(n ("1 ‘ ABSTRACT EXPECTAIIOflS OF HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND RELEVAIT OTHERS FOR THE ROLE 0! HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS II TEACHER - BOARD IEGOTIAIIONS by John.n. Pylman The Problem This study attempts to clarify the role of high school principals in teacher - board negotiations by determining what high school principals, high school teachers, superintendents, and board members think this role should be. Inter-group differences were particularly sought as potential areas of role-conflict. Procedure Questionnaires recorded the expectations which the four respondent groups held for four groups of negotiation issues: administrative, curricular, evaluative, and teacher-salary -- each in relation to four principal-participation categories: involvement, negotiator-role, adviser-role, and educational-expert- role. The chi-square statistic (significance level - .05) was applied to determine inter-group differences. Of the 13 school districts in the study population, twelve districts participated; and more than 802 of the educators in these districts submitted usable study responses. John.H. Pylman 14.21% I All groups (with 801 agreement) responded that high school principals should be involved in teacher - board negotiations when administrative, curricular, or evaluative policies are determined. 11 Two thirds of the teacher and board member respondents believe that high school principals should not be involved when teacher salaries are negotiated. The expectations which high school principals presently hold for involvement in this area, therefore, cannot be realized unless teacher and board attitudes change. 111 Teachers, principals, and superintendents consistently contend that high school principals should not be negotiators in teacher- board negotiations on any issue. Board support for using prin- cipals as board-negotiators on evaluative or curricular issues udll probably produce role-conflict for principals. IV Teacher and principal groups believe high school principals should be advisers to both the teachers and board when adminis- trative, curricular, or evaluative issues are negotiated; the failure of superintendent and board member groups to agree on the question reflects a reluctance to share the principal-adviser. An adviser-both role, however, probably offers considerable potential for successful utilization of principals in teacher- board negotiations. John a. Pylman ‘V All groups with at least 681 agreement support the position that a high school principal representative, chosen by princi- pals, should participate in teacher-board negotiations as an educational expert when administrative, curricular, or evalua- tive policies are determined, and that no such educational expert should be involved when teacher salaries are negotiated. VI High school principals perceive fully the expectations held by board member and superintendent groups for the role of high school principals in teacher-board negotiations; and they perceive teacher expectations with 80! accuracy. VII High school principals as a group are consistent in their expectations for the role of high school principals in teacher- board negotiations, manifesting a 781 agreement level. In short the results of this study suggest that high school principals should choose a principal representative who, as an educa- tional expert, would advise both sides when administrative, curri- cular3 or evaluative issues are negotiated; attempts to involve principals when teacher salaries are negotiated will create disharmony. EXPECTATIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND RELEVANT OTHERS FOR.THE ROLE OF HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IR TEACHER - BOARD NEGOTIATIONS by John H. Pylmen A THESIS Submitted to Huchigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OP EDUCATIOH College of Education 1968 é§\ Copyright by JOHN H. PYLHAI 1968 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges that the contributions of others have made this project possible. Appreciative expressions of thanks are extended: To my wife Betty, for the inspiration and understanding that initiated and sustained this graduate program. To Dr. Richard L. Peatherstone whose vitally needed guidance of this project as committee chairman was accomplished in an atmosphere of professional encouragement, interest, and support. To Dr. J. Allan Beegle, Dr. Charles A. Blackman, and Dr. Fred Vescolani for their valuable suggestions and recommendations which contributed greatly to the successful completion of this research. To the many individuals and groups whose cooperation and participation mede this study a reality. iii Chapter I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . ....... . ............ Introduction to the Problem ..... Definition of Terms ..... ..... ... Objectives of the Study ..... ...... Statement of the Problem ... ...................... 00000000000000 Research Questions . ..... . ...... . ......... . ....... General Study Hypotheses ................... . ..... Procedure ........ ........ ...................... Limitations of the Study ... ..... Overview of the Study ........... REVIEW OF LITERATURE .......... ..... Introduction .... ........ . ..... . .................. Role Theory .. ............ . ...... Related Role Research ...... ..... Related Negotiation Research .... Summary .............. . ........... . ............... PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY .......... Introduction .............. General Methods of the Study ......... . ........... Development of the Instrument ...... . ...... . ...... The Sample ................. ..... Statistical Hypotheses ............ Analysis Procedure ........... ... Summary ... ......... .. ...... ..... DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS ..... Introduction ........ . .................... .. ...... The Instrument ......... ......... Participation Summary .. ..... . ......... . .......... Inter-Group Analysis ....... ...... Principal Perceptions ...... ..... Intra-Group Analysis: High School Principals ................. . ..... Board Members ......... ...... High School Teachers ....... . iv .....OOOOOOOOO 14 14 14 23 27 33 34 34 34 35 38 43 44 45 47 69 75 78 80 Chapter Page Summary: Inter-Group Analysis ............... . ......... 93 Intra-Group Analysis ....... . ................. 101 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................ . ........... .. 103 Introduction ... .................................. 103 Summary ........... . ........... . .................. 103 Conclusions ...................................... 111 Recommendations .................... . .......... ... 112 ”mecu ......0..............O............ ...... ........... Appendix A ..... .......... ..... ...... ............. 114 Appendix B ....................................... 146 Bnnlmm .....O.. ....... .................................. 183 Table 8-10. 9-11. 12-13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. LIST OF TABLES Page Participation Summary ............... ................. 46 Involvement of principals when administrative, curricu- lar, or evaluative issues are negotiated .......... 47 Involvement of principals when teacher salary issues are negotiated ............ ...... ........... ....... 49 Principals as negotiators for curricular issues ...... 50-51 Principals as negotiators for teacher-salary issues .. 53-54 Principals as negotiators for administrative issues .. 56-58 Principals as negotiators for evaluative issues ...... 57-59 Principals as advisers for teacher-salary issues ..... 60-62 Principals as advisers for administrative issues ..... 64 Principals as advisers for evaluative issues ......... 64 Principals as educational experts for administrative, curricular, evaluative, or teacher-salary issues .. 68 Principal perceptions of relevant groups and principal involvement in negotiations .......... ........... .. 71 Principal perceptions of relevant groups and principal involvement as negotiators ........................ 72 Principal perceptions of relevant groups and principal involvement as advisers ................ ...... ..... 73 Principal perceptions of relevant groups and principal involvement as educational experts ................ 74 Intra-group agreement among principals ............... 77 Board member responses correlated with educational preparation ......O.... ...... .......O....O0.0. ...... 81 vi Table 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 45. Board member responses correlated with employment status OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO . ......... ...O. ..... ......... Board member responses correlated with negotiator experience ............. . ........ . ...... ........... Board members as negotiators correlated with selected variables 00000000000 O. ...... ...................... Teacher organizationalism correlated with selected variables ..... . ....... .......... ..... ........ ..... Teachers as negotiators correlated with selected variables 0 O . . .................... . C . . . . 0 O O O . . ..... Principals correlated with district size ..... ..... ... Principals correlated with age ...................... . Principals correlated with educational preparation ... Principals correlated with years as a high school principal ............ . ..... . ....... ............... Principals correlated with years as an educator ...... Principals correlated with negotiations involvement .. Board members correlated with district size .......... Board members correlated with years as board members . Board members correlated with age .................... Board members correlated with union composite ..... ... Teachers correlated with district size ..... .......... Teachers correlated with years as educators .......... Teachers correlated with educational preparation ..... Teachers correlated with age ......................... Teachers correlated by sex . ..................... ..... Teachers correlated by union composite ............... Teachers correlated by organizationalism ........ ..... Teachers correlated with negotiator experience ..... .. vii ‘Page 83 85 87 94 96 147-48 149-50 151-52 153-54 155-56 157-58 159-60 161-62 163-64 165-66 167-68 169-70 171-72 173-74 175-76 177-78 179-80 181-82 CHAPTER I W mmnucnou 1o rm: PROBLEM The dominant characteristic of our times is rapid change which pervades all aspects of our living. No individual, no group, and no institution ... can avoid this reality or escape its consequences.1 Among the major changes occurring in education, collective negotiations are being initiated with increasing frequency between teachers and boards of education. Since 1965, twelve states have joined Wisconsin in granting legislative authorization to teacher negotiations; and twelve other states have similar legislation under consideration. Existing negotiations statutes cover approximately 252 of the teachers staffing schools throughout the United States, a fifth of this total being added during the 1965-66 legislative year.2 In addition, many boards of education are negotiating volun- tarily with teachers in the absence of legislation. Since the Ameri- cah.Association of School Administrator} and various school board associations now recognize negotiation as an appropriate means of H 1Archie R. Dykes, "The Emergent Role of Administrators and the Implications for Teacher-Administrator Relationships," Collective Neggtiatiqgg and Bducational'Administration, eds. Roy B. Allen and John Schmid (Columbus, Ohio: University Council for Educa- tional Administration, 1966), p. 23. 2"Professional Negotiations: Growth and Prospects, "Education Digest (April, 1967), p. 14. settling teacher-board differences, this trend should continue. In‘lichigan, collective negotiations were approved for teachers in 1965 by Public Law 379, an amendment to the state labor law, the Rutchinson.Act of 1947. more than 400 local teacher groups organized for negotiations during that first year, establishing pre- cedents for other states. Since Hichigan took the labor law route to negotiations, the management-employee approach has become part of the basic framework within which its educators operate today. For example, Hflchigan law has been officially interpreted to specify that principals and supervisors cannot participate on teacher bargaining teams and cannot vote in elections to determine the exclusive teacher bargaining unit. Clearly this management designation of principals may affect their interaction with teachers, as well as with superintendents and board members. Several authorities describe the position of middle administration as follows: From the point of view of collective negotiations, the position of the teachers and board are relatively clear ... che positions of offices at various administrative levels in relation to these nego- tiations is by no means clear; ... ithere is] growing frustration among administrators who see negotiations going on around them but rarely with them.3 The initial practical impact of a negotiated agreement in a school system falls most heavily on the local school principal. If representatives of this group have not had a voice in the draft- ing and bargaining of the contract, resentment and disaffection often follow. 3Luvern L. Cunningham, "Implications of Collective Negotiations for the Role of the Principal," A Paper Presented at the Conference on Professional Negotiations in Public Education (Chicago: August, 1966), p. 6. ‘Uesley A. Wildman, "Teachers' Expectations for School Boards," A Paper Presented at the Cubberly Conference (Stanford University: July, 1966), p. 11. Principals are generally excluded from the bargaining process ... yet these administrators ... [are] faced with responsibility for dealing with the new arrangements and agreements growing out of the bargaining process .... How can the principal influence the conditions of work when his discretion in this area is constantly eroded through agreements which he had no part in making?5 Non-participation ... [of principals] in the negotiations process is clearly unacceptable. No responsible group of principals would choose to sit on the sidelines while important matters of educational policy are being formulated. Nor would the negotiations process be as meaningful without the knowledge and insights that many principals can provide .... Above all, principals must not be spectators when decisions are made about the course of education in their communities.6 Have principals been relegated to an increasingly insignificant position in any negotiations? Such a shift would certainly depart considerably from previous educational practice. Close working rela- tionships among teachers, principals, supervisors, and administrators, a requirement for good educational practices, have usually involved the principal extensively in policy making related to the working conditions of his teaching staff. The situation has apparently changed: teachers now discuss working conditions at the bargaining table with the board of education, no longer utilizing or involving the high school principals as in the past. Watson points to the poten- tial danger this approach entails when he concludes that teacher nego- tiation of such issues as class size, promotions, assignments, transfers, and length of the school day, curbs the discretion and power of the principal.7 Where this situation exists the status of education as a 5Bernard C. Watson, "The Principal: Forgotten.Man in Negotia- tion," Administrators Notebook, XV:2 (October, 1966), p. 18. 6William C. Carr, "The Principal's Role in Professional Negotiations," National Association of Secondary School Principals' Bulletin (April, 1966), p. 53. 7Watson,Administrators Notebook, p. 18. unique enterprise, whose success depends largely upon the closeness of the working relationships among teachers, principals, administrators, and supervisors, is jeopardized.8 As Epstein, writing for the Rational .Asaociation of Secondary School Principals, observes: The changing relationships among teachers, administrators, and school boards emerging from this heightened teacher militancy and producing sweeping forces that alter the status of the prin- cipal, his effectiveness in fulfilling administrative and super- visory responsibilities, and his role in educational leadership ... the NASSP is convinced that the best education of our students demands a genuine partnership of teachers, principals, superin- tendents, and school boards ... characterized by devotion to common ahms, by mutual respect, by continuous frank communication, and by thorough recognition by each of the contributions, problems, and responsibilities of the others ... the task of educating youth is far too crucial and demanding to have it impeded by needless con- flict among those dedicated to its maximum productiveness ... principals and other administrators have an important stake in the process of negotiations and agreement writing. Their functions, activities, responsibility, and authority are always a salient part of the discussions and decisions which emerge from negotiations. It is already too common a practice for principals not to partici- pate or even be consulted during the process. . O . O . I O O . . O O O . O . . O . . O . . O O O O . . . O In any negotiating process, principals, whose experience and activities give them a critical overall knowledge of the day-to-day functioning of the total school, can contribute uniquely to the discussion of items under consideration. The counsel, criticism, and contributions of principals at the negotiating table can be an invaluable service to teachers, school boards, and superintendents in reaching decisions that can produce better schools. Excluding principals from the negotiation process probably leads to contract agreements that contain built-in problems. Cronin cites negotiated contracts that contain policies, regarding teacher transfers, A » k4 i'J...‘ 4.44 A.“ A 4 8Education Digest, p. 15. 9Benjamin Epstein, The Principal's Role in Collective Reg_- tiationg_between Teachers and;§choql Boards (Washington, D.C.: RASSP, 1965), pp. 1-6. notice of promotions, and school scheduling, unworkable in practice. He notes the evidence from.many superintendents of how useful a prin- cipal's testimony has often been in shaping workable contract provi- sions.10 Epstein as well contends that negotiations in which admin- istrators have not participated directly generally produce contracts with serious built-in defects.“ Jenkins and Blackman12 concur with the American Association of School Administrators13 in arguing that close working relationships among educators contribute greatly to the quality of education in any community, and that these working relationships are important in all educational areas, including teacher-board negotiations. Considerable evidence suggests that these close relationships often do not extend to teacher-board negotiations, particularly when high school principals are excluded. In such cases, the various relevant groups14 will fre- quently have conflicting expectations concerning the high school 10Joseph R. Cronin, "School Boards and Principals - Before and After Negotiations," Phi Delta Kappan, XLIX:3 (November, 1967), p. 125. 11Epstein, pp. 9-10. 12David B. Jenkins and Charles A. Blackman, Antecedents and Effects of Administrative Behavior (Columbus, Ohio: University Press, Ohio State University, 1956), p. 7. 13AmericanAssociation of School Administrators, School Agginistrators View Professional Negotiations (Washington, D.C.: AASA, 1966), p. 38. 141a this study, the relevant others (or groups) include high school teachers, superintendents, and board of education members from the participating school districts. principals' role. Epstein writing in the Nations School describes the typical situation thus: Teacher organizations don't want ...[principals] to be‘a part of the negotiations and the school board and superintendent find it expedient to yield to the duress of teacher pressures and keep principals away from the bargaining table. Under the circum- stances principals ... have begun to feel themselves in the middle of a squeeze play in which the social needs and educational pres- sures of our times cause their responsibilities and duties to be on the increase while their power and authority to bring their responsibilities to successful fruition are either slowly or rapidly chopped away by the agreements and policies that result from teacher - board of education negotiations.1 0n the basis of the preceding introductory data, the specific problem with which this study is concerned can be defined. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This research examines the possibility that high schoOl princi- pals are too seldom involved in negotiations between teachers and boards of education. Considerable evidence indicates that in many negotiations there is little meaningful participation of high school principals, underscoring the need to seek ways of increasing such involvement. Probably the role high school principals should play in teacher- board negotiations needs clarification. This study seeks to determine what high school principals and relevant others think this role should be, and to analyze the various viewpoints. DEPINITION’OP TERMS The definitions whidh follow are provided so that the results of this project can be explicitly understood and accurately interpreted. 15Benjamin Epstein, "Why Principals Want to Negotiate for Them- selves," The Nations Schools, LXXVIII:4 (October, 1966), pp. 66-7. 7 Cgllective negotiations. The legally approved process whereby a 'majority of teachers in a school district select a representative organization which in turn selects from its membership a bargaining team which meets with the board of education bargaining team to devise a written contract determining salaries and working conditions'for all teachers in the school district. so 00 rinci al. A public school administrator whose full time supervisory assignment includes grades 10-12 plus any other grades the school district may elect to include. 33g; school teacher. A fully certificated public school instructor who is teaching at least half-time in grades 9-12. Board 3f education membeg. A resident of a local school district who is elected to the governing board of the school district and thus shares its responsibilities and duties, including formulation of policies governing the Operation of the school district. Superintegdent. A public school administrator whose full time assignment includes personal responsibility for the total Operation of all of the schools in his school district. galevggt osger . High school teachers, superintendents, and board of education members from the school districts involved in this study. ggpgcsatiog. "An evaluative standard applied to an incumbent of a position [principal]. This refers to what should happen, not to what will happen in the sense of anticipation."16 A A.__AA_AA._____‘ A_A_i AA! A‘ AA AAAkA AA 4.‘ A A A .a j“; 16Neal Gross, Hard 8. Mason, and Alexander V. MeEachern, ggplorgtions i9 gale Agglysis (New York: John wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 60. ‘ Role. "A set of expectations, or evaluative standards, applied to an incumbent of a particular position [principal]."17 Role conflict. "Any situation in which the incumbent of a focal posi- tion [principai] perceives that he is confronted with incompatible expectations."18 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY Accurately formulated study objectives provide a guide for an organized approach to a research project. In this study research is planned: 1. To judge, on the basis of the expectations held by high school principals and relevant others, the extent to which high school principals should be involved in teacher-board of education negotiations. 2. To identify issues where high school principals and relevant others hold convergent expectations for the involvement of high school principals in teacher-board of education negotiations. These could offer possible avenues to utilize in exploring parti- cipation of principals in negotiations. 3. To identify issues where high school principals and relevant others hold divergent expectations for the involvement of high school principals in negotiations. These are possible areas of conflict that may encourage divisiveness in education. Awareness of these conflict areas facilitates exploration into ways to resolve the difficulties. RESEARCH QUESTIONS These questions were drafted to assist the researcher in his analysis. They represent certain fundamental ideas that this research could logically be designed to investigate. 17Ibid., p. 58. 181bid., p. 248 1- IDo high school principals and relevant others believe that high school principals should be involved in teacher-board negotiations? 2a 'How extensive is the present involvement of high school principals in teacher-board negotiations? 3. What expectations do high school principals and relevant others have for the role of the high school principal in negotiations? 4. Where do the expectations of high school principals and relevant others for the role of high school principals in negotiations converge and diverge? 5. Do high school principals' perceptions of the expectations held' by the relevant groups. for the role of the high school principal in negotiations. agree with the actual expectations held by these groups? 6. Do high school principals concur in their expectations for their role in teacher-board negotiations? GENERAL STUDY HYPOTHESES This study assumes that high school principals and relevant others do hold expectations for the role of the high school principal in teacher-board negotiations. General hypotheses derived from this basic assumption have been designed with reference to the research questions; they are drafted in general terms to form an appropriate part of this introductory chapter. Specific research hypotheses are contained in Chapter III where the methodology of this study is treated. Hi All groups agree in specific expectations for the involvement of high school principals in teacher-board negotiations when administrative policies are determined regarding such things as class size, length of the school day, and scheduling of staff meetings. R; All groups agree in specific expectations for the involvement of high school principals in teacher-board negotiations when curricular policies are determined regarding such things as courses of study, selection of textbooks, and teaching procedures. 10 H3 All groups agree in specific expectations for the involvement of high school principals in teacher-board negotiations when evaluative policies are determined regarding such things as evaluation of teachers and teacher transfers between buildings. H4 All groups agree that high school principals should not be involved in teacher-board negotiations when policies are determined regarding teacher salaries. H5 High school principals accurately perceive the expectations of relevant groups regarding the involvement of high school principals in teacher-board negotiations. H5 High school principals hold convergent expectations for their role in teacher-board negotiations. PROCEDURE The research area of this study included the 13 school districts within a 10 mile radius of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Superintendents, board of education members, high school teachers, and high school prin- cipals of these districts comprised the study population. Every effort was extended to include all of the school districts in the study. Twelve districts agreed to participate providing a study population of 12 superintendents, 86 board of education members, 17 high school principals, and more than 800 teachers. The project director arranged to administer the survey instru- ments to the superintendent and board of education members at a regular board meeting in nine of the twelve districts; the other three districts elected to administer the survey instrument to the superintendent and board of education members at a time other than that of a regular board session. Thus, all superintendents and 76 of the board members partici- Pated in the study. Similarly the project director administered the lumy instrument to the high school principal and high school teachers ‘t l :tegular staff meeting in each of the participating IchOOII. 11 resulting in returns from all of the principals and 649 teachers. The survey instrument consisted of 20 minute questionnaires for each of the relevant groups and a 30 minute questionnaire for the focal group, the high school principals. Questionnaires (included in.Appendix A) were based on research sources and screened for clarity, completeness, and statistical appropriateness. Selected personnel from the staff of the Michigan State University College of Education, the Michigan Department of Education, the Michigan Education Association, the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals, the Michigan Association of School Boards, the Michigan Association of School Administrators, and selected practicing administrators and teachers were consulted in the final screening process. The survey procedures and questionnaires were pre-tested utilizing the corresponding personnel of the Sparta Public schools, a neighboring, non-participating school district. The pre-test indicated good instrumentation and no major problems Interviewing high school teachers concerning collective nego- tiations suggested the advisability of securing the approval of each local teachers' association for such participation. This approval was readily secured in all participating districts, thus identifying the project as a joint teacher-administrator enterprise. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Conclusions that are drawn from this study should be interpre- ted in the light of limitations that apply to this research. 1. Although all levels of the principalship could be included in such a middle-Innagement study, this project limits its focus to high school principals. 12 2. This study is limited geographically to the Grand Rapids area of western Michigan, probably one of the most conservative sections in the state. Consequently the study responses will reflect expectations drawn from educators who have conservatism as a basic part of their outlook on life. 3. The twelve school districts included in this study are all affil- iated with the Michigan Education Association. It is quite possi- ble that teachers who are affiliated with the‘Michigan.rederation of Teachers could hold differing expectations for the role of high school principals in teacher-board negotiations. 4. Expectations of participating groups will be based predominantly on their experiences with their particular high school principal and the collective negotiations experience in their school district. 5. Recognition that this study is based entirely upon expectations and as such is necessarily limited to one of a number of important perceptions. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY This first chapter has attempted to establish the need for studying the problem of high school principal involvement in teacher- board negotiations. In addition to a problem statement, terms have been defined, objectives outlined, research questions posed, general hypotheses stated, the procedure described, and certain limitations suggested. In Chapter II, the related literamure in three areas is reviewed: role theory, role-related research in education, and prin- cipal-related collective negotiations research. Chapter III outlines the general methods of the study, details of instrumentation, the selected sample, statistical hypotheses, and 13 specific analysis techniques utilized. Chapter IV presents the study findings, and discusses the results of this research. Chapter V sir-arises the data and states conclusions of the study. Implications for future research are noted. CHAPTER 11 REVIEW or LITERATURE INTRODUCTION The focal point of this study is high school principal involve- ment in teacher-board negotiations. Principals are customarily responsible for administering the negotiated contract terms; so their non-participation in negotiations, in the face of their subsequent responsibility for its end product, often creates confusion and un- certainty, as well as calling into question their total role in the educational hierarchy. Since the author's initial research design revealed the importance of role perception to the research, this chapter begins with a discussion of role theory, while further sections deal with role related research in education as well as other research into principals and negotiations. ROLE THEORY Students of role theory generally agree that all individuals occupy a number of roles, and that a person's role perceptions, whether self-defined or imposed by others, derive from his position in a given social systems As Getzels points out: All social systems have certain imperative functions that come in time to be carried out in certain routinized ways. These functions - say, governing, educating, policing ... - may be said to have become "institutionalized", and the agencies esta- blished to carry out these ... functions for the social system .. may be termed "institutions". The most important analytic 14 15 subunit of the institution is the role.1 Parsons and Shils generalize the role concept as follows: The allocative foci of social systems are roles or role expecta- tions. The social system is 12 a sense composed of a variety of roles or role expectations. Social scientists consider the school one of the institutionalized functions of a social system, as Bidwell specifically contends: A school system is ... an integrated system of roles organizing the activities of its members toward common goals. The adminis- trative organization of the school is a subsystem ... in which the roles of the teacher and administrator are relationships of subordinate and superordinate. Since the concept of role expectation supplies a theoretical foundation for this study, it is imperative that its definition be clearly understood. According to Newcomb: The ways of behaving which are expected of any individual who occupies a certain position constitute the role associated with that position ....[A rolélis something dynamic; it refers to the behavior of the occupants of a position[and]what they do as occupants of the position. And Getzels holds that role: Has certain normative obligations and responsibilities which may be termed "role expectations", and when the role incumbent ts these ... into effect, he is said to be performing his role. A___L A A A A A“ A A _. 44L ._._" AA 1Jacob H. Getzels, "Administration as a Social Process." gggigistgative Theory in Education, ed. Andrew“w. Halpin (Chicago: Midwest Administrative Center, University of Chicago, 1958), p. 153. 2Talcott Parsons and Edward Shils, Towgrd a Genergl Theory of Agtion (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962), p. 62. 3Charles E. Bidwell, "The Administrative Role and Satisfaction in Teaching," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXIX:l (Sept., 1955), p. 41. l.“TheodoreiM. Mewcomb, Social Psychology (New York: Dryden Press, 1950), p. 280. 5Getzels, Administrative Theory in Education, p. 153. 16 Sarbin defines role as: A patterned sequence of learned actions ... performed by a person in an interaction situation .... The person learns to expect or anticipate certain actions from other persons and that others have expectations of him.6 Brookover and Gottlieb hold that such of the behavior of any person is influenced by the actions and expectations of others and that the expectations imposed within a particular situation, as interpreted by the actors in that situation, constitutes the role.7 Gross,‘Mason, and MCEachern, in their authoritative review of role related literature, regard role as a set of expectations or eval- uative standards that apply to the incumbent of a particular position. They contend that: People do not behave in a random manner. Their behavior is influenced to some extent by their own expectations and those of others in the group or society in which they are partici- pants .... Regardless of their deviation, expectations are presumed by most role theorists to be an essential ingredient in any formula for predicting social behavior. Human conduct is in part a function of expectations. Hahn et a1 further indicate the centrality of expectations to role theory when they conclude that: Each person responds to the organization in terms of his percep- tion of it .... He, too, has a conception of his office and a set of attitudes and beliefs about what he should and should not _‘__ ‘4‘. *___.“. __ ——_ 6Theordore R. Sarbin, "Role Theory," gaggboog 9; Social Psycho- lggyé ed. Gardner Linzey (Cambridge: Addisonrwesley Publ. Co., 1954), p. 2 5 7Wilbur B. Brookover and David Gottlieb, A Sociology of Educatiog (Mew‘York: American Book Co., 1964), p. 61. 8Cross, Mason, and McEachern, p. 60. 17 do while in that position. He has some awareness of what behavior will fulfill his responsibilities, lead to the accomplishment of the organizational objectives, or further his own interests. He may even have had a major part in determining the formal respon- sibilities of his office. Through a long process of socialization and formal training he has acquired a set of values and expectations about his own behavior and abilities.9 It is important to note that the term expectations either occurs or is implied in each of these explanations of what role means. Getzels expanded his definition by pointing out that expectations imply norms, telling the actor what he ghgglg or should not do.10 Gross'g£_gl concur, considering that an expectation deals with what ghgglg happen, not with what will necessarily happen.11 Thus expecta- tions imply that role occupants should conform to certain pre- established criteria. They also indicate the extent to which roles are interdependent among the many individuals and groups involved. This interdependency of roles is basic to the study of role theory. As Parsons and Shils state: Once an organized system of interaction ... becomes stabilized ... the role occupants build up reciprocal expectations of each others' actions and attitudes which are the nucleus of ... role expectations .... [One] is expected to behave in given situational conditions in certain relatively specific ways .... Reaction'will then, contingent on the fulfillment or non- fulfillment of his expectations, be different; with fulfillment leading to ... {ivorable attitudes, and non-fulfillment leading to the reverse. AAA—AA 4 A__'__A A; A A A AA ‘4 444 A A A4 A 9Robert L. Kahn, Donald M. Wolfe, Robert P. Quinn, J. D. Snoek, and Robert A. Rosenthal, Organiggtiogal Stress:g Studles lg gale nggllct 35d égblgglty (Mew York: John‘fliley and Sons, Inc., 1964), p. 22. 1”Getzels, p. 153. 11Gross, et al., p. 67. 12Parsons and Shils, p. 19. 18 And Getzels observes that: Roles are complementary. Roles are interdependent in that each derives its meaning from other related roles in the institution. In a sense, a role is a prescription not only for the given role incumbent, but also for the incumbent of other roles within the organization, so that in a heirachal setting the expectations of one role may to same extent also form the sanctions for a second interlocking role .... It is this quality of comple- mentarity which fuses two or more roles into a coherent, inter- active unit and which makes it possible for us to conceive of an institution as having a characteristic structure.1 Hartley and Hartley hold that this interdependency exists in all institutions: To include all aspects of role requirements we must define social role as an organized pattern of [expectations] that relate to the task, demeanors, values, and reciprocal relation- ships to be maintained by persons occupying specific membership positions and fulfilling desireable functions in any group .... The failure of a person in one position to perform as he is expected to interferes with the performance of people in other positions .... Roles therefore are interdependent. Emma'social roles could not exist without the existence of complementary roles ... roles thus form interlocking systems in which each unit shapes and directs the other units in the system. This effect is reciprocal: changes in one role cannot be made without corresponding changes in other roles which are involved with it.14 The preceding discussion of the interrelationships among roles and role expectations implies that a given institution will function smoothly only as long as the appropriate role expectations are realized; hence the importance of role conflict. For example, Bidwell states: One of the chief motivations of individuals in an organization is the iatisfaction of their individual needs. Means toward this satisfaction are scarce, so that their distribution must be organized in accord with the group values. This organization is 13Getzels, p. 153 1“Eugene L. Hartley and Ruth E. Hartley, Pundggegtgls of §gglglgggyg§glggz_(New'York: Alfred H. Knopf, 1961), p. 486. 19 a function of role expectations ... which allow alter to predict the behavior of ego and act toward ego in an appropriate way. It is impossible for an integrated social system to function unless such predictions are possible since, there being no basis for his actions toward ego, such action becomes difficult at best. A disruption of a system of role expectations should ... result in a disintegration of the organization, rendering it unable t2 achieve its goals, and satisfy the needs of its members. 5 Hahn gt al note that role conflict occurs when members of the focal group find that relevant others hold different expectations for the focal group: Much of role conflict, as we have defined it, can be thought of as a kind of inadequate role sending; lack of agreement or coordination among role senders produces a pattern of sent expecta- tions which contains logical incompatibilities or'which takes inadequate account of the needs and abilities of the focal person.16 And Jackson supports the Kahn group, regarding role conflict as a pro- duct of situations where two or more groups make incompatible demands upon the focal group.17 Seaman agrees that some role conflict stems from.disagreement among criterion groups over the nature of the given role.18 Gross et a1 refer to role conflict as any situation in which the incumbent of a social position perceives that he is confronted with incompatible expectations.19 In fact the literature on role conflict typically points to situations of this sort. __LA y A AgAimi A W L L A _A L‘x 4 ; ...—x lsBidwell, Journal of Edugtigggl Psychglogy, p. 41. 16Hahn, et al., p. 21. 17Toby Jackson, "Some Variables in Role Conflict Analysis," Social gorces, xxx:3 (March, 1952), p. 326. 18Melvin Seeman, "Role Conflict and Ambivalence in Leadership," Aggrican Sociologlcgl gellew, XVIII:4 (August, 1953), p. 373. 19Gross, et al., p. 47. 20 The preceding role theory has been shown to apply to all insti- tutions including schools. Consequently it can be concluded that harmonious role relationships should be promoted between high school principals and relevant others in all school systems. Brookover and Gottlieb point out that: The relevant groups with which ... administrative personnel inter- aot varies with each of the administrative positions. In general, however, teachers, school board members, ... and a variety of other public groups hold relevant expectations for many of the administra- tive positions in the school systems ... the more common ... [of which] are the superintendent and the school principals. 20 Clearly then, the roles of individuals (principals) and groups (relevant others) in institutions (schools) are arranged in a system of interlocking roles in which each unit shapes and directs the other units in a reciprocal relationship. Changes in one role cannot usually be made without affecting the other roles involved with it, if role harmony is to be maintained. Furthermore, any role performance differ- ing from.the expectations that are held by the various groups leads to role conflict. Sarbin emphasizes this point: A person must move cautiously and uncertainly when role expectations of others are partly known or entirely unknown ... [role] conflicts are likely to follow from ambiguous role expectations. The per- sisting need for solutigp of such conflicts may lead to socially invalid role enactment. This study deals with the possibility that the expectations held by high school principals and relevant others regarding the prin-' cipal's role in teacher - board negotiations may present a role con- flict for principals. Certainly this new relationship within collec- tive negotiations, along with legal rulings limiting principals' #. A _4 A ; 20Wilbur Brookover and David Gottlieb, A Sociology of Education (New York: The American Book Company, 1964) , p. 340. 21Sarbin, p. 227. 21 participation, may have evoked differing expectations for his role from relevant others and from the principals themselves. Such divergent expectations could generate role conflict for high school principals with all the negative effects on educational practice that role theory implies. As Hartley and Hartley remind us: Each individual's accurate perception of his role in relation both to the roles that others are fulfilling and to his own adequate performance of that role is basic to the effective functioning of any organized society ... for society these 22 roles are a device to get the work done and to avoid chaos. Stinnett, Kleinmann, and Ware specifically warn: Failure to find appropriate ... means of involving ... principals in developing policy that directly concerns them will lead to divisiveness, tension, and conflict that will 23 impair schools and adversely affect the education of children. Significantly, negotiations between teachers and school boards represent a shift in roles for both of these groups. This change cannot but involve role conflict for all relevant others unless specific allowances are made for changing the roles of these groups implicated with teachers and boards of education. To fail to adjust these reciprocally related roles may disrupt the school. Cunningham indicates the real danger, describing how he recently: Encountered a climate of considerable disquiet and uneasiness among principals and suspected that these feelings extend beyond the . . . limited number of persons with whom [he] talked . . . . The spectre of two negotiating parties, neither one of which represents the principal, reaching accord by swapping such things as work rules that have been the principal's pre- rogatives until now, is the source of increaszd frustration, if not panic, for the building administrator. zzHartley and Hartley, p. 486. ‘ 23T. M. Stinnett, Jack H. Kleinmann, and Martha L. ware, W1 Negotiation in Public Edgggtion (Mew York: The Macmillan Cmnpany, 1966), p. 105. 24Cunningham, p. 6. 22 Epstein describes the typical situation: Teacher organizations don't want [principals] to be a part of the negotiations and the school board and superintendent find it expedient to yield to the duress of teacher pressures and keep principals away from.the bargaining table. Under the circumstances principals ... have begun to feel themselves in the middle of a squeeze play in which the social needs and educational pressures of our times cause their responsibilities and duties to be on the constant increase while their power and authority to bring their responsibilities to successful fruition are either slowly or rapidly being chopped away by the agree- 'ments and policies that result from teachers - board of education negotiations.25 Such situations prompted the American Association of School Adminis- trators to strongly advocate that, regardless of the pattern of repre- sentation, no teacher, supervisor, principal, or administrator should remain unrepresented in the negotiations process.26 In Michigan the problems of principals regarding negotiations are multiplied by the laws defining the status of teachers and boards of education in the negotiation process, but relegating principals to the limbo of middle management personnel where negotiation status is undetermined. ‘Michigan has many high school principals engaged in frustrating attempts to administer negotiated contracts in which they have been minimally involved. The subjective character of role definition provides the background and rationale of this study. The applicable theoretical base consists of roles that are particularly defined in terms of expectations held by relevant others concerning the role of a focal Person. In this study, the focal person is the high school principal, and relevant others, high school teachers, superintendents, and board \ i x __. _‘ 25Epstein, gation's Schools, pp. 66-7. 268 ooledministrators Viethrofessional e ot tio , p. 38. 23 offleducation members. Practical directions are needed for working toward greater involvement of high school principals in teacher - board negotiations, but first the role-expectations of the respective groups must be clarified, particularly the areas of convergent and divergent expectations. These differing expectations may point to patterns for high school principal involvement that will best meet the observed expectations of all concerned and therefore offer the least possibility of role conflict. Cave stresses the utility of this approach: A crucial problem confronting school administrators involved in the throes of the new era of collective negotiations is how they may establish appropriate behavior patterns which will satisfy the expectations of both school board and teachers' organizations. Eailure of the administrator to accomplish this task brings about conflict with one or the other of these reference groups. To the degree that a school administrator is able to establish a behavior pattern which is acceptable to both the school board and the teachers' giganization, the presence of conflict will be minimized . RELATED ROLE RESEARCH These studies illustrate how role theory has been utilized as an analytical tool in investigating the role expectations surrounding various educational positions. Mc‘Kee's28 recent study of the continuing education of engineering managers employed an analysis of the engineering manager's ‘4‘ a J- _-_A _4 4.. x. AA 27David R. Cave, "A Critical Study of the Leader Behavior of School Administrators in Conflict with Teachers' Unions" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1967), p. 14. 28Charles A, McKee, "A Study of the Role of the.Engineering Manager and his Continuing Education Requirements," (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1967). 24 role, thus showing how role theory has been accepted as an approach to educational problems in the business field. Comparing the role perceptions of 199 engineering managers with the expectations held for that role by 122 immediate superiors, 168 direct subordinates, and 50 engineering faculty members, this project revealed many significant convergent and divergent expectations, with engineering managers showing the greatest agreement as a group. The closest consensus among groups was between the engineering managers and their immediate superiors. A pioneering project by Getzels and Guba,29 focusing on role conflict among public school teachers, employed an instrument which measured role conflict feelings in three areas: the citizen's role, the professional role, and the socio-economic role. The study population consisted of 344 teachers drawn from the 18 schools in 6 school districts. Returns from approximately half of the teachers sampled suggested that a teacher's role is defined both by a common core of expectations and by a mixture of expectations that relate to local school and community conditions. Getzels and Guba noted that some expectations were attached to other roles the teacher may occupy, and concluded that such role conflict points to professional expectations impossible to reconcile with other roles. Bidwell studied teacher role expectations and administrator role perceptions held by teachers, reasoning that convergence or divergence in teacher's role expectations toward an administrator and in the administrator's perception of the teacher's behavior would increase 29Jacob W. Getzels and E. G. Cuba, "The Structure of Roles and Role Conflict in a Teaching Situation," igurnal of Educational Sociology, XXIX (September, 1955), p. 40. 25 or decrease, respectively, the teacher's satisfaction with his job. Returns from.just over half of the 368 teachers in the five partici- pating school districts indicated that: Convergence of teachers' role-expectations toward the adminis- trator and their perceptions of his behavior will be accompanied by an expression by these teachers of satisfaction with the teaching situation. Divergence of teachers' role-expectations toward the adminis- trator and their perceptions of his behavior will be accompanied by an expression by these teachers of dissatisfaction with the teaching situation.30 Doyle's31 study is particularly pertinent since the groups he studied closely parallel those involved in this research. He studied the expectations held by elementary teachers, administrators, board members, and parents for the role of the elementary teacher, viewing the 96 teachers from three commmities, his sample, through a check-list instrument completed by the elementary teachers and the relevant groups. Doyle found significant discrepancies between the expectations for elementary teachers held by the teachers themselves and by administrators, parents, and school board members. Morgan32 investigated the public school principalship using the expectations of teachers, principals, superintendents, and school 4 _4-.A ___‘ #_ __A .4)... A M A AA 3°Bidwell, Journal of Edgcatloggl Psyghglogy, XXIX, p. 47. 31Louis A. Doyle, "A Study of the Expectations Which Elementary Teachers, Administrators, School Board Members, and Parents Have of the Elementary Teacher's Roles," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1956), pp. 158-62. 32Stanley R. Morgan, Jr., "The Public School Principalship: Role Expectations by Relevant Groups," (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Department of Education, University of Utah, 1965). 26 board members from nine metropolitan school districts. He concluded that the role of the principal is quite distinct from.that of the teacher: specifically that different patterns of responsibility and authority exist for principal and teacher, and that thesepatterns of responsibility are commonly acknowledged by the relevant groups even when they disagree on how the principal's tasks should be executed. This research confirms the uniqueness of the responsibili- ties the principal bears, implying further that there is a unique range of insights that result from this jurisdiction. It is probable that these insights of principals may not be accurately represented in teacher - board negotiations. The study by Gross g£_gl of most of the school superintendents in.Massachusetts, a classic in the field of role theory, investigated . three areas: resolution of conflict, conformity to expectations, and problems of consensus. Using depth interviews of superintendents and board of education members, this team tested many theoretical hypotheses involving expectations and the behavior of educators as incumbents of administrative positions, particularly the major role conflicts that most superintendents faced. In the course of their research, they explained that, "for certain analysis problems, the more meaningful unit of analysis may be the position [principal] as defined by multiple relationships [relevant otheri]."33 33Gross, et al., p. 43. 27 Boss34 studied the position of the Intermediate School District superintendent in Michigan, determining how the expectations held by the superintendents, selected members of their boards of educations, and experts in the field converged and diverged. Boss confirmed his hypotheses that the Intermediate School superintendents, their board of education members, and recognized authorities often hold conflicting expectations regarding various aspects of the Intermediate School superintendent's role: the study identified potential role conflict in at least one-third of the role categories analyzed. In this study role concepts are used as the theoretical framework within which the problem of principal involvement in teacher - board negotiations is investigated. No attempt is made in this research to add to existing social science knowledge of role theory. RELATED NEGOTIATION RESEARCH Since 1965 when teacher negotiations first affected the educational scene on a national scale, its influence has mushroomed until today it stands as a real force for change in education. The brief history of teacher - board negotiations necessarily limits any review of related research to the relatively few projects presently completed. M44 * 4i 4AA4_A ‘ ERA 7.4 #AHAAL A. A A A; 3l'La‘Verne H. Boss, "Role Expectations Held for the Inter- mediate School District Superintendent in Michigan," (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1963), p. 121. 28 Birdsell35 in 1965 surveyed the state of professional negotiae tions in 12 midwestern states using a study population of 71 larger school districts of which 49 participated in the research project. He found considerable disagreement between teachers and superintendents over what educational positions should be classified as "teacher" positions: superintendents were much more inclined to include middle administrators as teachers than were the teachers themselves. The study also disclosed that significantly more superintendents that teachers thought that an effective teacher organization could afford to enroll administrators. At the very inception of teacher - board negotiations, then, the principal appears to be emerging as the man-in-the~middle. Radebaugh36 selected and validated a list of democratic values drawn from authoritative educational sources, and checked negotiated agreements against these values. One of the four values he emphasized, the importance of using the experts on a professional staff wisely, indicates that principals, as staff experts, should be involved in negotiations in order to produce the most workable agreements. __aA #AAAHA _4._4L ‘4 A 4a __‘__A 4#_. ‘_A 4_A w 35Donald P. Birdsell, "A Study of the Status of Professional legotiations in Selected Schools in Twelve Midwestern States," (unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Education, University of Iowa, 1965). 36ByronP. Radebaugh, "Democratic Values and Collective Negotiations'.Agreements," (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Depart- ‘ment of Education, University of Toledo, 1966). 29 Scott37 surveyed the training school administrators receive in negotiations, utilizing personal interviews with key professors at each of ten.mddwestern universities, and taped telephone inter- views with 98 school superintendents from randomly selected mid- western school districts which had employed teacher negotiations. Scott's main thrust was in determining whether administrators are adequately prepared to deal with collective negotiations and whether universities are ready to offer programs that prepare administrators to meet the challenge of negotiations. He found no appropriate graduate level programs, and scarcely any evidence of university planning or even agreement on what plan to pursue in teaching administrators about teacher negotiations. This study highlights the considerable need for increased dialogue regarding the administrator's role in negotiations. Cunningham;8 interviewed principals and other administrators from schools in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan that had teacher negotiations in order to evaluate what impact the negotiations had made on the role of the principal. He asked these administrators to judge the behavior of teachers, superintendents, boards of edu- cation, and others involved in collective activity. Prom this research, Cunningham.concluded that principals must participate in the negotiations process in some meaningful way, predicting meanwhile —_x A 4 A_‘4 A A AA a li—A 37Walterw. Scott, "A Study of Preparation Programs in School Administration as Affected by Collective negotiations," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1966). 38Cunningham, pp. 8-9. 30 that intensified collectivity may see principals and other specialists forming their own power groups for negotiation purposes. Bis study pointed out the need for further research to determine what impact negotiations have on the school organization and productivity, and on relationships among teachers, principals, and other staff members. Olson39 found that most principals believe they should be involved in the negotiations process as members of an all-inclusive teachers' organization; they felt that their involvement was necessary to insure consideration of their concerns and to guard against teachers usurping the principal's authority. This survey concludes that, since the future of the child is at stake, teacher - principal conflicts should always be avoided. Summerer40 found that all of the negotiated agreements in selected school districts in Michigan contained specific and de- tailed grievance procedures involving both the board of education and bargaining unit representatives. About one-half of the districts favored binding arbitration for grievance problems, with nearly all of the others prescribing either advisory or mediation procedures. Three-fourths of the districts stated that resolution of any problem could be attempted by discussions with the principal without involving A_# 44—4 4 #4 A A g AAA—Ag A A 4 39Allen Dale Olson, "The Principal and Professional Nego- tiations," Ihe flgtigngl Elementary zrigcipal, XLVI (April, 1967), pp. 31-2 (A Summary of an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Education, George Washington University, Washington D.c., 1966). l‘Oxenneth Summerer, "Agreements Negotiated between Boards of EducatiOn and Teachers under Hichigan.Public Law Act 379 of 1965," Metropolitan Educational Research Association (Michigan State Univer- sity, East Lansing: ‘March, 1965), p. 20. 31 the bargaining unit, if the adjustment did not violate the teacher - board agreement . Cave“1 investigated how the leadership behavior of school adndnistrators in conflict with teachers' unions contributes to the strife by visiting 10 school districts that were involved in such conflicts. After asking school board members, teachers' union representatives, and the school administrators themselves to describe ideal administrator behavior by means of the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, and then to describe the actual behavior of their administrator, Cave concluded that the behavior of adminis- trators often contributes to conflict with teachers. These adminis- trators appeared to lack basic group skills and the ability to arbitrate conflicts, underscoring the urgency of developing training programs for administrators in negotiations. Garver's42 study of the relationships between selected variables and the attitudes of 291 principals in.0akland County, Michigan toward teacher negotiations revealed that principals who had participated on the board of education bargaining team had better attitudes towards the negotiations process than those with no such experience. This research implies that involving the principals may help dissipate their negative atEitudes toward teacher - board negotiations. 4leave, pp. 14-15. “accorge G. Carver, "A Study of the Relationship between Selected Variables and the Attitudes of Public School Principals in Oakland County, Michigan, Concerning Collective Bargaining for Public School Teachers (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, College of Bducation,‘Michigan State University, 1967). 32 Tabulating the composition of various board of education ‘negotiating teams, Block43 contacted 154 school districts in.Michigan. Of the 126 responding districts, 33 indicated elementary principal *nembership and 44 indicated high school principal membership on the board of education negotiating team, but since many of the teams utilizing principals included both an elementary and secondary prin- cipal, principals actually participated in less than 301 of the surveyed districts. Block suggests the dilemma of a typical building principal in.Michigan, finding himself at the beginning of the 1966-67 school year with a lengthy master contract to administer which he had not been allowed to help formulate. Other related negotiations' research shows that principals should participate in teacher - board collective activity for a variety of reasons: more workable contracts, reduced chances of a divided profession, concern for principal interests, and less negative principal attitudes toward the negotiation process. Cunningham“ specifically concludes that much more research needs to focus on the principal in negotiations. But no research to date has investi- gated specific ways in which principals could be involved in teacher - board negotiations. Undoubtedly the principal's role will continue to be unclear in the absence of directive evidence. This study is planned to research various possibilities for principal participation ##A 44 AA- _A__J_J_‘ #4 #4; AA .A - A 43m1ph Block, "Research on the Make-up of the Board of Education Iegotiating Teamw" A Study Currently Underway for Dr. Herbert Eudman, College of Education, Michigan State University. AACunningham, p. 9. 33 in negotiations, primarily by determining the expectations of groups that are vitally involved in negotiations. Mheh refinement of the negotiation process in education is needed. Doherty and Oberer outline the framework within which this negotiations synthesis will occur: It is true that school boards, administrators, and teachers constitute an educational team with a wide range of common inter- ests. But it is also true that when it comes to working con- ditions they divide into employers and employees with signifi- cant areas of conflicting interests. Collective bargaining is not designed to remove these differences but to establish rules of the game'wherebybghe means of resolution of conflict may be institutionalized. Hopefully this study will facilitate the participation of high school principals in establishing the collective negotiation rules that will materially affect future educational trends. SUMMARY This review of role theory supports the validity of using expectations‘insocial science analyses. The summary of related role-theory research in education outlines the role-research base upon which this study builds. Finally a survey of recent research into the principal and the negotiations process places this study in current perspective. ‘5Bobert E. Doherty and‘Walter E. Oberer, Teachers, School Boaggsl and Collective Bargaining (Ithaca, low York: Cornell University, 1967), p. 124. CHAPTER III P EDURE DO INTRODUCTION This research had for its major objective the analysis of what expectations high school teachers, high school principals, super- intendents, and board members hold for the role of high school prin- cipals in teacher - board negotiations. Since convergent and divergent expectations were expected over the administrative, curricular, evaluative, and teacher-salary issues that occur in negotiations, the research plan placed particular emphasis on these differences as indications of potential conflicts, and proposed to test all such differences statistically. GENERAL METHODS OF THE STUDY As this study began, high school principals in.Muchigan had already worked for two years with contracts negotiated between teachers and boards of education. Most of these high school principals had not participated in the negotiation process, but were still left to admin— ister the contracts which were negotiated without their contributions and insights. Many high school principals resented this non-involvement and contended that the contracts would be more workable if the high school principals' point of view was considered during the negotiations. 34 35 Research on negotiations, available only from 1965, the year negotiations came to education, was surveyed on the problem of middle management involvement in teacher - board negotiations; and selected educators familiar with negotiations in Michigan.were interviewed on the need for a negotiation study focusing on the high school principal. Both of these sources indicated a considerable need for a determination of the role that high school principals should play in these negotiations. IMany expressed the fear that serious subordinate and superordinate conflicts lay in.wait for principals if the present trend of non-participation continues. An analysis of the problem, based on views from the literature, educators active in negotiations, and practicing high school prin- cipals, suggested the initial step of ascertaining the expectations held by high school principals themselves and all relevant others for the role of principals in these negotiations, information most readily secured with a questionnaire. DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTRUMENT DeveIOping a questionnaire specifically to determine what the study participants thought the role of high school principals should be in teacher - board negotiations presented several problems. Since negotiation in education covers many topics, it was necessary to select a limited number of issues that each respondent could readily understand and relate to principal involvement. Since high school principals could be affiliated in teacher - board negotiations with one or both of the negotiating groups, or with neither, any 36 questionnaire needed to provide for each of the various ways that principal involvement could occur. And finally, since certain fundamental principles govern the reliability of a questionnaire, some theoretical justification, here the requirements of Goode and Batt1 concerning content, construction, procedures, length, and pre-testing, should be used as a procedural guide in the development of study questionnaires. The initial draft of the questionnaires consisted of definitive responses organized in three sections: demographic and other data, issues that have occurred in teacher - board negotiations, and ways high school principals could be involved in negotiations. At this stage all-inclusiveness was emphasized in an attempt to comprehend all pertinent suggestions from the literature and other resources. This initially cumbersome draft of questionnaire items was screened for appropriateness, completeness, and clarity with the assistance of the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals, the Michigan Association of School Administrators, the Michigan Education Association, the Michigan.Association of School Boards, the State of Michigan Department of Education, and staff members from the Michigan State University College of Edu- cation. 4Many suggestions for additions and deletions yielded a A A_4 1WilliamJ. Goode and Paul K. Hatt, Methods of Social Research (New York: MoGraw~Hill Book Company, Inc., 1952), pp. 134-169. 37 second draft; and repeating this screening process produced revised questionnaires that were ready for pre-testing. The revised questionnaires for high school teachers, superintendents, and board members each included thirty-four items: eighteen requesting demographic data and sixteen involving responses to four principal- involvement factors each in relation to four representative negotiation issuesz. Completion time was estimated to average less than thirty minutes. The revised questionnaire for high school principals had a total of eighty-two items: thirty-four paralleling the questionnaires of the other groups, plus forty-eight relating principal perceptions to the responses of the other groups3. These perception responses were designed to deter- mine how aware high school principals are of the negotiation atti- tudes held by relevant groups. Completion time for the principal questionnaire was estimated to average less than forty minutes. Prior to their use in this study, the questionnaires were pre-tested in a neighboring school district not included in the study population. The four participating groups, high school teachers, high school principals, superintendents, and board mem- bers, each completed their respective questionnaires. Io major difficulties in format, administration, clarity, or timing were noticed. After making some necessary adjustments in procedure and form, the questionnaires were judged ready for research use. 2See Appendix A, pp. Ill-133. 3See Appendix A, pp. 134-145. 38 Administration time estimates were revised downward to less than twenty minutes for revevant groups and less than thirty minutes for high school principals. THE SAMPLE The thirteen school districts within a ten mile radius of Grand Rapids comprised the population of this study, including 13 superintendents, 18 high school principals, 93 board, members, and 850 high school teachers. The project director attempted to admin-' ister the questionnaires personally to each of these prospective respondents, preferably in the normal school setting: the superin- tendent and board members at any board of educationsession, and the high school principal and his instructors at any buildingstaff_ meeting. Twelve of the thirteen school districts agreed to partici- pate in the study after receiving and reviewing the research design of the project. Over 750 educators from these districts produced usable responses, specifically 12 superintendents, 17 high school principals, 76 board members, and 649 high school teachers. STATISTICAL HYPOTHESES This study assumes that high school teachers, high school principals, superintendents, and board members hold expectations for the role of high school principals in teacher - board negotiations, and the statistical hypotheses developed for the study are based on this assumption. The following terms appear in these hypotheses: Q5222_: high school teachers, high school principals, superin- tendents, and board members from participating school districts. Relevantgroups: high school teachers, superintendents, and board 39 members from participating school districts. Administrative issues:4 for example, class size, length of school day, and scheduling of staff meetings. Curricular issues: for example, courses of study, textbook selection, and teaching procedures. Evaluative issues: for example, evaluation of teachers and teacher transfers between buildings. Egacher-salaq issues: all aspects of teacher salaries. Statistical hypotheses provide a framework for analysis in social science research. In this study, the following hypotheses involving expectations will be examined for statistically sig- nificant differences. 31 Equal proportions of respondents in all groups indicate that high school principals M be involved in teacher - board negotiations when policies are determined regarding administrative, curricular, or evaluative issues . 111 - Ho: There is no difference between groups in the proportion of respondents who think high school principals should be involved in teacher - board negotiations when policies are determined regarding administrative, curricular, or evaluative issues . H2 Equal proportions of respondents in all groups indicate that high Behool principals should not be involved when policies are rlegetiated regarding teacher salaries. ACIass size and length of the school day are examples of n°3°t:l.ation issues that present educational practice recognizes as admit'lilcstrative prerogatives. They are regarded as administrative t;’u98 in this study solely on this basis which in no way negates e11» fundamental place in the curricular structure of education. 40 There is no difference between groups in the proportion of respondents who do not think high school principals should be involved when policies are negotiated regarding teacher salaries. 83 Equal proportions of respondents in all groups indicate that high school principals should not be negotiators when policies are «determined regarding curricular or teacher salary issues. ‘ 113 - Ho: There is no difference between groups in the proportion of respondents who do not think high school principals should be negotiators when policies are determined regarding curricular or teacher-salary issues. 34 Equal proportions of high school teacher and high school principal respondents indicate that high school principals should not be teegotiators when policies are determined regarding administrative (er evaluative issues. H4 " Ho: There is no difference between high school teacher and high school principal groups in the proportion of respondents who do not think high school principals should be negotiators when policies are determined regarding administrative or evaluative issues. 35 Equal preportions of superintendent and board member respondents indicate that high school principals should be negotiators for the board when policies are determined regarding administrative or evaluative issues . 95 - Ho: There is no difference between superintendent and board member groups in the proportion of respondents who think high school principals should be negotiators for the board when policies are determined regarding adminis- trative or evaluative issues. ll6 Equal preportions of respondents in all groups indicate that high ”chool principals should not be advisers in teacher - board negotiations when policies are determined regarding teacher 3 ‘1 aries . 41 H6 - 50: There is no difference between groups in the proportion of respondents who think high school principals should not be advisers in teacher - board negotiations when policies are determined regarding teacher salaries. H7 Equal proportions of respondents in all groups indicate that high school principals should be advisers to both the teachers and board when policies are negotiated regarding curricular issues. H7 - Ho: There is no difference between groups in the proportion of respondents who think high school principals should be advisers to both the teachers and board when policies are negotiated regarding curricular issues. 38 Equal proportions of high school teacher and high school principal. respondents indicate that high school principals should be advisers to both the teachers and board when policies are determined regard- ing administrative or evaluative issues. “8 - H0: There is no difference between high school teacher and high school principal groups in the proportion of respondents who think high school principals should be advisers to both the teachers and board when policies are negotiated regarding administrative and evaluative issues. E9 Equal proportions of superintendent and board member respondents indicate that high school principals should be advisers only to the board when policies are negotiated regarding administrative or evaluative issues. 39 - so: There is no difference between superintendent and board member groups in the proportion of respondents who think high school principals should be advisers only to the board when policies are negotiated regarding adminis- trative or evaluative issues. 810 Rxmww.m me.mH Hume Hume Hume Hung Hume «new mums name «x mz mz Ho. #0. m2 Ho. m2 #0. who HHN . n mmq HHN u u mme HAN mn¢ HHN nmq HHN nnc HHN nuonoeea .m .m - - - - n NH n «H - - m NH - - n «a usueommoum .m .m m n m h - - - - - - - - m h m h .ucoeaouaono am . u an «N u u an «N am ow an «N an on Nm QN unease: mason . o as» :3 oz 8» 02 3w o 3w jlmzllflln mum hum own <.n.m sun n.m Nun Hun manddqdm mmmmudua MM Mammn NIH zmms monHAO>2H n Manda 51 non.o «as.o e~e.° unm.s “Ha.s HoH.~ was.“ nuts sues Hume sums Hues Hume mute «a «z mz mz no. as mz no. - - H~e «NN HNe «an HNe «Nu - - a - HNS Nan .uonossa .m .m «H n NH n - - - - «H n - - «H n .Hmummmmmm:awuqm m n - - a n - - - - m n m n .nmummummmmummw - - - - - - as mm... as on as on as law .uonsa: eases oz as.» 02 so.» 113: oz new 02 no.» oz new. use o.s nus. sue «we use one mun—mun M15058 Mom “Hanan—bog 2 gang." daemon an: no Enos a» 538 52 mam.o san.m nu~.~ 5H0.HH hmo.~ «Hm.¢w omm.¢m Nuuo «nun. Nuuo mum—u Numv Numo onwo wz mz m2 m0 . mz Hoo . Hoo . Nx - - H3 mm .efl - - - HS 9.. «S - - - HS mm e3 3% 5: Eagle. «H n n u - u - - Na m o NH m o - u - «H m 0 scene a m ... m o m n o - - - - - - - - - a m o Sufi n n u u - as on N u - - oo on N oo on N on em N owmmm oz mama mwoojmm‘waoo haco oz Hoo.Nmmm oz afico Mano oz mflco cho 02 NHco Nfico mm Mano waco on unoa on onus on easy on pzuu om nnoa om ucoa om noon nun mun mum own mum Nun Hem mummmH EDOHMMDU mom mmaAO>ZH m Manda... 53 between respondent groups when these negotiator variables are intro- duced. These differences again reflect a minority opinion among teachers, favoring high school principals as teacher-negotiators. Responses in Table 7:4 indicate significant differences between high school teachers and board members, and Table 7:5 points to differences between high school teachers and superintendents. In each case, however, significant minorities of teachers and board members hold that principals should be negotiators for their respective sides, when teacher salaries are the issue. H4 - Ho: There is no difference between high school teachers and high school principals in the proportion of respondents who think high school principals should not be negotiators when policies are determined regarding administrative or evaluative issues. Responses in table 8:6 result in acceptance of H4 - H0 for administrative issues: high school principals and teachers agree that principals should not be negotiators when administrative policies are determined. Responses in Table 9:6 result in acceptance of H4 - HO for evaluative issues: principals and teachers agree that high school principals should not be negotiators when evaluative policies are determined. H5 - H0: There is no difference between superintendents and board members in the pr0portion of respondents who think high school principals should be negotiators for the board when policies are determined regarding administrative or evaluative issues. Responses in Table 10:3 result in acceptance of H5 - no for administrative issues. Superintendents and board members agree, at a 672 majority level, that principals should not be negotiators when administrative policies are determined. Table 11:3 indicates accep- tance of H5 - Hg for evaluative issues: superintendents and board 54 ~ma.a Hmm.o Hmw.o mos.H mma.m sw9.s BoB.H Hues Hume Hume Hume Hume Hume mums mz mz m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 Nx - - awn as wnm aw - - wnm aw - - «mm mm muoaomua .m .m 0H a ma H - - as s - - - - OH H ussaaoaaum .m .m m s - - - - - - s s w s m s mucosauueauommmu - - - - Ne ms as «a - - Ne me No as saunas: canon oz new 02 new oz new oz new oz no» oz no» oz as» has one mus «we nus Nuo Hue mMDmmH HddgdwumumoAO>2H w uqmAO>2H mmDmmH wmHumsHo>m uuHsoauuoo o>aumuuuaaqac< owed mmoH NuoH mama mammmxm A4ZOHH40>ZH amaeuaoemz mes mmaamu weeqem-mmmuHum=Hw>m uwH=OHuuao w>wumuunwcaav< HIM—u NM naoHuaauuam HumHoaHum uuonomoa Hoonow nwwm Humv Nx acoHuawuuom HmmHuaHum 323a: Ewan aGOHummoumm HmAHocHum mucmvcmucwummsm HaaoHuaHuowmz vumom.u umnumma an vcpHo>aH an unmHoaHum Hoonum anm vHaonm mmbafiu andfimgmm mo mzonhmmummm AM uaHDOHuuso ¢#Humuuuficaav< wnaowumHuowmz vumom n umsomma an uncumHuowoz mm uHmmHuaHum Hooaow anm vHsonw mmbomc andfimamm ho MZOHHmmummm AHumsHm>m ansoHuuso m>HumuuoHcHEu¢ NuQOHumHuowmz vumom a umnumma :H mumnH>v< mm ”HmmHofiHum Hoonom anm vHaonm manage az<>mgmm mo mchammuzmm H<~Huznmm mH MAQm umH90Huuso o>HumuuuHGHBv< NocOHuuHuowmz vuuom u Honomma an uuuoaxm HmaoHumunvm mm uHmmHuaHum Hoonom :me vHaonm mmaaau HZ<>MAMM ho mzofihmmummm AHumoHo>m New .mea New twat [mooa cannon o mH o nH N 0 NH m o 0 NH uoHooHuuao .iwme “use" New use Ham cannon o mH 0 0H H o mH o o H cH o>HueuuanHSc< cooked fl ucoaoouw< oz no» oz noon mHno cho 02 on annoy 02 new on anon pom pom uuomxm o< nonH>v< ad woodwoowoz < vo>Ho>cH “om HoAHooHum Hoonom anm oak vHoonm qumuoznmm Hoomom :UHm "Hzmxmmmu4 PDQMUIHum=Ho>m nmfiauauuoo o>wumuunqCaEw< wuaoguowuo oz venom u posumoa 0H vo>aoa “H we use nuance flooaum swam canonm “a NNM ZOHHEWMMN gOHHuwoDam FHHB amajmmmoo mmmzommma Man—am: 928 mm 338 82 «es.n me sao.a «z asm.o as mne.o an «new «x as a as as a on e «a I‘mmww as «a a an a on a «a sense: a 0a m NH 0 Ha e as mun mm mow am. no» mm\ mm» wuaowuonco oz venom u nonuaoH cu nuns xm encouuaquo on women . Honomoa cu noonw>u< mm nfimmwocwum floonom a «m vasonm ase.m ma emm.~ «a one 0 we hom.s eume a: once Ne a e e o n Na Na o q as as o m as me 0 mean «N H m o N as as o m as as o e NH as H assoc: a N a o o a as o a m a o N a m o .Mua lo: ..nllsom $5320.. .o.zl allocafililofi.e.o caisson Naeodaco. -.oz. .. :15 :5 ESL em saga em snap em onus on page mason” nosnuH ”canon oozenH huuHMm-uo;omoH o>auw5~o>u uaHaoHuupo opaumuunwawav< Aecsuauuoov «N manwumwuowaflav< saaossasso oz euaom - twosome as eo>so>as on use senses season a sm esaosm sums madman Ragga EH3 OMHSMMMOU mumzommmm “mg 528 MN 35.“. 84 nac.s a: nso.o as ~o~.o mz ans.o as snow as as sN ms um ms an ss an saxosmmm-sswwlmum as as w sN a us e um eascsmmw-wmww.-- mm «MW. oz mmw oz «mmw oz no» «neowumwao oz venom . panacea an muse xm «mo.¢ mz oos.¢ mz no. 0mm.o who u mnmv mz «use we om n ma 0 n ma mN o w NH mu H eaaosmmm-ssmm sum HN ¢ s 0 oz nuom NHco Nfido fl oz OH 0 oz flom Nsco Nsao H nH MH 0 oz nuom NHno Nano um pack on HfiuH um unofi nonnuu nonncH museum zsosumuuosuaoa o>suo=sa>m saszosussu o>wuuuunflafiav< on u sonumoa on oson«>_ .a mm assasmmsss soeaom a so essosm ewumsmmwuwsmm AeoscsueouV mu essay 85 oso.n oz «so.s oz Noe.e no. moo.o mz s.s.~.~umo Ne on s o ss as 0 es n o ow s o oz so ss 0 ms om o as as s ms nu s was oz Nsno mace mm Nsao zHco oz zsno msoo oz afico zsoo on sous on soon on snow on sous wacoauadoo oz upcomuw poaoaoa on aneuwauomoz on new Honwum aoonom a an vszonm moo.o mz omm.o mz mos.o mz oom.o mo. sumo Nx os m N as s as w ms oz on as m cm N sm o oe nos oz mos oz nos mm‘ no» mm} no» mozmcH nosnmm nosmmH nwsmnH msmfimmqswsumoy o>~umamm>m smasowuuao o>wuuhunscaav< ~¢GOH adduowwz vhzwam I HGSUNQH EH U¢>HO>EH mm "A wfiwuflfiuw HOOfiUm .3 M3 UHDOfim FH MQN,, MUZMHMMQNM MOHszmafim>m smanusuuao oemuauuuscHEfi< Nanowuoauo oz venom . sonowoh nu nuons> Aoooossooos on asses 87 oos.o one s nom.n nss.s oun.0s sumo mz sumo mz «use mz ano mz «use so. «x «s o m o m ss s o as s es 0 .mm mm ON os no as as ms ms mu m on as mos Ilulmm mo» sz os sz sosooz os osmm‘so o m sommm. s x m sommmmmmmm oososmsm-ssom ousmo Sou nose: coaumsm mum HonoHumoavm nououzvm :< mummy wwwm oosooosa vumom mmam nuaomuwm Wm mmoao no-0m on wovmml who: no <2 <2 cosy mqu mH uo>o male 0 nova: neumauomoz honomoa NEOO JKIMm % cOwuwhmawhm Hmco_.umu=mem usudomfiw fi< mummw sown: nnwu own" mama «Hum Huhm mmAm¢HM<> omaomumm an MNOH BEFORE YOU TURN THIS PAGE, BE SURE YOU HAVE CHECKED ABOVE ONE CHOICE IN EACH ITEM (1 thru 4) 131 m: IN A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE TEACHERS' AND EOARD or EDUCATION EARSAININC TEAMS MEET TO NEOOTIATE POLICIES COVERING SUCH THINGS AS: 1. Courses Of Study. 2. Selection Of Textbooks. 3. Teaching procedures. SHOULD A.HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT....................... 1. be involved, somehow, in these negotiations?...................[::::] yes E3” a. for the teachers, chosen by the teachers?..................[::::] 2.‘ segyg.as a negotiator (check one) b. for the Board of Education, Chosen by the administration?........ ........ .... .......... .............. c. forne1Cher 81de70ssssoossooossosssssososoosssoooossssoosso 3. serve as an advisor (check one) a. to tm teaChers ONLY?OOOOOOOO.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... c. to BOTH the teachers and Board of Education?............... d. to neither BideYO0.00.00.00.00.00.0.00000000000000000000000 [2:1 [:21 [:3 b. to the Board of Education ONLY? 1:] [:2] [:2] 4. serve as an educational expert chosen by the high school_principals. (check one) s. to present the views Of high school principals on this issue..............................................[::::] [:3 b. no such educational expert should be chosen by the princ1p8180000000.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.000.00.000... S. serve in some other manner (please specify) BEFORE YOU TURN THIS PAGE, BE CERTAIN YOU HAVE CHECKED ABOVE m ME IN EACH ITEM (1 thru 4) 132 SITUATION: IN A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE TEACHERS' AND BOARD OF EDUCATION BARGAINING TEAMS MEET TO NEGOTIATE POLICIES COVERING SUCH THINGS AS: 1. Evaluation of teachers 2. Teacher transfers between buildings SHOULD A HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT: 1. be involved, somehow, in these negotiations? (check one) ..... ‘E:::] yes no 2. serve as a negotiator (Check one) a. for the teachers, chosen by the teachers? ................. b. for the board of education, chosen by the administration?. c. for neither side? ........................................ . 3. serve as an advisor (check one) a. to the teachers ONLY?....... .............. ................ b. to the board of education ONLY?... ........... ............. c. to BOTH the teachers and board of education?.............. DUDE! DUI] D d. to neither aide?000 00000 .000 .......... ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 4. serve as an educational expert Chosen by the high school principals (check one) a. to present the views of high school principals on this 1..“e000000000O...........0O.......OOOOOOOO......OICOOOOO. b. no such educational expert should be Chosen by the princ1p318oosoosessssssosossssoooossssssssssossossoooossss l] 5. serve in some other manner (please specify) BEFORE YOU TURN THIS PAGE, BE CERTAIN YOU HAVE CHECKED ABOVE ONE CHOICE IN EACH ITEM. 133 SITUATION: IN A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE TEACHERS' AND BOARD OF EDUCATION BARGAINING TEAMS MEET TO NEGOTIATE POLICIES GOVERNING SUCH THINGS AS: 1. Teachers Salaries SHOULD A HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT: 1. be involved, somehow, in these negotiations? (check one)......{::::] yes [3:10 2. serve as a negotiator (check one) a. for the teachers, chosen by the teachers?................. b. for the board of education, chosen by the administration?. c. for neither aide? 00000000000000 00........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3. serve as an advisor (check one) a. to the teaChers OMY?OOIOOOOOOODOOO 000000000 ......OOOOOOOO b. to the board of education ONLY?.................. ...... ... c. to BOTH the teachers and board of education?.............. d. to neither 81de?.0.0...I....00..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... DEED HUD 4. serve as an educational expert chosen by the high school pgincipgls (check one) a. to present the views of high school principals on this islueOO....O................OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0...0.0.0.... b. no such educational expert should be chosen by the princ1p31800000.0.0.000... ..... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..... 0.. [H] 5. serve in some other manner (please specify) BEFORE YOU TURN THIS PAGE, BE CERTAIN YOU HAVE CHECKED ABOVE ONE CHOICE FOR.EACH ITEM. 134 Previously you were asked to respond to four different teachers' - board of education collective negotiations situations, from your point of view. lbw these same situations are presented again, and you are asked to indicate ggg YOU THINK,HI§H SCHOOL TEACHERS will respond to these situations. SITUATION: IN A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE TEACHERS' AND BOARD OF EDUCATION BARGAINING TEAMS MEET TO NEGOTIATE POLICIES GOVERNING SUCH THINGS AS: 1. The Size of Classes 2. The Length of the School Day 3. Scheduling of Staff Meetings INDICATE: HOW U THI HIGH SCHOOL T C W’ RES TO THE QUESTION: "SHOULD A HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT....." be involved, somehow,_in these negotiations?................... (check one) serve as a negotiator (check one) a. for the teachers, chosen by the teachers?.................[::::] b . for the board of education, chosen by the administrati on? . [:1 c. for neither side? 00000000000 O .......... ......OOOOOOOOOO... serve as an advisor (check one) a. to the teachers ONLY?.......... ......... ..... ....... ...... C. to BOTH the teachers and board of education?. ..... ........ d. to neither side?..0000000...OOO0.0.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO [:2] [:21 b. to the board of education ONLY?........................... [::::] serve as an educational expert chosen by the high school ,principals (Check one) a. to present the views of high school principals on this 1..“e?.......OOOOOOOOOO0......0............OOOOOOCOOOOOOOO b. no such educational expert should be Chosen by the princ1p8180000000.0.00..O......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0......0.0... [I serve,;g some other manner (please specify) BEFORE YOU TURN THIS PAGE, BE CERTAIN YOU HAVE CHECKED ABOVE ONE CHOICE IN EACH ITEM. i 13S SITUATLON: IN A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE TEACHERS' AND BOARD OF 2. EDUCATION BARGAINING TEAMS MEET TO NEGOTIATE POLICIES COVERING SUCH THINGS AS: 1. Courses of Study 2. Selection of Textbooks 3. Teaching Procedures INDICATE: HOW YOU THINK H CH SCHOOL TE w TO THE QUESTION.."SHOULD A.HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT...." be involved,somehow, in these negotiations?...................I::::] yes :1 no (check one) serve as a negotiator (check one) D a. for the teachers, chosen by the teachers?................. b. for the board of education, chosen by the administration?.l::::] c. for neither side?....... .......... . ......... .............. [::::I serve as an advisor (check one) a. to the teachers ONLY?..................................... b. to the board of education ONLY?........................... c. to BOTH the teachers and board of education?.............. DUDE d. to neither '1de2000000000000.00.0.0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. serve as an educational expert,#chosen by the high school principals: (check one) a. to present the views of high school principals on this 1..“e70000.........O.......‘OOOOOOOO......OOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO b. no such educational expert should be chosen by the prinC1pa1.000000000000IOOOOOOO00............OOOOOOOOOOOOOO DU serve in sags other manner (please specify) BEFORE YOU TURN THE PAGE, BE CERTAIN YOU HAVE CHECKED ABOVE ggg CHOIEE IN EACH ITEM. 136 SITUATION: IN A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE TEACHERS' AND BOARD OF EDUCATION BARGAINING TEAMS MEET TO NEGOTIATE POLICIES GOVERNING SUCH THINGS AS: 1. Evaluation of Teachers 2. Teacher Transfers between Buildings INDICATE: HOW YOU THINK HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS WILL RESPOND TO THE QUESTION..."SHOULD A HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT...." 1. be involved, somehow, in these negotiations? ...... ............I::::1 yes. [21" (check one) 2. serve as a negotiator (check one) a. for the teachers, chosen by the teachers?................. b. for the board of education, chosen by the administration?. DBL c. for neither side?......................................... 3. serve as an advisor (check one) a. to the teachers ONLY?..................................... b. to the board of education 0NLY?........................... c. to BOTH the teachers and board of education?.............. HJDU d. to neither side?000000. ....... ... ..... ......OOOOOO 0000000 O 4, segxg h; ah educational_§xnert chosen by the high school principals: (check one) a. to present the views of high school principals on this 1s.ue?IOICO0............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOCOOOOOOOOOOOCOO b. no such educational expert should be chosen by the princ1p8180000......0.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOI0.0.0.0.... [1 5. serve in some other manner (please specify) BEFORE YOU TURN THIS PAGE, BE CERTAIN YOU HAVE CHECKED ABOVE ONE CHOICE IN EACH ITEM. :— 137 sgggnog: IN A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE TEACHERs' AND BOARD or 1. 2. EDUCATION BARGAINING TEAMS MEET TO NEGOTIATE POLICIES GOVERNING SUCH THINGS AS: 1. Teachers' Salaries INDICATE: HOW YOU NK H CH SC OOL TO THE QUESTION..."SHOULD A HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT...." be ihvolvedA soméhowkin these negotiations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :3 ye s (check one) no serve as a negotiator (check one) a. for the teachers chosen by the teachers?.................. D D b. for the board of education, chosen by the administration?.l::::] c. for neither side?.......................................... serve as an advisor? (check one) a. to the teachers 0NLY?................. ...... .............. b. to the board of education ONLY?........................... c. to BOTH the teachers and board of education?.............. d. to neither aideYOIOOOOOOOOOOOO.000......I......OOOOOOOOOOO DDDD D serve gs an educational expert, chosen by the high school principals? (check one) a. to present the views of the high school principals on this 1..“e700000000000000000......OOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00... b. no such educational expert should be chosen by the pr1DCip81800000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOIOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOO. D serve in cogs other manner (please specify) BEFORE YOU TURN THIS PAGE, BE CERTAIN YOU HAVE CRECRED ABOVE 911;; 93919;; IN EACH ITEM. 138 Now consider these situations, indicating How You Think Superintendents will respond. SITUATION: IN A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE TEACHERS' AND BOARD OF EDUCATION BARGAINING TEAMS MEET TO NEGOTIATE POLICIES GOVERNING SUCH THINGS AS: 1. Courses of Study 2. Selection of Textbooks 3° Teaching Procedures TO THE QUESTION. .."SHOULD A HIGH SHOOL PRINCIPAL IN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT...." INDICATE: be involved, somehow, in these negotiations?..................I::::j yes (check one) 1:31:10 serve as a negotiator (check one) a. for the teachers, chosen by the teachers? ......... ........ D b. for the board of education, chosen by the administration?. c. for neither side? ........ ................................. serve as an advisor (check one) a. to the teaChers ONLY?O..0.0.0...0.000000000000000000000000 b. to the board of education 0NLY?.............. ..... ........ c. to BOTH the teachers and board of education?.............. d. to neither Bide?..........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..... 00.0.0.0... serve as an educational expert, chosen by the high school _principals (check one) a. to present the views of high school principals on this isSUEZOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOUOCOOOOO.....OOOIOOOIOOOO......O...’ b. no such educational expert should be chosen by the PrinCiPals 0000000 000.00....IOOOOOOOOOICOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00 D serve in some other manner (please specify) BEFORE YOU TURN THE PAGE, BE CERTAIN YOU HAVE CHECKED ABOVE ONE CHOICE IN EACH ITEM :— 139 SITQQTIO : IN A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE TEACHERS' AND BOARD OF EDUCATION BARGAINING TEAMS MEET TO NEGOTIATE POLICIES GOVERNING SUCH THINGS AS: 1. The Size of Classes 2. The Length of the School Day 3. Scheduling of Staff Meetings INDICATE: HOW YOU THINK SUPERINTENDEETS HILL RESPOND TO THE QUESTION..."SHOULD A HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT..." 1. be involved, somehow, in these negotiations?.................. [:3 yes (check one) [:1 .. 2. serve as a negotiator (check one) a. for the teachers, chosen by the teachers?................. b. for the board of education, chosen by the administration?.' c. for neither Bide?0000.0.0000...0.0.0.0.........OOOOOOOOOCC 3. serve.as gh advisor (check one) a. to the maChers ONLY?OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO b. to the board Of education ONIsY?essssesoseeeeoseoeosseosees c. to BOTH the teachers and board of education?.............. DDDU HDD d. to neither 81d820000 00000 000.000.00.000......OOOOOOOOCOOOO 4. serve as an educational expert Chosen by the high sChool grincipals? (check one) a. to present the views of high school principals on this issue?.0...O00............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000.000.0000... b. no such educational expert should be chosen by the prinCi-palBOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0000.............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOIO D 5. serve in some other manner (please specify) BEFORE YOU TURN THE PAGE, BE CERTAIN YOU HAVE CHECKED ABOVE ONE CHOICE IN EACH ITEM. 140 W IN A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE TEACHERs' AND BOARD or EDUCATION BARGAINING TEAMS MEET TO NEGOTIATE POLICIES GOVERNING SUCH THINGS AS: 1. Evaluation of Teachers 2. Teacher Transfers between Buildings INDICATE: HOW YOU THINK SUPERINTENDENTS HgLL RESPOND TO THE QUESTION..."SHOULD A.HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT...." be ipvolved,psomehow,_;p these negotiations?..................{::::] yes [Inc (check one) serve as a negotiator (check one) I a. for the teachers, chosen by the teachers?................. b. for the board of education, chosen by the administration?.l::::] c. for neither side?............. .......... .................. serve as an advisor (check one) a. to the teachers 0NLY?...................................... b. to the board of education ONLY? .......................... c. to BOTH the teachers and board of education?.............. d. to neither side?.......................................... UDDD 'D serve as an educatiopgl expert,_chosen by the high school principals (Check one) a. to present the views of high school principals on this issue?00000000....OIOOOOO0.00.......COOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...... DD b. no such expert should be chosen by the principals......... serve in some other manner (please specify) BEFORE YOU TURN THE PAGE, BE CERTAIN YOU HAVE CHECKED ONE CHOICE IN EACH ITEM. 141 SITUAT ON: IN A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE TEACHERS' AND BOARD OF EDUCATION BARGAINING TEAMS MEET TO NEGOTIATE POLICIES GOVERNING SUCH THINGS AS: 1. Teachers' Salaries INDICATE: HOW YOU THINK SUPERINTENDENTS HILL RESPOND TO THE QUESTION..."SHOULD A HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT...." 1. be involved, somehow, in these negotiations?.... ..... .........[::::] yes (check one) E21» 2. serve as an advisor (check one) a. for the teachers, chosen by the teachers?.................[::::1 b. for the board of education, chosen by the administration?.[::::] Co for neither 81de?00. 000000 000000.000000000000000000000COOO 3. serve as an advisor (Check one) a. to the teachers ONLY?.... ............ .....................l::::] b. to the board of education ONLY? ..... ......................l::::] c. to BOTH the teachers and board of education?........ ..... .l::::] d. to neither side? ...... .......... ..... ............... ..... . [:::J 4. serve as an educational expert chosen by the high school principals (check one) a. to present the views of high school principals on this issue?0......O........00.00..........OOOOOOOO...0.0.0.0... b. no such educational expert should be chosen by the II: principals.................................... ..... .......I::::] 5. serve in some other manner (please specify) BEFORE YOU TURN THE PAGE, BE CERTAIN YOU HAVE CHECKED ONE CHOICE IN EACH ITEM. 142 New consider these situations, indicating How You Think Board of Education Hombers‘will Respond. SLTUATION: IN.A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE TEACHERS' AND BOARD OF EDUCATION BARGAINING TEAMS MEET TO NEGOTIATE POLICIES GOVERNING SUCH THINGS AS: 1. Courses of Study 2. Selection of Textbooks 3. Teaching Procedures INDICATE: ‘ ' ' ~ - RESPOND TO THE QUESTION..."SHOULD A HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT...." 1. be involved, somehow, in these negotiations?...... ..... ....... yes (check one) no 2. serve as a negotiator (check one) a. for the teachers, chosen by the teaChers? ..... ............ b. for the board of education, chosen by the administration?. c. for neither side?. ..... .............. ..... ................ 3. serve as an advisor (check one) a. to the teachers ONLY? ............. ..... .................. b. to the board Of educationOMJY?ososoooooeseosseoooesoeosoe c. to BOTH the teachers and board of education?.............. D IDD DDD DD d. to neither .1de?0000O..........0.00000000000000000000...O. 4. segpe gs an educational expert, Chosen by the high school principals (check one) a. to present the views of high school principals on this 1..“e700.......00............OIOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO D b. no such educational expert should be chosen by the high .ChOOI princtpal'.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000.000.0000... S. serve in some other manner (please specify) ! BEFORE YOU TURN THE PAGE, BE CERTAIN YOU HAVE CHECKED ABOVE ONE CHOICE IN EACH ITEM. 143 SIEQATIQN: IN A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE TEACHERS' AND BOARD OF EDUCATION BARGAINING TEAMS MEET TO NEGOTIATE POLICIES GOVERNING SUCH THINGS AS: 1. The Size of Classes 2. The Length of the School Day 3. Scheduling of Staff Meetings INDICATE: HOW YOU THINK BOARD OF EwCATION MEMBERS an; RESPOND TO THE QUESTION..."SHOULD A HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT...." 1. be involved, somehow, in these negotiations? ......... ......... E:::j yes (check one) no 2. serve as a negotiator (check one) a. for the teachers, chosen by the teaChers?..... ...... ...... b. for the board of education, chosen by the administration?. c. for neither side?......................................... 3. serve as an advisor (check one) a. to the teaChera ONLY2000000000O.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO b. to the board of education ONLY? .......................... c. to BOTH the teachers and board of education?.. ...... ...... DDDD DDD D d. to neither .1de?000 00000 0.0...0.0009...OOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO 4. serve as an educational expert, chosen by the high school _2§incipa1s (check one) a. to present the views of high school principals on this 18.ue?00000000000......OOOOOOOC0.0.0.0....0.00.00.00.00... b. no such educational expert should be chosen by the high 8Ch°°1 prinCi-palso......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....OOOOOOOOOOOOOO D 5- .ggrve in some other manner (please specify) BEFORE you TURN THE PAGE, BE CERTAIN YOU HAVE CHECKED ONE cnogcs IN 5&5 ITEM. 144 SITUATION: IN A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE TEACHERS' AND BOARD OF EIlICATION BARGAINING TEAMS DEBT TO NEGOTIATE POLICIES GOVERNING SUCH THINGS AS: 1. Evaluation of Teachers 2. Teacher Transfers between Buildings INDICATE: HOW YOU THINK BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS WILL RESPOND TO THE QUESTION..."SHOULD A HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT...." 1. be involvedL somehow, in these negotiations?. ..... [:3 yes (check one) [Duo 2. serve as a negotiator (check one) a. for the teachers, chosen by the teachers? .......... ....... b. for the board of education, chosen by the administration?. c. for neither side? ........ . .............. ..... ...... . ...... 3. serve as an advisor (check one) a. to the teaCherB ONLY? ..... 0°00.0.00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI... b. to the board of education ONLY?.. ..... .... ........ ........ c. to BOTH the teachers and board of education?.............. DDDD DDD d. to neither side?. ...................... ................... 4. serve as an educational egpert, chosen by the high school ,pgincipals (check one) a. to present the views of high school principals on this i.aue?...o......OOOOOOOOOOOOOC.0.00............OOOOOOOOOOO b. no such educational expert should be chosen by the princ1p81800000000OO0............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... D 5- _ggrve in some other manner (please specify) BEFORE YOU TURN THE PAGE, BE CERTAIN YOU HAVE CHECKED ONE CHOICE IN ELF-g ITEM. 145 SITUATION: IN A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT9 THE TEACHERS' AND BOARD OF 1. be involved, eggehow, in these negotiations?........ EDUCATION BARGAINING TEAMS MEET TO NEGOTIATE POLICIES GOVERNING SUCH THINGS AS: 1. Teachers Salaries INDICATE: HOW YOU THINK BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS WILL RESPOND TO THE QUESTION..."SHOULD A HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT...." (check one) D 2. serve as a negotiator (check one) a. b. C. for the teachers, chosen by the teacher32........ ...... .... for the board of education, chosen by the administration?. for neither side?..... ....... ...................... ..... ..[::::] 3. serve as an advisor (check one) d. to the teachers ONLY? ............. . ........... ............ to the board of education ONLY? ...... .. ......... . ..... ....[::::J to BOTH the teachers and board of education?..............[::::] to neither side? ............... . .............. . ........ ... 4. serve as an educational expert chosen by the high schqgl principals (check one) a. to present the views of high school principals on this issue?... .................... ..............................[::::] [2:] no such educational expert should be chosen by the high school principals ......... ................................ 5. serve in some other manner (please specify) WHEN YOU FINISH THIS PAGE, BE CERTAIN YOU HAVE CHECKED ONE CHOICE IN EACH ITEM. .......... [:1 yes APPENDIX B SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES Directogy: Pages 28—33 Principals correlated by district size, age, educational preparation, years a high school principal, years an educator, and negotiations involvement .............. ................ . ..... 147-58 34-37 Board members correlated by district size, years as board members, age, and union com- posite ......... .............. . .................. 159-66 38-45 Teachers correlated by district size, years as educators, educational preparation, age, sex, union composite,.organizatjonalism, and negotiator experience ... ................... 167-82 147 m2 m¢m.~ m2 «ww.H mz HNH.H mz Nuuv o H o n s o e n o n N o imam.“ n o o o n o n N o n N 0 Bowen: n o o m o o m o o m o o HHmam 3333 on unoa on unua on Mada on unuH «mnoauoauowoz venomuuonomos CH mucuowuowmz on nanmwunuum Hoonum swam vasonm Awwmmm Nom.H mz m2 m2 m2 unwv N ... a ... o a H a Dams! m c H o o n o n Bogus: o m o m o m o m Hamam ulllmmwllw no» oz new 02 now 11mmmxr‘ no» «woman «momma monomH moounu zuoaomcuonooos o>ausoaw>m “wasoauuso o>uuwuuuwcwao< manoeuowuo oz vumomuuoauwoa :H oo>Ho>cH on can «uawum Hoonum 5 am vssonm Naummw mNHm HonHmHa NEH: nmhdammmoo mumzommmu AHuaan>m unHSOHuuso moauuuuanHaud HEEOHuaHuo oz auuom-uoaouua EH muonH>u< on «HEHHOEHHH Hoonum H Hm eHaon HuoanHuuoov ma anaa .H anzuHa< 149 mz me . 0 m2 CNN . o mz no.» . c mz lev N% n H o n m o n H o o N 0 on n25 HH o o n s o n q o m N 0 “one: no Om. oz aHao HHao oz HHao HHao on .309 on Sun. meOHuoHuowMz oumomuuonumoe CH muoumHWNmnoz om mquHmWJfim Hommom H «m HuHHHoHHm ané mz m2 m2 m2 Hnwv NN H m H m o o o e on ho>o o n H oH 0 HH H oH nova: no on oz mow oz mm». mm mm.» oz now memmH MQDQMH mwflmmH mwflmMH zumHomnuocoooH o>HumsHm>m .HmHHHOHunoo o>HumHuuHCHEv< mmcoHumHuowoz oumomnu acumen. cH v03 98 H an mHmmHoaHua Hoonom a H: eHson Hummv mod HHHHB majgoo mmwzommmm Ho N e N N N N N m uses: no on now oz may Haw. mmw mm‘ as» H NNCOHuoHuo oz whoomuuonoooy cH manomxm HmcoHuoooum om mHm HucHum Hoonom s H: uH=OHm «now ano wmo.m m2 m2 mz wz Hume Nz o m H o o m H o o o o o o w o O on uo>o m o o o 0 OH H o o m N o 0 OH H 0 Have: no om oz zoom zHco NHco oz zoom ch0 cho oz Loom NHco tho 02 noon zHco ch0 cm Neon om HCOH om Hens om unoa moommH mozmmH moommH wosmmH NHonm-HocOmoa o>HoosHo>m HmHooHnuoo m>HumuumHCHEm< kg! NmCOHumHummoz oncomvuosomoa CH mummH>u£ om mHmmHochm Hoosom fiwwm CH50£m AmHmNM HomacHuaouv mN mHmee .N anszm< 151 m2 NOHé m2 m2 m2 Q o o N N o n H o m H o < unwoq u< NH H o a n o m o o 0H m o oouwon umHHoHoumm . 4 cosy umOH oz NHoo zHoo oz zHoo .fiHoo oz zHoo zHoo oz NHoe NHoo Hum anon. on “Jun. Hem “Eon. on NoaOHumHuo oz oumomnuomwooa :H opouoauowoz on oHsmwunHum Hoonom 5 Hz oHooam Noqmq m2 m2 wz mz Hum“. Nx H N o o o o o o 3&8 $.33“.on < r33 ”2 o m N HH 0 MH H NH nonwoa umuHMHommm < cosy mmmH oz mm» oz mow oz mow mm no» u mwolome moammH mosmmH noommH zumHmmqunOoua o>Numon>m uoHoOHHzoo o>HumuumHoHEo< NmmoaumHuo oz oumomuuonomoa :H vo>Ho>cH mmanomfimmHnm Hengom ZOHHSNMMN EOHHm HmHSOHuusu o>HuouumHaHEo< NmdeuMHuo oz unmomnuosooou :H muomH>u < oz oHooHooHCz Hoozom z Hz oHooom HooouHuooov on uzzHuosHo>m uoHSOHuuao o>Huouunwcwfiv< NnuoHuoHuo oz vasomuuonumoa :H vo>Ho>nH on wHo HonHum Hoonom a «M vH=OAm Ho H o o o o o H o o o H o o o H o ano m N o o o m o o o o H o o m o o m noun: 02 noon NHco NHno oz noon NHco NHco oz nuom NHco NHoo oz noon NHno NHao . on know u: on unuH on “nos on anon - nooan moommH mmouoH monouH huoHom-uonoooH o>HuooHo>m unHoOHNuso oouumuunacaao< .r .I. urn NooOHuoHuo oz unsomnuonuwoe :H ouozH>o< om mHumHonHum Ho HWHHnu coon HNHz oHommw HooooHuooov Hm HHNEN .N xHozzzz< 155 choHumHumwwz vumom-umaomoa =H vo>Ho>c H mm mHmmHoaHum Hoosum a a: VHnonm qu.o mz NnN.H mz mo¢.¢ mz on.o mz Hnwv «N m H o n m o m H o m N 0 mac: uo oH n o o m ¢ o n q o n N 0 9H noun: oz cho ch0 oz Nwmo mHao mm ammo tho oz Hco Hno cm .HHHuH Hum anon. um know. um use“. NmGOHuwHuo oz vumom-pwnomwa cH mucuMHuo 02 mm mHm HocHum Hoonom 5 Hz vHsonm Numm m2 mz mz mz Haw—u Nx m n H m o 0H 0 0H who: uo 0H N m H o o w H m 0H nova: oz muw ‘mm mmw oz mow oz now mmsmmH mvsmmH mmammH mmsmmH kHMHmmvumnome o>Hum=Hm>m umH=UHuu=o m>HumuumHnwfiv< mosHuono>m uoHouHuuoo o>HuouuuHoHEo< NmooHuMHuo oz whoomnuonoooa oH ouumH>u¢ on «Ho HooHum Hoonom a HH vHoonm HuuaaHuaoov Nm mHnHo>o one . H mz wz mz mz Huwv Nx N N H N o N H N mm N w H o o oH o oH mow oz mMM oz mow oz no» oz no» monumH mwamoH moomnH moonnH zumHmmquoaommH u>HumaHm>m uoHaUHuuoo m>HumuuoHoHEv< H on mHomHuawum Hoosom n «m vHaonm Hznzm>ao>zH monfidHaoomz MHHS QHH¢AMMMOO mmmzommmm AdeUZHzm mm MAnHuoon>m umHooHuuso o>Huouumaowab< AvooBHuooov NN uHNN< mm oHooHNmHoz Hommum Nsz NHooNN HN qu 159 NHN.N NuNo Nz NNH.o Nz HNN.H Nz NNN.H Nz .12. NN NH o o N N o N N o S N o dams ININ N o NH 4N o NN NH H HN NH H 5:3: NH o o N S o N N H 2 N o 3% j; J13 on 33 NN ...ooz NNoOHuMHuo oz uuoom-u 8N“, o Nz NNN .o Nz NNo. N Nz NNN. N Nz NnNo NN HH N N NH N HH o S ham? 8 NH N No N NN N NN 538: HH N H NH o NH H NH 3% oz II! N; Na mwrz % my» olz New noonuH «woman uoaooH nooooH zuoHomuumnoooa o>Huo=Ho>u uoHaoHuuoo o>HuouuoHuNEo< NoooHuoHuo oz canon -uonoooa aH oo>Ho>o MNHm HDHmHMHn MHHB QMHQAMMMOO mnmzommmm Nunlui madam «n Mazda a Nanummd 160 NNN.N Nz HNN.N Nz HNN.H Nz NHN.H Nz NuNN Nx HH N N HH N HH N N mmmmm‘ NN NH NH \wmm‘ NH NN HH NN aoHNoz N N N NH N NH N NH HHoaN lllozr 3.» olzl 3; % NlNz fiz mell NooOHuoHuowwz unmomuumnoooa HH wuuomxm HocoHuoooom on aHomHmmHnm Hoonomwmwwz oHaoam N¢.¢mu NHN N Nz NNN.N Nz NNN N Nz rNN.N NnNN Nz NuNo NN HH N H N H N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNH :mmuw N NH N N NH HN N N NN NH N N NN NN H soHNoz N H N N N N N N N NH N N N N NH N HHoaN oz NooN NHoN NHNN oz nNoN NHoo NHoN oz fioN NHNo NHuo Ilvm usoa .Imm unua on unua on Many wooonu moaooH nonmmH noaomH zuoHomnuonume o>Hum=Hm>m uoHooHuuno o>HumuumHuNsv< NmflOHuWQUO 02 CHMOQIHQ£O$0H CH mkwogfl oz fiom NHao NHao . < on uHo Noaqum Hoonom a a: anbfim HooaoHooooN NN NHNNN .N xHozNNNN 161 NooowuoHuo oz vumomnuosomoa :H vo>Ho>= H NN NHN HooHoN HoozoN z HN NHooNN NNH.N Nz NNN.H Nz NNH.N Nz NNN.N Nz H.H.N.Nnuo Nx NN N N NH NH N HN NH N NN HH o Nuoz No N NN N N NH NN N NH HN N NN NH H N HNNNN oz Hoo Hoo oz zHoo NHNN tum zHoo NHao oz NHco NHoo NN “Non NN ozoz NN nooz NN Nzoz N...1\\\\ 25.3330 oz oumomuumnoooa NHH mucumHuomoz om mHoNHHooHum Hoonom HH Hz 3395 NNH.N Nz NNN.N Nz NNN.H Nz NNN.N Nz HuNN Nx NN NH N HN N NN N NN ago: no N NN NH N NN N NN N NN N uoNoN l V i ' IIL oz no» oz no.» oz no.» oz 3% moommH moammH monomH mosmmH bmHmmnumnoooH o>Humon>m umHooHupao o>NumuuoHnNEo< Azania: 928v MOHHmooHo>m umHooHuuso w>HumzuwHoHfio< wowmz uuoomnuosomofi oH muomHPv< mm NHmmHooHum Hoosom swwz oHoosm mmIWMM NN=OHuwH HooaHuooov mm was. .m 5923.2 163 NNN.H mz NNN.N Nz NNN.N Nz NNN.N Nz H.H.N.NINN Nx NN NH N NN NN N NN NN N HN NN H uo>o no NN NH H N N N N N N N NH N N NN Noon: oz NHno NHao oz NHoo NHuo oz NHao NHao oz NHflO NHnO NN ozoa om unon NN Naoz NoooHuoHuo oz vumom-zonomoh oH NHOumHuo oz om mHm Hoawum Hoonom A «N VHuosm an unoH Nho.o mz mHoNo m2 nHo.o mz wHN.o m2 Hnmu Nx Ne ON m mm m mm NH ac Ho>o uo ON oH v H nH H MH N NH o¢ nova: oz no» oz mww oz mww mm wow monoNH N03NNH NmoNNH nooooH zumHmmuuoaomoH o>HuonHm>m uoHnoHuuso 0>Huauuowdwafl< NNoOHuoHuo oz “zoom-nonoooa oH vooHopaH mm uHomHonHum Hoonum mud: vHoonm HHNmmM mo< mHHB nuH425 oz HHuom 30 NHqu oz HHuom NHaO NHao NN oNoN NN NNNN NN oooz oN ozoz NoanoH oooooH NooowH monumH AhoHomuuosomoH 0>Huoon>m uoHooHunno 0>HumuuoH=NEo< NoooHuoHuo oz onoomuuonomoh oH ouoNH>u < om NHw HooHum Hooan 3 Hz vHaonm m.omq HNNNaHNaooV NN.NHNNN .N NHNzNNNN 165 NNN.N Nz HNN.N Nz NNN.N Nz oNN.H Nz H.H.N.NuNN Nz HH H o m N o m m 0 0H N o anz Hm NH 0 mN ON 0 Hm Hm N Ha NN H 30H oz NHoo HHoo oz zHoo NHoo oz INHoo mHoo oz mHoo NHoo vm usuH om know on NNNH om “sow choHuMHummmm vumONIHwSUMoH CH mHoNNNNQMNZ mm memHoszm Hoonum fiwH: nHJOSmIINNwmmM NNN H mz m0m H mz NMNIN Nod NNo.N mz Hum Nx S N N S N N N N NNHN NN NN q om m HN oH mm 30H III oz Now oz Now oz my» oz Now NNDNNH NazmmH momNNH NNDNNH zzmHmmuuonommH o>HNmuHm>m HMHDUHNNHO w>HumuumHuHBo< RII NNGOHuoHuowmz vzmom-umfiumoy cH oo>Ho>aH wm mHmmHocHum Hoofium LwH: vHaonm NH NNM MHHmomZOO onzD :HHS QMHHNmon>m HmHoonpoo o>HumuumHoHEu< NNSOHumHHowmz vumomnuozumoH :H mummH>o N NN NHNNHNNHNN HoozoN N Hz NHoozN N Nmm AvoDCHuGOUV NN NHNNN .N zHozsz< NNH . N Nz NNNO N Nz NNN. N Nz NNN. NH No. NuuH. NNH NNN N NN NNH NN HN NNH NN NN NNH NN NN oNuoH HNN N NN NNH HN NN NNH HN NN NHN NH NNN 530: NN N JNH HN NN NH INN N NN NN H NH HHoaN IIoz NHco zHuo oz Nwmo NHoo oz NHoo NHoo oz NHuo NHoo NN 23 NN NNN.H NN :3 oz Eon IIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIMMOmeNNowwz rumomakmsumwa CH ououoHuo Nmmmq 7‘ Cu 1 NNN» N NN NNN ‘ NH 8 NNN. NH HNN. NNN.NH H8. NINN NNH NNN I N NN I i NNN NN ININN NN NNN «NNN. .H HNHII NINI: . NH NNNI NN HNN NN NNN 538: IIINN IN.NJ-.II.HII -IININ! N NN N NN HHNaN I oz New oz ma» INN mmw oz no» NwsmmH NNJNNH oooooH uuauoH NHmHMmuzmzome m>NN11Hm>m uoHooHuuno o>HuouuoHnHEv< choHumHuowo z Numom-zonoooa oH oo>Ho>oH um oHo HoaHum Hoonom mem HUHmHmHQ 38H: Quaddmmzou mmmzcmmmm mumu<fla onuflfi<fl a Nanmmm< 1(8 NNH . H Nz NNN. H Nz NNN . N Nz NNH .N Nz NnNN NNH NNH NNH NN NNN NN NNH NN NNH IINNMNH NNH NN NN NNH NINI NNH NN NNH SHE: NN NN NH NN NN NN HN NN HHoaN oz Imw» mmI no» NmooHuMHuo oz oumomuuonuoua o ¢¢0.NH mz o¢m.¢H no. HNm.mN Hoo. mnn.hH Ho. euwv Nx me Nu 0H m an me mm oH om mmH HN mH ad an NN mH wwwoq meH om w w mH mHN mN mN on mHN a ¢N Hd Immw NH oN asavoz me mm H m N no N m o Nu H N m Imw o m HHmEm oz zoom zHoo zHco oz 53 NHNN NHNo oz fioN NHNN NHNN oz 38 NHoo NHNN NN NNN.H NN 2oz IINN uzoa NN ..zHoN mosnnH NozmuH m09NNH NoamNH zumHomuuonomoH o>Humon>m uoHooHuuso opHuouuNHoHEu< hIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII NmooHumHuo oz vuoo muuonumoa oH NuoNH>N 4 mm NHM HooHum Hoo:om s «z oHsoam 933 N53 NN NHNNN .N anzmmmd 109 NOO.¢ mz uno.m mz OON.H m2 Tllll'lll {I mm MN an Nu HH «n Ill!" O¢H m¢ Nm ONH w¢ Nn ONH eN No ONH nN no OHn.O ml {luv Nu Ow OH NH uo>O Ho OH OOH ON ON nHuo NON mH we O Mona: ..Iloz_ - ”HNN...:_NH... oilloz.-- NHHNN NHNN .Ioz: NH... N NHo.o..1.-I|oz .NHo..oI- NHNN.N... NN Son 2 NNN.H NN £8 3 Son NouOHuoHuo oz vuuomvuonoooa =H mucuoHuo oz on oHo Hoouum Hoonom Hz vHoonm NNN.H Nz NNH.N Nz NNN.N Nz NNN.N Nz N.NN NN NN NN NH NNH NH NNH HN NN 38 oo NH NNH NN NH HNN NN NNN NN NNN NH-N NNH NN NH NNN ININ NNN NN NNN N 325 oz mm» mm mmw oz mm» oz our mono-H aoaaoH monooH nosooH zuoHoquoAUIOH 0>Huu=Ho>u uoHnouuuoo o>uuouuuuuwae< NSoHoNHNo 02 Boom uuonuooa oH vu>Ho>a H on oHa Hoadum Hoonom a «m uHaonm MOHHuo=Ho>u uoHooHuuso o>Huouuuuowafi< NoooHuoHuo oz vuoon-uonuooa oH nuo¢H>u < on oHo Medium Hoonum a «M anonm AvoauHuaoov NN 5.2a .HH NHN-Hug OOO.H mz hMH.O mz OH¢.O m2 mHH.H mz Nluv NM MON m ON NNH ¢¢ no HnH HN «o HNH HN ON oouwuo ououooz < unde ad Nnn a mm mHN ON mOH ¢ON on ow Hon NN Nu oouuoo ououoo: N NNN.N NNN.H oz zHoo zHoo oz NHoo zHco oz zHoo zHoo oz NHoo NHco um unuh Om unoH um unuH cm usua NQEOHUQHUWMWZ fiHdOMIH0£UGQH EH DNOUQHUO 0.2 0m GHQNflUH—Hum HOD—hum 5 H: UHSO—wm N.SIM. mu 1 OON.O mz MMN.H mz mmN.N mz OOM.N mz lev Nx OnH ow HN OHN NN OHN mc NmH umuwofl nuoumwz IIIII < nowaa u< NNN ONH oN Ohm no wmm hm HNN oouwon «hound: 4 53H. 33 oz mm» oz mww mm mmz Imm no» . mmmNNH NooumH moaNNH nonoNH zuoHowuuo£omoH o>HuoaHo>m WI uoH30Huuno 0>HuwuuoHaHEv< NocoHumHuowoz oumomuuozumos oH vo>Ho>H H oN NHNNHooHNN HooNoN N Hm NHoozN ZOHHHuoon>m uoHsoHunso o>HumuuoHowav< NuaOHuoHuomoz whoomuuonoooa CH NuooH>v< om NHomHooHum Hooz oN NNH: NHammN NNNNNH HuoooHuooov NN NHNHao oz wHao wHao oz cho cho cm “sue um “Sufi um “sea on “new wmcoHuwHuowwz uwwomuumLQMmh cw mpoumHumwuz mm mHmmHucHum Hommum L H: vHsosm mw¢ 0 m2 Non H mz o¢o 0 mo. mHm.m No. Nuwv «x as an ¢ ‘ moH m moH MN om m¢ uu>o moH uh HN mNN mm mHN cc me nq-om mmH mm 0H new ac ¢m~ Hm omu on “was: 02 3% oz 3.». oz www oz ' no» mwommH mwsmmH mwzmmH mosmuH auwHanuufiome w>HumaHm>m umHsuwuuso m>HumuuchHBv¢ ”mmofiumfluo oz numom-um;omoa aH uo>Ho>cH om mHmmmmmHum Hoonom n as vHsonm m0< mHHz QmHwuoaHa>u uuHSouuuno 0>Huuuunwnaav< Huaoquauuo oz uncomauonunmu an ououH>u d on .Ha «unaum Hoosom A «a anonm Hues—353 He Heady .n MHQIMQMQ Sn... «.2 £3: 8. ~86 3. an." as «.2. «u .5” 2 L3 an R S n3 law om 8a 3 a. 5: 2a a mm 5 8 8 n3 2 2. my 2 on 8.5: 0: NHQO NHflo oz 830 NH3 02 Nine NHdo oz NHuo NHaoH 3 :3 B :3 3 Boy 3 £8 No / «36 a: :3. m: «85 w: 23” mo. 7% «x SN m? mm own mm mm 2 3m 8: 8H .3 3 m? R SN 8 HNN 88: oz aw 1% 3» mm 8» mm 8» nwsoqu noaoum none-H oaaonH baHumnuonuon o>Huaan>u uaHnofi—uau gaunuu-Hafluvd 3.5.3.33 uz vuaonauonuuuu. an ugHoR—H on E? «gum Hoe—Hum .H «a 353m Nun EH3 eggs «magma figuduh «#33 n Manama: I74: 8.: a: 8m... 2 H8; 3. H86 3 7% an 5“ MS .3 Hm 8H 8” a a3 mmm 8H 3 2 a: R «2 2 n: 8.8; on a HT .0» on no» vs! no» . $8333 on Bog—L288 S 3: m 18:35” on .3 «our: H8€m B 385 .13 2:. 2 $3..» 3 SN; «2 83: 8o. T? «x as a: 2 a on .5 9 on S «S 2 Men an a on 3 8: SH 3 n .V 5 mm: 2 3 an mmu n 2 mm mm m 2 :98: 02 Juan NHuo NHno oz anon NHco NHao oz Anon NHao NHuo oz anon NHao NHao. en anus um naua an Macs up hack nusnuu uoauun aoauuH non-an humHmmuuunuon 0>HuunHw>m uaHnoHuuao o>Huauuuwawav< wacouumuuo oz vuaomnuonomoa aw uuuuw>v< um uHu Hoaaum Hoonum Avanauuaoov 3 3n: .n Hing ’77 Ham.e a: hma.n m2 owm.HH Ho. «Hn.e m2 «nun «x no 5 HH on on ¢~ we oN “N Na «H mH mu“: Hoe NH hm «mm on «qH mnm mm HmH nmn mm mm mug nammua NHaou. NHao .:.mw .nNHwo NHwo .r wan NHaw “Hwy..ugmwuuwH=d . "Hagan um “say um “#09 um “nus um “nus NQGOHumHuowwz vumomuuwnumwa cH mucumauo wz mm mHm HocHum Hoosuw s «m vHaonm A~.m¢v n¢m.o mz «am.a mz wmm.o mz ~o¢.m mz Hum” ”x cm mm HH «oH mH NoH mN ow mm“: mnn ehH hm m¢¢ m5 ~m¢ mu on¢ sea 02 no» oz may oz mow Jmm um» nonunH \mmaunH mmmmww \MwsmmH humHmmuuwnommH m>wumaHm>m MMHSUHMHDU w>HumuumH=Hafi< wacoHumHuo oz unmomnumnomma :H vw>Ho>a H on mHmmHmmHum Hoonom mm“: uHsonm HH.m¢q MHHmOQZOU ZQHZD mHHz QMHmede>m umquwuuso m>HumuumucHEfi< ~n:0Hum«uomoz vumomuummumma CH mume>u < 3 flammflum Hoonom ; E 3:95 3.3V €33 u:00v 3 Mama .m 5%qu l7? cm0.H mz {am.N mu on: «H mm oN¢.c m2 man an anH ImmH n nH oz Hao Hdo an unua J Ha an #0 oz NHdo NHuo vm unoa oen.n no. «luv N a¢o.H mz Hno.o mz omn.H m2 «oo.o m2 Hume «x «mm mnH hm nn¢ nu qu NH qu sea mm ¢n HH ¢¢H 5H anH ON onH nu“: oz mmw‘ mm mww ‘mm mmw mm no» nflflnnH NNH.HQQH QUHHDOH QQHHOQH huaHmmnumaoumH 0>HuuaHm>m uwHauquuno u>auuuuuuauav< wuaoHuuHuo uz nuuomuuonoaua an vw>H0>aH um aHa Hoauum Hoonom a «m anoam Hu§¢ SMHA<20HHHumaHm§m umHSUHuuao 0>Humuuuucwau< mmmoaumquowwz wuma muuonommw an unwaH>m < um mHm Hocwum Hoonom 5 «m vHaoam Avosuuunoov eo ugmHuwaHm>m umHaoauuso o>uu¢uunaawae< «naoquHuo mz unmomuuonuuoa aH vo>Ho>nH on uHu HuuHum Hoonom mozuHmumxu MOHHum5Hm>m umHauwuuno o>wumuuchHSv< n; «maOHuaHuo oz vumomnuonomwa :H oumaw>w< um uHmmHoaHum Hooa um a Hm vHsonm mnm¢ HoooaHuaoov no uHm