COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS IN EDUCATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CURRICULUM DECISION~MAKING PROCESS ' Thesis for the Degree of ‘Ed. D. _ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY " f j. GEORGE HENRY RICHARDS 1971 This is to certify that the thesis entitled COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS IN EDUCATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CURRICULUM DECISION- MAKING PROCESS ‘ presented by George Henry Richards has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed .D degree in M Date 11]].1/71 0-7639 1.... ABSTRACT COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS IN EDUCATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CURRICULUM DECISION-MAKING PROCESS BY George H. Richards The Purpose This study was designed to develop a curriculum decision-making process that can operate within the framework of collective negotiations. Basic postulates of collective negotiations and decision—making were identified through the analysis and synthesis of collec- tive negotiations and decision-making literature. Propo- sitions were developed that have implications for the curriculum decision-making process. Design and Methodology of the Study The major sources of information employed in this study were sought in (1) existing literature, (2) observa- tions in school settings culled from empirical experi- ences, and (3) conversations and dialogues with educators and labor relations personnel. The technique used is a combination of the histori- cal, documentary and analytical methodology which consists George H. Richards of researching and synthesizing materials in the areas of collective negotiations and curriculum decision-making. The synthesis of ideas and principles in these areas was used to form propositions essential for the development of a conceptual framework for a curriculum decision-making process that could function under the collective negotiation process. Propositions of Collective Negotiations in the Curriculum Decision-Making Process l. Collective negotiations needs conflict adversarylsituations which are incompatible with the curriculum decision-making process. Collective negotiations will act as a divi- sive agent in the curriculum decision-making process and the educational profession. Collective negotiations of curriculum and instruction is anathema to cooperative curri- culum decision-making. Collective negotiations will cause the development of new and separate organizations in education. Collective negotiations will cause teachers to exhibit behavior that is a direct contradiction to the stated goals of our educational program as it relates to proper attitudes and values basic to our democratic way of life. 10. 11. 12. 13. George H. Richards Through collective negotiations the development and growth of a new pyramidial, hierarchical, 'bureaucratic structure, within the professional organization, parallel to the school organiza- tion, will subordinate the individual to its imperatives and ignore the proper interests of the minority. Collective negotiations will cause a shift in power (decision-making) from the administration to the teacher in the curriculum decision—making process. Collective negotiations will change the legal organizational structure of education to involve the teachers in decision-making. Collective negotiations will cause the centrali- zation of the curriculum decision-making process. Collective negotiations could retard the introduction of new technologies or courses. Collective negotiations will eliminate com- plete freedom of choice by either the admin- istrators or teachers in the curriculum decision-making process. Collective negotiations may cause a standardi— zation of curriculum which will discourage creative and original thought. Collective negotiations will force the formu- lation of a completely new model of curriculum decision-making. George H. Richards The organizational model proposed has a research and development council which has as its primary function the development, evaluation and review of innovative curriculum and instructional matters. The members of this council would not be involved in collective negotia- tions. The Research and Development Council would be com- posed of four (4) appropriate teachers appointed by the Association, four (4) administrators appointed by the Superintendent, four (4) citizens selected from the community, one of whom might be a member of the board of education, and four (4) students selected by the entire student body. In this model, the teachers are represented by both their building principal, who is a member of the Administrative Council and by their elected building representative who sits on the Representative Council. Therefore, teachers can obtain educational change by working through either school or association channels. Recommendations of the Research and Development Council will be made to the superintendent of schools who in turn can make recommendations to the board of education, which traditionally has had the final decision. The one thing that collective negotiation may have taught us in education is that the board of education should not have unilateral power in decisions on educational matters in the profession. The board should ultimately review and George H. Richards set policy. In case of rejection, the issue can be returned to the Research and Development Council where the teacher representatives have the right to submit the curricular proposal to the local association negotiators through their president or executive officer and such an issue could then be negotiated through the regular nego- tiation process. It could also be possible for an issue to be referred directly to the negotiation process. This decision-making process will give the teacher the right of consultative power, which is as it should be, and yet not hamstring the administration by taking away their executive power. Teachers should have consultative power in curriculum decision—making, but not executive power and authority. Some advantages of the organizational model for curriculum decision—making would be: First, curriculum policy decisions would have thorough review by several groups. Secondly, there would be an increased commitment for implementation on the part of those who have got to make policies work anyway. If teachers participate in making of policy, action in the classroom would be coordinated with decisions made on the policy level. Third, an area of system cooperation and communication would be established which is outside the polarization of collective behavior, welfare issues and the like. Fourth, research and development councils will add to the dignity of teaching and to the professional stature of those in George H. Richards the profession. Fifth, teachers will understand and help to create the schools position as well as their associa- tion position on all issues. And last, professional organizations will be prevented from having to develop an administrative hierarchy that may become unresponsive to teacher needs. Furthermore, balance and competition between the two channels of communication and decision- making will improve their mutual functioning. Some of the limitations of the organizational model would be: First, it is an evolving organization, an organization that will have to be adapted and changed as the decision-making processes become more or less formalized. Second, the model does not give a complete representation to the informal groups within the commun- ity, the school or the teachers. Third, it could lead to a duplication of effort in that a dual type of organization structure could well develop which would stymie the creativity of the teacher. Fourth, it could fit the teacher into dual vertical roles of hierarchy and chain of command. Fifth, the professionals do not know enough about learning and instruction to design and plan desired changes and reform, thus such an organization could well perpetuate the status quo. COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS IN EDUCATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CURRICULUM DECISION-MAKING PROCESS BY George Henry Richards A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1971 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank Dr. Charles A. Blackman, Committee Chairman, for his guidance, support and patience in the writing of this study. Each member of the committee gave generously of his time and concern. Dr. Dale Alam in Curriculum, Dr. Richard Featherstone in Administration, and Dr. Christopher Sower in Sociology. Finally, the author is indebted to his wife, Gladys, for keeping home a happy place. And last the patience and cooperation of Maryette and Susan, deserve special praise from their grateful father. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF CHARTS O O C O O O O O O O O C 0 Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . Need for the Study. . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . Background of the Study . . . . . . The Changing Teacher . . . . . . The Changing Board of Education. . . Pressures through Negotiations . . . Negotiations and Systematic Changes . Design and Methodology of the Study . . Assumptions Underlying the Study . . . SCOpe and Limitations of the Study . . COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS. . . . . . . Historical Deve10pment of Collective Negotiations . . . . . . . . . The Collective Negotiation Process . . The Structure of Collective Negotiations Legal Status of Collective Negotiations. Collective Negotiations and Profession- alism . . . . . . . . . . . The Politics of Collective Negotiations. The Economics of Collective Negotiations The SCOpe of Collective Negotiations. . Organizational Positions on Collective Negotiations . . . . . . . . . Education and Collective Negotiations . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . Historical Development of Decision- Making in Public Schools . . . . . Decision-Making in Administration and Organization . . . . . . . . . The Decision-Making Process. . . . The Social and Political ASpects of Educational Decision-Making . . . . iii Page ii 18 22 26 28 30 38 41 43 49 52 58 60 60 63 69 72 Chapter The Economics of Educational Decision-Making . . . . . . . . The Role of Authority in Decision- Making . . . . . . . . . . . Professionalism and Educational Decision-Making . . . . . . . . Curriculum Decision-Making in Education. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . IV. THE ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF THE POSTULATES OF COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS AND CURRICULUM DECISION-MAKING. . . . . . Postulates of Collective Negotiations . Classification and Function of Collective Negotiation Postulates . . Negative Postulates . . . . . . . The Postulates of Curriculum Decision- Making . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . V. IMPLICATIONS OF COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS TO THE CURRICULUM DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. Review of Processes Used in the Study . Part I--Propositions of Collective Negotiations with Implications for the Curriculum Decision-Making Process. . Disruptive Propositions of the Collective Negotiation Process with Implications for the Curriculum Decision-Making Process . . . . Collective Negotiations as a Change Agent with Implications for the Curriculum Decision-Making Process. Part II--Emergent Models of Curriculum Decision-Making through Collective Negotiations. . . . . . . . . Proposed Conceputal Framework Organiz- tional Model for Curriculum Decision- Making Under Collective Negotiations. PartIII--Recommendations for Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv Page 82 84 87 90 98 101 101 104 109 117 132 135 135 137 139 147 155 160 170 173 Chart II. III. IV. LIST OF CHARTS Legal Authority Structure for Educational Decisions in Michigan. . . . . . A Flow Chart on Decision-Making in Education. . . . . . . . . . Functions of Collective Negotiation Postulates in the Curriculum Decision- Making Process . . . . . . . . Emergent Conceptual Framework Organiza- tional Model for Curriculum Decision Making Under Collective Negotiations. Page 62 78 105 163 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION What happens in and to the public schools of America happens to America.1 What happens in and to the curriculum in the public schools of America happens to American society. The greatest of all sciences is the science of decision-making.2 Statements like these point out the value and responsibilities that American society has placed on the public schools and its curriculum. One of the dominant characteristics of modern American society is change, a factor that no individual, no group, and no institution can escape. It is vital to education and its curriculum that these changes be analyzed and their implications be determined. We are at the threshold of a revolution in education a revolution which will alter lRoles, Responsibilities, Relationships of the School Board, Superintendent, and StaffIYWashington, D. C.: AmeriCan Association of School Administrators, 1963), p. 3. 2D. Elton Trueblood, "Deciding for the Difficult," in Education for Decision, ed. by Frank E. Gachelein and gihers (New York: The Seabury Press, Inc., 1963), pp. -42. drastically every important aspect of education as~a social institution and as a profession. One of these changes is the drive by teachers to participate in decision-making through the collective negotiation decision-making process. Teachers, through collective negotiations, are rejecting the previous bureaucratic decision-making processes and are using the powerful weapon of collective negotiations to challenge these previous processes. Myron Lieberman was among the first to advocate cOllective negotiations in education as one means of bringing about significant change. He identified the primary cause of American educational ineffectiveness as being, "rooted in its anachronistic and dysfunctional power structure."4 Present policies, rules and procedures as well as the literature are not clear as to what implications collective negotiations will have after wages, hours and working conditions have been negotiated. It is felt by some that curriculum will not be an issue but Bishop feels that, ”once wages, hours, benefits, 3 . . Myron Lieberman, The Future of Public Education (Phoenix Books, 6th ed; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 1. 4Ibid., p. 5. and rights are established curriculum and instruction will become the next logical area in which to move."5 The issue is whether a topic is a working condi— tion (condition of employment) or a matter of "educational policy." Educational policy is rarely defined; in some cases, the definition seems to be whatever the board and administration does not wish to negotiate. Presently in Michigan many curriculum issues are being negotiated under the broad interpretation of working conditions. Need for-the Study If collective negotiations are to bring about meaningful change in education a need exists to analyze the implications of collective negotiations for the curriculum decision-making process. Wildman and Perry make this observation on what is needed in the research of collective negotiations: We need more analysis of specific collective negotiation relationships between boards of education and teacher groups which weigh both the utilities and disutilities that must inhere in every such relationship. We need them to guide us in making a judgment as to what the impact of collective negotiations and all it implies will be on the school system, conceived as an institution of client-centered profes- sionals offering services to a public constituency.6 5Leslee J. Bishop, Collective Negotiations in Curri- guigm and Instruction, Questions and CongernsTWashington, D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop— ment, National Education Association, 1967). P. 4. 6Wesley A. Wildman and Charles R. Perry, "Group Conflict and School Organization," Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. XLVI, No. 5 (January, 1966), p. 251. Bishop raises some very pertinent questions: Is not a criterion necessary to determine what shall not be negotiated; or better, what curri— culum categories, if any, lend themselves most appropriately to negotiation and which are better handled by other processes? If each issue must be resolved as it arises, with no modifications of the process or the context, what does this mean for subsequent support and review? Can a particular curricular issue, even if negotiated successfully, be maintained with- out a support system of program, policy, and procedure? Should not process, not program, then be the more likely subject for negotiations in curriculum and instruction?7 These questions make very apparent the need for the study of the implications of collective negotiations for the curriculum decision-making process. Purpose of the Study This study is designed to develop a curriculum decision-making process that can operate within the frame- work of collective negotiations. Basic postulates of collective negotiations and decision—making will be identified through the analysis and synthesis of collec- tive negotiations and decision-making literature. Propo- sitions will be developed that have implications for the curriculum decision-making process. Definition of Terms The following terms have significance for educa- tors concerned with collective negotiations and decision- making: 7Bishop, op. cit., p. 6. l. Collective negotiations is a process by which teachers as a group and their boards of education or representatives make offers and counter offers in good faith on the conditions of their employment relationship for the purpose of reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. (Sometimes called professional negotiations or collective bargaining.) 2. Curriculum is all the experiences which are planned and sponsored for learners by the school. 3. Decision-makinggprocess is construed to mean not only the decision, but also the way in which decisions are reached, the acts neces- sary to put the decision into operation, and the implications of the decision upon the social institution. Background of the Study No aspect of education is changing more rapidly than that of employer-employee relations. A vertiable revolution is occurring, the consequences of which are only dimly understood, even by those involved. The introduction of the concept of collective negotiations to education has temporarily, and perhaps permanently, polarized some components within the system. The acceptance, on the part of teachers' organizations, of the labor-management model has been divisive and has tended to magnify the differences existing between adminis- trators and teachers. The Changing Teacher For years teachers were characterized as "little old ladies" who "dearly loved children." Many changes have been made recently in the teaching population; more young men have entered the field of teaching; the average age of teachers has markedly declined; more married women are engaged in teaching; and all of these changes have resulted in a teaching population much more sensitive to the environmental changes surrounding it. No longer are teachers willing to accept the typical rations doled out by conservative boards of education. No longer will they accept treatment which is perceived as subprofessional. Another factor contributing to the changing behavior has resulted from changes in the nature of teachers' work. The past two decades have seen massive strides made in the reduction of the number of small, inefficient school districts. The consolidation of school districts has resulted in increasing their size and simultaneously increasing the impersonal nature of the operation. Teachers are no longer as easily identified nor are they as subject to the subtle pressures of the local church, the local woman's club and the local athletic boosters. Increasing size and its attendant anonymity have made teaching groups more prone to flex their muscles without fear of retribution. The adoption of tenure laws to protect teachers from the vagaries of unprofessional school boards has also served as a strengthening factor in the negotiation position of the teacher. With modern communication, the economic injustices between various wage earning groups is constantly pointed out. Teachers find themselves with increasing hours of work, increasingly long school years, increasing require- ments for summer study, and increasing economic demands brought about by families living in an affluent society. Simultaneously teachers are made aware that the growth of their financial capacities is not keeping pace with those of other groups. What is the underlying or ultimate significance for curriculum of this so-called changing teacher? Donald Wollert, formerly a professor of education and now an attorney practicing labor law and acting as counsel to the National Education Association, had this to say: Since much of the overt resitiveness of teachers has centered on salary and other monetary issues, it may be argued that a dramatic improvement in school financing will bring an abrupt halt to the teacher revolution. Although money is a powerful palliative for employee discontent, the soundness of the argument is doubtful. The clamor and press of teachers for more money is real, but it is often more sympotomatic than causative. Teachers do not, in my experience, have a signifi- cant or meaningful voice in determining course content or selecting textbooks. Often they are not free to make their lesson plans or modify them if they do not produce good classroom responses. Teachers have, in short a kind of one-dimensional professionalism--professional responsibility with- out professional authority. Since salary increases are a tangible and appeal- ing objective, teachers usually mobilize around a money program as the central pivot for building an effective and cohesive local organization. But their underlying motive is the quest for power. School boards will be forced to relinquish their traditional control over salary and other poli- cies affecting working conditions and increas— ingly will be compelled, under the pressure of local teacher organizations, to share authority to determine educational policies.8 In contrast, Lieberman and Moskow seem to discount the "revolutionality" of the teacher movement. They emphasize that the appropriate and probable future role of the teacher organization is similar to the one played by the typical union in private industry; that is, first the bargaining for wages, benefits, and employment condi- tions (rather narrowly defined), and, second, a provision of an essentially protective or "police" function to guarantee that the terms of the collective agreement are observed day-in and day-out by the school administrators. They state that "many administrators and school boards have a fear that teachers want to "take over the system," and collective negotiations are the opening wedge in the effort.' Although there may be individual teachers or organization leaders who have this objective, this fear usually is not warranted. With regard to such matters as curriculum, methodology, and educational priorities, they assert: 8Donald Wollert, "The Coming Revolution in Public School Management," National Education Association Journal. 98:27-30 (December, 1965). The teachers do have an interest and an expertise in these matters. Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to regard them as negotiable in the same sense as working conditions and to embody agreements reached in these areas in a written agreement . . . One would hardly expect or desire that the curriculum, methodology, or educational services be subjected to the pressures that inevitably characterize negotiations over conditions of employment.9 The December 1970 Research Bulletin from the National Education Association gives an indication of the trends collective negotiations are taking: Many negotiation agreements between boards of education and teacher organizations guarantee professional staff participation in curriculum decisions. The structure ranges from joint teacher-administrator committees to develop policy on any matter of common concern, to com- mittees directed to curriculum decision—making. Of the 978 comprehensive agreements effective during the 1968—69 school year in school systems with a pupil enrollment of 1,000 or more, 451 (46.1%) contained one or more provisions directly or indirectly affecting the curriculum decision- making process. While some specific curriculum content was negotiated for specific educational purposes (art, music, physical education, disruptive children, or early childhood education programs), the major emphasis in 1968-69 negotiation agree- ments was u on teacher involvement in curriculum decisions.l Clearly, the revolution Wollett speaks of has begun. The National Education Association has recognized 9Myron Lieberman and Michael H. Moskow. Collective Negotiations for Teachers (Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Company, 1966), p. 228. 10National Education Association, Research Bulletin Vol. 48, No. 4 (December, 1970), pp. 106-108. 10 that negotiations shall include "all matters which affect the quality of the educational program." The Changing Board of Education Just as teachers and groups of teachers have undergone transformation as a result of new thinking about their economic and professional status, so have boards of education been forced to undergo an analysis of the role which they are to play in the operation of public school systems. Boards find themselves bewildered when teachers are no longer automatically accepting the salaries and fringe benefits being offered to them. As with the teach— inggroups, the increasing size of public school systems has also changed the political ground rules for school boards. The kinds of pressures which were effective when the teacher was a neighbor are found to be no longer effective when the teacher lives and teaches in another community. The board also finds itself in a position of being responsible for financing a public school system from tax receipts. As a result boards of education find themselves representing a community very much concerned with operat- ing educational systems at the lowest possible cost. Such a goal is obviously antagonistic to the goals of teachers seeking better salaries. Once a school board begins to negotiate with a teacher organization and tries to hammer out a mutually acceptable employment arrangement, it has already begun 11 to surrender some of its flexibility. That's what collec- tive negotiations is all about. Pressures through Negotiations Michigan law requires local boards of education to participate in negotiations with agents determined by the teachers. The annual individual teachers contract is used by teacher's groups as important strategy with boards of education. Most teacher contracts expire in the spring. If such contracts are not renewed under conditions accept- able to the teacher, they may refuse to enter into the contract. As a result, with the opening of school in September teachers may be without contracts and as such may elect not to begin the school year as professionals. Boards have little recourse as teachers are neither strik- ing nor breaking a contract in force. Thus, the element of time has been used by teacher bargaining units to increase the attention being made to their demands. The local school community is also a source of very real and abiding pressure upon boards. Communities are bewildered and confused with the antagonistic behavior exhibited by teachers who had been docile for many years. Many communities have failed to accept the realities of the times, which are dictating that the powers of the teaching profession shall be increasingly felt throughout the public sector. Because most schools are fiscally dependent upon tax referendums, monies to finance new contractural 12 agreements must be voted for by the population at large. As a result, some communities have had the opportunity to vote down the fiscal resources required to finance contracts which exceeded the desire of a community to pay for educational services. Thus, with a fixed income, boards have found it necessary to redistribute or limit their expenditures so as to meet the financial demands of the teaching group. In Michigan where negotiations are required by law, boards of education have found themselves responsible for conducting bargaining in good faith. Reluctant boards of education which have attempted to delay the progress of the negotiations movement have sometimes been charged either in the courts or by labor mediation boards with unfair labor practices. Such orders may represent new pressures upon boards of education which have removed the boards from the rather isolated roles they once played. Another kind of pressure has also been developed by the National Education Association. When boards have refused to create conditions of employment deemed as professional by the local membership, the national agency has been invited to investigate the conditions. When investigation has upheld the contention of the local teachers group, a sanction has been placed upon the educa- tional agency. 13 Negotiations and Systematic Changes The collective negotiation process has some very distinct potential impacts upon the systemic environ- ment. It is likely to disturb both the political and the economic environments of the system. When the disturbance is too great, a reaction can be expected. One such poli- tical and economic reaction which a community may take is a refusal to fund an over-aggressive program which teachers have succeeded in pressuring through the negotiating pro- cess. Because teachers are unable to negotiate directly with persons who hold power to finance public education such a danger is indeed a reality. As a result, negotia- tions may move from the local to the state level. It is distinctly possible that, should communities refuse to finance negotiated contracts at the local level, teachers' organizations may move to the state level for the negotia— tions of improved state financing. With representative government normally operating at the state level, teachers' organizations may be capable of bypassing a referendum of all people and may succeed in improving the financial lot through increased state appropriation to local school districts. Collective negotiations in education is only part of a larger picture. It is part of the process of social changes. For example, militant activists are not peculiar to education. What is happening in education today is part of a sociological pattern that has resulted from 14 dissatisfaction on the part of some people with the slow, orderly change process that has been characteristic of our society. Efforts to bring about rapid change through forced confrontation, protests, and demonstrations are becoming quite common at many levels of our society. The question is whether these changes will be orderly or disorderly? No single factor will change the operating charac- teristics of American Public school systems during the coming decades more than the outcome of collective nego- tiations across the entire United States. Design and Methodology of the Study The major sources of information employed in this study will be sought in: (1) existing literature, (2) observations in school settings culled from empirical experiences, and (3) conversation and dialogues with educators and labor relations personnel. The technique used is a combination of the histori- cal documentary and analytical methodology which consists of researching and synthesizing materials in the areas of collective negotiations and curriculum decision-making. The synthesis of ideas and principles in these areas will be used to form propositions essential for the development of a conceptual framework for a curriculum decision-making process that could function under the collective negotiation process. 15 Assumptions Underlying the Study The following assumptions are fundamental to the study effort: 1. The collective negotiation decision-making process is present in education and its use will continue to expand. 2. The major responsibility for decision-making in the area of curriculum rightly belongs to the teacher. 3. Collective negotiations is a process that is composed of basic postulates. 4. Curriculum decision-making is a process that is composed of basic postulates. 5. Implications for curriculum decisionnmaking can be drawn from the study of collective negotiations and decision—making. 6. A conceptual framework can be constructed that can function as a curriculum decision- making process under collective negotiations in education. Scope and Limitations of the Study It is intended that this study should be only the beginning of a continuing process. It is essential that the findings, propositions and conceptual framework not become hard and fast restrictions on the organizational pattern of the school, its curriculum and the collective negotiation process, but rather that they be modified, l6 abandoned, or supplanted in anticipation of desirable educational changes. It is not intended that the propositions, and conceptual framework be used to make school comparisons. The study, therefore exhibits no data at the school level. There is no effort to explain present use of a conceptual framework or the many present practices being implemented in schools today. It is hoped that these propositions and the conceptual framework will, in the course of time, lead to voluntary cooperation between schools, agencies and organizations. There has been no attempt to do a full testing of the propositions and conceptual framework here proposed. The search for improved and more valid methods of organiz- ing a curriculum decision-making process to operate under collective negotiations should be a never ending challenge. The study is further limited to experiences in the State of Michigan which operates under the labor model of collective negotiations. This type of research is also limited by the number of personal interviews and the availability of current written information. An attempt was made to offset the biases of the researcher, a former school administrator, by presenting factual data from the literature in the field of study. On the other hand it is the intent of this study to capitalize on the experience of the researcher. CHAPTER II COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS It is evident that employment relations in private employment have exerted considerable influence upon collective negotiations in public education. Thus, in order to profit from these experiences in private employ— ment while simultaneously avoiding invalid analogies, some understanding of the background and development of collec- tive negotiations in private employment is necessary. This chapter will examine the background and principles of collective negotiations which will assist us in developing a frame of reference for understanding the collective negotiation process. A review of the historical growth and development, the various interpre- tations and explanations of the process, the legal setting in the State of Michigan, the role of professionalism, the operation of the political and economic factors, and the evolution and changing positions of the educational organizations in relation to collective negotiations will be considered. 17 18 Historical Development of Collective Negotiations Collective action by employees has a long history. Public opinion, the actions of the executive branches of the federal and state governments, the actions of legisla- tures, courts, and administrative agencies as well as the economic system, the level of technology, supply and demand, religious, social and political attitudes, all have influenced the growth of public policy toward collec- tive negotiations. As a larger and larger proportion of the work force is constituted of employees, labor law becomes public law through its direct effects upon these millions of employees. . The United States began as a matrix of rugged individualism. With the Industrial Revolution rapidly evolving in the last half of the nineteenth century the impact on the individual and family began to cause drastic changes. Population began mushrooming in cities where men and their families became dependent upon jobs in factories and interdependent in their everyday living. The indi- vidual as such was no longer completely free to determine his own destiny and that of his family. Working men began banding together into what we now call "unions," for their own protection. Rugged individualism, in its purest sense, became a victim of economic reality and social progress.1 ‘ 1Max S. Wortman, Jr. and C. Wilson Randle, Collective Bar ainin (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton leflin Company, 1966), p. 42. 19 Congress, attempting to balance the power of big business,passed the Sherman Anti-trust Act in 1890 which was used by the courts to find unions guilty of conspiracy to restrain trade, thus weakening union activities.2 The Clayton Act of 1914 removed the unions from the application of these anti-trust laws. The passage of the Norris-LaGuardia Act in 1932 reflected a fundamental change in public policy toward labor. The act affirmed the right of workers to engage in collective bargaining through unions of their own choosing. . The failure of American employers to modernize their concepts of employment relations led to the National Labor Relations Act commonly known as the Wagner Act in 1935. This act strongly encouraged collective bargaining and constituted a fundamental turning point in public policy conerning labor relations.3 One of the clauses in the Wagner Act determined the employees who were covered by federal labor legisla- tion. Employees working for the federal government, for any wholly owned government subsidiary, for any state or political subdivision thereof were specifically excluded from federal labor relations legislation. Legally school 2Charles 0. Gregory, Labor and the Lag (Second revised edition; New York: W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1961). PP. 22-25. 3Charles T. Schmidt, Jr., Hyman Parker, and Bob Repas, A Guide to Collective Negotiations in Education (East Lansifig, Michigan: The School of Labor and Indus- trial Relations, Michigan State University, 1967), p. 3. 20 boards are subdivisions of state government; hence teachers work for a political subdivision of the state. For this reason, they were excluded from the coverage of federal labor legislation. By 1947 public attitudes toward unions had changed considerably so Congress passed the Labor-Management (Relations Act, more commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act. The Taft-Hartley Act was a recognition that the long struggle for union rights required corresponding measures to ensure union responsibilities, and that individual employees and union members needed protection from certain union practices. Twelve years after the Taft-Hartley Act was passed, Congress had become concerned about the problems of internal democracy and fiscal integrity in the labor move— ment, and so passed the Landrum-Griffin Act controlling the internal affairs of unions. Teacher organizations at present are not subject to these labor—management acts. Nevertheless, it is virtually certain that many states will take a closer look at the regulation of teacher organizations as their power continues to grow. The most significant development in collective negotiations for public employees came when President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988 on January 17, 1962. This order guaranteed federal employees the right to join organizations of their choice. Executive Order 10988, in turn, has given great impetus to the passage of state legislation giving the same rights to state and local 21 governmental employees. Thus teachers have been the recipients of the right to organize. Armed with the right to organize plus the election in New York City of the American Federation of Teachers and its impact convinced the National Education Association (NBA) that new policies on negotiations were needed. The position of the NEA has gone from resistance, to joint policy making, to overwhelming support for collective negotiations as shown by the resolutions quoted below. At its annual meeting in 1962 the NEA officially began to use the term "professional negotiations": Industrial-disputes conciliation machinery, which assumes a conflict of interest and a diversity of purpose between persons and groups, is not appro- priate to professional negotiations in public education.‘1 By 1964 the position of the NEA had requested joint participation in the formulation of policies: The NBA insists on the right of professional associations, through democratically selected representatives using professional channels, to participate with boards of education in the formulation of policies of common concern, including salary and other conditions of pro- fessional service. Recognizing the legal authority of the board of education, the administrative function of the superintendent and the professional competencies of teachers, matters of mutual concern should be reviewed as a mutual responsibility. The cooper- ative development of policies is a professional 4National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedings, 1962 (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1932), p. 15. 22 approach which recognizes that the superintendent has a major responsibility to both the teaching staff and the school board.5 During the 1969 NBA Conference overwhelming support for negotiations was approved: The NBA believes that local associations and school boards must negotiate written master contracts. Such contracts shall result from negotiation in good faith between associations and school boards, through representatives of their choosing, to establish, maintain, protect and improve terms and conditions for profes- sional service and other matters of mutual concern, including a provision for financial responsibility. The association encourages local affiliates to see that teachers are guaranteed a voice in the establishment of instructional policies. Today we have the situation where the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Associa- tion are vying for control of the teachers in an era of rapid change and expansion in the field of collective negotiations. With this brief historical background, an under- standing of what collective negotiations is becomes necessary. The Collective Negotiation Process The essence of collective negotiations is compro- mise and concession-making on matters over which there is 5National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedings, 1964 (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1964), p. 446. 6National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedings, 1969 (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1959), pp. 575-576. 23 conflict between the parties involved in the negotiations. The process of collective negotiations is not one in which problems are settled simply by getting the facts out on the table for reasonable, dispassionate consideration. The negotiation process attempts to find out the settle- ment position of the other party without prior revelation of one's own settlement position. Collective negotiations is a process by which a group of employees (teachers) and their management (boards of education) or representatives make offers and counter offers in good faith on the condi- tions of their employment relationship for the purpose of reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. The engine which makes the negotiation relationship real and bona fide is the faith and ability of each party to inflict loss on the other in the event of failure to reach agree— ment as to how they shall live together for a specified period. Negotiations is a curious mixture of cooperation and conflict. It is a process involving people. The collective negotiation process has as its goal the resolution of conflict. Conflict may be defined as a situation of competition in which the parties are aware of the incompatability of potential future positions and in which each party wishes to occupy a position that is incompatible with the wishes of the other.7 7Kenneth E. Boulding, Conflict and Defense (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), p. 5. ~ 24 The power of the collective negotiations process lies in the elimination of complete freedom of choice by either the board of education or the teachers. Collective negotiations results in a redistribution of the decision— making power. The value of the reordering of the power relationship in a social system is that the parties involved are better able to carry out their responsibili- ties. This reordering calls for an increase in control by one party and therefore, a decrease in control by the other party. If the power concept of collective negotiations is rejected, one will have to choose from among limited alternatives both involving the compulsion of government, (1) compulsory arbitration fact-finding, or (2) legisla— tive enactment. Either of these would destroy the values which the collective negotiation process offers. The basic public goal in collective negotiations is to reduce educational conflict in our society. When group conflict is institutionalized through negotiations, it becomes a method of functioning within the society. The objectives of group conflict in collective negotia— tions are: (l) to make explicit the reasons for the opposition of labor to management and vice versa; (2) to expose the basic conflict issues in labor and manage- ment to the pressures of public opinion and to possible social control; (3) to compel rapid resolution of labor- management conflict; and (4) to provide stability for the 25 social structure by identifying the power groups within the society. Through collective negotiations group conflict in our society is resolved rapidly by making a compromise between the goals of both parties. Even though both parties may not be completely satisfied with the solution of the conflict, the society as a whole benefits from its rapid resolution. Thompson and Tuden argue that a situation which involves disagreement between two groups either on what will result from a particular alternative or on what they wish would result from their action is not likely to be resolvable by rational analytic discussion. There is no basis for agreement in this way.8 Blake and Mouton have found that "open" and "secret" bargaining or diplomacy lead almost inevitably to different outcomes.9 Collective negotiations in public employment per- forms a fundamental and valuable function which cannot be fulfilled as well in our society by any other means, moreover, it performs that function more compatibly with our heritage of a free open democratic society than any other device designed to regulate employment conditions. 8James D. Thompson and Arthur Tuden, "Strategies, Structures, and Processes of Organizational Decision," in Comparative Studies in Administration (Pittsburgh: Univer- sity of Pittsburgh Press, 1959), p. 276. 9Robert R. Blake and Jane Srygley Mouton, "Reac- tions to Intergroup Competition Under Win-Lose Conditions," Management Science, VII (July, 1961). 26 It should be obvious that collective negotiations is a process for achieving consent. It is the instrument that best involves the participation of the people who count in the relationship. To further assist in an understanding of collec- tive negotiations the structure of the process is necessary. The Structure of Collective Negotiations One explanation in the literature stands out in defining and explaining the structure of collective nego— tiations: "A given negotiating structure is comprised of a multiplicity of units tied together in a compli- cated network of relationships by social, legal, administrative and economic factors. The basic element of any negotiating structure is the informal work group whose members are unified by common aspirations and a common interpretation of their environment.10 W. Willard Wirtz, when he was Secretary of Labor, suggested several guidelines for developing in this country a pragmatic—-instead of dogmatic-—structure of public employment relations: 1. It should be accepted generally, and removed from controversy that some effective form of bi-lateral and representational labor rela- tions is inevitable, proper, and desirable in public employment in this country. 2. Whatever system is developed has to be worked out jointly by representatives of all who will be affected by it. 10Arnold R. Weber, "Stability and Change in the Structure of Collective Bargaining" (address at Mackinac Island, before the Convention of the Association of Labor Mediation Agencies, September 2, 1966). 27 3. To whatever extent the development of new doctrines of public employment relationships is focused or permitted to center around the argument about whether there is a 'right of public employees to strike,‘ the development will be at best delayed, at worst defeated. 4. The basic principle should be to provide for maximum practicable participation of public employees in developing and in administering their employment relationship.1 Basically, two rather distinct negotiating struc- tures have emerged in Michigan education. These struc- tures have several common features, the most visible of which is the designation of the kindergarten through twelfth grades (K-12) as the appropriate unit for teachers. Similarily, the designation that certified classroom teachers have a peculiar community of interest that usually excludes other employees within the school system is common to both structures. Finally, all "units," throughout the State, are limited to individual school districts. The state-level organizations, both the Michi- gan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers are playing extremely dominant roles that are directly affecting the nature of the negotiation structure. Some of the trends accompanying the evolution of the negotiating structure should be carefully watched and evaluated before organizational structures, attitudes, and practices become fixed. Based on industrial experience the high level of state organizations could sap the llW. William Wirtz (address before the annual con- vention of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Mackinac Island, Michigan, August, 1965). 28 vitality, imagination and organizational effectiveness of the local organizations. Other structural dangers con- cern the uneven distribution of power; a paucity of members in the teacher group or the limitation of resources avail- able to the school district. As seen by these interpretations, attitudes and trends of collective negotiations in education are only part of the overall revolution that is taking place in the arena of democratic rights for all public employees. Collective negotiations in Michigan public educa- tion cannot be separated from the legal developments that are occurring, our next area of concern. Legal Status of Collective Negotiations Collective negotiations is affected by the law governing public education and public employment. Public education is a function of the state. The state can alter public education by amending its constitution and statutes. Public schools are governed by agencies called boards of education. These boards act as agents of the state, though the individual members who serve on them are elected locally. Teachers therefore are public employees. There is little doubt today that public employees have the right to organize and to join employee organiza- tions, including professional associations and unions. The right to join and participate in employee organiza- tions is based on the Constitution of the United States. 29 The First Amendment forbids Congress to make any law abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of griev- ances." The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution forbids any state to "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These are the Constitutional provisions which give public employees, as citizens, the right to assemble peaceably and to petition the government. To deny this Constitutional right afforded citizens in general, would be to deny the equal protection of the laws. This right of public employees and professional school employees to form and join employee organizations has been reinforced by Statute in Michigan. The Michigan legislation most nearly parallels the labor-management model and is con- sidered by many students of the negotiation process as inadequate for the needs of the professional public school employee. The inadequacy of present legislation in Michigan relates to the area of professionalism which is the next logical step in looking at the area of collective nego- tiations. 30 Collective Negotiations and Professionalism In cons1dering collective negotiations and profes- sionalism a variety of important factors must be examined. It is well known, of course, that the bureaucratization of American society is one of the fundamental developments of the century and that bureaucracy presently represents a dominant form of organization. Drucker, in fact, has termed this an "employee" society; that is, one in which the rights and obligations between employees and employers determine the character of the society.12 However, it is equally true that the social forces which have produced this bureaucratic society have also created alternative forms of organization. Professional principles constitute a prominent but competing way of organizing an employee society.13 In a professional- employee society the fundamental tension is not between the individual and the system, but between parts of the system--between the professional and the bureaucratic principles of organization.14 Behind professionalization is a "drive for status," or the efforts of members of a 12Peter F. Drucker, "The Employee Society," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LVIII (January, 1952), pp. 352-630 13Ronald G. Corwin, "The Professional Employee: A Study of Conflict of Nursing Roles," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LXVI (May, 1961), pp. 307-15. 14Talcott Parsons, "The Professions and the Social igructure," Social Forces, Vol. XVII (May, 1939), pp. 7-67. 31 vocation to gain more control over their work-—not only more responsibility but more authority.15 For decades teachers have subscribed to the idea that they have professional obligations, now they are demanding professional rights as well. The process of professionalizing teaching represents a challenge to the traditional ideologies of control by laymen and their administrative representatives. As professionals, teachers are expected to defend the welfare of pupils and adjust their teaching to the unique capacities of their pupils. As bureaucratic employees, however, they will be expected to subscribe to the expectations of the administration and the community. As Gouldner observed, much organizational tension can be attributed to the fact that administrators fre- quently supervise and evaluate professional subordinates who are more competent in their work than they. The prob- lems of evaluation are compounded by the fact that the reputations of professionals are based on the opinions of their colleagues outside the organization.16 Blau and Scott report that of the social welfare workers they studied, those who were most closely oriented to their 15Howard S. Becker, "The Nature of a Profession," Education for the Professions, Sixty—first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1962). 16Alvin W. Gouldner, "Organizational Tensions," Sociolo Toda , ed. by Robert Merton, et al. (New York: {Basic Books, I959), pp. 400-28. 32 profession were also less attached to the welfare agency, more critical of its operation, and less confined by its 17 On the other hand, the administrative procedures. expert is expected to be loyal to the organization, and on the other hand, his primary identification often is with groups on the outside. A research project by Corwin explored some of the implications of possible tensions among professional- employees in the public schools. The weight of evidence from this study suggests that there is a consistent pattern of conflict between teachers and administrators over the control of work, and that professionalization is a militant process.18 StandardiZation within a profession presents another problem because it probably discourages creative and original thought, which is so necessary if organiza- tions are to adapt to changing environments. Watson con- cludes, for example, that team work is a substitute for creativity, and is responsible for much mediocrity in academic institutions.19 17Peter Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organi- zations (San Francisco, California: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962), p. 244. 18Ronald G. Corwin, The Development of an Instru- ment for Examining Staff Conflicts in the Public Schools (Columbus, Ohio: U. S. Department of HeaIth, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project No. 2637, Ohio State University, 1966). 19Goodwin Watson, "The Problem of Bureaucracy, A Summary, " Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 18 (December, 1945), pp. 69-80. 33 However, standardization does have advantages. Moeller concluded that, contrary to his expectations, standardized school systems can provide teachers with a sense of power that does not exist in systems where there is a lack of policy; for policy reduces particularism and increases predictability.20 What the professional employee resists is the imposition by the outsider of rules which do not support him; even then, rules are preferred to their absence unless the group has such power that it can maintain its interests without them. The major difference between professionals and bureaucratic—employees is the established ideology which grants professionals the right to the last word because he is the superior. The notion of heirarchical authority, on the other hand, is not central to professional organizations; the last word presumably goes to the person with greater knowledge or the more convincing logic. In other words, the professional employee, in comparison with the bureau- cratic employee, distinguishes between his obligations to accomplish his work and his obligations to obey; the bur- eaucratic employee is hired to "do what he is told," while the professional already knows what he is to do and how to do it. Thus, the professional's loyalties are split 20Gerald H. Moeller, "Relationship Between Bureau- cracy in School Systems and Teachers' Sense of Power" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, 1962), p. 7. 34 between the organization and the profession according to these competing bases of authority. Though many traditional sterotypes fail to define the professional role; meaningfully, there are some land- marks that can be located and described. Professor Barber said: Professional behavior may be defined in terms of four essential attributes; a high degree of generalized and systematic knowledge; primary orientation to the community interest rather than to individual self-interest; a high degree of self-control of behavior through codes of ethics internalized in the process of work socialization and through voluntary associations organized and operated by the work specialists themselves; and a system of rewards (monetary and honorary) that is primarily a set of symbols of work achievement and thus ends in themselves not means to some end of individual self-interest.21 The issue of whether professionals can negotiate without loss or weakening of essential professionaliza— tion and what criteria should be used in answering this issue can be resolved by the following criteria needs for negotiation units: (1) a strong community of interest; (2) common skills; (3) shared working conditions; super— vision and physical location; and (4) similarity of authority structure. These basic collective negotiation criteria must be supplemented with some special questions for the pro- fessional group such as: (1) does the negotiation lBernard Barber, "Some Problems in the Sociology of the Profession," in The Professions in America, ed. by K. S. Lynn (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1965). PP. 171-207. 35 relationship limit the freedom of the professional to make decisions in the client's interest? (2) Does it distort the specialized expertness that the professional brings to his work? (3) Is negotiating incompatible with serving the public good--does it mean selfish serving of collec- tive egotism? It is said by the critics of collective negotia- tions that the negotiating relationship is a union weapon and therefore incompatible with professionalism.22 Educators can enter into employment negotiation relationships without danger of their professional status. Negotiatory associations should properly be understood as a neutral operational feature in the functioning of employed professionals. To negotiate or not to negotiate is the wrong question. The question or what must be asked and answered is: How can negotiation techniques be best utilized to improve public education? Are there unions of professional people that have functioned effectively as unions and at the same time permitted the professionals to maintain his professional standards? The movie actors and airline pilots are examples. They are highly professionalized and also extremely well paid. These examples show: 1. That professionalism can be compatible with unions. 2. Unionism can be compatible with public employment. 22Jack Barbash, "Bargaining for Professionals and lPublic Employees," American Teacher Magazine, Vol. 43 (April, 1959). p. 7. 36 3. It is no denigration of professionalism to bargain over what may appear to be small things. 4. That collective negotiations in public employment can work not only to the advantage of the employee; but in a very special way, it can work to the advantage of the public administrator. Barbash further states that the practical impli- cations of collective negotiations to our educational systems and for teachers as professionals and as public servants are: 1. If teachers want better salaries they will first have to organize in order to get them. 2. Unionism is not only good for the teacher as a public employee it is also good for the administrator and the community. 3. Teachers talk too much about their profes- sional status, but don't do enough about it.24 Not only have teachers at all levels shown a marked reluctance to become involved in meaningful collec- tive action, many would take the positions that collective action is patently unprofessional. Implied in this posi- tion is an unstated approval of individual negotiating but a rejection of collective negotiations. He becomes a professional as he joins with others of similar dispo- sition to form a collective that asserts control over admission to practice, the direction of pre-professional education, and jurisdiction in the expulsion of the unscrupulous. A profession cannot hope to meet its role demands unless it is prepared through strong internal 23Ibid., p. 15. 241bid., p. 37. 37 organization and through public sanction, to assure the control of the profession over whom it shall count as a colleague. Many educators are disturbed about solutions grow- ing out of a negotiating relationship because this method of solution-seeking is so different from what might be the more familiar scientific method. But problems that the education profession faces cannot all be approached in a coldly scientific manner. Objective answers are not available to questions like: What is a teacher worth? How long should the school day be? What text supplements should be chosen? How much tax load should people pro— perly assume? Questions of this sort require the utiliza- tion of the democratic processes of involvement and participation by those who can contribute meaningfully, and of accommodation and compromise with the purpose of discovering a consensus that can be successfully imple- mented. Insofar as negotiations is concerned the teacher must be thought of as possessing three identities. Public school teachers are employees. They are public employees, and they are professional public employees.25 25Donald L. Conrad, "Collective Negotiations and Professionalism," in Readings in Collective Negotiations in Public Education, ed. by Stanley M. Elam, Myron Lieberman and Michael H. Moskow (Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Company, 1967), pp. 405-11. 38 Public professional employees can and do belong to organizations and unions. Society has shown less and less concern over this developing relationship. As indicated earlier, collective negotiations is a political process so it is important that the area of politics in collective negotiations be examined. The Politics of Collective Negotiations As teachers have come to rely upon negotiations to improve their conditions of employment, such reliance will stimulate more political activity by teachers. Teacher organizations frustrated in negotiations may try to elect board of education members more receptive to teacher views. Efforts to increase teacher negotiation power by changes in negotiations laws or by electing local board members sympathetic to teacher viewpoints, makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the view that education is "Nonpartisan." The legislatures are likely to insist upon greater state involvement in education. Thus from both the govern— mental and the teacher side there will be greater pressure for some form of state-wide negotiations. Such negotia- tions will, of course, restrict the authority of local boards of education. Lieberman predicted in 1960 that: Collective bargaining will come first between local teachers' associations and local school boards. In its early stages, the boards will 39 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 then be changed to provide for collective bargaining at the state level. At this stage, the legislatures will delegate to the state superintendent of public instruction the authority to negotiate conditions of employ- ment with the representatives of state teachers' associations. These negotiations will be con- ducted annually or biennially as they are in industry. The agreements reached will be subject to legislative approval but this will be much simpler than to have the legislatures enact into law all the provisions of such an agreement. The persons who negotiate for the state legislature will have some good idea of their limits, just as the persons who negotiate for large companies have a good idea of what they can and cannot con- cede in negotiations. It is likely that this procedure will eventually be put into practice at the national level. Repre- sentatives of the national teachers' organizations will meet with appropriate representatives of the federal government to negotiate conditions of employment. The agreements will not attempt to state precisely the exact terms of employment for every public school teacher in the country. Some of the conditions of employment may be spelled out at the federal level, others may be left to collective bargaining at regional, state or local levels.26 Some six years later Lieberman and Moskow state that federal regulation of employment relations in public education would constitute a major change in our federal system, and there appears to be little likelihood of any such change in the forseeable future. It is up to each state to regulate employment relations in public education.27 26Lieberman, The Future of Public Education, op. cit., pp. 161-62. 27Lieberman and Moskow, op. cit., p. 446. 40 The position taken by Brown and Myers28 is quite different and should be watched by educators. They say, that in light of the historical evolution of public policy, in relation to collective bargaining, the trend is to shift public policy formulation from the states to the federal government. States no longer have the right to legislate in many areas of labor relations, since the concept of interstate commerce has been broadened to include practically all major types of enterprises. Our economy has expanded to a point where each state is related to the states surrounding it. Therefore, with respect to labor relations, the trend is toward a cen- tralized application and interpretation by the federal government. In considering state or federal negotiations, it is essential to recognize the distinction between nego- tiations and lobbying, i.e., political action. In lobbying, teachers attempt to persuade poli— tical authorities to improve their conditions of employ— ment. In collective negotiations, however, the teachers attempt to reach a collective agreement with a person or agency which has the authority to set conditions of employment. Thus negotiations are a more structured process than lobbying. 28 Evolution," in Public Policyiand Collective Bargaining, ed. by Joseph Shister, Benjamin Aaron, and Clyde W. Summers (New York: “Harper and Row, 1962), pp. 20-25. Douglas V. Brown and Charles A. Myers, "Historical 41 If teachers hope to gain through political action what they are unable to achieve by negotiations, they will not make the concessions essential to reach agreement during negotiations. Also it is difficult to see how the public can respond intelligently to political pressures from many different categories of public employees. One of the major unresolved problems of collective negotia- tions is how to deal effectively with the resort to political action as an extension of negotiations.29 Economic theory offers a hypothesis which is capable of explaining collective negotiation behavior in education and will be given brief review. The Economics of Collective Negotiations The theory referred to is "the sellers--collusion model."30 The model requires that sellers of teaching services, behave as if they wanted to maximize their wealth by voluntarily reducing competition among them- selves and effectively prohibiting substitutes from com— peting among themselves and effectively prohibiting sub- stitutes from competing away that wealth. Specifically teachers' organizations must be able to exert control over the entrance of educators into the education industry. 29Lieberman and Moskow, op. cit., p. 409. 3OArthur Ross, Trade Union Wage Poligy (Berkeley, California: The University of California Press, 1948), pp. 102-127. 42 The collusion model is also consistent with the interests of teachers' organizations in the formulation of curriculum. It is possible that organization activi- ties could be developed that would retard the introduction of new technologies or courses. Alternatively, the contract may call for "reedu— cation allowances" for teachers facing curriculum extinc- tion as a condition of curriculum change. Some teacher organizations have been able to make agreements that call for a large severance payment for obsolete workers. Consequently, severance or compensatory allowance may place a net drain on the school budget producing the "wealth effect." For the school of the future, vested interests in existing subjects and techniques may cause teachersl organizations to affect the rate of curriculum change in the direction of preserving their members' wealth. With the expectation of greatly increased innova— tive activity in education, it is likely that teachers' organizations will provide some impediment to change. In this light, the "sellers--collusion model" offers decision makers a guide to comprehend collective negotia- tion demands as well as reaction to policy proposals. The primary interest of teacher negotiations to date has been directed toward economic benefits to teachers. One of the first such studies to be undertaken involved twelve school districts in Mich1gan. The study 43 revealed that as a result of collective negotiations school districts exceeded their expected total settlement packages by amounts ranging from $100,000 to $300,000.31 During the four-year period directly preceding Public Law 379 the largest annual increase in teachers' salaries was $325 among the twelve districts. In 1966-67 the average increase range was $200 to $700 with the average being $395.32 Because of the consistency and stability of the operating budget for instruction both before and after collective negotiations, Rehmus and Wilner conclude: This stability disproves any assertion that teachers are aggrandizing themselves at the expense of other elements of school operat- ing costs.33 The area of collective negotiations that is prob- ably most closely related to this study is the scope of collective negotiations, the next area to be examined. The Scope of Collective Negotiations One of the most conspicuous trends in collective negotiations in education is the continuing expansion on the number and type of subjects with which collective 31Charles M. Rehmus and Evans Wilner, The Economic Results of Teacher Bargainipg: Michigan's First Two Years, No. 6 of the Research Paper, Institute of Labor and Indus- trial Relations, the University of Michigan and Wayne State University, Ann Arbor, Michigan, May, 1968, p. 10. 321bid., p. 14. 33Ibid., p. 23. 44 is concerned. Since the scope of collective negotiations has never been limited through definition, but is con- tinually expanding, employers fear that they may be forced to negotiate on subjects which are their responsi- bility--a process which could hinder their decision-making and effectiveness. This fear has some foundation. Bakke says, almost all functions of management, even those which are not concerned with the direction of workers, have become the subject of trade agreements or have been affected in important ways by such agreements.34 Generally the more mature the negotiating relationship, the greater the scepe of subject matter covered. Under present interpretations of the National Labor Relations Board and the courts, there does not appear to be a limiting boundary for collective bargain— 35 A proposal of some twenty years ago is still ing. relevant today. It stated that: "the law should define the preper area of collective negotiations as that which includes wages, hours, and conditions of work which bear directly upon the employment and collective negotiation relationship."36 34E. Wright Bakke, Mutual Survival: The Goal of Unions and Management (New York: Harper and Bros., 1946). 35Walter L. Daykin, The Scope of Collective Bar- ainin , Research Series No. 1 (Iowa City, Iowa: Bureau of LaBgr and Management, State University of Iowa, 1951). 36Neil W. Chamberlain, Collective Bargaining (Chicago, Illinois: McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc., 1951), pp. 121-139. 45 The problem of determining the scope of negotia— 'tions, even when defined as narrowly as "working condi- tions" has been well stated by Steffensen as follows: The term 'condition of work,‘ when used to indi- cate the matters which are negotiable, become nebulous as one discusses it with staff members. First, it is nebulous within the welfare area, including salaries. An even more important exten- sion of 'conditions of work, may be found in the curricular offering.‘ There are few program adaptations which do not in some way affect the working conditions of the teacher, whether it be a change in the pupil/staff ratio, the use of TV instruction, the extension of the school day, or the addition of an elementary librarian. The decision to implement each of these practices has undoubtedly been reached after consideration of certain alternatives which would also affect the teacher's conditions of work. On this basis to what extent do such non-economic factors as the curricular program and organization become nego- tiable items between the board and the teachers?37 The scope of negotiations can be best understood by saying that some items should clearly be negotiable, some should not be, and there is a broad area in which the scope should be left to the parties to decide. The scope of the educational program is more a political or public policy than a contractual matter. Although the teachers may have expertise to offer in shaping public policy, there is no reason why the board of education should have to embody such policy in an agreement with the teachers. Teachers do have an interest and an expertise in curriculum, methodology, and education. 37James P. Steffensen, Teachers Negotiate with Their School Boards, Bulletin 1964, No. 4OITWashington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1964), pp. 27-38. 46 Nevertheless it is unrealistic to regard them as negotiable in the same sense as working conditions and to embody agreements reached in these areas in a written agreement. One would hardly expect the curriculum, methodology, or educational services to be subjected to the pressure that inevitably characterize negotiations over conditions of employment. It must be remembered that the scope of negotiations is itself negotiated or at least affected by the process of negotiations. In education, the problem is often reflected in controversies over whether an item is a condition of employment or a matter of "educational policy.“ Educa- tional policy is rarely defined; in some cases, the defini- tion seems to be that it consists of whatever the school administration does not wish to negotiate. Boards of education are required by law to set educational policy. Without attempting to formulate a precise definition of educational policy, it is under— standable how certain items are not working conditions and do not affect the vital personal interests of teachers. The teachers may be deeply interested in certain educa- tional policies but their right, if any, to negotiate or to be consulted on them stands on somewhat different ground than their right to negotiate conditions of employ- ment. Whether these items should be negotiated is another matter; a procedure of genuine consultation is not neces- sarily collective negotiations. Nevertheless, it is 47 extremely difficult to determine where working conditions leave off and educational policy begins. Theoretically and practically, the two are closely interrelated in many ways. Recent research findings have indicated an increase in the items of curriculum that have been included in the negotiation agreements. According to Allan M. West, in a survey conducted by the National Education Association, 105 of 243 recently negotiated agreements in Michigan included provisions for teachers to participate in procedures for curriculum 38 Steele found that: (1) there was a significant study. increase in the number of instructional provisions in the 1967-68 master teacher contracts over the 1966-67 agree- ments; (2) the size of district was not a significant factor; (3) the Michigan Federation of Teachers negotiated more instructional provisions than the Michigan Education Association; (4) a high correlation existed between expenditures per pupil and the number of instructional provisions in the master contracts; (5) the instructional supply budget declined significantly the second year of negotiations.39 38Allan M. West, "Collective Agreements in Public Education: New Developments" (speech given at Harvard Institute on Collective Negotiations, August 7, 1967). 39Marilyn H. Steele, "Has Collective Bargaining Contributed to Instructional Improvement in Michigan Schools?" (unpublished Doctor's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1969), p. 3. 48 Stinnett, Kleinmann, and Ware state that profes- sional associations seek to negotiate on all matters affecting the educational program, not solely on those that might be termed "welfare" or "working conditions."40 The American Association of School Administrators lists some fifteen items that have appeared on negotiation contracts, and further says that this list could be expanded to include almost anything in the educational program.41 The National Education Association position is as follows: "Negotiations should include all matters which effect the quality of the educational system."42 The American Federation of Teachers' position on the scope of negotiations also emphasizes the desirability of a broad scope for negotiations. In 1965, Charles Cogen, President of the AFT, described the Federation's position as follows: We would place no limit on the scope of negotia- tions--the items which are subject to the bargain- ing process. Anything on which the two parties can agree should become a part of the agreement; anything on which they cannot agree will, of course, not appear. In fact anything having to 40T. M. Stinnett, Jack H. Kleinmann, Martha L. Ware, Professional Negotiation in Public Education (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), p. 154. 41American Association of School Administrators, TonSchool Administrator and Negotiations (Washington, D. C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1968), p. 50. 42National Education Association, Guidelines for Professional Negotiations (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1965). 49 do with the operation of the school is a matter for professional concern and should thus be subject to collective bargaining. It is impertant to know the various positions taken by the educational organizations concerned with collective negotiations in order to comprehend the evolving rela- tionships that are emerging in the collective negotiation process. Organizational Positions on Collective Negotiations The National Education Association feels that administrators are very much a part of the educational organization; that the proper channels for the resolution of differences between teachers and boards of education should be through a higher, separate educational author— ity; and that strikes and affiliation with labor will not gain for teachers the "professionalism" that is necessary. Teaching is a unique profession and has no parallel in organized labor. The American Federation of Teachers asserts that it is the only organization specifically devoted to the interests of classroom teachers. The Federation permits locals to decide on an individual basis whether to accept principals, but school superintendents are prohibited from membership by the national constitution. 43Charles Cogen, "Collective Bargaining: The Aft Way" (speech given at National Institute on Collective Negotiations in Public Education, Rhode Island College, Providence, Rhode Island, July, 1965). 50 In general the AFT favors the same sort of rela— tionship between teachers and their boards of education as that which has been established for employees in the private sector through the National Labor and Management Relations Act. The National School Boards Association believes that: "the establishment of guidelines for the conduct of school board-teacher negotiations should be a state and local responsibility."44 This is quite a change from the position taken in 1967: "We are against collective negotiations, and we are also against professional bargaining." At its 1971 Convention the American Association of School Administrators adopted the following resolution: We therefore urge that every school district develop a written statement, approved by the administration, the appropriate employee's organization, and the board of education, that outlines the procedures by which they will participate in decision—making. 44National School Boards Association, Official Report for 1970 (Evanston, Illinois: National SchooI Boards Association, 1970), pp. 33- 35. 4sHarold Webb, "The National School Board Associa- tion and Collective Negotiations," in Readings on Collec- tive Negotiations in Public Education, ed. by Stanley M. Elam, et a1. (Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Co., 1967), I98. p46American Association of School Administrators, Resolutions for 1971 (Washington, D. C.: American Associa- tion of School Administrators, 1971), p. 4. 51 The position of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development regarding collective negotia- tions was reevaluated and stated as follows: Teachers have long been referred to as curriculum workers since they significantly influence the implementation of curriculum objectives and evaluation of learning outcomes. Since ASCD has gone on record opposing curriculum development by negotiation, forceful and acceptable alternatives must be developed. The involvement of teachers in curriculum discussions and decisions needs to be increased. The efforts of status leaders in supervision must be directed toward close coopera— tion with status leaders in other teachers organizations in order to increase the degree and the depth of teacher involvement in curriculum decisions and in-service programs. If this procedure really bears fruit, curriculum adminis- tration can be conceived as a team effort, in the best sense of that term.47 The reference in the above resolution is to the resolution made at the Annual Conference in 1967 and follows: Negotiation and Curriculum The concept that curriculum decisions should involve many people at all levels of responsibility within the public schools is and has long been a part of the platform of beliefs of ASCD. If members of any group of professionals do not feel that, at present, they have influence in curriculum matters, there may well be need for reexamination of existing patterns and the development of new kinds of organi— zation. However, to change a study process into one classification of staff members, can only lead to disenfranchisement of all professionals as well as a breakdown in quality curriculum development. In the present context of professional negotiations it is essential that welfare concerns and curriculum concerns be handled as separate entities. ASCD 7 . . - . . . Assoc1at10n for Superv1s1on and Curr1cu1um Development, ASCD News Exchange, Vol. X, No. 4 (April, 1968), p. 2. 52 believed that program and curriculum decisions per se must not be negotiable items. All professional personnel should have the right to participate in curriculum policy making; the procedures to be followed are negotiable, but the result or outcome of the process must not be subject to negotiations. Rather, such decisions must result from the appli- cation of a variety of professional expertise after a thorough study of all factors basic to a curri- culum decision. Curriculum making is a study process and not a confrontation.4 With the positions of the large professional organ- izations in education in mind it is important to look at the broad area of collective negotiations in education. Education and Collective Negotiations Collective negotiations in education serves several functions. First, it resolves economic conflict between teachers and boards of education over the terms and conditions of employment. Second, it provides the teacher with a system of organizational government or organizational jurisprudence which protects his rights and privileges in schools. Third, it provides an outlet for the satisfaction of the teachers psychological and sociological needs which are present in the employment relationship. Fourth, through these means of resolving economic, political, social and psychological conflict in the schools, it provides one of the strong institutional foundations of the private enterprise system. 48Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Resolutions of 22nd Annual Conference (MarCh, 1967): p0 12. 53 There is little doubt that collective negotiations will have a tremendous impact on American public education. Probably no other movement in education has offered as much potential for establishing a new role for the teacher in decision-making. Teachers will become more and more involved in joint decision-making. Joint decision-making will make the system more democratic. This is badly needed, for as James pointed out, American schools are still among the most authoritarian institutions in our society.49 William Miller points out that the teacher role is changing in two conflicting ways. On the one hand, teachers are playing a more important part in decision- making. They are increasingly involved in curriculum work and consulted on policies. Teachers are becoming more professional. On the other hand, teachers and their organizations are making persistent efforts to spell out in contract form the specifics of a good teaching environ- ment. Collective negotiations, in becoming an established practice by teachers, is adapted from the procedures of labor while the teacher continues to give lip service to professionalism. These trends are antagonistic. Miller states: 49H. Thomas James, "Can Urban Schools be Managed," White House Conference on Education (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1965), p. 163. 54 It is most unlikely that teachers and adminis- trators can work as a team to identify and solve problems together and at the same time be creat— ing a labor-management bargaining climate which puts them poles apart. Only three years ago, in their widely praised book "The Academic Revolution" sociologists Christopher Jencks and David Reisman asserted that the wave of the future in U. S. higher education was the notably increasing pro- fessionalism among university faculties. "Large numbers of Ph.D.'s" they wrote, "now regard themselves almost as independent professionals, like doctors or lawyers."Sl That statement, it is now clear, can serve as an object lesson on how fast things are changing in the academic community. For in the school year just ending, it was not professionalism that dominated conversations in faculty club dining rooms, but almost its polar opposite-- the once unthinkable notion that college professors should engage in collective bargaining with their employers, the universities. I The idea of professors joining a union is not universally accepted. Some professors point out that traditionally faculties have counted on sharing in the decision-making processes of their campuses—~developing 50William G. Miller, "Curricular Implications of Negotiations," Educational Leadership, Vol. 23 (April, 1966), p. 533. 51Christopher Jencks and David Reisman, The Academic Reyolution (Boston, Massachusetts: The Harvard University Press, 1967), p. 98. 55 the curriculum, selecting and promoting teachers and often advising on critical budgetary issues. But if professors now choose to face administrators and trustees over a collective bargaining table, they may have to surrender some of their cherished "management" powers. If procedures are carefully drawn and followed in good faith, the process can be one in which the partici— pants maintain mutual respect. We need not be so naive as to think that there will not be conflict and stress, but hasn't there always been? Isn't it better that there are rules and procedures to the game than frustrating hostil- ity, latent or expressed? Conflict is often defended as being necessary for change and progress. Public education as a social system has conflicts that may be bitter and destructive or fruitful and constructive. There is little hard evidence on the question of whether collective negotiations is either inevitable or desirable on a widespread basis in American education. It is impossible to judge the extent to which conflict between teachers and school administrators over issues that have emerged in already existing negotiating relationships is inherent or "necessary" in a majority of school systems in this country, and whether or not such conflict as exists has the potential for becoming sharply focused and provid— ing an incentive for collective action. Because few such issues have arisen to date in formal relationships, little is known of the extent to which professional 56 "Curricular-methodological" questions have a conflict pro- ducing potential or will be appropriate for consideration in the context of negotiating or bargaining activity.52 Garbarino states: Perhaps the most important characteristic of the 1980 industrial relations system is that group bargaining will be much more pervasive than it now is. Administrative and managerial authority will be limited in all types of organizations. The consent of the governed principle will be extended to employer—employee relations and bar— gaining out of decisions will be generalized over most of our organizations.53 There is another dimension to shared decision~ making. If teachers share in the decision-making they must accept responsibility for the decisions. They can no longer "pass the buck." There is a tendency for staff to blame some mysterious "they" for shortcomings. For example if a parent suggests an idea to enrich the curri- culum, a typical reaction often is "they won't let me" or "they must consider it." In the absence of joint decision-making there was a "they" behind which the teacher could hide. The "they" has now been removed and teachers must face the fact that decisions are new joint decisions. Ohm and Monahan found that the increase in control by one group did not necessarily decrease the power and control of the administration. 52Wildman and Perry, op. cit., p. 26. 53Joseph W. Garbarino, "The Industrial Relations System," Prospective Changes in Society byil980, ed. by Edgar Morphet and Charles Ryan (Denver Colorado: Project Office, 1966). PP. 75-76. 57 The findings on control suggest that it is reasonable to assume that the emerging forms of collective action by teachers will increase the total power of the school system and increase that form of coordination and integration of organization activity conducive to high organi- zation effectiveness as it is to assume that administrative power will be reduced and organi- zational effectiveness diminished. An increase in power and control by teachers does not neces- sarily decrease the power and control of the administration.5 The assumption that the total power of a system can be increased gains additional support from the con- cept of the school as an open system in significant interchange with the larger communities and institutions it serves. Strong, formally organized groups of teachers have influence or power in the larger community or social system and this power can be mobilized and used for the benefit of the school. Role definition in public education is one of the values of the collective negotiation process. The tradi— tional role of the board of education has been that of the decision-maker. This will still be the role of the board of education, but they will meet and confer with teacher organizations before making the decisions. The process offers opportunities for better communications between teachers, administrators, boards of education, and the public. . 54Robert E. Ohm and William G. Monahan, "Power and Stress in Organization Response to Collective Action," Ne otiations in the Schools (Norman, Oklahoma: College 0 Education, University of Oklahoma, 1965). P. 75. 58 Summary Collective negotiations has developed as our society has become more urbanized and the rights and powers of the individual have become greater issues in our society. The government through its legislative, administrative and judicial decisions has played a dominant role in determining the direction of collective negotiations. The life blood of collective negotiations is conflict, conflict of demands as against offers. Collec- tive negotiations has as its goal the resolution of conflict. The collective negotiations process is a decision-making process involving people and the power of the collective negotiation process is in cooperative decision—making. Collective negotiations is a process of achieving consent from the people who are involved. Collective negotiations results in a redistribution of the decision-making power. The relationship of collective negotiations to professionalism, and political and economic behavior are crucial unresolved issues today. With highly complex bureaucratic organizations developing in education, collective negotiation may assist both the teacher and the board of education in defining their roles. It is said by many that collective negotiation will speed up the professionalization of education. Professionaliza- tion is.and has been a militant process. The public 59 school teacher plays a number of different roles in the area of employment; he is an employee, a public employee, and a professional public employee. The scope of collective negotiation and the trends in collective negotiation indicate that there is a con— tinued expansion in the number and types of subjects included in the scope of collective negotiation. The best method of delimiting negotiation topics seems to be by agreement between the involved parties. Teachers will become more and more involved in joint decision—making, which should make the system more democratic. Teachers could gradually assume a predominant role in curricular decision-making. The National Education Association, American Feder- ation of Teachers, American Association of School Adminis— trators and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development positions regarding collective negotiations have been changing for each organization and in addition lack agreement among the organizations. The principle of the consent of the governed will be generalized over most of our organizations by the 1980's. As the revolution unfolds in front of us the teacher must accept the responsibility for the decisions made and not continue past practice of blaming the administration or the board of education. CHAPTER III DECISION-MAKING IN EDUCATION There are many reasons why decision-making in education has merely represented expediency and has been of the patchwork variety. The strength and weaknesses of boards of education, organization structures, func- tions, procedures and activities for the control of public schools, can best be appreciated by consideration of their origin and development. Historical Development of Decision-Making in Public Schools The public school system in its present form is the product of gradual evolution. At the close of the colonial period, four conditions made possible the development of public education in the United States: (a) the English common law concepts of complete parental right over the education of children had undergone modi- fications; (b) the decentralization of educational administration by the Massachusetts Laws created a prece- dent for state action in educational affairs; (c) the control of the schools by the town developed the concept of local administration of public education as a community 60 61 enterprise; (d) liberal education ideas flooded the conti- nent during the revolutionary period. During the last days of the Congress of the Con- federation the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was passed. The ordinance contained the sentence that is accepted as the charter of public education in the United States; "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."1 The first amendment to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) not only determined the secular character of public education, but also provided the basis for freedom of teaching by establishing freedom of speech and of the press and the right to peaceful assembly. The people in our nation possess the legal authority to decide the policies of schools, thereby exerting indirect influence on what will and will not be the content of education. The adoption of the Tenth Amendment recognized public education as a legal function of the states. The legal channels are represented in the authority structure. The process used by individuals and groups who are not directly active within its structure represent power influences. The chart on the next page presents the legal authority structure for education decisions in Michigan. lFrederick Mayer, American Ideas and Education (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1963), p. 121. 62 CHART I LEGAL AUTHORITY STRUCTURE FOR EDUCATIONAL DECISIONS IN MICHIGAN2 The People Vote for state constitution changes and state school board members The Courts The Legislature Interpret cases on Makes laws on Education Education State Education Authority State superintendent and state board of education with authority for education and implementation of court and legislative decisions on education 1 Local Board of Education and Superintendent Authority for education except where in conflict with policies or decisions from above and authority to implement court and legislative decisions from above. w—r School Principal of a School in the District Authority for the school's educational program within limitations from above. -M The Teacher Authority for the classroom education within limitations from above. I The Pupil Recipient of the education. 2Morton Alpern, The Subject Curriculum: Grades K-12 (Columbus, Ohio: Chafles E. MerriIl Books, Inc., 1967), p. 58. 63 As shown in Chart I, a school district is no more than an agency of the legislature, created to make more effective the state's educational program. In turn, boards of education were created for the specific purposes of carrying out the state's educational program insofar as it pertained to an individual school district. The board is authorized to exercise only such powers as may be expressly assigned. After this historical background, the area of decision-making in administration and organization is pertinent. Decision-making in Administration and Organizations The central function of administration is direct- ing and controlling the decision-making process. It is becoming generally recognized that decision—making is the process of administration and the heart of organization. Decision-making has become too important to ignore. The interest in decision-making symbolizes a fundamental reorientation to organizations and the rapid developments between theories of administration and ideas from econo- mics, statistics, mathematics, 59% the behavioral sciences. The essential difference 1n the decision-making approach is that it highlights the goal, the tasks, and the choices that determine the activities. Decisions are closely interrelated with action. Practically every decision is one of a series. Each decision made appears 64 to tie into another decision reached previously. Decision rarely terminates or settles a controversy; it alters, changes its direction, or sometimes prolongs it. Probably the clearest illustration of sequential decision-making is found in the law. Each decision is based upon one or more previous decisions. Only the introduction of new knowledge of tremendous impact will cause a change in the direction which the sequence of decisions takes. All organization is built around the system of sequential decisions. All decision—making takes place within the context of an organization made up of two types, the formal and the informal. Formal organization is construed to mean that system of roles which is arranged in a hierarchical manner and officially established to perform distinct but interrelated and coordinated functions in order that one or more tasks can be completed. An informal organi— zation is present in every formal organization and is the system of interpersonal relations which forms to affect decisions made in the formal organization. Recent studies would lead us to believe that the informal structure has more permanency than previously thought. It now appears that there are groupings among teachers which maintain themselves over a long period of 65 time. They have typical characteristics of small groups and generally form with at least one strong bond.3 Thus far it has been found that the dominant variables in the formation of groups are those of location of teaching station, age, and length of service. A minor variable is that of religion. It appears that the infor— mal groups may be either of a passing nature or of a permanent nature. They all have in common, however, the altering of the decision—making process of the formal organizations. For some time now, American educators have sup- ported the principle that all who might be affected by a decision should share in making it. This principle has its basis in that somewhat nebulous concept known as "democratic administration." Recently, there has been a considerable amount of discussion as to the validity of this principle. Spalding, among others raises some fundamental questions: It is frequently stated, as a theoretical princi- ple, that all who might be affected by a decision should share in making it. This statement is so eminently plausible particularly to anyone under 3Daniel E. Griffith, David L. Clark, D. Richard wynn, and Laurence Iannaccone, Modern Organizational Theory and Proctice (Dansville, Illinois: Interstate Press, Part Iv, 1959), pp. 227-259. 4Conrad M. Arensberg, "Behavior and Organization: Industrial Studies," in Social Psychology at the Crossroads, ed. by John H. Rohrer and Muzafer Sherif (New York: Harper, 1951), pp. 76-84. 66 the spell of this slogan of democratic adminis- tration, that it has been widely accepted and acted upon. Practice has created doubts about the soundness of the principle. These doubts arise first because the principle provides no operational procedures for selecting those who are to participate in making decisions nor in limiting their number. If it means anything operationally, it means that all who feel that they should take part should be allowed to do so, for failure to include them will clearly affect them. But what about those who are uninformed, who do not know that a decision is about to be made? How many of them would feel that they should participate if they knew what was going on? Who is to inform them? How many are to be informed? These questions have no present answer. It may be that they are not answerable.5 The arguments for group participation in decision- making processes are equally vigorous. Wiles has this to say: The decision-making process is the most important phase of successful democratic leadership, because sharing decisions is the only control a democratic leader has. If he cannot get group members to participate in decision—making, help them to gain satisfaction from the process, and believe in the soundness of the decisions, he must resort to authoritarian procedures; he must either entice members of the group into behaving in the approved manner or else force them to do so. In a later section, it is interesting to note that Wiles modifies this View. In discussing the topic, "The Administration shares the decisions within its authority," he says: 5Willard B. Spalding, The Superintendency of Public Schools-~An Anxious Profession, The Inglis Lecture (Cam- bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1954), p. 217. 6Kimball Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools (New York: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1955), p. 23. 67 Any decision within the authority of the official leader may be shared, but care should be exercised to distinguish between those decisions that the official leader can make and those that are made by a higher authority, such as the board of edu- cation. Failure to make the boundaries of authority clear may cause frustration and may lead the group to reject further participation in decision-making. If there are certain decisions within the authority of the official leader that he wishes to retain for himself, he should make these clear to the staff with which he works. Such action will be more acceptable than pretending to share all decisions and then vetoing decisions in areas in which the leader feels the staff to be incompetent. The research studies that have been quoted most widely to substantiate the contention that groups should be involved in decision-making are three: one by Levine and Butler8 and two by Lewin.9 These studies deal with problems that differ somewhat from those encountered in decision-making. The conclusion reached in each of these studies is that it is easier to change an individual's attitude by working with him in a discussion group than by lecturing to him either individually or in a group and do not necessarily constitute evidence to support the argument for faculty participation in decision-making. 71bid., p. 223. 8Jacob Levine and John Butler, "Lecture vs. Group Decision in Changing Behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 1 (February, 1952). 9Kurt Lewin, "Studies in Group Decision," in Group D namics, ed. by Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander (Evanston, Illinois: Row Peterson, 1953), p. 18. 68 The proposals of Lewin and his students for involving the people who are to be affected by decisions more fully in the process of defining the problem, devel- oping alternatives, and making the choice have found that many groups (such as teachers) in organizations want more chance to participate in making decisions that affect their activities and opportunities. They have found that by giving groups an opportunity to participate adminis- trators not only get more cooperation in implementing the chdices that are made but also better quality decisions 10 result. They have found that participative methods can lead to greater production and efficiency as well as to higher morale.ll Follett further states, Where the process of cooperation between expert and people is given its legitimate chance, the experience of the people may change the conclusions of the expert while the conclusions of the expert are changing the experiences of the people; further than that the peoples' activity is a response to the relating of their own activity to that of the expert.12 Researchers have also been interested in studying the efficacy of organizational modes of decision-making. Bridges tested four modes of involving teachers in lOK. Lewin, "Group Decision and Social Change," in Reaoings in Social Psychology, ed. by T. M. Newcomb and E. L. HartleinNew York: Harper and Bros., 1960), p. 418. llThomas Gordon, Group—Centered Leadership (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1955), pp. 95-103. l2Mary P. Follett, Creative Experience (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1930), p. 78. 69 decision-making-—announcing, testing, soliciting, and delegating--and concluded that the soliciting mode was the most effective. He also concluded that school size tends to determine the degree of teacher participation in decision-making and that the combination of small schools and older principals would tend to result in the greatest amount of teacher participation.13 The fact that widespread adoption of the current best thinking and practice regarding democratic adminis- tration has been accompanied by an apparent increase in the desire for teachers to organize is an interesting subject. To consult with subordinates and to encourage them, in the best faith, to formulate opinions and judg— ments outside their sphere of ultimate responsibility and control, and to encourage them to voice dissatisfaction when it is felt, may lead to a desire to have some actual power over the dedision—making process and may give rise to a desire for an impartial ajudication of disputes. It appears at least conceivable that in some situations, democratic administration of any enterprise may have its limitations. What is this thing called decision-making? The Decision-Making Process The decision-making process is construed to mean not only the decision, but also the way in which decisions ‘) l"Edwin M. Bridges, "Teacher Participation in Decision-Making," Administrative Notebook (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago, May, 1964). 70 are reached, the acts necessary to put the decision into operation, and the implications of the decision upon the social institution. There is an almost universal belief that decisions are made by going through a process of X number of steps, usually described as five or six, depending upon the writer. These steps are considered to be almost mechanical in nature, and it is assumed that if several people pro- ceed through these steps, seeking the solution to a speci- fic problem, they will each arrive at the same conclusions. Simon points the direction of this inquiry; two persons, given the same possible alternatives, the same values, the same knowledge, can rationally reach only the same decision. Note the tremendous restrictions placed upon the decision-makers. Not only are the alternatives restricted, but also the value and knowledge of the deci- sion-maker are limited. In addition, Simon does not rule out the possibility that a person can make an irrational decision.l4 One of the prerequisites to creative, successful decision-making is the knowledge that one has freedom of choice. Availability of choice means that the world is seen as nondeterministic and nonmechanistic. "Decision- lessness makes man divided and unfree, conditioned and acted upon. It is failure to direct one's inner power, 14Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York: Macmillan Company, 1950), pp. 45-60. 71 Decision, in contrast, means transforming one's passion so that it enters with its whole power into the single deed."15 Decision-making seldom occurs with complete know— ledge available. Shakle said, "decision-~is choice, but not choice in face of perfect fore-knowledge, not choice in face of complete ignorance. Decision, therefore, is choice in face of bounded uncertainity."l6 Utilization of knowledge is critical to decision—making, but equally critical is the facility of being able to identify and locate the most pressing gaps in information and being able to make an adequate decision when the location of additional information is too costly or impossible. Know— ing when to delay a decision is another concept relative to the utilization of information. Talcott Parsons divides the decision-making pro— cess into three types of decisions, policy decision, allocative decisions, and operational iecisions. Policy decisions are decisions made at the general (board) level to attain the goals of the organization, allocative decisions concern mainly personnel and financial matters 5Maurice Friedman, "Will, Decision, and Respon- sibility in the thought of Martin Buber," Review of Existential Psychiatry and Peychology, Vol. 24 (November, 1961). PP. 217—27. l6G.L.S. Shakle, Decision, Order, and Time in Human Affairs (London: Cambridge University Press, 1961), p. 21. 72 while operational decisions deal with the day to day manage- ment decisions.17 The decision-making process is defined as a pro- cess that includes the way decisions are reached. The social and political aspects of educational decision—making will give some insight in this area. The Social and Political Aspects of Educational Decision-Making There is in the school a complex pattern of paired relationships between persons who occupy offices in a legally determined series of hierarchical positions, terminating at one end in the board of education and at the other in the teacher. This set of relationships may be seen as providing the school with a structure which is social, in that it involves people as its elements. This social structure provides the channel through which legal power flows from the state ultimately to the teacher in her relationship to the pupil. The parallel existence of legal and extra legal power structures in the school provides an obvious potenr tial source of conflict. But social conflict need not be harmful. Conflict between groups is a fundamental social process. Group conflict cannot be wished out of existence. In a moralistic framework, conflict is viewed as undesir- able, even though it may be inevitable. From such a l7Talcott Parsons, Structure and Process in Modern Societies (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960), pp. 142-162. 73 standpoint, conflict is considered a "last resort" social process, a poor substitute for more civilized and less destructive modes of determining social policy. The value position prefers to consider conflict as essentially immoral, because some of its more violent forms, like war, lead to vast destruction of human life and cultural prod- ucts. From the standpoint of social order, conflict is viewed from two positions. It may be destructive of social stability, and therefore bad because stability is good. It may be evidence of the breakdown of social control and therefore symptomatic of an underlying instability in the social order. Both positions express a value preference for stability. Blumer has identified conflict as the consequence of power relations, and makes it a fundamental category of social interaction along with codified relations and 18 Those sociological theorists sympathetic relations. concerned with consensus have always made a place for conflict as an unstabilizing process inimical to existing social agreements. When the energy which goes into the conflict is directed by intelligence toward the discovery of mutually acceptable solutions to problems, it may result in a more 18Herbert Blumer, "Social Structure and Power Conflict," in Industrial Conflict, ed. by Arthur Kornhauser, Robert Dubin, and Arthur M. Ross (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1954). pp. 172-312. 74 effective fulfillment of the school's tasks than would occur without the conflict. The parallel power structures with their respective sources of power at opposite ends can check the other. Strengthening these power relationships may also be the most realistic way to involve teacher participation in decision-making. Too often and too long attempts at obtaining teacher participation have rested on a rabble hypothesis. The assumption implicitly or explicitly present in most participation schemes is either that teachers will participate in decision-making as individuals or that the faculty may be treated as a single group. The importance of the various primary groups to which teachers belong is thus ignored. Capitalizing upon the bridges between the legal and extralegal power structures instead, gives due recognition to these groups. It should never be forgotten that they are basically voluntary in nature. They and their representatives more truly display the exercise of choice by the staff than do many votes taken at faculty meetings. Much more time is spent by teachers discussing school policies in primary groups than is avail- able for committee or faculty meetings. Such discussions are considerable less fettered than are those which go on in committee. Strengthening of the bridges between the two power structures will bring the fruit of free faculty discussion to bear upon decision-making. The network of articulations 75 and bridges through which discussion by teachers must progress to influence policy development is more likely to insure a process of careful consideration which will improve the quality of decision-making. This distillation of untampered discussion is the essence of democracy. Phillip Moneypenny, a political scientists, in looking at educational decision—making found that the schools occupy an enormously strong position at present, but that their isolation from general political issues may make it difficult for them to get support for the enormous demands on income and manpower which they will be making in the future. He concludes that the kind of decision— making structure wanted depends in good part on what values are desired to be dominant in the system. Given a set of values, and a distribution of population around those values, then it is possible to determine what kind of structure is likely to be most responsible to the ends to be maximized.19 Probably the outstanding study of political power and educational decision-making was made by Kimbrough,20 19Phillip Moneypenny, "A Political Analysis of Structures for Educational Policy Making," in Government of Public Education for Adequate Polic Makin , ed.4by WiIIiam P. McClure and Van Miller'YUr ana, I inois: Bureau of Educational Research, College of Education, University of Illinois, 1960), pp. 1-22. 20Ralph B. Kimbrough, Political Power and Educational Decision-Making (Chicago: Rand McNally Co., 1964), pp. 76 and clearly indicated the complexity of the interrelation- ships of the organizational, social and political variables. McClure in looking at the political structures of educational government points out two major problems that must be solved. The first is the fact that in metropoli- tan areas nearly half of all governmental units are educa- tional. Until some headway can be made in reducing the large number of overlapping jurisdictions, little improve— ment in decision-making can be accomplished. The second problem is at the opposite end, the areas of sparse population, where the improvement of education and educational decision—making depends to a significant degree upon creation of local districts of adequate size, along with other factors such as good will and interest, adequate resources, and adequate personnel.21 Campbell says that educational decision-making has its genesis in basic social change, its generation in nation—wide antecedent movements, its deliberation by educators and lay citizens in and out of government, and its formalization in legal expression by local, state, or national government. Basic social changes are usually nation-wide in scope. The antecedent movements are often nation-wide efforts. Inevitably, these forces tend to shift the major policy foci from local, to state, and to federal levels. Only the Congress can provide for 21William P. McClure, "Structures of Educational Government: As Viewed by the Educator," in Government of Public Education for Adequate Polic Makin , ed. by William P. McClure and Van Miller (Urbana, IIIinois: Bureau of Educational Research, College of Education, University of Illinois, 1960). PP. 23-46. 77 education in terms of national survival. Usually states talk of minimum foundation programs. Despite our tradi- tion of localism, local boards of education find themselves more and more working within the framework of state and national policy for education.22 The flow chart on the next page enlarges the concept of the decision-making process. No longer can concern be limited chiefly to the formal, legal expression of decision-making--Column IV of the chart. Somehow more attention must be given to political action and to basic social forces. There are some natural allies in this task. The economist, the political scientists, and the sociologist have already been at work in Columns II and Columns III. If the foregoing represents with some accuracy the process of decision-making for education in this country, some of the difficulties experienced in this process can be noted. In the first place there is some confusion about values. While knowledge is needed in decision— making, decision-making is by its very nature a value phenomenon. The confusion of values would appear to be influenced by at least three conditions; a pluralistic society, shifts in value positions, and international tensions. Recent studies have found that occupation, level 22.Roald F. Campbell, "Processes of Policy Making With- in Structures of Educational Government," in Government of Public Education for Adeqoate Polic Makin , ed. by WilIiam P. McClure and Van Miller (Ufbana, IIIino1s: Bureau of Edu- cational Research, College of Education, University of Illinois, 1960). PP. 59-77. . 78 .mmwooum mop CH omommflofip Iumm 0:3 namepcmsHmcfl mo mmofloco moam> ecu ucommummp AUH£3 mcowmfiomo mo son ImmHQXo Hmmma .HmEHom >H . . . . . . . cw mpmcHEHso .mam>oa Hoseauoc one woman .Hmooa um omomamuumucw hadrons .mmfluw>wuom Omega .mocmoamcfi unoxm muoomma Hoosom one .sofiumfiuomsw xoom one mumomo mmsoum mom: .musumc ca Hmmmamupxm sua>auom Hmoaoaaom. HHH mm HH Eddmo .uwo .mo .HamomEmu .m carom mm . . . . . . OUDUOHQ £0w£3 .mmoom CH moHSIoHHo3 ocm Hence Tums smumo .monOM amoemoaosgomu one Hoowuflaom .oflEosoom .Hofloom owmmm . HH ZOHBflUDQm ZH UZHMfiZIZOHmHUmQ 20 BMde 30AM d . Scum muasmou mcmeEIcoflmHomo Hmcowumooom H 79 of schooling, region, and to some extent age and religion are differentiating factors in how people conceive the task of the school.24 The United States is experiencing some change in value positions. Reisman has noted the shift from the 25 inner to the other directed man. Whyte has predicted 26 In the words of the growth of the "organization man." C. Wright Mills, this nation seems to be shifting from a public to a mass society. In‘a public, as the term is used, many people express opinions, relevant information is available, effective action is taken, and authoritative institutions do not penetrate the public. In a mass, few people express opinions, information is controlled action and is channeled by authorities, and the mass has no autonomy from institutions.27 Traditionally in order to assure that the public school will serve purposes consistent with a democratic society, control over basic educational decisions should be kept close to the people. Elected representatives of 24Allen T. Slagle, "The Task of the Public School as Perceived by Occupational and Age Sub-Publics" (unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Education, University of Chicago, 1959). 25David Reisman, et al., The Lonely Crowd (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 19607, p. 17. 26William H. Whyte, Jr., The Organization Man (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956), p. 12. 27C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956). 80 the people have authority for the determination of educa- tional decision—making. Politically, organizational structure of education is bureaucratic and has not provided a formal and legiti- mized basis for teacher participation in decision-making. Bureaucracy may be considered a bad word but it is the name of a very important and necessary feature of a complex social system. Against bureaucracy the general accusation is that it is overformal, over-legalistic, over—concerned with procedural prepriety and very much over-concerned with maintaining itself. Bureaucracy is conservative for it has something to conserve, its command of prestige and power, and it is defensive because of its rigidity and impersonality. Bureaucracy tends to develop an organizational structure designed to deal effectively with security problems focusing on (1) internal control and (2) adjust— ment or accommodation to external community groups which support it and make demands on it. The acquistion and distribution of resources required for production goals is carried out by roles whose dominant work—functions are devoted to maintaining the security of the system. This means that in the distribution of resources the line administrators of different units negotiate with the "central office" for ftheir share" of the budget. The consequence of this structural arrangement is that the persons who are responsible for achieving the work 81 objectives of the organization cannot easily influence or participate in goal-setting or program planning except by writing reports and recommendations to the administrators. This kind of decision-making structure for goal setting and program determination tends to be an extremely poor decision—making structure for eliminating obsolescence and increasing productivity.28 In the main, teachers have systematically been excluded from involvement in the critical process of decision-making and where they have been involved they have been so effectively managed that they have operated from a very weak power base. The prevalent forms of educational bureaucracy offer little hope for removing obsolescence and increasing productivity. As criticism about educational productivity grows, the organization responds by devoting more resources to security problems. The more competent teachers become and the more serious they are to remove obsolescence in educational organization and instructional procedures, the more frustrated they will become. While bureaucratic organization is effective with respect to repressing conflict, it does not seem to be especially effective at resolving it. This failure to resolve conflicts produces "psychological splits" between various groups of roles and persons in the educational 28Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, op. cit., pp. 243-262. 82 system. These splits make it nearly impossible to make the cooperative action necessary to remove obsolescence. The Economics of Educational Decision-Making Public school systems as institutions of society are both producers and consumers. Only one form of "capital" placed in the system appreciates in value-- the student; the appreciation which takes place benefits both the individual and the society. Support for the system from without--from society-- takes two forms. It involves the extent to which youth are placed in the system for the purpose of education and the extent to which the system is provided with what it needs to accomplish this task.29 The kinds of restrictions and the demands for particular actions which are imposed upon decision-makers are numerous. Often, these restrictions and demands are imposed through the threat or use of coercive economic power. In the case of schools,.the limitations to the exercise of administrators' authority are imposed by isolated individuals and informal groups.30 These same individuals, by joining together in unions or organizations 29James E. Heald and Samuel A. Moore, II, The Teacher and Administrative Relationships in School Systems (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1968), pp. 76-77. 30Robert Tannenbaum, "Managerial Decision-Making," in Readings in Organization Theory, ed. Walter A. Hill and Douglas Egan (New York: Allyn Bacon, 1966), pp. 351-363. 83 impose the limitations much more effectively because of the coercive power available to strong, formal groups. Some substitutes must be found in public adminis- tration for money value of output as a measure of value. This substitute is provided by a statement of the objec- tives of the activity, and by the construction of indices that measure the degree of attainment of these objectives. Any measurement that indicates the effect of an administrative activity in accomplishing its final objective is termed a measurement of the result of that activity.31 The definition of objectives for public services is far from a simple task. On the other hand, however, the values which a public service seeks to realize are seldom expressible in concrete terms. Further difficulty arises in the lack of a common denominator of value. Somewhere sometime in the decision-making process values actually are assigned weights. A fundamental problem involved in reaching a deci- sion is the discovery of a common denominator between the two values which have been mentioned; low cost and large results. How is the choice made when the two conflict? The criterion of efficiency dictates that the choice of alternatives is governed by which one produces the largest result for the given application of resources. 31C. E. Ridley and H. A. Simon, Measuring Municipal Activities (Chicago: International City ManagersT AssoEia- tion, 1938), pp. 96-103. 84 The Role of Authority in Decision-Making There seems to be some confusion in the literature as to the exact meaning and use of the term authority. Many people confuse it with the term popep, use it inter- changeably with the term authoritarian, think of it as a psychological term or as a legal term. There is also a tendency to think of authority only in terms of a totali- tarian situation. If, however, Hunter's definition of power is accepted, "the acts of men going about the busi- ness of moving other men to act in relation to themselves 32 it can or in relation to organic or inorganic things," be readily seen that power is present in all types of organizations. It is this outward manifestation of power in decision-making that will be considered authority. All formal and many informal organizations, then, are the visible signs of power and therefore constitute authority. Max Weber suggests that the legitimacy of such power must be recognized by the society in which the organ- ization functions if officials of an organization are to perform their duties.33 According to him, such legitima- tion of authority may be accomplished in one of three ways. First, it may be based upon a charismatic leader with extraordinary powers. Second, authority may be traditional 32Floyd Hunter, Community Power Stgocture (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1953), pp. 17-18. 33A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, eds., Max Weber: The Theory of Social apd Economic Organizations (New Yofk: Oxford UniVersity Press, 1947), p. 76. 85 based on a body of customs handed down from generation to generation. Third, it may be based on a body of general rules that delineate and circumscribe the behavior of members of the organization.34 Chester I. Barnard defines authority within formal organizations as that character of an order which causes it to be accepted by a member of the organization as a determinant of his behavior. The two essential features are the acceptance of the order by the subordinate and the character of the order making it acceptable tohim.35 Additionally, Barnard equates the "system of communication" within the organization with the institu- tion's "lines of authority." This system functions to provide information to positions of authority within the organization so that orders may be issued. Maintenance of an attitude conducive to acceptance of order by sub- ordinates requires a careful structuring of the lines of authority from higher positions to lower ones.36 An individual member submits to the authority of the organization in exchange for the rewards that organi- zational membership offers. But once he is established 34H. H. Gerth and Wright Mills, eds., From Max weber: Essgys in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, I958), pp. 68-79. 35Chester I. Barnard, The Function of the Executive (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, I954), p. 163. 361bid., p. 170. 86 as a member of the organization the individual begins to submit to institutional authority because of emerging social norms that evolve. In short, he exchanges compli- ance with institutional authority for the approval of his social peers and becomes a subordinate. Two conditions of authority emerge as far as the behavior of subordinates is concerned. One condition occurs when authority is exercised intermittently; the other when authority is exercised continually. In the first case, the situation prevails among peers. As the situation changes, different persons emerge as being in authority and no obedience will occur. On the other hand, if authority is exercised continuously, then a willingness to obey on the part of the subordinates can be observed.37 The development of this willingness to obey is of great concern, for it can be seen that if subordinates in an organization adopt such an attitude toward their superiors, they are giving up their right to express free ideas. The ' only opinion, or the only ideas advanced, would be those of the authority. Intelligent critical thinking would be abandoned. Another aspect of authority is the settlement of disagreements. When there is a disagreement between two persons, and when the disagreement is not resolved by 37Jeanne Block and Jack Block, "An Interpersonal Experiment on Reactions to Authority," Human Relations, V01. 5 (1952). 87 discussion, persuasion, or other means of conviction, then it must be decided by the authority of one or the other participants. It is this "right to the last word" which is usually meant in speaking of "lines of authority" in an administrative organization. Writers on the political and legal aspects of authority have emphasized that its function is to enforce the conformity of the individual to norms laid down by 38 The the group, or by its authority-wielding members. function of authority is to secure decisions of a high quality or rationality and effectiveness through coordina- tion.39 ProfessionaliSm and Educational Decision-Making The professionalization of teachers and local lay control of educational decision-making are on a collision course. The crux of the problem, is that at the very moment local lay leaders are insisting upon increased power in educational decision-making, the teachers, as professionals, are demanding their right to involvement in decision-making. Professionalism is characterized by universalistic standards, by special skill and experience, by effective neutrality in client relationships, and by emphasis on 38Charles E. Merriam, Political Power (New York: Columbia University Press, 190 , p. . 39Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick, eds., Papers on the Science of Administration (New York: Institute of Public Administration, 1937), p. 38. 88 client, not practitioneer, needs. Professionals typically organize themselves into voluntary associations for the purpose of self-control. This self-control is subject to the surveillance of one's peers as the only group assumed 40 The to be qualified to make professional judgments. most effective power resource which teachers can develop and exercise control over is professional solidarity. Teachers are also seeking ways to exercise more control over decisions which affect them. Lieberman has deplored the lack of control that teachers exercise over their own affairs. He contends that teachers ought to be given national certification, and he has suggested a plan that could be implemented.41 It seems reasonable to expect that teachers will become more responsible for decisions having to do with the technical aspects of their practice. It appears that in the years ahead the large society and the administra- tor must concede greater control over teaching to the teachers themselves. If education is to become a true profession and teachers are to play a vital part in the decision-making process, teachers themselves must take more responsibility for controlling entry into the practice of teaching. Teachers must accept the sometimes distaste- ful, but most essential task of policing their own membership. 40Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, op. cit., pp. 78-100. 41 Lieberman, The Future of Public Education, op. cit., pp. 70-81. 89 When the problem is viewed as one of organization, it becomes apparent that the teachers' professional authority will be in jeopardy until it is supported by the structure of the organization itself. For example, in one study dual lines of authority which developed between physicians and administrators in a hospital helped to minimize professional-employee conflicts. On the one hand, the hospital administration maintained the right to make certain administrative decisions, such as scheduling and chart review, and the right to give advice. Physi- cians, however, reserved the right to accept or reject administrative suggestions about patient care. Goss, the author of the study, concludes that although the hierarchi- cal organization of the hospital in which professionals work might appear to conflict with the essence of profes- sional autonomy, in fact the hospital avoided this conflict by using this kind of separation of spheres of authority.42 Perhaps more than any other factor, the myth that a central office must stand responsible for every decision throughout an educational organization is now deterring administrators from considering alternative designs by which educational organizations could be adapted to accommodate the fact of professionalization. The curri- culum decision-making process in education will be our next topic. 42Mary E. W. Goss, "Influence and Authority Among Physicians," American Sociological Review, XXVI (February, 1961). 9O Curriculum Decision-Making in Education A review of the democratic principles of our society will establish a frame of reference to investigate the curriculum decision-making process in education. The background of our rights in the United States consists of a heritage which has developed throughout the years according to the basic fundamentals of democracy. The term democracy has a particular meaning and significance to each and every person. As time goes on, there have seemed to emerge some essential ideas and meanings of democracy. These seem to be: 1. Respect for, and faith in, the dignity of the individual; belief in the importance of each person as a human being of worth, and an understanding that the wel- fare of the individual and all individuals is the prime concern of the state. 2. As much individual liberty and freedom as is possible consistent with the common good (without harming others). 3. Equality of opportunity, rights, and privileges under the Constitution and the laws. 4. Government by the people through representa- tives, consent by the majority in secret ballot, and with the maintenance of rights to the minority and the right of appeal. These principles are the basis of the curriculum decision-making process, a process which calls on many of 91 man's human resources particularly when the persons affected are many, and the opportunity to turn back unlikely. The process of curriculum decision-making is an integral part of our democracy and its educational program. The curriculum decision-making process is impor- tant for several reasons: First, curriculum decision making is highly com- plex. Trueblood says that, "Decision making is hard because the answers are indeterminate and because it is the glory of man to be indeterminate."43 Second, a need exists to become aware of the curriculum decision-making process so that persons will develop an understanding of the use of data in making a decision.’ The individual will need to know when to search for additional data and when the cost of the search, in terms of time, money and energy, probably is not worth- while.44 Third, curriculum decision-making should be studied so that the quality of decisions can be ascertained. To differentiate between the merits of possible consequences of choices is a necessary learning. Dill says, "we make decisions for the present, with the idea that we can 43Trueblood, op. cit., p. 38. 44David Braybrooke and Charles E. Lindblor, é Strategyof Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press of GIencoe, 1963), . 47. 92 remake them in the future. We tend to accept alternatives that at most can be described as 'satisfactory for the time being' because we are better judges of what is 'better' than of what is 'best.'"45 Fourth, curriculum decision-making enables one to see the relationship between goals, action and decision. Goal attainment can be facilitated or deterred by the quality of decisions made. The fifth need for curriculum decision-making stems from our relationships with others. We select those individuals, facts, or situations which we are going to allow to influence our decision-making. Sixth, persons need to understand curriculum decision-making since it is so critical to other human processes and functions such as showing gratitude, aspir- ing and caring. Decision-making is affected by how one perceived, the values one holds, the knowledge one prizes, the persons one admires, the modes of communication one utilizes. Seventh, a fuller understanding of the curriculum decision-making process enables better determination of which kinds of decisions can be made by machines and which necessitate human thought. 45William K. Dill, "Decision-Making," in Behavioral §gience and Educational Administration, ed. by DanieII Griffiths, TEe Sixty-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part II (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 199-222. 93 Eighth, the in-service growth and training of the teachers make participation in the curriculum decision- making process a necessity in the professionalization of teachers. Democratic curriculum decision-making considers each person as an individual human being, a person of importance and dignity, with fundamental needs and rights. Fundamentally, the curriculum decision-making process is not only the curriculum decision but also the way in which decisions are reached, the acts or social engineering pro- cesses such as, re-examining concepts, attitudes, values, ideas and relationships necessary to put the decision into operation, and the implications of the decision upon the school as a social institution. Curriculum decision-making is a thoroughly human business, frought with all of the complexities and seem- ing inconsistencies that go with being human. There is no way to take this human element with all of its difficul- ties and contradictions out of curriculum decision-making. The raw logic of desirable consequences of the higher forms of decision-making cannot be transcended unless human beings with their wisdom, as well as their folly, become involved. The fundamental question is how to create and foster the settings, the atmosphere, and the kinds of procedures in which creative people are free to act and to exercise all the dimensions of their humanity in making wise choices. It is not appropriate for 94 curriculum decision-making to be a purely rational and logical process. No human being is purely rational and logical. Curriculum decisions always involve value con- cepts, either stated or implied. But the fact that a decision is a product of the human mind means that it is always subjective.” Every decision has a subjective element in it, and it wouldn't even be called a decision unless it did. Untold numbers of curriculum decisions are made in every school building every day. They are made by each teacher in his room when the door is closed. These, too, involve values that are expressed both explicitly and implicitly. Curriculum decision-making is a doing, acting kind of thing--interacting, perhaps, is a better word--and the external problems just referred to are not separable from the human mind which, in a sense, created the very problems it now wants to solve. Wise decisions are attempted through uncontaminated reason, intelligence, and pure logic. On the other hand it is known that it never actually works out that way because pure reason can't act. In our every day work aspirations, ideals, and values sometimes appear to compromise reason; and the reverse happens, too. It is known that there is something wrong with setting reason against feeling since the making of a decision always involves both. The highest goals that guide the search for meaning, and for the good life seem to transcend both personal feelings and intellect. 95 Let's acknowledge that feeling exists in curri- culum decision-making and learn how to reckon with it because, it will turn up anyway, disguised under the false cloak of reason. Another factor to be considered in the curriculum decision-making process is the necessity of complete public disclosure of the bases, the determining factors, that underlie, support, and justify curriculum decisions made by the human minds. If there is to be reasonable hope of achieving optimum solutions to curriculum problems there must be far more public review and examination of the values, purposes, and facts that lead to the decisions being made. Those who plan and conduct curriculum programs must resist the desire and the temptation to try to go it alone. There can never be complete freedom--absence of all outside interferences--in making curriculum decisions. It is a false hope that the ills of the school or of society could be fixed up if there were such freedom to determine the curriculum. The hard core of education problems and societal problems are organically related and indivisible. Responsibility for curriculum decision-making shared between administration and teacher is, in fact, the characteristic mode of dealing with the curriculum decision-making function. It has been generally agreed that it is an intrinsic professional responsibility, and 96 thus presumably a right, for teachers to be involved in curriculum decision-making, that it is an administrative responsibility to maintain intergrade and interschool continuity of curriculum; and that curriculum decisions should be made closest to the point of implementation which clearly implies the teacher in the classroom. To paraphrase, the curriculum decision-making process is primarily a teacher function coordinated by administration. Curriculum decision-making is the primary unifying force in the school learning experience of pupils. The teacher has the right and responsibility to affect curriculum decisions before they are made. Con- sultation should be an operating principle of all school organizations. Curriculum decision-making does not inter- fere with the methodology a teacher employs in the class- room, but it does deny the interpretation that the "freedom to teach" doctrine means that each teacher is an entrepreneur teaching whatever content he wishes, making his own curriculum. The goals of curriculum will be best achieved if the curriculum decision-making process is centralized in a cooperative administrative official and a curriculum council. It is not a tenable proposition that all teachers are capable of making curriculum. It is not just that teachers differ in ability but rather that many teachers are unable and unqualified to construct curriculum plans even for the subjects and grades they teach. 97 There is, in fact, an unfairness in administrative delegation of curriculum decision-making to individual teachers that amounts to administrative irresponsibility. It should be no surprise to administrators that many teachers will fall back upon the limited safety of the textbook, which, among its attributes, has nicely organized its own subject matter content in a sequence. Leaving curriculum decision-making entirely to teachers invites the ills of "textbook teaching" or what may be even worse, planlessness. KR'C‘“ The fundamental assumptions, then, of the curri- culum decision-making structure in local schools are that: (1) curriculum decision-making should be a centralized function between administration and a curriculum council; (2) a high degree of expertness is required of the person- nel who make the curriculum decisions; (3) a research facility must be built into the organization to examine and test curricular ideas; (4) teachers have consultative rights in curriculum decision-making; (5) local curri- culum decision-making will increasingly become choices between curriculum plans produced elsewhere and locally- developed plans; and (6) in time the major local curri- culum decision-making function may be that of determining program scope, sequence, and variety for each of the school's program offerings; (7) curriculum decision-making is the process of reeducation or re-growth of teachers and staff development. 98 Summary Educational decision-making in America shows a gradual evolution from the English common law, to the diversity of the various towns and territories of the early colonial period, to the formation of state education systems with decentralized control in the hands of local boards of education. The decision-making process as used in this study means not only the decision, but also the way in which decisions are reached, the acts necessary to put the decisions into operation, and the implications of the decision upon the social institution. All decision-making takes place within the context of an organization made up of formal and informal groups. The social and political aspects of decision-making shows a potential source of conflict between the legal and extralegal power structures indicating that social conflict is a fundamental social process and need not be harmful. The political decision-making process is affected by the confusion in values which is influenced by our pluralis- tic society, shifts in value positions, and international tensions. Coercive economic power, as imposed by organized groups, acts as a restriction or demand for particular actions which are imposed upon decision-makers. The function of authority in decision-making is to secure decisions of a high quality and effectiveness through coordination, and to enforce the conformity of 99 the individual to norms laid down by the group, or by its authority-wielding members. The professionalization of teachers and local control are on a collision course. The major question in education is who is going to be the decision-maker. The teachers' professional authority will be continually in jeopardy until it is supported by the structure of the organization. Perhaps more than any other factor, the myth that a central office must stand responsible for every deci- m . L - 7' ‘ . - -. ‘ . . urn—5x1“ MIMI.“ m V sion throughout an educational organization is now deter- ring administrators from considering alternative designs by which educational organizations could be adapted to accommodate the fact of professionalization. The curriculum decision-making process is not only the curriculum decision but also the way in which deci- sions are reached, the acts or social engineering processes such as, re-examining concepts, attitudes, values, ideas and relationships necessary to put the decision into operation, and the implications of the decision upon the school as a social institution. Curriculum decision-making is a thoroughly human business, frought with all of the complexities and seeming inconsistencies that go with being human. Curriculum decision-making is a doing, acting or interacting kind of thing. Responsibility for curriculum decision-making shared between administration and teacher is, in fact, the 100 characteristic mode of dealing with the curriculum decision-making function. Curriculum decision-making is the primary unifying force in the school learning experi- ence of pupils. The teacher has the right and respon- sibility to affect curriculum decisions before they are made. Consultation should be an operating principle of all school organizations. The goals of curriculum will be best achieved if the curriculum decision-making pro- cess is centralized in a cooperative administrative official and a curriculum council. . i CHAPTER IV THE ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF THE POSTULATES OF COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS AND CURRICULUM DECISION-MAKING In making an analysis and synthesis of the collec- tive negotiation and the curriculum decision-making pro- cesses postulates will be developed. A postulate is a fundamental principle, a necessary condition; a prerequisite, something taken as self-evident or assumed without proof as a basis for reasoning. The Postulates of Collective Negotiations 1. The collective negotiations process requires the existence of an adversary relationship. Collective negotiation in order to function needs adversary (conflict) relationship, the we-they, the employee-employer, or in the case of schools, teacher- board of education relationships. Collective negotiations as a process, is based on conflict--conflict of demands as against offers. As a relationship between two organi- zations, collective negotiations is the direct contact in 101 102 all phases of the employment relationship between the board of education representing the school and the teacher organization representing the teachers. It is a two party process implying that negotiations is not merely the presentation by one party of demands which require a defense by the other party, rather, it is a mutual "give-and-take" in which both parties make demands, proposals, and counterproposals. 2. The collective negotiation process requires a strong communitygof interest. Teachers have a community of interest to the extent that they share common skills, functions, educa- tional attainments, similarity of authority structures, supervision, working conditions and other characteristics. 3. ‘Collective negotiations requires the interdependence of the parties. A genuine interdependence of the parties must exist, it must be more than monetary, it is also a reflection of ideological compatibility. Collective negotiations takes place within the system and both parties are committed to the support of the system. The school cannot exist without teachers, and teachers cannot exist (teach) without schools. 4. Collective negotiations requires a high degree of local autonomy. The extent of local autonomy will depend upon the intelligent action of the local administrators, the local 103 teachers organizations leadership and the local board of education. 5. The parties of collective negotiations are not completely informed of the precise nature of the position of the other party. The teachers' negotiation representative generally does not know how far the board of education is willing to move or can move in the direction of teachers salaries. The board of education's knowledge of the precise nature of the teachers' position is also incomplete. It does not know what salary the teachers will actually accept. 6. Both parties operate within certain internal and external restraints. Bylaws and policies, as well as internal politics of the organizations, set limits for negotiators. The parties must also operate within the restrictions and limits imposed by society, whether in the form of laws, customs, economics, politics or morals. 7. Collective negotiations assumes that oyep time some balance of power will be found between the two parties. Power to paralyze is alien to the collective negotiation process. In collective negotiations in Michigan, the balance of power has not yet materialized; Yet it would be difficult to find many who would deny that power is at least the backdrop to the collective relationship even if it is not the central theme. 104 8. The parties in collective negotiations are not monolithic groups. At least three groups may be recognized in the teacher group; the hierarchy of paid staff, the dedicated or core group, and the rank and file. Each of these groups has separate needs. Other internal differences may be the division between older and younger teachers, or specialized and unspecialized. The board of education too, in addition to having interests which in part are diverse from those of the teacher organization, is characterized by sub-groups, each of which has separate interests and needs. Probably applying to a higher degree in education than in private employment, this postulate simply points out that the collective negotiation process is not a simple one-to-one accommodation. It involves an extremely complex network of coalitions based on power, personality, need, and interest. Classification and Function of Collective Negotiation Postulates A second step in the analysis process is that of classifying the postulates of collective negotiations according to the criteria of positive and negative func- tions. Chart III presents the idea of positive and nega- tive functional aspects of the collective negotiation 105 CHART III FUNCTIONS OF COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATION POSTULATES TO THE CURRICULUM DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 1. Over time some balance of power will be found 2. Parties are not monolithic groups 3. Interdependence of the parties Positive -—+— Postulate Functions Negative ———— l. Adversary relationships 2. Community of interest 3. Local autonomy 4. Not completely informed 5. Internal and external restraints 106 postulates in relation to the curriculum decision-making process. PosiEiye Functional Aspects of Collective Negotiations The first postulate assumes that over time some balance of power will be found between the two parties. The histOry of the development of education shows that the balance of power between teachers and boards of education has been very one sided in favor of the boards of education. Collective negotiations will accomplish a reduc- tion of power in the hands of local boards of education which could lead to the development of a more true profes- sion in education, and could eventually lead to profes- sional decisions being made by professional people. Teachers have been an extremely weak occupational group. They have had no control over entry to teaching and have been unable to negotiate collectively at the local level. They are also handicapped by the fact that there is only one employer for teachers in most communi- ties. Then, too, the presence of large numbers of women 'who are ready to leave their housewifely tasks and become teachers at any time tends to keep teachers quiescent. There are other factors favorable to teachers ‘Which they have never used properly. Within the local Community, the board of education is the only employer, lnrt on a state level there are hundreds of employers and 107 only one or possibly two state teachers' associations. Thus, at the state level, the power situation is reversed, or could be. For this reason, teachers have an unparal- leled opportunity to gain the balance of power over local boards of education as is presently being experienced in Michigan. Teachers also run the risk of a gross imbalance in the power relationships between various constituencies in a community with the consequent misallocation of the educational resources of that community. The fact that the groups are not monolithic groups is another positive postulate. This postulate will force the development of a broad contract that will better meet the needs of all groups within the teacher organization. The importance of this postulate is the fact that collec- tive negotiations is not a simple one-to-one accommoda- tion. The process involves an extremely complex network of coalitions based on power, personality, need, and interest. The teachers' organization represents not only the common interests of all teachers but also a large number of particular interests, sometimes conflicting, among teachers. Intra-organizational mediation both in resolving conflicts of interest within the membership and in gaining acceptance of priorities for goals, are common for teacher organizations. All the demands of a member- ship can seldom, if ever, be fully satisfied. 108 The third and last positive postulate of collec- tive negotiations is the interdependence of the parties. Negotiations forces the two parties to sit down together, face to face, and negotiate an agreement which they are both willing to live by for a certain period of time. By formalizing this new process of introducing innovation via collective negotiations, schools will have the adVantage of combining the expertise of administrators and supervisors with the experience of the teacher. Further, the process places the teacher in a position where he really has to produce. Because of the power of negotiations, curriculum planning becomes a more workable and effective process than ever before. A curriculum committee is set up; on the committee are several classroom teachers as well as consultants in various fields, department chairmen, and so on. But the most powerful voice in curriculum deci- sions is that of the classroom teachers. In such a situation, curriculum coordinators and supervisors must win classroom-teacher approval of their ideas in order to carry out the program. Achieving such approval indicates that grass roots support is already there and therefore that the program is likely to get a fair trial. Further, if the program doesn't work or isn't implemented according to the agreed plan, the requirements of a negotiation contract can provide means for review via 109 the grievance procedure. Thus the program is more likely to be accepted and tried with an open mind because teachers know that if it doesn't work it can--it must--be reviewed. By making the teacher more effective through negotiations the profession is helping to define a new role for today's better prepared teachers, a role which gives them more voice in their own destiny. Finally, and probably most important to this postulate, education fosters the ideological compatibility between the teachers and the board of education to support, promote, and improve the educational system. Negative Postulates The collective negotiation postulate that develops adversary relationships is a negative postulate. This postulate is probably the most important in the analysis of the collective negotiation process, and has probably the greatest implication to the currculum decision-making process. Theory and research in education have not hitherto been much concerned with problems of institutionalized or formalized group conflict within the school organization. There has been little necessity to date for educators to make reference to or draw upon what is known of group conflict in industry. The conflict potential of the "bureaucracy vs professional employee" dilemma has had increasing attention usually as a special case of the broad 110 concept of "organization vs individual" conflict. Gener- ally, conflict as traditionally perceived in the school organization, has not been viewed as likely to lead to collective action among the teaching staff in support of a consensus in opposition to the judgment of the board of education or the administration. Conflict itself, if properly understood and dealt with, may present an opportunity for growth. Therefore, conflict can be either constructive or destructive. Mary Parker Follett, in her great paper on "Constructive l Conflict" advanced the point of view that the three main A: ways of dealing with conflict are domination, compromise, and integration. Domination, the victory of one side over“ the other, is the easiest and quickest but the least successful method for dealing with conflict. Compromise, the most commonly used method, involves each side moder- ating its demands in order to have peace, neither side obtaining all its objectives. If the ideas of both sides are integrated into a solution that encompasses the desires of both sides, the highest level of dealing with conflict is reached. Conflict is constructive when it can serve as the impetus for growth in human relations and the finding of better solutions for meeting the needs of the group. f 1Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick, eds., Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Marngarker Follett (New York: Harper and Brothers, PubliShers, 1940), pp. 30-49. 111 Conflict is destructive when it continues or increases social disorganization or is damaging to individual personalities. Collective negotiations in a school system may come to have a number of aspects which some persons, depending on perspective and context, might consider disadvantages. For example, they ask whether it is necessary or desirable to: Assume and then put into practice an important and meaningful cleavage between, on the one hand, all of the "rank and file" professional teaching staff in a school and, on the other hand, all of those in administrative and supervisory positions; or Establish a teacher organization which can become a political entity with its own imperatives for existence and survival which may in some instances be separate from the interests of the rank and file membership; or Embrace a process which can put a premium on disingenuousness and power with a resultant distortion of rationality, which should be the heart of education; or Support the growth of a pyramidal hierarchical structure which can itself, parallel to the work of the organization, subordinate the individual to its impera- tives and ignore proper minority interests. Many people see nothing democratic in collective neogtiations. They look upon the entire process as a power struggle. Instead of arriving at agreement on the 112 basis of arguments and a joint consideration of common problems, the results depend upon the willingness of the respective sides "to take a strike." A further criticism is that political considerations overshadow all other in collective negotiations. One function of conflict is to defend conflict in valued principles and to effect creative compromise between them. Group conflicts, in other words, function as "checks and balances." Conflict is defended as being necessary for change and progress, not so in the case of curriculum decision-making. The postulate "community of interest" among the teacher groups plays one of the fundamental functions of the collective negotiation process in as much as it is one of the deciding factors in the formation of the negotiating unit. Employees have a community of interest to the extent that they share skills, functions, educa- tional attainments, managerial supervision, working con- ditions, and other characteristics. The fragmentation of groups of staff members resulting from teachers' placing themselves in a separate negotiating unit has created a new type of hostility between and among staff members, has adversely affected communications, and has impeded cooperative efforts. In some districts there are splinter groups of teachers, each with a community of interest and each working for separate negotiating rights. 113 Administrators, too, have seized upon the community of interest concept. In some cases they have been recog- nized as separate negotiating groups while other adminis- trative groups also are striving for recognition. If the "me too" and the "bandwagon" approaches persist a monster may have been invented that will devour all of us. Just imagine what would happen if a local school district ultimately had separate negotiating units for classroom teachers, department chairmen, counselors, school social workers, librarians, nurses, coaches, driver education teachers, and elementary Special (art, music, physical education) teachers. Then add to the picture elementary principals, supervisors, directors, coordinators, and consultants. This postulate is classified as a negative one because it is ludicrous and ineffective for educators to work as splinter groups; the profession needs to coordi- nate and unify all its efforts. The profession needs to organize on the basis, not of a community of interest, but a community of purpose concept. Another negative postulate is local autonomy. The function of local autonomy in the collective negotiation process is to represent their members effectively. Both the school administration and the organiza- tion should have unified control at negotiating sessions. They are fashioned by the mores of each locality, and by 114 each state, because of the high degree of local control that exists. There is a tendency for state and national organi- zations to become increasingly involved in negotiations. The local leaders negotiate only once a year, perhaps less, and there may be considerable turnover in their ranks. They are not likely to be as knowledgable about i negotiations as state and national personnel who partici- 5 pate in one set of negotiations after another. There are E some difficult problems here in reconciling local control E over negotiations while getting the most effective results. : Permitting outside personnel to become involved in nego- tiations may lead to an over dependence on outsiders which could impair the ability of the local organization to administer the written agreement. Serious internal problems may also arise in the local organization since its leaders may have become excessively dependent on the outside experts. There is a tendency for the outside agency to impose the comprehensive, mandatory, universally applicable set of rules which constitutes the well- developed collective negotiation contract upon group relationships in a school system with the effect of reducing or destroying what may be, in some instances, a desirable degree of flexibility and the ability to deal with uniqueness. The effect of state laws is generally the same. Local districts are being told how they should deal with 115 school employees with respect to the unit of representa- tion. When these laws are passed, they will serve in part to amend authority and autonomy of the local school district. The Michigan law regarding collective negotai- tions has amended the authority and autonomy of local districts. The fact that collective negotiations depends on the fact that both parties are not completely informed is a situation that could have a negative effect on the curriculum decision-making process. Before decisions can be made intelligently, both sides must know as much as possible about the other's positions and aspirations. An enlightened board and administration will have printed policies and procedures which are available to the teaching staff. It will use the resources of its staff in helping develop curricula, workshops and budget requests. Given the nature of school finance, it is doubt- ful that the teacher organization has precise information about the total educational budget available or about the amount traditionally specified for salaries and for economic fringe benefits. The demands by the teacher groups for an increase in the total educational budget is the area of indeterminacy most apparent. Thus teacher Iorganizations may suggest that, since the total dollars are limited, expenditures for other educational services 116 should be curtailed in order to meet the teachers' salary demands. The board of education's knowledge of the precise nature of the teachers' position is also incomplete. It does not know what salary the teachers will actually accept. The postulate referring to the internal and A ,._ u‘ u..- external restraints of both parties is a negative factor as far as the curriculum decision-making process is con- cerned eSpecially inasmuch as teacher negotiations takes place in the public sector and is responsible to the i- public. Bylaws and policies, as well as internal politics of the organizations, set limits for negotiators. The parties must also operate within the restrictions and limits imposed by society, whether in the form of laws, customs, economics, politics or morals. Both the teacher groups and boards of education are limited by internal policies and bylaws. In fact, the boards of education have many more limitations than management in private industry because of the public nature of their deliberations. Pressure by all citizens, even teachers, can be brought to bear on the school board member, and a response unknown in private industry is required. For not only can extreme pressure be applied on a board's collective negotiation policy and tactics but, because he is a publicly elected official, the board 117 member himself usually feels a responsibility to answer citizens' demands or criticisms. The internal policies of the teacher groups also have a degree of public visibility. One of the most serious problems that the teachers are presently facing is the development of policies and bylaws that will combine idealistic precepts of professionalism with the requirement of collective negotiations. The curriculum decision-making process has developed through usage and research, certain postulates. These postulates will now be presented. The Postulates of Curriculum Decision-Making l. The curriculum decision-making process is a growth and study process that evolves as a result of interactions between teachers and administrators. Through the interaction of teachers and administra- tors with each other and with other leaders and citizens, important channels of communication crystallize. Due to the unpopularity of politics among teachers, many educa- tors have not participated effectively in the activities through which this crystallization is shaped. The inter- action of those persons who are most active in the inter- action process results in the formation of some perceptions of great significance to the curriculum decision-making process. 118 Many teachers have strong beliefs about education. These beliefs, in turn, influence their personal inputs into the system. Through the activities that occur in the decision-making process, certain ideas crystallize about how a teacher should use his political power to influence the structure. Accepted in the system is a set of perceived rules of the game for exercising power in the system. For example, in one school district the teachers felt that a project should be discussed informally before it was promoted through official channels. A violation of procedural norms could result in the exercise of sanctions against the culprit and--if he continues--will result in powerlessness for him in the system. In the social structure within a school, there is a hierarchy of status, highly developed in formal situa- tions and negligble where the faculty works cooperatively as a total group. The line-and-staff type of organization tends to perpetuate the hierarchy. Some principals feel that they must keep their distance in order to carry out effectively their role as principal. In other words, a person's role stems from the status relationships, and where a premium is placed upon status differences, inter- action and change are likely to suffer. The processes of re-education or re-growing are difficult ones, particularly if growth has been arrested for many reasons. The individual teacher must work through the process with the help of administrators or other 119 leaders. Blaming the individual for his lack of profes- sional growth, making him feel that his ideas are wrong and that there is therefore something wrong with him, and making any kind of direct attack upon the problem of changing the person are not productive methods. Reduction of both conflict and duplication of effort can be had, it appears, only by giving the teachers and administrators enough opportunity to interact about their differences. One should realize that conflict about roles is not necessarily unfortunate; it often I mmuu ?. -. _' 9.. serves to clear the air and to define clarification of roles. 2. The end products of curriculum decision- making continually change as a result of the process. Curriculum decision-making is a ceaseless process, flourishing in a dynamic, flexible educational environment, in which security and stability exist without complacency or crystallization. It suggests continuous study of pro- grams. Such study and planning have direction and, while certain phases may be permanently or intermittently terminated, the curriculum decision-making process continues. Many considerations enter into the selection of appropriate individualized techniques and procedures for curriculum decision-making. The specific ends to be attained, the foci of curriculum activity, the personnel to be involved, the leadership and resources available, 120 and the potential influence of a particular procedure all weigh upon the choice. No single procedure in a continuous program of curriculum decision-making will fit all situations and attain all ends. The same procedures will have shadings and modifications to suit separate programs. Participants frequently will need training in the skills required to adapt and use effectively a generalized procedure. Care- ful selection of procedures and techniques is critical in curriculum decision-making if end results are to warrant effort and expenditure. Decisions require information, a framework for focus and instruments for implementation. Decisions of high quality require careful evaluation of possible con- sequences, awareness of a school's resources and personnel, and insight into avenues of appropriate action leading to favorable response. 3. The people who are to be affected by curriculum decisions should be involved in the decision-making process. Few can argue logically against participation in curriculum decision-making by those closest to the scene of learning. But many can debate the issue of selection of these individuals as participants versus all of them as participants. Curriculum decision-making is part of the work of the teacher. It is believed that teachers have three basic functions. One is to participate in planning 121 the curriculum that is to be their point of departure for teaching. The second is to teach. The third is to evaluate what was planned and taught and to interpret those results. The larger the planning group and the further away from the classroom that curriculum decision-making takes place, the greater the need for the representative process to operate. Conversely, the smaller the planning group and the closer to the classroom that curriculum decision- making takes place, the greater the necessity of total involvement. Curriculum decision-making is a value judgment by someone; thus, it is logical that these judgments be formulated in large part by those who will be operating under them; these are, especially, the classroom teachers. Teachers want to feel that they have a part in Controlling their own destiny. Jobs give greater satis- faction to a person if they give him opportunity to take part in forming the decisions that govern him. The demand for participation in decision-making is part of a basic drive for independence, freedom of action, and the acquisition of a feeling of importance. As people feel that they have a part in decision- making, they gain two types of satisfactions. They know that they are important because they have a voice in decisions. They obtain recognition because their 122 interests are considered by the total group. In addition, they have a sense of purpose and self-direction. When goals are established by the group, the members feel a responsibility for them and want to achieve them. EXperiments have shown that a group decision to change makes it easier for an individual to change. When a group as a whole decides on a certain course of action, more individuals within the group are likely to go along with the decision. The focus on curriculum decision- making should be on the group not on the individual.2 4. Curriculum decision-making is most productive when a high degree of mutual faith, trust, and respect exists among all staff members. Teachers exhibit many different kinds of behavior. Like other people they are happy, sad, moody, concerned, witty, humorous, serious, lighthearted, or gay, depending upon the occasion. Like other people, teachers have inherited and acquired personality characteristics. Our behavior is primarily caused, as Combs explains, by what seems to us to be so: People do not behave according to the facts as others see them; they behave in terms of what seems to them to be so. 2Dorwin Cartwright, "Achieving Change in People," in The Plonning of Change, ed. by Warren Bennis, Kenneth Benne and Rdbert Chin (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962), p. 702. 3Arthur W. Combs, Educational Leadership, Vol. XVI (October, 1958), p. 21. 123 This concept should help us to understand the individual differences in behavior among the teachers. Individual differences are certainly as common and as valid among teachers as they are among pupils. The types of experiences a person has determines the attitudes, values, and points of View he develops. If his experiences with people are pleasant ones where his personality is respected, he comes to believe in the worth of personality and to be concerned about the feeling of others. The fields of perceptual psychology, social psychology, psychotherapy, and group dynamics in recent years have stimulated careful thought about how curriculum decision-making processes can function in a productive way. The human relations concept of curriculum decision- making is rapidly evolving. The human relations concept of curriculum decision-making places the emphasis on group processes and group work, through which changes in the group struc- ture can be effected. It throws considerable doubt on the value of any curriculum decision-making that does not involve the teacher concerned. It centers the attention on the way faculties work together, know each other, understand each other, and see themselves and others. Good human relations cannot be obtained by demand- ing or requesting them. They are built by living and working with teachers in such a way that they can practice 124 good human relations. Each teacher in the school has value and a contribution to make. Such faith is basic to an environment in which everyone respects the worth of everyone else. Teachers tend to live up to what others expect them to be. If others don't think they are worth while, that they are trustworthy, that they have a real contribution to make, they won't make good curriculum decision-makers. The uncertainty, anxiety, and hostility felt by teachers in a school where they are subject to changes by decree, or are kept in the dark about the reasons for the administration's decisions, are signs of low morale. Where teachers have a sense of belonging, where people respect and like each other, and where administrators and teachers work together on curriculum decisions in a high-morale atmosphere, changes in curriculum come about much more readily.4 It is doubtful if curriculum decision-making finds any nourishment in an atmosphere bereft of friendli- ness, the spirit of give-and-take, and genuine understand- ing of associates. Where the human relations factor is ignored, there is little inclination to use new ideas. The best idea will not work unless there is a will to make it work. 4Ronald C. Doll, Curriculum Improvement (Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1964), pp. 120-149. 125 The lack of good human relations within a school society and in the school's contacts with the community is probably the most powerful single deterrent to curri- culum decision-making. 5. The teacher is the keystone in curriculum decision-making. Whether he sits alone at his desk studying profes- sional literature as a prelude to planning with his pupils, or trades insights with other faculty members, or partici- pates in committee and study group work, the key person in curriculum decision-making activities is the teacher. Although the curriculum decision-making process involves many other persons, the teacher's influence on the school experiences of children and youth is perhaps the most critical. There is little need to re-emphasize the fact that classroom teachers largely determine the curriculum. Regardless of grandiose curriculum plans, when the class- room door is closed, the insight and skill of the teacher determine in largest measure the quality of the learner's experiences. Teachers perform three major tasks that make them effective curriculum decision-makers: (1) they work and plan with pupils; (2) they engage in individual study; and (3) they share experiences concerning the curriculum with other teachers. Thus, by learning from children, from books, and from each other, they grow in insight and skill 126 so that they can be better curriculum decision-makers. Among these three tasks, teachers most often prefer group activity with other teachers. To influence curriculum decision-making on a braod front and in favorable ways, teachers need to pool their thinking for only as they know, accept, and promote the goals of their schools can they be lastingly helpful in curriculum decision-making. Group thinking, of course, does not always result in wise decisions; but it does create higher morale, maintenance of interest, and willingness to change. The quality of the group problem-solving process, improves the quality of decision-making. What happens in the group should transfer, in part, to the classroom and to the privacy of the teacher's study; by the same token, what happens in the classroom and the study should enrich the life of the group. In performing his three tasks, the teacher needs to improve the quality of his decision-making. Some of the reasons for the increasingly important role of teachers in the curriculum decision-making process are: 1. Teachers talk to teachers. A few teachers who have become involved in curriculum decision- making will pass the work along to their co-workers. 2. If the decision is to be based upon tte needs and concerns of the learners, teachers are in 127 a position to be familiar with those needs and concerns. 3. In a faculty there will be considerable variation in experience and competence. By drawing upon individual strengths the decision-makers will have a potential for greater depth and broader participation. 4. If curriculum decision-making is envisioned in its broad sense, participation will afford an opportunity for the professional growth of the teacher. 5. In daily experiences, no one is in a better position to observe the curriculum in action. 6. Leadership for curriculum decision-making is necessary. Someone must synchronize and coordinate activities and energies in curriculum decision-making. Leadership for curriculum decision-making, whether it emerges from individuals or from groups, sets the scene within which teachers and others may plan directly or indirectly for curriculum decisions. Coordination of all the individuals and groups engaged in these decisions is also necessary to facilitate and insure desirable planning, communication, and execution of decisions. Leadership for curriculum decision-making can come from many sources and from different individuals. Some persons will be in administrative positions; others, 128 without such official responsibilities, may provide the functional leadership essential for sparking, encouraging, facilitating, and crystallizing plans and experiences which lead to the improvement of curriculum decision- making. With increased insights into the process of curri- culum decision-making, concepts about the nature of leadership in bringing about changes in the conditions which affect teaching and learning have undergone con- siderable modification. The central function of leader- ship has become that of harmonizing all aspects of the e learning process related to affecting changes in the behavior of individuals who create the conditions for learning. Educational leadership is that action or behavior among individuals and groups which causes both the individual and the groups to move toward educational goals that are increasingly mutually acceptable. Leadership action is more than words can describe--it is a quality of interaction which takes on added meaning for people as they live it and study its significance. Various leaders use different methods in taking action. These have been classified as force, bargaining, paternalism, and determination of mutually acceptable goals and means. The last mentioned of these methods accords with the definition of educational leadership which has been quoted above, though effective leaders, 129 because they are human, many find themselves lapsing into use of force, bargaining and paternalism, just as they themselves are forced, and bargained with. Three major theories have been advanced in efforts to describe effective leadership. The first holds that desirable leadership can be had if the leader possesses certain traits; the second, that it can be had as a result of what happens within groups; and third, that it can be had as a result of situations or circumstances within which people are required to operate. More than 100 studies have been made of the traits which leaders should possess. The most disappointing features of these studies is their failure to uncover a pattern of traits which leaders should invariably have. A second theory of leadership maintains that leadership does not inhere in the traits of individual leaders but in the structure of the group to which the individual leader belongs. According to this theory a leader is anyone who engages in the performance of the following two acts: those concerned with achieving goals, and those concerned with keeping the group working happily and productively together. If, in curriculum matters, one acts according to the theory that leadership is the property of the group, he can derive from the literature of group process several ideas about what status leaders and emergent leaders 130 should do to assist small groups and larger organizations in attaining their goals. The third theory of leadership holds that the situation or circumstances in which the organization and its leadership find themselves is crucial. According to this theory, certain situations call for leadership of a certain quality. Out of this situation and the need it engenders there arises leadership to deal with the situa- tion. Therefore the leadership which is considered com- petent in one circumstance may not be considered competent in another, and the image of the monolithic leader is thus destroyed. If leadership could be eXplained adequately by forming a happy combination of the three theories, much time could be saved in future study. However, other factors with which the three theories do not reckon enter the scene. Nothing has been said about the nature of the social organization within which leadership is to be established, about the value systems that exist within organizations, and about the difference in expectations of leadership behavior and role. In the words of Ross and Hendry: Perhaps the best we can say at this point is that any comprehensive theory of leadership must take into account the fact that roles in groups tend to be structured, and that the leadership roles are probably related to personality factors, to the attitudes and needs of 'followers' at a particular time, to the structure of the group, and to the situation. . . . Leadership is probably a function of the interaction of such variables, and these undoubtedly provide for role differentiation which 131 leads to the designation of a 'central figure' or leader, without prohibiting other members in the group from performing leadership functions in various ways, and at various times, in the life of the group.5 Books on school administration often discuss administrators and their authority. Books on curriculum and instruction tend to discuss leaders and their responsibilities. Under an ancient concept of leadership, authority resides in the superintendent of schools and those staff members to whom he delegates it. Major modification of this concept is needed. First, authority that is delegated increases "the number of levels of authority and the result is a pyramidal rather than a flat organizational structure. This type of organization has often been authoritarian rather than democratic and has not promoted a free flow of communica- tion."6 Authority, a term which is used to describe institutionalized power, should be shared rather than delegated. Shared decisions make it possible for the staff to be importantly involved. The problem is not that of eliminating authority but of weaving authority and participation together. If the best instructional programs are desired, superintendents will share their concerns, responsibilities, and authority for curriculum 5Murray G. Ross and Charles E. Hendry, New Understandings of Leadership (New York: Association Press, 1957), p. 29. 6Roald F. Campbell and Russell T. Gregg, Administrative Behavior in Education (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1957), p. 280. II [I III-Ill- Illlul: {III I'll! I 132 decision-making with the members of their staffs. Respon- sibility without authority tends to be sterile in its ability to produce results. Probably no aspect of curriculum decision-making is as crucial as the quality of leadership available. The leader plays the crucial role in helping the teacher to grow, since he establishes to a large extent the kinds of relationships that exist among the members of the group. His job is to create an atmosphere in which the teacher will be free to express his own problems, no matter how trivial they may seem, and to help the teacher solve his problems through gaining greater insight into them. Summar Chapter IV was devoted to the development of postulates for the collective negotiation process and the curriculum decision-making process. These postulates are as follows. The Postulates of Collective Negotiations: 1. The collective negotiations process requires the existence of an adversary relationship. 2. The collective negotiation process requires a strong community of interest. 3. Collective negotiations requires the interde- pendence of the parties. 4. Collective negotiations requires a high degree of local autonomy. 133 5. The parties of collective negotiations are not completely informed of the precise nature of the position of the other party. 6. Both parties operate within certain internal and external restraints. 7. Collective negotiations assumes that over time some balance of power will be found between the two parties. The Postulates of Curriculum Decision-Making: 1. The curriculum decision-making process is a growth and study process that evolves as a result of interactions between teachers and administrators. 2. The end products of curriculum decision- making continually change as a result of the process. 3. The people who are to be affected by curri- culum decisions should be involved in the decision-making process. 4. Curriculum decision-making is most productive when a high degree of mutual faith, trust, and respect exists among all staff members. 5. The teacher is the keystone in curriculum decision making. 6. Leadership for curriculum decision-making is necessary. 134 The next chapter will be devoted to determining the implications of the interactions of these postulates. CHAPTER V IMPLICATIONS OF COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE CURRICULUM DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Review of the Processes Used in The Study An analysis of the literature, related to the background and principles of collective negotiations was made, to assist in constructing a frame of reference to understand the collective negotiation process. Background literature, various interpretations and explanations of the process, the legal setting in the State of Michigan, the roles of professionalism, the operation of the politi- cal and economic factors and the evolution and changing positions of the educational organizations and their significance were all investigated. Decision-making in education was investigated with special emphasis on local control, the operation of formal and informal groups, the social, political and economic aspects of educational decision-making in a pluralistic society and the role of authority in decision-making in a bureaucratic society especially as it relates to profes- sional people, education and the curriculum decision-making 135 136 process. Curriculum as used in this study is all of the experiences which are planned and sponsored for learners by the school. With this background postulates were formulated for curriculum decision-making and collective negotiations thus leading to the point that certain propositions of collective negotiations could be advanced which would FT have implications for the curriculum decision-making process. A proposition is defined as "a statement in E which something is affirmed or denied, so that it can i j therefore be significantly characterized as true or false."1 A logical definition for implication is "the relation which holds between two propositions in virtue of which one is logically deducible from the other."2 It is from these broad definitions that the propositions that have implications for the curriculum decision-making pro- cess will be generated. This chapter will be divided into three parts. In Part I propositions of collective negotiations will be developed, together with implications for the curriculum decision-making process. These propositions in turn will be divided into two groups, disruptive propositions and change propositions. Part II contains a proposed conceptual 1Jess Stein, ed., The Random House Dictionagy of Engiish Language (New York: Random House, Inc., 1967), p. 1153. 2 Ibid., p. 715. 137 framework or organizational model for curriculum decision- making that could function under the collective negotiation process. In Part III some additional study topics will be listed in the area of collective negotiations and the curriculum decision-making process. Part I--Propositions of Collective Negotiations with Implications for the Curriculum Decision-Making Process 1. Collective negotiations needs conflict (adversary) situations which are incompatible with the curri- culum decision-making process. 2. Collective negotiations will act as a divisive agent in the curriculum decision-making process and the educational profession. 3. Collective negotiations of curriculum and instruc- tion is anathema to cooperative curriculum decision-making. 4. Collective negotiations will cause the development of new and separate organizations in education. 5. Collective negotiations will cause teachers to exhibit behavior that is a direct contradiction to the stated goals of our educational program as it relates to attitudes and values basic to our democratic way of life. 6. Through collective negotiations the development and growth of a new pyramidial, hierarchical, bureaucratic structure, within the professional 10. 11. 12. 13. 138 organization, parallel to the school organiza- tion, will subordinate the individual to its imperatives and ignore the proper interests of the minority. Collective negotiations will cause a shift in power (decision-making) from the administration to the teacher in the curriculum decision-making process. Collective negotiations will change the legal organizational structure of education to involve the teachers in decision-making. k - Collective negotiations will cause the centraliza- tion of the curriculum decision-making process. Collective negotiations could retard the intro- duction of new technologies or courses. Collective negotiation will eliminate complete freedom of choice by either the administrators or teachers in the curriculum decision-making process. Collective negotiations may cause a standardiza- tion of curriculum which will discourage creative and original thought. Collective negotiations will force the formula- tion of a completely new model of curriculum decision-making. 139 A.--Disruptive Propositions of the Collective Ne otiations Process with Implioations for the Curriculum Decision-Making Process PROPOSITION--Collective negotiations needs conflict (adversary) situations which are incompatible with the curriculum decision-makingiprocess. The establishment of a collective negotiation relationship sets in motion certain conflict situations such as: a conflict between, on the one hand, all of the "rank and file" teaching staff in a school and, on the other hand, all of those in administrative positions. The conflict postulate of collective negotiations is antagonistic to the postulate of faith and mutual trust in the curriculum decision-making process. Conflicts can and do bring disorder, destruction and death to human affairs. Conflict is destructive when it continues or increases social disorganization or is damaging to individual personalities. Conflict on pro- fessional matters we may well have, but how much of it will be amenable to resolution through the process of collective negotiations is difficult to say. To have an issue suitable for negotiation, there must be consensus within the organization which is making a negotiable demand. The extent to which there is likely to be both consensus on professional technical problems and accom- panying sharply focused conflict with the administration and/or the board is problematical except possibly in terms 140 of request for delegations of authority to individual teachers on matters previously decided by some level of the administration. PROPOSITION--Collective negotiations will act as a divisive agent in the curriculum decision- making process and the educational profession. One of the major propositions of collective nego- tiations is its divisive effect. The present teacher's role will be fractionated and accommodated by several persons. These new specialists may organize and seek negotiating rights; or, if we go the master teacher route, L . the teachers may organize and negotiate as higher and lower echelon professionals. The establishment of collective negotiations will challenge the movement toward a unified profession. There is increasing need for unity between teachers and adminis- trators. Educational change is a human process, dependent upon interaction, evaluation, and feedback. Educational change of any real consequence comes as teachers and administrators behave more humanely and intelligently toward each other and toward pupils. This behavior does not emerge from the negotiating table nor from living in isolation. A unified teaching staff with concommitant admin- istrative groups will not be enough to cope with important educational decisions no matter how high salaries go. Our professional task is far too complex for a single 141 group to provide all the needed input for intelligent decision-making. The diviseness which tends to result from compromise negotiations, professionalism, separatism and contract limits on creative curriculum decision-making can only retard efforts to improve schools. Furthermore, what is being learned about the importance of a catalytic agent in changing teacher behavior hardly suggests isolation of teacher groups from administrators. Supportive relationships so important to self-enhancement and teaching improvement can be built ‘Il _« only through trust and mutual cooperation. ~ ~ Interpersonal problems and frustrations are created for both teachers and administrators who find themselves inhibited by terms of a contract which includes articles on curriculum and instruction. Negotiating teams, both teacher and board, probably can never have sufficient foresignt to write a contract which will satisfy the needs of an energetic and innovative staff. In light of present developments in curriculum and instruction we can ill afford to be hamstrung by a process of collective negotiations which prevents an objective, dispassionate analysis. Nor can we afford to make parti- san questions out of the issues involved in the curriculum decision-making process. Such matters must not be decided on the basis of what one power group or another happens to prefer. 142 PROPOSITION-~Collective negotiations of curriculum and instruction is anathema to cogperative curriculum decision-making. Down through the years educators have advocated the development of curriculum through teamwork and a co-professional approach. It has long been a stated belief of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development that the curriculum decision-making process is a cooperative process involving educators from a variety of specializations. The climate of labor-management -— -A-“ ' . - . collective negotiations not only has had a negative impact on working relationships among professional staff members but also has the potential of destroying cooperative curriculum decision—making. Correctly perceived, curriculum decision-making must be characterized by change, flexibility, experimenta- tion, evaluation, and open-mindedness. Negotiation and contractual agreements are (or have been at least, in the traditional labor model) the antithesis of this, for the outcomes of negotiation usually result in frozen practices, legalized practices, and restriction of change. Activities and content should evolve as teachers and administrators work together on a coprofessional basis in an effort to improve the instructional program. When properly conceived, curriculum issues defy negotiations. The nature of curriculum and instruction make it axiomatic that they be treated openly, intellectually, II .1 1| Ii Dlu' 143 experimentally, honestly, with all available wisdom and evidence brought to bear on the decisions. All of the elements affecting decision-making in curriculum must be considered. The imposition of a comprehensive, mandatory, universally applicable set of rules which constitutes the well-developed collective negotiations contract upon group relationships in a school system can have the effect of reducing or destroying a desirable degree of flexibility and the ability to deal with uniqueness locally. The most perplexing problem of our profession is that we have not learned how to negotiate on a co—profes- sional basis. Many issues rightfully belonging to profes— sional settlement have been settled in the context of adversary relationships, accompanied by antagonistic confrontations. Curriculum matters are being caught up in this process. PROPOSITION-~Collective negotiations will cause the development of new and separate organizations in education. Instead of a unified organizational approach to the problems of education, the development of new and separate organizations in education is making it more difficult for a planned approach to the problems in education. Superintendents who have been organized for over 100 years as the American Association of School 1.1. 11. .1111 1... l.li I. ll: lllll 144 Administrators, a department of the National Education Association, are now considering the possibility of separating from the National Education Association. The Michigan Association of School Administrators has already separated from its professional organization, the Michigan Education Association. Middle management, principals and supervisors, are organizing locally and asking to be recognized for negotiation purposes. In Michigan the high school principals have joined the superintendents and the School Board Association to form a statewide Congress of School Administrators, which talks of the management team concept. There has been a strong move by curriculum people to organize for welfare and other purposes. These separate organizational movements pose some interesting problems for education with the increasing influence of technology, federal cooperative programs, and the necessity for cooperative curriculum decision—making practices. PROPOSITION--Collective negotiations will cause teachers to exhibit behavior that is a direct contradiction to the stated goals of an educational program as it relates to attitudes and values basic to our democratic way of life. The effects of collective negotiation behavior in general, and curriculum negotiations in particular, have been observable. Within the profession there has been a new type of hostility between and among teachers, an 145 increase in work stoppages, decreased feeling of responsi- bility in each group for the welfare of the other group; communication between administrators and teachers has been adversely affected; and professional staff members have spent tremendous amounts of time, energy, and talent in negotiating sessions and planning for negotiations at the expense of other primary professional teaching functions. Outcomes within the community of the labor-manage- ment game in education are also observable. People, community organizations, and newspapers choose sides. IF? _ Emotions run high. In some communities it will take years to rebuild the image and restore the level of respect that teachers and administrators deserve. Gaining increased financial support might become even more diffi« cult. Impact on children and youth of the adoption of collective negotiations behavior on the part of teachers and administrators is probably less predictable at this time but perhaps more serious. Could it be said that we are exhibiting behavior that is in direct contradiction to the stated goals of our instructional program related to attitudes and values basic to our democratic way of life? In some school districts the actions taken in violation of the laws of a state pose serious problems. The issue do teachers defy the laws or attempt to work within the laws to change them and protect their rights? 146 It is difficult on the one hand to understand how teachers can expect young people to abide by school rules, develop as good citizens, and support law and order when they flout these traditional values and the law. On the other hand should teachers be forced to give up their individual rights when they become public employees? There is an allegation on the part of some that teacher affiliation with organized labor may be incompati— ble with the obligation of the teacher to be a professional free of the special interest influences which might affect classrooms impartially, and with what some claim should be the public image of the teacher as a political and neutral figure. PROPOSITION--Through collective negotiations the development and growth of a new pyramidial, hierarchical, bureaucratic structure, within the professional organization, parallel to the school organization will subordinate the individual to its imperatives and ignore the proper interests of the minority. There is evidence of the rise of a new hierarchy in education parallel to the current administrative com- ponent, this one composed of administrative personnel employed by teacher organizations to act for them in matters of concern to the staff. These "teacher adminis- trators" personified as local and state executive secre- taries of teachers organizations are acting to counter- balance the pressures from the "board administrators." 147 Bureaucracy, which usually accompanies increased size, tends to reduce the professional worker to the status of an employee. Unless teacher organizations pay attention to organizational problems in a way that releases rather than represses the contributions of professionals, the removal of organizational obsolescence will become impossible until a serious breakdown becomes obvious. Without careful attention to the short and long range implications, collective negotiations could reduce the range within which curriculum decision-making can be ‘3‘! "L‘.’ ‘p made in the future, and, perhaps more significantly, ._ reduce to almost zero the capacity of schools to adapt and make needed curriculum changes. It is possible that schools will build a set of sacred rules that will make it progressively more difficult to adapt schools to the demands of the future. B.--Collective Negotiations as a Change Agent with Implications for the Curriculum Decision—Making Process PROPOSITION--Collective negotiations will cause a shift ingpower (decision-making) from the administration to the teacher in the curri- culum decision-making process. It must be recognized that one of the major effects of collective negotiations appears to be the shift initia- tive in curricular decision-making from the administrator to the teacher in the profession. Probably a peer group relationship will develop during the next few years, in 148 which strictly operational matters will be the area of concern for the current administrative hierarchy, while curriculum and other professional matters will fall increasingly within the purview of the organized teaching profession. Teachers desire to achieve true professional status even if it is through a form of trade unionism. Collective negotiations will cause a shift in role defini- tion for the teacher as well as the administrator. Collective negotiations initiates a chain of reactions which still further enhances the power position of the teachers in the organization to which it has been granted, such as: l. Consensus among the teaching staff and the power generated by that consensus may become more sharply focused as the necessity arises for pre- sentation of clearly defined issues within the formal negotiation process. 2. Potential is increased for organized.dissatisfac- tion and, possibly, disruption of the goals of the system, far short of withdrawal of services. 3. Finally, and of crucial import, is the context of publicity glare and community expectations within which the school operates. The attainment of additional power has created an understandable desire among teachers to affect, if not control, as many elements of the educational enterprise ‘ 149 as possible, including the areas of curriculum and instruction. Teachers not only want better working conditions but also are committed to assume more responsibility for the solution of the problems of society. Teachers are very concerned about and desire to be involved in deci- sions as to how children are educated. The professional education of teachers has made them concerned with the product of their efforts and how that product--the child-- is educated. Collective negotiations will allow teachers to negotiate for the kinds of organizational structure, policy and rules that enable professionals to participate in decision-making about goal-setting, program planning, and resource allocation in a way that permits them con- tinuously to assess the potential for removing obsolescent organization and technology. With teachers having a more definite part in the curriculum decision-making process many controversies will be altered, changed in direction or prolonged but they will not be terminated. Every decision made appears to tie into a previous one made. Only the introduction of new knowledge of tremendous impact will cause a change in the direction which the sequence of decisions takes. All organizations are built around a system of sequential decisions. Those who affect the decisions are functioning as administrators. 150 PROPOSITION-~Collective negotiations will change the legal organizational structure of educa- Eigp_£o involve the teachers in decision- making. Collective negotiations will change the legal organizational structure of education so that teachers are involved in the decision—making process. At present no formal legitamized structure exists through which I teachers can make policy decisions and be held responsible for those decisions. Formal structure needs to be devel- P‘tflfl mm . oped which will provide for legitimized teacher partici- pation in the curriculum decision-making process. The education profession should initiate action immediately to change the legal structure within which schools now operate so as to permit the legitimatized involvement of teachers in the curriculum decision-making process. Seitz3 says, "There are a number of indicators about what will happen in the decade ahead in the field of legal negotiations with public employees." Among these are: More states will pass laws permitting or requiring negotiations with teachers. 3Reynolds C. Seitz, "Teacher Negotiations: The Legal Issues," Nations Schools, Vol. 87, No. 3 (March, 1971). 151 Courts will sanction voluntary negotiations between school boards and teachers, even where there is no state legislation. Negotiations will increasingly be on an exclusive basis with the union or association that represents a majority in the appropriate unit. Courts have been putting more topics under the umbrella phrase "conditions of employment" and school officials will have to bargain on many more subjects than they have up to now. Lw More contracts will contain a grievance procedure culminating in binding arbitration. Negotiated agreements are likely to contain clauses providing for check—off (deductions) of union dues. Courts will start to rule on the validity of an "agency shop" agreement. PROPOSITION-~Collective negotiations will cause the centralization of the curriculum decision-making process. Collective negotiations will force the issue of whether or not any curriculum decision-making ought to be decentralized in a local district pattern. The weight of evidence may favor more and more centralization as experience grows in amount and equality. The need to centralize the curriculum decision-making function at least 152 within the local district seems to be incontrovertible. It seems undeniable, too, that expertness and research are vital, rather than merely helpful to the curriculum decision-making process. There seems to be a trend of shifting public policy formulation from the lOcal school districts and states to the federal government. More and more of the curriculum decisions will and are being made on the Federal level by the government itself as well as the national organizations of educators. In some schools there has been justified criticism of an overcentralization of decision—making, but the danger exists in collective negotiations of exchanging one form of centralization for another. It is not prog- ress to move from decision-making dominated by a board and an administration to decision-making dominated by teachers. Self interests must be guarded against in the matter of curriculum, an area in which decisions should not be based on pressure or personal whim but based on knowledge about instruction, learning, the nature of know- ledge, the nature of our world, and the nature of pupils. When curriculum questions are decided on the basis of negotiation, bargaining and compromise the decision is defensible as a compromise but completely indefensible in the light of the knowledge about teaching, learning, and curriculum. 153 PROPOSITION-~Collective negotiations could retard the introduction of new technologies or courses . It is conceivable that within the next ten years certain subject fields or methods of teaching will be obsolete. Where potentially obsolete fields are repre- sented by a sizable portion of teacher organization member- ship, it may be in the organizations interest to negotiate for the retention of certain subjects for a specific number of years. Alternatively, the contract may call for "reeduca- tion allowances" for teachers facing curriculum extinction as a condition of curriculum change. Some teacher organi- zations have been able to make agreements that call for a large severance payment for obsolete workers. Consequently, severance or compensatory allowance may place a net drain on the school budget producing the "wealth effect." For the school of the future, vested interests in existing subjects and techniques may cause teachers' organizations to affect the rate of curriculum change in the direction of preserving their members wealth. PROPOSITION--Collective negotiation will eliminate complete freedom of choice by either the administrators or teachers in the curriculum decision-makinggprocess. Collective negotiations will eliminate complete freedom of choice thus equalizing relations between teachers, 154 administrators, and boards, and thereby creating a situa- tion which is seen as more likely than the traditional interaction pattern to encourage constructive professional inputs by the teaching staff. So long as teachers exhibit maturity in their actions, the negotiation process repre- sents a productive vehicle for improving educational plan- V ! ning and the profession's economic status. PROPOSITION-~Collective negotiations may cause a standardization of curriculum which will discourage creative and original thought. FT. TCJ‘.‘ ‘ 1 There is a tendency for the state organization to impose the comprehensive, mandatory, universally appli- cable set of rules which constitutes the well—developed collective negotiation contract with the effect of causing standardization of curriculum thus discouraging creative and original thought plus reducing or destroying what may be, in some instances, a desirable degree of flexibility and the ability to deal with uniqueness. If such a situation occurs, the curriculum decision-making process will become a contractural matter rather than a political or public policy matter. PROPOSITION-~Collective negotiations will force the formulation of a completely new model of curriculum decision-making. The demands of the teacher power force in collective negotiations are not in keeping with the realities of the counter force, thus the need for a new model of curriculum llr I]: l 1!! I. II 155 decision-making. The nature of curriculum decision- making today dictates not a labor model, not the tradi- tional concept, but a completely new model of decision- making about curriculum and instruction. In the race between teacher power and educational change the power of educational change will win. New forms of organizations, new staffing concepts, rapid and continuing curriculum change, will all demand a flexi- bility that invalidates the present model of curriculum decision-making. Part II--Emergent Models of Curriculum Decision— Making Through Collective NegotiatiOns The fact that only a part of the total professional staff is involved, the nature of the items now being placed on the negotiating table, the detrimental effects on the curriculum, and the resultant negative impact on profes- sional relationships presents serious reservations about the collective negotiation model being employed in the curriculum decision-making process. Teachers and adminis- trators should be sitting together at a "round table" having the freedom to explore, create, invent and imple- ment solutions to complex curricular problems. Profes- sional educators need to work as a total profession, not as splinter groups. They need to organize on the basis of a community-of-purpose concept, not a community of interest concept. They need to operate as co-professionals, not as labor-management. They need to grow out of the 156 collective negotiation model and grow into a profes— sional model. They need to develop power relationships that are more consistent with the complex nature of the education enterprise. The meeting of these needs is possible if members of the profession agree that the present negotiation approaches in regard to curriculum matters are inappro- priate. New approaches can provide the vehicle for making significant breakthroughs in education by providing opportunities for a co-professional approach toward the achievement of common goals in a rational and responsible _. manner. The longer the collective negotiation model is used, the wider the gap between these two professional groups will become. Before proposing a model for the curriculum decision-making process in an era of collective negotia- tions, five assumptions need to be stated: 1. The1collective negotiation decision-making process is present in education and its use will continue to expand. 2. The major responsibility for decision-making in the area of curriculum rightly belongs to the teachers. 3. Collective negotiations is not an appropriate vehicle for curriculum decision—making. 4. A research and development facility must be built into the organization. 157 5. The local curriculum decision-making 'function could deteriorate to that of making choices between curriculum plans produced elsewhere and local plans. It has been suggested that the Universipy model would be an appropriate model. Here one finds a strong tradition of faculty control over the curriculum. Faculty committees initiate proposals for curriculum change and the faculty determines appropriate learning materials. The role of the administrator is that of a coordinator and implementor of faculty decisions. He may also be a 1. quality tester in light of budget limitations but it is the faculty that determines the priorities. If teachers assume the major role in curriculum decision—making within the organizational structure, there will be little or no reason to press for more influence in this area at the negotiating table. They can work on curriculum matters in an atmosphere of scholarly study and inquiry, which is as it should be, rather than in the emotionally charged climate of a negotiation session. If both sides can produce the kinds of behavior that will result in shared decision-making, increased power and prestige for teachers, regulation of the teaching profession by teachers them— selves, and other worthwhile changes, it can lead to a golden era in the improvement of education. A second model might be called the professional model. The professional model is aimed at serving the 158 needs of students; it derives its authority from the competence of the members of the groups. Decisions of practitioners who adopt a professional model do not presume a primary consideration for the people of the state or for themselves, but for the students to be served. Professional practitioners work in ways which are predicated upon their technical abilities and under- standing of the students, rather than for the people of the state or the self—serving interests of the group represented. The test of the professional model is its ability ._ to serve others rather than itself. Authority should be firmly rooted in competence and skill rather than upon legal power or collective action. The question then becomes, "Does it help young people?", and "Is it legal?" or "What does it do for me?" Employee councils were common in private employ- ment before the Wagner Act, so another possible model is the employee council (faculty council). Historically employee councils failed for the following reasons: (1) lack of funds by the employees; (2) employers controlled the internal affairs of the organization; (3) no provisions were made for appeals from adverse decisions of the employer; (4) they typically put the employees at a psycho~ logical disadvantage; (5) in most cases representatives were chosen from subgroups of employees, so there was no employee representative whose constituency included all the employees. 159 As a matter of public policy, federal law supports the principle that employees shall be represented by organizations free of employer domination. Since employee councils are likely to be employer dominated they are pro- hibited from representing employees on conditions of employment, even if the employees are professionals and desire such a representational system. ' Surely, an employee organization operating indepen- dently of employer control is more likely than one which is not independent to press vigorously for joint decision- making in the employment relationship. The belief that faculty councils constitute the professional model approach to representation is expressed by many. "Employee" is a low-status word in academe; in fact, academicians frequently assert that they are not "employees." The belief that professional status is con- sistent with employee Status is clearly fallacious, but it underlies much academic support for faculty councils. Employment problems should be resolved within the context of employer-employee relations; professional problems are those appropriate for action by professional organizations independent of employer action. Thus curriculum decision- making should be outside of the collective negotiation process. Faculty councils as a practical alternative to collective negotiations through an exclusive representa- tive, may be a thing of the past. 160 Proposed Conceptual Framework Organizational Model for Curriculum Decision—Making Under Collective Negotiations A conceptual framework organizational model must provide for positive and unified relationships among all members of the professional staff. Such a model must recognize that the ultimate control of the public schools rests with the schools' owners, the public, through its representatives, the board of education. This is not to say that the profession should not have a major contribu- tion to make in this decision-making process. It can, should and must. It is important, however, that the role of the organized profession be seen by the public as being positive, constructive, and facilitative of prob- lem solving. Teachers must be able to obtain information and effect change not only through the organization that represents them, but also through the school district by which they are employed. Thus teachers will be able to gain their ends in areas such as curriculum through channels of the school district, and in areas such as salary improvement through their professional association. Such utilization of communication and decision—making channels will provide teachers with all relevant informa— tion, rather than making them dependent upon one organi- zation solely. Administrators must represent the school district so that effective debate can take place on all issues. 161 The fact that administrators must represent two factions is basic to this position; initially, they are members of the profession, yet in negotiations they must represent the school district. If teachers can accept this ambivalence, they not only will receive information from both the district and the association, but also will be able to affect the position of both. The creation of a "Research and Development Council" is needed in every school; a team of men and women devoted to probing the future in the interests of improving the present. By projecting "assumed futures," by defining coherent educational responses to them, by opening these alternatives to active public debate, such councils could have a powerful impact on education. Since no group holds a monopoly of insight into tomorrow, the council must be democratic. Specialists are vitally needed in them. But councils of research and development will not succeed if they are captured by professional educators, planners, or any unrepresentative elite. Thus, pupils must be involved from the very start-- and not merely as co-opted rubber stamps for adult notions. Young people must help lead, if not, in fact, initiate these councils so that "assumed futures" can be formulated and debated by those who will presumably invent and inhabit the future. The research and development council offers a way out of the impasses in our schools. Trapped in an 162 educational system intent on turning them into living anachronisms, today's pupils have every right to rebel. The creation of future-oriented, future—shaping task forces in education could revolutionize the revolution of the young. For those educators who recognize the bankruptcy of the present system, but remain uncertain about next steps, the research and development council could provide purpose as well as power, through alliance with, rather than hostility toward, youth. And by attracting community and parental participation--businessmen, trade unionists, scientists, and others--the movement could build broad political support for the super-industrial revolution in education. It would be a mistake to assume that the present day educational system is unchanging. On the contrary, it is undergoing rapid change. But much of this change is no more than an attempt to refine the existent machinery, making it ever more efficient in pursuit of obsolete goals. The result is self—canceling, incoherent, directionless. What has been lacking is a consistent direction and logical starting point. The research and development council could supply both. The emergent conceptual framework organizational model presented on the next page is an evolving model that should not become a hard and fast restriction on the organi- zational pattern of curriculum decision-making but rather 163 CHART W EMEKGENT CONCH’TML WEWOKK OWVATIONAL MOVEL I'DK GUIKICOLUM DEMON ”KING UNVFK COLLECTIVE NEGOTMTIONG VOBUC LOCAL BOARD OF LOCAL VKOFESSIONAL EVUCATION TEACHEK< ASSOCIATION f1 com... SCHOOL 8‘ LOCAL Acsocmno~ NECDHATDKS' NEGOTtATOKS V 03‘ ‘\ I \\ 4’ » £8 TEACHERS SUVEKINTENVENT OF $010119 AVAMN NATION WOVENK 60 U N o W SUYEKNTENVENT'S CAElNET AVMINNKATWE COUNCIL TEACHER WEQWENT 0K EXECUTIVE f EXECUTWE BOARD EEVKESENTATWE COUNClL 164 it is the next step in a changing organizational pattern that may be modified, abandoned, or supplanted as desir- able educational changes evolve. This organization suggests that a research and development council be organized which has as its primary function the development, evaluation and review of inno— vative curriculum and instructional matters. The members Tm of the research and development council would not involve ; themselves in collective negotiations. They would be ; participants in the curriculum decision—making process. E Topics in order to be considered by the research and i_ development council should meet the following criteria; subjects that have a close relationship to curriculum and instruction, subjects whose decision is based on research results or evaluation of experimental projects, subjects that relate to the needs of pupils, subjects that are beyond the legal power of the teacher, board or adminis- tration to negotiate, or subjects that would not adapt to the collective negotiation process. In this organizational model, the teachers are represented by both their building principal, who is a member of the Administrative Council and by their elected building representative, who sits on the Representative Council. Therefore, depending upon the issue, teachers can obtain educational change by working through either school district or professional association channels. 165 The superintendent needs to receive information regarding the needs and objectives of the professional staff and, with this model, can obtain them through the district channel. In addition the teachers need to know the position of the superintendent and the school district, and they can receive this information through their principal. This organization model not only will improve r1 communication in a school district, but also should improve the negotiation process since the needs and objectives of all parties involved in collective negotiation will be better understood. ;f Administration must have autonomy from the profes- sional association at the local level. At the state and national levels, there needs to be an umbrella organiza— tion that will include all educators, since the critical battles to be waged at those levels demand unification. This separation at the local level will permit principals to concentrate upon leadership of their staff toward tasks which have been mutually determined through negotiation. Principals will no longer be dependent upon their staffs for the determination of their salaries. These salaries will be negotiated with the board of education through the superintendent. Supervision, which teachers have long demanded, now can take place, since school administrators are responsible primarily to the superintendent and not the local associa— tion. 166 Recommendations of the research and development council will be made to the superintendent of schools who in turn can make such recommendations to the board of education, which traditionally has had the final decision. The one thing that collective negotiation may have taught us in education is that the board of education . v should not have unilateral power in decisions on educa— tional matters in the profession. The board should ultimately review and set policy. In the chart, the A results of the issue can be returned to the research and development council where the teacher representatives L— have the right to submit the curricular proposal to the local association negotiators through their president or executive officer and such an item could then be negotiated through the regular negotiation process. It could also be possible for an issue to be referred dir— ectly to the negotiation process. The main thesis of this study has been to develop an organizational structure that would allow the curri- culum decision-making process to operate within the frame- work of the collective negotiation process yet not have the specific curriculum issues negotiated. This decision-making process will give the teacher the right of consultative power, which is as it should be, and yet not hamstring the administration by taking away their executive power. Teachers should have consultative power in curriculum decision-making, but not executive power and authority. 167 The Research and Development Council might be com- posed of four (4) appropriate teachers appointed by the Association, four (4) administrators appointed by the Superintendent, four (4) citizens selected from the com- munity, and one of which might be a member of the board of education, and four (4) students selected by the entire student body. Mi Some advantages of the conceptual framework or organizational model for curriculum decision—making would be: First, curriculum policy decisions would have thorough rWIF-dq '-—..7. ' review by several groups. Secondly, there would be an increased commitment for implementation on the part of those who have got to make policies work anyway. If teachers participate in making of policy action in the classroom would be coordinated with decisions made on the policy level. Third, an area of system cooperation would be established which is outside the polarization of collective behavior, welfare issues and the like. Fourth, research and development councils will add to the dignity of teaching and to the professional stature of those in the profession. Fifth, teachers will understand and help to create the schools position as well as their associa- tion position on all issues. And last, professional organ— izations will be prevented from having to develop an administrative hierarchy that may become unresponsible to teacher needs. Furthermore, balance and competition 168 between the two channels of communication and decision— making will improve their mutual functioning. Some of the limitations of the conceptual frame- work organizational model for curriculum decision—making would be: First, it is an evolving organization, an organization that will have to be adapted and changed as the decision-making processes become more or less for— r. V malized. Second, the model does not give a complete representation to the informal groups within the community, the school or the teachers. Third, it could lead to a duplication of effort in that a dual type of organization n1 structure could well develop which would stymie the creativity of the teacher even more than is now the case. Fourth, it could fit the individual into dual vertical roles of hierarchy and chain of command. Fifth, the pro- fessionals do not know enough about learning and instruc- tion to design and plan desired changes and reform, thus such an organization could well perpetuate the status quo. Along with a Research and Development Council every school should have a development human engineer who is skilled in translating research findings into an effec- tive practical program. He would know the teachers and their potentialities; he would know the availability of necessary equipment; he would know the pupils, and he would know how far he dare go without alarming the local public. 169 The revolution unfolding before our eyes will be for naught if the quality of education is not improved. The quality of education will suffer if the mechanism of collective negotiations sharply divides administrators and instructional staff into warring factions. Collective negotiations itself is not a panacea to bring about needed improvements in American education. Collective negotiations will work if the parties want to make it work and conversely collective negotiations will fail if the parties are not sensitive to its limitations. If it works effectively the quality of education should improve. L. If it fails other institutional arrangements will be developed. The public will indeed be watching closely the collective negotiation process because education affects all citizens. The public expects the board of education, administrators, and faculty to be responsible. If the parties fail to do so it is safe to predict addi- tional legislation will be enacted which in all probability will be more restrictive in nature. There is little doubt that collective negotiations will have tremendous implications to the curriculum decision-making process. At this point in time it is difficult to appraise the positive implications of collective negotiations to the curriculum decision-making process. The collective negotiations process in the curriculum area appears to be a self-defeating process for teachers and administrators. 170 In spite of current problems, the long-range effects of the collective negotiation process will be positive. The new power base has the potential of improv- ij;education forthe young people of our society and of significantly advancing the education profession. It is regrettable that the negotiating machinery has been based on the industrial model, although this F“_ was clearly predictable inasmuch as the educational organization itself has been modeled along the industrial line. The immediate challenge to the teaching profes— hi- sion is, how to ensure that the process will be self- renewing and institutionalized in meeting the objectives of education as well as the profession. Part III--Recommendations for Further Study This study developed an organization model for c3rriculum decision—making that could function under the collective negotiation process. During the analysis and synthesis of the literature it became very evident that a number of adjunct studies would be of assistance to the profession. Among those are the following: 1. A study of contract provisions in relation to the quality of education. Does a cause—effect relation- ship exist between these two variables? Does a change in master agreement provisions result in a change in "educational quality?" Educational quality itself needs to be studied and defined. 2. 171 A study to determine any changes in curriculum issues included in the master agreement. Has the nature of the curriculum items in the master agreement changed with the advent of collective negotiations? Further study of model building for the curriculum decision-making process. This might take the form of a case study of a school operating a curriculum decision-making process under collective negotiations. A study to determine the change in political action of teachers since collective negotiations. Has there been an increase in the number of teachers running for political office since collective nego- tiations? Are local and state associations parti— cipating in other ways in the political process? At some point in time in the future studies to determine if the organizational model as developed has been used under the collective negotiation process. A study of the financial implications of curriculum decision-making under collective negotiations. Has the percentage of resources devoted to the instruc- tional budget increased or decreased since collec- tive negotiations? Have specific allotments been made for research and development tasks? A study of the implications of collective negotia- tions to the overall professionalization of teachers. 8. 9. 10. 172 Has the length of time spent in teaching increased or decreased since the advent of collective nego- tiations? Has the teacher who remains in the teach- ing profession been better trained (had more advanced training) than previous to collective negotiations? Have master agreements reflected the responsibility of professionalism by the teachers accepting the responsibility for disciplining, reprimanding or recommending retention or dismissal of professional personnel? A study of the impact on children and youth of the adoption of collective negotiations. How have the attitudes of children and youth regarding school changed since collective negotiations? Has any significant.difference been detected in the academic achievement of students who have been under collective negotiations and those that have not? A study that would develop principles, criteria and guidelines for curriculum items that should not be included in collective negotiations. Examination of the model as it acts as a change agent or change inhibitor. BIBLIOGRAPHY 173 f lv. 3 r i Q A»: ‘1 t __ BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Roy B. and Schmid, John, eds. Collective Negotia- tions and Educational Administration. Columbus, Ohio and Fayetteville, Arkansas: University Council for Educational Administration and College ,e of Education, University of Arkansas, 1966. E Alpern, Morton. The Subject Curriculum: Grades K113. Columbus, Ohio: CharIés E. MerrilIiBoaks, Inc., 1967. Arensberg, Conrad M. "Behavior and Organization: Indus- trial Studies." Social Psychology at the Cross- roads. Edited by John H. Bohrer and Muzafer fie. Sherif. New York: Harper, 1951, pp. 76-84. Barbarino, Joseph W. "The Industrial Relations System." Prospective Changes in Society py 1980. Edited by Edgar Morphet and Charles Ryan. Denver, Colorado: Project Office, 1966, pp. 75-76. Barber, Bernard. "Some Problems in the Sociology of the Professions." The Professions in America. Edited by K. S. Lynn. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1965, pp. 171-207. Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1954. Bakke, E. Wright. Mutual Survival: The Goal of Unions and Management. New York: Harper and Bros., 1946. Beauchamp, George A. Curriculum Theory. Wilmette, Illinois: The Kagg Press, 1961. Blau, Peter M. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964. 174 175 Blau, Peter M. and Scott, W. Richard. Formal Organiza— tions. San Francisco, California: Chandler Publishing Co., 1962. Blumer, Herbert. "Social Structure and Power Conflict." Industrial Conflict. Edited by Arthur Kornhauser, Robert Dubin and Arthur M. Ross. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1954, pp. 172-312. Boulding, Kenneth E. Conflict and Defense. New York: Harper and Row, 1962. Braybrooke, David and Lindblor, Charles E. A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1963. Brown, Douglas V. and Myers, Charles A. "Historical Evolution." Public Policygand Collective Bargain- ipg, Edited by Joseph Shister, Benjamin Aaron, and Clyde W. Summers. New York: Harper and Row, 11 1962, pp. 20-25. Campbell, Roald F. and Gregg, Russell T. Administrative Behavior in Edgeation. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1957. Cartwright, Dorwin. "Achieving Change in People." The Planning of Change. Edited by Warren Bennis, Kenneth Benne, and Robert Chin. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962, p. 702. Chamberlain, Neil W. Collective Bargaining. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1951. Chamberlain, Neil W. and Kuhn, James W. Collective Bar- ainin . Second Edition. New York: McGraw H111 Book Company, 1965. Combs, Arthur W. and Snygg, Donald. Individual Behavior. New York: Harper and Row, PuBlishers, 1959. Conrad, Donald L. "Collective Negotiations and Profes- sionalism." Readings and Collective Negotiations in Public Education. Edited by Stanley M. Elam, Myron Lieberman and Michael H. Moskow. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Company, 1967, pp. 405-11. Dill, William K. "Decision—Making." Behevioral Science and Educatiopal Administration. Edited by Daniel Griffiths. The Sixty—third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1964, pp. 199-222. 176 Doherty, Robert E., ed. Employer—Employee Relations in the Public Schoole. Ithaca, New York: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, 1965. Doherty, Robert E. and Oberer, Walter E. TeeehersLSchool Boards, and Collective Bargaining: A Changing of the Guard. Ithaca, New York: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, 1967. Doll, Ronald C. Curriculum Development. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1964. Dykes, Archie R. School Board and Superintendent: Their Effective Working Relationships. Dansville, Illinois: Interstate Printer and Publishers, 1965. Fletcher, Joseph. Sitpation Ethics: The New Morality. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The WestminiSter 1_ Press, 1966. Follett, Mary P. Creative Experience. New York: Long- mans, Green, and Co., 1930. Gerth, H. H. and Mills, Wright, eds. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford Univer— sity Press, 1958. Gordon, Thomas. GrouprCentered Leadership. Boston: Houghton—Mifflin Company, 1955. Gouldner, Alvin W. "Organizational Tensions." Sociology Toda . Edited by Robert Merton, et al. New York: Ba51c Books, 1959, pp. 400-28. Gregory, Charles 0. Labor and the Law. Second Revised Edition. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1961. Griffith, Daniel E. Administrative Theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1959. Griffith, Daniel E.; Clark, David L.; Wynn, D. Richard; and Iannaccone, Laurence. Modern_Organizatienal Theor and Practice. Dansville, IlIinois: Inter- state Press, 1959. Heald, James E. and Moore, Samuel A. The Teacher and Administrative Relationships in School Systems. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1968. 177 Healy, James J., ed. Creative Collective Bargaining: Today's Challenge to Labor—Management Relations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, 1965. Henderson, A. M. and Parsons, Talcott, eds. Max Weber: The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press, 1947. Henderson, James A. and others. Creative Collective Bargainipg. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Printice-Hall, 1965. 'V‘“ Hirsch, Werner Z. and others, eds. Inventing Education for the Future. San Francisco, California: Chandler Publishing Co., 1968. Hunter, Floyd. Community Power Structure. Chapel Hill, . North Carolina: University of North Carolina 9 Press, 1953. 2 Inlow, Gail M. The Emergent in Curriculum. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Jencks, Christopher and Reisman, David. The Academic Revolution. Boston, Massachusetts: The Harvard University Press, 1967. Kimbrough, Ralph B. Political Power and Educational Decision-Making. Chicago: Rand McNally Co., 1964. Lewin, K. "Group Decision and Social Change." Readings in Social Psyehology. Edited by T. M. Newcomb and E. L. Hartley. New York: Harper and Bros., 1960, p. 418. Lewin, Kurt. "Studies in Group Decisions." Group Dynamics. Edited by Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander. Evanston, Illinois: Row Peterson, 1953, p. 18. Lieberman, Myron. Education as a Profession. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1956. Lieberman, Myron. The Future of Public Education. Phoenix Books, 6th Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965. Lieberman, Myron and Moskow, Michael H. Collective Nege- tiations for Teachers. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1966. 178 Lutz, Frank W. and Azzarelli, Joseph J., eds. Struggle for Power in Education. New York: The Library of EducaEion, The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1967. March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A. Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. Masters, N. A.; Salisbury, R. H.; and Eliot, T. H. State Politics and Public Schools. New York: {nopf,*1964. Mayer, Frederick. American Ideas and Education. Colum— bus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1964. McKinney, John C. Constructive Typology and Social Theor . New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts, D1v1s1on of Meredith Publishing Co., 1966. Merriam, Charles E. Political Power. New York: Columbia University Press, 1900. Merton, Robert and others, eds. Sociology Today. New York: Basic Books, 1959. Metcalf, Henry C. and Urwick, L., eds. Dynamic Administra- tion: The Collected Papers of Mary Follett. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1940. Miller, David W. and Starr, Martin K. Executive Decisions and Operations Research. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1960. Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press, 1956. Moskow, Michael H. Readings in Collective Negotiations. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1967. Moskow, Michael H. Teachers and Unions: The Applicability of Collective Bargaining to Public Education. Philadelphia: Industrial Research Unit, University of Pennsylvania, 1966. National Society for the Study of Education. Behavioral §cience and Educational Administration. Part II. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1964. Nolte, M. C. and Linn, J. P. School Law for Teachers. Dansville, Illinois: Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1963. 179 Ohm, Robert E. and Monahan, William G. "Power and Stress in Organization Response to Collective Action." Negotiations in the Schools. Norman, Oklahoma: College of Education, University of Oklahoma, 1965, p. 75. Ohm, Robert E. and Johns, Oliver D. Negotiations in the Schools: The Superintendent Confronts Collective Action. Norman, Oklahoma: College of Education, University of Oklahoma, 1965. Parsons, Talcott. Structure and Process in Modern Societies. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960. Porter, John. The Vertical Mosiac. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 1965. Randle, Clinton W. Collective Bargaining. Second Edition. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin, 1966. Rasey, Marie I. and Menge, J. M. What We Learn From Children. New York: Harper, 1956. Reisman, David, et al. The Lonelprrowd. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1960. Ross, Arthur. Trade Union Wage Policy. Berkeley, Calif— ornia: The University of California Press, 1948. Ross, Murray G. and Hendry, Charles E. New Understandinge of Leadership. New York: AssociatiEn Press, I957. Searles, John E. A System for Instruction. Scranton, Pennsylvania: International Textbook Company, 1967. Shakle, G.L.S. Decision, Order, and Time in Human Affairs. London: Cambridge University Press, 1961. Sherif, Muzafer A. and Wilson, Melbourne L., eds. Group Relations at the Crossroads. New York: Harper and Bros., 1953. Shils, Edward B. and Whittier, C. Taylor. Teachers, Administrators, and Collective Bargaining. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Publishers, 1968. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1950. 180 Simon, Herbert A. The New Science of Management Decision- Making. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960. Spalding, Willard B. The Sgperintendency of Public Schools--An Anxious Profession. The Inins Lecture. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1954. Stein, Jess, ed. The Random House Dictionary of the En lish Language. New York: Random House, Inc., 1967. Tannenbaum, Robert. "Managerial Decision-Making." Readings in Opganization Theogy. Edited by Walter A. Hill and Douglas Egan. New York: Allyn Bacon, 1966, pp. 351-363. Thompson, James D. and Tuden, Arthur. "Strategies, . Structures, and Processes of Organizational A Decision." Comparative Stugies in Administration. ; Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1959, L— p. 276. Trueblood, D. Elton. "Deciding for the Difficult." Education for Decision. Edited by Frank E. Gachelein and others. New York: The Seabury Press, Inc., 1963, pp. 31-42. Ulman, Lloyd, ed. Challenges to Collective Bargeining. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967. Vaizey, John. The Economics of Education. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Webb, Harold. "The National School Board Association and Collective Negotiations." Readings on Collective Negotiations in Public EducatiEn. Edited by Stanley M. Elam, et al. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Co., 1967, p. 198. White, Ralph K. and Lippitt, Ronald. Autocracy ang Democragy. New York: Harper and Bros., 1960. Whyte, William H. The Ogganization Man. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956. Wiles, Kimball. Supervision for Better Schools. New York: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1955. Wortman, Max 8., Jr./and Randle, C. Wilson. Collective Bargainigg. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966. 181 wynn, D. Richard. Comperative Studies in Administration. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pitts- burgh Press, 1959. Bulletins, Pamphlets, Reperts American Association of School Administrators. Role, /= Responsibilities, Relationships of the School Board, Sgperintendent and Staff. Washington, D. C.: American Association of School Adminis- trators, 1963. American Association of School Administrators. Organizing for Improved Instruction. Washington, D. C.: American Association of'School Administrators, 1963. American Association of School Administrators. The School figministrator and Negotiatiop. Washington, D. C.: The American Association of School Administrators, a Department of the National Education Association, 1968. ‘r- American Association of School Administrators. School Administrators View Professional Negotiation. Washington, D. C.: American Association of School Administrators, a Department of the National Education Association, 1966. American Association of School Administrators. Resolutions for 1971. Washington, D. C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1971. American Federation of Teachers. Convention Proceedings, Forty-sixph Annual Convention. Chicago: The American Federation of Teachers, 1962. American Federation of Teachers. Power of School Boards 50 Bargain Collectively. Chicago: The American Federation of Teachers, 1964. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. ASCD News Exchange. V01. X, No. 4 (April, 1968), p. 2. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Resolutions of the 22nd Annual Conference (March, 19677, p. 12. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Theories of Instruction. Washington, D. C.: A Department of the National Education Association, 1961. 182 Barbash, Jack. Union Philosqphy and the Professional. Chicago: American FederatiEn of Teachers, AFL- CIO, 1957. Becker, Howard S. "The Nature of a Profession." Education for the Professions. Sixty-first Year- Book of the National Sociéty for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago, Illinois: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1962. Bishop, Leslie J. Collective Negotiation in Curriculum and Instruction: Questions and Concerns. Washington, D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA, 1967. Blum, Albert A. Management and the White Collar Union. New York: American Management Association, Research Study, 63, 1964. Bridges, Edwin M. "Teacher Participation in Decision- Making." Administrators Notebook. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1964. Burt, Lorin A. Teacher School Board Negotiation in Indiana School Corporations. Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana School Boards Association, No. 13, 1963. Cave, David Raymond and Shaw, Archibald. A Critical Study of the Leader Behavior of School AdmifiiStrators in Conflict with Teachers‘iUnions. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, College of Education, Educational Publication Services, Educational Research Series, Number 37, January, 1967. Cogen, Charles. "Collective Bargaining: The Aft Way." Speech given at National Institute on Collective Negotiations in Public Education, Rhode Island College, Providence, Rhode Island, July, 1965. Corwin, Ronald G. Staff Conflicts in the Public Schools. Columbus, Ohio: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Educaton, Cooperative Research Project No. 2637, Ohio State University, 1966. Corwin, Ronald G. .The Development of an Instrument for Examining Staff Conflicts in the Puhlic SChools. Columbus, Ohio: U. S. Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project 2637, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, the Ohio State University, 1966. 183 Daykin, Walter L. The chpe of Collective Bargaining. Iowa City, Iowa: Research Series No. 1, Bureau of Labor and Management, State University of Iowa, 1951. Epstein, Benjamin. Principal's Role in Collective Negotiations Between Teachers and School Boards. Washington, D. C.: NationaI_AssoEiation of Secondary School Principals, a Department of the National Education Association, 1965. Gulick, Luther and Urwick, Lyndall, eds. Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute T*' of Puhlic Administration, 1937. ' James, H. Thomas. "Can Urban Schools be Managed?" White House Conference on Education. Washington, D. C.: U. 8. Government Printing Office, 1965. Masters, Nicholas A. Political Power: Impact on Educa— . tional Decisions. 23rd Convention of the Associa- f tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Washington, D. C.: A Department of the National Education Association, 1968. Michigan Education Association. Guidelines for Negotia- tions Under Public Acts 282 and 579 for NBA Local Associations LegallyResponsibletfor Representing Non-Supervisory_Teachihg Personnel. EaSt Lansing: The Association, 1966. Moneypenny, Phillip. "A Political Analysis of Structures for Educational Policy Making." Government of Public Education for Adequate Policy Makihg. Edited by William P. McClure and Van MilIer. Urbana, Illinois: Bureau of Educational Research, College of Education, University of Illinois, 1960, pp. 1-22. National Education Association. Addresses and Proceedings 1962. Washington, D. C.: The NationaI Education Association, 1962. National Education Association. Addresses and Proceedings 1964. Washington, D. C.: The National Education Association, 1964. National Education Association. Addresses and Proceedings 1968. Washington, D. C.: The National Education Association, 1968. National Education Association. Guidelines for Profes- sional Negotiations. Washington, D. C.: The National Education Association, 1965. - 184 National Education Association. NBA Handbook. Washing- ton, D. C.: The National Education Association, 1965. National Education Association. Changipg Relationships: Teachers and Administrators. Washington, D. C.: The National Education Association, 1968. National Education Association. Financing the Changing §chool Prqgram. Washington, D. C.: The National Educatihn Association, 1962. National Education Association, Research Division. "State Patterns in Negotiation." NEA Research Bulletin. 46:15-17 (March, 1968). National Education Association, Research Division. I "Superintendents Role in Negotiation." NBA 1 Research Bulletin. 45:84-86 (October, 1967). i National Education Association, Research Bulletin, V01. g1 48, No. 4 (December 4, 1970), pp. 106-108. National School Boards Association. Report on State Survey on Board Administrator Teachipg Relations. Chicago: National Schooi Board Association, April, 1964. National School Boards Association. OfficialgReport for 1970. Evanston, Illinois: National School Boards Association, 1970, pp. 33-35. Rehmus, Charles M. and Wilner, Evans. The Economig Results of Teacher Bargaining, Michigan's First Two Years. No. 6 of the Research Papers, Insti- tute of Labor and Industrial Relations. The University of Michigan and Wayne State University, 1968. Ridley, C. E. and Simon, H. A. Measuring Municipal Activities. Chicago: International City Manager's Associatibn, 1938. Schmidt, Charles T., Jr.; Parker, Hyman; and Repas, Bob. A Guide to Collective Negotiations in Education. East Lansing, Michigan: The School of Labor and Industrial Relations, Michigan State University, 1967, p. 3. Steffensen, James P. Teachers Negotiate with Their School Boards. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Educa- tion, Bulletin 1964, No. 40, 1964. 185 Weber, Arnold R. "Stability and Change in the Structure of Collective Bargaining." Adress at Mackinac Island before the Convention of the Association of Labor Mediation Agencies, September 2, 1966. West, Allan M. "Collective Agreements in Public Education: New Developments." Speech given at Harvard Insti- tute on Collective Negotiations, August 7, 1967. Wildman, Wesley A. Collective Action perublic School Teachers. Reprint Series No. 119. Chicago: Industrial Relations Center, University of Chicago, 1966. * Wirtz, W. William. Address before the Annual Convention of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Mackinac Island, Michigan, August, 1965. Wynn, D. Richard. Policies of Educational Negotiation-- Problems and Issues. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Tri-State Area School Study Council, University of Pittsburgh, 1967. ’fl—‘r -_:u.n._—. ‘4 u Wasserman, P. and Silander, F. S. Decision-Making: An annotated Bibliography. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1958. Journals Adams, Richard. "A Must: PN Legislation for Michigan." Michigan Education Journal. Vol. 42 (February, 1965?, pp. 18-19. Amitai, Etzioni. "Authority Structure and Organizational Effectiveness.", Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 4 (1959), pp._T_3-6'7". Asnard, R. R. and Walker, D. P. "NEA's Digest of Negotia- tion Research." NEA Journal. Vol. 56 (September, 1967), PP. 34-35. Barbash, Jack. "Bargaining for Professionals and Public Employees." American Teacher Magazine. Vol. 43 (April, 1959), p. 7. Becker, H. A. "Collective Bargaining May Force School Boards to Organize." American School Board Journal. Vol. 153 (May, 1965?, pp. 9—10. 186 Becker, H. A. “Role of School Administrators in Profes— sional Negotiations." American School Board Journal. Vol. 150 (October, 1966), pp. 57-58. Betchkal, J. "NBA and Teachers' Unions Bicker and Battle for Recognitions." Nations Schools. Vol. 74 (August, 1964), pp. 35-41. Blake, Robert R. and Mouton, Jane Srygley. "Reactions to Intergroup Competition Under Win-Lose Conditions." Management Science, Vol. VII (July, 1961). Blanke, Virgil E. "Teachers in Search of Power." r1 American School Board Journal. Vol. 151 (November, 1965). PP. 7-9. Block, Jeanne and Block, Jack.‘ "An Interpersonal Experi- , ment on Reactions to Authority." Human Relations. 1 Vol. 5 (1952). 3 Bloom, A. M. "More Militant Profession." American School _fi and University. Vol. 31 (October, 1964f, p. 17. Bork, D. E. and others. "Marvelous Potential of Profes- sional Negotiations." NEA Journal. Vol. 56 (November, 1967), Pp. 28-29. Bottomly, Forbes. "Negotiating with Teachers." School Management. Vol. 9 (May, 1965), pp. 81-87. Boznango, Marcia. "The Why of Professional Negotiations." Michigan Education Journal. Vol. 41 (October, 1963) I p0 35. Bridges, Edwin M. "Teacher Participation in Decision Making." Administrator's Notebook. Vol. 12 (May, 1964). PP. 1-4. Brown, G. W. "Teacher Power Techniques." American School Board Journal. Vol. 152 (February, 1966), pp. 11-13. Campbell, Clyde M. "The Administrator Treads a Perilous Path Between School Board and Professional Staff." Nations Schools. Vol. 49 (March, 1952), pp. 49-50. Campbell, Dave. "School Boards versus Teacher Organiza— tions--Let's Start by Being Honest with Ourselves." American School Board Journal. Vol. 149 (October, / 1964): Pp. 65-66. 187 ‘ Carr, William G. "The Assault on Professional Independence." Ppi Delta Kappan. Vol. 46 (September, 1964), pp. 17:18. Cogen, Charles. "Collective Bargaining: The Aft Way." American Teacher Magazine. Vol. 50 (October, 1965), pp. 5—7. Cohodes, Aaron. "Teachers May Lose More than They Bargain For." Nation's Schools. Vol. 79 (January, 1967), p. 37. Combs, Arthur W. Educational Leadership. Vol. XVI (October, 1958), p. 21. Coombe, George W., Jr. "How to Minimize Teachers vs Boards Conflicts over Collective Bargaining." American School Board Journal. Vol. 153 (August, 1966), pp. 53-54. Corwin, Ronald G. "The Professional Employee: A Study of I Conflict of Nursing Roles." American Journaiof Sociology. Vol. LXVI (May, 1961), pp. 307-i5. Culbertson, Jack. "Essay Review: The School Administrator and Policy-Making Function." The School Review. Vol. 69 (Spring, 1961), pp. 98-112. Dashiell, Dick. "Teachers Revolt in Michigan. Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 49 (September, 1967), pp. 20—26. Drucker, Peter. "The Employee Society." American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LVIII (January, 1952), pp. 352-63. Elam, Stanley. "Collective Bargaining and Strikes or Professional Negotiations and Sanctions?" Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 44 (October, 1962), pp. 1-11. Elam, Stanley. "NBA-AFT Merger--and Related Matters." Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 47 (February, 1966), pp. 285-286. Friedman, Maurice. "Will, Decision, and Responsibility in the Thought of Martin Buber." Review of Existen- tial Psychiatry and Psychology. Vol. 24 (November, 1961). PP. 217-27. Ginzberg, Eli and Berg, Ivar E. "Democratic Values and the Rights of Management." PSBA Information-~Legisla— tive Service. Vol. 46 (December 15, 1967), pp. 14-21. 188 Goss, Mary E. W. "Influence and Authority Among Physi- cians." American Sociological Review. Vol. XXVI (February, 1961), pp. 18-24. Jensen, Vernon H. "The Process of Collective Bargaining and the Questions of Obsolescence." Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Vol. 17 iJuly, 1963), pp. 546-56. Kentwood Education Association. "Negotiation for Instruc- tion." Michigan Education Journal. Vol. 44 (February, 1967), pp. 21-24. ”““ King, J. C. "New Directions for Collective Negotiation." E The National Elementary Principal. Vol. 47 TSeptember, 1967), pp. 43-47. Kruger, Daniel H. "Professional Negotiations: Toward Quality Education." Michigan Education Journal. Vol. 41 (April, 1964), pp. 30-31. Levine, Jacob and Butler, John. "Lecture vs Group Deci- sion in Changing Behavior." Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 36, No. 1 (February, 1952). Lieberman, Myron. "Collective Negotiations: Status and Trends." American School Board Journal. Vol. 155 (October, 1967). PP. 7-10. Lieberman, Myron. "Teachers' Strikes: Acceptable Strategy?" Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 46 (January, 1965). PP. 237-241. Lieberman, Myron. "Who Speaks for Teachers?" Saturday Review. Vol. 48 (June 19, 1965), pp. 64-75. Lortie, Daniel C. ~"Looking Beyond Negotiations." Michigan Education Journal. Vol. 45 (September, 1967). PP. 23-25. Livingston, Robert T. "The Theory of Organization and Management." Transactions of the ASME (May, 1953): pp. 659-663. McCammy, James L. "Analysis of the Process of Decision- Making." Public Administration Review. Vol. 7 (1947). PP. 41-50. Megel, Carl. "AFT Reply: Which Organization Gets Results." Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 46 (September, 1964). pp. 19-21. 189 Megel, Carl. "Can a Case be Made for Teacher Unions?" Nation's Schools. Vol. 73 (February, 1964), p. 51. Michigan Association of School Boards. "Negotiations 1968." Michigan School Board Journal. Vol. 12 (February, 1968), pp. 5-38. Michigan Education Association. "Negotiations: Power, Progress, Pitfalls." Michigan Education Journal. Vol. 44 (September, 1966), pp. 12—14. Miller, William C. "Curricular Implications of Negotia- tions." Educational Leadership. Vol. 23 (April, 1966). P. 533. Mosier, R. H. "What is Negotiable?" School Management. Vol. 10 (September, 1966), pp. 163-164. Moskow, Michael H. "Recent Legislation Affecting Collec- tive Negotiations for Teachers." Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 47 (November, 1965), pp. 136—141. l Openlander, Stuart L. "How Districts Can Organize Themselves Before Negotiations with Employers Start." Nations Schools. Vol. 80 (September, 1967). PP. 99-100. Parsons, Talcott. "The Professions and the Social Struc- ture." Social Forces. Vol. XVII (May, 1939), pp. 457-67. Perry, Charles R. and Wildman, Wesley A. "A Survey of Collective Activity Among Public School Teachers." Educational Administration Quarteriy. Vol. 2 TSpring, 1966), pp. 150-151. Peterson, L. "Legal Status of Teacher Personnel: Collec- tive Negotiations and Bargaining." Review of Educatiogal Research. Vol. 37 (June, 1967), pp. 296-299. Rice, Arthur H. "Teacher Unrest Has Damaged School Public Relations." Nation's Schools. Vol. 75 (March, 1965). PP. 46-47. Scanlon, John. "Strikes, Sanctions and the Schools." Saturday Review. Vol. 46 (October 19, 1963), pp. 51-55. Seitz, Reynolds C. "Teacher Negotiations: The Legal Issues." Nations Schools, Vol. 87, No. 3 (March, 1971). 190 Smith, C. G. and Tannenbaum, A. A. "Organizational Control Structure--A Comparative Analysis." Human Relatione. Vol. 16 (November, 1963), pp. 229-36. Taylor, George W. "Public Interest in Collective Negotia- tions in Education." Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 48 (September, 1966), pp. 16-22. Walter, R. L. "Alternative to Collective Bargaining." American School Board Journal. Vol. 155 (March, 1968), pp. 26-27. Watson, Goodwin. "The Problem of Bureaucracy, A Summary." Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 18 (December, 1945), pp. 69-80. Wildman, Wesley A. "Implications of Teacher Bargaining for School Administrators." Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 46 (December, 1964), pp. 152—158. Wildman, Wesley A. "Legal Aspects of Teacher Collective Action." Theory Into Practice. Vol. 4 (April, 1965). PP. 55-60. Wildman, Wesley A. "What Prompts Greater Teacher Militancy?" American School Board Journal. Vol. 154 (March, 1967). PP. 27-32. Wildman, Wesley A. and Perry, Charles R. "Group Conflict and School Organization." Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. XLVI, No. 5 (January, 1966), p. 251. Wollett, Donald H. "The Coming Revolution in Public School Management." National Education Association Journal. Vol. 98 (December, 19657, pp. 27-30. Dissertations Browder, Lesley Hughes, Jr. "Teacher Unionism in America: A Descriptive Analysis of the Structure, Force, and Membership of the American Federation of Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1965. Dent, Ivor G. "The Effects of Conflict Between Teachers' Organizations on School Board Decision-Making and on Organizational Behavior." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, 1967. King, Robert Partner. "Bureaucratic Administration and Teacher Freedom." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1964. 191 Lehman, Robert H. "Collective Bargaining Under Michigan Statutes: A Case Study and Interaction Analysis of the Negotiations Between the Board of Education, Flint, Michigan and the Flint Education Association." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1967. Garver, George G. "A Study of the Relationship Between Selected Variables and the Attitudes of Public School Principals in Oakland County, Michigan, Concerning Collective Bargaining for Public School Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Midjaas, Carl Larsen. "Differential Perceptions of Negotia- bility in Selected Illinois Public Secondary School Districts." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 1966. Moeller, Gerald H. "Relationships Between Bureaucracy in School Systems and Teachers' Sense of Power." Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, WaShington University, St. Louis, Missouri, 1962. Slagle, Allen T. "The Task of the Public School as Perceived by Occupational and Age Sub-Publics." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1959. Steele, Marilyn. "Has Collective Bargaining Contributed to Instructional Improvement in Michigan Schools?" Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. V LIBRQRIES 111111111111“ 11‘ HICHIGRN 11111111 3129 1