A STUDY OF PREPARATION PROGRAMS IN SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION AS AFFECTED BY COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS Thesis for flu Degree GI DIN. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Walter W. Scott 1966 ---..... '4. THESIS I. LIBRARY ‘ Michigan State “I ‘ University (J This is to certify that "the I»? _ thesis entitled.» .. -' 'A STUDY OF PREPARATION PROGRAMS IN SCHOOL ADMINISTRATEOM AS AFFECTED BY COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS 4 19 presented by & .,~ 3' Walter W. Scott- has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D. degree in Education 0-169 ——A ; r.-..._.-__> m if 57 mesfl“ ABSTRACT A STUDY OF PREPARATION PROGRAMS IN SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION AS AFFECTED BY COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS Problem by Walter W. Scott This was a study to discover if preparation programs for school administrators in selected universities had or had not been affected by the collective negotiation movement in the public schools. The specific purposes were aimed to accomplish the following: 1. Discover if present preparation programs reflect the impact of the collective nego- tiation movement. Secure opinions and judgments of professors of educational administration about col- lective negotiation generally and the super- intendent's role in the negotiation procedure. Obtain from a sample of school superintendents their perception of role change as a result of negotiation and secure their opinions on the need for and nature of programs to prepare superintendents in this particular field of activity. Walter W. Scott Procedure Representative professors of educational administra- tion in eleven Midwestern universities (ten Western Inter- collegiate Conference universities plus Wayne State Univer- sity) were interviewed. A sample of superintendents in the seven state area of the universities whose districts were known to have written negotiation agreements between teach- ers and school boards participated in a structured telephone interview to secure their opinions and judgments about the negotiation movement and their assessment of the superin- tendent's need for preparation in that area. Hypotheses Two hypotheses were proposed to be tested by the study: 1. The traditional role of the school super- intendent, as defined in the study, has changed as a result of the collective nego- tiation movement. 2. The present graduate preparation programs offered by selected universities generally fail to reflect the new and different social and political conditions now prevailing in the school and community environment. Findings 1. Walter W. Scott There was no consensus among the professors as to whether or not collective negotiation advanced the profession in status and pres- tige. All agreed, however, that the trend to negotiate was irreversible. The professors recognized the role dilemma experienced by the superintendent as a result of role change brought on by negotia- tions, but they differed on his function in the negotiation procedures. While they agreed that the superintendent should be knowledgeable in negotiation, there appeared to be no goal, objective, or purpose to define the nature of administra- tive preparation in this particular area, to select content, to identify instructors, or otherwise plan or organize a program. Eighty—seven percent of the superintendents claimed their traditional administrative role had changed as a result of the negotiation movement. They varied on their description of his new role. Walter W. Scott 5. All superintendents strongly recommended study and preparation in negotiation to be offered in the graduate program and in- service also. They recommended that such study be offered by seminars, institutes, or workshops led by experts rather than the traditional college course. Conclusions On the basis of the evidence, the hypotheses were confirmed and ten conclusions drawn. Some of these relate to the future role of the superintendent in the negotiation procedure and the urgency of his requests for help in learn- ing the techniques of negotiation. A STUDY OF PREPARATION PROGRAMS IN SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION AS AFFECTED BY COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS BY 1 Walter W5 Scott A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University' in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1966 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author acknowledges gratefully the inspiration and helpfulness of the chairman of his guidance committee, Dr. Clyde M. Campbell. The challenging discussions with him assisted in the completion of the study. Appreciation is extended also to the other members of his committee, Dr. Charles A. Blackman, Dr. Charles R. Hoffer, and Dr. Ernest O. Melby. Particular indebtedness is acknowledged for the encour— agement and helpfulness always extended by Dean John E. Ivey and Dr. Maurice F. Seay. The cooperation and helpfulness of the professors of educational administration in the eleven universities visited is also recognized. To my wife Alice, my children Paul, Ellen, and Sarah, and to my sister Hester, go eternal gratitude for their patience and faith. May, 1966 Walter W. Scott ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING . . . . . . . Enabling Legislation. . . . . . . . . . The Design of the Study . . . . . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . . II. THE PREPARATION PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background and Development. . . . . . . The Cooperative Program in Educational Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATION —- A STRUGGLE FOR POWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The AFT and the NEA —— Comparisons and Contrasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . Professional Negotiation or Collective Bargaining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Institutionalization of Conflict. . The Role of the Superintendent. . . . . Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Page 14 15 15 18 21 21 23 29 31 35 38 41 44 45 47 Chapter IV. WHAT THE PROFESSORS OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION SAID. . . . . . . . . . . . . The Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Assessment of the Opinions and Judgments of the Professors. . . . . . . The Superintendent's Position and Role Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Content?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By Whom Taught?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. WHAT THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS REPORTED . . Perceptions About Collective Negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change in the Superintendent's Role. . . . Superintendents' Preparation for Negotiation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Assessment of the Opinions and Judgments of the School Superintendents. The Dilemma of the Superintendent. . . . . An Improved Generalist . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv 49 52 53 58 64 67 70 72 75 76 79 82 85 89 91 97 101 103 105 107 Chapter VI. VII. VIII. IMPLICATIONS FROM COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATION FOR PREPARATION OF ADMINISTRATORS. . . . . The Role of the Superintendent . . . . . Professionalism Confronts Bureaucracy. . The Integration of Professionalism and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . The Educational Statesman. . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AN ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATE ROLES FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Superintendent as an Independent Professional . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Superintendent as a Mediator Between Teachers and the Board of Education. . The Superintendent as Negotiator . . . . The Superintendent and Policy Develop- ment for Collective Negotiation. . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . The Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings from the Professors of Educa- tional Administration. . . . . . . . . Findings from the Superintendents. . . . Implications from Collective Negotiation for Preparation of Administrators. . . 110 110 115 123 129 133 135 138 140 143 147 153 155 155 156 157 158 160 162 Chapter Page Analysis of Alternative Roles for the Superintendent . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Crucial Issues to Affect Future Decisions. 169 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Books. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Articles, Periodicals, and Newspapers. . . 176 Pamphlets, Bulletins, and Newsletters. . . 182 Addresses, Proceedings, and Reports. . . . 183 Public Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Unpublished Materials. . . . . . . . . . . 185 Personal Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . 185 APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Vi Table II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. LIST OF TABLES A Comparison of Professors' Opinions on Negotiation as a Means of Advancing the Profession in Status and Prestige . . . . . A Comparison of Professors' Opinions on Their Responsibility in the Clarification of the Role of the School Superintendent. . Comparison of Opinions of Professors Regarding School Superintendents and Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Status of Program Development in Negotia- tion in Selected Universities . . . . . . . School Districts by States Reported to Have Some Negotiating Relationship Between Teachers and School Board as of November, 1965. O I O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Number of Districts Reported Negotiating, Districts Selected, and Districts Which Participated in the Study . . . . . . . . . Responses of Superintendents by States Regarding Role Change . . . . . . . . . . . Superintendent's Descriptions of Present Role Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ranking of Preferences for Possibilities of In-Service Education in Collective Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Preferences Among Elements of Negotiation for Study by School Superin— tendents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compositions of the Sample of School Superintendents by Degree Status and Years in the Superintendency. . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 55 59 66 80 87 89 94 95 99 100 102 Figure LIST OF FIGURES Academic Content Areas from Behavioral Sciences, Social Studies, and Admin- istration Contributing to Collective Negotiation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 78 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Deans of the Colleges of Education in Eleven Midwestern Universities Which Cooperated in the Study. . . . . . . . . B Draft of Dean John Ivey's Letter to Deans of Other Colleges of Education . . C Draft of Letter from Investigator to the Appointed Professors of Educational Administration in the Selected Univer- sities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D First Letter to Selected School Super— intendents in the Seven State Area Requesting Participation in the Study. . E Draft of Telephone Response Question- naire to School Superintendents. . . . . F Follow-up Letter to School Superinten- dents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 188 189 190 192 193 199 Chapter I THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING This is a study of the preparation program for school administrators in its relation to collective negotiation presently being carried on and supported by many teachers' organizations. That this is an area of great social impact is a statement that scarcely needs defense. Tompkins describes the negotiation movement between teachers and school boards as a "revolutionary force affecting public education."1 It has become the'main preoccupation of school administra- tors in their discussions at professional meetings and their face-to-face discussions in social settings as well. On the one hand are those who believe that this is a significant breakthrough for teachers and one that will have a lasting benefit for all education in general. On the other hand, there are just as many who can see little else than disastrous consequences from its practice. The purpose of collective negotiation in education is to secure for teachers a share in the determination of their salaries, working conditions, and in some cases lEllsworth Tompkins, Foreward to The Principal's Role in Collective Negotiations Between Teachers and School Boards, (Washington, National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1965). methods of teaching. A former teacher states the issue clearly: Education in America will never be as good as it should be until we do some- thing about the role of the teacher . . . The teacher is the most important factor in good education, the one who makes children think, who opens new horizons, who makes learning a great adventure. . . Yet what is the role of the teacher in American education today? . . . In the educational hierarchy, he is low man . . . In the power structure, he is the one without power. In the line of order, he is the one who takes orders from everyone else. He has little chance to exercise creativity, to show intelli- gence, or to use democratic procedures. He has no say in the important decisions affecting the schools. The educational system in America today is a vertical hierarchy and the teacher is at the bottom. 2 Being determined not to remain without influence the efforts of teachers are winning a voice for themselves in the decision-making processes with boards of education and school administrators. Typical of the scope of their interests was the case last year in Newark, New Jersey. The teachers' association won board agreement to negotiate "all matters concerning teachers' salaries, fringe benefits, 3 working conditions, and related matters" which enumerated 2Anne Mitchell, "The Crux of the Matter," Saturday Review, Vol. XLIX, No. 3 (January 15, 1966), p. 66. 3Educator's Dispatch, Vol. 21, No. 5, (Nov. 15, 1965). fifteen specific items. Similar collective negotiation agreements between boards of education and teachers' organizations have been adopted in districts of all sizes across the country. The City of New York with over forty-five thousand teachers is the largest and North Bend, Oregon, with six teachers 4 T. M. Stinnett, Assistant is said to be the smallest. Executive Secretary of the National Education Association, reports in September, 1965, that his office has records of more than 380 negotiations agreements between local boards and associations in thirty—four states. He has assurance that there are scores of agreements not reported and many others in the developmental stage.5 Today it is commonplace to think and say that the state teachers' associations are behind the movement but it should be noted that exclusive representation is claimed by the American Federation of Teachers for all public school teachers in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Boston, and San Francisco. In his annual report to the Federation Convention in Los Angeles in August of 1965, President Charles Cogen reported the Union's membership at an all time high of 110,000. This, he said, represents 4The Reporter, (Washington, National Education Association, September 17, 1965), p. 3. 5Ibid., p. 3. a ten percent increase over the previous year.6 ENABLING LEGI SLAT ION Legislatures in at least six states recently have passed laws enabling teachers to organize and negotiate with boards of education.7 Wisconsin was the first state to grant public employees, including school teachers, the right by statute to designate a majority representative and the right to have exclusive representation status. Washington was first to pass a "professional negotiation law" especially designed for use in schools and colleges. Other states to follow in providing statutes setting up procedures for teachers and boards in local communities were California, Connecticut, Oregon, and New Jersey. In the 1965 session the Michigan legislature passed two bills which were signed by the Governor and deal with organized public employees. These are Public Acts 379 and 282, which parallel federal laws relating to proce- dures for determining representation of employees, mediation techniques, and unfair labor practices. Act 379 makes it 6Addresses and Proceedings, (Chicago, American Federation of Teachers, 1965). 7 "News and Trends," NEA Journal, Vol. 54, No. 6, (National Education Association, September, 1965), p. 4. 81bid., p. 4. lawful for public employees including teachers "to organize together or to form, join or assist in labor organizations, to engage in lawful concerted activities for the purpose of collective negotiation or bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, or to negotiate or bargain collectively with their employers through representatives of their own free choice.”9 The several sections of Act 282 define labor organi- zation, bargaining unit, and among other things spell out the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon a board of education.10 In general, the two acts which, in fact, are amendments to two earlier acts, now make it mandatory for a board of education in Michigan to recognize a repre- sentative of its teachers, bargain in good faith, and prohibits a board from encouraging membership in, initi- ating, creating, dominating, or contributing to a labor organization. It is too early to assess the long term effects, not only of the Michigan legislative acts but of those in other states. Still, experience has shown that they provide a guide for a resolution of differences between teachers 9Section 9, Act No. 379, Public Acts of 1965, The State of Michigan. 0Sections 9, 10, and 16 of Act No. 282, Public Acts of 1965, The State of Michigan. and school boards. Harold W. Story, an attorney and member of the Board of School Directors in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, declares that "collective bargaining has become a way of life for school systems in Wisconsin, and, predictably, will soon become so throughout the United States."11 Utilizing the avenues of new legislation where available, teachers have won the right to negotiate on a face—to—face basis with board members, a right that they have not possessed in the past. It appears self—evident that the emergence of increased power by teachers will have far-reaching impli- cations upon school administration and boards of education. Wesley Wildman, an attorney and director of the Labor and Industrial Relations Institute at the University of Chicago, speaks to the responsibility of educators in the following statement: So far educators have shown little aware- ness of the possible ultimate significance for the schools if the key elements of private sector collective bargaining are extended to the relationships among teachers, administrators, and school boards within a school system . . . Those concerned with the teaching and practice of administration are playing only a negligible role in the important events that are shaping the 11Harold W. Story, "Collective Bargaining with Teachers Under Wisconsin Law," Theory Into Practice, Vol. IV, No. 2, (1965), p. 61. ' future of teacher-board—administrator relationships in the United States. 12 Today the school superintendent particularly is confronted with the difficult problem of identifying his proper role in the area of teacher negotiations. It is questioned if he can serve effectively as the executive officer of the board and provide professional as well as administrative direction to the staff. If he chooses to serve as a fact—finder for both the board and the staff, then must he be obliged to refuse to act as a negotiator for either board or teachers? Should he allow some leaders in the teacher organization to negotiate directly with the school board and by-pass the superintendent? If he is not to be by-passed, then he must become a participant in some capacity in the negotiation process. To this confusion in role several timely warnings have been sounded by experienced educators. Dr. Harry A. Becker, superintendent of schools at Norwalk, Connecticut, declares that "negotiating with an organization is not a jOb for amateurs. The teachers' representatives have usually had years of experience and training for the assignment."13 12Wesley A. Wildman, ”Legal Aspects of Teacher Collective Action," Theory Into Practice, Vol. IV, No. 2, (April, 1965), p. 55. 13Harry A. Becker, ”The Role of School Administrators in Professional Negotiations," American School Board Journal, Vol. 150, No. 5, (1965), p.9. In similar vein, Dr. Calvin Gross, former superintendent of schools in the City of New York, declares that the superintendent is a ”babe in the woods when confronted with teachers experienced in labor—management relation- ships . . .He must learn to use a whole new bag of tricks."14 Because of social demands rather recent in origin, the school superintendency today is a most complex and 15 demanding position. H. W. Schooling, formerly superin— tendent of schools in Webster Groves, Missouri, claims that: Societal forces and the changed char- acter and emerging expectation of the teaching staff make demands of today's school administrator that his prepara- tion and his experience have not generally prepared him to meet. The traditional administrative role is no longer an acceptable one, and yet, thus far, a new clearly defined role has not emerged. There appears to be ample evidence to conclude that the impact of negotiation upon the superintendency has been profound. With equal confidence school leaders predict the strain upon administrators will continue as Aaron Cohodes, "How New'York's Gross Lives and Learns with Unions," Nation's Schools, Vol. 75, No. 5, (November, 1964), p. 49. 15Educational Policies Commission, "The Unique Role of the Superintendent of Schools," The National Education Association, Washington, (1965), p. 1. 16H. W. Schooling, "Teacher-Administrator Relation— ships," National Education Association Journal, Vol. 54, (February, 1965), pp. 32-34. negotiation becomes more widespread and the trend of the movement accelerates.l Competent observers of education have commented that administrators in the past and at present have assumed the role of respondent to change which occurred elsewhere and made change only as necessary within the safety of a stable institutional structure.18 But now the institutional structure that was once almost immutable to change is less stable. Within it fierce battles are being waged. This investigation studies one of the struggles now going on in public education. The collective negotiation movement has changed the schools in its few short years. More change is inevitable. Jensen and Clark tersely observe that ”the rigid or dogmatic administrator will have a short—lived career.“ THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY This study is descriptive in two ways. First, it secures data from a sampling of school superintendents l7Bernard E. Donovan, "Collective Bargaining vs. Professional Negotiation," School Management, (November, 1965), pp. 69-71. 18 Henry M. Brickell , Organizing New York State for Educational Change, (Albany, New York: New York State Education Department, 1961), p. 19. 19Theodore J. Jenson and David L. Clark, Educational Administration, (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education,1964 ), p. 110. -10- on the status of their role or role change since a repre- sentative teacher organization in their districts negotiates with the school board. Second, it seeks to discover if the present preparation programs for school administrators offered in selected universities reflect the new and dif— ferent social and political conditions prevailing in the school environment. Van Dalen points out that: Before much progress can be made in solving problems, men must possess accurate des- criptions of the phenomena with which they work . . . To solve problems about children, school administration, curriculum, or the teaching of arithmetic, descriptive researchers ask these initial questions: What exists -- what is the present status of these pheno- mena? Determining the nature of prevailing conditions, practices, and attitudes -- seeking accurate descriptions of activities, objects, processes, and persons -- is their objective. They depict current status and sometimes identify relationships that exist among phenomena or trends that appear to be developing. Occasionally, they attempt to make predictions about future events. 20 While historical research "describes whgp_yg§," Best holds that "descriptive research portrays wpgp is." (Emphasis his.) He continues: It involves the description, recording, analysis, and interpretation of the pre- sent nature, composition, or processes of phenomenon. The focus is on prevailing 20Diebold B. Van Dalen, Understanding Educational Research, (New York, McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1962), p. 184. -11- conditions, or on how a person, group, or thing behaves or functions in the present. 21 This study attempts to secure data about a new phe- nomenon in education. Through the opinions and judgments of the professors of educational administration and the school superintendents immediately involved in negotiating, a description of the present status will be secured. Some insights may be obtained not only to give better explana— tion to the causes of the phenomenon, but to observe dif- ferences and similarities between negotiation in education and collective bargaining in the federal government service or in industry. Comparisons need to be made between the present scene in the United States and the much older practice of collective action in Canadian education. These attributes are in harmony with the views expressed by Good and Scates as they declare: General description is characteristic of the early stage of work in an area where the significant factors have not been isolated, and where perhaps one would not have the means for measuring them if they were identified. It is, therefore, a method of exploration: but, in addition, general description plays its part in all research reports, and there are still John W. Best, Research in Education, (New Jersey, PrenticeeHall, Inc., 1959), p. 12. -12— areas in which it is better fitted for the purpose than would be quantitative data. 22 The locale of the study was specified with the decision to limit the universities to those in the Western Intercollegiate Conference, commonly known as the Big Ten, and Wayne State University. The Deans in the Colleges of Education in these universities were asked to name a representative from their Departments of Educational Administration from whom the investigator might secure information about preparation programs for school administrators in the area of collective negotiation. The Western Intercollegiate Conference consists of Northwestern University at Chicago and the University of Illinois at Urbana, Illinois; Indiana University at Bloomington and Purdue University at Lafayette, Indiana; University of Iowa at Iowa City, Iowa; Michigan State University at East Lansing and University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Minnesota at Minneapolis, Minnesota; Ohio State University at Columbus, Ohio; and the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Wisconsin. Wayne State University is located in Detroit, Michigan. 22Carter V. Good and Douglas E. Scates, Methods of Research, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954), p. 275. -13- Arrangements were made with each representative named by the deans for about a half day to discuss the subject on the basis of a few carefully prepared ques— tions received prior to the visit which served as guide- lines for the personal interviews conducted. Each discussion was recorded on tape and later transcribed. This body of information together with a number of mis- cellaneous publications from those departments which had prepared statements of position on the subject or descrip— tions of departmental programs constitutes the points of view from the several universities. From educational associations and state departments of education in the seven-state area of the universities, efforts were made to discover those boards of education which had written collective negotiation agreements with teacher organizations. To a sampling of superintendents in those districts was sent a short pre-tested questionnaire to secure their opinion about the movement and their judgment about the need for special preparation in this specific area of administrative responsibility. Using the questions as the basis for discussion, taped telephone interviews were conducted with the superintendents. These were later transcribed and provide the data from the superintendents. The analysis of the data from the university profes— sors and the school superintendents is used to test the -14- hypotheses set forth hereinafter. ASSUMPTIONS In connection with this study there are a number of quite as facts, includes '1. basic understandings which cannot be accepted but which are considered to be true. The list the following assumptions: That the programs of educational adminis- tration in the eleven universities studied are typical of those to be found in other major universities in the United States. That the same conditions of role, what- ever they may be, which exist for the superintendent in the schools sampled in the seven states, exist for the superin- tendents in other schools which have, or will have, written agreements between teachers' organizations and boards of education. That if there has been a change in the role of the superintendent as a result of collective negotiation among the schools studied, there is likely to have been, in varying degrees, a similar change in the -15- roles of other administrative positions in the same school systems. 4. That professors of educational adminis— tration and public school superintendents are informed and responsible educators whose considered opinions on matters of the school administrator's role and his professional preparation program, while subjective at best, may be accepted as reasonably dependable and reliable. HYPOTHESES Two hypotheses are proposed as guides for this study of preparation programs for school administrators. One to be tested holds that the traditional role of the school administrator has changed. The second contends that the present graduate preparation programs offered by selected universities generally fail to reflect the new and dif— ferent social and political conditions now prevailing in the school and community environment. DEFINITIONS Autonomy: The right to manage one's own professional concerns and the acceptance of responsibility which attends that right. —16— Professional autonomy refers to the scope of independent judgment reserved for professional workers because of their expert skill and knowledge. Exclusive Representation: The occasion when an employee organization, by majority vote among its members or by stipulation by management or the employing board, is recognized by the employer to represent exclusively all the employees in negotiation. Sanctions: As used by the National Education Association and in this study sanctions are defined as a means to prevent the violation of a right or responsibility. The means may be censure, suspension or expulsion of a member; severance of relationship with an affiliated association or other agency; imposing of a deterrent against a board of education or other agency controlling the welfare of the schools; bring- ing into play forces that will enable the community to help the board or agency to realize its respon- sibility: or the application of one or more steps in the withholding of services. Sanctions are used only to improve educational opportunities through the elimination of conditions detrimental to effective education. The most severe types of sanctions are invoked only as a last resort where conditions are such that it is impossible for educators to give effective professional service. -l7- Traditional Administrative Role: The traditional concept of administration views its function to be solely that of executing policy made by the board. It tends to restrict the sharing and delegation of authority. The processes of administration are usually confined to a very limited few in whom authority and respon- sibility are vested. Those who hold these positions are aware of their power and influence and are sim- ilarly recognized by others. Collective Bargaining: Collective bargaining is the mutual participation by management and labor in the deter- mination of the terms of employment and of the obligations and responsibilities of both parties. It is accomplished through negotiations in confer- ences between representatives of the employer and representatives of the employees, and it terminates in a collective bargaining agreement between the parties. It is a continuous process of bilateral accommodation on the part of labor and management. Collective bargaining is concerned not only with the economic status of the employee but also with the protection and extension of his rights and freedom. Collective Negotiation: A hybrid term utilizing a word from the "collective bargaining” concept of labor- industry and a word from "professional negotiation" -l8— as proposed by the educational associations. In this study the term is used to describe the procedures by which authorized representatives of professional employees and their management boards mutually consider matters of salary and working conditions. The term was agreed upon as acceptable by the followers of all educational groups attending the National Institute on Collective Negotiations in Public Education held in July, 1965, at Rhode Island College, Providence, Rhode Island. Professional Negotiation: A set of procedures to provide an orderly method for teachers' associations and school boards through professional channels to nego- tiate on matters of common concern, to reach mutually satisfactory agreement on these matters, and to establish channels for mediation and appeal in the event of impasse. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY An attempt has been made in the preceding pages to describe what is meant by the collective negotiation move— ment and indicate how crucially it affects school admin— istrators at this time. The question was raised concerning the adequacy of their preparation to deal with this current problem. The design of the study was set forth. -19- To give more understanding of the two elements involved, preparation programs and collective negotiations, the story of each is related briefly in Chapters II and III, respectively. Some of the implications of the col- lective negotiation movement upon the educational profes— sion are suggested. What the professors of educational administration said in the personal interviews held in their offices on the campuses of the eleven universities is analyzed in Chapter IV. Each interview was recorded on tape and later transcribed for easy reference. Questions asked in let— ters received by the professors a week or more before the interview provided the general basis for the discussion. The data gathered by the telephone survey from the sample of about 100 school superintendents in the seven states are described and analyzed in Chapter V. On the basis of the evidence implications are suggested and developed in Chapter VI which are relevant both to the development of preparation programs in the area of col— lective negotiation and to school administration generally. The several roles which the superintendent may assume in the negotiation proceedings are analyzed in some detail in Chapter VII. There is developed a role wherein the superintendent participates in the formulation as well as the administration of policy applicable not only to -20_ negotiation but to other areas equally as well. A summary with conclusions and suggestions for further study provides the content for Chapter VIII which concludes the report. Chapter II THE PREPARATION PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION Background and Development There is a relevant and interesting body of influ— ences and events which has produced each of the two elements of this study. Neither sprung spontaneously into being. One element, the preparation program for the school superintendency, is inextricably attached to the develop- ment of the profession of school administration and will be reviewed briefly in this chapter. The other element, collective negotiation, as a process was borrowed from the labor movement and in its ideal application has some congruency to the practice of democratic school adminis- tration. Since the collective negotiation movement is relatively new to education, a description of its begin- nings, development, and problems now emanating from it will constitute the next chapter. The practice of educational administration is some— what over one hundred years old, the first local super— intendency being established in Buffalo, New York, in 1837. At the beginning of the present century well over fifty of the larger cities in the United States had -21- -22_ established the office.1 Today practically every district maintaining an elementary-secondary program employs a chief educational administrator generally known as the local superintendent of schools. Over this hundred year period a body of professional literature began to accumulate and programs for the pre- paration of school administrators were inaugurated in many of the leading universities. With the development of knowledge relating to education and its administration, the formal preparation and certification of personnel were accepted. Other gains included the organization of state and national professional associations and the extension of the scope of education from early childhood through adult life. Paradoxically both public interest and apathy grew during the century since Buffalo inaugu- rated the first superintendent. It was in 1947 when professors of educational administration who have a major responsibility for the preparation of school administrators met, organized the National Conference of Professors of Educational Admin- istration (hereinafter called NCPEA), and inaugurated a continuing study of problems related to the development 1The American School Superintendengy, Thirtieth Yearbook, (Washington, American Association of School Administrators, 1952), p. 55. -23- of administrative competence. Although this organization is said to have exerted a continuing force for the improve- ment of professors of educational administration and of strengthening programs of preparation for school admin- istrators, its efforts have not satisfied the critics 2 within the profession. In criticism of professors of educational administration, Lieberman claims that: Current programs in educational admin- istration range from harmless to shocking. For instance, not one (to my knowledge) visualizes a meaningful role for teachers' organizations in personnel administration. It is no wonder that in the recent series of events leading to collective bargaining . . . and to a signed agreement between the New York City Board of Education and the United Federation of Teachers, none of the parties concerned evinced the slightest need for or interest in the views of any professors of school admin- istration. The latter were irrelevant to this entire sequence of events, the most important development in educational administration in decades. 3 THE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION At the close of World War II, administrators were struggling simultaneously to provide classrooms and teachers for an ever increasing number of pupils. Almost concurrently, the leadership of the AASA sought means to 2Russell T. Gregg, "Administration,” in Chester W. Harris, ed., Encyclopedia of Educational Research, (New York: The MacMillan Company, third edition, 1960), p. 22. 3Myron Lieberman, "Professors of Education as Critics of Education," Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. XLIV, No. 4, (1963), p. 166. -24- inaugurate a thorough study of educational administration. Inspired by the interest of Dr. Maurice F. Seay and mater— ially supported by funds from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation of which he was then the educational director, the Association joined with other major educational agencies in a nationwide study of school administration with par- ticular emphasis on the role of the school superintendent. The intent of the study as outlined in the request to the Foundation was: 1. To better professional preparation of school superintendents. 2. To improve working relationships among superintendents, school board members, and members of the school staff. 3. To gather information that would permit school administrators to base their decisions on concrete and well-substantiated facts rather than on opinions, feelings, and traditions. 4. To assist the universities in selective recruitment and in developing preservice programs appropriate to the important task of school administration.4 4The Education of a School Superintendent, (Washington: American Association of School Administrators, 1963), pp.5—6. -25- Because of its numerous involvements with univer- sities, state educational agencies, and professional associations, this project came to be known as the Cooper- ative Program in Educational Administration. As it took shape and spread nationwide, its emphasis shifted from a study of the school superintendency as originally envisioned, to study and development of the whole field of school administration. Because the leaders were deeply concerned with giving students and practicing administra— tors a clearer understanding of the social structure of community life and the processes of social and political action, . . . efforts were made to draw content from such disciplines as political sci- ence, sociology, anthropology, and social psychology. Professors and their students turned their attention to developing new methods of instruction in the graduate ' schools and internships, case studies, J” V and field experiences became much more prominent in the total preparation program. The provision for funds to exploit as fully as possible the grand design and breadth of scope of the Program made possible a greater number of, and more exhaustive, studies of administrative behavior and related problems than has 5CASA - A Program of Professional Development, (Washington: American Association of School Administrators, 1964), p. 10. -26- ever characterized any previous investigation of its kind.6 To provide widespread dissemination and diffusion of newly emerging information, ideas, and concepts in school administration, the Executive Committee of the AASA appointed the Committee for the Advancement of School Administration in 1955. Again supported by a generous grant of funds from the Kellogg Foundation, the Committee for the Advancement of School Administra- tion sought to work with institutions, organizations, and specially constituted groups. The Committee's function became that of an initiating agency. By getting other groups to undertake important investigations which needed to be done, there was a double benefit which accrued. Not only were the results of a particular study made available for dissemination, but the involvement of more people created an ever-widening interest in the improve- ment of school administration. One of the Committee's first accomplishments was encouragement and assistance to thirty—four institutions which granted doctor's degrees in school administration to form in late 1956 the University Council for Educational Administration. The Council's major purpose continues 6Hollis A. Moore, Jr., Studies in School Administration, (Washington: American Association of School Administrators, 1957), p. 202. -27- to be that of facilitating individual and cooperative efforts on fundamental research designed to increase the professional status of educational administration. In just less than ten years the Council has grown to include fifty—one qualified universities and has a multitude of activities continuously underway. It fosters research, develops instructional materials for the teaching of school administration, and plans conferences where the thinking and writing of professors in member schools are shared. In historic action said by some to be the most sig- nificant step taken by the AASA in its 94 years of service, the membership voted at its annual convention in 1959 to amend its constitution.7 This action came largely through the efforts of the Committee for the Advancement of School Administration. The amendment provided that beginning January 1, 1964, each new candidate to qualify for mem— bership in the Association must have successfully completed a minimum of two years of graduate study in accredited university programs designed to prepare school administra- tors. Contrary to the dire predictions made by a vocal dissenting group, the membership increased in 1964 and again in 1965 so that today it stands just under 20,000 members. In summarizing the work of the AASA, a noted educator 7Professional Administrators for America's Schools, Thirty-eighth Yearbook, (Washington: American Association of School Administrators, 1960), p. 277. -28- and former editor declares that for the past two decades "the most significant and far-reaching work of the Asso— ciation has been the task of defining and developing the competencies needed in school administration." The importance of excellent professional training for the superintendent and high competency in the position are strikingly set forth by the executive secretary of the AASA as he comments on professional negotiations: Some things eventually will be different, but the effective superintendent still is going to be the professional leader of the teachers, and he's still going to be the professional advisor to the school board. If he isn't well trained and a good enough man to do that, he will have to give way for another fellow who is. The job of the superintendent, rather than fading in importance as some of our free-will advisors on the outside have predicted, is going to become increasingly important. Why? Because with all of the new things that are coming into the picture, the school boards are not equipped, nor do they wish to try to handle these problems. Teachers, too, will look for leadership in these areas. They're both going to depend more and more upon the superintendent. It's like dozens of other shifts school administra- tors have had to make over the years. The boys who are well-trained, who have the ability to adjust and the basic knowledge, will come through on these adjustments. And that just emphasizes 8Arthur H. Rice, "The Centennial Story," No. 6, a report prepared for the American Association of School Administrators, Washington, (March, 1965), p. 4a. -29- the fact we've got to devote our energy and talents to upgrading the quality of school administration over the country. The task of improving the preparation programs is a responsibility of the profession at large. This point of view is emphasized repeatedly in the 1960 Yearbook Of the AASA:lO No person connected with school admin- istration should shrug his shoulders at the existence of an inferior program (preparation) any place in the nation. Only when practicing school administra- tors, boards of education, and professors of educational administration join forces to insist on quality preparation programs will mediocrity become conspicuous and be driven from the field. SUMMARY In spite of the fact that the position of the local chief school officer is over 100 years old, organized preparation programs for the superintendency have come into being only during the last thirty years. The National Conference of.Professors of Educational Administration was organized in 1947 and immediately spearheaded the drive to study the school superintendency. Through funds from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation the study was made nation— wide and came to be known as the Cooperative Program in 9Forrest E. Connor, ibid., No. 8, June, 1965, p. 4d. loAASA Thirty-eighth Yearbook, op. cit., p. 191. -30- Educational Administration. The Executive Committee of AASA appointed a special national committee to disseminate the findings of the Cooperative Study. This new group came to be known as the Committee for the Advancement of School Administration. The organization of the University Council for Educational Administration was one of the Committee's first accomplishments. This action tied the AASA, the Professors of Educational Administration, and the Univer- sities together in the search for ways to improve educa- tional administration both in theory and practice. Chapter III COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATION - A STRUGGLE FOR POWER Collective action in this country which seeks to improve the rewards of one's labor and to secure a voice in making decisions which affect him is an outgrowth of the Industrial Revolution after the Civil War. The development of the Labor Movement with the regulations by government for both union and management in the pri— vate sector provides the only procedural model for guiding the actions of organized public employees. Wildman defines the key aspects of collective relationships to include the right of employees to organize, to select an exclusive representative agency, provision for the union shop, dues, check off, bargaining and signing of an enforceable agreement, binding arbitration, and use of the strike.1 The extent to which these elements appli- cable in private enterprise are fitting and desirable in the public domain has not been determined. Neither has the appropriateness of their userxnrtheir adaptability to a profession been thoroughly documented. It is even questionable if the inherent assumptions of conflict and lWesley A. Wildman, "Collective Action by Public School Teachers," Administrator's Notebook, Vol. XI, No. 6, (February, 1963). -31- -32- controversy which appear to be an organic part of the collective relationships in private enterprise are consist- ent with the philosophy and purposes of public education. Instead of conflict, the patterns for educational progress in the past have been cooperative planning and joint action between all levels in the professional structure of the schools. Collective action in public education is not a new phenomenon, as teachers have formed groups to achieve together what they could not do individually. For many years they have acted in unison to promote higher standards of practice, to secure legislation favorable to education, and to improve their social and economic status. What is new is the changed nature of this activity. Within the decade of the late 1950's and early 60's col- lective action by teachers has become militant and aggres- sive. In a review of national highlights in American education in 1963, the New York Times noted: A resurgence of militancy among the nation's public school teachers marked the year of 1963. There was mounting evidence that teachers are no longer content to rule only the classroom to which they are assigned. They want a hand in the assignment and a voice in the policy that controls their pro- fessional lives. They are not asking to run the schools, but they want their views heard and heeded. 2 2The New York Times, January 16, 1964, p. 88. -33- There is much evidence to support the contention that teachers were an oppressed professional group at the end of World War II. Salaries were low. Classrooms had become overcrowded, the teacher shortage was critical, and frequently, double sessions were necessary. There was a wave of criticism of the schools and with the occasion of Sputnik there followed an angry protest against the professionalization of education and the schools. The mid-century attack upon teachers and school leaders, public apathy toward adequate financing of edu- cation, and the low esteem of the profession were other causes for the development in the fifties and sixties of a counter—pressure by teachers that today is revealed by their militancy, aggressiveness, and frequent hostility. Observing the gains made by organized workers in the private sector of the economy and encouraged by the suc- cess of the Alberta Teachers' Association (Canada) in extending to its members the full range of benefits enjoyed by organized labor, educators in the United States took on a new professional stance as they openly confronted boards of education in the struggle for power. The New York City teachers in November, 1960, used a two-day strike against the Board of Education to win the right of 3Arthur E. Bestor, Educational Wastelands, (Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1953). -34_ collective bargaining. The next year after the AFT had won an election by a three-to-one majority to represent exclusively all of the City's public school teachers, the union bargained successfully for a substantial salary improvement, a duty-free lunch period for all elementary teachers, and the addition of 1000 teachers to give those assigned to the elementary schools released time during the day.4 In View of the outbreak of violence among disturbed youth in some of the City's schools, the addi- tion of one hundred counselors in selected schools and the shortening of the teaching day in difficult junior high schools convinced many teachers that the Union was looking after not only their material welfare but was acting also to improve education in the city. The adamant stand of the bargaining committee to demand immediate action from the New YOrk City board to alleviate conditions that had become intolerable, rever- berated from the board headquarters to the City Hall and finally the Governor's Office in Albany. In the end, millions of dollars "were found" to pour into the schools immediately. These dramatic actions by the United Federation of 4Albert Shanker, "New York Local 2 Scores Gains," The American Teacher, Vol. 46, No. 4, (April, 1962), p. 18. -35_ Teachers of New York City (AFL-CIO) in behalf of its 44,000 members revived an old and sometimes dormant rivalry between the AFT and the NEA. Both of these national teacher organizations would like to be the official representative for all teachers in every school district in the country. This competition for members has resulted in great campaigns prior to representational elections in key cities. The NEA with over 940,000 mem- bers has poured increasingly larger amounts of money into projects to strengthen city associations. The AFT, with the major share of its 110,000 members in the large city school districts, accepts assistance from the Industrial Union Department (AFL-CIO) headed by Walter Reuther who has been deeply involved in organ- izing public school teachers and conducting campaigns for collective bargaining. THE AFT AND THE NEA - COMPARISONS AND CONTRASTS While the two organizations have a number of common beliefs and practices, there are many philosophical as well as operational differences. The NBA, for example, opens its membership to all teachers, supervisory and 5Michael Moskow, "Teacher Organizations: An Analysis of the Issues," Teachers College Record, Vol. 66, No. 5, (February, 1965), p. 453. -36- administrative personnel in public and private schools, colleges, and educational agencies which are both public and private. Classroom teachers in public schools con— stitute over 85% of the total membership. One of the major beliefs of the NEA, however, is that since educa- tion is a unique profession, membership in associations should not be limited to classroom teachers. Therefore, all state affiliates and most local associations accept both teachers and administrators as members. In this respect, the NEA differs from the AFT which holds that "management employees should not be in the same bargaining units as non-supervisory employees. There can be no question about the predominately managerial status of a school superintendent.”6 There are several other differences between these national organizations competing for the membership of teachers. The AFT regards a strike as a final resort only. In its 1963 national convention the Federation adopted a resolution (No. 79) which recognized the right of locals to strike under certain circumstances and urged ". . . the AFL-CIO and affiliated international unions to . 7 . . support such strikes when they occur." This resolution 6Charles Cogen, "Collective Bargaining: The AFT Way," address before the National Institute on Collective Nego— tiations, Providence, Rhode Island, July 8, 1965. 7White Collar Report, No. 338, (Washington: Bureau of National Affairs, August 29, 1963), p. A—4. -37- is of special importance because previously there had been no official strike policy even though locals had been supported when they went on strike. While the NBA, on the other hand, does not expressly forbid strikes, it asserted in 1964 that: . . . the seeking of consensus and mutual agreement on a professional basis should preclude the arbitrary use of unilateral authority by boards of education and the use of strikes by teachers. 8 A year later in its annual convention the NEA by resolution amended its previous stand and concluded the resolution to read: . . . the seeking of consensus . . . should preclude the arbitrary use of unilateral authority by boards of educa- tion, administrators, or teachers. 9 As a substitute for strikes, the NEA chooses to invoke sanctions against a board of education, a school district, or an entire state. A substantial difference of opinion exists between the AFT and the NEA on the matter of affiliation. The AFT does not regard affiliation with labor as an unfor- tunate obstacle, but rather as a positive advantage. It claims such affiliation provides teachers with a powerful 8Addresses and Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting, (Washington: National Education Association, 1964), p. 446. 9Addresses and Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting, (Washington: National Education Association, 1965), p. 416. -38- ally in achieving educational goals. Quite to the con- trary, the NEA staunchly affirms that a truly professional organization of teachers must remain independent. The official attitude of the NEA is well expressed as the President of the Philadelphia Teachers' Association declares that: The proper posture for the teaching profession to maintain with regard to organized labor, organized business, and similar groups is one of mutual respect and independence. 10 PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATION 0R COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Both of the national teachers'organizations, the NEA and the AFT, advocate the process of involving teachers in the formulation of policies which affect them. The NEA chooses to call this process professional negotiation. Drawing upon the heritage from its labor affiliation, the AFT recommends collective bargaining. The differences between the two approaches are not clear-cut and often appear to be purely semantic. Several important similar- ities will be noted first. Steffensen claims that: In either procedure, there are pro- visions for (1) a direct, one-to-one relationship between the teachers and 10 . . . Marion L. Street, "ProfeSSional Assoc1ations —- More Than Unions," Teachers College Record, Vol. 66, No. 3, (December, 1964), p. 217. -39- the board of education, (2) the estab- lishment of this relationship through legislation, (3) the development of a written contract or procedural policy defining the implementation of this relationship, and (4) the use of sanc- tions in the event of an ultimate decision which is unsatisfactory to the teachers. There is also a fifth but limited agree- ment on the use of third parties. 11 Several of the differences between the two approaches appear to be in the climate of the negotiation and the attitudes of the negotiators. Others are procedural as the educational associations prefer that whatever legal involvement is necessary or desired would be directed through educational channels if they are available. Associations in Michigan, and perhaps in other states too, have no choice since the statute providing for negotiation by public employees makes no distinction between profes— sional and non-professional groups. The associations claim that the use of the term and the practice of collective bargaining as in industrial and labor relations tends to cast teachers in the role of adversaries to administrators and assumes a conflict between employees and employer. The term professional negotiation, they believe, avoids the labor-industrial orientation and does not admit a conflict or continuous 11James P. Steffensen, ”Teachers Negotiate with Their School Boards," United States Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare Bulletin OE-23036, No. 40, U. S. Govern- ment Printing Office, (1964), p. 55. -40- controversy between teachers, administrators, and the board of education. In fact, the AASA claims by resolu- tion adopted in its 1966 annual convention: . . . that there are common goals and interests among educators -— teachers, board members, and administrators. We further believe that the development of school policies and programs and the solution of school problems can best be accomplished by these groups working in unison and with respect for the unique role of each. 12 An experienced superintendent who is well acquainted with the efforts of organized teachers claims that it is possible for a superintendent to serve as a professional resource person for both the board and the teachers' organization.13 He believes there is no conflict of interest in serving in this dual capacity. A superintendent of schools is not comparable to a superintendent of a fac- tory who needs to produce goods and services as cheaply as possible. School administration is a highly profes- sional activity requiring leadership "to inspire others to achieve, to extend to them the vision of the educational 12Resolution as adopted by vote of the members of the American Association of School Administrators in convention, Atlantic City, N.J., February, 1966. 13Harry A. Becker, "The Superintendent Confronts Collective Action," in Negotiations in the Schools, Chapter V, (The Oklahoma Commission on Educational Admin— istration in cooperation with the Extension Division of the University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1965), p. 65. -41- challenge, and to have faith in their creative response."1 The AFT regards the superintendent as the executive officer of the school board and as a member of the management team who cannot represent teachers adequately. THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF CONFLICT One of the most crucial issues emerging from the collective negotiation movement among teachers at this time is the question of the appropriateness of bargaining or negotiating to the philosophy and practice of American education. The theory and operation of collective action between employer and employee are based on the assumption of significant and continuing conflict between the managers and the managed in any enterprise. Collective bargaining as is generally practiced in the labor-industrial arena resolves conflict by concession and compromise, the con- sequence being that any gain made by one party comes as a result of a loss or a cost inflicted upon the other.15 Considered in this light, it is a device for achieving the accommodation of opposing demands and positions which stem from and reflect the underlying opposition between l4Ernest O. Melby, Administering Community Education, (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955), p. 140. 15Richard E. Walton and Robert B. McKersie, A Behav- ioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965), p. 4. _42_ organized workers and managers. Kerr believes this conflict is inevitable since the acquisitive desires of both labor and management are unlimited but the result of their pro- ductive enterprise is strictly limited. Collective bargaining is the social invention that has created a stable means for resolving industrial con- flict through discussion reinforced by power. The use of power, available to both parties, has as its immediate function the creation of industrial disorder. Force and power are the instruments for introducing temporary chaos into the enterprise. The chaos is deliberately sought. It is the weapon by which management and union each seek to secure the most favorable terms within the legal requirements that govern their relationships. The resolu- tion of industrial conflict through the practice of col- lective bargaining has become institutionalized. A few of the elements that make for conflict between management and labor are also present in the operation of the public schools. School personnel have the same human motivations that are common among workers in industry. People in both groups are acquisitive, seek recognition, and want a voice in making decisions in matters that affect them. There are, nevertheless, substantial differences l6Clark Kerr, "Industrial Conflict and Its Mediation," American Journal of Sociology, (November, 1954), p. 231. -43_ which make the social system of the school a totally dissimilar environment to the industrial arena. For one thing, the purposes of education are directed to help people grow to their full potential of human worth in a democratic society. On the other hand, an industrial enterprise exists to return for its investors or owners an economic gain and perhaps to make a useful product or render a service. The school seeks to give youth and adults that back- ground of knowledge and experience which will assist them individually to achieve self-direction, self-fulfillment and a concern for the welfare of others. These ends are achieved more effectively when the social climate of the school is supportive, when the ideal of unity offers freedom for individual dissent, and when opportunity is provided for individuals to participate in making decisions which affect them and the welfare of the school. How the many and varied social-professional relation- ships between teachers themselves and between teachers and school administrators will be affected by the intro- duction of formal collective relationships is a matter of great concern for many educators. Wildman maintains that the provision of any of the elements of bargaining to an employee organization constitutes an effective grant of power to that organization to wield in the collective relationship and results in the institutionalization of _44_ the conflict.17 To what extent a teacher organization which has established a negotiating relationship will become a political entity and seek to maintain and even extend conflict situations is not known. Neither is research available to describe the cleavages and power struggles which may develop within the professional ranks of schools nor to assess their effect upon the morale of teachers, attitudes of pupils, or the support of citizens. THE ROLE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT More is at stake as a result of collective negotia- tion than just the immediate task or duty of the super- intendent in the procedural aspects with teachers and the board. His leadership position as conceived and developed by eminent educational statesmen in this country is threatened. Kratzmann reports that the Canadian superin- tendent no longer has "influence in negotiations“ and “has been relegated to the back benches as a non—partici— pating observer." Whether the superintendent of schools in the United l7Wesley A. Wildman, "Group Conflict and School Organization," Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. XLVII, No. 5, (January, 1966), p. 245. 18Arthur Kratzmann, "The Alberta Teachers' Associa- tion and Collective Bargaining," Theory Into Practice, Vol. IV, No. 2, (1965), pp. 76 and 78. -45- States should be or should not be an active participant in the negotiation process may not be the most important consideration. The important question to ask may be how school administrators can help to raise the expectations of teachers, board members, and citizens above the pro- cedural activities of the day to catch the vision of a great education. Melby comments that a school is neither a factory nor an industrial empire. The community, the superintendent of schools, and the teachers, he believes, cannot be in a state of cold war if educational outcomes are to be achieved.19 The liberation of school personnel to become imaginative and original appears to be the cen- tral problem of administration today. The superintendent who "releases the creative talents of others" in the school and the community to participate in the continuous improve- ment of education is exercising leadership of a high 20 order. DISCUSS ION The review of the two elements of this study -— preparation programs for school administrators and collective 19Ernest O. Melby, Administering Community Education, (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1955), p. 109. 201bid., p. 250. -46- negotiation —- hopefully has shown how strategically important each has become to educational administration. Writing in the current issue of Harpers Magazine under the title "Needed: A New Breed of School Superintendent", the author blames the graduate schools for the appalling failure of superintendents in big cities. Specifically, he claims "that training in teachers' colleges and exper- ience as a teacher, principal, or suburban school super- intendent are largely irrelevant preparation for the staggering problems of running an urban school system."2 While obviously this accusation is a matter of the author's personal opinion and admittedly was not the thrust of the article, it pinpoints a typical American characteristic when something goes awry: who is to blame? While there is no categorical answer that may be given to this question, there appears to be ample evidence from the surveys conducted in this study to indicate that superintendents now on the job had received no graduate school preparation to deal with the issues involved in collective negotiations. It is unreasonable to assume that preparation for the superintendency or other school administrative office should become narrow and highly specialized in an effort to make the superintendent ready 21A11an R. Talbot, "Needed: A New Breed of School Superintendent," Harpers, Vol. 232, No. 1389, (February, 1966), p. 81. -47- for every contingency. However, there appears to be need for it to include a background of study and experience in the constituent elements of collective negotiation or any other of the several crucial issues currently con- fronting the schools. SUMMARY Collective negotiation in public education had its beginnings in New York City in 1961 as the United Federa- tion of Teachers, an AFT affiliate, demanded the right to bargain With the board on salaries and conditions of work. Later the Federation won a representation election and has since negotiated for all of the nearly 45,000 teachers in the school system. The New York success inspired the teachers in other large cities to organize and demand similar rights. Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston are among the large cities now represented by the Federation. The NEA affiliates were stimulated to more aggressive action in other cities and in every state. The rivalry between the two organizations raises the question of their similarities and contrasts. The widespread practice of collective negotiation between teachers and school boards with regulatory provi- sions now enacted in state laws appears to be institution- alizing a form of conflict in the administration of public -48- education. The role of the superintendent becomes confused as he is caught in the struggle of attempting to be the professional leader of the teachers as they engage in conflict with the board whom he serves as chief executive. The attitudes and opinions of professors of educa- tional administration in eleven Midwestern universities on the two elements of this study are reported and analyzed in the next chapter. Chapter IV WHAT THE PROFESSORS OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION SAID Two hypotheses were set forth earlier to be tested by this study. One held that the traditional role of the school administrator had changed with the advent of collective negotiation. A role is defined by Newcomb as ”the ways of behaving which are expected of any individual who occupies a position.”1 If the superin- tendent's role is changing or has changed, perhaps the best evidence of that fact may be discovered from the role incumbent, in this case the superintendent himself. An additional source of evidence could be secured from pro- fessors of school administration whose judgment on the role expectations of the superintendent may be considered dependable. Accordingly, opinions on the superintendent's role change were sought from the superintendents them- selves and the professors of educational administration appointed to represent the eleven universities in this study. In the second hypothesis, the position was taken that the present graduate preparation programs offered lTheodore M. Newcomb, Social Psychology, (New York: The Dryden Press, 1951), p. 280. _49_ -50- by selected universities generally fail to reflect the new and different social and political conditions now prevailing in the environment of the school and community. If the content of these programs was successfully reflect— ing the demands made upon the schools, it would be rea- sonable to expect considerable agreement among professors in their opinions about the appropriateness of negotia- tion to education, the superintendent's role, and what content is necessary to prepare administrators to serve in this particular area. The purpose of this chapter will be to consider the opinions and judgments of the professors in relation to these matters. The personal interview was selected as the means for gathering the needed data. This method presented the advantage of flexibility in its use and permitted further inquiry to probe in some depth to secure insights and discover interrelationships among the numerous and varied aspects of the two elements of the study. To reduce variation and provide for more comparability in the find- ings, it was decided that the interviews should be struc- tured to the extent that the same questions would be asked of each professor and serve as a guide for topics to be covered and areas of inquiry that should be included. An extensive list of items was reduced to four matters of fundamental importance about which the opinions and _5]_- judgments of the professors were desired: 1. Collective negotiation as a means to advance the profession of education in status and prestige. 2. Granting the assumption of role dilemma in the position of the superintendent of schools, what responsibility, if any, do professors of school adminis- tration have to help clarify the concept of the position or to define a new role for the superintendent? 3. Should the superintendent be prepared, in an academic sense, to negotiate for the board? 4. What should be taught in the graduate school and by whom to provide knowledge, skills, and experience for school admin— istrators in the area of collective negotiation? From these four items about a dozen questions were prepared to guide the interviews. Pre—testing among professors of educational administration in three uni- versities not included in the study revealed that one -52_ question should be eliminated and several others restruc- tured or consolidated so that the total was reduced to five. THE QUEST IONS 1. Do you see collective negotiation as now generally practiced a means of advancing the profession in status and prestige? 2. Assuming that the traditional role of the superintendent is confused or jeo- pardized by the negotiation process, does the professor of school administra- tion have a responsibility either to help (a) clarify the concept of the position, or to (b) define a new role for the superintendent? 3. Should the superintendent be prepared in an academic sense, to negotiate for the board? 4. Assuming that he is to be prepared to negotiate in a formal sense, what body -53- of knowledge should be employed, what skills developed, and what opportunities for practice and experience should be offered? 5. Should such preparation be offered through departments of educational administration or through other facilities of a univer- sity like labor and industrial relations? Visits were made to the eleven campuses and the inter— views took place through a two week period at the end of November and in early December in 1965. The average length of the interviews was about two hours and a quar- ter; the shortest being an hour and forty minutes and the longest three hours. Each was recorded on tape. Tables I - III to follow provide a basis for comparing some of the positions held by the professors. A longer discussion describing their thinking and judgment and quoting some of their expressed opinions is included also. Question 1 Do you see collective negotiation as now generally practiced a means of advancing the profession in status and prestige? The responses to the first question varied from enthusiastic endorsement of the collective negotiation -54_ movement to apprehension and doubt about its contribution to professional advancement. This is not surprising as one considers the different regions of the country repre- sented -— some highly industrial and others predominately rural. It appears that there may be a direct relationship between teacher interest in collective negotiation and the degree of activity of organized labor within a state. Professors in the two Indiana universities pointed to the contrast in labor activity between Michigan and Indiana. They reported a public employment relations act was introduced in the Indiana legislature in 1965 and died in committee. The same year Michigan passed a similar act. Recognizing these differences resulting from varied geographical, social, and political influences makes the contrasting responses to Question 1 more understandable. A number of pertinent and interesting observations were made by the professors which are not included in the very brief comments in Table I. All agreed -- but some with reluctance —- that negotiation as a movement is "here to stay", "permanent", or ”irreversible" to utilize several of their phrases. One comments optimistically that as "negotiation agreements are drawn up . . . over a period of time there will be a gradual maturity of all people involved , , ,"2 Another anticipates that as teachers, 2Interview with Stephen Hencley, November 16, 1965. _55- TABLE I‘ A COMPARISON OF PROFESSORS' OPINIONS ON NEGOTIATION AS A MEANS OF ADVANCING THE PROFESSION IN STATUS AND PRESTIGE Yes, No, University or Comments Uncertain Without negotiation the definitions Illinois Yes of prestige and status are made by administrators. I admit prestige may come with Indiana Uncertain power. Is this the image teachers want? Negotiation is devised to give Iowa Yes teachers a share in making school districtqpolicy. Fragments the profession into Michigan No competing or adversary groups. Up to now it follows the labor Michigan No pattern. Makes for divisiveness State and separation. A group cannot achieve profes- Minnesota No sional status by declaration. A movement long overdue. All North— Yes school people need to learn how western to handle it. Younger teachers are not as con- Ohio Yes cerned about professional image State as older ones. The gains made through negotiation Purdue No have cost in professionalism. Prestige and status are acquired Wayne No by earned respect and not by State force. Since there is no turning back at Wisconsin Yes, this point, I am hopeful it will hopefully enhance the profession. -56- administrators, and boards have more experience with nego- tiation, the procedures will become accepted as being professional and the "only response teachers have to large . . "3 organization. A more reserved point of view is expressed by a pro- fessor as he candidly declares: I don't think this kind of activity (collective negotiation) enhances the prestige of the teaching profession. I don't know the alternative. I think teachers want more of a leading voice in terms of their welfare and I don't think they are any longer going to accept an intermediary acting for them. They want their own voice and in this sense they will have one more bit of autonomy that heretofore has not been accorded to them. 4 Agreeing that collective negotiation as now practiced is not likely to enhance the status and prestige of teach- ers, another professor did develop an alternative. He proposed the more widespread adoption of a professional practices act which would give to teachers considerably more control over their own affairs, much as in some of 5 the other professions. This would be, as the name implies, a legislative act within each state identifying the respon- sibility for the establishment and application of standards 3Interview with Dr. William Monahan, November 17, 1965. 4Interview with Dr. Norbert J. Nelson, November 29, 1965. 5Interview with Dr. Fred Vescolani, December 3, 1965. -57- of practice for all certified or licensed members of the teaching profession. When teachers go before the legislature their success depends in part upon the extent of responsibility the profession can convince the public it is able and willing to assume. The outcome of this effort will depend on the confidence and faith the profession has earned by demon- strating competence and integrity. Collective negotiation, as now practiced, in the opinion of this professor, generally does not win public confidence and faith. Younger teachers were said by another professor to have a very realistic sense of professionalism. They appear to judge the professionalism of an organization not by its name, but in terms of its activities, its power, and prestige. He believes that: . . . the way today's teachers are being prepared, there is far less concern over this professional image than many of the older generation teachers have built up... the question of professionalism will be far less relevant than it may have been five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago. To review, it appears that there was only one point of firm agreement expressed by the professors in answer to Question 1 -- collective negotiation is here to stay. Their assessment of its value and function to increase the profession in status and prestige was varied. As indicated in Table I, five professors believed it was an asset, five felt it was a deterrent, and one was in doubt. 6Interview with Dr. Fred Staub, December 1, 1965. -58- Assuming that the role of the superintendent has changed as a result of collective negotiation, the next question considers what responsibility the professor of educational administration has in defining a new role. Question 2 Assuming that the traditional role of the superintendent is confused or jeo- pardized by the negotiation process, does the professor of school administra- tion have a responsibility either to help (a) clarify the concept of the position, or to (b) define a new role for the superintendent? There was agreement among the professors interviewed that there were many factors in the negotiation movement today that challenged the traditional administrative role of the superintendent. Chief among the unresolved issues is the question of role dilemma. If the superintendent is the chief executive officer and represents the board, how may he also represent the teachers when their declared desires and needs conflict with the announced position of the board of education? In answer to this question, one professor developed the following rationale: For too long the superintendent of schools has had to tread this tenuous path in terms of being executive officer of the board and yet ostensibly the professional leader of the teachers. The duties of -59_ TABLE II A COMPARISON OF PROFESSORS' OPINIONS ON THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IN THE CLARIFICATION OF THE ROLE OF THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT Yes, No, University or Comments Uncertain The position needs more study, Illinois Uncertain particularly the relation of the superintendent to the political processes. No opinion expressed as to what the Indiana Uncertain professor of educational administra- tion can do to help. Need to help discover the best Iowa Yes model or pattern of collective action to fit the school's needs. There is a professional leadership Michigan Yes role emerging which professors can help to clarify. Michigan Yes Professors need to be more involved State in the local school scenes. We need to help discover what the Minnesota Yes superintendent's position is to accomplish. North- Yes We need a better definition of western what the superintendent's job is. Ohio The superintendent's role changed State Yes before the advent of collective negotiation. To describe the new role of the Purdue Yes superintendent is the most impor- tant job now. Wayne Yes The outlines of the emerging role State need clarification. Research is needed to discover Wisconsin Yes which of several roles the super- intendent should fill. -60— the superintendent have become so com— plex . . . that there has been a gravi— tational pull away from his duties as an instructional leader. It has become just impossible for him to do this role . . . I think he can play a number of different roles in the negotiation process. I think there will not be one role that every superintendent in every district should play. I think it will vary accord- ing to personalities, according to nego- tiating style of the particular teachers' organization, whether it is a large city or a small one. 7 I can see him as a mediating force -- kind of a statesman's role and as a neu- tral person. The minute he gets involved and identifies himself either with one side or the other, his role is immediately negated. Too often we have viewed him as a professional leader . . . but the times are such that this is not going to be possible. 8 Indicating his agreement with the idea of the super- intendent serving in the role of a mediator whose function would be to act between the teachers and the school board, another professor defines several different roles he sees the superintendent playing in the future: First, he will have responsibility for creating a permissive environment that will permit change in the schools. He may be a change agent, but he will also 7Interview with Dr. Michael Usdan, November 15, 1965. 81bid. -6]_- be an environment creator. Second, a major responsibility will be to work out the formulation of effective coalitions of influence. In a pluralis- tic society we are dividing and segmenting ourselves into many sub-groups. For education to move, the superintendent must work at forming a coalition of influence among . . . sub-groups so that he has a power nucleus to secure action. Third, he will be somewhat of a mediator within the sub-groups; internally within the school and externally in the community. Fourth, he will be constantly searching out trends and identifying problems that may arise several years in the future. Fifth, he will be less involved in direct personnel administration, especially in the larger schools. He will not attempt to be chief negotiator. 9 A different point of view was described by a profes- sor who was then acting—superintendent of schools in a large metropolitan city of about a half-million people. Speaking from the basis of daily practical experience he declared that: The role of the superintendent is a very precarious one. I would like to see the board of education identify the superin- tendent as its representative in these negotiations and let him meet with these groups preferably and in most cases in the absence of the board. Then he would be prepared to bring a recommendation to the board. It seems to me that proper manage- ment and leadership the school requires 9Interview with Dr. Norbert J. Nelson, Nov. 29, 1965. -62- means this kind of delegation on the part of the board and behavior on the part of the superintendent. 10 This point of view was shared by two other professors, Dr. Fred Staub, December 1, 1965, and Dr. Carroll Munshaw, November 11, 1965. They saw the superintendent as top management with less and less involvement in instruction. Commenting on the superintendent's removal from the instruc— tional arena, one professor claimed that this separation was inevitable whether or not negotiation had entered the picture. There are multiple causes for this, one 11 . . . . . says , including the increase in Size of school systems, the complexity of the new curriculum, increased federal involvement, the growth of central administrative staff, and the explosive pressures of community social issues. He concluded his comments on this point with the follow- ing statement: Because of the explosion of knowledge , we are tending to get the specialist in the matters of curriculum and instruction . . . and more and more we are seeing this taken out of the hands of the admin- istration. The day of the superintendent who rolls up his sleeves and works with the social studies committee is fast disappearing . . . and I regard it as a wholesome sign. 12 10Interview with Dr. Clifford P. Hooker, Nov. 18, 1965. 11Interview with Dr. Fred Staub, Dec. 1, 1965. 12 Ibid. -63- And finally a different role conception was advanced by still another professor. In brief, he claimed that professors of education had the responsibility to develop with school administrators an acceptable role for them to play in collective negotiations. He explained that he hoped superintendents could become professional con- sultants to both teachers and the board. In this role, the superintendent would be the most knowledgeable per- son in the school about its over-all operation. He would have, in the larger schools, aides to bring him factual information, but he would be responsible for the plan and for its presentation and integration. Furthermore, he hoped superintendents would be par- ticularly mindful of the interests of children for whom the schools primarily were established to serve. To pro- tect their educational welfare and not allow it to be jeopardized by the differences between teachers and board would become a major responsibility for the superintendent. Our job as professors of educational I administration must be to help super- intendents understand this role, to become skillful in remaining detached from alignment with either teachers or the board, and finally to help both teachers and board to understand and appreciate the superintendent's new role. 13 Interview with Dr. Fred Vescolani, Dec. 3, 1965. -64- As in response to Question 1, the professors differed in their assessment of the second question. They not only granted the assumption of the changed role of the super- intendent as a result of collective negotiations -- they confirmed it, although they did not agree on the extent of change. From some of the quotations above and other comments summarized in Table II, it is obvious that a few of the professors accepted responsibility to help define the new role of the superintendent as they perceived it. The next question considered whether the superintendent should be prepared in his graduate program to negotiate with teachers for the board of education. Question 3 Should the superintendent be prepared, in an academic sense, to negotiate for the board? All of the professors of educational administration agreed that the superintendent should be knowledgeable in the area of collective negotiation. Whether or not he should negotiate for the board would depend upon many circumstances unique to each situation. It is reasonable to assume, however, that he would be responsible either for the leadership necessary to promote good negotiation or for the final results -- or for both. -65- On this question there was wide divergence among the professors. Their responses varied from a firm stand holding that the superintendent should negotiate as the board's representative to an equally assertive view that this should not be his role. The variations are indicated in Table III. One professor's remark is indicative of the confusion among educators on this question: I am ambivalent here. I am totally dissatisfied with our present prepara- tion program -- the whole thing: I think we have too long thought in terms of certain proficiencies which we could teach. I don't care whether it's how to negotiate or how to make a budget, or our concern for school law or for school plant planning -- all of these have taken a greater portion of the school administrator's effort and time than they have rewarded him in competence. So I am leaning more and more to devoting a greater share of our time to the newer concepts of the behavioral sciences -- to a study of why we behave the way we do as school superintendents or why others behave as they do. I want to shy away from trying to pick out the skills to teach. I am much more concerned with experience, with competence in the human relations field. We have overlooked the readiness concept almost completely in our preparation programs. On how to become prepared to negotiate is the next question. In it there is a greater variety of response. Interview with Dr. James A. Lewis, Dec. 2, 1965. -66- TABLE III COMPARISON OF OPINIONS OF PROFESSORS REGARDING SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS AND NEGOTIATION Should Supts. be Should Superintendents Knowledgeable in Negotiate for the Board Univer- Negotiation of Education sities Some- Only in Generally Yes No Yes times Small Schools No Illi- X X nois Indiana X X Iowa X X Michi- X X gan Michi- gan X X State Minne- X X sota North- X X western Ohio X X State Purdue X X Wayne X X State Wiscon- X X sin -67- Question 4 Assuming that he is to be prepared to negotiate in a formal sense, what body of knowledge should be employed, what skills developed, and what opportunities for practice and experience should be offered? Purpose—definition precedes the knowledge and skills necessary to perform an act, whether it be to hew a rail- road tie, run a drill press, or to prepare school admin- istrators to negotiate. While not his exact words, this was the emphasis which introduced a professor's response to the question about knowledge, skills, and experience necessary for negotiation.15 Speaking directly to the responsibilities of profes- sors of educational administration, he continued: We need to conceptualize what kinds of skills are necessary and discover if they can be taught. But skills follow on the basis of the kinds of purposes that are developed . . . The skill is the result, the consequence of a whole planning pro- cess designed to achieve some purpose. Where we are weak right now is where we have always been weak, and that is at purpose definitions. The only place where you can confront the process of purpose definition in any mean- ing for life is in the humanities. From that we can develop conceptualizations for developing skills. l6 15Dr. William Monahan, Nov. 17, 1965. 16Ibid. -68- This rationale is developed further by the thoughts expressed by a professor from another university who com- ments: "The superintendent must be more liberally edu- cated than he has been in the past. He will need to possess a fund of knowledge from the liberal arts. I think our programs must be inter—disciplinary in some respects." The need for inter—disciplinary courses was expressed by each professor. They emphasized the importance of knowledge and great understanding in political sociology. One professor put it this way as he declared that the superintendent ”will have to be very proficient in the political processes involved in reaching agreements in the public realm. He will have to understand the nature of preference structures, demand structures, and conflict resolution processes."18 Our courses in administration need to be wrapped around behavioral theory, organizational theory, politi- cal theory and political structure another professor argued.19 Deploring the deficiencies in the superintendent's preparation program in the area of negotiation, a professor 17Interview with Dr. Norbert J. Nelson, Nov. 29, 1965. 18Interview with Dr. Stephen Hencley, Nov. 16, 1965. 19Interview with Dr. Norbert J. Nelson, Nov. 29, 1965. -69_ "conceded” that the "unions have developed some astute- ness which teachers have borrowed that would tear super- . 20 intendents to shreds in the negotiating session." He continued to say that he believed a better foundation in public law is indispensable. Professors of educational administration have respon- sibility not only to develop the concepts for excellent subject matter background in the liberal arts and the sciences, but furthermore they have to provide experience for prospective administrators to learn at first hand in a variety of actual school and community situations. In defense of this conviction, a professor outlined the theory and practice in his university of the school administrator internship program. He talked of the need for . . . significantly involving interns at the functional level to participate insofar as possible in the development of a total program in collective negotiation, for example. But the internship should be broader than just to involve one or two aspects of education. The intern should have experience in the state department of education . . ., in community affairs, and groups like the council of social agencies, city government, urban develop- ment, and groups from the business community. He should have opportunity for experience in an administrative function in a school system in which he enters significantly into the decision making capacity and assumes responsibility for the decisions he makes.21 20Interview with Dr. Clifford P. Hooker, Nov. 18, 1965. l . . Interview With Dr. Fred Vescolani, Dec. 3, 1965. -70- That the superintendent should have a broad background in the humanities and the social sciences as a prerequisite for negotiation responsibility was mentioned repeatedly by the professors. Their statements attested to their conviction that in addition to the excellent liberal edu- cation that is required, a superintendent must have know- ledge and skill in the behavioral sciences, in administra- tive theory and action, and also in the conflict resolution process. One professor outlined the potential contribution that the internship program has to make especially in the preparation for negotiation. Another alluded to it. The last question asked if preparation for collective negotiation should be offered through departments of educational administration or through other facilities of a university like labor and industrial relations or business schools. Question 5 Should such preparation be offered through departments of educational administration or through other facilities of a university like labor and industrial relations? There appeared to be consensus among the professors that preparation for school administrators in the area of collective negotiation should be planned by and managed through the departments of educational administration -7l- utilizing all relevant personnel and material resources available from the total university. Several professors were specific in acknowledging the need of help in particular areas. One, who is cur- rently chairman of the Department of Educational Admin- istration in a College of Education, mentioned that he did not know of any professor of school administration who is prepared to handle the teaching of legal aspects on the level he believes it should be taught. Therefore, he concludes: ”I would have to turn to the law school hoping to employ a professor on a joint appointment basis with the college of education."22 Warning against too much delegation to other depart- ments, a professor declared that "there are some of us who have some knowledge that is not possessed by the typical political scientist or sociologist or psycholo- gist, for example, that is very valuable." Suggesting the exploration of a different means of preparation, a professor who has special interest in simulation believed that computer based simulation has some possibility. He explained: I think you could program various types of behavior on the part of a bargaining committee into a computer so that you 22 Interview with Dr. Clifford P. Hooker, Nov. 18, 1965. 23Interview with Dr. Norbert J. Nelson, Nov. 29, 1965. -72- have one person playing a role and the rest of it simulated. One of our men . . . is doing research on computer based programmed instruction. He sees almost infinite possibilities for its use in many new and varied situa— tions. 24 The comments of another professor in utilizing other resources are appropriate at this point. He said: We need to make use in our classes of the resources from industrial relations, personnel management, and other places. We ought to become more knowledgeable in the negotiation procedures and practices and to borrow from the various disciplines to develop these kinds of concepts with our own students relating it all of the time to the educational setting. We need to do more than develop in our students adeptness —— we need to have them know and be confident of their knowledge of what is good for education —- not just 25 what is good for the negotiation process. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE OPINIONS AND JUDGMENTS OF THE PROFESSORS After studying the transcribed copy of the tape recordings from the interviews with the professors about the school administrators' preparation programs in col- lective negotiation, it is necessary to be cautious in 24Interview with Dr. Richard Rossmiller, Nov. 19, 1965. 5Interview with Dr. Stephen Hencley, Nov. 16, 1965. -73- drawing conclusions. There are, however, a few which quite safely may be considered. Several observations and implica— tions will be made in a later portion of this study. It was obvious that each professor had a genuine interest in the negotiation movement and its effect upon public education. In analyzing the problems involved, however, there were several different and conflicting points of view. There appeared to be much uncertainty and, as has been noted earlier, some outspoken dissatis- faction with the general nature of the preparation programs for school administrators. There were, for example, substantial differences in their assessment of collective action among teachers. Those who doubted its appropriateness to education left unanswered the question of how teachers, locked in a hierarchical structure, can gain independence or autonomy. This appears to be the central issue in the thinking of Solomon, who writes: Perhaps the most crucial fact to be reckoned with in public education organization is the contradiction between the teacher's role as a sub- ordinate employee and his role as a professional person. This contra- diction affects significantly the teacher's relationships with admin- istrators and with fellow teachers.26 26 Benjamin Solomon, ”The Teaching Profession," The School Review, Vol. 69, No. 3 (Autumn, 1961), p. 289. _74- Solomon's analysis viewed in a wider context amounts to the struggle of teachers for professional recognition in a bureaucratically controlled institution. The coer- cive element in the negotiation process as now practiced to win the struggle of teachers was seen by almost half of the professors (Table I) as inappropriate to the teach— ing profession. At the best, however, there was only fragmentary evidence from their recorded opinions which even hinted at an appropriate alternative to improve if not resolve the problems. One idea consisted of the dis— tant hope that as the negotiation processes were used both teachers and boards would "mature" in experience and discover more acceptable means of reconciling differences. Another encouraged the further development and understand- ing of the professional practices acts already adopted in some states. It appears, therefore, that on the basis of the evidence from the interviews there is little, if any, help being offered to school administrators in the preparation programs at this time to aid or even give direction in the reconciliation of the conflict confront- ing teachers who strive for status and prestige in the present organization of our schools. To this extent the programs in the selected universities are not satisfying the social and political demands of the schools and communities. -75- THE SUPERINTENDENT'S POSITION AND ROLE CONFLICT Each professor recognized the presence of role conflict in the present definition of the superintendent's position. Nine of the eleven (Table II) indicated they felt that professors of school administration should be helpful in either redefining the position or resolving the conflict. Different points of View, as indicated earlier, were advanced in their proposals for the reduction of role conflict in the superintendent's position. One professor portrayed the superintendent as a mediator serving as a neutral party between teachers and the board and warning that involvement with either would negate the efficacy of his role. Another advocated the appointment of the super- intendent by the board to serve as its representative in negotiations. Two others described a somewhat similar situation wherein the superintendent would have multiple roles to perform. A fourth point of view held the super- intendent as top management removed from the instructional arena. The few similarities in perception were offset by the substantial differences. The result, in the end, on the basis of the data, showed lack of agreement and consistency in the professors' role perceptions of the -76_ superintendent as he is confronted with teachers and perhaps other school groups seeking to negotiate with the board. With as much substantive difference in the several role perceptions, there is very likely to be considerable variation in the philosophical basis as well as the con- tent of the preparation programs of the several univer- sities as they relate to the superintendent's position in collective negotiation. While there appeared to be considerable agreement among the professors that the position of the superin- tendent was much in need of better definition (Table II), they had no knowledge of any research in the institutions they represented now underway or any contemplated for the future which would study this problem. With the need recognized, it appears that the programs in school admin- istration as described by the appointed representatives of the several universities are not successfully reflect- ing the demands of the new and different social and polit- ical conditions now present in the school and community environment. WHAT CONTENT? When asked what body of knowledge should provide the content for studying collective negotiation, the professors' responses, some of which were indicated earlier, -77_ showed considerable similarity. The content, they said, should be drawn from the fields of learning whose con— cepts, principles, or techniques can serve the needs of this adventure in human relationships. Its eclectic nature is revealed by the variety of sources, Figure I, from which it draws its substance. While there was unanimous agreement among the pro- fessors that school administrators should be knowledgeable in negotiation (Table III), there appeared to be little evidence of a plan or program devised to accomplish this end. In his discussion of the education of school admin- istrators, Walton declared that the ambiguity of the administrator's role has inhibited the determination of the kind of professional education he should have. The absence of clarity in describing what the administra- tor is to do or be may account for what appears to be uncertainty or confusion among the professors regarding the selection and organization of content in collective negotiation. On the basis of five criteria for considering the appropriateness of content in collective negotiation as 27John Walton, "The Education of Educational Admin— istrators," in Jack Culbertson and Stephen Hencley, editors, Preparing Administrators: New Perspectives, (Columbus, Ohio, University Council for Educational Admin— istration, 1962), Chapter VI, p. 91. -73- FIGURE I ACADEMIC CONTENT AREAS FROM BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES , SOCIAL STUDIES, AND ADMINISTRATION CONTRIBUTING T0 COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATION BEAM wokn L SC I (NCfS COLLECTIVE ”(sor/n no» OfifiUNl° (”Tia/'5 TKATION -79- presented by a sub—committee of the Seminar on Labor Law and Personnel Relations for School Administrators, the present status of the university programs for preparing school administrators in the area of collective negotia- tions is shown in Table IV.28 The data in Table IV appear to indicate that only a beginning has been made by any of the universities in the definition of purposes to be achieved by preparation in negotiation. Whether or not competencies are to be expected was reported to be undetermined at this time. Nine of the eleven reported that some progress had been made in the selection of appropriate subject matter. From the data as reported by the professors it appears that to prepare school administrators in the area of col- lective negotiation the body of knowledge generally has not been selected nor organized, skills defined,rxn:the need for practice and experience established. BY WHOM TAUGHT? The professors as reported above indicated that the content for teaching in the area of negotiation should come from the several disciplines or fields of learning 28Sub-committee on Content of Collective Negotiations, Wayne State University Seminar on Labor Law and Personnel Relations for School Administrators, November 11, 1965, Detroit, Michigan. -80— owumaseam oz >Hamauumm configumumn cchHpcmz szzoomHz cam cumch uoz mcoz cumucH oz >Hamflunmm pmcflfiumumn UOGOHHGOS madam uoz ocoz mzwmg pmcoflucwz oz >aaMeuumm pmcflfiumpwa pmcoflpcmz MDQMDA mcoz uoz mcoz cumucH oz >Hamfluumm pmGHEHmpr mom: memem uoz monogamom ono cumucH oz >Hm>fiumucme conflEHmpmo 6pm: zmmemmz uoz mcflccflmmm Imemoz CHOPCH OZ 02 UOCHEHOHOQ OZ oz >Hamfluumm pwcflanmumn pwcoflucmz madam CMODCH uoz mcoz adeEOHZ cumucH oz >Hamfluumm pwcflsumuwn oz Z¢OHmUHz uoz CHODCH oz >Hamfluumm owcwEHmqu 0pm: «30H #02 mcficcflmmm pmcoflucmz Oz 02 pwcwaumuwn UOCOAHGOS «zaanH mcoz uoz wcoz cumucH oz >Hamfluumm pmcflauwuwm 0cm: mHOZHAqH uoz mcflccflmcm OHQmmH>pm posemmm pmuomamm pwuocmxm pwzmfianmpmm qumHO>MCD moocmwummxm mHHMXm ucmucoo mwflocwuomfiou mmmomusm mmHEHmmm>HZD Qmeomflmm ZH ZOHBflHBOOmZ ZH BZMSmOAm>mQ Z¢m00mm ho mDBH mqm