.0.0 00000009 caucus humusooom
0 0 00.H 4-0 *m.:.n.m.~.H.H.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 mHaQHquum humcaooom
0 0 :0. 0-0 0.m.~.H.H.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 000000000Hu00=0
0 H 00.H m-o - m.;.ma~.H.0.0.0.0 mmHgapouomm 00000
w w w m
0 w 0 H

a Anmvno mama adv mmmcommon quufl>fivcH

 

wmcflnowmp on po:_cadonm amok achmpanu Human much :0 and mumnommp saws 30m

Amhmnowop OOH :wsp mmmflv maoonom Hausa

H onaun:Ofipmodc .m :owpmoso mo hudseum up manna

 

60

.AmaowpmHsOHmo :H dams pozv

:.w:HnHHsn 53 :H mac hHao=o

.GOHummsu mmm-GOHHmpmunuoqu HE a-umm0pm oHosz map oHnwnoumn

chpraaono now 0003 chomszm

mGOHpdeono rH 0005 p02*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 m.H 00.0 00-0 0H0000
fl

0 H HH.H m -04” 000H0H00 00 .000H0H00 00 .00 .m.0.0.0.H.0.0.0.0 00000H000000 00000000Hm

*cOHmmHSEoo cannon you haze mHnmpHdm

0 m. 00.0 00-0 .000H00000 H00H000 00 000 .00 .00 .000 .m.0.H.H.0.0.0.0.0 00000000 000000 000000E0H0

H H 00.H m -0 00.0.0.0 .00 00 H .H.H.H.H.H.H.0.0.0.0.0.0 0H00H00H00 00000000H0

0 0.0 00.0 0H-H 0000 00 00H0HH000 000 .00 .0H.:.0.m.m.0.0.0.H.H.0.0 00000H000000 000000000

0 0o

0 0 00.H m -0 .00.m.m.m.m.0.0.0.0.0.H.H.0.0.0.0.0 00000000 000000 000000000

0 0 00.H H -0 0.0.0.0.m.0.0.0.0.0.H.H.H.H.0.0.0.0 0H00H00H00 000000000

m:

m 0.0 mH.: mH-o nomH .00000200 0: .00 .02H-w..mH. 0. m. 0. 0.0.0. 0. m. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 000000000H00000

0 m 00.0 0H-0 .000H0H00 0: .00 .0H .000- 0H .0 .00 0. 0. 0. 0 00H00000000 00000

wmw J

000 0

8 3

w a Anmcuo gawk :Hv noncommmu quuH>quH

 

 

 

 

 

 

wmcHnommp mg po: anoam Hmom sch.pwn¢ «9090 050% so mum 00050009 hide Box
Amnmnowmp com-ooav mHoonom nONHm-oHqu:
H onHuG:0Hpmoso .m :0Humoso Ho mumssnm no oHnma

 

.b- 13...... v . .0 0.000.}? n .5. .0. -.— J CIA-tail» -H .0 >u-<~::=H.u.h 0.. \w AUfi.ddfl-N.

61

.A0GOH90H50H00 qH 000: pozv

.GOmeosv mom-:30HampmumuoanmHE.a-uummum oHon3 map hHgmnoump

.0GOH90H00H00 you 0000 00Hognsz

.0GOH00H00H00 0H 0009 002*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 00.H 00.0 00-0 0 000 0 .0 000000 00 000000 000 000 000000
0 H.H 00.0 HH-0 000000
0 0 0m. 0 -0 00.0.0.H.H.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 00000H000000 00000000H0
*mwvzn 000 003
0 0 00. m -0 .000000 000 000 .00H000 00 .0.0.0.H.H.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 00000000 000000 00000000H0
0 0 00. 0 -0 00H000 00 .0.0.H.H.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 0H00000H00-00000000H0
0 0 00.H 0 -00000 00 00H0HH000 000 .00000000 .00.0 .00-0 .0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 000000000000 000000000
mwm 0*&mw
H m.H MH.w OH-o 0*waquqx Ho 503.0c .*0Hmmh o: .*hHQuu 00 .OH ~.m.H.H.H.o.o muwnomma madame humuaooom
0 H 00.H m -0 .00H000 00 .m.0.0.0.0.0.0.H.H.H.0.0.0.0.0 0H00H00H00 000000000
I #300 hhm>
0 0.0 00.0 HH-0 .0000H 00 .000 .0. .00-0 .00-0 .000-0 .00-0 .0.H.0.0.0 000000000H00000
*mm-H 0*0 0*hHQuu0oq .
m 0.0 00.0 0 -0 .0H000000 .0000000 0 00 H .0.0 .00-0 .0 .00-0 .00-0 .H.H.0 00000000000 00000
.0... w m J
O 9 8 W
w. mu m .w Anmuno 0000 :Hv momcoamou quququH

 

 

 

 

 

0manomop on no: UHaosm H000 :00 0000 00000 050% no 000 00020009 hqqs_=om

Amnmsomop oow um>ov 0Hooaom omnwg

H muquGOHpmoso .m QOHunosa Ho hnqsasm «a mHnma

 

62
Elementary respondents are definitely more satisfied with their fellow
teachers. 1 (This might be related to the greater difficulty in managing

s econdary students .)

Comparisons by School Size

 

The mean and median show that the greatest dissatisfaction,
regarding inadequate teachers, was in middle-sized schools. Large
schools were second and small schools showed the least dissatisfaction
as a whole. The magnitude of these differences are reduced (although
differences still remain) if board members and superintendents are
left out. Board secretaries and superintendents of the middle-size
and large schools show the highest average answers. This is not sup-
prising, since larger schools have more teachers and greater anonymity.
For all three sizes of schools, the mode is zero. Middle-sized schools
had five groups, however, with a mode of one or more. Large schools
had two modes above zero, modes of one and three. Small schools had
three modes above zero. Their magnitude was either two or one. By
this method, the order of dissatisfaction is middle-sized schools, small
schools and large schools. I

The median is l. 5 for middle-sized schools, 1. l for large schools

and . 58 for small schools. All seven groups, in the middle-sized

 

1One answer from elementary tenure teachers of middle-sized
schools seems to make this statement doubtful. Please read footnote
c of Table 8.

63
schools, had a median above zero. Five groups had a median above
zero for large schools. Four groups had a median above zero in
small schools. The order of dissatisfaction, by size of school, is the
same for both the mean and the median. Middle-sized schools show the
greatest dissatisfaction with teachers although differences are very
small. These figures indicate that few respondents know more than

two or three inadequate teachers according to their own judgment.

Question Six of Questionnaire I: How many cases of unjustified teacher

 

dismissals can you recall during your entire career in education?
Table 10, pp. 64-5, shows all of the reSponses to the question
relating to unjustified dismissals. The mode and the median for all
groups is zero. Sprinkled throughout every group were individuals
who felt that they knew from one up to fifty cases of individuals who
had been dismissed without good cause. There were 335 reSponses.
Among these respondents were eighty-seven persons who said they
knew of one or more instances. One in every four respondents knew
of at least one case although most respondents (235) knew of none.

Over seventy per cent knew of no unjustified teacher dismissals.

Group Comparisons

 

In all groups, high school tenure teachers gave the highest mean

response and had the highest per cent of reSpondents who know of at

6U

Amwwawpxo: so dosqapcoo OH magmav

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 0 mo. 00-0 :0 000x00 000000
0 0 00.0 0 -0 00 00\m *0 .00000000 00 .00000000 00 .0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 .0000 .0000
0 0 00. 0 -0 0 00\0 0 00.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 .000 .0000
0 0 mm. 0 -0 00 00\0 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 .0000 .0000
0 0 m0. 0 -0 0 00\0 *0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 .0000 .000
0 0 00.0 00-0 00 00\0 00.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 .000 .000
0 0 00.0 00-0 00 00\0 00.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 .0000 .000
0 0 00. 0 -0 00 00\m *0 .00-0 .0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.000.0 .0000
0 0 00. 0 -0 00 . 00\0 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 .000 .00
00000000 000.000
0 0 0m. 0 -0 mm, 000\0m 000000
0 0 00. 0 -0 00 00\0 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 .0000 .0000
0 0 00. m -0 00 00\0 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 .000 .0000
0 0 00. 0 -0 00 00\m 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 .0000 .0000
0 0 0 0 0 00\0 .0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 .0000 .000
0 0 00.0 0 -0 0m 00\0 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 .000 .000
0 0 0m. 0 -0 00 m0\0 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 .0000 .000
0 0 00. 0 -0 00 00\0 0000 0000 .00-0 .0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 .0000
0 0 00. 0 -0 00 0x0 - 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 .000 .00
w w w m 0:0 0:0 -
m. m” m 00 00000 00 00000 00 0002000» 000 00:0 0000
w 9 mcwzocx mcwsonx
puma pom 00000

 

.Auovno 0000 :0 0003000 020 3003 0 :0090050 on omcoamon hum>o 030:0 000:0 magav

0:00000000 :0 moeoHHmaxu 000000 0:00 mq0nqv 000000
:0» awe 0000005000 yonomop omwmflpmans 00 00000 same so:

H ouwma:000moso .0 coavmmno mo anussam

”OH magma

 

65

.0omw0mhm 005 00 pH

.50000000500050005 0 mp 05m05 050 00500

0.000000 0000000.0 00000 0000 0000 000 00 000: 0000000000
0.5000000500 m50050= 0005055000

.00000005000 00000005n55v 00000 mo 0000555 00000000 0000505 00000 00500 0050 000505500 500005 00509
050000050000 000 0005 050000020

050000050000 000 0005 002*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 0 00. 000-0 00 000\00 00000000 0000 m 0000 000000 000-0000
0 0 00. 000-0 00 000\00 000000
0 0 0m. 0 -0 00 .00\0. 00000000000 00 .0.m.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.000.0.0 .0000 .0000
0 0 00. m -0 00 00\0 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.000.0.0.0.0.0 .000 .0000
0 0 00. 000-0 00 m0\0 000 .000.0.0.0.0.0.0.000.0.0.0.0 .0000 .0000
0 0 00. 0 -0 0m 00\0 00000 000000 0000 000 00000 .0000000000000.000.000.0.0 .0000 .000
0 0 00.0 00-0 00 00\m 000 .0.0.000.0.0.0.0.0.0.000 .000 .000
0 0 00. m -0 00 00\0 0m 00.0.0.0.0.0.0.000.0.0.0.0.0.0 .0000 .000
0 0 mm. 0.0 -0 00 m0\m 00 00 0 .0.0000000.00000000000000000 .0000
0 0 00. 0 -0 0 m0\0 0000 00 000000000 000 0000.000.000.000.0.0.0.0 .000 .00
m m m J 0G0 mCO
m. w. m w pmmmd pm 00000 00 0005000» 00m 55:» 0505
a m. .w w5wzo5x m50305£

p500 pom OHQmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H 0000550000050 .0 50000050 Mo 050555m

Amwmm w50000005 5000.0055005oov

“OH Danae

 

66
least one case of unjustified dismissal. (Again pressures of supervising
secondary students may be showing up.)
School board secretaries consistently show the amallest number
of reSpons es indicating unjustified dismissals. Only three in thirty-two

knew of a case each.

Comparisons by School Size

 

The mode and median reSponse for all sizes of schools was zero.
Thirty-five per cent of reSpondents in small schools knew of at least
one case of unjustified teacher dismissal. For middle-sized schools,
twenty-four per cent knew of at least one case while twenty-one per cent
reported such instances in large schools.

Since educators move around, the comparisons between districts are
less meaningful. Thus, the answers by size of school may have nothing
to do with their present school. The general pattern of movement may
be from small to larger schools. It, therefore, seems likely that
small schools do have more problems with unjustified dismissals.
Small schools also may have larger proportions of beginning teachers
which could result in a larger proportion of problems. Small schools
may also be more personal and less anonymous than large schools

making dismissals easier to remember.

Question Seven of Questionnaire I: If you see defects in the present

 

law, please describe briefly.

67

Many answers were comments not relating to specific revisions.
Only those comments relating to possible revision or changes in the law
are recorded in Tables 11, 12 and 13, pp. 68-71.

Over half of the total group responding to Question 7 of Questionnaire
I had no comment relating to changes in the tenure law (198 out of 335).
One hundred thirty-seven did have suggestions. The most prevalent
suggestion was to lengthen the probationary period. Twenty-one respon-
dents suggested this. Fifteen respondents thought that dismissing a
teacher was too difficult. Twelve comments related to contracts,
dismissals or resignations. Eleven comments suggest that teachers
may need greater protection especially in the probation period. Three
say administrators need more protection, and two suggest that teachers
should have a responsibility for tenure recommendations.

Other comments are valuable but are not repeated by other reSpon-

dents. These may be read (as paraphrased) in Tables 11, 12 and 13.

Group Comparisons

 

Elementary probationary teachers had the smallest per cent of
responses (eight of thirty-seven or twenty-two per cent). Superinten-
dents re5ponded most frequently with twenty-six answers out of forty-

n‘ine responding for fifty-three per cent. See Table' 14.

H

.U .u 43F~Hhau .4 J t: :3

:\.

aka“ a .6 sill-:XK

l‘.‘

~F‘. al.lllll laid

‘ FI‘I‘R

68

.mwnp mcapmmmwsm menspmp Hmsvfl>flucw mo Hogans mna*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mcowpwocmEEooou coapompoum once noon ads mmmnommp hum m
ounce» ca mnmnm wnficmfimon no mafiufim .mpomnpcoo op opmamh m
vasonm mpmnomwp mhwm H honommp
madam» mumsvovmcfi cw mmflsmfip on paaowHMfiu oop N
poo: myopmupmwcfiscm mhwmiH soapmpoum amnpmcma hum m on 00H 00H .mqweoa
0 HH om .nopm .Emam
, A.onsomm oop pom mnmnomon sum 039v m ma om .noa .smam
. .powafloomm on canonm 0mm pnosmufipmm .mcwnommp mowpomna
op GOfipwvvm cw cocoon ma mfinmcnoch .nnonm oop powumm :oapmnopm m NH Om .aflnm .son
.mnmnommp goon mcflcfimpou :oflpmmso p.:ov mHoonom poem
.mumnomo» upmdcovwca mommasaao as pa:oammflv 009 m «H ow .noum .omm
.muonomop hwmhuucoomm mo wcwmmoamn moms omswo hm:
.muusommp noon opmnflsaam op pazoflmmav 009 m NH 0m .:09 .omm
.ouscmp now mnqdpmpcmssooou :H oumnm oasonm mnmnowma .GOHpmnHmHm op
uowpm new» mac Hmzmnou 39%: newspaoo wahuomunp so can a o>m£.pasonm
muopmhpquasp< .mnmnommp wcazaflmop pom :oapoopoua ones vooz .mnmnomop
goon unmeaswao on panoHHMflu ooe *Amv .vOHAoQ nowpmnona homeoa umoz 0 ma ow .cfipm .oom
.pownmn nowpmpoua nmwaoa vmoz *Amv
.mo>aomsmnp o>ona emu hung whommn vmmmoamn on Haw: mnochwmn xmmz 0 0H om .umdm
.mpo> mpprnms m.haco onwdvop pasonm cowpw90hm.cqopxo oa _
£333 a $353. 8 333m? 89 N m om .omm 6m
mpcossoo
.ompmwa was 35H map cw mmmcmno mqapmomm2m mummEEoo omen» mane spa: nospspom pqwm
umnsdz mohwchOHpmmso

 

 

 

 

L

 

 

.mammflup onwuommp mmwmaa .3ma acumen“ on» ca mpowmmv wow 50» MH

Renegade» 00H can» moody maoonom HHwEm

H endoscoapnoso .N nowamuso mo humsasm "Ha magma

 

Randi-an-aflflJ ale-Juaniongd, V nil-J3I~U«.. ivflirlad‘a. a.~:‘vu.fl.vha~

69

.onmno man qupmowmsm monopou Hmonpppvcw no Hones: ona*

 

 

mcoppmocoesoomu coHpoopoum once coon awe muonomop ham n
madcap :H omega wcH:MHmmu no mcHhHm .mpooupcoo op opmHou m
oHsonm mumgomop mafia H muonomop
ousuop opasvovmcH mmHEMHu op pHooHHMHu oop mama H
vow: muopwupchHEem hum N coHpmnonm cmnpmqu hum m

mHH

omH

wq<eos [IL

 

.AmcoppmoWde upmwoomm on pop upcoesoo osomv

NH

ON

32m .58

 

.cowpoopoun.uopmonw.oooc muoqoppmnoum

MH

Om

.qma .stm

 

.omno>oo on.oHsonm mnopmnpchHeu< .uopmoHHmEoo new

pHoOHMMHo oop mH muonowop mo HmmmHEmHn .coHpmospo mo acumen op panama
mH H_hHsu mo mCHCMHmon pom opmn .oOHumm_hhwcoHpmpoum homGOH cooz*Amv

OH

NH

ON

.thm 3:on

 

.conmomoumwonp
opap onoom_=ms.poonou no paooou op panu asp madam op mumnomop pom ooH>
no.3 quonm 3.3 05. 555.8%“. a wcfloHo hp copaogouHo on 50 9359

0m

. QOHm . 00m

 

.ocHvamu mwo:oo op nophm.ooempm mpowupcoo quuHsumu

ho madcap waHpuHopb one monaom .mono happen and: p_edo mpopppmpfi noon
monsoon madcap no wqupow mung mnmnodop noom .thduum mo apo> ooamUHmcoo
M\N a oxHH waHuHm scum qupoopo groom: muopappdeasc< .nom conHHmsv
po: «and ca aw wanuaop oHan onsnop oopaaum on :do Hoqcomuoa_vonHHuavab

NH

ON

0%“. Doom

 

.mHmmmocHuquuwHMIon UHsonm onscoa
moonwmu a pom op muonomop oouwmoucoa waHouoH.:H om whoop a qmo new mom

mH

om

 

. .oocwsmmpou pew coHpacHauxu

oHvOHuom op peonQSm momma ouocop osmmH uHoonm opmpm one .mspapm

ouucop one quonm maflnomop Scum Hmswnvann nwohwozp 4 .ousqup sohm Asz
hnv Umquoxo hHoppqpmmo on vHsonm mopmonHpuoo HwHoon .mpoaupcoo qu
ncnspoh you opmc H hst map mmamso*fimv .oOHAoQ humcoHpmponm cmzpwcoq*Amv

NH

mH

ON

Sum .85

:Esm

 

.umvcopxo on oHsonm popped snmcoHpmponm

m

0H

ON

.oom tum

 

 

.vopmHH one :mH asp mapmcdno mom mGOHpmomwdm oHMHoomm tho

 

mpcuGEOQ
5H:

cocudpom

 

saw

 

nopsdz

 

monpmccoppmmsa

 

 

.hHmmth oanomou undo Q_.3uH pummonq esp :H mpoomov mom :oh_mH

Amhonodop ooNuOOHV mHoonom_cONHnnoHuvH=

H oufififlfiog .p 8338 no .583 "2 as:

 

70

A0009 P80 05 :0 00050.80 MH 030.5

 

6:08me p0: 0H H0300 no 050000 00p op 00.03
0030: 0.000uhpxwm .803 :0 0H coppmupchgmas0wm8>0 3080. 0.8
0:: 0.80003 0030.3 0p 3:03.30 00.H..Amv .00000: 00.30908 .8003

ON

.5um .00m

 

.p000p000 psonwsonnp 0038 030:0 08.30000

suu-hpxpm .Hoonom mo 00000 000 op 00000 0500 50x00 prns_0oansp

-0.” 09 p0: 000: 300.3000 p03 08mg: .p00Hp0._.0 85000 50.5 mfin
-8880... 8800p 0 00.H 3.008080 «p.820 00p 0H 00H.8Q 80030008
00308.3 09 op 0000 0.883098% 00.H 00.300000m 8.00an .000."
-monm x0000 op 0.80» 002p M88 8.30.308 :0 op 0.00300 00. 090:0
0.80003 0.3009 030.0%ch 0o. op 2000 0.030308 030:0 .3303
0028p M080.» 000.5 00 030:0 cowpmnonm .00Hp00Hme80 npfi» 00.305
38m 50.30993 8n§8qfimv m0038p pom 08:00.3 00,800-00: 0Hsonm

ON

.0000

 

.8803 00.33.80 000 80% H0080 05.80 50.30093 8:38p
0.800000. 5...": 0008.30 00800500 0300p .3 H0230 p808 0.800 03p
p00poum op 208.395 02 $800305": 0.80003 0.80» 008: 00800

0p 0p0> HH00 HHon HHa 0008305 0 33002.2 30095 0p 00: 00 000 .8
-0003 ScoHp0nonm 00000030 4 .300upco0 mo 0.030." you 00.20am 00.3
.80 0:0 00H8m EcoHp0ponm .833 0002 0303.30 0.8 0000 .8ppon
00:3 0000 000m 035 0.80003 05780000 00030." 0p 030 09 03020 03
$03003 0000 0.808000 00800580 0800p p.003 :03 0p 3003.30 00.H.

w MH

ow

.00m .0m

 

 

.30H 05 5 009850 90300300 0000p .300 0.8 03me 0385300 05.

 

3.8558
nap: 00005000

 

 

0:00

 

80.52 ”00085030000

 

$30qu 03.8000 00003 .30H £800.09 05p 5 0.80.80 000 :0» MH

“000:000p oo~ n0>0v 0H00nom 0m004

H oufiuccoppnoso .p dasamosa mo 0005200 “ma manna

 

 

71

.0m0000 000p w0flp00mws0 0000p00 H0000>000H 00 000000 009*

 

 

0000p0000000000 000p00p000 0000.0000 505 0000000p 500 0
00000p 00 00000 m0fi0mwm00 00 000000 .0p000p000 0p 0p0H00 m
0H0000 0000000p 500 o 0000000p
00000p 0p0000000a 0000000 0p pa0000000 00p 000 w
0000 000p00p000fle00 000 o 000p00000 000pm00a 000 0

mm

. QHH

00H

mA<Boe

 

 

.0000000 00.0H0000 000p0>00000 00 000000000 009

0H

ON

.0000 .0000

 

.0000000000000
0000 00000000 000 000p00000p00 .000p00fls00p p000p0o0 00 00000 009

0H

ON

.89 05a

 

.000000 0 w0H000p0H p00 0H000Q 000 H00

-0p003 00 m00p0sa0>0 mw0Hp00H0>0 0a.00>00>00 00 000p 0000 009 00000
H00000 0 mmmmmm 00000p0000m 0 0000000 00% 000.300 .00000000 00000
0ow>0000 00m 0p0000000H .000p0000m 00m00~ 0002*Amv wp00000 0p0H
p003 30H 00p 0003 000p00000 000hum 0 00>0m 0000000p HHO p00 0003.003

00

ON

.0H0m .Emam

 

.0000p00w0000
00000 0p 00000 000po 000 00 0000000p 000H00>0 000 00000000000A~v

:0

ON

.000m .000

 

. 0000000p00000
0000000 0p 000p 000000 H00000 Haas M000000p 0000.0 0000000 0p m00H
00p 0000 002. .0000» 0>Hw h00>0 300000 0 p00 0H0000 0000000p 000009

ma

ON

.009 .000

 

 

.30am0p 00 0000000 M00000ww00 0000p hH00 000 00p00H 0p000E00 00B

 

0p00000¢
000:

00000p0m

 

0000

 

 

000002

000w00000p0000

 

 

A0000 m0fl0m000m.so0m 0000Hp000v

H 00000000p0000 .s 000p0000 00 5002200 and 0H00B

 

72

Comparisons by School Size

 

Small school reSpondents had the fewest suggestions for changes
in the law. Table 14, page 73, shows the reSponse among those
returning questionnaires for small schools was twenty-nine per cent,
middle-size schools was forty-six per cent and large schools was
forty-seven per cent.

Board secretaries of large schools and superintendents of middle-
size schools gave the largest per cent of reSponses among those who
returned questionnaires. No suggestions were given by only one
group--elementary probationary teachers from small schools.

These suggestions are, no doubt, related to the amount of interest

or knowledge that these individuals had in the tenure law.

Question Eight of Questionnaire I: Write a comment or two that

 

reflects your views on tenure.

Four hundred eighty questionnaires were sent. Three hundred
thirty-five questionnaires were returned. The responses divided
naturally into four types: no comment, neutral, negative and positive.
Over-all, there were fifty no comment, seventy-five neutral, seventy-
four negative and 134 positive comments. (One comment was not

legible.) See Table 15, page 75.

Group Comparisons

 

School board secretaries showed the largest proportion of

negative responses (twelve of thirty-two). This was the only group

n4 opHAdwEOHOaunvjy e\ £049n91~3 mil—,cngznufi Jnhfivo -Hflw-N udfli «violffi

73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmM\QMH a: N: oaa\mm 00H 0: maa\mm 00H mm ooa\mm oma masses
sm\m mm on :H\m om mm NH\m cm 0 HH\o ow focus .smHm
N4\ma om om 0H\m om on ma\m ow ma mH\N ow .cma .Emfim
:4\Hm m: mm mH\m ow mm ~H\OH om mm mfl\m ow .qflum .euam
o:\sa may om :H\s ON on :H\m cm a: ~H\m ow .poum .oom
N:\ma m: mm ma\m om s: pa\m om m; ma\m cm .cma .omm
m4\mH an an oH\o om an ss\s ON. 0; ma\o om .sstm .omm
ma\o~ mm mm mH\m ow so mH\NH om pm oH\o ow .pgsm
~m\mH s: we ma\m om om 0H\m om mm m\~ ow .oom .em
m.“ n u m
0 1. S 9
a m w w a
1.9 u
nsm mm
mm m. aways u dogmmso massages? N. £033.90 mfigou op N. H8383 mango.” op
“was n+nu wcflnmzmcw momaommmu pawn mswnozmqm momqommmu pawn mqwnmzmqm mmmnonmn pawn
a m. of“ ammo Mom .Ho 0.3mm .35 £80 pom mo 03mm .330 2.80 pom mo 03mm .350
S .03
MM mm mumsowop 00m uo>o mumaommo. 08.63 mhmnommo. OOH n85 mmma
u mam maoosom «mums maoosom ouflm-mflssflz maoonom Hamsm
L o
u

 

 

 

 

 

maggofimmsv on... 60:930.” on: $23 macaw Scum

. H onugofimodo J. 5.33:0 mfinozmqw anon pom

"4H magma

 

74
with more than one-third of the comments classified as negative.

Superintendents were nearly evenly divided in the four kinds of
answers: positive, neutral, no comment, and negative.

The tenure teachers at both levels were definitely the most positive
in their comments about tenure. Taking elementary and secondary
together, there were fifty-one positive and twelve negative. Principals
were also positive. Taken together, the elementary and secondary
principals had thirty-seven positive comments against nineteen negative
comments.

Probationary teachers tended to be more evenly divided in their
comments although still tending to be positive. Taken together they
gave twenty-seven positive comments compared to nineteen negative

ones o

Comparisons by School Size

 

Each of the three sizes of schools shows more positive than
negative responses. Small schools show a ratio of two to one of
positive to negative (thirty-five to eighteen); middle-size schools are
slightly higher (fifty-four to twenty-four) while large schools are not
so positive with forty-six positive comments compared to thirty-two
negative ones for a three to two ratio.

The small schools had neutral responses. slightly larger than the

negative responses. Middle-sized schools had equal totals in these

75

meHmHHHmchcs macs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmH :5 ma om *mmm on: o; Nm MN mH oHH ooH am 4N :N 0H *mHH ooH mm mH mN mH 00H ooH muHm Hoonom
hp mHmpoH
NH 0H m a on oo 4 a a N :H oN m m N N NH oN m m N m HH ON ,nosm .EmHm
5N a a N N; ow OH 4 H H oH oN a N N 0 MH ON N H m H NH oN .cwa .smHm
NH m mH a as oo o N a m mH ON a N o H NH ON in H m m NH oN .qHum .EmHm
mH a HH m o: oo o a m H :H oN a m m H 4H oN N N m m NH oN .popm .omm
4N m OH m N; om m N m H mH oN NH N N H aH oN a H m H NH oN .qma .oom
oN 4H m o as oo a a m N oH ON 0 o N 3 NH oN a 4 a o mH oN. .cha .omm
mH NH HH NH *0: oo m a N : mH oN m m m : *mH oN m m a s 0H oN .pssm
5 NH m m NM 00 m m H H MH oN N m N m 0H oN N H N a a oN .omm .sm
a z 92 02 a w a z 92 02 a w a 2 92 oz a m a 2 as 02 m w
1. u n... u n+ U 4+ u
m .. m a. m a. m n.
u u u u
9 8 9 8
D. D. D. D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

muncho mmopo« mampoe

 

 

mpmnomop 00m nm>o

mHoonom swung

 

 

mpmgomop ooN-ooH
mHoogom msHm-mHseHz

 

 

mpmnommp OOH swap mmma

mHooeom HHmsm

 

 

.obflpflmoaum Nm>flpmwocsuz «Hausdoosuez .pcoEEoo cannoz mm onon cacao one mpcmssoo Ho mocax one
.onscop no m3oa> nook maooaumn pomp 029 no pcossoo a span?

H onflmccowumoso aw cowpmoso mo huesssm

umH mHnwe

 

76
two reSponses. In large schools, however, the negative response
totaled thirty-two compared with twenty-three neutral.
The numbers of respondents having "no comment” were smallest
in each size school. The proportion of neutral and no comments taken
together was higher in the small schools. The ratios are: small schools,
forty-seven of one hundred; middle size schools, forty of one hundred

nineteen; and large schools, thirty-eight of one hundred sixteen.

A Summary of Questionnaire II to Superintendents of Those Fifty-nine

 

Schools which had Tenure under the Original 1937 Optional Tenure Law.

 

(See Appendix B)

Question 1: Has the 1964 Michigan Teacher Tenure Act made
any significant changes for your, district (which
already had tenure) ? If yes, describe briefly:

51 superintendents replied
46 superintendents said--no significant changes
5 gave these statements:

1. It has pointed up the value of good
early evaluation.
2. We reviewed policies with the admin-

istration, removed weak teachers and
raised the salary schedule by $500.

3. It has made only one alteration in
personnel policies--took a year to do it.
4. Apparently, it is now easier to remove

probationary teachers than under the
previous attorney general ruling. 2

 

2This refers to the provision in the new law (1964) omitting
probationers from the appeal provision. See Article VI of the Tenure
Act, 1(pape 175) i ‘ '-

Question 2:

5.

77

This is the first year that the local
MEA group has not been satisfied with
salary adjustments (a $400 raise).

Has tenure had any effect on the quality of teaching
performance in your district? Yes or no (circle one).
If yes, is it a higher or lower quality of performance
for the staff as a whole: Higher or lower (circle one).
Any further comments:

26 replied ”no difference"
17 replied "higher"
2 replied ”lower"
6 gave various "other answers. " These 6 are
listed below:

1.

We have not had tenure long enough to
see a difference. More careful evaluation
new teachers should improve the quality
of teaching.

Some teachers, entering teaching on a
temporary basis, take advantage of

the protection; the mandatory observa-
tions and evaluations cause others to
think more seriously of their positions.
Tenure has made us critical at times.
We did release several the first year.
Some administrators are too kind in
judging; gradual deterioration of per-
formance makes dismissal impossible;
tenure does not allow for honest errors
in judgment or furnish solutions for
mentally ill or senile teachers.

Three said the effect of tenure hasn't
been measured.

78

Interviews with the Tenure Commission and Ex-officio Secretary

 

 

 

Commission Members Address Representing Appointed

Harry A. Lockwood, Monroe Lay Public 1963
Chairman

Miss Gladys Davis Royal Oak Teacher 1951

Chalmer Young Bay City Teacher 1963

Mrs. Marian Gibson Newberry School Board 1965

Albert C. Johnsen Benton Harbor Superintendent 1963

Alexander J. Kloster, Lansing Acting for Superintendent of
Ex-officio Public Instruction

The following is a paraphrasing of each interview (the writer is
responsible for all errors and interpretations). These interviews were
held in June of 1965. The basis of the interview was a general question:
What problems do we now have, or may have in the future, with the

teacher tenure law?

Harry A. Lockwood

 

The local administration and school board are the key to making
tenure work. Technicalities in the administering of the law at the
local level causes most, of the problems. I have sat in on only six
cases, but this is what I see so far. The commission is not generally
involved in judging whether a teacher is fit or not; the usual question
is whether the law was properly administered. The law governs and
the commission must act according to law. In a few vague areas, it
may interpret. The big problem is to be sure to have enough help
administratively to make the law function.

Students often have little choice in selecting their teachers.

Administrators are the only protection students have from bad teachers.

79
The superintendent, whether he likes it or not, will have to learn to
enforce the tenure act if it is to work. A good attorney may be necessary
to advise him.

Teachers have become tremendously more powerful in the past few
years with the administration becoming relatively weaker. It also seems
as though the American Federation of Teachers and the Michigan
Education Association may be sorting some of the cases that come to
the Commission.

The A’nn Lash case points up a weakness of the Act. A teacher
who achieves tenure, retires for a few years and then returns to the
same school district is still a tenure teacher. The school board must
hire her as a tenure teacher or not at all. She cannot serve another

probation in that school district. Some provision is needed to allow

tenure rights to lapse after a period out of active teaching.

Miss Gladys Davis

 

The tenure law is a sound law because it is brief and broad in
scope. It can be adapted to the times and to new situations. Eve rything
should not be spelled out in the law or it might become inflexible and
obsolete. Change can come through interpretation by the commission
and the courts.

One major defect was created by a 1963 amendment to the law.

In Article VI (Right of Appeal) probationary teachers were excluded
from the right to appeal to the Tenure Commission. Thus, even if a

teacher's rights as a probationer are violated (such as improper

80
notification or denial of a hearing), he has no recourse. Past experience
shows that teachers can be denied their rights as probationers. Senate
Bill No. 446 is necessary. This bill restores the right of appeal to

probatione r s .

Chalmer Young

 

The big problems are not in the law itself although there may be
minor problems in it. The real problem is that controlling boards
and teachers do not understand procedures or the law. Appeals are
too often based on technicalities.

The number of appeals, considering that it now applies to all
districts in the state, are surprisingly few. Perhaps this is because
of a lack of knowledge of the law.

A uniform contract may be needed state-wide to help comply
with the law.

A tenure commissioner might be needed at some future time
to iron out technicalities before they get to a commission hearing.
This would be necessary only if appeals increase considerably.

If some poorer schools would use the device of letting teachers go
after the two years probation, in order to keep costs down, the right

of probationers to appeal might become a problem area.

Mrs. Marian Gibson

 

I have heard only part of one case so far and haven't been on the

Commission long enough to judge very much.

81
The tenure law should protect both teachers and the public as
represented by school boards. The law should not be used solely

to protect teachers' rights.

Albert C. Johns en

 

Some grey areas are: (1) How to dismiss a teacher during the
school year (immediately that is). (2) When are teachers required
to sign contracts? Some teachers feel they are on continuing contract
and don't have to sign yearly contracts. The attorney general says
a contract return date is legal, but this may have to be settled in
court eventually. (3) How is tenure determined for a teacher working
in two systems at once?

Up to now, the cases before the Commission are settled according
to the law. (I've been involved in about six hearings so far.) Did the
board follow the law is always the question. Procedural errors can
force the Commission to reverse a board of education decision, even
if the Commission believes the board is right.

Graduate courses in education should soon include a discussion
of tenure law. Many educators do not understand the law nor the
problems of decision making at the Commission level. The Commission

must decide according to the law.

 

Alexander J. Kloster

 

The law is quite clear regarding the functioning of the Commission.

82
Some possible problems are:

1. If a teacher is placed on third-year probation, when does this
teacher go on tenure? If not on tenure, a teacher has no appeal
to the Commission.

2. If a teacher teaches part time for a whole year, is this a year
of probation?

3. Under consolidation of districts, an analysis of statutes indicates

that the new board can require an additional year of probation for

 

those who had tenure in any of the original districts.

4. If a teacher, having tenure, leaves teaching for several years and
wishes to be re-hired in the same school district, another probation
period may not be served in the same district. The law could work
against a teacher here since a board might be very reluctant to
hire a teacher whose character or personality is now unknown.
There is now no way to provide a new trial period in the same
district. Article X states that no teacher can waive rights under
this act. Perhaps a new one-year probation should be required

after a five-year absence from teaching.

Interview with Michigan Education Association Representatives

 

Herbert Surtman and Donald Giese have worked on the staff of the
MEA since 1963 and 1958, respectively. Together they discuss
tenure giving their views which are not necessarily the official views of

the Michigan Education Association. The basic question again was

83

"what problems or potential problems are created by the tenure act

in Michigan?" The following is a paraphrases account of their comments.

The Michigan Education Association advises teachers of their rights

under tenure but may not always» encourage a case to be appealed to

the Tenure Commission. This depends on the merits of the case and

the advice of counsel.

Some problems are:

The law should either give administrators tenure rights or deny
such rights. This should not be left to the discretions of school
boards. Some changing board memberships and changing policies
have created situations in some districts where some administrators
in the same district have tenure and some do not.

Most problems are related to the implementation of the law;

lack of knowledge of the law. Procedural matters cause the dif-
ficulties.

The law simply gives an orderly dismissal procedure. Dismissal
can no longer be arbitrary. Evaluation of teachers is now nearly
compulsory.

When teachers sign contracts prior to sixty days before the begin-
ning of the next school year, are they waiving tenure rights contrary

to Article X of the Tenure Act? Can a board declare: a position?

 

3This answers Tenure Chairman Harry Lockwood's question, p. 79.

84
vacant if a contract is not returned as specified? These men
(Surtman and Giese) believe that an unsigned contract tendered
by a school board to a teacher is an offer which, if turned down,
requires further bargaining. The teacher is still employed and
could offer the board a different contract. Once signed bybpth
parties, ethics require that it be broken only by mutual consent.
The deadline areas of the sixty-day notice to teachers prior to‘the
close of school (if a board decides not to rehire) and the resignation
time sixty days prior to September 1 of the next school year, (a
teacher may resign up to this time without penalty) may need
some adjusting at a future time.
A standard state-wide contract form for employment of teachers
might be useful and needed.
The Michigan Education Association is not sponsoring any changes
in the law for the 1964-65 legislative session.
Contrary to the impression of many persons, a four-three vote in
a district presently under tenure can deny tenure to a second-year
probationary teacher. The first part of Article II refers only to
the implementation of the Act. A teacher with two or more years
of employment could be denied tenure by the")- required unanimous
vote during the implementation of the Act. This does not include
second-year probationers after the act is in force. (Attorney

General opinion No. 782, May 26, 1948)

10.

11.

12.

13.

85
There were a few problems relating to teachers denied tenure
in the fall of 1964 because this denial was interpreted as being
"continued on probation. ” It was, in fact, a legal notice that after
completing this year's contract, the teacher was dismissed.
The law states that the controlling board must give notice to
teachers of unsatisfactory service--not principals or administrators.
If this is not followed, a procedural error is committed.
Administrators are denied tenure by contract. (That is, in the
individual contract.) This cannot be done by a policy statement
alone if correct procedure is to be followed.
A better definition of teacher is needed. Administrators. librarians,
counselors, psychologists, business managers and curriculum
coordinators are examples of grey areas. Some of these people
are not required to have teaching certificates. Community college
teachers in a community college operated by a public school
(like Port Huron) are in a confused state. Those community college
teachers with teaching certificates are under, tenure: Those without
certificates are not. The intermediate districts of the state are
tenure districts. All these specialists that are certified by the
State Board of Education are under tenure provisions.
When reducing staff, would educational qualification or seniority
prevail? Districts in which annexation reduces their enrollments

face this problem.

p 86
14. A reasonable retirement age is still a grey area.
15. During consolidation of schools, some assurance of tenure rights
in the new district should be given teachers if they are to promote

any such logical mergers.

Results of Questionnaire 1115

Questionnaire III was sent to the 60 stratified, randomly-selected
school superintendents, chosen as the sample for this study, who had
already answered Questionnaire I. This request was mailed in very ..
late June so that it would coincide with the last date for teachers to
resign as provided for in the law. The law provided that teachers could
resign sixty days prior to September 1 of the ensuing school year. By
July, too, most of the superintendents who had problems with tenure
would be well aware of them both in regard to releasing teachers and
to dismissing them.

The following four tables summarize the results of Questionnaire
III for the three sizes of schools. (Tables 16, 17, 18 and 19, pp. 88,

90, 91 and 93, respectively)

 

4In Cheboygan, Michigan, the new school board in a newly con-
solidated district exercised its prerogative and denied tenure to all
teachers. Thus a new probation period was required for many teachers
who had had tenure in the old district.

5See Appendix A for Questionnaire III.

I i . r 4,.
, ' l
5.
v- v ,I‘ .
, . f'
. . _-"‘
‘ ‘ v"’ . 1 r“ ' w.' '4 'i*<-I‘ . KL“. " e _ T'sn')

(N. i r «I ,. ) ) die-At i (.x(.1r1y.”_u Qf£i .11 '1.‘(’ri "-19-..3 I “1“,...— ,,7L,( [“IfiHHD‘
"n: ; .. ' '1 ' ‘ "‘9 “W. eh" .I .’:“’ " ' . :' ... ‘iiso‘iix-z
m -~‘ , 'iflui“. t «i .... 1 ~? ,r- ‘1'.2n.'i,lc\3c.
\ ”ft ("D‘O~'\1 .” 1' I‘l‘)‘ 3‘,’(\':'I) ‘,'Hr “‘i‘i’l. "1' 1 ‘- ii I 9‘ E ' l / l ‘ 2H "(ff-33“

. n ' I y - e n
CT yr {41) ln’r'i 4.79 "1mm; o «ii! 7‘... i 'f"‘t‘r?'t’i:i""")f.)x I” fill“ '«WIPV‘ ‘ W49. “WT???"

H'rrn‘vri H'Hw Frr"~-arl‘iz'3‘i(‘1 barf nriw a" 1--;?‘).".'n*. ’r I':‘~-s'~r;"H {wit 3. . ‘1': 1.11 no? ,‘I'HIT.

[,,,,—- ,-¢...‘1).¢-,~,) 'l"e,;ri;:i,‘lf’!‘7 (,1 b'.’ (4‘25“? (1’ "i; Mi fl‘i‘if‘fi l.) ‘1‘- i)“"£ ”SW Ej'r‘i bi.{.'0\.‘/

4- H . - i ' r «.
’0‘) 4‘ {-1- x i ‘ .5 1V .1,‘
' ’ 7 ' .- “ \ J "' s’ “ .‘ IV\ ‘-
.-l '1 ' ,g n] " ,‘C‘b {:4 1 l ‘1‘ ') ’1' 'C’ v"l’.Y hills} .J."(\‘ ‘1 I- ll; .1 \I, ' v" _"
[:1‘ "t “w (,fc), L\¢.‘.‘ )l) i‘-‘.L‘ r, I“){ I: )f ,2: I- . l‘I'C’A ~-' "" ‘ : _ " ¢;_f _ .
I , - 1“ n \ . ,. i. . J v r" i .‘ . . -1 L . ,
lll)l.",1 I ‘u. l fut. I‘“I..; . -o H .. «J4 )
t , rs ». . r i
r . f“ .1. 1|.) ‘1 1).. ,7 ‘ l Mil; i 3w
. - , I . a
t r- \ ‘, 1. I 1‘ \ X

87

The Results of Questionnaire III for Small Schools

 

All twenty superintendents returned the questionnaire. In these
twenty small schools (less than 100 teachers per school), only two
teachers were asked to serve a third year of probation; seven first-
year probationers were not offered contracts for the ensuing year; five
second-year probationers were not offered contracts; three tenure
teachers were released plus one who was denied tenure by the unanimous
vote required during the implementation period of the law. Four tenure
teachers were encouraged to resign and did so. Thirty-two teachers
were encouraged to resign and did so. Thirty-two teachers asked for
releases (less than two per school on the average) prior to the sixty-
day deadline. Five of the twenty superintendents thought that resigna-
tions were a problem. The comments of four of these superintendents

are shown at the bottom of Table 16, p. 88. One did not comment.

88

33” so: .05 .Ho 33.38%“ noon: 08.83 venomomp
§Hpoa 5H3?
.9303 uooa a new. 3:3qu .3839 Soon $33326 5955*

 

 

.H 5.3. 3. on 30.93.30 030.8. 5.0 hose. gone .85. .33” 33 883203 pod on 23039
650303 3960 3” swoon» ego s23 How has: one: 03 .moowfimom heaven 3. @968 .30.... HQ

.3903 393... .Hooeom HHesm

5303.36 2.0333 3333a madam. nexus ooHpeQmHmon 33
.oHHHeb on no 33550 .8380 sexes mfiemamop 90.0038 532: 05.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.soHen
pecan 355500 05m .3558 on we: 533m mmoogmowmom .Ho 3:253 3 .H.
m no.» o: .0: Non .mmh .0: .o: ‘on
.on eon eon Hon .0: «ooh amok 533a a QB» no:
«on each .0: .0: «on H80 .0:
Muensopmom 3 nova gee on Span 3 poo
R m.o.o.H.o.H.o.N.a.o.o.e.m3.o.H.N.o.H.N “H3835 23 Ho 838 e335 use» masseuse. same 20m .e
. womcmamon one
a 0.0.0.066.meoeoeoeH«06.0.0.0.0646 053 8. commodooco one: 20:33 ounce» has so: .m
L
H + m o.o.o.o.nH.H.H.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.de $3.“?qu one: 2283 3:8» has sex .4
Nmpomfieoo
m 06.90.066.066«03.066.10.06; 60.8.30 won 933 mnmcoflpmnonm fimhiooogm bass 30m .m
Nopowfiooo
a o.o.o.o.H.o.H.N.H.o.o.H.o.o66.10.06 3.8%.. see 82. eseoflenoa peeisefio has sex .N
N 0.0.06.0.0.066666.10.06.066; 2°33er smashes 8 83% use: 2308» has 30m .H
wagon. 1:393 mood .mpmdm ON 30.5 20392 :0383

 

 

 

Amuozomg 00H .35. news 30030.0. :95

203.83% e5 333..an .HHH masseuse He museum 5H 033

 

89

The Results of Questionnaire III for Middle-sized Schools

 

Fifteen superintendents of twenty queried answered Questionnaire
III for schools with from one hundred to two hundred teachers.

For these fifteen schools, nine teachers were placed on third-
year probation; ten first-year probationers were not offered contracts;
eight second-year probationers were not offered contracts; one tenure
teacher was dismissed; and four tenure teachers were encouraged to
resign and did so. One hundred twenty-one teachers asked for re-
leases prior to the sixty-day deadline; three superintendents made

comments shown at the bottom of Table 17, p. 90.

The Results of Questionnaire III for Large Schools

 

Nineteen of twenty superintendents responded to this questionnaire
for these schools with more than two hundred teachers. Taken
altogether, thirty teachers were placed on third-year probation; nine-
teen first-year probationers were released; seventeen second-year
probationers were released; seventeen second-year probationers were
not renewed; six tenure teachers were dismissed and nine tenure
teachers resigned "with encouragement. " Three hundred nineteen
teachers asked for releases and six superintendents among the nine-
teen thought this was a problem. Seven superintendents made the

comments shown at the bottom of Table 18, p. 91.

.oonwwmmu one mbmmfl op vmmmnsooco no: nocowpmpoum nwmhuonfiep <9
.quap pmoqm
.cndumu mmu u now uocnspmn coopmflm .pqom mouflmncowpmoaw hncoae*

 

 

.GOHpm:Mfimon mo mnmppoa moans pose hos» wasp zonx poo on muoeomme

.hampwsvmum sHQO op pfidowwmau muscop omens muonomop mo mvcflx oEow mo haamsm pnoem
.mpcoEoomHmmp acne op pazoamuflu son as: pH

.ocflavwoo hdfinhgxwm men muowmn omcmwm mum mpomnpnoo ado

.mmmmoaou paced mbflmmmva ones wnvamw mum nonwom

.uoppmn on vanoz ma ondw apnoea con aw mhwv hvxflm

 

 

9O

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3oamn
Umpwaa mucossoo me .mpcossoo on own onaz undefipmommom no apnoeaoo hq¢ .m
m no» on .oEow «on «on .0: «ml qon
.oc «no» «on go: «on .0: .mo% am! «Emapopm m mflep no?
.1 NH monsmpmom Op noanm mhwo ow anspop on no:
HNH SH.NH.om.o.o.mm.o.NH.m.eH.o.N.o.a.m consumpqn we» no sense: amass“; msmm mumeomop hume.zom .o
. «nonmamon new
: H«H.o.o.o.no.o.o.o.a.¢noqa.0.0 mbmma op cmmmnzooco mums mnoeommp amazon mnws_zom .m
H o.o.o.o.o.a.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o wvmmmasmau mum: mumeommp masses hams 30m .e
mmpomnpcoo
m o.o.a.m.o.o.o.o.o.o.oaa.o.oqa nouommo non who: mpocowpwnonn nmohuncooom nude 3cm .m
mmpomnpcoo
0H oaa.m.m.o.o.o.oqa.a.o.oqm.0.0 omuommo no: «no: mpocoapmnopm uwmhrpmuwm adds 30m .m
m oqo.H.oqoqa.m.H.o.o.o.H.H.o.H «noapmeoua uwmhnonflnp no coowam mums mumeomop hams 30m .H
mflmuoe *Acndpon mmwv .mpasm ma 80pm mnosmn< soapmmso

 

 

 

Amhmzomofi OONIOOHV «Hoonom fionHmIoanHz

mcoapmcmnmom saw mammmasman .HHH ouamcconpmmsa no humsssm "an manna

 

u:-a‘u-.¢...u.—n‘uv~_ ul-cs .~_..-...-..—..:..u1q~ 1.. u — u~u~.-\_;:...d.u nuwv‘4~v .uav \AIt--.i£~...w hqxw u~N.-...~.

91

.:::po: mmm m now do:nspo: :oopm:fl: q9:3 mondm::owp

.x:man puma:
moso ha:oza*

 

 

.m:ommou owamb pom ommoamn on o:

.mpowup:oo w:a:wflm poem: upco::wflmmo poepo pom m:wxooa o::flp:oo muonomma

.momooao: mama now monsoooonm mo Ham: mo oompm on» now mpooou:oo noeomop
ouflonmo:mpm .pmoovo: :oppflnz :om: pooh :ppdom m soaam dam momma owns» op :owpmponm u:opxm
.msoaponm mono: osoomn p:mfl: mnoonu:oo adamasm Op ooonom mamoom

.soapopm pmommwn :50 on: muonomon opopapmnom

o:o mewenpnom .mpoonp:oo m:«:::pou ouowon o:HHoooo h45w 0:» HH9:: oopfim: muonooop ounces

.w:oa :QEESm Haw mean xoow op o::wp:oo ononoome

.Eopmhm poonp:oo m :ov:: p:moflmfi:wfim no: ma :oaoflbonm_hdoaoo one

.mEoHnonm homo: oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3oaon
oopmaa mp:oSEoo :m>om .mpcossoo o: oo: obHoze mm:0Hpmomm:m no mp:o:Eoo 5:: .w
w ooh o: amok .MI «ooh «ooh .0: «ml
.0: .o: .Hmsm::: no: .0: .moh «Soaponm a wasp on:
«o: «ooh «o: «o: “o: .moh no!
I. .u :.:~H.o.m.Hme «a nonsopomm op “one: ”has oo chasm: on so:
mam .0.Hm.m «omama.m .o.m.maao~.o.o.o :oap:op:a onp mo moapo: :opufinz m>mm muoeooop aqua 30m .0
I. wvm:mamo: o:m
m oqm.o.m.o.o.o.oao .o.o.o.o.a.o.m.o.o.m obooa op oowwusoo:o ohms muonomop ono:op h:w:_3om .m
o oqm.o.o.m.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.oqoqo.o.o woommfiEwflo who: muonooop o:::op h:oe 30m .4
. «mpom:9:00
NH aqo.oaa.m.o.o.o.o.o.o.a.o.H.m.m.m.o.a oopommo po: mpoz mum:owpmnonm noomno:oomm h:m: mom .m
mmuowpp:oo
ma m.o.o.H.mqogoqoqaqoamqoqo.m.o.m.o.o.m oouommo go: who: mno:owpmeopa :wohrpmnam h:os 30m .m
om m.o.mqo.:.m.o.o.~.quqo.m.o.m.mqfiqoaa «:0wpmnopm :mohuonflnp :o Uoooam mums mnmnooop h:oE 30m .H
mHopoe *A:::pmn mmmv .wpmsm ma Soon mpozm:< :oapmooo

 

 

 

Amnoeowop 00m nobov maooeow omnog

muoapmcmnmom and «Hammasmno .HHH ounaqaoapmmsa no huasssm. "ma magma

 

92

Comparison Between Schools of the Results of Questionnaire III

 

Table 19, p. 93, summarizes the comparisons for the three sizes
of schools for Questionnaire III. Considering the numbers of teachers
in the three sizes of schools represented, nothing unusual is apparent
when comparisons are made between schools. It might seem strange
that the fifteen middle-sized school superintendents altogether re-
leased only one tenure teacher. Four additional teachers, however,
were encouraged to resign and did so.

When the results of questions four and five are added together,
the results indicate that small schools are removing a larger propor-
tion of tenure teachers than the other two groups when size of staff is
considered.

The magnitude of the answers for all other questions in relation

to school size are generally in proportion.

A Summary of Questionnaire III

 

The answers show that a very small number of teachers are being
required to serve a third year of probation. A slightly smaller number
of teachers are being refused contracts at the end of either the first or
second year of probation. A very small number of tenure teachers in
all sizes of schools are being dismissed and a slightly larger number
are being counseled out of the profession.

Approximately 472 teachers of 11, 000 staff members, or one in
twenty asks for a release from his position. Twenty-six per cent of

the superintendents responding thought this to be a problem.

*HHH 9L435504dmmv30 RC.“ ”HOCEUfl 0N4fl O.Cnvv~sw.u.fifific 03953003 unconfiLaanw—ECQ ultfi 3421...?

93

mhmfiQmQQ OOH Gmnfl mmwdllmfloogom Hfldfim

mnonomop OONuooH :oAHuImHoozom noowmnoHnon
muocomop ooN no>onumHooeom omnsq*

 

 

.Amp:o:soo no m:oHpmomm:m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

w o m m:mes noesozv Wm:oHpmommnm no apnoeeoo h:< .m
o m m AmoHHao: mowv wEanonm_m man was.
NH nonempaom op :OHna and: 00 :udpou on no:
mHm HmH mm :0H9:op:H on» mo ooflpo: :mpthz whom muonomop s:o&.3om .0
woo:memh
m a : n:w osmoH op nowuhnoonm one: whoeqwmp ouo:op and: 30m .m
o H m woommHEMHn one: muoeoooa ononop h:o5.3om .4
pogoon¢:oo
NH m m nouommo no: one: mn0:0Hpaeouo noohrn:ooom hams 30m .m
wmpomup:oo
mH 0H w nouommo no: one: muo:OHpupoum :mohupwuHm h:m:.3om .m
w:oHpmeona
on m N nmohronHeu :o nooaHa one: muonowop h:o5.3om .H
mp:ov:op:H:oa:m mp:oo:op:Hnoa:m mp:oo:o¢:H:oQ:m
HooeomquHmH HoozomuooNHm HoonomuHHmem
mH pom uoHooHE mH now om now
mHmpoe

 

 

*HHH OthGGOMHWOfiO HOW ”HOOSOm ONfiw QGUHQMMHfi $603909 mfldmflhfimEOO "ma GHQMB

 

94

A Review of Appeals to the Tenure Commission During the School
6

 

Year 1964-65

 

Two cases were heard by the Tenure Commission during this
first school year of state-wide mandatory tenure. Three additional
appeals were made after the close of the school year ending June 30,
1965. Between the effect of mandatory tenure on August 28, 1964,
and September 1, 1965, a total of five cases were appealed to the
commission.

The Ann Lash case was heard in November of 1964. The case
points out that a tenure teacher who has not taught for several years
could return to the same system only as a tenure teacher. The a. 1.
administration and the board of education were required to continue
as a tenure teacher one who had returned to service in a tenure
system (City of Dearborn), even though she had been distinctly
hired as a temporary replacement. The law of tenure was unan-
imously upheld by the five-member commission with a brief con-
curring bpinion from Harry Lockwood, the Commission Chairman.
He felt that a new trial period should be provided in the tenure law
for teachers who have not taught for several years. A one-year trial
period is provided for if a teacher changes systems. This should
also be provided for when a teacher returns to teaching in a system
where he had achieved tenure stature.

This case is not related to the fact that Michigan had a new state-

wide tenure law. It arose in August prior to the advent of the new law

¥

6Based on materials from the Tenure Commission. See Appendix E.

95
in a district which had tenure under local option.

The second case was not related to the new mandatory tenure law
either. The City School District of Hazel Park was a tenure district
under the local option law, too. The appeal, known as the Bobby Jack
Young case, again shows that a board must follow the tenure law
carefully or procedure will invalidate their efforts to dismiss a teacher.
The board made several errors in procedure but the main thrust of the
arguments were similar to the Wilson versus Flint case of 1960.

After a probationary period is completed, tenure is received unless
a board notifies the teacher at the proper time at least sixty days prior
to the close of the school year that he will not be continued.

The number of appeals during the first year of mandatory tenure
has shown no increase.

Summary of the Inquiries

 

This research is easier to follow when the Tables in this chapter
are consulted.

Questionnaire I, based on a seventy per cent return, answers sever-
al questions. Most respondents tend to believe that supervision is
better or has not changed. Inadequate teachers were believed to be
harder to eliminate although Table 4, p. 53, should be re-examined for
a better understanding. Teachers were generally believed to be more
secure even among probationers responding. The respondents be-
lieved that the profession was either upgraded or had not changed.

One hundred seventy-one respondents knew an inadequate teacher

96
based on their own judgment]... 7 The mode response was zero, the
median was 1. 06 and the average was 2. 05. Few incompetents are
believed to be teaching as shown by the 335 respondents who are
closest to the teaching scene. Half of the respondents, however, knew
at least one.

Eighty-seven respondents knew of a case or cases of unjusti-
fied dismissals. The mode for this question (see Table 10, p. 64)
was zero, the median was zero and the mean was . 54. Few un-
justified dismissals are indicated. But one in four respondents knew
of at least one such instance.

The most prevalent suggestion (twenty-one respondents) for
improving the law was to lengthen the probation period. Only fifteen
respondents suggested that dismissing a teacher was too difficult.

In responding to the open-ended question, No. 8, "comment on
the law" (see Table 15, p. 75), 134 positive comments were made,
seventy-four were negative, seventy-five were neutral and fifty had
no comment.

Superintendents of the fifty-nine districts which had tenure under
the option law returned fifty-one questionnaires. Forty-six indicated
that the new mandatory. law did not make any significant changes for
them. When asked how tenure had effected the quality of teaching in

their district, twenty-six replied that it had no effect, seventeen re-

 

kfiThere could, however, be eight respondents in a single school
recording the same incompetent teacher.

97
plied teaching was improved, only two said that teaching quality
was adversely effected by tenure in their opinion.

The tenure commission members responded to the question of
“what problems do we now have or may have in the future with the
tenure law? " It seemed clear that the main problem is a lack of
understanding of the law by all groups. It also> was evident that the
law of tenure has to be followed by the Commission regardless of
personal feelings. Cases are rarely decided on the basis of whether
a teacher is adequate but almost always are decided by whether
procedure was followed.

The interviews with Michigan Education Association repre-
sentatives again pointed up the legal aspects of the Tenure Law.

An attorney is necessary for a party involved in tenure decisions
as presently operating. A number of areas are unclear and will
need gradual adjusting through experience and application of the law.

Questionnaire III (see Tables l6, 17, 18 and 19, pp. 88, 90,

91, and 93, respectively) provides this information: Very few
teachers are being required to serve a third year of probation, few
probationers are being released and very few tenure teachers are
either released or counseled out of teaching. The majority of super-
intendents (about seventy per cent) were not concerned about late

resignations.

98
The number of appeals to the Tenure Commission remained at
a low level. Only two were appealed during the 1964-65 school year.
This is near the average of about one case per year under the 1937

local option law in effect prior to the state-wide mandatory law.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Background

 

Michigan had a 1937 optional tenure law for twenty-seven years.
Local districts could adopt this law if the local qualified voters voted
to do so. Fifty-nine districts had adopted this law. In 1964, the law
was amended to make it mandatory for all of the more than one thous-
sand school districts of Michigan then in existence. The ~Michigan
Education Association had forced the Republican-controlled Legisl-
lature and the Michigan School Board Association to accept a law
that neither was enthused about. The threat of making the law a
constitutional amendment moved the legislature to enact a statute so
that it could be amended by the legislature should the need arise

later .

Tenure Literature

 

A review of tenure literature revealed that numerous articles
had been written, but relatively few studies had been conducted.
Summaries of existing laws were available from the National Ed-
ucation Association and the American Federation of Teachers. One
major research was conducted in 1934 by Cecil Winfield Scott at

Columbia University. 1

Scott, op. cit.

99

100
He believed that the question of whether teachers should have tenure
was philosophical. The question of "arbitrary dismissal" versus an
“entrenched profession“ could not be resolved. Scott related the
tenure movement to the concepts of Civil Service with standard salary
schedules and protection from arbitrary dismissal by changing ad-
ministrations. This tradition is strongly followed in Western Europe
for both teachers and other civil servants.

Five Incniiries

 

This dissertation proposed five inquiries to study tenure in
Michigan. The five inquiries were tabulated and summarized in ’
Chapter IV. The table of Chapter IV should be studied should

questions arise regarding the inquiries or conclusions.

QUESTIONNAIRE I

 

Questionnaire I was sent to 420 educators plus 60 school board
secretaries. Table 2, page 49, shows that 335 questionnaires were
returned out of the 480 sent. Eight types of respondents in three
sizes of school districts were systematically sampled. This question;- '
naire posed eight questions. The results were summarized as follows:

1. Most respondents believe that the supervision of teachers
under tenure provisions had not changed. A large group believed
that it was better. School board secretaries and superintendents were
the only groups which had more respondents who believed that super-
vision, by administrators, was better rather than "unchanged".

There was no indication from these returns that probationary teachers

101
were unduly oppressed by stringent supervision, since their response
was not negative on this question. Small schools showed the strongest
tendency‘to answer that supervision had not changed. Middle-sized
and large schools tended to be evenly divided between the answers
"no change" and ”better. "

2. The question regarding the elimination of inadequate teachers
under mandatory tenure gave a mixed pattern of responses. One
hundred eleven respondents answered "more difficult" followed by
one hundred who checked the response "no change." Sixty-eight
checked ”more easily eliminated" followed by forty-eight';responging
"no opinion. " Overall, probationary teachers show a small tendency
to. answer "more easily eliminated" or "more difficult" with fewer
responding "no change. " The small school respondents answered "
"easier“ less frequently than middle-size and large schools. This
answer from small schools combined with their answer that super-
vision had not changed lead one to speculate that supervision in»;
small schools: is less intensive than in the middle-sized or large
schools.

3. Question 3 reveals that most (176) of the 335 respondents
felt that teachers were more secure under tenure. "No change"
was second choice with 120 responses. Large schools, however,
were equally divided between these two responses. Large schools,
because of the increased bargaining power of their larger teacher

groups, probably had many tenure characteristics included in board

102
policy and practice. Superintendents and principals showed a
greater tendency to answer "no change" to the question of teacher
security. But teachers and board members tended to answer more
frequently that teachers were "more secure" under tenure.

4. The question of whether tenure upgraded the profession
drew responses that were equal. "Upgraded" was indicated by 132
respondents while "no change" had 133 responses. Superintendents
felt most strongly that "no change" was true, while elementary
probationers felt most strongly that the profession was "upgraded. "
Board secretaries, along with superintendents, tended to answer "no
change" and also to answer "downgraded. " But even in these two
groups ”upgraded" drew more responses than did "downgraded. "
Differences by school size were not evident.

5. The fifth question was "How many teachers are on your
staff that you feel should not be teaching?" The most frequent
answer (mode) was none (0). The median across all groups was
1. 06 and the average was 2. 05. Secondary respondents show a
higher average response as well as a larger.range. This might
well be explained by two possibilities. These staffs are larger and
theppsychoiogical pressure of managing secondary students is greater.

Middle-sized schools show a slightly higher incidence of dis-
satisfaction with teachers in response to this question. This might
be related to suburban phenomena. Economic and social expectations

in areas of middle-sized schools may be higher. It seems doubtful

103
that the quality of teachers is lower in these schools.

One hundred seventy-one respondents (of 335) knew of at least
one incompetent teacher. This statistic seems to confirm the
necessity for good procedures for recruiting as well as for pruning
teaching staffs if the views of these respondents are valid.

6. Question 6 asked "How many cases of unjustified dismissals
can you recall during your entire career in education? Two hundred
thirty-five out of 335 respondents knew of none. One in four knew of
at least one case. School board secretaries gave the smallest re-
sponse of those knowing a case of unjustified dismissal. Three out
of thirty-three responding knew of a case each.

Although only twenty-five per cent of the respondents knew of a
case, there is an indication that a considerable number of teachers
may have been dismissed without adequate procedures. Due process
seemed to be needed.

Comparisons between schools are difficult. The larger the school,
the more likely teacher groups tend to be organized. Smaller schools
may take relatively more beginning teachers. Teachers are also a
relatively mobile group. Of the small school respondents, thirty-five
per cent knew of an unjustified dismissal. This was followed by re-
spondents from middle-sized schools with twenty-four per cent.
Large schools were last with twenty-one per cent. Table 10, page 64,
shows the responses.

7. One hundred thirty-seven respondents out of 335 had specific

104
suggestions for changing the tenure law. Twenty-one suggested
lengthening the probationary period. Fifteen felt that dismissing a
teacher was too difficult. Eleven felt probationers needed greater
protection.

Many comments reflected a general lack of understanding of
the tenure law. A "wait and see" attitude was also apparent.
Superintendents gave the largest number of suggestions with fifty-
three per cent making one or more. Elementary probationers gave
the fewest suggestions with twenty-two per cent responding. See
Table 14, page 73.

Small schools' respondents replied at a twenty-nine per cent
rate, and large schools had forty-seven per cent offering suggestions
for changing the tenure law.

8. Question 8 of Questionnaire I requested "a comment or two
that reflects your views on tenure. " There were 134 positive comments,
with fifty not commenting.

Twelve of thirty-two school board secretaries gave negative
responses. This was the only group with as much as one third with
negative comments. Superintendents were equally divided into the
four types of answers. Tenure teachers were the most positive with
fifty-one positive comments and twelve negative.

All three size categories of schools had more positive than
negative responses. Large schools had a slightly larger proportion

of respondents who gave negative answers than did small and middle-

105
sized schools. See Table 15, page 75.
Conclusions for Questionnaire I

Supervision (Table 3, page 51); About half of those responding thought
supervision had not changes as a result of mandatory tenure. Over forty
per cent of the respondents thought supervision had improved. It seems
warranted from these facts to state that supervision for many teachers
has not improved. But, for a large group tenure has improved supervision.

Elimination of Inadequate Teachers (Table 4, page 53): The evidence
from this research indicates that tenure has increased the difficulty of
eliminating inadequate teachers. (Other factors from this study indicate
there are few inadequate teachers. Voluntary resignations plus non-renewal
of probationers' contracts have a salutary effect. See Tables 7, 8 and 9;
also Tables l6, l7 and 18.)

Teacher Security (Table 5, page 55): Teachers are clearly more
secure with the addition of tenure rights.

Upgrading the Profession (Table 6, page 57): Forty per cent of the
respondents believed that tenure had improved the profession while forty
per cent saw no change. In balance, one might conclude that the profession
has improved as a result of tenure because those respondents who believe
it is better equal the number of those who were neutral, greatly outnumber
those who were negative.

Inadequate Teachers (Table 7, 8 and 9, pp. 59, 60 and 61): Since
over half the respondents answered positively, (Knew of one or more

inadequate teachers) the study showed that there are some teachers

106
who should not be teaching. This makes a compelling argument for a
probationary period and for better supervisory practices. Tenure
offers both of these opportunities.
Unjustified Dismissal (Table 10, page 64): Unjustified dismissals
were too frequent. When twenty-three per cent of the respondents
indicated a knowledge of at least one case, great tension was often

provoked. Tenure provides for judicious dismissal.

Conclusions for Questionnaire II

Fifty-one superintendents of fifty-nine districts that had tenure
under the 1937 optional tenure law replied to Questionnaire II.
Twenty-six believed that tenure had made no difference in the quality
of teaching performance in their district. Seventeen thought the per-
formance was higher. Two felt the performance was lower. Six
gave other answers.

It is clear that most superintendents who had had experience
with tenure under the 1937 law were neutral about tenure improving
teaching performance. A significant number, however, felt that
tenure helped to improve performance. Only two felt tenure lowered

performance.

Conclusions Regarding the Interviews with the Tenure Commission
Interviews with the Tenure Commission indicated a lack of under-
standing of the law by all concerned groups. Cases are rarely decided

on the question of teacher competency. Most cases are decided on

\Iin

fI

\.

 

.u».
.1

I oi
» .a

.r

awn-I ‘* ‘_-...-.... .— ~ - -—

 

! ‘- ‘
3,

107
points of law. The law of tenure must be carefully administered to be

effective. The Tenure Commission must decide according to law.

Conclusions Regarding Interviews with Michigan Education Association

 

Representatives

 

Herbert Surtman and Donald Giese of the Michigan Education
Association confirmed the impressions that individuals of the Tenure
Commission had given: Knowledge of the operation of the tenure law
is the greatest problem at present. The stress of their conversation
was that good procedures for dismissing inadequate teachers and pro-
tecting good teachers from capricious dismissal are vital to the pro-

fession.

Conclusions for Questionnaire III

 

Questionnaire III was designed to find out how the 1964 Michigan
Mandatory Tenure Law operated during the first year ending July 1,
1965. The results are these: 1. A very small number of probation-
ary teachers are being asked to serve a third year of probation.
Forty-one teachers out of fifty-four schools with total staffs of about
‘12, 000 teachers were placed on third-year probation. This indicates
a reasonable effort to help doubtful teachers tosucceed. If a third
year of probation is to be required, the Tenure Commission must be

notified. This indicates an effort to help marginal teachers succeed.

 

For example, if five per cent of the 12, 000 teachers were complet-
ing their second year of teaching this would mean about 600 teachers
finishing their second year of probation. Forty-one, or about six per
cent, of this number were asked to serve a third year of probation.

108

Thirty-six first-year probationer's contracts were not renewed
while thirty sec ond-year probationers were refused new contracts.
These are small numbers, but sufficient to indicate that probationary
teachers are being screened.

Among the fifty-four schools represented, twenty-eight tenure
teachers were either dismissed or encouraged to leave their positions
and did so. This shows that considerable effort is made to prune the
profession of undesirables even among teachers who have tenure
status. In reverse, it seems to indicate once more, that few una-
desirables stay in teaching.

Fifty-four superintendents out of sixty queried responded to
Questionnaire III. Twenty-six per cent of these thought that late
resignations by teachers was a problem. Four hundred seventy-
seven teachers on staffs totalling about 12, 000 teachers gave written
notices of intent to resign prior to the sixty-day deadline prior to
September 1 in 1965. This is less than five per cent. While it does
give some superintendents problems replacing them in a scarce mar-
ket, it certainly is not an unreasonable figure. Pregnancies, oppor-
tunities for better positions and for continuing education, husbands
changing locations and numerous other possibilities would make it
seem strange if resignations were not in evidence in our socially and

physically mobile culture.

109

Summary of the Appeals to the Tenure Commission During the School

 

Year 1964-65

 

Five cases were appealed up to September, 1965. Three cases
had not yet been heard as of this writing. The Ann Lash case indicated
one minor defect in the law: A teacher who has been out of teaching
for several years may not serve a second probation in the same system.
The solution is to take a chance on such a teacher, or let the teacher
go to another system where a one-year probation can be required.

The second case, of Bobby Jack Young, reiterates the point that
a probationary teacher goes under tenure provisions when he is not
properly notified, sixty days prior to the close of school, that he will

not be rehired.

Conclusions Regardingfithe Hypotheses

 

The original hypothesis restated is: Mandatory tenure is desired
by teachers, administrators and school board members because of a
desire to improve teaching and to give greater security to teachers.
Whether tenure improved teaching drew a mixed response depending
upon which minor hypothesis is examined. Most respondents believed
that supervision of teachers had not changed although a large group
thought supervision had improved. Eliminating poor teachers was
thought to be more difficult by most respondents. Inadequate teachers,
however, were found to be rare. The typical respondent knew either

none or not more than one.

110

It was clear that all groups of respondents believed that teachers
were more secure with tenure protection. Arbitrary dismissals had
been numerous enough to be a source of anxiety for many. It was also
clear that superintendents of schools, where tenure had been experi-
enced previous to the mandatory tenure act, believed that tenure had
not affected teacher performance adversely.

It seems clear that tenure gives greater security. But it is
doubtful that tenure will improve teaching. No doubt, in some specific
instances, greater security itself will improve performance. But the
respondents in this study believed that supervision had not improved
and that poor teachers would be more difficult to eliminate.

School size may have an effect on the attitude of educators toward
tenure. The results of this research show some variations. But the
mobility of teachers and board members was not controlled. The re-

sults are inconclusive .

Recommendations - M

1. Boards of education would do well, when possible, to retain
a lawyer with continuing knowledge and skill in tenure matters
and with school law.

2. Administrators must continue to understand that the profession
cannot rid itself of an incompetent without continued tact and
courage in hiring and dismissal via good administrative pro-
cedures. Boards of education have a right to expect this from

their administrators and so do teachers.

l l 1
3. The probationary period should be lengthened to at least three
years. An extra probationary year should be added when re-
quested in writing to the tenure commission and the teacher
notified.
4. School boards and teachers should continue to realize that both
groups have the education of children as their common concern.

Incompetent teachers are not wanted by either group nor by
school administrators.

5. An adequate supply of teachers is needed to make tenure work

best. All groups interested in the welfare of children must
continue to work to improve the image and prestige of the
teaching profession. The continued upgrading of working en-
vironments and salaries to attract men to teaching is vital.

The screening of teachers is not too practical when the supply

is a drizzle.

Recommendations - Minor

1. Attorneys should be retained by any party seriously involved
with a tenure problem.

2. Teacher education courses should include the study of tenure
at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

3. Minor adjustments in the law should be made after another year
of experience. Some areas of concern will vanish through in-

creased understanding of the law and improved practices in the

pr ofe s 3 ion.

112

4. If tenure cases should greatly increase, an executive sec-
retary with advisory powers should be provided for the
tenure commission. He could be given the status of a ref-
eree to get cases settled before they reach the Tenure Com-
mission--at the school board level or sooner. He could
advise on procedural matters and reduce cases coming be-
fore the Tenure Commission. The Commission should hear
cases involving competency rather than procedural problems.

5. Probationary teachers should not be given the right to appeal
to the Tenure Commission. The law should be amended to
require a local board to give a public or private hearing at
the probationer's request. Local tenure teachers should pre-
sent their recommendation at or prior to this hearing.

6. After three or five years, this dissertation or parts of it
could be redone to see if tenure is still working well.

7. The tenure law should apply to all community college teachers
or none. Presently, it applies only to those colleges con-
nected to a public school system.

Tenure will continue to have effects on the educational scene in
Michigan. It will, no doubt, strengthen teachers in their efforts to
maintain a reasonable economic status in any economy of competing
Power groups. It may help an ambivalent society, which regards

Youth as its most precious asset, to realize that primitive times have

113
passed and that educating children is not a menial task to be done by
women without pay. Better organized, secure teachers will be. able
to strengthen the position of boards of education and the legislature
in their efforts to provide good standards of education for children in

a society beset with other problems and attractions.

CHAPTER VI

TENURE AND COMPULSORY BARGAINING IN MICHIGAN

Justification for Adding this Chapter

 

This study of tenure in Michigan was nearly finished in the summer
of 1965. Michigan was just getting adjusted to this major event when
compulsory bargaining was added to teacher's rights. The impact of
these two changes (tenure and bargaining rights) was so sudden and so
powerful that it seemed necessary to consider them together. In this
chapter an analysis of the present compulsory bargaining position in

Michigan and the relationship of bargaining to tenure will be presented.

Introduction

 

A number of events, ideas and forces conspired to create an
amazing change in Michigan education in 1964 and 1965. The Tenure
Law, passed by the legislature in the spring of 1964, went into effect
with the opening of school that fall. Then, in the spring session of
1965, the legislature passed a compulsory bargaining law with man-
datory and state-wide effect.

Teachers had long been talking about gaining tenure as pointed
out in Chapter 1. Professional Negotiations was adopted as an official
policy and goal of the National Education Association during the national

114

115

convention in Denver in 1962. 1 Since education is a state function,
both of these objectives of teachers had to be achieved either through
state or local action.

Michigan accepted, by referendum to the people, a revised con-
stitution on April 1, 1963.' This constitution caused redistricting
of both the Senate and House of Representatives. The suburban
areas gained more representation while the rural and northern
areas of the state lost. This redistricting coupled with the Johnson
landslide of 1964 gave the Democrats large majorities in both houses”
of the Michigan Legislature. It is generally thought that the city
Democrats are more labor-oriented than rural Republicans in
Michigan. In addition, Michigan's Republican party was generating
a more moderate, liberal image under the leadership of Governor
George Romney.

Swiftly the major forces mentioned above responded to make
the Michigan. Education Association and the American'Federation of
Teacher lobbies more effective. Thus, by the fall of051965, teachers,
with new tenure protection, found themselves legally authorized to

bargain with their school boards. 2 Public Act 379 and Public Act

 

1Many teachers and observers are not able to distinguish the
difference between professional negotiations and compulsory bar-
gaining. The main difference is that with negotiations, appeals from
impasse are to some source other than the State Labor *Mediation
Board. Sanctions rather than strikes are the method of gaining goals
in difficult situations.

2It should be noted that President Kennedy's 1962 Executive Order
10998 gave federal employees the right to bargain. It seemed that the
Democratic philosophy embodied in the Wagner Act in 1936 was now to
be applied to the rapidly expanding public sector of the economy.

1 16
282 compelled school boards to bargain with teachers requesting
it, and authorized the State Labor Mediation Board to mediate
disputes when requested.

These laws were not exactly what the Michigan Education
Association had been lobbying for. All through 1963, 1964 and
1965 the MEA had stoutly maintained that Professional Nego-
tiations, not compulsory bargaining, was the only way for teachers
to work with school boards. Following the lead of the National
Education Association, a continued distinction was made between
Professional Negotiations and collective bargaining. Articles in

the Michigan Education Journal, by several of their key personnel,

 

made very clear that the MEA felt that Compulsory Bargaining
was wrong for the education profession. 3 Indeed, the Adam's
article indicated that fourteen schools had already adopted profes-
sional negotiation procedures on the local level. Numbers of
schools throughout the state were moving in the direction of local
agreements to negotiate with their school boards. It appeared
that the idea of "professional negotiations" was progressing.

By fall, 1965, however, it was clear that in Michigan the
distinction between Professional Negotiations and Compulsory
Bargaining would no longer be an issue. E. Dale Kennedy, Ex-

ecutive Secretary of the Michigan Education Association, speaking

 

5See, for example, Donald Giese and Gerald Simmons, "PN
Gained by Fourteen Schools, " MichiganEducation Journal,
December 1, 1964, pp. 6, 7 and 41; and Richard Adams, "A
Must: PN Legislation for Michigan, ”Michigan Education Journal
February 1, 1965, pp. 18-19.

 

 

1 17

for the Michigan teachers said, "These laws put into our hands
what we have been asking for. The climate is right to do what we
are going to do. We must move now, everywhere. We can't
wait for the timid, the weak of heart, the uninformed or the
afraid. "4

The legislature had amended Public Act. No. 282 (the State
Labor Mediation Act) through two companion House Bills 2953
and 2954. The MEA leadership was satisfied with a law that re-
quired local boards to recognize local bargaining units and that
gave local units the right to negotiate. But negotiate was now a
phrase interchangeable with compulsory bargaining. LABOR LAWS
HAD BEEN AMENDED TO INCLUDE TEACHERS. The legis-
lature had compelled the Michigan Education Association to accept

this alternative to the passing of a new Professional Negotiations

Act for teachers.

 

4No Author, "Preparing for Negotiations" Michigan Education
Journal, October 1, 1965, p. 2.

 

515:. Dale Kennedy "The Role of School Executives", Michigan
Education Journal, January 1, 1966, p. 18. (The House Labor
Committee would not report out House Bill 2450, the MEA Pro-
fessional Negotiations Bill.)

 

118
An Analysis of the Michigan Compulsory Bargaining Laws--Pub1ic

Acts 282 and 3796

 

House Bill 2954 became Public Act 282, known as the Michigan
Labor Mediation Act of 1965. This changed the Michiganlabor
Mediation Act of 1939 (P. A. 176). The change made the services
of the Michigan Labor Mediation Board available to ublic employees.
Any party to an impasse can call on this board to mediate the prob-
lem.

House Bill 2953 became Public Act 379. It changed Public Act
336 of 1947 known as the Hutchinson Act. Public Act 379 is now
known as the Public Employment Relations Act of 1965. The main
provisions of this revision to the Hutchinson Act are:

l. The automatic penalties for participating in strikes

were deleted. The right to discharge an employee

for doing so remained.

2. Public Employees could now organize for collective
bargaining.

3. Public Employers must bargain, in good faith, with
employees if requested.

4. The right of exclusive representation by the major-
ity of employees is provided for as well as the ad-
justment of grievances by individuals. Wages as
well as conditions of employment are bargainable.

 

6Thi s overview is based primarily upon the Labor Relations
Handbook 3321 School Boards 1131 Smrintendents published
jointly by the Michigan Association of School Boards and the
Michigan Association of School Administrators, February 1,
1966. No author is given, but it is known to be written by an
attorney in this field. Copies may be secured from Julius Barbour,
Michigan Association of School Boards, 1019 Trowbridge Road,

East Lansing, Michigan 48823.

 

119
5. The State Labor Mediation Board will determine, through
an election, if necessary, who shall represent employees.
Recognition by stipulation is provided for.

6. Written agreements between the parties are authorized.

7. Hearings for teachers are provided for in unfair labor
practices. 7

Teachers now had the right to recognition by school boards and
the right to bargain. Negotiation procedures that had been informal
and vague were now formalized by law into collective bargaining.

Supervisors and executives are excluded from the bargaining
unit of employees by this law in Michigan. It seems accepted
generally that principals would be excluded. In at least one case,
however, principals were included. 8 Supervisor is not defined in
the State Act and a legal determination will probably have to clarify

this matter.

The Relationship of Compulsory Bargaining to Tenure

 

 

Tenure preceded bargaining in Michigan by about one year.
The implementation of tenure was causing concern in many places
during the late summer of 1964. Compulsory bargaining, while
passed in the spring of 1965, did not have great consequence until
spring and summer of 1966. It was not until the fall of 1965 that 5,
teachers and school boards understood the law sufficiently to begin
negotiations. By spring, 1966, a few schools were having serious

7mm” pp. 4, S'and 6.

8Bedford Schools, Temperance, Michigan

120
bargaining problems because some teacher negotiating units were
determined to have master contracts prior to summer vacation.
By late August, 1966, about a dozen schools were in serious dif-
ficulty because no master contracts had been concluded between
the bargainers. 9

One of the primary problems regarding tenure and compulsory
bargaining is the relationship of individual teacher's contracts and
the master contract. There are complicating relationships be-
tween all four--tenure, individual contracts, compulsory bargain-
ing, and master contracts.

Individual written contracts between teachers and school boards
are required by Michigan School Law. They are generally issued on
a yearly basis during the spring of each year. Tenure rights rely,
to some extent, on these individual contracts. For instance, a
probationer must be notified 60 days prior to the close of school if
his contract is not to be renewed. A board which does not intend
to is sue an individual contract to a probationer must observe this
command. Otherwise the probationer will have to be is sued a
contract. Notice and a statement of reasons are required when
discharging a tenure teacher. This notice tells the teacher that his
individual contract is terminated. Individual contracts must be in

harmony with Tenure Act provisions.

 

TA master contract is an agreement outlining conditions of
employment. It is the result of bargaining between the teacher's
recognized unit and representatives of the board. .It is a written
document.

121

Tenure, then, is related to individual contracts, but is not
mentioned in the laws that created compulsory bargaining. Tenure
rights are given by a separate statute. These rights are a condition
of work and not a contract. It is presumed that a negotiated master
contract could not change the essential nature of tenure law. Neither
additional rights nor lesser obligations could be given by a neg-
otiated master contract. Article X (See Appendix F) of the Tenure
Act seems to make the above logic clear. 10 Courts, boards or
commissions will, no doubt, have to clarify many issues.

However, the most fundamental conflict between compulsory
bargaining and tenure relates to the time limit placed on teacher
resignations. Tenure law, in effect, allows a teacher to resign
at any time 60 days prior to September 1. Same people thought that,
in the absence of a master contract, no individual obligation ex-
isted. Individual contracts are often not signed until the master
contract has been agreed upon. E. Dale Kennedy, of the Michigan
Education Association, issued a clarifying memo on January 24,
1966. It was suggested that a clause be added to all individual con-
tracts making clear that individual contracts were subordinate to the
provisions of any master contract to be negotiated. But the question

of whether a teacher could resign during the 60 days prior to

 

10In our rapidly changing world, few absolutes seem to hold true.
The state tenure commission, the attorney general, the legislature,
the courts, the state labor mediation board and all attorneys are human
beings. Their decisions are based on interpretation of the laws; these
organizations are subject to changing personnel and to changes of opinions.

122
September 1 has not been clarified.

In addition, the MEA position regarding withholding of services
when there is no master contract was stated: ”MEA legal position
is that going to work without an individual contract violates the
school code and that the Tenure Act is an opportunity, not a contract. "11

This statement confuses the definition of individual contract and
master contract. Apparently the MEA holds that without a master
contract there can be no individual contract. But neither the school
code nor Public Act 379 demands that teachers have a negotiated
master contract prior to beginning work during a school year. (A
case is pending as of November, 1967, in the Supreme Court, that
should answer this question. Holland Education Association versus
Holland Board of Education.)

Two additional problems make difficulties for those trying to
clarify tenure and bargaining problems. (1) Teachers withhold
individual contracts by placing them in the hands of one of their
organization officials until bargaining is complete; and (2) Tenure
teachers are not required to commit themselves regarding indi-
vidual contracts at any given legal date. In this confused state, boards
of education are at a loss to know who is under contract and who will
be on the job in September. In most cases, however, the informal

contracts between teachers and administrators have resolved this

problem. Most teachers, who know they are not returning, have

11Michigan Education Journal News, Vol. 44, No. 3, September 9.
1966, p. 1.

 

 

l—tylil.‘ i,
h .&
. . . .7
V

123
usually given notice to their employers.
The potential conflicts between tenure and compulsory bar-
gaining law may be summarized:

1. Could items in a master contract supersede tenure obliga-
tions?

2. May teachers, who have withheld individual contracts pending
a master contract, enjoy tenure law protection?

3. May teachers, who have withheld individual contracts pending
a master contract, resign in the 60 day period prior to

September 1 without violating the tenure act?

4. May teachers withhold services in the absence of a master
contract and still enjoy tenure protection?

5. Can a master contract add or reduce any rights of boards
or teachers granted by school law, tenure law or com-
pulsory bargaining law?

6. May a board release a teacher who has refused to sign a
contract after the period 60 days prior to the opening of
school?

Most of these questions might be answered by knowledgeable
attorneys. But since bargaining in the public sector has so few
precedents, most answers are qualified or tentative. 12

One additional relationship should be mentioned. Tenure, no

doubt, gave many teachers security enough to participate in com-

pulsory bargaining.

The Impact of Bargaining on Significant Groups

 

The Public— -Any given board group defined as the general public

 

 

12A case involving what is bargainable arose in North Dearborn.
The matter was subsequently withdrawn from litigation. Thus, there
are still few precedents to go by in many areas of this law.

124

rarely focuses on anything as a total group. Even in very interesting
and important local or national elections, large numbers do not
vote. The public, during 1965 and 1966 as a whole, was not very
interested in nor particularly aware of the fact that teachers could
bargain over conditions of employment. (The withholding of teach-
ing services in the fall of 1967 in many Michigan schools drastical-
ly changed this apathy.) I

Uni on and management people in the public tend, no doubt, to
reflect the views of their particular interests and understandings.

13 to the topic

Newspapers have devoted a few background articles
with a considerable number of news stories whenever teachers
threatened to or did withhold services pending a master contract.
Even in places where considerable tension existed between the
bargainers, the public had to sit on the sidelines with no effective
way to indicate its feelings. The public might generally be aware
of the poor economic position of teachers in the booming economic
times of 1965 and 1966. But it was also clear in a number of de-
feated millage votes that the prospect of higher salaries for teachers
was difficult for many taxpayers to be enthused about. 14

The public taxpayer group will be a very significant party in

relation to collective bargaining for both teachers and school boards.

 

i3One of the most complete articles appeared in the Detroit Free
Press on Sunday, August 7, 1966, Section B, page 1. The article
was written by Mary Ann Weston and Wayne King.
4Even in the many elections that passed increased local taxes for
operating schools, there were many "no" votes.

125
Teachers and boards are both aware that few significant economic
gains for education will be made without general public support

under the present tax structure.

School Boards--The National and State School Boards Associ-

 

ations have issued statements on the topic of collective bargaining.
The National School Board statement was in answer to the National
Education Association's position in Denver in 1962. The NEA had
strongly endorsed the idea of state laws legalizing professional
negotiations and the application of sanctions in extreme instances. 16
The chief concern of the National School Board Association was that
local control of schools through elected boards might be jeopardized
by collective bargaining. The legal authority of boards to control
policy might be questioned if forced to negotiate with teachers or to
use appeal procedures. 17
The Michigan School Board Association expressed a number of

Concerns through its president, Walter Averill, Jr. , and Executive

Director, Julius Barbour. How could board members possibly

 

ISln Michigan nearly all of the building costs are born by the local
8Chool district» A state aid formula equalizes operating costs between
districts. On the average, half of a school district's operating costs
aore paid by property taxes and half by state aid. This varies widely
depending on the wealth per child of a district.

16Sanctions may be defined as a method of call attention to poor
education conditions in a district, state or educational area. It de-
Pends for effectiveness on education and public support. It can be an
economic and political, as well as moral pressure.

17National School Board Association Delegate Assembly, Denver,
1963. Information Services Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 8, National School
Boards Association, Chicago.

126
find all the time needed to bargain directly with teachers? Did
boards have the background necessary to bargain? Where was the
money to come from to increase teachers' salaries if bargaining
was to be effective for teachers' economic needs? Why had teachers
or legislators turned aside the informal procedures of bargaining? 18
It is clear, however, that no massive attack on the law was to be
made. If teachers wanted to bargain, then boards and administrators
would have to learn to comply with the law. The Michigan Federation
of Teachers-Michigan Education Association rivalry, seemingly,
was compelling a rapid implementation of the law.

An important question has been repeatedly raised regarding
teacher strikes in Michigan. The law states that "strikes shall mean
the concerted failure to report for duty. " The one school board
which tried to use the section of the law which prohibit strikes found
it ifeffective. 19

The Michigan law prohibits supervisory personnel from belong-
ing to a local bargaining unit. With this in mind, WalterAverill,
president of the Michigan School Board Association, predicted an un-
usual picture in the future. At a School Board Association meeting

in Coopersville, Michigan, on October 5, 1966, he indicated that the

 

18
The Michigan School Board Journals for 1965-66 have numerous

references to the problems of negotiation.

191:1 Ecorse, the board fired all of its teachers who went on strike.
The action was rescinded later. Few boards would try this remedy
in a continuing market of scarce teachers.

127

Michigan School Board Association would be the umbrella under which
each of the school administrator groups would gather. He was say-
ing, in effect, that the Elementary Principals, the Secondary Princi-
pals, the School Business Officials, the School Superintendents and
their Assistants would leave their affiliate with the School Board
Association. This line of thinking could result in important physical
and budgeting changes for the MEA which has provided housing and
leadership to these groups. The changes seem unlikely to happen. It
would be inappropriate for lay board members to affiliate this closely
with their employees, the school administrators. Each group requires
independence of thought and action. There are strong historic and
professional ties among administrators with their State and National
Teacher Associations. Nearly all administrators were teachers be-
fore they became administrators. These ties will not be cut easily
even by a bargaining law that prohibits administrators from belonging
to the local bargaining unit. 20

It is significant that the legislative position of the Michigan
School Board Association called for adequate, improved, and long-

range teacher salary schedules as necessary to maintain "efficiency

in the excellence of instruction. "21

 

20On November 30, 1966, the Michigan Association of Secondary
School Principals voted to remain within the ”Michigan Education
Association structure for one year, as a statewide administrative
district. Out of 579 delegates voting, 493 voted to stay with MEA
as a department.

21Legislative Position, Michigan Association School Boards,
Michigan School Board Journal, February, 1966, p. 7.

128

Superintendents and Principals --Everyone seems aware that the

 

superintendent is in a pivotal position in relation to bargaining.
Is he the teacher's advocate? Does he speak for the board of educa-
tion? Is he an advisor to all parties? Does he bargain directly?
Does the size of the school district cause his role to change? Does
he speak for the profession, for the public or for the children?
Manning, an erudite school superintendent, believes that direct-
ly or indirectly the superintendent is best qualified to bargain and
abdicates his effective leadership if he does not. 22
Some college professors and superintendents believe that the
superintendent should be an advisor to both parties in negotiations
representing his own professional views and safeguarding the in-
terests of children. Dr. Washburne and Reynolds Seitz are examples

of this point of view. 23

 

22Manning, William, "Negotiations: The process in Collective
Bargaining, " American School Board Journal, August, 1966,
pp. 14 - 16. This was an address originally given in Grand Rapids
on January 19, 1966, at the Michigan Association of School Ad-
ministrators Annual January Meeting.

 

2B’Washburne, Carleton, "The Plight of the Democratic Man," from
a monthly bulletin of the Mott Foundation and the Flint, Michigan,
'Baard of Education called the Community School and is Administration,
edited by Dr. Clyde Campbell of Michigan State University, East
Lansing. Vol. IV, No. 11, July, 1966.

 

 

Seitz, Reynolds C. , "Collective Bargaining Can Help Achieve
Reasonable Agreements. " American School Board Journal, November,
1966, pp. 52 - 55.

 

 

129
A third group of "realists" represents what the unions believe
about collective bargaining. In their view, the superintendent is
the board's spokesman. He is selected and hired by the board.
When the board adopts a policy, the superintendent must make

that policy as effective as he can. Myron Lieberman, until recent-

ly at least, represented this point of view. 24

A recent bulletin states the view of the American Association
of School Administrators regarding the superintendent's role.

”He should be an independent third party in the
ne gotta/tion p‘roc es s .‘ ": He should rekriew 'e'ach proposal
in light of .its effect upon students and work closely
with both the board and the staff representatives in an
attempt to work agreement in the best interests of the
educational program. His position as leader of the
staff and executive of the board requires this. He, or
his representative, must carry this role into formal
negotiations where, in most cases, with a legal ad-
visor, he will continue to serve as interpreter in dif-
ficult communications between the board and the staff.
In school systems where such a position exists, he
may delegate the actual negotiation to an associate or
assistant superintendent or a director of personnel
acting under his supervision. In smaller school sys-
tems where the superintendent performs all of the
functions of a central staff, he will inevitany have to
assume the role himself. In no instance should the
responsibility for negotiations be delegated outside the
profession. "25

 

24Liebman, Myron, Education 5133 Profession, Englewood.
Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1956.

 

 

2E'School Administrators View Professional Negotiations,
American Association of School Administrators, 1201 Sixteenth St.,
N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036. 1966, p. 54 (This 58-page
booklet is very timely and is an excellent general summary of the
complexity of the negotiation process.)

 

 

130

Public Act 379 has severely jarred the traditional concept of
professional unity in Michigan as illustrated by the action of the
Michigan Association of School Administrators at their fall con-
vention at Mackinac Island on September 18-19, 1966. The group
voted to change their articles of incorporation so that it became
necessary to be a member of the parent Michigan Education Associ-
ation in order’to belong to the superintendents' association. The
vote on a constitutional amendment, to be presented at their Jan-
uary, 1967, meeting to withdraw the superintendents' group from
the structure of the Michigan Education Association. The above
vote made it possible for those superintendents not wishing to join
the MEA in the fall of 1966 to participate in the January vote to with-
draw the Michigan Association of School Administrators from the
Michigan Education Association. 26 (In January, the superintendents
voted 392-106 to withdraw as a department of the MEA.)

In another important instance, administrators have voted to
diassociate from the state affiliate of the National Education Associ-
ation. In California, the Secondary Principals voted to divorce their
organization from the California Teacher's Association. This was

in response to the CEA revision of by-laws which gave teachers 375

 

2e’T—he Michigan Education Journal News of November 25, 1966,
stated that the Michigan Association of Junior Community Colleges
voted by a roll call of institutions to withdraw as a department of
MEA. The vote was 24 - 3.

 

131
seats in their governing body reserving the remaining 25 for ad-
ministrators. California has a negotiations law. 27

A major problem for administrators is the matter of who
represents the views of principals. Teachers cannot speak for
them adequately. Further, they seem barred from membership
in the teachers' bargaining unit. The superintendent, with pres-
sures from many places, is often inadequate as their spokesman.

In larger schools, it appears that principals and other closely
allied in supervisory capacities may form their own bargaining units
to press their own problems. In smaller districts, they might well
be encouraged to sit in regularly on board meetings as advisors
to the superintendent and thus get their views heard. In many cases,
the superintendent will have to do a better job of representing their
interests. It is certain that the views of principals regarding
all aspects of school operations are imperative if good policies
and sound educational programs are to be developed.

A series of brief informal interviews with Michigan superin-
tendents at Mackinac Island in the fall convention of 1966 elicited

the following reactions to the question "Would you do away with

negotiations ? "

 

Z7Educational Summary, September 15, 1966, p. 6. A news-
letter published by Craft Educational Services, 100 Garfield Ave. .
New London, Connecticut.

 

132
”No, but I am hesitant to join the MEA after 37
consecutive years of membership because of the in-

herent conflict regarding bargaining. "

”No, we can't have a company union. I see no
need for enmity, however. "

"Yes. The informal method was more professional
and we had a better public image. "

"No. We stand to gain more in the long run for
education by bargaining with teachers. "

”No. We have better communication than ever be-
fore because it is now necessary that we communicate. "

These statements represent some of the thoughts that superin-
tendents have about compulsory bargaining. From a survey of ‘
literature and from many conversations, it appears that superin-
tendents are not too happy about face to face bargaining. But one
view is that without some new method, such as compulsory bargain-
ing, to bring about higher wages, the teacher shortage will continue
because of inadequate salaries and prestige to attract more men
into teaching.

The legislature-Events are moving so fast that the views of the
Michigan Legislature are an unknown quantity. A Democratic major-
ity was changed in the November, 1966, election to an evenly divided
house (55 Republicans and 55 Democrats) and the Senate was also
back under Rephblican control by two votes.

The 1966 legislature that passed P. A. 379 was generally satis-
fied with its work as far as the majority party was concerned. No

major changes were contemplated in this area. The prevailing

133
attitude seemed to be that some problems were bound to occur since
bargaining in the public sector was new. The intention clearly was
to let the law alone for a year to see if it would work.

No one can guess how the 1967 legislature will proceed. Some
members will be serving for the first time with a myriad of prob-
lems to digest. Governor Romney, as the party leader, has not
indicated that he will try to overturn the law or drastically after it. 28

Since it is also obvious that teachers want the law, little significant

change is to be expected.

Teachers--Very few teacher groups chose not to negotiate.
In only one election out of over 400 conducted by the State Labor
Mediation Board did employees vote not to organize. Nearly all
teachers and school districts within the state are now involved in
formal bargaining processes. (Rural schools of eight grades or
less are not considered here because one or a few teachers rarely
organize.) By October, 1966, there were over 1, 000 bargaining
units in the public sector in Michigan. 29

A major ambivalence among some teachers existed because

of the labor law that was applied to public employees. The law

prohibits management from belonging to the bargaining unit. Under

 

28T he governor appointed a study committee headed by a Univer-
sity of Michigan law professor, Russell Smith, to make recommenda-
tions regarding the Compulsory Bargaining laws of Michigan.

29These laws include municipal employees too. The statistics
in the above paragraph were from notes made of a speech by Chairman
Robert Howlett of the State Labor Mediation Board given at Michigan
State University September 30, 1966.

134
Professional Negotiations procedures, the administrators would have
been part of the bargaining unit. Some educators were unhappy about
the division of the profession by the wording of the law. Their orig-
inal expectation of a professional negotiations act had not passed.
Teachers didn't want to bargain with principals or superintendents
and visa versa. The reality of the new situation was slowly coming
into focus.

Again there was no evidence that the MEA leadership was
contemplating any major revisions in the law. Teachers were having
problems negotiating and learning to negotiate. That was to be ex-
pected. But local agreements were being made at a fast rate.

Salary gains were more than double the usual rate. 30

The Department of Education- -A solidly Democratic State

 

Board of Education stated in 1965 that teachers should have the right
to strike. It is probable that this group was influential in getting

legislative approval for extending the labor laws to include teachers.

 

30Typically, salary gains for teachers raised the base of the
single salary schedules as much as $200 each year during the past
ten years. The 1965-66 salary bases were changed by raising
them five or six hundred dollars at the base arid sometimes by add-
ing an insurance benefit to that. No one is quite sure the exact role
a booming, inflating economy had on this 1965-66 bargaining year.
It certainly had a major effect.

It is also worth noting that under the salary schedules ob-
tained during the past few years, each step of some yearly schedules
calls for a slightly higher increase than the preceeding year. A
$500 raise at the bottom of a lZ-step schedule could mean $750 at
the top.

135

Thomas J. Brenman, former Chairman in 1966, of the State
Board of Education is a lawyer. He was a founder and a member
of the executive committee of Local 4000, Communications Workers
of America. His basic attitude on compulsory bargaining may re-
flect to a degree the State Board of Education. The following is a
paraphrase of a talk he gave at a Statewide School Employee-Manage-
ment Information conference held at Michigan State University on
September 30, 1966. .

Negotiations will begin again soon. Let us create
conditions of psychological friendliness for bargaining
to be fruitful. Personalities should not be issues.

Education has a key role in our culture and the
Department of Education has an interest in the total
affair including negotiations.

The Michigan negotiations act may be the vehicle
to make Michigan a showcase for the solution of education-
al problems.

We are not going to solve the problems of education
when truck drivers earn more than teachers. This will
require fiscal reform. Teachers should be consulted re-
garding school problems. Boards must not give up all
prerogatives, but must find areas where teachers can help.

Boards, who bargain, don't have to check with head-
quarters whether an agreement is all right as in private
industry (making it easier). In industry, the pioneers
fought over basic inequities. More help for bargaining is
available today. The inequities are more subtle. Teachers
want recognition of their place in the system, not just
economic gain.

The strike is not as acceptable today and is considered
unnecessary. Public strikes are not irresponsible. But
relations to the public are critical. Teachers should have
the right to strike.

136

Mr. Brennan's statements were moderate and honest. He re-
vealed a good grasp of the total reality of the educational problems
in regard to economics, psychology and power.

The State Board is doing a great deal to provide education in
this area of bargaining. Numerous meetings and workshops have
been held. Michigan State University's School of Labor and
Industrial Relations has been contracted by the State Department
of Education to provide courses and workshops to fulfill any reason-
able requests by teachers, administrators and school boards.

Dr. Ira Polley, the new State Superintendent in Michigan,
addressed the same conference just footnoted. His remarks are
paraphrased below:

Teachers must first be citizens in order to teach.

Militancy by teachers is a hopeful sign. (He implies that

the forceful articulation of the needs of teachers is good

citizenship. )

The Department of Education has an informational

role. We are not arbitrators or negotiators. The State

Board, in a unanimous view, feels that teachers should

have the right to organize and bargain.

The State Board on June 5, 1966, urged all parties

in negotiations to use restraint and to keep schools open for

children. The State Labor Mediation Board and fact-find-

ing commissions are to be used when necessary. Where

facts are available, common sense should prevail.

The State Board of Education had a Republican member after

i
) ‘ ‘ |

the November, 1966, elections. But its course is set. Teachers

will continue to bargain.

_137

The Michigan State Labor Mediation Board--The -Michigan State

 

Labor Mediation Board has two functions prescribed by law. It
regulates labor laws and it mediates disputes. Regulation may be
a matter of enforcing the law while mediation is voluntary for those
asking it.

Chairman Robert Howlett of the State Labor Mediation Board
spoke on numerous occasions throughout the state during the critical
implementation of the Michigan Public Employee Relation Act of
1965. Below are paraphrased some of his major points in speeches
at conferences at Mackinac Island on September 20, 1966, and at
Michigan State University on September 30, 1966.

People have always wanted to share in decisions
affecting their working lives. Eleven states have teacher
bargaining laws; ten other states allow public employee
bargaining.

There are more than 1, 000 public bargaining units
in Michigan. We had 119 unfair labor charges and only

15 strikes during this curcial year of implementation.

The main troubles this year were lack of experience,
paternalistic attitudes of boards and the feeling among a
few that the best way to get action is to strike.

Negotiation is a necessary dialogue. But the idea is
to improve communication not to see who can win.

Only one of the 15 strikes did not include teachers.
The City of Lansing employees struck in the only case
outside of education. The law seems clear that strikes
are illegal. Elected judges are reluctant to get involved.
In a Genesee County case, the judge said the penalties are
in the law, therefore, the court would not issue an in-
junction to stop a strike.

We have changed our minds on who should bargain
for the board. Since teachers help elect board members,

138

they tend sometimes to believe that the superintendent is
their adversary and the school board is their ally. We

now believe that the board should be represented at bargain-
ing sessions.

In the event that teachers refuse to work because of
a lack of a master contract, our curbstone opinion is that
this is a strike. This remains for the courts or the legis-
lature to clarify.

It would be wise to place voluntary arbitration in the
master contract. Voluntary because boards cannot give up
their legal responsibilities. Arbitration is much less ex-
pensive than going to court.

The SLMB will use lists of arbitrators to act when
fact finding is requested. Our own personnel of about 15
mediators will then be free to mediate and will not be held
prejudiced in later decisions.

Some Consequences of Compulsory Bargaininjg

 

When Public Act 379 became a law in Michigan, several con-
sequences followed. Administrators were no longer welcome to
attend chapter meetings of the local teachers' association. A
great deal of local chapter time now was devoted to organizing
and developing a bargaining position. Master contracts covering
many areas of employment conditions were being negotiated.
Insurance benefits, salary schedules, classroom loads, school
calendars, job specifications and extra-curricular assignments
were among those areas being negotiated. A potential communi-
cation problem may well develop between administrators and their
teachers. What matters raised at faculty meetings might be a
cause for a charge of unfair labor practices? This presently is

unknown. Teacher loads, budget problems, millage elections and

139
faculty assignments might be examples.

A second important fact is emerging. Teacher political power
is coming into play more strongly than ever. The day of the political-
ly indifferent teacher is passing. Teachers now are directly con-
fronted with the fact that about half of their salaries (in Michigan) are
determined by legislative appropriation. The great burden of lobby-
ing has been partially removed from the superintendents and state
educational leaders who had been doing it almost alone (often in-
effectively). A politically informed and united teacher's group will
be increasingly influencing the election of state legislators.

A third important factor that will emerge is the public relations
problem of the teacher groups. Do children come first? Should
teachers be paid more than laborers? Should teachers be paid more I
for a short work year? What standards of performance should the
public expect of a teacher? What is the definition of a teacher's
job? Local millage for operation will not be voted by a community
thatdoes not respect its teachers. Teachers may now be more direct-
ly confronted with their public image.

The role of the superintendent is changing. He no longer feels
the responsibility that he formerly did to guide all the variables in
the education milieu. Responsibility for both finance and teacher
images are now better distributed among the entire staff.

The superintendent now knows clearly what he had only vaguely

recognized before. He is responsible to the board of education and

140

the community for educational leadership. The leadership for the
professionalization of teaching is now more directly upon teachers.
This will cause conflicts. Should hoards of education relinquish
some of their responsibility for overall direction and control of
community education? Will the bargaining process blunt the super-
intendent's leadership with the staff?

There could be real difficulties in communication resulting
from the fact that everything seemingly is subject to bargaining.
In addition administrators are more liable to be accused of unfair
labor practices. An honest change in a teacher negotiator's assign-
ment could cause a problem. A fifth grade teacher, who is bargain-
ing, and happened to be assigned a different classroom or grade
level the next year, might accuse the administration of harassment.

In the process of bargaining, the small school superintendent
will have a difficult dual role. This role may be more difficult than
his previous responsibilities. He has always tried to reconcile con-
flicts within the staff, board and community. In his role as bargain-
er for the board, he will be in a sensitive position directly related
to the educational program. He may continue to struggle for better
education for children through intense and honest communication with
all segments of the staff and community. Even in large school sys-
tems, he will be responsible for this role though he may delegate

direct bargaining to one or more assistants.

141
Unionism

There is a problem of whether teachers will use labor union
tactics to gain their ends. Threats, strikes and picketing are such
examples. These tactics could lower their professional image.

Will teachers allow union stewards to represent their views and
interests?

It may be that after some initial experiences, teachers will
continue to do those things which raise their professional image as
well as their pay levels. This will not preclude some intense bargain-
ing situations and some unprofessional acts by some of the bargain-
ing forces. There will always be communication problems. It
seems reasonable to believe that teachers desire a professional image.

No one is sure of what bargaining will do for teachers. Those
who believe in a philosophy of unionism will probably respect teachers
more. Those who believe only in the rights of management will be
upset. But the responsibility of making teaching a worthy occupation
definitely rests with those who have the most direct interest--the
teachers. These teachers will hopefully learn that a strong well-
informed administration will need to retain management control for
the board and community if student as well as teacher interests are
to be served best.

If decisions as to what, when,and how to teach are more direct-
ly influenced by teacher specialists, education for children could

be enhanced and a giant step made toward making education a true

142
profession. This would be especially true if research efforts con-
tinue to be strengthened and the results brought to bear in the learn-

ing environment.

Professional Practices Acts

 

Another issue should be mentioned. The teachers of the nation
are improving their economic and security positions through legalized
bargaining and tenure laws. Some philosophers of teacher organiza-
tion:.movements believe that professional status will come, however,
only when teachers take the third step. In their view, legislatures
should be persuaded to pass laws which put the teaching profession
in charge of entry and continuance in the profession. These are
generally known as Professional Practices Acts. Twenty professions
in Michigan already have this right. 31

Should this come to pass, the use of substandard or temporary
teaching certificates would come into question. Classrooms with-
out a properly licensed teacher would possibly be closed. In this
manner, teachers could force a public, largely indifferent to their
salary needs, to pay enough to attract people into teaching. It seems
fair to say that teachers should arrange a more complete working
year if they are to reach pay levels they desire. The public will be

very reluctant and critical of a system that pays large numbers of

teachers salaries above the lot of working men and then gives them

 

GiLeasure, Melvin, "Threshold of Teacher Opportunity" Michigan
Education Journal, January, 1966, 1. 42.

143
vacations, of nearly two weeks at Christmas, a week in spring and

nearly three months in the summer.

Summary

The indications on both a national and state level are clear.
Negotiations or compulsory bargaining is here to stay. Led by an
executive order of President Kennedy and following a National Educa-
tion Association resolution in Denver in 1962, teachers and other
public employees are now gaining the right that private employees
fought for and gained in the United States during the 1930's.

In a democracy, operating with the context of competing power
groups, the long-range results from negotiations will be good. The
public sector is increasingly recognized as a productive part 'of the
general economy. Education is an investment in the most important
resources that a productive nation has--the minds of its people. When
labor could not bargain, employers were often unwilling to share re-
sulting abundance with their workers. An abundant economy, with the
wealth in the hands of a few, soon is unable to operate. With no pur-
chasing power, production must stop.

But the bargaining rights in the private sector were not applied
to public employees. The economy has long been distorted by this
problem. Blue collar workers are entitled to a good standard of liv-
ing. But the often better educated white collar workers, with teachers

as an outstanding example, earned less than truck drivers and produce

144
tion workers. The fact that they worked a shorter year was empha-
sized by some to excuse the smaller salaries. It was convenient to
forget that many invested four or five years of their lives in college
to become teachers. These were often years with poor earnings and
considerable expenses. The normal desire to marry and begin a fam-
ily were often sacrificed. Because of low pay, education was dominated
by women for whom the salaries were considered relatively good in our
double standard culture.

In neither the private nor the public sector of the economy can
employers give what they do not have. Those who choose to bargain
with their employers have eventually to face this fact. It becomes
employees to help management be more efficient and to do those
things which increase the profits or money supply to insure adequate
pay levels.

In Michigan, a constant split between the executive branch of the
government and the legislature has delayed tax reform for about
twenty years. The property tax, based on an agrarian society, has
long been discriminatory. The legislature was 'reapportioned under
the new Michigan Constitution that became effective in January, 1964.
In November, 1966, the State Senate went Repbulican with a Republic
Governor already in office. The House was split 55 Democrats and
55 Republicans. But tax reform is in the air and many believe a state
income tax will be passed this year (1967). This reform is necessary

if the public sector of the economy is to get a fair share in the general

145
prosperity of the state and nation. (The income tax passed and took
effect October 1, 1967.)

If the roles that demand more education in our culture (politicians,
police work and teaching are examples) can attract the quality of
people required, the level of our total culture will be raised. In addition,
there will be more room in less intellectually demanding roles in indust-
try for some of the presently unemployed. Our distorted economy will
come back into a better balance.

It may be expected that bargaining will be difficult in the year
ahead. Teachers made real gains during the past year and will be
expecting to keep up the progress. But many school boards extended
their budgets to deficit levels. Unless the state can provide greater ,
state aid or local millages can be increased, boards will have nothing
to increase salaries with. Communication on issues and deeem’pha'sis

on personalities will be in order.

Recommendations

 

It is clear that lawmakers neither intended nor saw any close
connection between tenure and bargaining. Educators generally do
not think of the two laws in the same context. The philosophy behind ” "
each has a separate strand--tenure gives security from arbitrary
dismissal; bargaining gives the right to share in the vital decisions
affecting teacher working conditions. There are two major points

that should be cleared up:

146

The tenure law should be amended to provide for the
return of individual contracts at a specified date
each spring (like April 15). Teachers could still
resign by letter up to 60 days prior to September 1.
It could also be stated in the amendment that any
individual contracts would not restrict benefits
negotiated in master contracts if not contrary to law.

In a court case involving Coleman, Michigan teachers,
the Circuit Court held that an April 15 date for' return
of individual contracts, negotiated as a clause in the
master agreement was binding. (June 1967)

Boards of education and administrators would then be
placed in a more realistic recruiting position. At
present the withholding of individual contracts prior
to settling on a master contract seems to negate the
tenure law. Tenure law says that teachers may not
resign without mutual consent after 60 days prior to
September 1. But if teachers have not turned in in-
dividual contracts, are they under any obligation of
tenure?

Strikes should either be legalized or appropriate
penalties made mandatory. Such a penalty might
include loss of tenure status. Teachers must not
deliberately violate laws if respect for law is to be
taught. A remedy for teachers dealing with re-
calcitrant boards is already provided--appeal to

the State Labor Mediation Board. The Holland

case presently (November, 1967) before the Supreme
Court should answer the question of whether with-
holding services in the absence of a master contract
is legal or is a strike.

147
APPENDDC A
Letter to Sixty Superintendents

to Instruct the Distribution of Questionnaire I

April, 1965

Your school is part of a selected sample of Michigan schools
for a study of teacher tenure. The quality of this study depends
upon getting a good return from the sample.

Would you fill out one of the questionnaires and return it in the
self-addressed stamped envelope? It should take only about
four minutes. Schools will be identified only by size and per-
sons will be identified only by types indicated on the question-
naire.

Please place the remaining questionnaires in the appropriate
school mailboxes as indicated. Your assistance with this re-
search project will.’. be greatly appreciated by a fellow educator.

Sincerely

Jack E. Meeder
Elementary Principal, Potterville, Michigan
Superintendent Elect, Montague, Michigan

List your name and address here
if you want an abstract of this
Study,

148
APPENDIX A

Cover Letter for Questionnaire I

Potterville, Michigan
April, 1965

You are part of a small selected sample of educators and school
board members chosen to answer this questionnaire on teacher
tenure. It is important to this study that your particular answers
be given even though no individual or school district will be
identified in this study in relation to specific answers given.

Will you take a few minutes to answer this questionnaire and re-
turn it in the self-addressed stamped envelope?

Profe s s ionally your 3

Jack E. Meeder
Elementary Principal, Potterville, Michigan
Superintendent, Elect, Montague, Michigan

P. S. The questionnaire should take no
more than four thoughtful minutes.
Won't you do it now before you
forget?

149

APPENDIX A

TENURE QUESTIONNAIRE I

April, 1965 School Size

I. Please give this questionnaire to the person who is listed
first alphabetically by last name, who falls in the group
circled below:

Elementary Probationary Teacher, Elementary Tenure Teacher,
Secondary Probationary Teacher, Secondary Tenure Teacher,
Elementary Principal, Secondary Principal, Superintendent,
School Board Member.

Please underline the answer that seems most appropriate as
you consider this year's experience with the new tenure law.

1.

2.

Supervision of teachers is: a. better b. no change
c. no opinion d. worse

Inadequate teachers are: a. more easily eliminated
b. no change e. no opinion d. more difficult to eliminate

Teachers are: a. more secure b. no change c. no
opinion d. less secure

The teaching profession is: a. upgraded b. no change
c. no opinion (1. downgraded

How many teachers are on your staff that you feel should
not be teaching ?

 

How many cases of unjustified teacher dismissals can you
recall during your entire experience in education

 

If you see defects in the present tenure law, please describe
briefly:

Write a comment or two that reflects your views on tenure:

150
APPENDIX A
Questionnaire III (to the Original Sixty Superintendents who

were sent Questionnaire I)

Potterville , Michigan School Size _.

June 28, 1965

To Sixty Selected School Superintendents:

I am in the final stages of a dissertation on Michigan Tenure. I have
surveyed the opinions of 420 members of the profession (including
you) and 60 board secretaries. The superintendents of 59 districts
which had tenure under the local option law have been questioned.
Strategic people, like the tenure commission members, have been
queried.

Your school is among the same stratified random sample of 60 which
earlier responded so well to my tenure opinion questionnaire (329 re-
sponses).

The questions below will add tremendously to this research. These
facts when added to what have already been gathered give a clear
picture relating to tenure as it now stands. This letter is without a
heading so that this information will not be identified except by size
of school.

Please let me impose upon you once again for the following answers
and return this in the enclosed stamped self-addressed envelope.

Sincerely,

Jack E. Meeder

Elementary Principal, Potterville, Michigan
Superintendent Elect, Montague, Michigan
Graduate Student, M. S. U.

(Dr. Clyde Campbell, Committee Chairman)

How many teachers were placed on third year probation?

How many first year probationers were not offered contracts?
How many second year probationers were not offered contracts?
How many tenure teachers were dismissed?

How many tenure teachers were encouraged to leave and re-
signed?

How many teachers gave written notice of the intention not to
return 60 days prior to September 1?

Was thisa problem?

7. Any suggestions or comments?

UIntht-l
sees.

O‘

 

 

151
APPENDIX B
Questionnaire II (to 59 Superintendents Whose Districts were

Tenure Districts Prior to 1964)

Potterville, Michigan
April, 1965

I am trying to find out for a doctoral dissertation on Michigan Teacher
Tenure, how experienced administrators feel about tenure. Since
your district is one of 59 districts in Michigan which had tenure

prior to this year, your comments are of particular value. If you

are new to this position, perhaps one of your staff would answer

these two questions and return this in the enclosed self-addressed
stamped envelope. Your answer will help make this research really
meaningful. I have not identified this letter with a heading so that

you will remain anonymous.

Profes sionally yours ,

Jack E. Meeder
Elementary Principal, Potterville, Michigan
Superintendent Elect, Montague, Michigan

I. Has the 1964 Michigan Teacher Tenure Act made any significant.
changes for your district (which already had tenure)? If yes,
describe briefly:

II. Has tenure had any effect on the quality of teaching performance
in your district? Yes or No (circle one). If yes, is it a higher
or lower quality of performance for the staff as a whole? (circle
one) Higher or Lower. Any further comments?

152

 

waa QN\H Memxa oases smsoaoe-aaasm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ma: - m-.0 - . mma 04w.m 50 was omssose
mamas mamasma macaw 000.:a 44a eaa.0a Hence
0mm 00a.a 0m 000.0 0a mam 0m
Hem 00:.a aaa mam.m we 00H.H 0a
000 ~m4.m :NH 00;.m as 0mm 0a
mm: 0mm.0a 00a a~0.m mm 0HH.H . an
Nam 0mm.m 0~a 0mm.m 0 0mm 0a
Ham 0ma.: ems 00a.s mm 0a0.a ma
mam 00m.» can 000.m as 0:: as
new 000.0 mas 0m0.m ma 0mm ma
Hmm.a 00m.0~ maa 00H.m 0; . 00m.a Na
00m 000.~a 40H mm~.m mm 000.N Ha
0mm 0m;.m and ana.: am 00;.a 0H
ewe 0~a.ma man 0m0.m 0m mam.a 0

mew 000.0 NHH 0Ha.~ N0 00m.a 0

00m 000.m Nod . 0:0.m mm 000 a

mop amm.0a 00a 0m0.n mm 0mm.a 0

00m 00a”: 04a 000.m mm 0mm.a m

0mm 00m m 0ma 00N.m mm 000.a a

00m 00;.ma mma 00a.s 0N 0ma m

mmm ~00.0 .. mma 00m.m ma 0m: N

004 000.aa sma 00~.4 amnil, 00H.a a

mHm£0duB Mcmflfldmdw mhmnommm. pGMEHHOhdm mum£omme nfigdoém
00.5.3. ONHm 03». 0.3% 9.8 ONHm
manommp OON hog 9.83063 OONIOOH mhmflommp OOH 55. was
3005.». smug maoonom 6336.832 maoonom grew

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amiga .Nmspm egvonom Nmmamw 53.0382» sowpwosvm guanoguuoossomv
HHH use H means—033:0 hp poker—am magnum 05. mo 3:305 was 20:33. no 23:32

0 any—mm:

153

APPENDIX D

A Summary of Recent Changes in the Teacher Tenure Act of 1937.

(Act No: 4 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1937)

Probationary teachers are now excluded from the protection of
Articles 4, 5 and 6 which apply to tenure teachers. Formerly

a probationary teacher could appeal to the Tenure Commission.
(Article II, Section 3884, 1963 amendment)

The reduction in salary that might accompany removal from an
administrative position to a teaching position was changed from
"highest salary paid to any active classroom teacher" to ”salary
in the position to which such teacher . . . as if he had been con-
tinuously employed in such newly assigned position. ” (Article
3, Section 38. 91, 1963 amendment)

This same section just mentioned adds another brief but sig-
nificant sentence at the very end of the section--"Continuing
tenure shall not apply to an annual assignment of extra duty

for extra pay. "

Article VI, Section 38. 121, Right to Appeal has a very signifi-
cant change. The original wording states that a teacher shall
have the right of appeal. In 1963 the right of appeal was changed
to "a teacher who has achieved tenure. " Probationary teachers
are presently excluded from the right to appeal to the Tenure

Commission.

154
Another 1963 amendment changed the Tenure Commission
(Article VII) from three members (representing the public,
school boards and classroom teachers, respectively) to five
members (two classroom teachers, a school board member,
a superintendent and a public member).
Article VII was further changed in 1963 by adding another sen-
tence "All records shall be kept in the office of the superinten-
dent of public instruction. ”
Article VIII was changed from a local option law to apply to all
school districts of the state (1964 amendment).
Then in 1965 an amendment was given immediate effect which
raised the per diem allowance for tenure commission members
(Article VII, Section 8) from five dollars per diem to twenty-

five dollars per diem.

Legislative Proposals in 1965

1.

 

Senate Bill No. 446 proposed to reinstate the right of appeal
by probationary teachers.

House Bill No. 2469 would allow boards of education to con-
tinue to employ a person beyond retirement age on a year-to-

year basis for the benefit of the school system.

155
APPENDIX E
Letter from the Tenure Commission Regarding the Cases from

September, 1964, to September, 1965

STATE OF MICHIGAN

' STATE TENURE COMMISSION
Harry A. Isockwood, Chairman
Capitol Building, Lansing, Michigan

September 14, l 965

Mr. Jack E. Meeder, Supt.
Montague Public Schools
4900 Stanton Blvd.
Montague, Michigan

Dear Mr.‘ Meeder:

The Tenure Commission has received only two appeals during the
period of time which you mentioned, September 1, 1964, to July 1,
1965. I am enclosing a copy of the decision in each of these cases.
The Commission heard the Anne Lash case on November 16, 1964,
and the Bobby Jack Young case on May 26, 1965.

However, the Commission has received three appeals since July 1,
1965, which actually cover the 1964-65 school year also. Two of
these appeals have been heard by the Commission, Hosain Mosavat

vs. Garden City Board of Education on August 4, 1965, and Delilah
Matthews vs. the School District of the City of Pontiac on September 2,
1965. They expect to reach a decision of these cases at their next
meeting of September 23. The third appeal is for Velma Rogers vs.
the Taylor Township School District and the hearing is set for Sept-
ember 23, 1965.

I am sorry to be so late in getting this information to you and hope it
will be of some value. If we may be of any other assistance, please
feel free to call on us.

Sincerely,

(Mrs. ) Donna Baker
Secretary

Enclosure

156
APPENDIX E
Decision and Order of the State Tenure Commission--
STATE OF MICHIGAN

STATE TENURE COMMISSION

ANNE LASH,
Appellant

-v- Docket No. 65-1

BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT
OF THE CITY OF DEARBORN

Appellee

 

DECISION AND ORDER

The case involves the status of Mrs. Anne Lash as a teacher,
some twenty-five exhibits, the testimOny of several witnesses and
the briefs of the respective attorneys which were most helpful to
the Tenure Commission. The actual hearing under the skill of the
attorneys was exhaustive of the facts and raised the issues clearly.
Because of this, some effort is made to limit the length of the opinion
by referring to the Exhibits by number or letter so that they need not
be set out in this opinion.

The facts as determined from the hearing are as follows:

1. Anne Lash became a tenure teacher in the Dearborn

system in 1946. She took a maternity leave of absence from February,

1949 to January, 1950, resumed teaching and then took successive

157

maternity leaves of absence for the school years 1955-1956,
l956-l957, and l957-l958. She resigned her position by letter
dated May 15, 1958 (Exhibit A) and her resignation was accepted
by letter dated June 6, 1958 (Exhibit B).

2. Arising from her failure to actively teach for a
period of five years, Mrs. Lash's permanent certification lapsed
under the regulations of the State Board of Education and was re-
instated in July, 1963 after she had undertaken and completed
additional courses of study as required by state authorities.

3. She taught for the Dearborn system during the school
year 1962-1963 as a substitute on a day-to-day basis.

4. Commencing in September, 1963 to January, 1964
and from January, 1964 to June, 1964 Mrs. Lash was hired as a
"term" teacher under two distinct contracts. (Exhibits 1, 2 8r 3).
Exhibit 2 was a revision of Exhibit 1 and improved her salary position
retroactively to September. Mrs. Lash took over the teaching assign-
ment of Miss Joan Mishica who received a leave of absence for school
year 1963-1964 to teach in a foreign country. Mrs. Lash understood
that she was replacing a teacher on leave.

5. The contracts above referred to in paragraph 4 each
contained the following language stating that her appointment would

end upon:

The return of the absent teacher, or

The appointment of a full time teacher, or
At the end of the semester, or

Whichever of the above events occurs first.

use?

158
The second semester contract carried an ending semester date of
June 12,. 1964 and included the following language: "Your contract
will terminate on June 12, 1964 and is not a probationary or continuing
contract under tenure. ”

6.. The so-called "term contract" has been used by appellee
for some time and is designed to take care of vacancies caused by
regular teachers leaving the system to teach in a foreign country,
serve as a member of the Peace Corps, undertake special study and
other unusual reasons for leaving the system on a temporary basis.
The number of such contracts has steadily declined.

7. On May 11, 1964, the appellee wrote Mrs. Lash ad-
vising her in substance that her services would end at the close of
the semester on June 12, 1964. There was no complaint of her
teaching ability and she was thanked for her satisfactory services.
(Exhibit 4). Mrs. Lash sought and received an interview with the
Personnel Director, Mr. Johnston, and at this meeting in the first
week of June he informed her again that her services would end and
in addition informed her that her services had not been satisfactory.
Mrs. Lash then had an interview with her principal, Mr. Tomola, and
was given a copy of her performance rating. (Exhibit 5). This eval-
uation dated April 1, 1964, indicated some areas of dissatisfaction
with Mrs. Lash's work. The evaluation report although not extensive

or of much detail may be construed as charges against the appellant.

159

8. Immediately thereafter Mrs. Lash asked the Dearborn
Federation of Teachers through its President, Mr. Dennis O'Leary,
to represent her and file a grievance on her behalf. It is clear that
she designated Mr. O'Leary as her agent in all matters and he ac-
cepted the relationship. A written grievance was filed on June 11,
1964 (Exhibit 7) and was filed under the then effective grievance pro-
cedure (Exhibit 8). On July 13, 1964 the Board of Education-i2

executive session first adopted a new grievance procedure and then

 

considered the grievance as processed by her agent, Mr. O'Leary.
There is no evidence to assume that the change in grievance pro-
cedure is found as Exhibit 9. No minutes of the Board reflect the
action taken in disposing of the grievance or that any form of hear-
ing was undertaken. (Exhibits 11 through 17).

9. The Board refused to change the termination and this
was communicated orally to Mr. O'Leary on July 15, 1964, and at
his request the refusal was reaffirmed in writing to him on August 11,
1964 (Exhibit 10). On August 28, 1964 counsel for Mrs. Lash wrote
the Board and requested a hearing, (Exhibit 20) and on September 4,
1964 the Superintendent wrote counsel and stated that the request had
been referred to their counsel for consideration (Exhibit 22) and on
September 18, 1964 counsel for the Board advised Mrs. Lash's
counsel that the additional hearing was denied (Exhibit 21). There-
after according to the records of the State Tenure Commission, an

appeal was filed on September 26, 1964 on behalf of Mrs. Lash.

160
The above facts are not all relevant to the issues of the case
but serve to set forth the history of the case and hopefully aid the
reader of this opinion in grasping the background of the controversy
in a short period of time. The legal issues are as follows: (followed

in each case by our determination of each)

A DOES THE TENURE ACT ALLOW THE USE OF THE "TERM
CONTRACT", AND IF NOT IS THE CONTRACT IN THIS
CASE A PROBATIONARY CONTRACT OR A TERM CONTRACT?

The commission finds no evidence in the act, either by precise
wording or reasonable inference from the wording that a
teacher who resigns and loses her previously acquired perma—
nent certificate also loses her tenure status. Although the
"term contract" basically states that the same is neither a
probationary or tenure contract, Section 2 of Article X clearly
states that "no teacher may waive any rights and privileges
under this act in any contract or agreement made with a con—
trolling board. " The same section clearly invalidates any
part of a contract "which may be interpreted as contrary to
the reasonable and just causes for dismissals, ---and of no
effect in relation to determination of continuance of employment
of such teacher. "

The clear prohibition contained in the Act as above stated thus
makes it impossible for the teacher to contract away any of her
rights, to devise a manner of termination of her services ex-
cept as provided in the act (charges, hearing, leave of absence,
resignation, etc. ) or to allow notice of termination to be a part
of the contract. For the above reasons, and not because of any
lack of sympathy with a Board who must fill vacancies on short
notice and often for only a semester or two, we find the wording
of the contract illegal as to those portions set forth in paragraph
5 above.

To determine whether the contract stripped of the above word-
ing is probationary or tenure,contract forces us to an issue
within the principal issue. The facts indicate that Mrs. Lash
upon leaving by resignation did have tenure. Section 2 of
Article II of the act states: "No teacher shall be required to
serve more than one probationary period in gay $13 school
district or institution. “

161

The determination of fact that Mrs. Lash had tenure upon

her resignation is controlling in determining the nature of

the contract. She could not be required to serve any addition-
al probationary period and as such the contract became a
tenure contract under the two basic alternatives contemplated
by the act. A case of similar construction was decided by the
Tenure Commission on September 13, 1955 in Dezena Williams
-v- Board of Education of Melvindale Ecorse Township School
District.

B. WAS THE APPELLANT DISCHARGED AS REQUIRED BY
ARTICLE IV OF THE ACT?

The determination of this issue requires an investigation into
whether or not the various subsections of Article IV were
followed. Assuming that the evaluation report (performance
rating) might have constituted charges concerning the charac-
ter of her professional services, it is clear that she had no
knowledge of the same until June of 1964 and this was clearly
less than "sixty days before the close of the school year" as
required by Section 2 of Article IV. If they constituted charges
and Mrs. Lash asked for a hearing through a grievance pro-
cedure, her request cannot be deemed an acceptance of the
charges served so late. Assuming only for the purpose of
argument that she waived the sixty day period, we point out

that no hearing was granted as contemplated in Section 4 of
Article IV. NO transcript of the hearing was made, no decision
in writing was made within 15 days of the hearing date, and no
minutes reflect the action of the Board. For the information of
interested administrators who are concerned with the legality
of executive meetings and the necessity of minutes, we refer to
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION #2992 under dat'e of’August 12,
1957.

In addition it may be pointed out, as a side note, that where a griev-
ance procedure is instituted by the Board and the teachers for the
purpose of resolving controversies on a local level (which should be
encouraged) extreme care should be used so as to comply with the

Tenure Act in dismissal cases. The Tenure Act stands by itself and

162
can only be modified by legislative action. In this case a genuine
dispute arose primarily dealing with legal interpretations and as a
result it perhaps was originally inevitable that the matter be heard
by the Tenure Commission.

It is the finding and order of the Tenure Commission that the
appellant, Anne Lash, be reinstated as a tenure teacher, that she
be reimbursed for all salary lost and if desired by the appellee
Board she be provided with a hearing in accordance with proper
charges and a determination thereof by statutory method as con-
templated by Article IV of the Act.

JANUARY 12, 1965

 

 

 

 

s/ Albert C. Johnson s/ Chalmer Young

Albert C. Johnson, Secretary Chalmer Young, Member
s/ Gladys Davis s/ Carl W. Morris

Gladys Davis, Member Carl W. Morris, Member

Decision Unanimous, concurring opinion by Harry A. Lockwood, Chair-
man.

CONCURRING OPINION

 

I concur with the findings of fact of the majority and with their
Order of reinstatement as detailed in their opinion. My reason for
this short concurring opinion is to pose the possible need for legis-
lative concern in the wording of the act.

Basically the act is designed to upgrade the level of the teaching

profession. Although the Act is protective to the teacher the inevit-

163
able result desired is to offer to our children the best teachers
available in all grade levels. The placing of an unqualified teacher
in a system can be of great harm to the young student who has no
choice in the selection made but who receives all of the benefits
or detriments flowing from the protected teacher.

In cases of this sort the Tenure Act and the rules and regulations
of the State Board of Education overlook the fact that when a teacher
leaves the profession for many years he or she may return to the
profession totally unfit to teach arising from physical or emotional
reasons. The mere reinstatement of a permanent certificate by
receiving credit for ten hours of college level work is not testing the
teacher on the battle line of class room service. It is the class-
room where the skill of the teacher is challenged.

Under our present system a teacher couldbe away from teach-
ing for twenty years, be hired by her previous school system and be
given all of the protection of tenure without even the necessity of
serving one year of probation.

Our children are entitled to protection under the Act. Profes-
sional incompetence need not be tolerated. Is there any reason of
sound public policy why such a teacher should not be obliged to at least
serve one year of additional probation? Section 2 of Article III recog-
nizes this principle as it applies to a different system. The distinc-
tion is artificial and will lead to inferior education.

January 12, 1965

s/ Harry A. Lockwood, Chairman
Harry A. Lockwood, Chairman

 

164
APPENDIX E

Decision and Order of the State Tenure Commission--

STATE OF MICHIGAN
STATE TENURE COMMISSION
BOBBY JACK YOUNG,
Appellant
-v- Docket No. 65-2
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE
CITY OF HAZEL PARK,

Appellee

 

DECISION AND OR DER

 

The facts of the case, from the extensive stipulation agreed

upon by the parties, are as foltows:

l. The appellant Bobby Jack Young commenced teaching as
a probationary teacher in the School District of the City of Hazel Park
in September, 1962, and was under contract as a probationary teacher
for the school years 1962-1963, 1963-1964 and 1964-1965.

2. The school district is a Third Class School District and
its Board of Education consists of seven (7) members.

3. On April 1, 1965, the Board held a special meeting at
which five (5) members were present and two members were absent.
An extensive motion as to the tenure status and probationary status of

various teachers was presented which included the following:

165
"That Bobby Jack Young not be retained. "

An amendment to the motion was made to delete Bobby Jack
Young from the list temporarily. A roll call on the amendment showed
a vote against the same by three to two. The amendment was declared
defeated by the Board President.

4. At this time one of the Board members left the meeting.
Only four (4) members remained in session.

5. Subsequently the original motion was amended without
reference to Bobby Jack Young in any way. The vote in favor of the
amendment was four to zero. The Board then voted on the motion as
amended and the amended motion received three (3) yeas and one (1)
nay. Board member Bowers stated "Since Bobby Jack Young is in-
cluded in this motion I had to vote no. I feel this item should have
been voted on separately. "

6. NO further action was taken relative to the teaching
status of Bobby Jack Young.

7. On or about April 12, 1965, Bobby Jack Young received
a letter from the Superintendent of Schools stating that his services
would be terminated at the close of the school year.

8. On or about April 26, 1965, Bobby Jack Young wrote
to the Board of Education demanding a contract for the school year
1965-1966 stating that he had attained tenure status and further
stating that the contract should be issued on or before April 29. 1965,

and indicating that upon failure to receive such contract he would appeal

166
to the Tenure Commission. On April 28, 1965,. the Superintendent
of Schools replied by letter stating that the appellant had been informed
of his termination by the letter of April 12th wherein reference was
made to his unsatisfactory performance of duty.

9. Thereafter the appellant filed his appeal.

The facts as above determined and adopted by this Commission
leave no basic area of factual dispute. The is sues for decision are
legal and will be considered from this point on. The attorneys and the
Commission have resolved the areas of conflict to the following:

A. Does C.L. '48, Sec. 340.561 as amended, M. S. A.

15. 3561 as amended, require board action by four
affirmative votes or by three affirmative votes of a
seven man board?

The statutory enactment governing the actions of a board
provides as follows:

"All business which the board of any district is authorized

to perform shall be done at a public meeting of the board

and no act shall be valid unless voted at a meeting of the

board by a majority vote of the members elect of the board

and a proper record made of the vote."

To the be st of our knowledge we are not aware of any case law
in Michigan which answers the question. Read in conjunction with
Section 3 of Article II of the Teacher Tenure Act we find that the
board must act affirmatively in determining that a probationary

teacher is not to be retained. The controlling words are "majority

vote of the members elect of the board. "

167

This wording appears as new phraseology in the amended act and
as such we determine that the intent of the Legislature was to create
a change in the previously existing statute. Such a change in the
clear language used means in our opinion that the law requires the
affirmative vote of four members of a school board consisting of
seven members elect and that appellee's contention that the affirm-
ative vote of a majority of a quorun is lega1,is erroneous. The test
of legislative intent is in this case reasonably ascertainable. People

v. Gould, 237 Mich. 156, (1926) and Lawrence Bakery Company v.

 

Unemployment Compensation Commission, 308 Mich. 198, (1944).

 

Simply construed we find that a majority vote of a seven man board
requires four votes on the motion presented. The facts as stated in
paragraph five (5) above fail to meet this clear and unequivocal test.
B. When does the probationary period of a teacher
end within a specific school district where his
previous contracts have been probationary?

In this case the appellant was under probationary contract for
the third year and obviously the last year that could be required under
Section 2 of Article II of the Teacher Tenure Act. Arising from our
determination that the action of the Controlling Board was a nullity,
as above stated, we find that the appellant as agprobationary teacher.

did not receive the required sixty day notice specified in Section 3 of

Article II. Section 3 in part states:

168
"Provided, That failure to submit a written statement
(by the controlling board) shall be considered as con-
clusive evidence that the teacher's work is satisfactory,
and; Provided further, That any probationary teacher
or teacher not on continuing contract shall be employed
for the ensuing year unless notified at least sixty days
before the close of the school year that his services will
be discontinued. "

Appellee argues that the written contract of employment being
probationary in form means that the teacher remains a probationary
teacher to the end of the school year. As such, appellee contends
that Section 4 or Article II affirmatively denies the right of appeal
to this Commission and his remedy is vested in Circuit Court. The

wording of Section 4 is:

”Article 4, 5, and 6 shall not apply to any teacher
deemed to be in a period of probation. "

We believe and find that the problem has been basically covered

by the case of Wilson v. Flint Board of Education, 361 Mich. 691,

 

(1960). The court therein stated "the result of the above is that the
teacher having satisfactorily completed the probationary period, is
entitled to the status of tenure, and may not be dismissed save for
reasonable and just cause, and then only in compliance with the pros
visions of the act. "

Our construction of the legislative intent is consistent with the
Wilson case. We find that upon the failure of the appellee to act
affirmatively, the appellant although serving under a probationary
contract, became entitled to the right of appeal when the board failed

to act at least sixty days before the end of the school year. His

169
rights to tenure status became fully vested as of that time and this
right clearly grants to him the right of appeal. He was no longer
deemed to be in a period of probation for the purpose of his appeal.
Thus Section 4 of Article 11 does not apply to this appellant.

We further believe that this determination is consistent with the
general purpose of the Tenure Act, which is to resolve conflicts be-
tween the teacher and the board without the necessity of court action,
so long as it is consistent with the general principle that the Tenure
Commission is not assuming powers reserved to the courts under the
wording of the act or its reasonable interpretation.

It is the finding and order of the Tenure Commission that the
appellant, Bobby Jack Young, has attained the status of a tenure
teacher in the appellee district and that the appellee shall forthwith
offer to the appellant a tenure contract for the school year 1965-1966.

June 23, 1965'

 

 

 

 

s/ Harry A. Lockwood, Chairman s/ Albert C. Johnson, Sec.
Harry A. Lockwood, Chairman Albert C. Johnson, Sec.
s/ Gladys Davis s/ Marian Gibson
Gladys Davis, Member Marian Gibson, Member

s/ Chalmer Young
Chalmer Young, Member

 

170
APPENDIX F

The Michigan Teacher Tenure Act

State of Michigan

Act No. 4 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1937, as
amended, through the Regular Session of 1964.

Michigan Teachers Tenure Act

An Act relative to continuing tenure of office of certificated
teachers in public educational institutions; to provide for pro-
bationary periods; to regulate discharges or demotions; to pro-
vide for resignations and leaves of absence; to create a state
tenure commission and to prescribe the powers and duties thereof;
and to prescribe penalties for violation of the provisions of this
act.

The People of the State of Michigan enact:

 

ARTICLE I.
DEFINITIONS

38. 71 Definitions; teacher.
Section 1. The term "teacher" as used in this act shall include
all certificatE-d persons employed by any board of education or con-
trolling board of any public educational institution.

 

38. 72 Same; certificated.
. "Section E. The term "certificated" shall be as defined by the
state board of education.

 

 

38. 73 Same; controlling board.
Section _3_. The term "controlling board" shall include all boards
having the care, management, or control over public school districts
and public educational institutions.

 

38. 74 Same; demote.
Section 3. The word "demote" shall mean to reduce compensation
or to transfer to a position carrying a lower salary.

 

38. 75 Shame; s'chool year.
Section _5_. The "school year" shall be defined as.- the legal school
year at the time and place where service was rendered.

 

171
ARTICLE II.
PROBATIONARY PERIOD

38. 81 Probationary Period; teachers that have served one
system the rguired period on effective date of act; authority of
controlling board. — _—

Section i. All teachers during the first two school years of
employment shall be deemed to be in a period of probation: Pro-
vided, That any teacher under contract at the time this act becomes
effective who has previously rendered two or more years of ser-
vice in the same school district shall be granted continuing tenure
immediately upon reappointment by the controlling board: Any
such controlling board by unanimous vote of its members, however,
may refuse to appoint a teacher who has rendered two or more
years service in the school district under its control. In the event
the vote of against reappointment of such teacher is not unanimous,
the tenure with full right to hearing and appeal as provided in article
four and article six of this act: Provided further, That the control-
ling board, after this act becomes effective, may place on continu-
ing tenure any teacher who has previouSly rendered two or more
years of service.

 

 

 

 

. 38. 82 Same; number o_f years a teacher may I): required_t_o
serve; extension of period.
Section E. No teacher shall be required to serve more than one
probationary period in any one school district or institution: Provided,
If hat a third year of probation may be granted by the controlling board

upon notice to the tenure commission.

 

 

 

 

38. 83 Same; notice t_o_ teacher, written statement.

Section _3_. At least sixty days before the close of each school
year the controlling board shall provide the probationary teacher with
a definite written statement as to whether or not his work has been
satisfactory: Provided, That failure to submit a written statement
shall be considered as conclusive evidence that the teacher's work
is satisfactory, and: Provided further, That any probationary teacher
or teacher not on continuing contract shall be employed for the en-
suing year unless notified at least sixty days before the close of the
school year that his services will be discontinued.

 

 

38. 84 Same; application -o__f Articles 1, 5 and _€_>.
Section :1. Articles 4, 5 and 6 shall not apply to any teacher deemed
to be in a period of probation.

 

172
ARTICLE III.
CONTINUING TENURE.

38. 91 Continuing tenure; administrative capacity, provision
_i_n_ contractiq govern.

Section l. After the satisfactory completion of the probationary
period, a teacher shall be employed continuously by the controlling
board under which the probationary period has been completed, and
shall not be dismissed or demoted except as specified in this act.

If the controlling board shall provide in a contract of employment
of any teacher employed other than as a classroom teacher, in-
cluding but not limited to a superintendent, assistant superintendent,
principal, department head or director of curriculum, made with
such teacher after the completion of the probationary period, that
such teacher shall not be deemed to be granted continuing tenure in
such capacity by virtue of such contract of employment, then such
teacher shall not be granted tenure in such capacity, but shall be
deemed to have been granted“ continuing tenure as an active class-
‘ room teacher. Failure of any controlling board to: rel-employ any
such teacher in any such capacity upon the termination of any such
contract of employment shall not be deemed to be a demotion within
the provisions of this act. The salary in the position to which such
teacher is assigned shall be the same as if he had been continuously
employed in the newly assigned position. Failure of any such con-
trolling board to so provide in any such contract of employment of
any teacher in a capacity other than a classroom teacher shall be
deemed to constitute the employment of such teacher on continuing
contract in such capacity and subject to the provisions of this act.
Continuing tenure shall not apply to an annual assignment of extra
duty for extra pay.

 

38. 92 Same; employment by another controlling board
maximum length _st_ probationary period, option _o_f board.

Section 3.1.11 the event that a teacher on continuing tenure is
employed by another controlling board, he shall not be subject to
another probationary period of more than one year, and may at the
option of the controlling board be placed immediately on continuing
tenure.

 

 

 

 

173
ARTICLE IV.
DISCHARGE, DEMOTION OR RETIREMENT

38.101 Discharge, demotion or retirement of teacher.

Section 1. Discharge or demotion of a teacher—On continuing
tenure may b—e made only for reasonable and just cause, and only
after such charges, notice, hearing, and determination thereof,
as are hereinafter provided: Provided, however, That nothing in
this act shall be construed as preventing any controlling board from
establishing a reasonable policy for retirement to apply to all teachers
who are eligible for retirement under Act No. 184 of the Public Acts
of 1937.

 

 

38.102 Same; written charges, signatures; professional services.

Section 2. All charges against a teacher shall be made in writing,
signed by the—person making the same, and filed with the secretary,
clerk or other designated officer of the controlling board: Provided,
That charges concerning the character of professional services shall
be filed at least sixty days before the close of the school year. The
controlling board, if it decides to proceed upon such charges, shall
furnish the teacher with a written statement of the charges, and shall,
at the option of the teacher provide for a hearing to take place not less
than thirty nor more than forty-five days after the filing of such charges.

 

38.103 Same; suspension, compensation.

Section 3. On the filing of charges in accordance with this section,
the controlling board may suspend the accused teacher from active
performance of duty until a decision is rendered by the controlling
board, but the teacher's salary shall continue during such suspension:
Provided, That if the decision of the controlling board is appealed and
the tenure commission reverses the decision of the controlling board
the teacher shall be entitled to all salary lost as a result of such sus-
pension.

 

 

38. 104 Same; hearing.

Section 4. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the
following pro-visions:

a. The hearing shall be public or private at the option of the
teacher affected.

b. No action shall be taken resulting in the demotion or dismiss-
al of a teacher except by a majority vote of the members of the control-
ling board.

c. Both the teacher and the person filing charges may be repre-
sented by counsel.

d. Testimony at hearings shall be on oath or affirmation.

e. The controlling board shall employ a stenographer who shall

make a full record of the proceedings of such hearing and who shall,
within ten days after the conclusion thereof, furnish the controlling

 

174

board and the teacher affectedthereby with a copy of the transcript of
such record, which shall be certified to be complete and correct.

f. Any hearing held for the dismissal or demotion of a teacher,
as provided in this act, must be concluded by a decision in writing, with-
in fifteen days after the termination of the hearing. A copy of such deci-
sion shall be furnished the teacher affected within five days after the de-
cision is rendered.

g. The controlling board shall have the power to subpoena witnesses
and documentary evidence, and shall do so on its own motion or at the
request of the teacher against whom charges have been made. If any per-
son shall refuse to appear and testify in answer to any subpoena issued by
the controlling board, such controlling board may petition the circuit
court of the county setting forth the facts which court shall there upon
issue its subpoenas commanding such person to appear before the con-
trolling board there to testify as to the matters being inquired into. Any
failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as
contempt thereof.

38.105 Necessary reductioniin personnel, ,first vacancy. .
Section 5. Any teacher on permanent tenure whose services are
terminated bgcause of a necessary reduction in personnel shall be ap-
pointed to the first vacancy in the school district for which he is cer-

tified and qualified.

 

 

ARTICLE V.
RESIGNATION AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

38. 111 Resignation and leave of absence; teacher's duties, notice.
Section 1. No teacher on continuing tenure shall discontinue his serv-
ices with any—controlling board except by mutual consent, without giving
a written notice to said controlling board at least sixty days before Sep-
tember first of the ensuing school year. Any teacher discontinuing his
services in any other manner than as provided in this section shall for-
feit his rights to continuing tenure previously acquired under this act.

 

 

38.112 Same; leave o_f absence; physical o_r mental disability.

Section 2. Any controlling board upon writt—en request of a teacher
may grant leave of absence for a period not to exceed one year, subject
to renewal at the will of the board: Provided, That without request,
leave of absence because of physical or mental disability may be granted
by any controlling board for a period not to exceed one year; Provided
further, That any teacher so placed on leave of absence shall have the
right to a hearing on such unrequested leave of absence in accordance
with the provisions for a hearing in article four, section four of this
act: Provided, That no leave of absence shall serve to terminate con-
tinuing tenure previously acquired under this act.

 

 

 

175
ARTICLE VI. .
RIGHT TO APPEAL

38. 121 Appeal; hearing notice.

Section 1. A teacher who has achieved tenure status may appeal any
decision of a—controlling board under this act within 30 days from the
date of such decision, to a state tenure commission. The state tenure
commission shall provide for a hearing to be held within 60 days from
the date of appeal. Notice and conduct of such hearing shall be the same
as provided in article 4, section 4 of this act, and in such other rules
and regulations as the tenure commission may adopt.

 

ARTICLE VII.
STATE TENURE COMMISSION

38.131 State tenure commission; creation, members, ex-officio
secretary; l_egal advisor. _-

Section 1. There is hereby created a state tenure commisision 0135
members: 2—of whom shall be classroom instructors, l a member of a
board of education of a graded or city school district, 1 a person not a
member of a board of education or a teacher, and 1 a superintendent of
schools. The superintendent of public instruction shall be ex-officio
secretary of the commission, and the attorney general shall assign to
the commission an assistant who shall be legal advisor to the commission.

 

 

38.132 Same; terms, vacancy.

Section 2. Within thirty days after the effective date of this act,
the governor—shall appoint the members of the tenure commission for
the following terms: One for a term of three years, one for a term
of two years and one for a term of one year. Each term shall begin
on the first day of September. Immediately preceding the expiration
of their respective terms the governor shall appoint succeeding mem-
bers of the tenure commission for terms of five years. In the event
of a vacancy on the tenure commission the governor shall immediately
appoint a successor to complete the unexpired term.

 

38.133 Same; geographical qualifications o_f members.
Section 2. Not more than one member of the tenure commission
shall be appointed from any one school district.

 

38. 134 Same; qualification of teacher member.
Section 4. Any teacher appointed to the tenure commission after
September one, nineteen hundred thirty-eight, must be on continuing
tenure.

 

 

176

38. 135 Same; teacher member's status with controlling board.
Section 2. Membership on the state tenure commission shall not
adversely affect the status of the teacher's tenure with a controlling
board.

 

38.136 Same; meetings.
Section 6. The tenure commission shall meet twice a year at
stated times-in the city of Lansing, and at such other times and in such
other places as shall be determined by the commission.

 

38.137 Same; power Eenforce act.
Section _7_. The tenure commission is hereby vested with such powers
as are necessary to carry out and enforce the provisions of this act.

 

 

38.138 Same; compensation and expenses.

Section 8. The members of the state tenure commission shall re-
ceive five dollars per day while hearing cases and shall be reimbursed
for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred in the performance
of the duties of the commission. The expenses of the state tenure com-
mission shall be paid by the state treasurer out of the general funds in
the manner already provided by law for the payment of the accounts of
boards and commissions. -

 

 

Section <_)_. The tenure commission shall act as a board of review
for all cases appealed from the decision of a controlling board. All
records shall be kept in the office of the superintendent of public in-
struction.

38. 140 Same; first meeting, election of chairman and secretary,

rules and rggulations. —

Section 10. Within thirty days after the effective date of this act,
the tenure cO_mmission shall hold a meeting in the city of Lansing for
the purpose of organization and the election of a chairman and secre-
tary, both of whom shall be members of the commission. The tenure
commission shall draw up rules and regulations and shall have the power
to amend same and to provide for the conduct of its affairs in such man-
ner as shall be consistent with the provisions of this act.

 

 

 

38. 141 Appropriation.

Section 11. The sum of four thousand five hundred dollars is hereby
appropriated—for each of the fiscal years ending June thirty, nineteen
hundred thirty-eight and June thirty, nineteen hundred thirty-nine to de-
fray the expenses of the state tenure commission.

 

177
ARTICLE VIII.
DISTRICTS

38.151 Application.
Section _1_. This act shall apply to all school districts of the state.

 

ARTICLE IX.
PENALTY

38.161 Penalty.

Section 1. Failure of any member of a controlling board to comply
with any provisions of this act shall be deemed a violation of the law
and shall subject said member to the same penalty as prescribed for
a violation of the general school law.

 

ARTICLE X.
INCONSISTENT ACTS.
Section 1 repealed 1947, Act 129.

38.172 Waiver of rights by teachers.

Section 2. No teacfier may waive any rights and privileges under
this act in any contract or agreement made with a controlling board.
In the event that any section or sections of a contract or agreement
entered into between a teacher and controlling board make continuance
of employment of such teacher contingent upon certain conditions
which may be interpreted as contrary to the reasonable and just causes
for dismissals, provided by this act, such section or sections of a con-
tract or agreement shall be invalid and of no effect in relation to de-
termination of continuance of employment of such teacher.

 

Article repealed 1945, Act 267.

ARTICLE XII.

38. 191 Effective date.
Section _1_. This act shall take effectland be in force from and after
September first, nineteen hundred thirty-seven.

 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR CHAPTERS I-V

Books

 

Byse, Clark and Joughlin, Louis. Tenure in American Higher Education.

Cornell University Press: Ithaca, New York, 1959.

. Opinions o_f t_h_ie Superintendent of Public Instruction Under
the Teacher'Tenure Law. Department of Public Instruction,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Bulletin 20, 1952, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.

 

 

 

 

Cramer, John F. and Browne, George 5. Contemporary Education, a_
Comparative Study o_f_ National Systems. Harcourt, Brace and
Co.: New York, 1956.

 

 

 

Good, Carter U. and Scates, D. E. Methods o_f_Research. Appleton-
Century-Crofts, Inc.: New York, 1954.

. Trends i_n_ Teacher Tenure Throu uhg Legislation__ and Court
Decision. National Education Association: Washington, D. C.,

1957.

 

 

Tenure Legislation, How t_o Get _I_t, How to “Keep It. National

 

 

 

Education Association, Committee— on Tenure. _Washington, D. C.
1944.

. Essentials o_f_ a_PrOper School Board Hearing. National
Education Association, Committee on Tenure and Academic
Freedom: Washington, D. C., 1945.

 

 

Nolte, M. C. School Law £o_r Teachers. Interstate Printers and
Publishers: Danville, Illinois, 1963.

 

Teacher's Contracts, Principles and Practices. National
Education Association, Committee on Tenure and Academic
Freedon: Washington, D. C., 1945.

 

 

 

Reuter, George S. , Jr. Current Status <_)_f Teacher Tenure. American
Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO: 716 N. Rush Street, Chicago
11, Illinois, 1963.

 

 

178

179

Scott, Cecil Winfield. Indefinite Teacher Tenure, A Critical Studyo_f
the Historical, Legal, Operative and Comparative Aspects.
Teacher's College, Columbia University: New York City, 1934.

 

 

 

Weber, Clarence A. Personnel Problems o_f School Administrators.
McGraw-Hill, Series in Education: New York, 1954.

 

 

Periodicals, Pamphlets and Essays (Unsigned)

 

"Michigan Association of School Boards' Official Position Regarding
State Mandatory Teacher Tenure, " Michigan School Board Journal,
10 (February, 1964) p. 5.

 

"Tenure Guide No. 1, Contracts, " Michigan Education Association:
East Lansing, Michigan. September, 1964.

"Tenure Guide No. 2, Policies, " Michigan Education Association:
East Lansing, Michigan. September, 1964.

"Tenure Guide No. 3, Evaluation, ” Michigan Education Association:
East Lansing, Michigan. September, 1964.

"The Michigan Teacher Tenure Act, " a pamphlet reproduced by the
Michigan Education Association: East Lansing, Michigan. 1964.

"Tenure, Toward Increased Effectiveness, " a pamphlet, Michigan
Education Association: East Lansing, Michigan. 1964.

"Tenure, Opinions of the Attorney General, Decisions of the Supreme
Court, ” a pamphlet, Michigan Education Association: East
Lansing, Michigan. (no date).

"This is Our Teacher Tenure Act, " Michigan Education Journal, 41
(October, 1963) pp. 6-9.

 

"Michigan Moves on Tenure, " Michigan Education Journal, 41 (October,
1963) pp. 4-5.

 

"The 1964 Representative Assembly, " Michigan Education Journal,
(News) (Special Issue) 41 No. 19 (April 20, 1964).

 

"A Measure of Respect, " Michigan Education Journal, (News) No. 18
(April 10, 1964).

 

"Tenure: Big Push Needed Immediately, " Michigan Education Journal,
(News) 41 No. 7, (November 15, 1963).

 

"A Primer on Tenure, " Michigan Education Journal, (News) 41 No. 5
(October 15, 1964?.

 

180

"Tenure OD'd, " Michigan Education Journal, (News) 41 No. 16
(March 20, 1964).

 

"A Procedure for Negotiation, " Michigan Education Journal, 41 No. 6
(November, 1963) pp. 9-10.

 

"Tenure Issue Sparks Questions on Authority, " Michigan Education
Journal, 41 No. 14 (March 1961) pp. 44-46.

"Four Organizations Join Riverview Tenure Vote, " Michigan Education
Journal, 41 (May, 1963) p. 670.

"More on Choice in Tenure Schools, .. Michigan Education Journal
(October, 1962) p. 240.

"No Tenure for Probationers, " Michigan Education Journal (March,
1963) p. 479.

 

"Organization Choice in Tenure Schools, " Michigan Education Journal,
(September, 1963) p. 188.

"Poll Shows Teachers Favor Tenure 3 to 1, " Michigan Education
Journal, (April, 1963) p. 603.

"Professional Autonomy: A Discussion, " Michigan Education Journal,
51 (March, 1962) pp. 69-76.

 

"Kelley Gives Tenure Ruling, " Michigan Education Journal, (April,
1965) p. 35.

"Tentative Proposals for Tenure Law, " Michigan Education Journal,
12 (January, 1935) p. 255.

 

”Final Draft of Proposed Tenure Bill, " Michigan Education Journal,
14 (February, 1937) pp. 256-7.

"Tenure: Not Perfect, But We'll Buy, " Nation's Schools (March, 1963)
p. 67.

"Most Administrators Favor Tenure for Teachers and For Themselves, "
Nation's Schools, 71 (March, 1963) p. 67.

 

"This Teacher Should Be Fired, " School Management, (May, 1963)
ps 70-76

Periodicals, Pamphlets and Essays (With Authors)

 

Adams, Richard. "Applying the State-wide Tenure Law, " Michigan
Education Journal, 41 No. 20 (May, 1964) pp. 15-16.

 

181

Adams, Richard. ”Tenure Helps Teachers Reach a True Professional
Status, " Michigan Education Journal, 36 (February, 1959) pp. 262-5.

Bryan, Roy C. "Twelve Teachers and Their Effect on Students, "
Faculty Contributions, Series IV, No. 4 (November, 1949) School
Of Graduate Studies, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigar

 

Cass, J. M. ”How Citizens Look at Teacher Tenure, " School and Society,
88 (October, 1960) pp. 346-8.

 

 

Davis, H. and others. "Economic, Legal and Social Status of Teachers;
Certification, Tenure and Autonomy, " Review 9_f_ Educational
Research, 33:402-3 (October, 1963).

Elder, D. E. "I. E. A. and the Teacher, " Illinois Education, 51:226-7,
(February, 1963).

Ellis, Peter R. "A Review of Supreme. Court Cases and Attorney Generals
Opinions on Tenure, " a term paper for Dr. Herbert Rudman in
Education 883, at Michigan State University.

Fox, W. , and Jones, R. D. "Don't Let the Principal Sit Out Tenure in
One Place Say Two Districts, " Nation's Schools, 74:31 (July, 1964).

Ginse, Donald. "Tenure Provisions for Teachers will Give Better
Schools, " Michigan Education JournalI 41:26-27 (September, 1963).

Glenn, J. E. "Your Contract is the Tenure Law, " New York State
Education, 49:21 (June, 1962).

 

Glenn, J. E. "Growth of Tenure Concept Traced from 1905, " New York
State Education, 48:19 (February, 1961).

Hummel, C. G. "Right Only If Deserved, " National Education Association
Journal, 49:67-8 (January, 1966).

Johnson, E. A. "Ruth Amean Case, " National Education Association
Journal, 47:339 (May, 1958).

 

Kruger, Daniel. "Professional Negotiations, " Michigan Education Journal,
41:30-31 (April, 1964).

Ligtenberg, J. "Courts Hold Tenure Improves School System, " American
Teacher's Magazine, 43:13-14 (October, 1958).

 

Morris, Carl W. "State Tenure Commission, " Michigan School. Board
Journal, Vol. 10, No. 12, p. 22, (February, 1964).

 

182

Murphy, W. P. "Educational Freedom in the Courts, " American Associ-
ation o_f University Professors Bulletin, 49:309-27 (December, 1963).

 

 

Nolte, M. C. ”Tenure Teacher Entitled to Hearing When District Merges
With Another, " American School Board Journal, 148:11- 12 (March,
1964).

 

O'Meara, Lois. "Threat to Tenure, " Michigan Education Journal,
(April, 1963) p. 561.

 

Pinis, Fritz. "The Elementary Principal: Hatchet Man or Educational
Leader, " The Michigan Elementary Principal, 34:4 (September-
October, 1964).

 

Piskula, Chester J. ”Keep Incompetent Teachers Off Tenure, " School
Management, (December, 1963) p. 54-56.

 

 

Pleasants, S. A. "Teachers and Tenure, " Clearing House, 35:419-20
(March, 1961).

Rice, A. H. "What Schoolmen Face: More Status, Less Security, "
Nation's School, 73:16 (February, 1964).

 

Rosati, J. A. ”Results of the Tenure Law, " Michigan Education Journal,
36:265 (Fall, 1959).

 

Roudi, Ralph C. "Sources of Tenure Information," Michigan School Board
Journal, 11:10-13 (February, 1965).

 

 

Simpson, R. J. "Tenure: Is it Template or Talisman?" Michigan
Education Journal, 36:262-3 (February, 1954).

 

Spinas, A. and others. "How to Eliminate your District's Bad Teachers, "
School Management, 6:66-70 (November, 1962).

 

Stantor, T. E. , Jr. "Tenure Rights Protected, " California Teachers
Association Journal, 60:42-6 (March, 1964).

 

 

Stover, W. R. "What and Why of Tenure, " National Education Association
Journal, 50:47-8 (March, 1961).

 

Vescolani, Fred. "Compelling Need for Written Policies, " Michigan
Education Journal, (May, 1964) pp. 16-19.

 

Ware, Martha L. "The Basics of Professional Negotiations, " Michigan
Education Journal, (November, 1963) pp. 6-7. "—'_"'"""

 

Woodall, James. "State-wide Tenure, " The Elementary School Principal,
September-October, 1964) p. 10.

Woodall, James and others. "Tenure, " Michigan Education Journal,
(Lizzy. 19363) n. 666-

 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR CHAPTER VI

Books

 

Legislative Service Bureau of the State Board of Education. General
School Laws, State of Michigan, 1966.

 

Lieberman, Myron. Collective Negotiation for Teachers: An Approach
t_o School Administration, Rand McNalfir—Sx Co.: Chicago, I111no1s, 1966.

 

 

Michigan Association of School Boards and Michigan Association of School
Administrators. Labor Relations Handbook {(3 School Boards '
and Superintendents, February 1, 1966.

 

 

 

Mills, Wright C. White Collar, The American Middle Classes, Oxford
University Press: New York, 1956.

 

 

Moskow, Michael H. Teachers and Unions: The Applicability o_f Collective
Bargaining t_q Public Education, Wharton School of Finance and
Commerce, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

 

 

 

 

Stinnett, J. M., Kleinmann, Jack H., and Ware, Martha L. Professional
Negotiations i2 Public Education, National Education Association,
MacMillan Company: New York, 1966.

 

 

 

Booklets

American Association of School Administrators, School Administrators
View Professional Negotiation, 1201-16th Street, N.W. , Washington,
D. C. 20036, 1966.

 

 

National Education Association, Guidelines _fgr Professional Negotiations,
1201-16th Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20036, 1963.

 

Steffensen, James P. Teachers Negotiate with Their School Boards, U.S.
Department of Health, Educationand Welfare, OE-23036 Bulletin, 1964

 

183

184

Periodicals, Pamphlets and Essays (Unsigned)

 

"Alliance of the AFT and AFL-CIO, " Michigan Education Journal,
(April 1, 1965) pp. 7-10.

"Education's First Judicial Board, " Michigan Education Journal,
(March 1, 1965) pp. 166217.

"Higher Teacher Pay! It's in Our Future, " Editorial from Enguirer
and News, Battle Creek, Michigan, January 18, 1966. Michigan
Education Journal, (March 1, 1966).

 

"Instruction, Teachers Gain in New Contracts, " Michigan Education
Journal, (September 1, 1966).

"Legal Tools for Educators: Acts 282 and 379, " Michigan Education
Journal, (October 1, 1965) pp. 3-4.

"Legislative Goals Achieved, " Summing up News, Michigan Education
Journal, (September 1, 1965) p. 3.

"LMB Support K- 12 Unit, " Summing up News, Michigan Education
Journal, (October 1, 1966) p. 5.

"Negotiations: Power, Progress, Pitfalls, " Michigan Education
Journal, (September 1, 1966) pp. 12-13.“

"Number and Kinds of Counseling Cases in Which the Michigan Education
Association Has Provided Legal Assistance, September, 1933-
June, 1964, " Michigan Education Journal, (Octoberl, 1964) p. 55.
"PN Guide to Help, .. Michigan Education Journal, (May 1, 1965) pp. 17-19.

"Preparing for Negotiations, " Michigan Education Journal, (October 1,
1965) p. 2.

"Teacher Walkouts in Michigan, " Michigan Education Journal, (September,
1966) pp. 13-14.

 

"The Revised Michigan Constitution, " Michigan Education Journal,
(March 1, 1963) pp. 481-6 and 534.

"Union Blocking Tactics Harass Teachers, " Michigan Eduation Journal,
(December 1, 1965) pp. 3-4.

"Use Laws to Obtain Answers, " Michigan Education Journal, (November 1,
1965) pp. 5 and 32.

"Will Labor Relations Fill the Void, " (ed.) Michigan Education Journal,
(September 1, 1966) p. l.

 

185

Periodicals, Pamphlets and Essays (With Authors)

 

Adams, Richard. "A Must: PN Legislation for Michigan, " Michigan
Education Journal, (February 1, 1965) pp. 18-19.

 

Adams, Richard. "Applying the Statewide Tenure Law, " Michigan
Education Journal, (May 1, 1964) pp. 15-16.

 

Averill, Walter, Jr. "The President's Message, " Michigan School
Board Journal, (April 1, 1966) p. 4.

 

 

Barbour, Juluis. ”From the Executive Director's Desk, ".Michigan
School Board Journal, (December 1, 1965)

 

 

Barbour, Juluis. "From the Executive Director's Desk, " Michigan
School Board Journal, (March 1, 1966)

 

Batchelder, Richard D. "Today's Militant Teachers, " National
Education Association Journal, (September 1, 1965) pp. 18-19.

 

Batchelder, Richard D. "Unionism Versus Professionalism in
Teaching, " National Education Association Journal, (April 1,

1966).

 

Becker, Harry A. "Collective Bargaining May Force School Boards
to Organize, " School Board Journal, (October, 1966) pp. 57-58.

 

Blanke, Virgil E. ”Teachers in Sear'ch of Power, " American School
Board Journal, (November, 1965) pp. 7-9.

 

 

Brown, George W. "Teacher Power Techniques, " School Board
Journal, (February, 1966)pp. 11-13.

 

Bovee, Carl. "For the Principal-—This was not the Year of the
Tiger, " Michigan Elementary Principal, (January-February,
1966) pp. 5 and 19.

 

Bruce, William C. (ed. ) ”Again Teacher Militancy, " American
School Board Journal, (March, 1966) p. 36.

 

 

Bruce, William C. (ed. ) "How to Fix Teacher's Salaries, " American
School Board Journal, (April, 1966) p. 49.

 

Bruce, William C. (ed. ) "Sanctions Vs. Strikes as a Last Resort, "
American School Board Journal, (May, 1966) p. 62

 

Bruce, William C. (ed. ) "Teachers Vs. School Boards, " American
School Board Journal, (November, 1964) p. 26.

 

186

Bruce, William C. (ed.) "Teachers' Unrest, " American School
Board Journag, (January, 1965) p. 40.

 

 

Bruce, William C. (ed. ) "The Violation of Contracts Between School
Boards and Teachers, " American School Board Journal, (Dec-
ember, 1964) p. 66.

 

Campbell, Dave. "School Boards Vs. Teacher Organizations--Let's
Start by Being Honest with Ourselves! " American School Board
Journal, (October, 1964) pp. 65-66.

 

Canter, Arnold. ”Election and Negotiation in Rochester, " National
Education Association Journal, (September, 1965) pp. 22-23.

 

Carr, William G. "Principals and Professional Negotiations, "
National Education Association Journal, (May, 1966) pp. 45-46.

Carr, William G. "The Turning Point, " National Education Associa-
tion Journal, (September, 1962) pp. 8-10.

 

Cherry, Howard L. ”Negotiations Between Boards and Teachers
Organizations, " American School Board Journal, (March, 1963)

pp. 7-8.

 

Cohodes, Aaron. (ed. ) Interview by, "How New York's Gross Lives
and Learns with Unions, " Nation's Schools, 74:5 (November, 1964)
11. 47-49.

 

Cohodes, Aaron. (ed. ) "Wake Up, American Association of School
Administrators, It's Later than you Think," Nation's Schools,
77:5 (May, 1966) pp. 47-48/

 

Cohodes, Aaron. (ed. ) "National Education Association Wonders
What to do about Administrators," Nation's Schools, 78:2
(August, 1966) p. 37.

 

Cohodes, Aaron. (ed. ) "What Happened to Calvin Gross in New York, "
Nation's Schools, 75:4 (April, 1965) pp. 14-15 and 94.

 

Coombe, George W. , Jr. "Minimizing Conflicts Between Boards of:
Education and Teachers Arising from Collective Bargaining,"
Michigan School Board Journal, (September, 1966) pp. 8-9 and
16-17.

 

Corey, Arthur F. "Strikes or Sanctions, " National Education Associa-
tion Journal, (October, 1962)pp. 13-15.

 

Crowley, Elmer S. "Breakthrough for Professional Autonomy, "
National Education Association Journal, (November, 1965) pp. 46-
46.

 

187

Daly, Ronald A. "New Directions for Professional Negotiations, " National
Education Association Journal, (October, 1966) pp. 27-28.

 

Dashill, Dick. "Teachers Choose the NEA, " National Education Association
Journal, (September, 1966) p. 43.

 

Eptein, Benjamin. "Why Principals want to Negotiate for Themselves, "
Nation's School, 78:4 (October, 1966) pp. 66—67.

 

Erickson, Kai. ”The Profession's Role, " Michigan Education Journal,
(January 1, 1965) p. 15.

 

First, Joan M. ”Professional Answers to Professional Problems, "
Michigan Education Journal, (April 1, 1961) pp. 536-540.

 

Garbariui, Mark. "What Happened at Denver, " Michigan Education Journal,
(September 1, 1962).

 

Garber, Lee O. ”How to Free Superintendents from Negotiation Hazards, "
Nation's Schools, 77:3 (March, 1966) p. 139.

 

Garber, Lee 0. "These 10 Legal Principles Control Collective Bargaining, "
Nation's Schools, 76:3 (September, 1965) p. 67.

 

Giese, Don, and Simmons, Gerald. ”PN Gained by 14 Schools, " Michigan
Education Journal, (December 1, 1964) pp. 6-7 and 41.

 

Grieder, Calvin. "Superintendents Can't Face Union Bargaining Teams
Alone," Nation's Schools, 78:1 (July, 1966) p. 6.

 

Gross, Stuart. "Michigan Has a Date with Chaos, " Overview, (August,
1961) pp. 36-37.

Hannan, Cecil J. "Teachers . . . A Political Force," National Education
Association Journal, (November, 1965) p. 49.

 

 

Harrer, John M. ”Superior People are Rejecting Classroom Teaching, "
National Education Association Journal, (November, 1966) pp. 20-22.

 

 

Hechinger, Fred M. "15 the School Crises as Black as It's Painted?"
Parents Magazine, (October, 1958) p. 43.

 

Harris, Reames, and Ambrose. (financial audit) "Needs Exceed 1965-66
Income, " Michigan Education Journal, (November 1, 1966) pp. 10-11.

 

188

Kelley, Frank J. "Index of Attorney General Opinions, " Michigan School
Board Journal, (February, 1966) p. 10.

 

Kennan, Richard B. "Professional Sanctions, Where, When, and How, "
National Education Association Journal, (December, 1963) pp. 37-38.

 

 

Kennan, Richard B. "Sanctions are Effective, " National School Board
Journal, (November, 1965) pp. 31-32.

 

 

Kennedy, E. Dale. "The Role of School Executives, " Michigan Education
Journal, (January, 1966) pp. 18-19.

Kruger, Daniel H. "Professional Negotiations: Toward Quality Education, "
Michigan Education Journal, (April 1, 1964) pp. 30-31 and 56.

 

Lambert, Sam. "Angry Young Men in Teaching, " National Education
Association Journal, (February, 1963) pp. 17.20.

 

Landis, Elwood W. "Charges of Unfair Labor Practices, " Michigan
Education Journal, (February 1, 1966)

 

Landis, Elwood W. "Negotiations Arrive this Year for 65, 000 Michigan
Teachers, " Michigan Education Journal, (May 1, 1966) pp. 6-11.

Landis, Elwood W. (Interviews by) "Negotiations in Warren Offer Glimpses
of a Future Already Here, " Michigan Education Journal, (September,
1965) pp. 6-12.

Leasure, Melvin. "Threshold of Teacher Opportunity, " Michigan Education
Journal, (January 1, 1966) p. 42.

Manning, William R. "Negotiations: The Process in Collective Bargaining, "
American School Board Journal, (August, 1966) pp. 14-16.

 

Martz, Don. "Professional Unity and Negotiating Alternatives, " Michigan
Elementary Principal, (November-December, 1965) pp. 5 and 17.

 

McCann, Lloyd E. "The Right to Talk or the Right to be Heard, " American
School Board Journal, (June, 1963) pp. 11-12.

 

Misner, Paul J. "Let's Look at the AASA-NEA Relationship, " Nation's
Schools, 75:2 (February, 1965) p. 49.

Moffilt, J. C. "Sanctions Do What, " American School Board Journal,
(September, 1964) pp. 25-26.

 

 

189

Nation's Schools. "How Principals Can Exercise Leadership, " Interviews
with Roderick McPhee, Harry Cooke, Arthur Rice and Martin Essex.
Nation's Schools, 78:4 (October, 1966) p. 64.

 

Nation's Schools. "AASA Could Stand Some Improvements, " Opinion Poll,
Nation's Schools, 75:2 (February, 1965) p. 57.

 

NEA Platform 1963 NEA Convention. "The Voice of the Nation's Teachers, "
National Education Association Journal, (September, 1963) pp. 24-27.

 

 

Newton, Richard, and Lee, Betty Jean. "Denver Achieves Professional
Negotiations, " National Education Association Journal, (February,
1963) pp. 15—16.

 

Nolte, M. Chester. "Teachers Face Boards of Education Across the
Bargaining Table--Legally, " American School Board Journal, (June,
1965) pp. 10-12.

 

Nolte, M. Chester. "Teacher Militancy May be Counterpressure, "
American School Board Journal, (October, 1965) pp. 7-8.

 

Nolte, M. Chester. "Teachers Seek Greater Independence Through Legisla-
tive Channels, " American School Board Journal, (March, 1966) pp. 7-9.

 

Pinis, Fritz. (ed.) "Don't Crumble the Cookie, " Michigan Elementary
Printipal, (March-April, 1966) p. 5.

 

Pinis, Fritz. (ed.) "How One Region is Actively Informing Its Members, "
Michigan Elementagy Principal, (November-December, 1965) p. 3.

 

Romfouts, J. R. "New Michigan Industry, " Michigan Education Journal,
(January, 1966) pp. 2-3.

 

Rudman, Herbert G. "State - National News, " Michigan Elementary

Principal, (May-June, 1966) p. 6.

 

School Management. "Collective Bargaining Vs. Professional Negotiations, "
School Management, (November, 1965) pp. 68-75.

 

 

School Management. "How to Negotiate with Your,xTeachers--Without
Surrendering, " An interview with Eric Rhodes, School Management,
(September, 1966) p. 110.

 

School Management. "Negotiating with Teachers, " an interview with Forbes
Bottomly, School Management, (May, 1965) pp. 81-87.

 

l 90

School Management. "Negotiating with Teachers: What it's Like to be on
the Firing Line, " an interview with an anonymous board president
of a rich school near Chicago, School Management, (June, 1966)
pp. 78-84.

 

Seitz, Reynolds C. "Collective Bargaining Can Help Achieve Reasonable
Agreement, " American School Board Journal, (November, 1966)
pp. 52-55.

 

Spears, Harold. "Answers Nation's Schools, " Nation's Schools, 78:1
(July, 1966) pp. 27-30.

Trocke, John K. "Sees Opportunities in Negotiations, " Michigan Education
Journal, (November 1, 1966) pp. 14-15.

Turnbaugh, Roy C. "How to Set Teacher Negotiation Policy, " Nation's
Schools, 77:3 (March, 1966) p. 134.

Vanderwerf, Lester Seth. "Improving the Status of Teachers," American
School Board Journal, (September, 1961) pp. 14-16.

 

 

Wanger, Eugene G. "The PrOpos ed Constitution and Individual Rights, "
Michigan Education Journal, (February, 1963) pp. 425 and 456.

 

Ware, Martha. "Professional Negotiation, " National Education Association
Journal, (November, 1962) pp. 28-30.

 

West, Allen M. "Local Associations Move Toward Professional Negotiations,l
National Education Association Journal, (February, 1964) pp. 26-28.

 

Wirth, Richard M. "Let's Be Sane about the Union, " Michigan Education
Journal, (October 1, 1962) pp. 205 and 223.

”11111111111111111