ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECTED VARIABLES AND THE ATTITUDES OF PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN OAK- LAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN, CONCERNING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS by George Gaylin Garvcr Statement of Problem This study deals with two major areas of investigation. First, the study seeks to discover what effect selected demographic variables have on the attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning collective bargaining for public school teachers. Second, the study seeks to determine the current attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning collective bargaining for public school teachers. Research Methodologg A research instrument was sent to every public school principal in Oakland County. Of the 334 questionnaires sent out, 315 were completed and returned. The research instrument contained 22 items which measured attitudes, and 6 items which identified the demographic variables in question. The demographic variables were (1) sex of the respondent, (2) age of the respondent, (3) the number of years the respondent has been a principal, (4) responsibility of the respondent i.e., elementary or secondary, (5) attendance-nonattendance of the respond- ent at workshops or meetings where collective bargaining was discussed, (6) membership-nonmembership on the Board of Education negotiating team. Each demographic variable was compared with each of the 22 attitude ques- tions. A chi Square test for relationship was computed for each compari- son. A significance level of .01 was selected for the purposes of this study. The data for the second area of the study sought to determine the present attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning collec- tive bargaining for public school teachers. This data was reported by listing each of the 22 attitude questions and reporting the responses in percentages and raw frequencies. Major Finding§_ First, the data produced evidence to conclude that although there was found to be some minor degree of relationship between the demographic variables and the attitudes of Oakland County principals concerning collective bargaining for public school teachers, there was not enough of a relationship established to conclude that these were truly significant variables. Of the 132 Chi Square tests performed to test for such a relationship, only 17 were fOund to be significant at the .01 level. Second, based on the findings the study concludes that Oakland County principals as a group do not feel that collective bargaining is especially harmful or detrimental to education. They do tend to have some serious questions however about the impact of collective bargaining on the role of the principal, but even these responses in general were not overly negative. 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 by George Gaylin Garver A THESIS submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 1967 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful appreciation is expressed by this writer to many people for their assistance, guidance, encouragement and support in the develop- ment and preparation of this dissertation. Formal thanks are extended to the following people: To Dr. Donald Leu, Chairman of my doctoral committee, for his administrative support, professional counsel and personal friendship. To Dr. Floyd Parker, Dr. James Costar, and Dr. James McKee for their assistance, freedom, and guidance which helped bring this pro- ject to completion. To the school superintendents and school principals of Oakland County for their c00peration. Without this cooperation the study could not have been made. To the Walled Lake School District Board of Education, for their encouragement, assistance, and understanding. To my wife Alice, and the children for their patience, love, and support. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. Need . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . III. The Historical Background of Collective Bargaining . . . . . . . Definition of Collective Bargaining and Professional Negotiations . . . . Review of the Provisions for Collective Bargaining for Teachers in the States Where It Exists . . . . . . . . . . Position of School Administrators Concerning Collective Bargaining For Teachers. . Review of Parallels in Industry . RESEARCH DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . Operational Delineation of Terms. . . Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . Statistical Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . Alternate Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . Page iii vi 11 13 25 26 27 30 33 4O 48 55 SS 57 60 65 76 77 78 CHAPTER IV. V, APPENDIXES A. B. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . Introduction. Findings. Summary . SUMMARY . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . Summary of Findings . Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . Implications For Future Research. Discussion of the Problem . LETTER TO OAKLAND COUNTY PRINCIPALS . RESEARCH INSTRUMENT . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY. Page 79 79 81 175 178 178 179 203 208 210 213 214 218 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: Collective Bargaining is Good For Public Education. . . . . . . 81 2 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Not Been Good For My School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 3 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: Teacher Militancy is Good For Education. . . . . . . . . . . 82 4 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: Teacher Strikes Are Detrimental to Education . . . . . . . . 82 5 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: The Competition Between the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Michigan Education Association Will be Good For Public Education. . . . . . . . . . 83 6 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: Because of Collective Bargaining My Role as Principal Has Been Easier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 7 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: The Michigan Federation of Teachers is Helping to Improve Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 8 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: The Michigan Education Association is Not Helping to Improve Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 vi Table Page 9 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: The Professional Attitudes of Teachers Have Improved Because of Collective Bargaining. . . . . . 85 10 fiflifferences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: The State Labor Mediation Board Has Helped Improve Public Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 11 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Improved Teacher Morale . . . . . . . 86 12 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: Grievance Procedures Will Not be of Help to Building Principals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 13 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: Boards of Education Through Collective Bargaining Have Helped Improve the Status of Principals. . . . . . . 87 14 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: It Would Be a Good Idea For Principals to Form Collective Bargaining Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 15 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: Principals in My School District Had a Great Deal to Say About the Content of the Master Contract . . . . . . 88 16 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Not Helped Principals to be More Effective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 17 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Improved the Morale of Principals. . . . . . . . 89 vii Table Page 18 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Question: Who Do You Think Gained The Most From Collective Bargaining in Your Particular School District? . . . . . . . . 9O 19 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Question: Since the Date Your School District Signed a Master Contract With the Professional Staff, How Would You Best Describe Communications Between You and Your Teaching Staff?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 20 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Question: Which of the Following Would You Most Like to See Happen. . . 91 21 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Question: Which of the Following Best Describes Your Role as the Instructional Leader in Your Building Since the Master Contract Has Been in Effect?. . . . . . . . . 92 22 Differences Between the Responses of Male and Female Principals to the Question: Compared to the Other Kinds of Concerns That You Have Faced This Past Year as Principal, How Would You Best Describe Collective Bargaining?. . . . . . . . . . . 93 23 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Is Good For Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 24 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Not Been Good for My School District. . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 viii Table Page 25 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: Teacher Militancy is Good for Education. 95 26 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: Teacher Strikes Are Detrimental for Education. . . . . . . . 9S Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: The Competition Between the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Michigan Education Association Will Be Good For Public Education. 27 96 28 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: Because of Collective Bargaining My Role as Principal Has Been Easier. . . . . . 97 29 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: The Michigan Federation of Teachers is Helping to Improve Education. . . . . . . . . . 97 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: The Michigan Education Association is Not Helping to Improve Education . . . . . . . . 98 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: The Professional Attitudes of Teachers Have Improved Because of Collective Bargaining . . 30 31 32 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: The State Labor Mediation Board Has Helped Improve Public Education. . . . . . 99 ix Table 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Improved Teacher Morale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: Grievance Procedures Will Not Be of Help to Building Principals. . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: Boards of Education Through Collective Bargaining Have Helped Improve the Status of Principals . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: It Would be a Good Idea For Principals to Form Collective Bargaining Units. . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: Principals in My School District Had a Great Deal to Say About the Content of the Master Contract. . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: Collectiye‘Bargaining Has Not Helped Principals to be More Effective. . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Improved the Morale of Principals . . . . . . . . . . Page 100 101 102 102 103 104 105 Table 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Question: Who Do You Think Gained the Most From Collective Bargaining in Your Particular Schoof District? 0 O O O O I I O O I O O O O 0 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Question: Since the Date Your School District Signed a Master Contract With the Professional Staff, How Would you Best Describe Communications Between You and Your Teaching Staff? . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Question: Which of the Following Would You Most Like to See Happen . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Question: Which of the Following Best Describes Your Role As The Instructional Leader In Your Building Since the Master Contract Has Been In Effect? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Length of Administrative Experience, to the Question: Compared to the Other Kinds of Concerns That You Have Faced This Past Year As Principal, How Would You Best Describe Collective Bargaining. Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining is Good For Public Education. . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Not Been Good for My School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Statement: Teacher Militancy is Good for Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Page 105 .106 107 108 109 110 110 111 Table 48 49 50 51 52 S3 S4 55 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Statement: Teacher Strikes Are Detrimental for Education. . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Statement: The Competition Between the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Michigan Education Association Will be Good For Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Statement: Because of Collective Bargaining My Role As Principal Has Been Easier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Statement: The Michigan Federation of Teachers is Helping to Improve Education. . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Statement: The Michigan Education Association is Not Helping to Improve Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by7 Age Groupings, to the Statement: The Professional Attitudes of Teachers Have Improved Because of Collective Bargaining. . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Statement: The State Labor Mediation Board Has Helped Improve Public Education. Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Improved Teacher Morale . . . xii Page 111 112 113 114 114 115 116 116 Table 56 57 S8 59 60 61 62 63 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings to the Statement: Procedures Will Not be of Help to Building Principals . Grievance Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Statement: Boards of Education Through Collective Bargaining Have Helped Improve the Status of Principals. Differences Between the ReSponses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Statement: It Would Be a Good Idea For Principals to Form Collective Bargaining Units . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Statement: Principals In My School District Had A Great Deal To Say About the Master Contract . . . . . . . The Content of Differences Between Age Groupings, Bargaining Has Effective. Differences Between Age Groupings, Bargaining Has Differences Between Age Groupings, Gained the Most From Collective Bargaining In Your the Responses of Principals, by to the Statement: Collective Not Helped Principals to be More the Responses of Principals, by to the Statement: Collective Improved the Morale of Principals the Responses of Principals, by to the Question: “Particular School District?. . . Who Do You Think Differences Between the Re5ponses of Principals, by Age Groupings, Your School District Signed a Master Contract With The Professional Staff, How Would You Best Describe Communications Between You and Your Teaching Staff? to the Question: xiii Since the Date Page 117 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 Table 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Question: Which of the Following Would you Most Like to see Happen? . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Question: Which of the Following Best Describes Your Role as the Instructional Leader in Your Building Since the Master Contract Has Been in Effect?. . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Age Groupings, to the Question: Compared to the Other Kinds of Concerns That You Have Faced This Past Year as Principal, How Would You Best Describe Collective Bargaining? . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining is Good for Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Not Been Good for My School District. . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: Teacher Militancy is Good for Education. Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: Teacher Strikes Are Detrimental for Education. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: The Competition Between the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Michigan Education Association Will Be Good For Public Education . xiv Page 123 124 125 .126 126 127 128 . 128 Table 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: Because of Collective Bargaining My Role as Principal Has Been Easier . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: The Michigan Federation of Teachers is Helping to Improve Education. . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: The Midhigan Education Association is Not Helping to Improve Education . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: The Professional Attitudes of Teachers Have Improved Because of Collective Bargaining . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: The State Labor Mediation Board Has Helped Improve Public Education. . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Improved Teacher Morale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: Grievance Procedures Will Not be of Help to Building Principals. . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: Boards of Education Through Collective Bargaining Have Helped Improve the Status of Principals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 129 130 130 131 132 132 133 134 Table Page 80 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: It Would be a Good Idea For Principals To Form Collective Bargaining Units. . . . . . . . . 134 81 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: Principals in My School District Had a Great Deal to Say About the Content of the Master Contract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13S 82 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Not Helped Principals to be More Effective. . . . . . . . . . . 136 83 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Improved the Morale of Principals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 84 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Question: Who Do You Think Gained the Most From Collective Bargaining in Your Particular School District?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 85 Differences Between the ReSponses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Question: Since the Date Your School District Signed the Master Contract with the Professional Staff, How Would you Best Describe Communications Between you and your Teaching Staff? . . . . . . . . 138 86 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Question: Which of the Following Would You Most Like to See Happen?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 xvi Table Page 87 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Question: Which of the Following Best Describes Your Role As the Instructional Leader in Your Building Since the Master Contract Has Been in Effect? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 88 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Level of Administrative Responsibility, to the Question: Compared to the Other Kinds of Concerns That You Have Faced This Past Year as Principal, How Would You Best Describe Collective Bargaining . . . 141 89 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining is Good For Public Education . . . . . . . . 142 90 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Not Been Good For My School District. . . . . . . . 143 91 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Statement: Teacher Militancy Is Good For Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 92 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Statement: Teacher Strikes Are Detrimental for Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 93 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Statement: The Competition Between the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Michigan Education Association Will Be Good For Public Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 xvii Table Page 94 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Statement: Because of Collective Bargaining My Role As Principal Has Been Easier. . . 14S 95 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance~Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Statement: The Michigan Federation of Teachers is Helping to Improve Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 96 Differences Beween the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Statement: The Michigan Education Association is Not Helping to Improve Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 97 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance~Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Statement: The Professionalw Attitudes of Teachers Have Improved Because of Collective Bargaining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 98 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Statement: The State Labor Mediation Board Has Helped Improve Public Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . 148 99 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by ‘ Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Improved Teacher Morale. . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 100 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Statement: Grievance Procedures Will Not be of Help to Building Principals . . . . . 150 xviii Table 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Statement: Boards of Education Through Collective Bargaining Have Helped Improve the Status of Principals . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Statement: It Would be a Good Idea for Principals to Form Collective Bargaining Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Statement: Principals in My School District Had a Great Deal to Say About the Content of the Master Contract . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Not Helped Principals to be More Effective . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Improved the Morale of the Principals. . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Question: Who Do You Think ' Gained the Most From Collective Bargaining in Your Particular school District? . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the question: Since the Date Your School District Signed a Master Contract With the Professional Staff, How Would You Best Describe Communications Between You and Your Teaching Staff?. xix Page 150 151 152 153 154 155 155 Table Page 108 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Question: Which of the Following Would You Most Like to See Happen? . . . . . . . . . 156 109 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance—Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Question: Which of the Follow- ing Best Describes Your Role as the Instructional Leader in Your Building Since the Master Contract Has Been In Effect?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 110 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Attendance-Nonattendance at Collective Bargaining Workshops, to the Question: Compared to the Other Kinds of Concerns that You Have Faced This Past Year As Principal, How Would You Best Describe Collective Bargaining? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 111 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining is Good For Public Education. . . . . . . 159 112 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-NonMembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Not Been Good For My School District. 159 113 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: Teacher Militancy is Good for Education. . . . . . . . . . . 160 114 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Member- ship-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: Teacher Strikes Are Detrimental For Education. . . . . . . . . . . . .161 Table 115 116 117 118 119 120 Page Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: The Competition Between the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Michigan Education Association Will Be Good For Public Education. . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: Because of Collective Bargaining My Role as Principal Has Been Easier. . . .7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: The Michigan Federation of Teachers is Helping to Improve Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: The Michigan Education Association is Not Helping To Improve Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: The Professional Attitudes of Teachers Have Improved Because of Collective Bargaining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: The State Labor Mediation Board Has Helped Improve Public Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi 161 162 163 163 164 165 Table 122 123 124 125 126 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: Bargaining Has Imprcved Teacher Morale. by Collective Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: Procedures Will Not Be Of Help to Building Principah Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: Education Through Collective Bargaining Have Grievance Boards of Helped Improve the Status of Principals . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Educatio- It would be ‘ Negotiating Team, to the Statement: a Good Idea For Principals to Form Collective Bargaining Units Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: of the Master Contract. Principals in My School District Had a Great Deal to Say About The Content Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership—Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: Bargaining Has Not Helped Principals to be More Effective . xxii Collective O Page 165 . 166 167 167 168 169 Table 127 128 129 130 131 132 Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Improved the Morale of Principals Differences Between the ReSponses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Question: Who Do You Think Gained the Most From Collective Bargaining in Your Particular School District?. . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Question: Since the Date Your School District Signed a Master Contract With The Professional Staff, How Would You Best Describe Communications Between You and Your Teaching Staff? Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership—Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Question: Which of the Following Would You most Like to See Happen? . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Question: Which of the Page 169 170 171 172 Fellowing Best Describes Your Role as the Instructional Leader in Your Building Since the Master Contract Has Been in Effect?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Responses of Principals, by Membership-Nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team, to the Question: Compared to The Other Kinds of Concerns That You Have Faced This Past Year As Principal, How Would You Best Describe Collective Bargaining?. . . . . . . . . . xxiii 173 174 Table Page 133 Total Responses of Principals to the Statement: Collective Bargaining is Good for Public Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 134 Total Responses of Principals to the Statement: Collective Bargaining Has Not Been Good For My School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 135 Total Responses of Principals to the Statement: Teacher Militancy is Good for Education. . . . . . . 194 136 Total Responses of Principals to the Statement: Teacher Strikes are Detrimental for Education. . . . 195 137 Total Responses of Principals to the Statement: The Competition Between the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Michigan Education Association Will be Good for Public Education. . . . . . . . . . 195 138 Total Responses of Principals to the Statement: Because of Collective Bargaining My Role as Principal Has Been Easier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 139 Total Responses of Principals to the Statement: The Michigan Federation of Teachers is Helping to Improve Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 140 Total Responses of Principals to the Statement: The Michigan Education Association is Not Helping To Improve Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196 141 Total Responses of Principals to the Statement: The Professional Attitudes of Teachers Have Improved Because of Collective Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . 197 142 Total Responses of Principals to the Statement: The State Labor Mediation Board Has Helped Improve Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 x xiv Table 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 Total Responses Collective Morale . Total Responses of Principals to the Statement: Bargaining Has Improved Teacher of Principals to the Statement: Grievance Procedures Will Not Be Of Help to Building Principals. . . . . . . . Total Responses of Principals to the Statement: Boards of Education Through Collective Bargaining Have Helped Improve the Status of Principals Total Responses Would be a Collective Total Responses Principals in My School District Had a Great Deal to Say About the Content of the Master Contract. . Total Responses Collective to be More Total Responses Collective of Principals to the Statement: It Good Idea For Principals to Form Bargaining Units. . . . . . . . of Principals to the Statement: of Principals to the Statement: Bargaining Has Not Helped Principals Effective . . . . . . . . . . . . of Principals to the Statement: Bargaining Has Improved the Morale of Principals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Responses Who Do You Think Gained the Most From Collective Bargaining Total Responses Since the Date Your School District Signed a Master Contract With the Professional Staff, How Would You Best Describe Communications Between You and of Principals to the Question: in Your Particular School District . of Principals to the Question: Your Teaching Staff? . . . . . . . . . . . \XV Page 197 198 .198 198 199 199 200 200 201 Table Page 152 Total Responses of Principals to the Question: Which of the Following Would you Most Like to See Happen?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 153 Total Responses of Principals to the Question: Which of the Following Best Describes Your Role as the Instructional Leader in Your Building Since the Master Contract Has Been in Effect?. . . . . . . . . 202 154 Total Responses of Principals to the Question: Compared to the Other Kinds of Concerns that You Have Faced This Past Year as Principal, How Would You Best Describe Collective Bargaining. . 202 xXVi CHAPTER I introduction Need Public school principals in Michigan today find themselves in a considerable dilemma. Placed in the situation of the forgotten man by recent legislation which brought about drastic changes in their posi- tion, they are charged with the responsibility of administering master contracts which they have had little or no part in formulating. Yet in most cases they may find their powers and methods of operation limited. What they think about their situation and how they will work within it may determine not only the character of future education but the future character of our society as well. The welfare of children depends to a great extent upon what happens to them in schools. The welfare of the individual school is determined perhaps more by its principal than by any other single factor.1 The climate in which the principal works, the pressures brought to bear upon him, and the laws and contracts which restrict him in the discharge of his duties are, then, of vital concern not only to parents but to the whole society. What events put principalsexf the public schools of Michigan in their present predicament? Two years ago the Michigan State Legislature passed Public Act 379 of 1965. This act amends a previous labor law known as the Hutchinson Act, which was passed in 1947. 1Benjamin Epstein, The Principal's Role In Collective Negoti- ations Between Teachers and School Boards, (Washington D.C., National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1965), page 5. The original Hutchinson Act established guidelines, regulations, and machinery for the collective bargaining process in the State of Michigan. It established these provisions for the private employment sector of the working population. The amended Act gives to public employees the right to form collective bargaining units. This Act further provides that public employers must recognize such units and enter into collective bargain- ing at the request of the duly recognized units. Nearly all issues relative to wages, hours, and working conditions are defined as bargain- able by the Act. Many of those affected by the Act are, like principals, involved in education because school districts employ a very large proportion of the total number of people classified as public employees within the State of Michigan. Michigan school districts found that their employee groups quickly formed bargaining units after the passage of Public Act 379. Since the Act stipulates that there must be a community of interest to form a bargaining unit, the following units were formed in most school districts: a. Teaching staff b. Secretarial staff c . Bus drivers d. Custodial employees e. Cafeteria employees f. Maintenance employees (in larger districts) Principals as a general rule did not form collective bargaining units. Along with other school administrators principals have cause for concern that, as the State Labor Mediation Board reports, in all the consent elections held to determine whether the employee of a given school district wished to organize a collective bargaining unit, approxi- mately 99% voted ZEE: The Mediation Board reports that this is double, the rate for the private employment sector of our working population. Over the years, Boards of Education in their role as public employers have developed various techniques for determining wages, hours, and working conditions for their employees. With the passage of Public Act 379, Boards of Education are required to utilizea formal collective bargaining approach before decisions relative to wages, hours, and working conditions can be made. In this new relationship most principals have no specified position. Principals were not alone in foreseeing possible difficulties in the fact that collective bargaining in Michigan became part of the edu- cational environment with little advance publicity. The legislature gave the Act immediate effect. This immediate-effect clause gave little or no time for people affected by the new law to learn about the provisions of the Act before it became effective. The transition from previous techniques to formalized collective bargaining techniques has been less than smooth if we are to judge by the number of requests for assistance that have come to the State Labor Mediation Board from school districts in the State of Michigan. 2Robert Pisarski, In a speech given to the Oakland County School Boards of Association, (Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, March 1966), Mr. Pisarski is a member of the Michigan State Labor Mediation Board. The State Labor Mediation Board reports that it has been inundated with requests for advice, mediation, fact-finding, and other general assistance.3 These requests are coming from all segments of the public school environment. This past year there has been a great deal of publicity concern— ing the topic of public employee collective bargaining. Even though the law prohibits strikes by public employees, the State has experienced several serious problems relative to work stoppages, and principals may be speculating as to whether such difficulties will occur in their schools. All of these items point up the timeliness of this study. Much has been and will be written about teachers and collective bargaining. Teachers have been and will be written about, for numeri- cally they are greater in most school districts than all other bargain-1 ing units of the school district combined. More importantly, however, this unit made up of teachers is more directly involved in the actual education of children than is any other group or bargaining unit. Although most principals are not directly involved in teaching, the education of children is their prime concern and the facilitation of that education through the organization and direction they offer to teachers. Because of Public Act 379, dramatic changes have been made in the administrative procedures and therefore in the duties of the principal in many school districts. When any element of a society experiences major change, it is generally wise for the society as a whole to take an empirical look at the change, the reasons for the change, and the possible consequences of the change. 31bid. Therefore, this study will take a look at perhaps the second most important professional group in the educational environment, the building principals. Since they are few numerically and forbidden by Michigan Law to be part of the teachers' negotiating unit, they have not yet been studied extensively in the light of collective bargaining. The organizational structure of most school districts is such that each school building has an administrator, typically known as the building principal, who is in charge of the program and the staff assigned to that particular building. Most of these principals were previously classroom teaChers. The typical building principal teaches no classes but is charged with the responsibility of supervising the personnel and program within his building. It is generally agreed that the building principal is and should be an important element in any quality educational program. Many districts hope to have each of their principals fUnctioning as the instructional leader in his particular building. Without this leadership at the local building level, it may be nearly impossible for any meaningful educational program to develop or continue in that building. Because of their administrative capacity, principals cannot join the teachers' negotiating unit when contracts are formulated since the Hutchinson Act as amended does not permit people in supervisory posi- tions to be members of the employee bargaining units. Their exclusion from the employee bargaining group has, in fact, been doubly assured by a ruling of the State Labor Mediation Board, which states that they are, indeed, supervisory personnel.4 4Labor Relations Handbook For School Boards and Superintendents, (Lansing, Michigan, Michigan Association of School Boards and Michigan Association of School Superintendents, 1966) pages 27-28. As a matter of fact, most building principals were not involved in the development of the master contract. A master contract is a document drawn up to defind the rights of teachers, school administrators, and Boards of Education under the terms of Public Act 379. These contracts as negotiated were agreed to by two negotiating teams. One team was composed of members of the teacher negotiation group. The other was a team that represented the Board of Education. In most cases, the composition of the Board of Education's negotiation team was the superintendent, the assistant super— intendent, the business manager, the school lawyer, a Board representative, possibly a principal representative, or any combination of people in these positions.5 Thus the typical building principal found himself at the be- ginning of the 1966-67 school year with a rather lengthy master contract that he was required to administer although he had not been allowed to contribute to its formulation and possibly he had not even held it is his hands before the school year began. Not only were principals excluded from the bargaining but they suffered further restrictions in that provisions of this master con- tract tend to limit their authority in accordance with requests made by teadhers' bargaining units. Such items as length, agenda, and frequency of teaChers' meetings and procedures for teacher evaluation and teacher discipline are matters specifically spelled out in most master contracts. Thus school principals find themselves in a trying situation. Their own background as well as much of their experience and training 5Ralph Block, Research on the Make Up of the Board of Education Ne otiating Team, A.Study currently underway for Dr. Stanley Hecker of Tfie College of Education, Michigan State University has been that of a classroom teacher. Yet because they are charged with supervisory duties, the new law prevents their acting with the teacher unit in negotiations. On the other hand, as an administrative group they had very little to say about the content of the master contract. Now the master contract tends to limit their authority. Because of this consted situation, it is felt that there is a definite need to study the attitudes of principals concerning collec- tive bargaining. This is e5pecially true in view of the responsible position a building principal holds. Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine what significant relationship, if any, exists between selected demographic variables and the attitudes of school principals in Oakland County, Michigan, concerning collective bargaining for public school teachers. It is not the purpose of this study to imply or to state that collective bargaining for public school teachers is either beneficial or harmful to a quality educational program. Rather, this study will attempt to determine what the attitudes of school principals in Oak- land County are concerning collective bargaining fer public school teadhers. By February, 1967, only eleven states have enacted any type of formal legislation to deal with personnel procedures for teachers concerning the broad topic of professional negotiations or collective bargaining. Of the eleven states, only four have chosen to include teacher collective bargaining under established labor law concepts. The other seven states have enacted special legislation and have treated the area of collective bargaining or professional negotiations for public school teachers as a separate, distinct element rather than include it under an established law or an amended labor law.6 Since Michigan is one of four states to have chosen the estab- lished labor-law route for public school teacher collective bargaining, the experience, attitudes, beliefs, and reactions of Michigan school 6National Education Association, Summary of State Professional Negotiations, A Report prepared by the Salary Consultant Service Office 0 Pro essional Development and Welfare, (N.E.A., Washington, D.C., July 1966), pages 1-29. people relative to this tepic may be of general interest and help to other states as they consider the question of collective bargaining for teaChers. It is hoped that the data may be of considerable interest and help to the principals, superintendents, and Boards of Education in the State of Michigan as they begin to rethink the role of principal in this changing, complex picture. If this study were to reveal the fact that principals in Oakland County have serious concerns relative to their role in collective bargaining and their role as effective school administrators in an era of collective bargaining, it is hoped that steps will be taken by all people involved to solve this impor- tant educational problem. The past eighteen months have seen a significant change in the personnel operational procedures of schools in the State of Michigan. This change is because of Public Act 379. During this same period of change we find that principals as a group, even though they are sup- posedly an important element in the educational process, have been largely ignored. This is true even though many of the changes have a direct bearing on the principal and the manner in which he operates his building. If we are to judge from the ever-increasing amount of infermation we are receiving through the news media, the entire spectrum of public employee collective bargaining is accelerating in a dramatic way. On January 7, 1967. the Detroit Free Press carried an article describing the following situations:7 7Detroit Free Press, January 7, 1967, page 4-8 10 A. A teachers' strike involving eight junior colleges in Chicago B. A threatened teachers' strike against the 550 public schools (K-12) in Chicago C. A teachers' strike in Camden, New Jersey D. A threatened strike by doctors in a New York hospital. E. A strike by many hospital employees in Youngstown, Ohio F. A strike by grave diggers against 39 cemeteries in the New York area At a time when there appears to be a pattern of increasing tur- moil in the area of public-employee collective bargaining, this study is being undertaken to provide timely, pertinent data in the almost total absence of information concerning principals and teacher collec- tive bargaining. Definition of Terms The following labor-management terms have been defined by Lieberman and Moskow.8 These terms have been defined in accord with common usage rather than the exact legal or technical definition. Agreement. A written agreement between an employer and an employee organi- zation, usually fer a definite term, defining conditions of employment, rights of employees and the employee organization, and procedures to be followed in settling disputes or handling issues that arise during the life of the agreement. Arbitration. Method of settling employment disputes through recourse to an impartial third party, whose decision is usually final and binding. Arbitration is voluntary when both parties agree to submit disputed issued to arbitration, and compulsory if required by law. Advisory arbitration is arbitration without a final and binding award. Bargaining Unit. Organization designated by an appropriate government agency, or recognized voluntarily by the employer, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the negotiation unit for the purposes of collective negotiations. Exclusive Negotiating Rights. The right and obligation of an employee or- ganization designed as majority representative to negotiate collectively for all employees, including nonmembers, in the negotiating unit. Grievance. Any complaint or expressed dissatisfaction by an employee in connection with his job, pay or other aspects of his employment. Whether aMyron Lieberman and Michael H. Moskow, Collective Negotiations for Teadhersi An Approach to School Administration, (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co. 1966), Pages 415-430 12 such complaint or expressed dissatisfaction is formally recognized and handled as a grievance depends on the scope of the grievance procedure. Grievance Procedure. Typically a formal plan, specified in a collective agreement, which provides for the adjustment of grievances through discussions at progressively higher levels of authority in management and the employee organization, usually culminating in arbitration if necessary. Master Agreement. A single or uniform collective agreement covering a number of installations of a single employer or the members of an employers' association. Mediation. An attempt by a third party to help in negotiations or in the settlement of an employment dispute through suggestion, advice, or other ways of stimulating agreement, short of dictating its provisions. Most of the mediation in the United States is undertaken through federal and state mediation agencies. Conciliation is synonymous with mediation. Recognition. Employer acceptance of an organization as authorized to negotiate, usually for all members of a negotiating unit. Representation Election. Election conducted to determine whether the employees in an appropriate unit desire an organization to act as their exclusive representative. Strike. Temporary-stoppage of work by a group of employees to express a grievance, enforce a demand for changes in the conditions of employ- ment, obtain recognition, or resolve a dispute with management. 1.6 Hypotheses of the Study_ The nature of this study is such that no theoretical scheme or body of research readily leads itself to the formulation of appropriate research hypotheses. Since this study is of the problem-research nature, the areas of concern to be investigated are here stated in a question form. 1. Is there a relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County, Michigan, and their attitudes concerning: a) The general effect of collective bargaining on education. b) The effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district. c) Teacher militancy. d) Teacher strikes. e) The competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers. f) The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal. g) The contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education. h) The contribution of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education. i) The effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers. j) k) 1) m) 0) P) q) S) 14 The State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education. The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers. The effect of the grievance procedures on principals. The status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement. The organization of principal bargaining units. The involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract. The effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals. The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals. The question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district. The effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff. Possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the State of Michigan. The role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract. Collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns. 15 It there a relationship between the age of public school princi- pals in Oakland County, Michigan, and their attitudes concerning: a) 1~\ C) d) f) g) h) i) j) k) 1) The general effect of collective bargaining on education. The effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district. Teacher militancy Teacher strikes The competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers. The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal. The contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education. The contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education. The effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers. The State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education. The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers. The effect of the grievance procedures on principals. The status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement. The organization of principal bargaining units. 0) P) Q) t) U) V) 16 The involvement of the principals in the formulation of _the content of the master contract. The effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals. The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals. The question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district. The effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff. Possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the State of Michigan. The role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract. Collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns. 15 there a relationship between years of administrative experi- ence of principals in Oakland County, Michigan, and their atti- tudes concerning: a) b) d) e) The general effect of collective bargaining on education The effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district. Teacher militancy Teacher strikes The competition between the Michigan Education Associa- tion and the Michigan Federation of Teachers. f) g) h) J') k) 1) m) P) 0.) s) 17 The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal. The contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education. The contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education. The effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers. The State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education. The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers. The effect of the grievance procedures on principals. The status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement. The organization of principal bargaining units. The involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract. The effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals. The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals. The question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district. The effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff. 18 t) Possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the State of Michigan. u) The role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract. v) Collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns. Is there a relationship between the present administrative level of responsibility (i.e., elementary or secondary) of principals in Oakland County, Michigan, and their attitudes concerning: a) The general effect of collective bargaining on education. b) The effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district. c) Teacher militancy d) Teacher strikes e) The competition between the Michigan Education Associa- tion and the Michigan Federation of Teachers. f) The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal. pg) The contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education. h) The contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education. 1) The effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers. J') k) 1) P) Q) r) S) t) u) 19 The State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of the teachers. The effect of the grievance procedures on principals. The status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement. The organization of principal bargaining units. The involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract. The effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals. The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals. The question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district. The effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff. Possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the State of Michigan. The role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract. Collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns. 20 Is there a relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County, Michigan concerning: a) The general effect of collective bargaining on education. b) The effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district. c) Teacher militancy d) Teacher strikes e) The competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers. f) The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal. g) The contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education. h) The contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education. i) The effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers. j) The State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education. k) The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers. 1) The effect of the grievance procedures on principals. m) P) Q) s) t)' The status of principals because of collective bargaining and the Board of Education involvement. The organization of principal bargaining units. The involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract. The effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals. The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals. The question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district. The effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff ‘POSsible changes in the collective bargaining law in the State of Michigan. The role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract. Collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns. Is there a relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County, Michigan, at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning: a) b) The general effect of collective bargaining on education The effect of collective bargaining on the individual school districts. d) e) f) g) h) J') k) 1) P) Q) 22 Teacher militancy Teacher strikes The competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers. The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal. The contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education. The contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education. The effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers . The State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education. The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers. The effect of the grievance procedures on principals. The status of principals because of collective bargain- ing and the Board of Education involvement. The organization of principal bargaining units. The involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract. The effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals. The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals. 1‘) t) V) 23 The question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district. The effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff. Possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the State of Michigan . The role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract. Collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns. What are the attitudes of public school principals in Oakland County, Michigan, concerning: a) b) e) d) f) 2) h) The general effect of collective bargaining on education. The effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district. Teacher militancy. Teacher strikes The competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Midhigan Federation of Teachers. The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal. The contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education. The contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education. J') k) 1) P) q) S) t) n) 24 The effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers. The State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education. The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers. The effect of the grievance procedures on principals. The status of principals because of collective bargaining and the Board of Education involvement. The organization of principal bargaining units. The involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract. The effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals. The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals. The question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district. The effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff. Possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the State of Michigan. The role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract. Collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns . 25 Overview In Chapter II of this study the pertinent literature for the area of collective bargaining in public education is reviewed. In Chapter III the design of this project will be discussed. Discussion relative to the sample, instrumentation, operational definitions, and statistical hypotheses will be presented. In addition, there will be discussion concerning the research design and an analysis of the techniques that will be utilized to test the hypotheses. In Chapter IV a careful analysis of the results of the study will be found. These results will be presented in a manner which is perti- nent and meaningful. Statements of probability concerning the rejection of the null hypotheses will be discussed. In Chapter V there will be an attempt to summarize the data and state conclusions concerning this project. Because of the magnitude of collective bargaining, there will be some implications for future research discussed. The appendices of this study will contain a copy of the survey instrument utilized. l—U CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The amount of literature relative to the general area of collec- tive bargaining is rather massive. However, the literature relevant to public school employee collective bargaining is considerably less in volume. More specifically, a search of the literature in educational administration, psychology, sociology, and social psychology failed to reveal a study which paralleled the questions at hand closely enough for comparative analysis. Because of these factors this chapter is divided into the follow- ing parts: --The Historical Background of Collective Bargaining --Definitions of Collective Bargaining and Professional Negotiations --Review of the Provisions for Collective Bargaining for Teachers in the States Where It Exists --Position of School Administrators Concerning Collective Bargaining for Teachers "Review of Parallels in Industry 27 The Historical Background of Collective Bargaining. The pages of American history are filled with accounts of the attempts of workers to form unions. These attempts began with and paralleled the industrial revolution. With just a few exceptions, all of the efforts of workers to form unions were opposed by most elements of American society. The working man saw collective action as a neces- sary tool which must be utilized if he was to have any voice in the deter- mination of his wages, hours, and working conditions. Most other elements of American society saw these attempts to form unions as radical and revolutionary in nature. Because of these convictions, nearly every technique conceivable was utilized to stop or retard the growth of unions. Gradually the attitudes of American society towards unions began to change. Over the years some employees were successful in organizing several important industries. With these successes and the changing attitudes of the American people, the Congress of the United States passed in 1935 The National Labor Relations Act, better known as The Wagner Act.1 This Act guaranteed to workers in private industry, for the first time in the history of our country, the right to form unions for the purpose of collective bargaining. Although the attitudes of the American people had changed rela- tive to collective bargaining to the extent that it was possible to pass the National Labor Relations Act, these same attitudes had not changed sufficiently to allow for collective bargaining rights for workers who were employed by public employers. 1Myron Lieberman and Michael H. Moskow, Collective Negotiations for Teachers: An Approach to School Administration. (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co. 1966), Page 68. 28 Even though most peeple apparently felt that the welfare of the State was more important than the individual rights of public employees? the nation was not without those who felt otherwise. The American Federa- tion of Teachers was organized in 19163 and has worked actively ever since fer bargaining rights for teachers. Since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, public employees have also begun to demand the right to negotiate regarding conditions of employment. During the years 1940-1962 there were 110 teacher strikes.4 Because of the geographical nature of public employ- ment, it is highly unlikely that a congress will ever enact legislation that gives to all public employees the right of collective bargaining. Rather it is assumed that this type of legislation will be left to the individual states. Federal employees, however, did receive in 1962, limited bargain- ing rights. These rights were contained in an Executive Order issued by President Kennedy on January 20, 1962? This Executive Order (#10988) not only gave to nearly all Federal employees the right to form collective bargaining units but further stipulated that the administrative personnel in these federal agencies must recognize these duly organized bargaining units and enter into collective bargaining with said units and attempt to reach mutual agreement on personnel policy and matters affecting working conditions. 2Gordon R. Clapp, "Problems of Union Relations in Public Agencies," American Economic Review, Vol. 33(March, 1943) Page 184. 3Lieberman and Meskow, Page 401. 4School Administrators View Professional Negotiation, (Washington, D.C., American Association of School Administrators, 1966), Page 21. 5Lieberman and Moskow, Pages 493-499. It is interesting to note that this order does not permit strikes against the United States Government, but it does allow for a grievance procedure. The grievance procedure that is agreed on can only be advisory and cannot be binding on any federal agency. The order does not provide for any specific discussion relative to wages; however, this aspect of the "employment policy" does receive its share of attention during bargaining sessions. President Kennedy's Executive Order gave legitimate status to some practices that had existed even before the National Labor Relations Act. As an example, the postal workers have had the right to join a union since 1912, and the postal department has dealt with these postal unions on an informal basis for many years even though it had no obligation to do 50.6 This Executive Order (#10988) gave considerable moral assistance to all public employees. Since 1962 much attention has been given pub- lic employee collective bargaining. In the years 1962-64 more teachers were involved in work stoppages than the total for all the years 1940-61.7 Thus President Kennedy's Executive Order, according to the American Associa- tion of School Administrators, was the most significant breakthrough to date in establishing collective bargaining rights for the public employment sector of the working population.8 6Dean Harper, "Labor Relations in the Postal Service," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, (April, 1964) Pages 443-454. 7Lieberman and Moskow, Pages 290-291. 8School Administrators View . . . . . , Page 15. 30 Definition of Collective Bargaining and Professional Negotiations The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 defines collective bargaining in the fellowing manner: ..The performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and representatives of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of any agreement or any question arising thereunder and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either part5 to agree to a proposal or require the making of any conce551on. This definition has become a standard definition that is used in practically all labor legislation. The labor law for the State of Michigan defines collective bargaining in almost exactly the same terms.10 This definition is the one used when collective bargaining between teachers and school boards in the State of Michigan is defined. There are and have been those who feel that the standard labor law definition of collective bargaining does not lend itself to the professional environment. Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt who encouraged the passage of the Wagner Act had the following reservations about collective bargaining in the public sector: The process of collective bargaining as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and unsurmountable limitations when applied to the public personnel management. The very nature and purpose of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employee in mutual discussions with government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are _governed and guided, and in many cases restricted, by laws which 9U. S. Government, Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, Section 8 (d). 10Michigan, General School Laws, Section 423-215. 31 established policies, procedures or rules in personnel matters. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Lieberman states that "teachers as a group have the attitude that any policy associated with unions is inappropriate for professional associations."12 Lieberman also feels that "teachers have a snobbery 13 towards unions." For these reasons several terms have been coined that apply to the process of negotiations yet attempt to avoid standard labor terminology. The most popular of these is "professional negotia- tions" which was developed by the National Education Association. Lieberman and Moskow define professional negotiations as follows: A term developed by the National Education Association referring to a set of procedures, written and officially adopted by the lo- cal association and the school board, which provides an orderly method for the school board and the local association to negotiate on matters of mutual concern, to reach agreement on these matters, and to establish educafiional channels for mediation and appeal in the event of impasse. The National Education Association states the following about professional negotiations: The National Education Association insists on the right of professional associations, through democratically selected rep- resentatives using professional channels, to participate with Boards of Education in the formulation of policies of common concern, including salary and other conditions of professional service. . . . The Association believes that procedures should be established which provide for an orderly method of reaching 11Letter, President Franklin D. Roosevelt to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, August 16, 1937, quoted in Lieberman and Moskow, Page 4. 12Myron Lieberman, The Future of Public Education, (Phoenix Books, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1960) Page 154. 131bid., Page 156 14Lieberman and Moskow, Page 426. 32 mutually satisfactory agreements and these procedures should include provisions for appealsthrough educational channels when agreement cannot be reached. The American Association of School Administrators (a department of the National Education Association) defines professional negotiations as "a process by which teachers and other professional employees exert formal and deliberate influence upon school board policy."16 Another less-used term, collective negotiations, is defined by Lieberman and Moskow as: A process whereby employees as a group and their employers make offers and counter-offers in good faith on the conditions of their employment relationship for the purpose of reaching a mutually acceptable agreement, and the execution of a written docu- ment incorporating any such agreement if requested by either party. Also, a process whereby a representative of the employees and their employer jointly determine their conditions of employment 17 In the final analysis there is very little difference in the mean- ing of these definitions according to Lieberman and Meskow,18 and it is generally agreed that all of these terms refer to an agreement-making process. Perhaps the most important point is that various groups apparently attempt to use only one particular term for reasons unique to their own organiza- tion or association, yet all such terms have little variation in meaning. 15National Education Association, Professional Negotiations with School Boards: A Legal Analysis and Review, (Research Division N.E.A. Washington D.C., March 1965) Page 5. 16 School Administrators View . . . . . . , Page 5. 17Lieberman and Moskow, Page 418. 18Ibid., Pages 2-4 33 Review of the Provisions for Collective Bargainingfor Teachers in the States Where It Exists While the two major organizations that attempt to represent teachers may differ on some points, they are in accord in the belief and conviction that all states must pass legislation which requires Boards of Education to negotiate with teachers. This is clearly shown in the following statements: State Federations and each local of the American Federation of Teachers should work for the adoption of state statutes re- quiring Boards to Bargain with the recognized agents in the School Districts.1 The National Education Association calls upon its members and upon Boards of Education to seek state legislation and local board action which clearly and firmly establishes these rfights (professional negotiations) for the teaching profession. The National Association of School Boards take quite a dif- ferent view on the topic: The National School Boards Association believes that . it would be an abdication of their decision-making responsi- bility for School Boards to enter into compromise agreements based on negotiations or collective bargaining, or to resort to mediation or arbitration, or yield to threats of reprisal; and that concern for the public welfare requires that School Boards resist by all lawful means the enactment of laws which would compel them to surrender any part of this responsibility.21' 19Robert G. Porter, "Collective Bargaining for Teachers," Ihg_ American Teacher, (The American Federation of Teachers, February 1961) quoted in Teachers Negotiate with their School Boards, (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C. Bulletin 1964, No. 42) Page 2. 20From Resolution No. 18 adopted by the National Education Association Annual Convention, Denver, Colorado, July 1962 and re- affirmed at Detroit in 1963 and Seattle in 1964, as quoted in Teachers Negotiate with . . . . , Page 2. 2 1From a resolution adopted by National School Boards Association, Philadelphia, Pa. May, 1961, and reaffirmed in substance at the conven- tion in Denver, Colorado, May 1963, and in Houston, Texas, April 1964, as quoted in Teachers Negotiate with . . . . , Page 30. 34 Thus far, only eleven states have enacted.any type of specific legislation relative to collective bargaining for teachers. Most of these statutes are very recent. Seven were enacted in 1965 and one in 1966. Thus only three were in existence prior to 1965.22 The eleven states are California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.23 The law enacted by California is an unusual law in that it provides that the bargaining team for the teachers shall have repre- sentatives from all organizations that represent the teachers. The make-up of this bargaining team is on a prorated basis. The more teachers the organization has as members, the more representatives this organization has on the bargaining council. The California law does not require that the School Board negotiate, but it does require that they ”meet and confer." The California act is not part of the State Labor Code. The California act covers all public school employees and does not bar principals from the provisions of the act.24 The act adopted by the State of Connecticut is not part of the State Labor Code. It is an act designed to give all certificated personnel below the rank of superintendent the right to negotiate with Boards of Education. 22School Administrators View . . . , Page 30. 23National Education Association, Summary of State Professional Negotiations Legislation, a report prepared by the Salary Consultant Service Office of Professional Development and Welfare, (N.E.A., Washington, D.C., July 1966) Pages 1-29. 24Lieberman and Moskow, Pages 48-49 and 448-450. 35 A11 certificated personnel may belong to one bargaining unit, or at the desire of the local unit, they may form two bargaining units. One would contain all classroom teachers; the other would have all administrative and supervisory personnel below the rank of superin- tendent.25 The State of Florida adopted a very short act which gives Boards of Education the right to recognize committees of professional personnel. If recognized, these committees are to represent all levels of instructional and administrative personnel. These committees will help with the determination of policies affecting certificated personnel.26 Massachusetts has placed all public employees under the pro- visions of an existing State Labor Law. The Massachusetts act is quite detailed and follows the format of a typical labor law. It does not allow "executive officers" to be part of the bargaining unit. The act spells out such negotiation procedures as conciliation, arbitration, fact finder, and fact finding.27 The Michigan act known as Public Act 379 not only covers all public school personnel but applies to nearly all state and local public employees. The Michigan act amends a previous labor law, and nearly all procedures outlined by the act follow rather standard labor-law machinery. The Act does not allow any supervisory personnel to be part of the bargaining unit. The Act is administered by the Michigan Labor 25Ibid., Pages 49 and 450-452. 26N.E.A., Professional Negotiations . . . . . . . , Pages 22-23 27Lieberman and Moskow, Pages 49-50 and 452-456. 36 Mediation Board. Public Act 379 is the most detailed and lengthy of all the existing laws of the eleven states. Of the eleven states, New Hampshire has the shortest act. It is as follows: "Towns may recognize unions of employees and make and enter into collective bargaining contracts with such unions." The term town has been defined to include school districts.29 Since the Act does not bar administrators from being part of the ”union,” their participa— tion in the bargaining units would be up to the membership of that local bargaining unit. New Jersey has in its State Constitution under Article 1, Section 19 the following: Persons in public employment shall have the right to organize, present to and make known to the state, or any of its political subdivisions or agencies, their grievagfies and proposals through representatives of their own ch0051ng. The New Jersey State Board of Education has also gone on record with a resolution which demands that all school districts abide by the essence of the constitution and further requires that a written copy of the procedure that each district uses relative to the handling of grievances and proposals of the employees be on file with the Commissioner of Education. There is no written bar to the parti- cipation of principals in the local bargaining unit.31 The State of Oregon has adopted a law that removes certificated school personnel from the provisions of the existing state labor 28Michigan, General School Laws, Sections 423.201 - 423.216. 29N.E.A., Summary of State Professional . . . . . , Page 19. éQN.E.A., Professional Negotiations . . . . . . , Page 31. 31N.E.A., Summary of State Professional . . . , Page 20.: 37 collective bargaining law. Non-certificated personnel are still covered by the provisions of the State Labor Law. This new law gives to all certificated personnel the right to confer, consult, and discuss with Boards of Education items which pertain to salaries and related economic policies affecting professional personnel. Any certificated employee below the rank of superintendent may be part of this local bargaining unit. Oregon law does not permit anyone to be a member of the negotiating team unless he is an employee of the local board. This legislation is different from that of most states.32 On May 11, 1966, Rhode Island passed an act known as PThe’School Teachers' Arbitration Act.” This Act gives certificated public school teachers coverage under the general "Labor and Labor Relations Act of Rhode Island." The Act excludes all principals, assistant principals, superintendents, and assistant superintendents from the provisions es the Act. Since this is part of a standard labor act, the provisions are very similar to those of Michigan, Massachusetts, and Winconsin.:53 The State of Washington passed an act which separates certifi- cated school personnel from standard labor law procedures. This Act applies to all certificated personnel below the rank of superin- tendent. In Washington the local bargaining unit must admit to member- ship any administrator below the rank of superintendent. This means that some locals who are American Federation of Teachers affiliates will have administrators as part of their unit. 32Lieberman and Moskow, Pages 51-52 and 461-462 33N.E.A., Summary of State Professional . . . . . , Pages 22-25. 38 This is considerably different from the American Federation of 34 Many states have had considerable dis- Teachers' expected goal. cussion as to what is negotiable. The State of Washington has attempted to list those items which are negotiable. In Washington certificated personnel are allowed to use established administrative channels to meet, confer, and negotiate with Boards of Education concerning ...curriculum, textbook selections, in-serxice training, student teaching programs, personnel, hiring and assignment practices, leaves of absence,3§alaries and salary schedules, and non-instructional duties. The act also states that negotiations are not limited to the above list. Wisconsin is one of four states to have included collective bargaining for public employees under a standard labor-law procedure. The law covers nearly all public employees. Nothing contained in the Wisconsin law gives direction on the status of the principal and his role in the local bargaining unit. Since the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board is charged with conducting representation elections, they will have the authority to determine th- appropriateness of the proposed unit. With this responsibility, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board will determine whether the principals are to be part of the local bargaining unit. The Wisconsin law uses standard labor- 1aw terminology throughout and defines such words as collective bar- gaining, fact-finding, and mediation in the educational environment.36 . 34David Selden, ”Principals - The Real Men in the Middle," American Teacher, (A.F.T. Chicago, November, 1966), Page 13. 35Lieberman and Moskow, Pages 52-53 and 462-463. 36 N.E.A., Summary of State Professional . . . . . , Pages 28-29 39 According to Lieberman and Moskow, Wisconsin was the first state to provide for meaningful collective negotiations between teacher organizations and Boards of Education.37 Myron Lieberman in his book, The Future of Public Education, published in 1960, made some predications concerning teacher collective bargaining. These are rather interesting to note for some of these predications are currently becoming reality. Collective bargaining will come first between local teachers' associations and local school boards. In its early stages, the Boards will be permitted but not required to bargain with teachers. Then laws will be passed requiring local Boards to recognize the representatives of the teachers and to bargain with them in good faith concerning conditions of employment . . . . These laws will be changed to provide for collective bargaining at the state level . . . The persons who negotiate for the state legislature will have a good idea of their limits, . . . even- tually, this (negotiation) will be put into practice at the national level.38 3ZLieberman and Moskow, Page 53. 38Lieberman, Future of Public . . . , Page 161-162 40 Position of School Administrators ConcerningACollective Bargaining for Teachers Principals in Michigan have many questions and concerns about collective bargaining for teachers if we are to judge by the contemporary literature that is available. The Detroit Free Press carried the follow- ing headline on Thursday, December 1, 1966: "SCHOOL PRINCIPALS FIND NEW LAW PUTS THEM IN LIMBO."39 The writer of this article seemed to feel that the greatest concern principals have relates to the fact that they do not know where they belong in this new and confused situation. A follow-up article on February 5, 1967, carried the headline: "SCHOOL OFFICIALS WANT OUT OF LIMBO."40 This author seemed to feel that principals are going to take definite steps to ease their confusion over collective bargaining. The author pointed out that he felt that principals would solve their dilemma by forming bargaining units of their own. The Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals devoted a great amount of their annual meeting held in Detroit on December 1 and 2, 1966, to the topic of collective bargaining. Benjamin Epstein in the text of a formal speech delivered at this convention said: The entire relationship between principal and staff which has existed for many years is being changed. . . . Principals have begun to be in conflict with superintendents and school boards, who they feel are too easily permitting too much of their needed authority to be taken away from them during 39Detroit Free Press, December 1, 1966, Page 2-B 40 Detroit Free Press, February 5, 1967, Page 15-A 41 negotiations in which simultaneously their responsibilities are increased. Epstein in this speech before the M.A.S.S.P. convention took the position that one of the chief reasons why principals feel that negotiations have increased conflicts for them is that they have largely been excluded from the bargaining process though their functions and activities are under constant evaluation and discussion at negotiations between teaChers and School Boards. Epstein further stated that: When representatives of teacher organizations sit at the bar- gaining table with the superintendent and members of the Board of Education, a considerable portion of items discussed deal with, impinge upon, and seriously affect the responsibilities, powers, decision-making functions, and possibly almost every prerogative that principals havisin relationship to the staff they are required to supervise. The fact that principals have largely been excluded from the bargaining process is revealed in a study now being completed by Ralph Block. In this study of 154 schools in Michigan, it was found that of the 126 schools who responded to the questionnaire only 33 schools had an elementary principal on the bargaining team for the Board of Education and only 44 school districts had a secondary school principal on the team for the School Board. Since those school districts that had a principal on the team tended to have two, one elementary and one secondary, we can conclude that principals as a group were largely excluded from membership on the Schoolgfioard fr 41Benjamin Epstein, A Principal Does Some Soul-Searchin in the New Era of Collective Negotiations, A speech given to the Michigan As- sociation of Secondary School Principals at their annual convention held in Detroit, Michigan, December 1 and 2, 1966, Page 5. 421bid. , Page 6. 43Ibid., Page 11 negotiating team in those schools who responded to the questionnaire.44 The elementary principals in Michigan also reflected their concern relative to collective bargaining. In one of the regional professional; newspapers of the Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals, the following remarks were printed: This has been the year that was. We've learned the hard way that living with legislation primarily designed to fit labor's needs is a frustrating experience. The divisions created within our professional family have been many! Our roles, responsibilities, and rights are being slowly remodeled and revised. It is a time to exercise common sense, confidence, and.directed flexibility. There is a strength in membership. We, the Elementary Principals, are the largest group outside of the classroom _teachers. It is right that we take the initiative in seeking solutions to preserve our professiggal rights and meet our neW‘professional responsibilities. Allen Ten Eyck, in a recent issue of the Michigan Elementary Principal, submits a very strong case for the participation of principals on the negotiating team.46 The impact of collective bargaining upon principals was conveyed by Ten Eyck with these few words, "No school administrator can say that last spring was an uneventful period in his life. If he can, he must have been on a leave of absence. Everywhere that school administrators gathered the main topic was either Public Act 379 or how negotiations were faring in their respective districts."47 44Ralph Block, A Research Study on the Composition of the Board of Education Negotiating Team, a study currently underway for Dr. Stanley Hecker of Michigan State University College of Education. 4SPrincipals' Press, November, 1966, Page 1, volume IX, Number 1, Midhigan Association of Elementary School Principals, Region VIII. 46Allan Ten Eyck, "Principals on the Negotiating Team," The Michigan Elementary Principal, January 1967, Page 11. “.97Ibid., Page 11. The Michigan Association of Elementary Principals at their annual state convention devoted a considerable amount of time to the topic of collective bargaining. They discussed several resolutions which expressed their concern. One called for an amendment to Public Act 379 to enable supervisory personnel of public school districts to constitute an ap- propriate unit for collective bargaining.48 On the national level there is a wide variety of statements which indicate the true dilemma of principals concerning collective bargaining. Lieberman and Moskow point out in their book that they believe that principals should not be part of the teachers' bargaining unit but that they should form their own bargaining unit.49 The National Education Association states that "all certificated staff should be regarded as members of the negotiation unit."50 The American Federation of Teachers feels that no administrators should be part of the local bargaining unit.51 The official position of the National Association of Secondary School Principals is rather difficult to fu11y determine. This can be partially accounted for in that the demands, pressures, and legal aspects of collective bargaining vary greatly from state to state. The N.A.S.S.P. had Benjamin Epstein prepare in 1965 a booklet to define the principal's role in collective bargaining. This booklet also points up the dilemma of principals with statements such as: 48Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals, Annual State Meeting, Detroit, Michigan, March 8,9 and 10, 1967. 49Lieberman and Mbskow, Chapter VI, Pages 154-192 ‘lsglbid. , Page 155. SlIbid., Page 156. a. Collective bargaining is one of the most revolutionary forces affecting public education today. b. Principals, in general, applaud the efforts of teachers to improve their standing as professionals.53 c. . . . . It may be desirable that each State pass legislation to permit school boards to neogtiate in good faith with repre- sentatives of their teachers.g d. N.A.S.S.P. adheres to the principle that its members are part of a unified teaching profession.55 e. . . . . Principals cannot and must not be a forgotten group in any dialogue that may develop between school boards and teachers. 6 f. In fact, many of the negotiations which have taken place without direct representation of principals and other agministrators have had as a result, serious built-in defects. , g. . . . . Where principals are few in number, they should be active members of the administrative team involved in negotia- tions. h. In large communities, principals may find it both necessary and effective to organize strong negotiating units of their own. . . .59 The apparent inconsistency of these statements one with another is one more indication of the confusion that surrounds the principals as they seek their proper role in this era of collective bargaining. 52Benjamin Epstein, The Principal's Role in Collective Negotiations between Teachers and School Boards, (National Association of Secondary SChool Principals, WaShington, D.C., 1965) Foreward, written by Dr. Ellsworth Tompkins, Executive Secretary for the N.A.S.S.P. 53Ibid., Foreward. S4Ibid., Page 8. 55 Ibid., Page 9. 56Ibid., Foreward. S7Ibid., Page 10. 58Ibid., Page 10. 59Ibid., Page 10. When it comes to the topic of how best to protect the interests of principals while negotiations are taking place between teachers and Boards of Education, Lieberman and Moskow feel that there must be adequate consultation between all groups affected. They also feel that collective bargaining has put a much higher premium on effective admin- istration than the traditional relationship between teachers and admin- istrators ever did. It is interesting to note that in Connecticut in 1965 in the first twenty-two representation elections held, in fifteen of the twenty-two cases a majority of both administrators and teaChers voted in favor of having a bargaining unit composed of both teachers and principals.60 This type of action is apparently close to the philosophy of the American Association of School Administrators, who adopted a resolution in 1966 stating that "local education associations, made up of teadhers, supervisors, principals and superintendents working together in close harmony, best serve the cause of education."61 The Michigan Association of School Administrators as a chapter of American Association of School Administrators discussed this issue at their annual business meeting in January of 1967. They as a State unit felt differently from the American Association of School Adminis- trators' position and voted four to one to no longer be a department of the Michigan Education Association.62 As previously stated the American Federation of Teachers does not want the principal as part of the local bargaining unit. They however, do 60Lieberman and Moskow, Page 100. 61Ibid., Page 157 62M.A.S.A. Annual Business Meeting held in Grand Rapids, January l7-19, 1967. recognize the dilemma of the principal. In an article entitled "Princi- pals - The Real Men in the Middle," David Selden, assistant to the American Federation of Teachers president, states: Many of the collective bargaining demands of teachers can be satisfied only through gaining a share of the power held by principals. Thus principals, who do not normally participate in the bargaining process, not infrequently find . . . that the superintendent and boards have bargained away principal prerogatives . . . . No one in the American Federation of Teachers . . . has called for a drive to stamp our principals. Although the American Federation of Teachers has called for a Change in the traditional principal-teacher relationship, there must always be someone ultimately responsible for the administration of the school . . . . Can the basic conflicts between administrators and teachers be resolved not just by giving each group protections against the other but by going beyond this to the true collegial relationship? At this writing it seems doubtful that either teachers or administrators are ready for such a change63 Instead, the trend is the other way - toward two professions. Part IV of this chapter can best be concluded by stating the reaction of Michael H. Moskow to this situation. Mbskow feels that collective bargaining has created some significant role-relatignship problems for school administrators. However, he does feel strongly that this same collective bargaining process will force a new clarification of the school administrator. Moskow feels that where once the school administrator was labeled "the man in the middle," very quickly the school administrator will be recognized as an administrative Vagent of the School Board and, as such, it will be rather simple to spell out his proper role.64 The entire scope of the dialogue between teachers and principals suggests that one reason why there is difficulty between principals “and staff is the different way in which each perceives the educational 63David Selden, Page 13. 64Michael H. Mbskow, Teachers and Unions, (University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, 1966) quoted from Education Summary, January 15, 1967. environment. In a doctoral study by Kenneth Olsen this was indicated to be false for Olsen found that there was no significant difference between principals and teachers in their perception of the total educa- tional enterprise.65 In light of this perhaps after the newness of collective bargaining wears off, teachers and principals will not be miles apart in their respective role-relationships. 65Kenneth William Olsen, "Professional Expectation Fulfillment and Perception Formation among High School Teachers and Principals," (unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Education, Michigan State University, 1966) Page 105. Parellels In Industry The position of the principal in the public school environment has some relationship to the position of various supervisory personnel within industry. Both are charged with the general supervision (to a lesser or greater extent) of other employees. This generally entails one or more of the following responsibilities: a. Planning b. Organizing c. Directing ,"flrmwfiam,- .d. _Coordinating e. Controlling f. Improving work g. Communicating h. Making decisions66 In addition to these similarities, industry is also concerned with the overall effectiveness of foremen and first line supervisors. Since this study is based on the premise that principals and their-performance are very important to a quality educational program, it is interesting to note the parallels that exist in industry relative to this point. In a paper by T.G. Newton entitled "Barriers to Leadership on The Foreman's Part," we find that collective bargaining has created some problems for the first-line supervisor. Not only does the union often by-pass the foremen but foremen state that management does not always 48 66Guides for Supervision - (Employee Development Division, Office of Personnel, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. August 1963) Page 11. 49 trust the foreman in the area of labor relations.67 Even though most people may think of first-line supervisors as a part of the management team, the foremen, according to a study conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation, have serious questions ‘as to their own relationship. In this study conducted in 1952 involving 1043 fbremen, only 56% percent felt that they were truly a part of management.68 As was pointed out earlier in this paper, public school principals are currently having a similar problem. Principals do not yet know, in spite of the collective bargaining law, whether they are part of management. Perhaps some of these concerns that principals have can be summed up in a statement by a foreman. "Often important decisions that affect the foremen are made in the front office, sometimes these decisions are not wise ones. How can people in the front office make sound decisions 69 Those familiar with when they don't know what is going on out here?" the nature of public schools will readily see a parallel. People in education who believe that the principal is indeed part of management can find parallels in industry where the concept is stated in a clear-cut manner that foremen are indeed part of management. A. O. Croft, President of the National Foremen's Institute stated the issue in this manner: 67T. G. Newton - "Barriers to Leadership on the Foreman"s Part,” (Industrial Relations Conference, University of Michigan, November 1953) Pages 2,3, and 6. 68 Ibid., Page 4. 691bid., Page 6. 50 In most companies, top management is too far removed from the ordinary employee to have any importance with respect to the things that concern him in his everyday life. It is the differ- ence between good work and loyalty on one hand and indifference and opposition on the other. We have found that a surprisingly large number of top executives are quite ignorant of these facts. It is difficult for them to realize that although they carry authority, and although they are treated with respect, they have hardly any influence upon the thoughts, the worries and expectations of the rank and file . . . . Whether a foreman is good, bad, or indifferent as far as the mea are concerned, he is still the boss. They have no other boss. The dilemma of the principal is closely paralleled by the dilemma of the first-line supervisor. In an article that appeared in Nations Business, the author made a plea for industry to rescue the first-line supervisor from no man's land. The author cited the controversy over whether foremen should join unions as sufficient evidence of the confused status of the first line supervisor. The author went on to state that the confusion relative to the role of the supervisor because of collective bargaining could be best handled by clarifying his status. He also said that several attitude surveys have confirmed that a supervisor's standing with his subordinates and his ability to get work done through them is directly related to the way higher management treats him. If the workers discover that he is merely an errand boy, they will by-pass him and often turn to the union for leadership. According to the article the University of Michigan Institute of Social Research found that one outstanding Characteristic of a high production unit was a conviction among its workers 70A.C. Croft, Leadership Development Among Foremen and Supervisors, (An address given before the California Personnel Management Association, published by Research Division, California Personnel Management Association, Berkeley, California, 1951) Page 10. 51 that their supervisor was respected by higher management.71 Others in industry, recognizing the dilemma of the foremen, have suggested a fore- men's club. The reason for this suggestion is the conviction that the 72 One foremen's club foremen are indeed an important part of management. was organized to"meet the need for better understanding, fellowship, and education among its supervising employees. Industrial manufacturing com- panies are placing greater responsibilities on the supervisors and foremen, considering them as partners in management."73 Apparently these clubs were also organized to give men on this level of supervision some opportunity to discuss common concerns. The parallel in education can be readily seen in such relatively small organizations as the Oakland County Secondary School Principals Association, which is an informal association with some of the same objectives and the Genesee County Association of Secondary School Principals. Recently there has been some discussion concerning the possibility ethat principals might form their own units for purposes of collective bargaining. Some years ago, the National Labor Relations Board was asked to rule on the legality of the formation of collective bargaining units by foremen. The National Labor Relations Board held that employers need not recognize foremen's unions. However, the National Labor Relations 71"'Next Big Stop: Upgrade Supervisors," Nations Business, (Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Washington, D.C., August 1959) Page 13. ’ 72Chamber of Commerce, Chamber Sponsorship of Foremen's Clubs And Personnel Executives' Clubs, (Labor Relations Department, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Washington, D.C.) Page 1. 73Ibid., Page 6. 52 Board also held that foremen are entitled to the protection of the National Labor Relations Act in that they may not be discriminated against for union activity.74 The reasons why foremen wished to organize were presented before the War Labor Board at a special hearing in 1942: To put it bluntly, we foremen were driven to unionize by short- sighted policies of various managements, policies that gave no recognition to our protection for our basic rights . . . . we have had to stand helplessly on the sidelines and watch the rank and file bargain for and get equitable wage rates, practical 'grievance procedure . . . and, most important of all, a sense of security . . . . The fact is that foremen have no protective standing in most industries today. The reasons cited above as a case for the unionization of foremen sound very much like some of the items that principals are currently informally discussingr The job-security aspect is best illustrated by the fact that the Michigan Association of Elementary Principals discussed in great detail at their annual meeting the possibility of tenure for principals.76 In addition to the parallels that exist between foreman and prin- cipals, industry offers other parallels that are equally interesting. Within industry there are many professional employees. Some of these professionals have considered collective bargaining units as an answer to their problems. Some of the reasons why they have considered this course of action are as follows: a. Engineers and scientists feel that they are the forgotten people. 4 . . . a . Amer1can Management Assoc1at1on, The Foreman In Labor Relat1ons, Personnel Series Number 87, A.M.A., (New York 1944) Page 1 75Ibid., Page 26. 76Michigan-Association of Elementary Principals, Annual Meeting, 1967. 53 b. They feel that their salaries are out of line with their education and professional status. c. Engineering supervisors and their recommendations are often by-passed and disregarded by management. d. Professional employees are not identified with management.77 Even though the engineers have used many of the same reasons that teachers have used to encourage the deve10pme1t of collective bargaining, the results have been vastly different. When teachers are asked if they wish to organize, they almost always say yes. The engineers took a different position. In a poll of 64,000 engineers, 74% said they were opposed to collective bargaining. Of the 64,000 polled, only 3.7% were members of a union. Another important finding that has possible parallels in the educational environment is a study by Robert D. Gray. This study reveals that the role of the immediate supervisor in determining employee morale is extremely important and that good company policies are not a substi— tute for good immediate supervision.79 Some educators have felt that with good school policies and a well-defined master contract, the role of the principal might be less important. This study by Gray does not support this theory. 77Robert D. Gray and John T. Lloyd, ”Supervision of Scientific and Engineering Personnel," (Industrial Relations Section, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Bulletin Number 26, 1956) Page 64. 781bid., Page 65. 79Robert D. Gray, Fantasies and Facts in Supervision, A Paper presented to a group session of the Division of Transportation during the 3rd annual meeting of the American Petroleum Institute in the Fair- mmmt Hotel, (San Francisco, California, November 14, 1955). 54 In summary, it may be said that even though there are vast differences between industry and education as operating entities, there are some very interesting parallels that may help those in education by allowing them to benefit from the experience of another sector of our society. 55 CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN Operational Delineation of Terms For the purposes of this study, the following definitions will apply: Principals Currently employed school principals in Oakland County, Michigan, who have been full time principals two or more years in a public school. Collective Bargaining-~Professional Negotiations--Negotiations-- Collective Negotiations All of these terms shall be for the purpose of this study synonymous and will all refer to the legal definition of collective bargaining as provided for in the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947: ". . . the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and representatives of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of any agreement or any question arising thereunder and the execution of a written contract in— corporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of any concession." 56 Attitudes The mental position of a principal indicating his feeling or mood relative to collective bargaining for public employees. This position is determined by the principal's response to the questions and statements on the questionnaire. Relationships A statistical measure computed with chi-square and considered significant at the .05 level. It is derived by comparing the independent variables with the response of principals on the dependent variables. Teacher Organization May be either the Michigan Education Association, state or local unit, or the American Federation of Teachers, state or local unit. Negotiating Team Those people selected by the local School Board to represent them in the collective bargaining process. Collective Bargaining Workshops Any formal meeting held by any organization to explain Public Act 379 of 1965 to the workshop participants. Secondary Principal A full time principal who is responsible for a building that has two or more of the following grades: seventh, eighth, ' ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth. Elementary Principal A full time principal who is responsible for a building that houses three or more of the following grades: kindergar- ten, first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth. 57 Sample The primary focus of this study is on the attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning collective bargaining for teachers in public schools. Because of this specific focus, this study will use the total population of school principals in Oakland County. This population consists of 83 principals who are responsible for secondary schools and 251 principals who are responsible for elementary schools. The principals in Oakland County were selected for this study for the following reasons: a. Nearly all are full time principals. b. Nearly all have at least a master's degree.1 c. The County has ten percent of the total student population of the State.2 d. There is a sufficient number (29h of school districts to offer a wide range of administrative experiences concerning collective bargaining. e. There are rural school districts and complex city schools in the County. These school districts range in size from 942 pupils in the smallest to 24,450 pupils in the largest.3 1Summaries and Surygys 1966-67, (Oakland Schools, An Intermediate District of School Administration, Pontiac, Michigan, January 1967), Pages 20-44. 2Ibid., Page 1. 3Ibid., Page 1. 58 f. The taxable wealth of Oakland County school districts has a wide range. The district with the lowest state equalized valuation has only $5,849 of taxable property behind each student while the district with the largest state equalized valuation per child has $18,553 of taxable property behind each student. The average state equalized valuation per student for the whole county is $12,354-- slightly less than the average for the entire state.4 .g. The geographical area served by these 29 individual school districts ranges from four square miles to over 100 square miles. (The one with the least area is far from the smallest in population and the one with the largest area is far from the largest in populationi) h. The dollars spent per child for educational purposes per school district range from a low of $334 per child in one district to over $670 per child in another district.5 In addition to these demographic reasons, Oakland County was selected for this study for still another reason. By reputation, Oakland County tends to be one of the more progressive counties in the State of Michigan, having established well—defined personnel policies for employees. Most school districts in Oakland County have, as a matter of course, been engaging in some type of mutual discussion with employee groups relative to wages, hours, and working conditions for a number of year. Even though 4Ibid., Page 66. 5Ibid., Page 56-64. 59 this previous relationship existed, Oakland County had a number of school districts that experienced serious difficulties during the first year of formalized collective bargaining. Oakland County because of its school board association, superinten- dents' association, and principals' associations seems to have a real in- terest in learning more about the attitudes of principals concerning collec- tive bargaining. It is for these reasons this study will deal with the total population of school principals in Oakland County. It is hoped that this research will offer direction for further research in other areas of the state and nation. 6O Instrumentation u 'vL To measure the attitudes of principals concerning‘collective bargaining for public school teachers, a special instrument has been designed. This questionnaire has been developed in the absence of an appropriate existing instrument. The first section of this questionnaire seeks to isolate the selected independent demographic variables that are being considered by this study. The second section has twenty—two items which have been developed to measure attitudes of principals concerning collective bargaining for public school teachers. The principals were asked to respond to all twenty-two of these dependent variables. No collective score or over-all attitude scale was tabulated. Instead, each item was tabulated and treated as a separate entity. Each independent variable was compared with each dependent variable. Each dependent variable was considered to be a significant index relative to the attitudes that principals have concerning the nature or scope of the individual question. These questions were derived from: a. A careful review of the professional literature concerning collective bargaining for public school employees. b. Consultation with labor attorneys who are knowledgeable in the field of collective bargaining. c. Suggestions by educators consulted in the course of the instrument development. are: The 61 Advice and suggestions from individuals who are currently school administrators. This group includes school superintendents and school principals most of whom have had considerable experience during the past year in the area of public employee collective bargaining. demographic independent variables selected for this study Sex of the respondent Length of time the respondent has been a principal Age of the respondent Level of administrative responsibility; i.e., elementary or secondary Attendance or nonattendance of the respondent at any workshop or meeting which discussed collective bargaining for public school employees Membership or nonmembership of the respondent on the Board of Education negotiating team first seventeen dependent variables are items that allow the respondent to choose one of the following responses to a directional Statement: a. b. Strongly agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly disagree 62 These seventeen statements vary in direction. Some statements are positive reactions to collective bargaining. Other statements are 1.- .g\ o. - negatire'reactions to collective bargaining. The statements have been so arranged as to avoid patterned responses. If a principal has a strong negative attitude concerning collective bargaining, he will respond with "strongly disagree" on one question and "strongly agree" on another. The varied answer pattern should help to insure the fact that each state- ment was carefully read. The last five items are a type of forced-choice question. Although clear-cut choices are provided, there is still an opportunity to assume a neutral position by checking a response that said, "no change" or "none of the above." Prior to the formal application of the questionnaire a pretest was conducted utilizing principals not included in the study. An analysis of the data and the written suggestions indicated that one question should be deleted and two questions needed to be reworded 'slightly. It was also suggested that greater emphasis be given to the fact that the anonymity of the respondent would be preserved. The twenty-two items that deal with attitudes of school principals cover the following areas: a. The effect of collective bargaining on public education b. The effect of collective bargaining on the respondent's local school district c. The effect of teacher militancy on public education d. The effect of teacher strikes on public education 63 The effect of the competition between the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Michigan Education Association on public education The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal The effect of the Michigan Federation of Teachers on education The effect of the Michigan Education Association on education The effect of collective bargaining on the professional attitudes of teachers The effect of the State Labor Mediation Board on education The effect of collective bargaining on teacher morale The effect of the grievance procedure on the building principal The effect of collective bargaining on the status of principals The appropriateness of principals forming collective bargaining units The influence of principals on the content of the master contract The effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals The effect of collec tive bargaining on principal morale The identity of the group that gained the most because of collective bargaining 64 The effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff The type of change the principals might like to see in Public Act 379 The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal as the instructional leader The relative impact of collective bargaining as compared to other concerns of the principals. 65 Statistical Hypotheses The following relevant statistical hypotheses have been developed for the purposes of this study. .1. .fl. . Ho: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning: 1. 2. 10. ~11. 12. The general effect of collective bargaining on education The effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district Teacher militancy Teacher strikes The competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal The contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education The contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education The effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers The State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers The effect of the grievance procedures on principals II. Ho: 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 66 The status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement The organization of principal bargaining units The involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract The effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals The question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the local school district The effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff Possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the State of Michigan I The role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract; Collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning: 1. 20 The general effect of collective bargaining on education The effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district Teacher militancy Teacher strikes 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 67 The competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal The contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education The contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education The effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers The State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers The effect of the grievance procedures on principals The status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement The organization of principal bargaining units The involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract The effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals The question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district III. Ho: 19. 20 21. 22. The effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff. Possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the State of Michigan The role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract Collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns There is no relationship between years of administrative experience of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning: 1. The general effect of collective bargaining on educa- tion The effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district Teacher militancy Teacher strikes The competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal The contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education The contributions of the Michigan Education Associa- tion to the improvement of education 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 69 The effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers The State Labor Mediat1on Board and its contributions to the improvement of education The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers The effect of the grievance procedures on principals The status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement The organization of principal bargaining units The involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract The effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals The question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district The effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff Possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the State of Michigan The role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract Collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns IV. 70 Ho: There is no relationship between the present administrative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning: 1. 2. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. The general effect of collective bargaining on education The effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district Teacher militancy Teacher strikes The competition between the Michigan Education Association and Michigan Federation of Teachers. The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal The contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education The contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education The effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers The State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers. The effect of the grievance procedures on principals The status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement The organization of principal bargaining units Ho: 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 71 The involvement,of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract The effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals The question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district The effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff Possible changes in the collective bargaining flaw in the State of Michigan The role of the principal as the instructional leader: since the advent of the master contract Collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns There is no relationship between membership on a negotia- ting team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning: 1. The general effect of collective bargaining on educa- *2»??? The effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district Teacher militancy Teacher strikes 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 72 The competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal The contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education The contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education The effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers The State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers The effect of the grievance procedures on principals The status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement The organization of principal bargaining units The involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract The effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals VI. Ho: 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 73 The question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district The effect of collective bargaining on communication between principal and staff Possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the State of Michigan The role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract Collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning: 1. The general effect of collective bargaining on educa- tion The effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district Teacher militancy Teacher strikes The competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal The contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 74 The contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education The efefct of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers The State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education The effect of the grievance procedures on principals The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers The status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement The organization of principal bargaining units The involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract The effect of collective bargaining on the effective- ness of principals The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals The question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district The effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff Possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the state of Michigan 21. 22. 75 The role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract Collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns In addition to the foregoing statistical hypotheses, the study will report in percentage terminology what the attitudes of principals in Oakland County are concerning: 1. 10. 11. The general effect of collective bargaining on educa- tion The effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district Teacher militancy Teacher strikes The competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers The effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal The contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education The contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education The effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers The State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers, 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 76 The effect of the grievance procedures on principals The status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement The organization of principal bargaining units The involvement of the principals in the formula- tion of the content of the master contract The effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals The effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals The question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district The effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff Possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the State of Michigan The role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract Collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns Alternate Hypotheses If the findings of this study permit, the statistical hypotheses will be rejected and the alternate hypotheses will be accepted. (All hypotheses in this study are non-directional.) 77 Analysis As previously stated, there are six independent variables used by this study and twenty-two dependent variables. Each independent variable was compared with each dependent variable. This yields 132 possible comparisons. Two-way descriptive statistical tables were used to show the data. Each of the 132 possible comparisons does have a chi—square statistic computed for it. This statistic is considered to be signifi- cant at the alpha .01 level. The collection of data relevant to the support or rejection of the hypotheses has been facilitated through the development of an instrument designed to measure the attitudes of principals concerning collective bargaining for public school teachers. The independent variables are demographic in nature and are contained in the first part of the question- naire. The twenty-two dependent variables were the questions designed to measure the attitude of the respondents concerning the nature of the question. Each question was treated as a separate entity and no overall attitude score was computed for each respondent. 78 Summary This study purposed to find out whether there was a relationship between selected demographic variables and attitudes of Oakland County principals concerning collective bargaining for public school teachers. To achieve this goal, this study utilized a questionnaire that measured the attitudes of the respondents concerning the topic. Each demographic variable was compared with each attitudinal question. These were placed in two-way descriptive statistic tables and were tested by the chi-square statistic. 79 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction The questionnaire used to collect the data for this study was administered during the month of March, 1967. Of the 334 questionnaires sent out to the principals in Oakland County, 315 were completed and returned. This was a 94.3 per cent return. Of those questionnaires returned, 22 were not included in the study for the respondents had not been a principal at least two years. The responses of 293 principals, which was 87.7 per cent of the total possible number of principals in Oakland County, were placed on data cards and were processed by Oakland County Schools Computer. In this chapter, each statistical hypothesis will be analyzed in light of the data collected the chi square statistic will be used to test for relationship. All chi squares will be considered significant at an alpha level of .01. The appropriate degrees of freedom will be shown with each table. Throughout this chapter most of the tables will have the following letters across the top of the table: SA, A, U, D, SD. These letters have reference to possible response choices on the questionnaire and are defined as follows: 80 SA: Strongly Agree A: Agree U: Uncertain D: Disagree SD: Strongly Disagree The specific data relative to each hypothesis is contained in this chapter. This data is recorded as a matter of convention. Unless the reader wishes to carefully analyze the raw data he may wish to proceed directly to the summary at the end of Chapter IV. 81 Findings 1. Ho : There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the general effect of collective bargaining on eduCation. TABLE l.-- Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the statement: Collective bargaining is good for public education. ! 1 Sex ' SA - A U D - SD Total Male 128 71 33 232 Female 16 22 21 59 Total 144 93 54 291 Chi square = 19.74 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is significant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. 1. H02: There is no relationship between the sex of public school‘principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district. TABLE 2.-- Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the statement: Collective bargaining has not been good for my school district. . Sex SA - A U D - SD Total Male 48 58 126 232 Female 27 15 17 59 Total 75 73 143 291 Chi square = 17.34 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is significant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. 82 1. Ho : There is relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning teacher militancy. TAELE 3.-- Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the statement: TeaCher militancy is good for public education Sex SA.- A f ‘U ~ ~D - SD A; Total‘ 1 11. Male 67 59 104 230 Female 5 l4 ' ‘1 60 Total 72 73 ] 145 290 Chi square = 11.85 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is significant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. 1. H04: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning teacher strikes. TABLE 4.-- Differences between the responses of male and female principals to the statement: Teacher strikes are detrimental for public education Sex SA - A U D - SD Total Male 176 35 21 231 Female 49 4 7 60 Total 224 39 28 291 Chi square = 1.85 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 83 5: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers. TABLE 5.--Differences between the responses of male and female principals to the statement:~ The competition between the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Michigan Education Association will be good for public education Sex SA - A .U D - SD Total Male 66 ’71 95 232 Female 10' ll 39 60 Total 76 82 134 292 Chi square = 11.10 with two degrees.of freedom. This statistic is signifi- cant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. 1. H06: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concern- ing the effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal. TABLE 6.--Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the statement: Because of collective bargaining my role as principal has been easier. Sex SA.- A 11 D - SD Total Male 10 44 177 231 Female 1 ‘10 49 60 Total 11 54 226 291 Chi square = 1.13 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 84 1. H07: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education. TABLE 7.-- Differences between the reponses of male and female principals to the statement: The Michigan Federation of Teachers is helping to improve education. Sex SA - A U D - SD Total Male 49 95 88 232 Female 1 22 1 37 60 Total 50 117 125 292 Chi square = 17.03 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is significant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. 1. H08: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education. TABLE 8.-- Differences between the responses of malegand'fe- male principals to the statement: The Michigan Education 'Association is not helping to improve education Sex SA - A U D - SD Total Male 28 53 151 232 Female 18 22 ‘1 20 60 Total 46 75 171 292 Chi square = 34.65 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is significant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. 85 1. Ho : There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers. TABLE 9.-- Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the statement: The professional attitudes of teachers have improved because of collective bargaining Sex SA.- A U D - SD Total Male 26 57 149 232 Female 3 13 44p_ 60 Total 5” 7‘ 193 292 Chi square = 2.88 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 1. H010: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education. TABLE 10.--Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the statement: The State Labor Mediation Board has helped improve public education. Sex SA ~ A U D - SD Total Male 28 113 91 232 Female 7 19 34 60 Total 35 132 125 292 Chi square = 6.52 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 86 1. H011: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers. TABLE 11.-- Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the statement: Collective bargaining has improved teacher morale. Sex . SA - A u 3 D - SD _f Total Male 7 8O 58 ‘ 93 i 231 Female 3 ll 14 34 59 Total 1 91 72 217 290 Chi square = 7.11 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. I. H012: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of the grievance procedures on principals. TABLE 12.--Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the statement: Grievance procedures will not be of help to building principals Sex ; SA - A U ‘ D — SD ; Total 1 a; Male 1 50 76 104 I 230 Female 3 19 27 _1 12 58 Total j 69 103 116 288 Chi square = 11.67 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is significant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. 87 1. H013: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement. TABLE l3.--Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the statement: Boards of Education through collective bargaining have helped improve the status of principals Sex SA - A U D - SD Total Male 17 ‘ 66 148 231 Female 3 14 42 59 Total 20 80 - 190 290 ~ Chi square = 1.65 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 1. H014: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the organization of principal bargaining units. TABLE l4.--Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the statement: It would be a good idea for principals to form collective bargaining units Sex SA - A U D - SD Total Male 97* 88 45 230 Female 14 24 21 59 Total 111 "112 66 28: Chi square 5 9.83 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is sig- nificant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. 88 I. Hols: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract. TABLE 15.--Differences between the responses of male and fe— male principals to the statement: Principals in my school district had a great deal to say about the content of the master contract Sex SA - A U , D - SD Total Male 52 35 141 228 Female 7 8 44 527 Total 59 43 185 287 Chi square = 3.97 with two degrees of freedom; This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 1. H016: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals. TABLE 16.--Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the statement: Collective bargaining has not helped principals to be more effective Sex SA - A u D - SD Total Male 142 54 35 2—31 ""— Female 43 6 10 59 Total 185 60 45 290 Chi square = 5.05 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 89 1. H017: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals. TABLE l7.--Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the statement: Collective bargaining has improved the morale of principals Sex SA - A U D - SD Total Male 13 44 174 231 Female 0 9 50 59 Total 13 53 224 290 Chi square = 4.19 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 1. H018: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the local school district. TABLE l8.--Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the question: Who do you think gained the most from collective bargaining in the local school district? The children The teachers The administrators The Board of Education None of the above mUOw> 90 Sex A B c D‘ E Total Male 5 195 4 , 2 23 229 Female 0 49 0 0 9 58 Total 5 244 4 2 32 | 287 Chi square = 3.08 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 1. H019: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff. TABLE l9.--Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the question: Since the date your school signed a master contract with the professional staff, how would you best describe communications between you and your teaching staff? A. Improved communication B. No change , ‘ C. More difficult to communicate Sex A B C Total Male 22 141 65 228 Female 4 32 22 58 Total 26 173 89 286 Chi square = 2.03 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 91 1. H020: There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning possible changes in the collec- tive bargaining law in the state of Michigan TABLE 20.--Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the question: Which of the following would you most like to see happen? A. Complete repeal of the public employees collective bargaining law B. Modification of the collective bargaining law to give Boards of Education more power C. Enactment of a new law providing for bind- ing arbitration when an impasse between bargaining parties occurs D. Provisions for public employees to have the right to strike E. None of the above Sex A B C D E Total Male 16 45 71 2 93 227 Female 7 19 14 0 17 58 Total 23 64 85 v 2 110 285 Chi square = 6.60 with four degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. TABLE 21.--Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the question: best describes your role as the instructional leader in your building since the master contract has been in effect? 92 There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the role of the principal as the instruc- tional leader since the advent of the master contract. Which of the following A. I have more influence over people and programs B. I have less influence over people and programs C I have more influence over people and less influence over programs D. I have less influence over people and more influence over programs E. I see no change T.” Sex A B C D E Total Male 3 79 4 9 134 229 Female 0 20 0 3 . 36 59 Total 3 99 4 12 170 288 Chi square = 1.39 with four degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 1. H022 : There is no relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns. 93 TABLE 22.--Differences between the responses of male and fe- male principals to the question: Compared to the other kinds of concerns that you have faced this past year as principal, how would you best describe collective bargaining? A. My greatest concern B. One of several equally important concerns C. I don't know D. Of little or no concern to me Sex A B C D Total Male 11 177 16 27 231 Female 4 597 4 2 60 Total 15 227 20 29‘ 291 Chi square - 3.96 with three degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. II. H01: There is no relationship between years of adminis- trative experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the ‘ general effect of collective bargaining on educa- tion. TABLE 23.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the statement: Collective bargaining is good for public education Admin. Exper. SA-A U D-SD Total 2 - 7 years 92 46 35 163 8 - 13 years 31 20 19 70 14 - 19 years 13 13 4 30 20 or more 7 l4 6 27 Total 143 .. 93 54 290 94 Chi square = 15.48 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. II. H02: There is no relationship between years of adminis- trative experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district. TABLE 24.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience to the statement: Collective bargaining has not been good for my school district T T 1 Admin. Exper. SA-A U ; D-SD Total 1 i 2 - 7 years 34 37 F 91 '162 8 - 13 years 23 20 27 70 14 - 19 years '10 6 14 30 20 or more 8 10 10 . 28 Tbtal 75 73 142 290 Chi square = 10.00 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 95 II. H03: There is no relationship between years of administrative experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning teacher militancy. TABLE 25.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the statement: Teacher militancy is good for education. Admin. Exper. SA-A U D-SD Total 2 - 7 years 42 45 76 163 8 - 13 years 17 18 33 68 14 - 19 years 8 4 18 30 20 or more 4 6 18 28 Total 71 73 145 289 Chi square = 5.59 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. II. H04: There is no relationship between years of administrative experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning teacher strikes. TABLE 26.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the statement: Teacher strikes are detrimental for education Admin. Exper. SA-A U D-SD Total 2 - 77years 122 23 18 163 8 - 13 years 54 12 3 69 14 - 19 years 22 3 S 30 20 or more 25 l 2 28 Total 223 39 28 290 Chi square = 7.98 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 96 11. Ho : There is no relationship between years of administrative experience of pUblic school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers. TABLE 27:--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the statement: The competition between the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Michigan Education Association will be good for public education Admin. Exper. SA-A U D-SD Total 2 - 7 years 41 49 4T73 163 8 - 13 years 21 20 29 70 14 - 19 years 7 5 18 30 20 or more 6 8 14 28 Total 75 82 134 291 Chi square = 4.28 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. II. H06: There is no relationship between years of administrative experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal. 97 TABLE 28.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the statement: Because of collective bargaining my role as principal has been easier ' Admin. Exper. SA-A U D-SD Total 2 - 7 years 5 34 124 163 8 - 13 years 4 9 56 69 14 - 19 years 0 6 24 30 20 or more 2 4 22 28 Total 11 53 226 290 Chi square = 5.16 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis II. H07: There is no relationship between years of administrative experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education. TABLE 29.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the statement: The Michigan Federation of Teachers is helping to improve education Admin. Exper. SA-A U D-SD Total 2 - 7 years 33 69 61 163 8 - 13 years 13 24 33 70 14 - 19 years 2 9 19 30 20 or more 2 14 12 28 Total 50 116 125 291 9.8 Chi square = 12.58 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. II. H08: There is no relationship between years of administra- tive experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education. TABLE 30.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the statement: The Michigan Education Association is not helping to im- prove education Admin. Exper. SA-A U D-SD Total 2 f7 years 20 36 107 163 8 - 13 years 11 20 39 70 14 - 19 years 6 ll 13 30 20 or more 9 8 11 28 Total 46 T7? 170 291 Chi square = 13.38 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. II. H09: There is no relationship between years of administrative experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers. TABLE 31.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the statement: The professional attitudes of teachers have improved be- cause of collective bargaining Admin. Exper. SA-A U D-SD Total 2 - 7 years 20 41 102 163 8 - 13 years 5 20 45 7O 14 - 19 years 2 4 24 30 20 or more 2 5 ,21 28 Total 29 70 192 291 Chi square = 5.98 with 6 degrees of freedom. significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 11. .Ho : There is no relationship between years of adminis- 10 This statistic is not trative experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education. TABLE 32.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the statement: The State Labor Mediation Board has helped improve public education Admin. Exper. SA-A U D-SD Total 2 i'7years 23 75 65 163 8 - 13 years 5 37 28 7O 14 - 19 years 3 10 17 30 20 or more 4 9 15 28 Total 35 131 125 291 100 Chi square = 7.70 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. II. H011: There is no relationship between years of adminis- trative experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers. TABLE 33.--Differences between the responses of principals by length of administrative experience, to the statement: Collective bargaining has improved teacher morale. Admin. Exper. SA-A U D-SD Total 2 - 7 years 61 38 64 163 8 - 13 years 17 21 31 69 14 - 19 years 8 s ‘ 17 3o 20 or more 5 7 15 27 Total 91 771 127 289 Chi square = 9.14 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 101 II. H012: There is no relationship between years of administra- tive experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of the grievance procedures on principals. TABLE 34.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the statement: Grievance procedures will not be of help to building principals Admin. Exper. SA-A U D-SD Total 2 - 7 years 37 50 74 161 8 - 13 years 16 24 29 69 14 - 19 years 9 15 6 30 20 or more 7 l4 6 27 Total 69 103 115 287 Chi square = 11.93 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. II. H013: There is no relationship between years of administrative experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement. 102 TABLE 35.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the statement: Boards of Education through collective bargaining have helped improve the status of principals Admin. Exper. SA-A U D-SD Total 2 - 7 years 12 52 99 . 163 8 - 13 years 3 17 49 69 14 - 19 years 2 3 25 30 20 or more 2 8 17 37 Total 19 80 190 289 Chi square = 8.35 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. II. H014: There is no relationship between years of administra- tive experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the organization of principal bargaining units. TABLE 36.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the statement: It would be a good idea for principals to form collective bargaining units Admin. Exper. SA-A U D-SD Total 2 - 7 years 64 62 36 162 8 - 13 years 23 28 18 69 14 - 19 years 13 ~10 7 30 20 or more 10 12 5 27 Total ‘1 110 112 66 288 103 Chi square = 1.83 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. II. Hols: There is no relationship between years of adminis— trative experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract. TABLE 37.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the statement: Principals in my school district had a great deal to say about the content of the master contract Admin. Exper. SA-A 5 U D-SD Total 1 i . 1 2 - 7 years 39 26 97 162 8 - 13 years 10 ‘ 12 45 . 67 14 - 19 years . 4 i 2 44 - 30 20 or more 6 2 1 19 i 27 Total 1, 59 42 l 185 j 286 Chi square = 7.51 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 104 II. H016: There is no relationship between years of administra- tive experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals. TABLE 38.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the statement: Collective bargaining has not helped principals to be more effective Admin. Exper. SA-A U D-SD Total 2 - 7 years 99 36 28 163; 8 - 13 years 43 15 ll 69 14 - 19 years 26 2 2 30 20 or more 17 7 3 27 Total 185 60 44 289 Chi square = 8.30 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. II. H017: There is no relationship between years of adminis- trative experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals. TABLE 39.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the statement: Collective bargaining has improved the morale of principals. 105 Admin. Exper. SA-A U D-SD Total 2 - 7 years 8 34 121 163 8 - 13 years 2 ll 56 69 14 - 19 years 1 l 28 30 20 or more 2 6 19 27 Total 13 52 224 289 Chi square = 7.85 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 11. Ho : There is no relationship between years of administra- 18 tive experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the local school district. TABLE 40.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the question: Who do you think gained the most from collective bargaining in your particular school district? ‘ A. The children B . The teachers C. The administrators D. The Board of Education E. None of the above Admin. Exper. A B C D E Total 2": '7: years 4 135 4 1 18 162 8 - 13 years 1 60 0 1 S 67 14 - 19 years 0 23 0 0 7 30 20 or more 0 25 0 0 2 27 Total 5 243 4 2 32 286 106 Chi square = 12.26 with 12 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. II. H019: There is no relationship between years of administrative experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff. TABLE 4l.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the question: Since the date your school district signed a master con- tract with the professional staff, how would you best des- cribe communications between you and your teaching staff? A. Improved communications B. No change C. More difficult to communicate Admin. Exper. A B C " Total 2 -7 years 17 96 49 162 8 - 13 years 5 42 21 68 14 - 19 years 4 l7 8 29 20 or more 0 . 17 9 26 Total 26 172 87 285 Chi square 8 4.04 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 107 11. Ho : There is no relationship between years of administra- 20 tive experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the State of Michigan TABLE 42.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the question: Which of the following would you most like to see happen? A. Complete repeal of the public employees collective bargaining law B. Modification of the collective bargaining law to give boards of education more power C. Enactment of a new law providing for bind- ing arbitration when an impasse between bargaining parties occurs D. Provisions for public employees to have the right to strike E. None of the above Admin. Exper. A B C D E Total 2 - 7 years 8 34 49 2 62 155 8 - 13 years 8 13 21 0 27 69 14 - 19 years 4 10 7 0 10 31 20 or more 3 7 8 0 10 28 Total 23 64 , 85 2 109 283— Chi square = 8.48 with 12 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 11. Ho : There is no relationship between years of adminis- 21 trative experience of public school principals 108 in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract. TABLE 43.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the question: Which of the following best describes your role as the in- structional leader in your building since the master con- A. tract has been in effect? I have more influence over people and programs I have less influence over people and programs I have more influence over peOple and less influence over programs I have less influence over people and more influence over programs I see no change Adminis. Exper. A B C D E Total 2 - 7 years 1 48 3 9 98 159 8 - 13 years 1 25 0 2 41 69 14 - 19 years 0 13 l O 17 31 20 or more 1 l3 0 l 13 28_ Total 3 99 4 12 169 287 Chi square = 13.57 with 12 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 109 II. H022: There is no relationship between years of administra- tive experience of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning collective bargain- ing and its relationship to other educational concerns. TABLE 44.--Differences between the responses of principals, by length of administrative experience, to the question: Compared to the other kinds of concerns that you have faced this past year as principal, how would you best describe collective bargaining? A. My greatest concern B. One of several equally important concerns C. I don't know D. Of little or no concern to me Admin. Exper. A B C D Total 2 - 7 years 4 130 10 T7 161 8 - 13 years 5 53 3 9 70 14 - 19 years 3 23 4 l 31 20 or more 3' 20 3 2 28 Total 15 226 20 29 290 Chi square = 11.56 with 9 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. III. H01: There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the general effect of collective bargaining on education. 110 TABLE 45.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: Collective bargaining is good for public education Age of,Principa1: SA-A U _ D-SD ' Total 30 - 39 ' 74 33 T 14 i 121 40 - 49 j 49 31 l 21 101 50 - 59 f 13 19 13 45 60 or over ‘ 6 8 5 19 Total 142 91 53 286 Chi square = 18.56 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is significant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. III. H02: There is no relatiOnship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district. TABLE 46.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: Collective bargaining has not been good for my school district. Age of Principal i SA-A U f D-SD Total . 30 L'39 20 28 T 73 121 40 - 49 29 23 3 ' 48 100 so - s9 18 13 14 45 60 or over 6 8 ' 6 20 Total 73 72 141 286 Chi square 18.11 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is significant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. 111 III. H03: There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning teacher militancy. Table 47.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: Teacher militancy is good for education Age of Principal SA-A U D-SD Total 30 — 39 33 .1 38 49 ICC 120 40 - 49 34 16 50 100 50 - 59 4 ll 30 45 60 or over 1 6 13 20 Total 72 71 142 285 Chi square = 22.36 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is significant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. III. H04: There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning teacher strikes. TABLE 48.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: Teacher strikes are detrimental for education Age of Principal SA-A U D-SD Total ,30 - 39 87 21 13 121 40 - 49 80 12 8 100 50 - 59 38 3 4 45 60 or over 15 2 3 20 Total 220 38 28 286 Chi square = 4.77 with 6 degrees of freedom. 112 This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. III. Ho : There is no relationship between the age of public 5 school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers. TABLE 49.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: tween the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Midhigan Education Association will be good for public educatidn The competition be- Age of Principal SA-A U D-SD Total 30 - 39 37 4o 44 121 40 - 49 25 23 53 101 50 - 59 7 13 25 45 60 or over L_____6 4 10 20 Total 75 80 132 287 Chi square = 9.85 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 113 III. Ho : There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitude concerning the effect of collective bar- gaining on the role (f’the principal. TABLE 50.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: Because of collective bargaining my role as principal has been easier. Age of Principal SA-A U D-SD Total 30 - 39 4 28 89 121 40 - 49 4 12 84 100 50 - 59 2 7 36 45 60 or over 1 5 14 20 Total 11 52 223 286 Chi square = 5.53 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. III. H07: There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education. TABLE 51.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: of Teachers is helping to improve education The Michigan Federation Age of Principal SA-A U D-SD Total 30 - 39 29 51 41 121 40 - 49 19 39 43 101 50 - 59 l 19 25 45 60 or over 1 7 12 20 Total 50 116 121 287 Chi square = 16.85 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is significant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. III. H08: There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education. TABLE 52.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: The Michigan Education Association is not helping to improve education Age of Principal SA-A U D-SD Total 30 - 39 8 27 86 121 40 - 49 21 25 55 101 50 - 59 9 18 18 45 60 or over 7 4'4 9 20 Total 45 74 168 287 Chi square = 24.56 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is significant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. III. Hog: There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bar- gaining on the attitudes of teachers. TABLE 53.-—Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: The professional attitudes of teachers have improved because of collective bargaining Age of Principal SA-A U D-SD Total 30 - 39 13 32 76 121 40 - 49 5 24 70 101 50 - 59 7 8 32 45 60 or more 2 6 12 20 Total 27 70 1 190 287 Chi square = 3.18 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. III. HolozThere is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education. 116 TABLE 54.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: The State Labor Media- tion Board has helped improve public education Age of Principal SA-A U D-SD Total 30 - 39 12 61 48 121 40 - 49 14 41 39 101 50 - 59 6 11 28 45 60 or over 3 9 8 20 Total 35 129 123 287 Chi square = 10.82 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. III. Ho ' There is no relationship between the age of public 11' school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers. TABLE 55.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: Collective bargaining has improved teacher morale Age of Principal SA-A U D-SD Total 30 - 39 44 r29 48 121 40 - 49 34 24 41 99 50 - 59 10 13 23 46 60 or over 1 5 1311: 19 Total 89 71 125 285 statistical hypothesis. Chi square = 10.68 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the 117 III. H012: There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of the grievance pro- cedures on principals TABLE 56.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings to the statement: Grievance procedures will not be of help to building principals Age of Principal SA-A U D-SD Total 30 - 39 23 36 61 120 40 - 49 22 37 39 98 50 - 59 l7 19 10 46 60 or over 5 10 4 19 Total 67 102 114 283 Chi square = 16.82 with two degrees of freedom. This statistic is significant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. III. Ho : There is no relationship between the age of public 13 school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the status of principals be- cause of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement. TABLE 57.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: through collective bargaining have helped improve the status of principals Boards of Education 118 Age of Principal SA-A U D-SD Total 30 - 39 7 37 77 121 40 - 49 8 24 67 99 50 - 59 2 ll 33 46 60 or more 1 7 ll 19 Total 18 79 188 285 Chi square = 3.34 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. III. H014: There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the organization of principal bargaining units. TABLE 58.—~Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: It would be a good idea for principals to form collective bargaining units j Age of Principal SA-A U ‘ D-SD Total 30 - 39 53 38 29 120 40 - 49 34 42 23 99 50 - 59 - 15 20 11 46 60 or over 7 10 2 19 Total 109 110 65 284 Chi square = 6.33 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 119 III. Hols: There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract. TABLE 59.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: Principals in my school district had a great deal to say about the content of the master contract Age of Principal SA-A U D-SD Total 30 - 39 13 22 67 120 403- 49 16 13 68 .31 50 - 59 7 4 35 46 60 or over 3 3 13 19 Total 57 42 183 282 Chi square = 8.36 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. III. H016: There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bar- gaining on the effectiveness of principals. TABLE 60.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: Collective bargaining has not helped principals to be more effective 120 Age of Principal SA-A U D-SD Total 30 - 39 . 71 29 21 121 40 - 49 68 15 16 99 50 - 59 31 9 6 46 60 or over 14 3 2 19 Total 184 56 45 285 Chi square = 4.24 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. III. H017: There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bar- ‘gaining on the morale of principals. TABLE 6l.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the statement: Collective bargaining has improved the morale of principals Age of Principal SA-A U D-SD Total 39 - 39 6 26 89 121 40 - 49 4 14 81 99 50 - 59 3 4 39 46 60 or over 0 S 14 19 Total 13 49 223 285 Chi square = 6.67 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 121 III. Ho : There is no relationship between the age of public 18 school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district. TABLE 62.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the question: the most from collective bargaining in your particular school district? nlcnczu=>- The children The teachers The Administrators The Board of Education None of the above Who do you think gained Age of Principal A B C D E Total 30 - 39 3 102 2 l 12 120 40 - 49 2 81 2 1 13 99 50 - 59 O 38 0 0 6 44 60 or over 0 18 0 0 l 19 Total 5 239 4 2 32 282 Chi square = 4.34 with 12 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 122 III. H019: There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bar- gaining on communications between principals and staff. TABLE 63.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the question: Since the date your school district signed a master contract with the profes- sional staff, how would you best describe communications between you and your teaching staff? A. Improved communications B. No change C. More difficult to communicate Age of Principal A B C Total 30 - 39 . 13 75 33 121 40 - 49 11 57 j 29 97 50 - 59 l 25 18 44 60 or over 1 __l3 5 19 Total 26 170 85 281 Chi square = 5.82 with 6 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 123 III. H020: There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning possible changes in the collec- tive bargaining law in the state of Michigan. TABLE 64.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the question: Which of the following would you most like to see happen? A. Complete repeal of the public employees collective bargaining law. B. Modification of the collective bargaining law to . give boards of education more power. C. Enactment of a new law providing for binding arbitration when an impasse between bargaining parties occurs. D. Provisions for public employees to have the right to strike E. None of the above Age of Principal A B C D E Total 30 - 39 5 25 35 0 51 116 40 - 49 9 20 3O 2 38 99 50 - S9 7 10 13 0 15 45 60 or more 2 8 S 0 4 19 Total 23 63 83 2 108 279 Chi square = 14.74 with 12 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 124 III. H021: There is no relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract. TABLE 65.--Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the question: Which of the following best describes your role as the instructional leader in your building since the master contract has been in effect? I have more influence over people and programs I have less influence over people and programs I have more influence over people and less influence over programs D. I have less influence over people and more influence over programs E. I see no change OW} Age of Principal A B C D E Total 30 - 39 1 27 3 6 81 118 40 - 49 l 42 1 5 50 99 50 - 59 0 24 0 0 22 46 60 or over 1 6 0 l 12 20 Total 3 99 4 4p), 12 165 283 Chi square = 17.22 with 12 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 125 III. H022: There is no relationship bewteen the age of public , school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns TABLE 66.-~Differences between the responses of principals, by age groupings, to the question: Compared to the other kinds of concerns that you have faced this past year as principal, how would you best describe collective bargaining? A. My greatest concern B. One of several equally important concerns C I don't know D Of little or no concern to me .Age of Principal A B C D Total 30 - 39 4 93 8 14 119 40 - 49 6 80 6 9 101 50 - 59 3 37 2 4 46 60 or more 2 14 3 l 20 Total 15 224 19 28 286 Chi square = 5.39 with 9 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the Stuflf fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. H01: There is no relationship between the present adminisa trative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the general effect of collective bargaining on education. 126 TABLE 67.-—Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the state- ment: Collective bargaining is good for public education Level SA-A U D-SD Total Elem. 102 65 44 211 Sec. 39 26 10 75 Total 141 91 54 286 Chi square = 2.05 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. H02: There is no relationship between the present adminis- trative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district. TABLE 68.-~Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the state- ment: Collective bargaining has not been good for my school district Level SA-A U D-SD Total Elem. 58 53 100 211 Sec. 17 18 40 75 Total 75 71 140 286 127 Chi square = .86 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. H033 There is no relationship between the present adminis- trative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning teacher militancy. TABLE 69.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the state- ment: Teacher militancy is good for education w . H Level 5 SA-A u D-SD ; Total Elem ' 59 47 106 212 Sec. 13 24 36 73 Total , 72 71 142 285 Chi square = 4.69 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. H04: There is no relationship between the present adminis- trative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning teacher strikes. 128 TABLE 70.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the state- ment: Teacher strikes are detrimental for education Level SA-A U D-SD Total Elem. 163 29 22 212 Sec. 58 11 5 74 Total 221 38 27 286 , Chi square = .91 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. Ho : 5 There is no relationship between the present adminis- trative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers. TABLE 71.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the state- ment: The competition between the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Michigan Education Association will be |good for public education Level SA-A U D-SD Total Elem. 60 58 94 212 Sec. 16 23 36 33 Total 76 81 130 287 Chi square = 1.38 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. Ho : 129 There is no relationship between the present adminis- trative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal. TABLE 72.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the state- ment: Because of collective bargaining my role as princi- pal has been easier. Level SA-A U D-SD Total Elem. 8 41 162 211 Sec. 3 12 60 75 Total 11 53 222 286 Chi square = .39 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. H07: There is no relationship between the present adminis- trative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education. 130 TABLE 73.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the state- ment: The Michigan Federation of Teachers is helping to improve education Level SA-A U D-SD Total Elem. 35 80 97 212 Sec. 15 33 27 75 Total 50 1137' 124 287 Chi square = 1.46 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. Ho : There is no relationship between the present adminis- 8 trative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education. TABLE 74.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the statement: The Michigan Education Association is not helping to improve education Level SA-A U D-SD Total Elem. 37 31 "1247f" J} .2‘1'_f~~ Sec. 8 gg22 45 75.3 Total 45 73 169 287 statistical hypothesis. Chi square = 2.23 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the 131 IV. H09: There is no relationship between the present adminis- trative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers. TABLE 75.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the state- ment: The professional attitudes of teachers have improved because of collective bargaining Level SA-A U D-SD Total Elem. 20 55 137 212 Sec. 8 13 54 75 Total 28 p 68 191 287 Chi square = 2.11 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. Ho There is no relationship between the present adminis- 10‘ trative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education. TABLE 76.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the statement: The State Labor Mediation Board has helped improve public education 132 Level SA-A U D-SD Total Elem. 25 “s 97 l 90 -- 212 Sec. a‘8 33 34 75 Total 33 130 124 287 Chi square = .18 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. H011: There is no relationship between the present adminis- trative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers. TABLE 77.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the statement: Collective bargaining has improved teacher morale. Level SA-A U D-SD Total Elem. 69 48 92 209 Sec. 18 23 35 76 Total 87 71 127 285 Chi square = 2.58 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 133 IV. H012: There is no relationship between the present adminis- trative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of the grievance procedures on principals. TABLE 78.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the statement: Grievance procedures will not be of help to building princi- pals Level SA-A U D-SD Total Elem. 56 69 82 207 Sec. 13 32 31 76 Total 69 101 113 283 Chi square = 3.45 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. H013: There is no relationship between the present adminis- trative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement TABLE 79.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the statement: Boards of Education through collective bargaining have helped improve the status of principals. 134 Level ' SA-A E u : o-so Total ; : 1 Elem. i 17 52 140 209 Sec. 3 _25 48 76 Total 20 77 188 285 Chi square = 2.81 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. H014: There is no relationship between the present adminis- trative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the organization of principal bargaining units. TABLE 80.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the statement: It would be a good idea for principals to form collective bargaining units Level SA-A U l D-SD 1 Total Elem. 79 82 47 208 Sec. 29 30 .17 76 Total 108 112 64 284 Chi square = .00 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 135 IV. H015: There is no relationship between the present admin- istrative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract. TABLE 8l.-—Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative reSponsibility, to the statement: Principals in my school district had a great deal to say about the content of the master contract. Level SA-A U D-SD Total Elem. 43 l 27 138 208 Sec. 16 16 42 74 Total 59 43 180 282 Chi square = 3.53 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. H016: There is no relationship between the present admin- istrative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals. 136 TABLE 32.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the statement: Collective bargaining has not helped principals to be more effective Level SA-A U D-SD Total Elem. 128 47 34 209 Sec. ‘ 54 12 10 76 Total 182 59 44 285 Chi square = 2.07 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. H017: There is no relationship between the present admin- istrative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the morale of. principals. TABLE 83.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the statement: Collective bargaining has improved the morale of principals Level‘ SA-A U D-SD Total Elem. 6 36 167 209 Sec. 6 16 54 76 Total 12 52 221 285 Chi square = 4.21 with 2 degrees of freedom. 137 This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. H018: TABLE 84.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the question: Who do you think gained the most from collective bargaining in your particular school district? There is no relationship between the present adminis- trative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district. A. The children B. The teachers C. The administrators D. The Board of Education E. None of the above Level A» 3 fl c o E Total Elem. 2 179 2 1 23 207 Sec. 3 60 2 1 9 75 Total 5 239 4 2 32 282 Chi square - 5.09 with 4 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 138 IV. H019: There is no relationship between the present admin- istrative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff. TABLE 85.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the question: Since the date your school district signed a master contract with the professional staff, how would you best describe communications between you and your teaching staff A. Improved communication B. No change C. More difficult to communicate 1 Level A B C Total Elem. 16 125 64 205 Sec. 10 44 22 76 Total 26 169 86 281 Chi square = 1.88 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 0 .' III in! Ill! I.I|II Il.ll 139 IV. Ho : There is no relationship between the present admin- 20 istrative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the state of Michigan. TABLE 86.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the question: Which of the following would you most like to see happen? A. Complete repeal of the public employees collective bargaining law. B. Modification of the collective bargaining law to give Boards of Education more power. C. Enactment of a new law providing for binding arbitration when an impasse between bargain- ing parties occurs. D. Provisions for public employees to have the right to strike. ' E. None of the above. Level A B C D E Total Elem. 16 l 42 65 2 80 205 Sec. 7 22 18 O 27 74 Total 23 64 83 2 107 279 Chi square - 4.03 with 4 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. IV. H021: 140 There is no relationship between the present admin- istrative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract. TABLE 87.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative reSponsibility, to the question: Which of the following best describes your role as the in- structional leader in your building since the master con- tract has been in effect? A. I have more influence over people and programs B. I have less influence over people and programs ,. ,.. C. I have more influence over people and less influence over programs ' aaaaaaaa D. I have less influence over people and more influence over programs E. I see no change Level A B c i D E Total 1 l Elem. 3 68 2 7 130 210 Sec. 0 30 l 5 32_ 73 Total 3 98 3 I 12 167 283 Chi square = 6.52 with 4 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 141 IV. H022: There is no relationship between the present admin- istrative level of responsibility of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning collec- tive bargaining and its relationship to other educa- tional concerns. TABLE 88.--Differences between the responses of principals, by level of administrative responsibility, to the question: Compared to the other kinds of concerns that you have faced this past year as principal, how would you best describe collective bargaining? A. My greatest concern B. One of several equally improtant concerns C. I don't know D. Of little or no concern to me i I . Level 3 A B 1 C D Total Elem. 12 160 15 25 212 Sec. 3 63 4 4 74 Total 15 223 19 29 286 Chi square 3.21 with 3 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 142 V. 20 : There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or work- shops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning the general effect of collective bar- gaining on education. TABLE 89.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: Collective bargaining is good for public education. htzcihence SA-A u D-SD Total Yes 92 64 32 188 No 51 29 22 102 Total 143 93 54 290 Chi square = 1.23 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V. H02: There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concern- ing the effect of collective bargaining on the indi- vidual school district. I TABLE 90.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: Collective bargaining has not been good for my school district. 143 Attendance SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 47 1 46 95 188 No 28 27 47 102 Total 75 73 142 290 Chi square = .50 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V. H03: There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning teacher militancy. TABLE 91.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: Teacher militancy is good for education. Attendance SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 44 53 91 188 No #27 20 54 101 Total 71 73 145 289 Chi square = 2.49 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 144 V. Ho : There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning teacher strikes. TABLE 92.--Differences between the reSponses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: Teacher strikes are detrimental for education Attendance SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 142 27 19 188 No 81 12 9 102 Total 223 39 28 290 Chi Square = .55 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V. Hos: There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning the competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers. TABLE 93.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: The competition between the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Michigan Education Association will be good for public education. 145 Attendance SA-A U D—SD Total Yes 54 52 83 189 TC? 22 3O 59 102 Total 76 82 , 133 291 Chi square = 1.66 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V. H06: There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal. TABLE 94.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: Because of collective bargaining my role as principal has been easier. Attendance SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 7 33 148 188 No 4 31 ZZ#_ 102 Total 11 54 225 290 Chi square 2 .44 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V. Ho": There is no relationship between attendance by grincipals in Oakland County at meetings or worlshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning the contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improve- ment of education. TABLE 95.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: The Michigan Federation of Teachers is helping to improve education. Attendance SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 31 75 83 189 No 18 42 42 102 Total 49 117 125 291 Chi square = .20 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V. H08: There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or work- shops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning the contributions of the Michigan Educa- tion Association to the improvement of education. 147 TABLE 96.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: The Michigan Education Association is not helping to improve education Attendance SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 28 46 115 189 No 18 29 55 102 Total 46 75 _ 170 291 Chi square = 1.28 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V. Mo : There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or work- shops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers. TABLE 97.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: The professional attitudes of teaChers have improved because of collective bargaining. Attendance SA-A U D-SD Total Yes ;. 18 47 124 189 No Tr 23 68 102 Total 29 7o lgg_ 291 148 Chi square = .25 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V. H010: There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning the State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education. TABLE 98.--Differences between the reSponses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: The State Labor Mediation Board has helped improve public education Attendance SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 21 81 87' 189 No 13 51 38 102 Total 34 132 125 291 Chi square 8 2.06 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 149 V. H011: There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers. TABLE 99.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance--nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: Collective bargaining has improved teacher morale Attendance SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 56 e47 185‘ 188 No 1 34 25 42 101 Total 90 72 127 289 Chi square = .48 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V. H012: There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or work- shops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning the effect of the grievance procedures on principals. 150 TABLE 100.—-Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: Grievance procedures will not be of help to building principals. Attendance JiSA-A U D-SD Total Yes 37 68 81 186 No 32 35 34 101 Total fih 69 103 115 287 Chi square = 5.45 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V. Ho : There is no relationship between attendance by 13 principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concern- ing the status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement. TABLE 101.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: lective bargaining have helped improve the status Of princi- Boards of Education throngh col- Attendance SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 15 53 120 188 No S 27 69 101 Total 20 80 189 289 151 Chi square = 1.04 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V. H014: There is no relationship between attendance by princi- pals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on g” collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning the organization of principal bargaining units. TABLE 102.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: It would be a good idea for princi- pals to form collective bargaining units. Attendance SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 74 66 48 188 No 37 45 18 100 Total 111 111 66 288 Chi square = 3.35 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 152 V. Hols: There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning the involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract. TABLE 103.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: Principals in my school district had a great deal to say about the content of the master con- tract. Attendance SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 46 25 115 186 No 13 18 69 100 Total 59 . 43 184 286 Chi square - 5.75 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 153 V. Ho There is no relationship between attendance by 16: principals in Oakland County at meetings or work- shops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals, TABLE lO4.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the statement: Collective bargaining has not helped principals to be more effective Attendance SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 116 39 33 188 No 68 21 12 101 Total 184 60 45 289 Chi square = 1.67 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V. H017: There is no relationship betWeen attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals. 154 TABLE 105.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work— shops, to the statement: Collective bargaining has improved the morale of principals. Attendance SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 9 31 148 188 No 4 22 75 101 Total 13 53 223 289 Chi square = 1.24 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V. H018: There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning the question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district. TABLE 106.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the question: Who do you think gained the most from collective bargaining in your particular school district? The children The teachers The administrators The Board of Education . None of the above munw> 155 Attendance A B C D E Total Yes 2 157 3 2 21 185 No 3 86 l 0 11 101 Total 5 243 4 2 32 286 Chi square = 2.88 with 4 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V. H019: There is no relationship between attendance by principals "in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff. TABLE 107.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the question: Since the date your school district signed a master contract with the professional staff, how would you best describe communications between you and your teaching staff? A. Improved communications B. No change C. More difficult to communicate Attendance A B C Total Yes 17 115 54 186 No 9 58 33 100 Total 26 173 87 286 Chi square = .42 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V. Ho : There is no relationship between attendance by 20 156 principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the state of Michigan. TABLE 108.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the question: Which of the following would you most like to see happen? A. Complete repeal of the public employees collective bargaining law. B. Modification of the collective bargaining law to give Boards of Education more power. C. Enactment of a new law providing for binding arbitration when an impasse between bargain- ing parties occurs. D. Provisions for public employees to have the right to strike. E. None of the above. Attendance E A B 3 C D i E ' Total 1 l a i J 1 Yes 3 13 44 52 2 73 184 No a. 10 20 32 o 37 99 Total L 23 64 84 2 110 283 Chi square - 2.51 with 4 degrees of freedom. This-statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 157 V. H021: There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concern- ing the role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract. TABLE 109.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the question: Whidh of the following best describes your role as the instructional leader in your building since the master contract has been in effect? ' A. I have more influence over people and programs 8. I have less influence over peeple and programs C. I have more influence over people and less influence over programs D. I have less influence over people and more influence over programs E. I see no change Attendance A B C D E Total Yes 2 S8 2 6 120 188 No l 40 1 2 ' 6 50 100 Total 3 98 4 12 170 288 Chi square =5.49 with 4 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 158 V. H022: There is no relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns. TABLE llO.--Differences between the responses of principals, by attendance-nonattendance at collective bargaining work- shops, to the question: Compared to the other kinds of con- cerns that you have faced this past year as principal, how would you best describe collective bargaining? A. My greatest concern. 8. One of several equally important concerns C. I don't know D. Of little or no concern to me Attendance ‘ A B 2 C i D ' Total 1 A Yes 10 147 14 18 189 No 5 79 6 11 101 Total 15 226 20 29 290 Chi square = .30 with 3 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 159 VI. Ho : There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the general effect of collective bargaining on education. TABLE lll.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the Board of education nego- tiating team, to the statement: Collective bargaining is _good for public education Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 27 _ 15 ll 53 No 117 78 43 238 Total 144 93 54 291 Chi square = .44 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. VI. H02: There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oak- land County concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district. TABLE 112.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the board of education negotiating team, to the statement: Collective bargaining has not been good for my school district Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 10 15 28 53 No 65 58 115 238 Total 75 73 143 291 160 Chi square = 1.63 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. VI. Ho ' 3. There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning teacher militancy. TABLE 113.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the board of education negotiating team, to the statement: Teacher militancy is good for education Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 11 3 12 29 52 No 61' 91 116 238 Total 72 ' 73 1 145 290 Chi square = .83 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefbre the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. VI. H04: There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning teacher strikes. TABLE ll4.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the board of education negotiating team, to the statement: Teacher strikes are detrimental for education 161 Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 39 9 5 53 No 185 30 23 238 Total 224 39 28 291 Chi square = .68 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefbre the study fails toggeject the statistical hypothesis. VI. Hos: There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers. TABLE 115.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the board of education negotiating team, to the statement: The competition between the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Michigan Educa- tion Association will be good for public education. Membership SA-A U D-SD Total \rYes 11 18 24 53 No 65 64 110 239 Total 76 82 134 292 Chi square = 1.48 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 162 VI. Ho : There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal. TABLE ll6.--Differences between the responses of principals by membership-nonmembership on the board of education negotiating team, to the statement: Because of collective bargaining my role as principal has been easier Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 1 15 39 53 No 10 39 189 238 Total 11 54 226 291 Chi square 4.45 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. VI. H07: There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improvement of education. 163 TABLE 117.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the board of education The Michigan Federation negotiating team, to the statement: of Teachers is helping to improve education Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 9 22 22 53 No 41 95 103 239 Total 50 117 125 292 Chi square = .04 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. VI. H08: There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oak- land County concerning the contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education. TABLE 118.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the board of education negotiating team, to the statement: The Michigan Education Association is not helping to improve education . m ”I!” Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 7 14 32 53 No 39 61 139 239 Total 46 75 171 292 Chi square = .29 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 164 VI. H09: There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers. TABLE 119.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the board of education The professional negotiating team, to the statement: attitudes of teachers have improved because of collective bargaining Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 4 12 37 53 No 25 ‘58 156 239 Total 29 aha 70 _ 193 292 Chi square = .51 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. V1. Ho : There is no relationship between membership on a 10 negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education. 165 TABLE 120.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the board of education negotiating team, to the statement: The State Labor Media- tion Board has helped improve public education Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 4 21 28 [ 53 No 31 111 97 239 Total 35 132 125 292 Chi square = 3.02 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. VI. H011: There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the effect of collective bar- gaining on the morale of teachers. TABLE 121.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the Board of Education negotiating team, to the statement: Collective bargaining has improved teacher morale Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 18 15 20 53 No 73 56 107 236 Total 91 71 127 289 Chi square = 1.03 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. pa 3‘ VI. HolzzThere is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the effect of grievance procedures on principals. TABLE 122.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the Board of Education negotiating team, to the statement: Grievance procedures will not be of help to building principals. Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 9 20 24 53 No 60 82 92 234: Total 69 102 116 287 Chi square = 1.77 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. VI. H013:There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement. 167 TABLE 123.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membershipenonmembership on the Board of Education negotiating team, to the statement: Boards of Education through Collective bargaining have helped improve the status of principals Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 3 21 29 53 No 17 59 160 236 Total 20 80 189 289 Chi square = 4.64 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. VI. H014: There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the organization of princi- pals bargaining units. TABLE 124.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the Board of Education negotiating team,to the statement: It would be a good idea for principals to form collective bargaining units Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 18 17 18 53 No 92 95 48 235 Total 110 102 66 278 Chi square = 5.06 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 168 VI. Ho ' There is no relationship between membership on a ‘~— 15' negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract. TABLE 125.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the Board of Education Principals in my school negotiating team, to the statement: district had a great deal to say about the content of the master contract Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 18 9 2: 51 No 41 34 160 235 Total 59 43 184 286 Chi square = 9.65 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is significant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. VI. Ho : There is no relationship between membership on a 16 negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals. 169 TABLE 126.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the Board of Education negotiating team, to the statement: Collective bargaining has not helped principals to be more effective. Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 26 20 7 53 No 159 39 38 236 Total 185 59 45 289 Chi square = 11.65 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is significant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. VI. H017: There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the effect of collec- tive bargaining on the morale of principals. TABLE 127.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the Board of Education negotiating team, to the statement: Collective bargaining has improved the morale of principals Membership SA-A U D-SD Total Yes 2 14 37 53 No 11 39_ 186 236 Total 13 53 223 289 Chi square = 14.78 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is significant at the .01 level, therefore the statistical hypothesis is rejected. 170 VI. H018: There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district. TABLE 128.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the Board of Education negotiating team, to the question: Who do you think gained the most from collective bargaining in your particular school district? A. The children B. The teachers C. The administrators D. The Board of Education E. None of the above Membership A B C D E Total Yes 2 44 l l 4 52 No 3 199 3 1 28 234 Total 5 ' 243 4 2 32 286 Chi square = 2.77 with 4 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 171 VI. Ho ° There is no relationship between membership on a 19' negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff. TABLE 129.--Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the Board of Education Since the date your negotiating team, to the question: school district signed a master contract with the profes- sional staff, how would you best describe communications between you and your teaching staff? A. Improved communication B. No Change C. More difficult to communicate Membership A B C Total Yes 3 34 16 53 No 23 138 71 232 Total 26 172 87 285 Chi square = .99 with 2 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 172 VI. H020: There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the State of Michigan. TABLE 130.--Differenees between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the Board of Education negotiating team, to the question: Which of the following would you most like to see happen? A. Complete repeal of the public employees collective bargaining law 8. Modification of the collective bargaining law to give Boards of Education more power C. Enactment of a new law providing for binding arbitration when an impasse between bargaining parties occurs ' D. Provisions for public employees to have the right to strike E. None of the above Membership A B C D E Total Yes 4 10 15 0 23 52 No 19 54 70 2 86 231 Total 23 64 85 2 109 283 Chi square = 1.26 with 4 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 173 VI. H021: There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract. TABLE 131.--Differences between the reSponses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the Board of Education negotiating team, to the question: Which of the following best describes your role as the instructional leader in your building since the master contract has been in effect? A. I have more influence over people and programs B. I have less influence over peeple and programs C. I have more influence over people and less influence over programs D. I have less influence over people and more influence over programs E. I see no change Membership A B C D E Total Yes 1 l4 0 4 33 52 No 2 85 4 8 1 136 ‘ 237 Total 3 99 4 12 169 289 Chi square = 4.35 with 4 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. 174 VI. H022: There is no relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning collective bargaining and its relationship to other education concerns. TABLE l32.r-Differences between the responses of principals, by membership-nonmembership on the Board of Education negotiating team, to the question: Compared to the other kinds of concerns that you have faced this past year as principal, how would you best describe collective bargaining? A. My greatest concern B. One of several equally important concerns C. I don't know ” D. Of little or no concern to me Membership A B C D Total Yes 3 43 5 2 53 No 12 184 15 26 , 237 Total 15 227 20 28 290 Chi square = 2.83 with 3 degrees of freedom. This statistic is not significant at the .01 level, therefore the study fails to reject the statistical hypothesis. “175 Summary In Chapter IV the study has presented each statistical hypothesis and the appropriate data to test each hypothesis. Following the data, the computed chi square with the appropriate degrees of freedom have been given for each table. After the significance level has been stated, a statement concerning the rejection-nonrejection of the statistical hypothesis was presented. There were six basic demographic variables tested by the study. Hypothesis I. attempted to determine if male and female principals in Oakland County had differing attitudes concerning collective bargaining for public school teachers. Of the 22 sub-hypothesis only 8 were found to be significant. The study therefore concluded that male and female principals tended to think alike on 14 of the 22 attitude questions and to significantly differ on the eight other attitude questions. Hypothesis II. attempted to determine if length of administrative experience of principals in Oakland County would influence the attitudes of principals concerning collective bargaining for public school teachers. The principals were then grouped into four categories: A. 2 - 7 years of administrative experience B. 8 - 13 years of administrative experience 3 . l4 - 19 years of administrative experience . 20 or more years of administrative experience 176 After grouping the principals into these categories the responses were compared. Not one of the 22 sub-hypotheses were found to be signifi- cant. The study therefore concluded that the amount of administrative experience that principals in Oakland County have is not a significant variable relative to their attitudes concerning collective bargaining. Hypothesis III. attempted to determine if the age of principals in Oakland County was a significant variable concerning their attitudes relative to collective bargaining for public school teachers. The study ’ grouped the principals into five categories: Under 30 years of age 30 - 39 years of age 40 - 49 years of age 50 - 59 years of age 60 years of age and over monw> Since there were only two respondents who were under 30 years of .age that age grouping was deleted. The other four categories were then compared to see if their responses differed significantly concerning the 22 sub-hypotheses. Six of the 22 sub-hypotheses were found to be signifi- cant, 16 were not significant, The study therefore concluded that the age of Oakland County principals was a significant variable concerning atti- tudes relative to collective bargaining for only six items. On all other items, the age of the principals made no significant difference in the responses. Hypothesis IV. attempted to determine if elementary principals in Oakland County differed with secondary school principals in Oakland County in their attitudes concerning collective bargaining. The responses 177 of the elementary and secondary principals were then compared. Not one of the 22 sub-hypotheses were found to be significant. The study therefore concluded that elementary and secondary principals in Oakland County did not differ significantly in their attitudes concerning collective bargain- ing. Hypothesis V. attempted to determine if those principals in Oakland County who attended workshops or meetings concerning collective bar- gaining would have significantly different attitudes concerning collective bargaining from those principals in Oakland County who did not attend these workshops or meetings. Not one of the 22 sub-hypotheses were found to be significant. The study therefore concluded that attendance-non- attendance at collective bargaining workshops or meetings by Oakland County principals is not a significant variable concerning the attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning Collective bargaining. Hypothesis VI. attempted to determine if those principals in Oakland County who were part of the Board of Education Negotiating Team would have significantly different attitudes, from those Oakland County principals who were not a member of the Board of Education Negotiating Team, concerning collective bargaining for public school teachers. Of the 22 sub-hypotheses three were found to be significant. The study therefore concluded that membership-nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating Team was a significant variable concerning 3 of the 22 sub- hypotheses, while it was not a significant variable on the other 19 sub- hypotheses. 178 CHAPTER V SUMMARY Introduction In Chapter IV the specific data relative to each hypothesis was presented. In this chapter, each hypothesis will be reviewed and the alternate hypothesis will be presented in those cases where the data permits the acceptance of the alternate hypothesis. The chi square statistic used in this study is used to test for independence. A significant chi square means that there is a significant difference in the way the independent variables reacted to the dependent variable. A chi square that is not significant indicates that there is no significant difference in the responses of the independent variables to the dependent variable. If the chi square statistic is significant the study concludes that there is a highly significant difference in attitudes between the categories compared relative to the question or statement presented. If the chi square is not significant the study concludes that the categories compared do not differ significantly in their attitudes con- cerning the question or statement presented. That is, the difference which was found between the responses between categories was not sufficiently large enough to support the conclusion that it occurred independent of the operations of sheer chance. 1579 Summary of Findings Hypothesis I. attempted to determine if there is a relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning collective bargaining for public school teachers. This hypothesis was tested with 22 sub-hypotheses. The findings are as follows: The chi square for 1. H01 was significant, therefore the alternate hypothesis is accepted. 1. Hal: There is a relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the general effect of collective bargaining on education. The acceptance of this alternate hypothesis means that men and women principals in Oakland County think differently concerning this concept. The chi square for 1. He was significant, therefore the alternate 2 hypothesis is accepted. I. Ha2: There is a relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district. The acceptance of this alternate hypothesis means that men and women- principals in Oakland County think differently concerning this‘concept. 180 The chi square for 1. Ho was significant, therefore the alternate 3 hypothesis is accepted. I. ‘Hasz There is a relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning teacher militancy. The acceptance of this alternate hypothesis means that men and women principals in Oakland County think differently concerning this concept. The chi square for 1. H04 was not significant. Because of this, the study concludes that men and women principals in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the question of teacher strikes. The chi square for 1. He was significant, therefore the alternate 5 hypothesis is accepted. I. Has: There is a relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers. The acceptance of the alternate hypothesis means that men and women principals in Oakland County think differently concerning this concept. The chi square for 1. H06 was not significant. Because of this, the study concludes that men and women principals in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the role of the principal. 181 The chi square for 1. He was significant, therefore the alternate 7 hypothesis is accepted. I. Ha7: There is a relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improve- ment of education. The acceptance of this alternate hypothesis means that men and women principals in Oakland County think differently concerning this concept. The chi square for 1. He was significant therefore the alternate 8 hypothesis is accepted. I. Ha8: There is a relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the contributions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education. The acceptance of this alternate hypothesis means that men and women principals in Oakland County think differently concerning this concept. The chi square for I. Ho9 was not significant. Because of this, the study concludes that men and women principals in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers. 182 The chi square for 1. H010 was not significant. Because of this, the study concludes that men and women principals in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education. The chi square for 1. Ho was not significant. Because of this, 11 the study concludes that men and women principals in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers. The chi square for 1. H012 was significant therefore the alternate hypothesis is accepted. I. Halzz There is a relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of the grievance procedures on principals. The acceptance of this alternate hypothesis means that men and women principals in Oakland County think differently concerning this concept. The chi square for 1. He was not significant. Because of this, 13 the study concludes that men and women principals in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement. The chi square for 1. H014 was significant therefore the alternate hypothesis is accepted. I. Ha14: There is a relationship between the sex of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the organization of principal bargaining units. 183 The acceptance of this alternate hypothesis means that men and women principals in Oakland County think differently concerning this concept. The chi square for 1. Ho was not significant. Because of this, 15 the study concludes that men and women principals in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract. The chi square for 1. He was not significant. Because of this, 16 the study concludes that men and women principals in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals. The chi square for 1. H017 was not significant. Because of this, the study concludes that men and women principals in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals. The chi square for 1. He was not significant. Because of this, 18 the study concludes that men and women principals in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the local school district. The chi square for I. Ho19 was not significant. Because of this, the study concludes that men and women principals in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the effect of collective bargaining on communications between principals and staff. 184 The chi square for 1. H020 was not significant. Because of this, the study concludes that men and women principals in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the state of Michigan. The chi square for 1. He was not significant. Because of this, 21 the study concludes that men and women principals in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract. The chi square for 1. H022 was not significant. Because of this, the study concludes that men and women principals in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns. Hypothesis 1. with 22 sub-hypotheses compared the responses of male and female principals. Eight of the chi squares were significant while 14 were not. The study therefore concludes that male and female principals in Oakland County tend to think alike on 14 attitude questions and to significantly differ on eight other attitude questions. Hypothesis II. attempted to determine if there is a relationship between years of administrative experience of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning collective bargaining for public school teachers. This hypothesis was based on the idea that the principals who have been administrators for many years might differ significantly in attitudes from those principals who have been adminis- trators for a less number of years. None of the 22 sub-hypotheses were found to be significant. The study therefore concludes that the number 185 of years that a principal in Oakland County has been an administrator is not a significant variable concerning their attitudes relative to collective bargaining. Hypothesis III. attempted to determine if there is a relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning collective bargaining for public school teachers. This hypothesis was tested with 22 sub-hypotheses. The findings are as follows: The chi square for 111. He was significant, therefore the alternate 1 hypothesis is accepted. III. Hal: There is a relationship between the age of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the general effect of collective bargaining on education. The acceptance of this alternate hypothesis means that principals in Oakland County in various age categories, think differently concerning this concept. The chisquare for 111. Ho2 was significant, therefore the alternate hypothesis is accepted. III. Ha2: There is a relationship between the age of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the individual school district. 186 The acceptance of this alternate hypothesis means that principals in Oakland County in various age categories, think differently concerning this concept. The chi square for 111. Ho was significant, therefore the 3 alternate hypothesis is accepted. 111. Has: There is a relationship between the age of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning teacher militancy. The acceptance of this alternate hypothesis means that principals in Oakland County in various age categories, think differently concerning this concept. The chi square for 111. He was not significant. Because of this, 4 the study concludes that principals in all age categories in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning teacher strikes. The chi square for 111. He was not significant. Because of this, 5 the study concludes that principals in all age categories in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers. ‘ The chi sgpare for 111. He was not significant. Because of this, 6 the study concludes that principals in all age categories in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the effect of collective bar- gaining on the role of the principal. 187 The chi square for 111. Ho7 was significant, therefore the alternate hypothesis is accepted. III. Ha7: There is a relationship between age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the contributions of the Michigan Federation of Teachers to the improve- ment of education. The acceptance of this alternate hypothesis means that principals in Oakland County in various age categories, think differently concerning this concept. The chi square for 111. Ho was significant, therefore the alternate 8 hypothesis is accepted. III. Ha8: There is a relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the contribu- tions of the Michigan Education Association to the improvement of education. The acceptance of this alternate hypothesis means that principals in Oakland County in various age categories, think differently concerning this concept. The chi square for 111. Ho9 was not significant. Because of this, the study concludes that principals in all age categories in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the attitudes of teachers. 188 The chi square for 111. H010 was not significant. Because of this, the study concludes that principals in all age categories in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the State Labor Mediation Board and its contributions to the improvement of education. The chi square for 111. Ho was not significant. Because of this, 11 the study concludes that principals in all age categories in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the morale of teachers. The chi square for 111. Ho12 was significant, therefore the alternate hypothesis is accepted. III. Halzz There is a relationship between the age of public school principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning the effect of the grievance procedure on principals. The acceptance of the alternate hypothesis means that principals in Oakland County, in various age categories think differently concerning this concept. The chi square for 111. He was not significant. Because of this, 13 the study concludes that principals in all age categories in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the status of principals because of collective bargaining and Board of Education involvement. The chi square for 111. Ho was not significant. Because of this, 14 the study concludes that principals in Oakland County, in all age categories tend to think alike concerning the organization of principal bargaining units. 189 The chi square for 111. Ho was not significant. Because of this, 15 the study concludes that principals in all age categories, in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning the involvement of the principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract. The chi square for 111. Hol was not significant. Because of this, 6 the study concludes that principals in Oakland County, in all age categories tend to think alike concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals. The chi square for 111. He was not significant. Because of this, 17 the study concludes that principals in Oakland County, in all age categories tend to think alike concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals. The chi square for 111. H018 was not significant. Because of this, the study concludes that principals in Oakland County, in all age categories tend to think alike concerning the question as to who gained the most from collective bargaining in the school district. The chi square for 111. H019 was not significant. Because of this, the study concludes that principals in Oakland County, in all age categories tend to think alike concerning the effect of collective bargaining on communications between principal and staff. The chi square for 111. He was not significant. Because of this, 20 the study concludes that principals in Oakland County, in all age categories tend to think alike concerning possible changes in the collective bargaining law in the State of Michigan. 190 The chi square for 111. Ho21 was not significant. Because of this, the study concludes that principals in Oakland County, in all age categories tend to think alike concerning the role of the principal as the instructional leader since the advent of the master contract. The chi square for 111. Ho was not significant. Because of this, 22 the study concludes that principals in Oakland County, in all age categories tend to think alike concerning collective bargaining and its relationship to other educational concerns. The hypotheses III. H01 through and including 111. H022 compared the attitudes of Oakland County principals with the variable of age. Of these 22 hypotheses six were found to be significant and 16 were found not to be significant. The study therefore concludes that Oakland County principals, by age categories, tend to think alike on 16 attitude questions concerning collective bargaining and to significantly differ by age categories on six other attitude questions concerning collective bargaining. Hypothesis IV. attempted to determine if there is a relationship between the present level of administrative responsibility (i.e., elementary or secondary) of principals in Oakland County and their attitudes concerning collective bargaining for public school teachers. It was felt that this hypothesis might be rather meaningful for the nature of elementary schools is considerably different from that of secondary schools. None of the 22 sub-hypotheses used to test this hypothesis were found to be significant. 191 The study therefore concludes that elementary and secondary prin- cipals in Oakland County tend to think alike concerning collective bargaining. The 22 chi squares that were computed to test this hypothesis were all very small, in fact one was a rare .00. Because of this the study further concludes that the attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning collective bargaining are not seriously influenced by level of administrative responsibility. Hypothesis V. attempted to determine if there is a relationship between attendance by principals in Oakland County, at meetings or workshops on collective bargaining and their attitudes concerning col- lective bargaining. This hypothesis was based on the belief that those principals in Oakland County who have had an opportunity to attend meet- ings or workshops where the topic of Public Act 379 was discussed, would have attitudes that differed significantly from those principals who did not attend such meetings. None of the 22 sub-hypotheses used to test this hypothesis were found to be significant. The study therefore concludes that attendance-nonattendance of principals in Oakland County at meetings or workshops concerning Public Act 379 is not a significant variable relative to their attitudes concerning collective bargaining. Because of this, the study concludes that both categories tend to think alike concerning collective bargaining. Hypothesis VI. attempted to determine if there is a relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in .192 Oakland County concerning collective bargaining. This hypothesis was based on the belief that those principals who have had an opportunity to be part of the negotiating team for the Board of Education and to take part in the actual negotiating process would have attitudes concerning collective bargaining that differed significantly from those who were not part of the negotiating team. This hypothesis was tested with 22 sub-hypotheses. Only three of the 22 sub~hypotheses were found to be significant. They are as follows: The chi square for V1. Ho was significant, therefore the alternate 15 hypothesis is accepted. .VIJ‘HaIS: There is a relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the involvement of principals in the formulation of the content of the master contract. The acceptance of this alternate hypothesis means that those principals who were part of the negotiating team differed significantly with those principals who were not part of the negotiating team as to the involvement of principals in the actual content of the master contract. The chi square for V1. H016 was significant therefore the alternate hypothesis is accepted. VI. H316: There is a relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the effect of c0141 lective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals. 193 The acceptance of this alternate hypothesis means that those principals who were part of the negotiating team differed significantly with those principals who were not part of the negotiating team as to the effect of collective bargaining on the effectiveness of principals. The chi square for V1. Ho17 was significant therefore the alternate hypothesis is accepted. VI. Ha17: There is a relationship between membership on a negotiating team and attitudes of principals in Oakland County concerning the effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals. The acceptance of this alternate hypothesis means that those principals who were part of the negotiating team differed significantly with those principals who were not part of the negotiating team as to the effect of collective bargaining on the morale of principals. All other sub—hypotheses for hypothesis VI. were not significant. This means that on 19 (.. of the 22 items, membership on a negotiating team was net 3 significant variable concerning the attitudes of principals in Oakland County relative to collective bargaining. This study has compared each of six independent variables with each of 22 dependent variables. These findings have been duly reported. In addition to this data; the study wished to determine the attitudes of all principals in Oakland County as of this date, concerning collective bargaining. These findings are as follows: 194 TABLE 133.~-Total responses of principals to the statement: Collective bargaining is good for public education SA A U D SD Total Number 24 120 93 35 19 291 Percentage 8.2 41.2 31.9 12.0 6.5 99.8 The study therefore concludes that a large majority of Oakland County principals who responded with other than untertain,believe that collective bargaining is good for public education. TABLE 134.--Tota1 responses of principals to the statement: Collective bargaining has not been good for my school district SA A U D SD Total Number 16 S9 73 117 26 291 Percentage 5.4 20.2 25.0 40.2 8.9 99.7 The study therefore concludes that a large majority of Oakland County principals who responded with other than uncertain. believe that collective bargaining has been good for their own school district. TABLE l35.-~Tota1 responses of principals to the statement: Teacher militancy is good for education SA A U D SD Total Number 6 66 73 83 62 290 Percentage 2.0 22.7 25.1 28.6 21.3 99.7 The study therefore concludes that a large majority of Oakland County principals who reSponded with other than uncertain, believe that teacher militancy is not good for education. 195 TABLE l36.--Total responses of principals to the statement: Teacher strikes are detrimental for education SA A U D SD Total Number 129 95 39 18 10 291 Percentage 44.3 32.6 13.4 6 g 3.4 99.8 The study therefore concludes that the vast majority of Oakland County principals believe that teacher strikes are detrimental for education. TABLE l37.--Total responses of principals to the statement: The competition between the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Michigan Education Association will be good for public education SA A U D SD Total Number 13 63 82 82»- 52 292 Percentage 4.4 21.5 28.0 28.0 17.8 99.7 The study therefore concludes that a large majority of Oakland County principals who responded with other than uncertain, believe that the competition between the Michigan Federation of Teachers and the Michigan Education Association will not be good for public education. TABLE 138.--Total responses of principals to the statement: Because of collective bargaining my role as principal has been easier SA A U D SD Total 'fifiNumber 0 11 54 156 70 291 Percentage 0 3.7 18.5 53.6 24.0 99.8 196 The study therefore concludes that a vast majority of Oakland County principals believe that their role as principal has not been made easier because of collective bargaining. TABLE l39.--Total responses of principals to the statement: The Michigan Federation of Teachers is helping to improve education SA A U D SD Total Number 2 48 117 79 46 292 Percentage .6 L 16.4 40.0 27.0 15.7 99.7 The study therefore concludes that since 40% of the Oakland County principals responded with uncertain that no real conclusion can be made relative to this statement. TABLE 140.--Tota1 responses of principals to the statement: The Michigan Education Association is not helping to im- prove education SA A U D SD Total Number 11 35 1 75 150 21 292 Percentage 3.7 11.9 25.6 51.3 7.2 99.7 The study therefore concludes that a large majority of Oakland County principals who responded with other than uncertain believe that the Michigan Education Association is helping to improve education. 197 TABLE 14l.--Total responses of principals to the statement: The professional attitudes of teachers have improved be- cause of collective bargaining SA A U D SD Total Number 2 27" 70 134 59 291 Percentage .6 9.2 23.9 45.8 20.2 99.7 The study therefore concludes that a vast majority of Oakland County principals believe that the professional attitudes of teachers have not improved because of collective bargaining. 1 TABLE l42.--Total responses of principals to the statEMent: The State Labor Mediation Board has helped improve public education SA A U D SD Total Number 1 34 132 76** 49 292 Percentage .3 11.6 45.2 26.0 16.7 99.8 The study concludes that since 45.2% of the Oakland County principals responded with uncertain that no real conclusions can be made relative to this statement. TABLE l43.--Total responses of principals to the statement: Collective bargaining has improved teacher morale SA A u D - so Total Number 3 88 72 94 33 290 Percentage 1.0 30.3 , 24.8 32.4 11.3 99.8 The study concludes that a majority of Oakland County principals who responded with other than uncertain, believe that collective bargaining has not improved teacher morale. 198 TABLE l44.--Total responses of principals to the statement Grievance procedures will not be of help to building principals SA A U D SD Total Number 15 54 103 107 9 288 Percentage 5.2 18.7 35.7 37.1 3.1 99.8 The study therefore concludes that since only 23.9% of Oakland County principals strongly agreed or agreed with this statement that the majority who responded with other than uncertain feel that grievance procedures will be of some help to building principals. TABLE l45.--Tota1 responses of principals to the statement: Boards of Education through collective bargaining have helped improve the status of principals SA A U D SD Total Number 1 19 80 140 50 290 Percentage .3 6.5 27.5 48.2 17.2 99.7 The study therefore concludes that a large majority of Oakland County principals believe that Boards of Education through collective bargaining have not helped improve the status of principals. TABLE l46.--Total responses of principals to the statement: It would be a good idea for principals to form collective bargaining units SA A U D SD Total Number 20 91 112 46 20 289 Percentage 6.9 31.4 38.7 15.9 6.9 99.8 199 The study therefore concludes that a majority of Oakland County principals who responded with other than uncertain, believe that it would be a good idea for principals to form collective bargaining units. TABLE 147.--Total responses of principals to the statement: Principals in my school district had a great deal to say about the content of the master contract SA A U D SD Total Number 9 50 43 117 68 287 Percentagg 3.1 17.4 14.9 40.7 23.6 99.7 The study therefore concludes that a vast majority of Oakland County principals believe that principals in their local school district did not have a great deal to say about the content of the master contract . TABLE 148.--Total responses of principals to the statement: Collective bargaining has not helped principals to be more effective SA A U D SD Total Number 42 143 50 44 1 290 Percentage 14.4 49.3 1.20.6 15.1 .3 99.7 The study therefore concludes that a large majority of Oakland County principals believe that collective bargaining has not helped principals to be more effective. 200 TABLE l49.-—Total responses of principals to the statement: Collective bargaining has improved the morale of principals 1 SA A u D so ; Total Number 2 11 53 170 § 54 i‘290 Percentage .6 3.7 18.2 58.6 1 18.6 j 99.7 The study therefore concludes that a vast majority of Oakland County principals believe that collective bargaining has not improved the moral. of principals. TABLE 150.--Total responses of principals to the question: Who do you think gained the most from collective bargaining in your particular school district? The children . The teachers The administrators The Board of Education None of the above monw> + A A ; A B 1 c 3 D . E i Total 4 -_ t 1 . ‘ Number 1 S 244 4 2 ‘ 32 287 Percentage i 1.7 85.0 1.3 .6 1 11.1 99.7 The study therefore concludes that a vast majority of Oakland County principals believe the teachers gained the most from collective bargaining in their particular school district. 201 TABLE 151.--Tota1 responses of principals to the question: Since the date your school district signed a master con- tract with the professional staff, how would you best des- cribe communications between you and your teaching staff? A. Improved communications B. No change C. More difficult to communicate A B J C i Total Number 26 173 87 287 Percentage 9.0 60.2 , 30.3 7 99.5 The study therefore concludes that a large majority of Oakland County principals believe that there has been no change in communications between principal and staff since the date the school district signed the master contract. TABLE 152.--Total responses of principals to the question: Which of the following would you most like to see happen? A. Complete repeal of the public employees collective bargaining law B. Modification of the collective bargaining law to give Boards of Education more power C. Enactment of a new law providing for binding arbitration when an impasse between bargaining parties occurs 0. Provisions for public employees to have the right to strike E. None of the above A B C D E Total Number 23 64 85 “2 110 284 Percentagg_ 8.0 22.5 29.9 .7 38.7 99.8 The study concludes that the responses of Oakland County principals to this question are such that no conclusions can be made. 202 TABLE 153.--Total responses of principals to the question: Which of the following best describes your role as the instructional leader in your building since the master contract has been in effect? A. 1 have more influence over people and programs B. I have less influence over people and programs C. I have more influence over people and less influence over programs 0. I have less influence over people and more influence over programs E. I see no change A B C D E Total Number 3 99 4 12 170 288 Percentage 1.0 34.1 1.3 4.1 58.6 99.1 The study therefore concludes that a large majority of Oakland County principals believe that there has been no change in their role as the instructional leader since the master contract as been in effect. TABLE 154.--Total responses of principals to the question: Compared to the other kinds of concerns that you have faced this past year as principal, how would you best describe collective bargaining? A. My greatest concern B. One of several equally important concerns C. I don't know 0. Of little or no concern to me “0*". 4 A B C D Total Number 1 1s 4 227 20 29 291 Percentage 4 5.1 ’ 77.7 6.8 9.9 99.5 The study therefore concludes that a vast majority of Oakland County principals believe that collective bargaining is one of several equally important educational concerns. 203 Discussion The stated purpose of this study was to determine what significant relationship, if any, exists between selected demographic variables and the attitudes of school principals in Oakland County. Each of these demographic variables have been carefully analyzed in earlier sections. As the reader knows by now, not many of these variables were found to be significant. The first variable to be tested was the one that was perhaps the most significant. In 8 of 22 tests, male and female principals differed significantly in their attitudes relative to collective bargaining. This suggests that any one attempting to consider reasons why principals think or behave in a given manner concerning collective bargaining might do well to recognize that male and female principals have in at least one study differed significantly. This study was not directional, but it might be appropriate to note that where ever there was a significant difference between male and female principals, the female tended to be less in sympathy with teacher collective bargaining where as the male principals tend to respond in a manner that suggests attitudes of support for teacher collective bargaining. The second variable was length of administrative experience. Be- hind the inclusion of this variable in the study was a significant question. The study sought to discover if long-term principals who have worked for many years in a given manner would have attitudes concerning collective bargaining that differed significantly from those individuals 204 who had been a principal for a shorter length of time; Not one of the 22 tests showed any significant relationship between the number of years individuals have been a principal and their attitudes concerning collective bargaining. The third variable sought to determine if there was a relationship between age of principals and their attitudes concerning collective bargaining. In 6 of the 22 tests, significant relationships were found between age categories of Oakland County principals and their attitudes concerning collective bargaining. As previously stated, all hypotheses were non-directional, however, it did appear that where ever a relation- ship did exist, the younger principals tended to be more supportive of collective bargaining whereas the older principals tended to respond in a manner that suggested less support and less sympathy for teacher collective bargaining. It is very interesting to note that there was no relationship between the amount of administrative experience of Oakiand County principals and their attitudes concerning collective bargaining, yet there was a relationship in 6 out of 22 tests between age categories of Oakland County principals and their attitudes concerning collective bargaining. The reason for this was not discovered by the study. The fourth variable sought to determine if elementary and secondary principals in Oakland County differ in their attitudes concerning col- 1ective bargaining. The question behind this variable was built on the belief that since elementary schools tend to be smaller in size, have 205 different types of teachers, different programs, and have principals with different training (elementary vs. secondary certification) that their attitudes relative to collective bargaining might reflect this difference. Not one of the 22 tests showed any significant relationship between the level of administrative responsibility and attitudes of Oakland County principals concerning collective bargaining. This result was rather interesting for most educators consulted prior to the study felt elementary and secondary principals would have some differences in their attitudes concerning collective bargaining. The chi squares that were computed for these 22 tests were all very small which further points out the fact that there was very little difference if any between elementary and secondary principals concerning their attitudes relative to collective bargaining. The fifth variable sought to determine if Oakland County princijhls who attended workshops and/or meetings relative to collective bargaining would have the same attitudes concerning collective bargaining as those Oakland County principals who did not attend such workshops or meetings. Behind this variable was the belief that since this was a new law with many new procedures for school districts, those who were knowledgeable or “had at least some understanding of the law, might have different attitudes about collective bargaining from those principals who knew very little or nothing about the law. Not one of the 22 tests revealed any significant relationships between attendance-nonattendance of Oakland County principals at collective bargaining workshops and/or meetings and their attitudes concerning collective bargaining. 206 The sixth variable sought to determine if Oakland County principalb who were part of the Board of Education Negotiating Team would have the same attitudes concerning collective bargaining as those Oakland County principals who were not part of the negotiating teams. This question was explored because the literature in the field of group dynamics seems to suggest that people involved in the decision-making process often are more receptive to change than those who are not involved. The concept behind this variable was based on the premise that principals who were actually part of the negotiating team might have different attitudes simply because they were part of the decision-making process. In only 3 of the 22 tests were significant relationships found between membership-nonmembership on the Board of Education Negotiating teams of Oakland County principals and their attitudes concerning col- lective bargaining. It is interesting to note that even though the study selected a rather low significance level of .01, that the results do not change greatly when the significance level is raised. At .01 the study found on}?' 17 tests to be significant. This is out of a possible 132 tests. By changing the significance level to .05 we have a total of 21 tests that are significant. By increasing the significance level to .10 there are only a total of 30 tests that are significant. Thus, the study concludes that even if another level of significance were selected, the results of the study would not be changed significantly. 207 In addition to the foregoing variables the study was interested in the attitudes of all Oakland County principals concerning collective bargaining. Based on the findings the study concludes that Oakland County principals as a group do not feel that collective bargaining is especially harmful or detrimental to education. They do tend to have some serious questions however, about the impact of collective bargaining on the role of the principal but even these responses in general are not overly negative. A careful review of these responses may be found in the first part of this chapter. It should be noted that only six principals who returned the completed questionnaires added any written comments. This is rather interesting for as the reader will note, the questionnare invited comments. It is difficult to guess why more did not comment, but this fact may be of considerable interest to future studies. -.~. 'H 08 Implications for Future Research Chapter II of this study points out that very little has been written concerning the role of the principal in collective bargaining. This study has revealed some interesting facts in that the demographic variables selected for this study did not prove to be especially sig- nificant. This suggests that additional research needs to be done. If these demographic variables have no particular relationship to the atti- tudes that principals in Oakland County have concerning collective bar- gaining then other factors must be contributing to these attitudes. If we are to have any meaningful measure of explanation as to why principals think in a given way concerning collective bargaining, other variables are going to be considered. It might prove véry interesting to examine the psychological reasons why principals feel the way they do about collective bargaining. In addition to psychological variables other variables should be considered. One such study might be an analysis of the attitudes of principals in Michigan concerning collective bargaining compared with the attitudes of principals in other states where collective bargaining has not become the way of life for all of the public school teachers in the state. Several concepts relative to this study should be recognized by the educational community: A. Additional research needs to be completed relative to public employee collective bargaining. B. This is a complex topic and the attitudes of principals concerning this topic may be in continual flux. «Al? C. Quality education demands that we know more about the impact of collective bargaining on education and educators. D. The excellent response of principals in Oakland County to this study suggests a great deal of interest in this topic. B. Part or all of the questionnaire used in this study might be replicated elsewhere to measure differences in attitudes between geographic localities. F. This questionnaire might be replicated at a later date in Oakland County to determine if the attitudes of Oakland County principals have changed with time. By knowing more about this topic the educational community may be able to control factors that might be detrimental to effective education for children. 210‘ Discussion of the Problem The writer of this dissertation is presently a school superintendent. In this position he has been involved in extensive negotiations with his professional staff over the past year. Because of this practical experience and research that has gone into this dissertation over the past year and the extensive reading that he has completed relative to collective bargaining, he would like to make some recommendations. These recommendations are influenced by the above factors but are basically his own personal opinion. 1. He would recommend that the people of the state of Michigan prepare themselves for a considerable amount of conflict which will increase in tempo over the next few years. This conflict will basically be a matter of teachers fighting with Boards of Education and even the communities if the communities are reluctant‘to‘vote additional taxes to be used for teacher salaries. He would recommend that other states who are considering some type of legislation concerning collective bargaining for teachers, pause and give carefu1 thought as to‘the type of it legislation which would best meet the needs of the educational environment. The standard labor law route which Michigan has chosen may not be the best type of legislation for the educational community. 3. .211 He would recommend that Boards of Education and school superintendents place greater emphasis, by sincere actions, on the concept that principals are in fact an important part of the management team. He would recommend that school districts give careful thought to the possibility of the Board of Education hiring a full time negotiator to represent the Board of Education during negotiations. The demands that negotiations place on the superintendent are such that his time and effective- ness will be drastically reduced if he is going to remain the chief negotiator for the Board of Education. He would recommend that school districts consider sensitivity training for all school administrators. Since apparently there is little reason to believe that demographic variables which were part of this study had much influence on the attitudes of principals concerning collective bargaining, perhaps there needs to be understanding on the part of each school administrator as to why he feels the way he does about collective bargaining. Sensitivity training may help accom- plish this goal. 212 6. He would recommend that teachers, administrators, and the Board of Education work together carefully to see if there are ways by which communications can be improved. Improved communications may help prevent some of the misunderstandings which often lead to conflict. 7. He would suggest that the colleges and universities give a better understanding to fUture teachers and future adminis- trators through expanded course work as to the real essence of collective bargaining for public employees. Many of the current problems may well be due to lack of previous exposure on the part of all parties to collective bargaining concepts. Public employee collective bargaining is a fairly recent development within the labor movement. As in all other areas of our society which has undergone the organization of employees into collective bargaining units, there will be periods of conflict and unrest. Given enough time and understanding however, the collective bargaining process will settle down to a workable and meaningful process. The writer believes that education. will untimately benefit from the collective bargaining process. 213 MarCh 1967 Dear Principal: This questionnaire is being given to every Public School Principal in Oakland County, Michigan. The purpose of the questionnaire is to gather data con- cerning the attitudes of principals relative to public employee collective bargaining. This is not a test of your knowledge or skill. This is a method by which we hope to gain some insight as to just how principals feel concerning this topic. Please note that we do not wish your name on the question- naire. Information and responses will not be identified with individuals. Your anonymity will be carefully protected. This questionnaire is designed so that you merely check the appropriate response that best describes your feelings concern- ing each question. Please read each question carefully. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, /S/George G. Garver QUESTIONNAIRE Please check. 1. /"7 Male 2. "7 \ How long have you been a principal? 1. [j 2. [_‘7 3. /__ 4. [:7 s. /"7 Female Less than two years 2 to 7 years 8 to 13 years 14 to 19 years 20 or more years Please check your age. 1. [:7 2. 1_ 3. 1:7 4 E s /__ Your present responsibility involves which of the following? 1. 2. I11] 3. / 7 Combined responsibility (i.e., 4-8, etc.) During the past eighteen months have you attended any of the state or area meetings or workshops which discussed collective bargaining or Under 30 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 or over Elementary Principal Secondary Principal professional negotiations? \l l. / 2.217 Yes No 214 (Include the current school year.) \Vere you or are you currently a member of the negotiating team for your Board of Education? 1. / / Yes 3 / No \ Please check the box that best describes your feelings concerning each statement. Strongly Dis- Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain ggree Disagree H \ .::7- [__/ [__/ / 7 / / Collective bargaining ls good for public education [_7 F7 //’ l‘o \ \ \ \ Collective bargaining has not been good for my school district. \ \ \ \I \ \l \ \| Teacher militancy is good for education. 01 _:7 _ __ Teacher strikes are detri- mental for education. 3 \ \ \l \ \I \ \l \ \I / U1 \ \ \ \l \ \ \ \ |\ The competition between the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers will be good for public education. 0) \ \ \ \ \ \ l:| \ \l Because of collective bargain» ing, my role as principal has been easier. The Michigan Federations of Teachers is helping to im- prove public education \1 \ \ \ \ \ \l 1:! \ \I 8- / / / / / 7 / / The Michigan Education Asso- ciation is not helping to improve public education 9. / / / / / / / / /_—7' The professional attitudes of teaChers have improved because of collective bar- gaining. lO. / / / / / / / / /"'7 The State Labor Mediation Board has helped improve public education. 216 Strongly Dis- Strongly Agree ‘Agree Uncertain agree Disagree 11. / 7 / 7 / 7 / 7 / 7 Collective bargaining has . improved teacher morale 12. / / / / / 7 / 7 / 7 Grievance procedures will pg£_ be of help to building princip 13. / / / / /_—7' / 7 / / Boards of Education, through collective bargaining, have helped improve the status of principals. 14. /"7 /—7 / '7 / "'7' / '7 It would be a good idea for principals to form collective bargaining units. 15.// /// l l \l D D Principals in my school dis- trict had a great deal to say about the content of the master contract. 16. / / / / / / / / / Collective bargaining has not helped principals to be more effective. 17. / / / / / / / / / / Collective bargaining has improved the morale of principals. Who do you feel gained the most from collective bargaining in your particular school district? (Check only one.) 1. 7::7' The children 2. £:::- The teachers 3 7::7" The administrators 4. 7::7' The Board of Education U1 1\ None of the above M. 217 Since the date your school district signed a master contract with the professional staff, how would you best describe communications between you and your staff? 1. / —7' Improved communications 2. / / No change 3. / / More difficult to communicate Which of the following would you most like to see happen? (Check one only.) 1. / / Complete repeal of the public employees collective bargaining law 2 / / Modification of the collective bargaining law to give Boards of Education more power. 3 / / Enactment of'a new law providing for binding arbitration when an impasse between bargaining parties occurs. 4. / / Provisions for public employees to have the right to strike. 5. / / None of the above. Which of the fellowing best describes your role as the instructional leader in your building since the master contract has been in effect? 1. 1::7' 1 have more influence over people and programs. 2. 7::7- I have less influence over people and programs. 3. 7::7. I have more influence over people and less influence over programs. 4. 1::7' I have less influence over people and more influence over programs. 5. /__7' I see no change. Compared to the other kinds of concerns that you have faced this past year as principal, how would you best describe collective bargaining? l. 7::7' My greatest concern. 2. 7::7' One of several equally important concerns. 3. _;::7 I don't know. 4. [—77, Of little or no concern to me. Comments: 218 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books American Association of School Administrators. Roles, Responsibilities, Relationships of the School Board, Superintendent, and Staff. Washington, D.C.: The American Association of School Admin- istrators, 1963. American Association of School Administrators. School Administrators View Professional Negotiation. Washington, D.C.: The American Association of School Administrators, 1966. Chamberlain, Neil W. and Kuhn, J.W., Collective Bargaining: New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965. Cogen, Charles. Normal_Collective Bar aining Procecedures ys. Spgcial Procedures for Teachers. Chicago, 111.: American Federation of Teachers, 1966. Epstein, Benjamin. The Principal's Role in Collective Nggptiations Between Teachers and School Boards. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1965. Holland, Ann. Unions are Here to Stay: A Guide for Employee-Mangggment Relationsiin the Federal Service. ’Pamphlet No. 17. Washington: Society for Personnel Administration, 1962. Law, Kenneth L., Melley, Kenneth F., Mondani, Thomas P., and Sandler, James P. The Manual for Teacher Negotiation. Windsor, Conn.: Educator's Press. 1966. Lieberman, Myron. Education agaProfession. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1956. Lieberman, Myron. The Future of Public Education. Chicago: Phoenix Books, University of Chicago Press, 1960. Lieberman, Myron and Moskow, Michael H. Collective Negotiations for Teachers: An Approach to School Administration. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966. 219 Moskow, Michael H. Teachers and Unions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1966. National Education Association. Classroom Teachers Speak on Professional Negotiations. Washington, D.C.: The National Education Association, 1963. National Education Association. Guidelines for Professional Negotiation. Washington, D.C.: The National Education Association, 1963. National Education Association. Professional Negotiation: Selected Statements of School Board, Administrator, Teacher Relationships. 4th. Rev., Washington, D.C.: The National Education Association, 1965. National Education Association. The Public Interest in How Teachers Organize. Washington, D.C.:. The NationaliEducation Association, and American Association of School Administrators, Educational Policies Commission, 1964. Newland, Chester A. Public Employee Unionization in Texas. Austin, Texas: Institute of Public Affairs, University of Texas, 1962. Riegel, John W. Collective Bargaining as Viewed by Unorganized Epgineers and Scientists. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1959. Steffensen, James P. Teachers Negotiate with Their School Boards. Bulletin 40. Washington,;D.C.: U. S. Office of Education, 1964. Stinnett, T. M., Kleinman, Jack H., Ware, Martha L. Professional Negotiation in Public Education. New York: MacMillan Co., 1966. Wollett, Donald H. Professional Negotiations: What Is This Thing? Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1964. 220 Articles and Periodicals American Management Association. "The Foreman In Labor Relations," (Personnel Series Number 87, A.M.A., New York, 1944), p. 1. Anderson, Arvid. ”Disputes Affecting Government Employees." Labor Law Journal, Vol. 10, October 1959. Averill, Walter, Jr. "School Board-Teacher Relationships," Michigan School Board Journal, Vol. 10, November 1963. Barbash, Jack. "Bargaining for Professionals and Public Employees," American Teacher Mggazine, Vol. 43, April 1959. Belasco, James A. "Resolving Disputes Over Contract Terms In The State Public Service, An Analysis," Labor Law Journal, Vol. 16, September 1965 Birnbaum, Elliot. "Who Speaks for Teachers?" I.U.D. Digest, Vol. 7, Summer 1962. Brinker, Paul A. "Recent Trends of Labor Unions in Government,” Labor Law Journal, Vol. 12, January 1961 Brooks, George. "A Case For Teachers Unions," Industrial and Labor Relations Report Card for Social Science Teachers, Vol. 12, November 1963. Chamber of Commerce, "Chamber Sponsorship of Foremen's Clubs and Personnel Executives' Clubs," (Labor Relations Department, C. of C. of the United States, Washington, D. C.) p. 1 Cherry, Howard L. "Negotiations Between Boards and Teacher Organizations," The American School Board Journal, March 1963. Clapp, Gordon R. "Problems of Union Relations in Public Agencies," American Economic Review, Vol. 33, March 1943. Cohany, Harry P. and Neary, H. James. "Collective Bargaining Agreements In the Federal Service," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 88, August 1965. 221 Cohen, Frederick. "Legal Aspects of Unionization Among Public Employees," Temple Law Quarterly, Vol. 30, Winter 1957. "Collective Bargaining for Teachers?" The Nations Schools, Vol. 68, July 1961 Detroit Free Press, December 1, 1966. Detroit Free Press, February 5, 1967 Donovan, B. E., Anderson, A” Cogen C. and Wolpert, A. ”Collective Bargaining vs. Professional Negotiations," School Management. Vol. 9, November 1965. Elam, Stanley, "The NBA-AFT Rivalry," Phi Delta Kappan, ILVI, September 1964. Elam, Stanley, "Teacher's Unions: Rift Without Differences," Nation, Vol. 201, October 18, 1965 Exton, Elaine. "NSBA Opposes Teachers' Strikes and Sanctions," The American School Board Journal, Vol. 146, June 1963. Gray, Robert D. and Lloyd, John T. "Supervision of Scientific and Engineering Personnel," (Industrial Relations Section, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Bulletin Number 26, 1956) p. 64. Gross, Calvin. "Ways to Deal with the New Teacher Militancy," Phi Delta Kappan, XLVI December 1964. Guides for Supervision. (Employee Development Division, Office of Personnel, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., August 1963) p. 11. Harper, Dean. "Labor Relations in the Postal Service," Industriai and Labor Relations Review, April 1964. Herrick, H. T. "Unions for Government Employees: Their Implications," Conference on Labor; New York University: Proceedings, No. 15, New York 1962. Jordon, K. Forbis. "Who Shall Be The Effective Voice for American Teachers?" The American School Board Journal, July 1963. Klass, Irwin. "The New Breed of Teacher." American Federationist, Vol. 69, November 1962 222 Klein, Lawrence R. "The NBA Convention and the Organizing of Teachers,” Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 87, August 1965. Lieberman, Myron. "Teacher Strikes: Acceptable Strategy?" Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 46, January 1965. Moskow, MiChael. "Recent Legislation Affecting Collective Negotiations For Teachers," Phi Delta Kappan, ILVII November 1965. Moskow, Michael. "Collective Bargaining for Public School Teachers,” Labor Law Journal, Vol. 15, December 1964. "Next Big Stop: Upgrade Supervisors," Nations Business, (Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Washington, D.C., August 1959) p.13 Noland, Loretta R. and Hall, James T. "Strikes of Government Employees, 1942-61," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 86, January 1963 Nolte, M.C. "Teachers Face Boards of Education Across the Bargaining Table Legally," American School Board Journal, Vol. 150, June 1965. Northrup, Herbert R. and Rowan, Richard L. "Arbitration and Collective Bargaining: An Analysis of State Experience," Labor Law Journal, Vol. 14, February 1963 Parker, Hyman. "Role of the Michigan Labor Mediation Board in Public Employee Labor Disputes," Labor Law Journal, Vol. 10, September 1959. Perry, Charles R. and Wildman, Wesley. "A Survey of Collective Activity Among Public School Teachers," Educational Administration Qparterly, (University Council for Educational Administration, Ohio State University,) Vol. 2, No. 2., Spring 1966. Principals Press, November 1966, Vol. IX, No. 1, Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals, Region VIII. Radke, Mrs. Fred A. "Real Significance of Collective Bargaining for Teachers," Labor Law Journal, Vol. 15, December 1964. Roach, S.P. "Collective Bargaining," School Management, Vol. 10 March 1966. Segal, Melvin J. ”Grievance Procedures for Public Employees," Labor Law Journal, Vol. 9, December 1958. Selden, Silver, Starie, Stumpf, 223 David, "Principals - The Real Men in the Middle," American Teacher, (A.F.T. Chicago, November 1366). Richard. "Collective Bargaining with Public Employees," Personnel Administration, Vol. 22, January-February 1959. John H. and Spatafora, Jack. "Union or Professional Membership: A Matter of Philosophy and Program,” Industrial and Labor Relations Report Card for Social Science Teachers, Vol. 12 November 1963. W. A. "New World of Education Administration; Teacher Militancy," American School Board Journal, Vol. 158, February 1966. Ten Eyck, Allan. "Principals on the Negotiating Team," The Michigan Elementary Principal, January 1967. The American Federation of Teachers: What It-Wants; How It Bargains; Where It's Headed," School Managgment, VIII, February 1964. Wildman, Wesley A. "Collective Action by Public School Teachers," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 18, October 1964. 224 Other Sources Block, Ralph. ”The Composition of the Board of Education Negotiating Team," a study currently underway for Dr. Stanley Hecker of Michigan State University College of Education. Craft, A. C. Leadership Development Among;Foremen and Supervisors, (An address given before the California Management Association, Published by Research Division, California Personnel Manage- ment Association, Berkeley, California, 1951) P. 10 Epstein, Benjamin. A Principal Does Some Soul-Searching In The New Era of Collective Negotiations. A speech given to the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals at their annual convention held in Detroit, Michigan. December 1 G 2, 1966. Gray, Robert D. Fantasies and Facts In Sppervision, (Paper presented to a group session of the Division of Transportation during the 3rd annual meeting of the American Petroleum Institute in the Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco, California, November 14, 1955. Michigan, General School Laws, Section 423.215. Newton, T. G. Barriers to Leadership on the Foremen's Part, (Industrial Relations Conference, University of Michigan, November 1953). p. 2-6 Olsen, Kenneth William. "Professional Expectation Fulfillment and Preception Formation Among High School Teachers and Principals," (unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,Department of Education, Michigan State University, 1966). Thorne, Irene. "Collective Negotiation: A Survey and Analysiswgf. Teacher Group Collective Negotiation Contracts With School Boards." (unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Teachers College Columbia University, 1961). U. 5. Government, Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Section 8(D).