I>:I*I\‘IIII2-¢1-"III-H31;".:‘~'-;5I‘Iu. {fa’flw 1.; I =‘ 4 r I ‘. . .9 - 4‘. r _-. .0. ‘..‘,'-_.‘.,.‘. .1) L_,; In I ‘,, I~ _». , . .;t!i!f.3$:v‘!*fi.-::.i xx», g?! PERCEIVED AREAS OF INFLUENCE OF NINTCURRICULUM COMMITTEES ESTABLISHED IN SELECTED TEACHER CONTRACTS Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY KENNETH RAY NOBLE , 1971 ....... (4" This is to certify that the thesis entitled PERCEIVED AREAS OF INFLUENCE OF JOINT CURRICULUM COMMITTEES ESTABLISHED IN SELECTED TEACHER CONTRACTS ' presented by Kenneth Ray Noble has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D . degree in Curriculum rr- ” 3 ’ ,2, :14/5441/ Jam 4‘; 7/ Major professor Date October 11A 1971 0-7639 BINDING BY "MS & SBNS' 800K B’WRY INC. LIBRAR- QINDFRS ABSTRACT PERCEIVED AREAS OF INFLUENCE OF JOINT CURRICULUM COMMITTEES ESTABLISHED IN SELECTED TEACHER CONTRACTS BY Kenneth Ray Noble The purpose of this study was to determine the ways that joint curriculum committees established in negotiated contracts were perceived as influencing the process of curriculum development in selected Michigan school districts. The investigation evolved from an awareness that joint committees created by collective bargaining had the potential to develop a new process for curricular decision-making. The study focused on the collection of data which would answer three basic questions: 1. What resources in the form of personnel, time, and money are available and used by the joint curriculum committees? 2. What topics have been studied and implemented into programs by the curriculum councils? Kenneth Ray Noble 3. What effect have the joint committees had on some of the factors which contribute to our- riculum development? A survey instrument was designed and sent to the president of the teachers' association and the adminis— trator most directly responsible for the curriculum in forty-nine Michigan school districts. The districts had been previously identified as having a provision for a joint curriculum committee in their 1968—69 master agreement. Completed questionnaires were returned by 80 per cent of the educators and data were obtained on forty-six different curriculum councils. The teachers and the administrators who partici- pated in the survey gave varying and sometimes conflicting reports on the operation of the joint curriculum com- mittees in their districts. A test for mean difference in thirty matched pairs of educators indicated that administrators and teachers differed in their reported perceptions of the effect of the joint councils beyond the .001 level of significance. Administrators gave the councils higher ratings than did the teachers, and generalizations about the nature and influence of the committees were developed only after recording composite responses for each district. Although the joint committees in individual dis- tricts differed greatly in their composition, operation, Kenneth Ray Noble and influence, the data collected and analyzed in this study did provide some insight into their nature. The following conclusions were reached after analyzing the data: 1. Most joint curriculum councils had between eight and eighteen members who were usually teachers, principals, or other administrators. Parents served on 26 per cent of the committees and students were included as members on 17 per cent of the councils. In addition to serving as members of joint cur- riculum committees, teachers exerted influence by selecting some of the members and serving as the major source of consultants and advisors. Local school district personnel, intermediate school district staffs, college faculties, and textbook publishers were frequently used as con- sultants by the joint committees. The typical council met once a month and was in session for over thirty hours during the school year. Most meetings were held after school, but 40 per cent of the districts did grant released time for some committee work. A wide variety of topics was reported studied by joint curriculum committees. The most frequent Kenneth Ray Noble areas for study included the modification of existing courses and materials; the addition of new courses or materials; the revision of K-12 instructional programs; and the development of in-service training for teachers. The efforts of the curriculum committees were generally expressed in the form of textbook adoptions, curriculum guides, or in-service programs. Changes in educational programs could be traced to recommendations of joint councils by edu- cators in nearly 90 per cent of the school dis- tricts surveyed. Those most frequently mentioned were the adoption or purchase of instructional materials, the development of in-service pro- grams, or the addition of new courses. The typical committee was perceived as exerting some influence in shaping the curriculum and pro- viding a slightly positive influence on some of the factors that contribute to curriculum develop— ment. Generally, the councils were reported as most successful in increasing teacher participation in curricular decisions and broadening the scope of the instructional program. They were said Kenneth Ray Noble to be least effective in promoting respect, harmony, skills, and accountability among the professional staff. PERCEIVED AREAS OF INFLUENCE OF JOINT CURRICULUM COMMITTEES ESTABLISHED IN SELECTED TEACHER CONTRACTS BY Kenneth Ray Noble A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Secondary Education and Curriculum 1971 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank all those who aided me in my graduate studies at Michigan State. I particularly wish to express my appreciation to: Dr. Troy L. Stearns, Chairman of my Doctoral Guidance Committee, for the many hours that he devoted to me during all the phases of my program. I am sin- cerely grateful for his personal concern, encouragement, and guidance. Dr. C. Keith Groty for his continuous support on my committee and his extensive assistance during the preparation of this dissertation. Dr. Samuel S. Corl for his valuable suggestions as a committee member and his creative example in trans- lating educational theory into classroom practice. Dr. George Ferree for his positive support as a committee member and his stimulating presentation of philosophical alternatives. My wife, Linda, and our children, Eric and Sheri, for their continuous encouragement, understanding, and patience. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . 1 Need for Study . . . . . . . . . 8 Purpose of Study. . . . . . . . . 10 Scope and Limitations of Study . . . . 11 Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . 13 OverView O O O C O O O O O O O 18 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 20 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 20 Legal Basis for Negotiating Curriculum . 21 Administrative Basis for Joint Curriculum Committee . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 47 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . 50 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 50 Identification of Sample . . . . . . 51 Determining the Sc0pe of Study . . . . 52 Design of the Instrument . . . . . . 54 Source of Data . . . . . . . . . 57 Treatment of the Data . . . . . . . 58 smary O C O O O O O O O O O O 6 0 IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . 62 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 62 Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . 63 Use of Human Resources. . . . . . . 65 Use of Time . . . . . . . . . . 69 Use of Money . . . . . . . . . . 70 Topics Studied by Committees. . . . . 72 Programs Implemented . . . . . . . 73 Perceived Influence of Committees . . . 77 Validity of Test Instrument . . . . . 83 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . 85 iii Chapter Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 88 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . 88 Background to Study . . . . . . . 88 Scope of Study . . . . . . . . . 89 Sources of Data. . . . . . . . . 89 Limitations of the Study. . . . . . 9O Findings of the Study. . . . . . . 91 Conclusions and Implications . . . . 93 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . 101 BIBLIOGMPHY O O O O O C O O O O O O C 104 APPENDICES Appendix A. Description of Sample . . . . . . . 110 B. Materials Used in Survey. . . . . . . 112 iv Table l. 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Roles and Responsibilities of Forty—One Admin— istrators Participating in Survey . . . . Roles and Responsibilities of Thirty-Eight Teachers Participating in Survey . . . . Membership Composition of Joint Curriculum Committees. . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Consultants Reported Used by Joint Curriculum Committees . . . . . . . . Reported Meeting Times of Joint Curriculum Committees. . . . . . . . . . . . Amount of Reported Time Devoted to Joint Cur- riculum Committee Meetings . . . . . . Estimated Amount of Instructional Budget Expen— ditures Directly Influenced by Work of Joint Curriculum Committees . . . . . . . . Topics Reported to Have Been Studied by Joint Curriculum Committees . . . . . . . . Expected Results of Joint Curriculum Com- mittee Efforts . . . . . . . . . . Frequency of Curriculum Changes Made as a Result of Joint Committee Recommendations . Types of Changes Made as a Result of Joint Cur- riculum Committee Recommendations . . . . Type and Amount of Perceived Influence Exerted by Joint Committees on Factors Contributing to Curriculum Development. . . . . . . Page 64 65 67 68 7O 71 72 74 75 76 77 80 Table Page 13. Results of Test for Mean Difference in Thirty Pairs of Scores for Teachers and Adminis- trators on Perceived Influence of Joint Curriculum Committees on Some of the Fac- tors Shaping the Curriculum . . . . . . 84 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background Some of the most rapid and fundamental changes to take place in the field of education in the past decade have been in the area of employee relations. Prior to 1962, terms and conditions of employment for teachers were nearly always determined unilaterally by local school boards. In December, 1961, the United Federation of Teachers was overwhelmingly elected the bargaining agent for the over 30,000 teachers in New York City. They negotiated one of the first comprehensive collective agreements with the school board, setting the salaries and conditions of employment for the 1962-63 school year.1 In January, 1971, it was estimated that there were 1,500 written comprehensive agreements similar to that of New York and an additional 2,500 written lMyron Lieberman, Collective Negotiations by Teachers, The Public Employee Relations Library, No. 5 (Chicago: Public Personnel Association, 1968), p. 2. procedural agreements which called for teachers and school boards to meet and negotiate a comprehensive agreement.2 Collective bargaining in public education has been sanctioned and encouraged by many state legislatures. When schools opened in the fall of 1971, approximately one-half of the fifty states had laws which provided for teacher-school board negotiations,3 and it is pre- dicted that by 1972, 80 per cent of the nation's teachers will be in states which provide some type of negotiations statute.4 The two largest teacher unions (National Edu- cation Association and American Federation of Teachers) estimate that 90 per cent of their membership outside of the deep south, where no agreements exist, are covered by either procedural or comprehensive agreements.5 One can see why many contemporary writers have concluded that collective negotiations are now a part of life in 2William J. Waugh, "Teacher Strikes Taking on New Dimensions," Lansing State Journal, January 21, 1971, p. A-ISO 3C. Keith Groty, "State Public Employee Laws Affecting Teachers," East Lansing, 1971. (Mimeographed.) 4Lieberman, Negotiations by Teachers, p. 4. 5Waugh, LansingfiState Journal, p. A-15. education and that they have resulted in a fundamental realignment of power for decision-making.6 The initial demands of most teachers were largely in the area of wages, hours, and related welfare items, but as gains in these areas were made and the bargaining relationship matured, the concerns of the teachers shifted to include instructional provisions and basic policy con- siderations.7 The leadership of the National Education Association (NBA), in an attempt to offer an alternative to the collective bargaining of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), prOposed a form of professional negoti- ations which included within its scope " . . . curricu- lum content, educational facilities and other matters designed to change the nature or improve the quality of the educational service."8 The Federation was not to be outdone by the Association however, and it also recognized 6Leslee J. Bishop, Collective Negotiations in Curriculum and Instruction: _Questions and Concerns TWashington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1967), p. l. 7Thomas F. Kalish, "The Scope of Collective Bargaining Agreements in Selected School Districts in Illinois and Wisconsin" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, 1968). 8Samuel Lambert, "Report on Negotiations Legis- lation," Educators Negotiating Service Special Reports, September 15, 1970, p. 4? the "professional" nature of teachers and brought edu- cational programs and curricular policies to the bargain- ing table.9 While the leaders of the two major teacher unions were heralding the new-found power of collective negoti- ations as one to improve the quality of the educational systems in the nation, curriculum leaders and many school administrators were taking a somewhat different posture. Many curriculum specialists viewed collective negotiation as an inappropriate vehicle for curriculum reform and sought to limit the scope of negotiations to teacher welfare items. The members of the Association for Super- vision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) stated in a formal resolution in 1967 that educational programs and curriculum ESE §g_must not be negotiated items.lo John Bennion probably expressed the views of a majority of the ASCD members when he wrote in their journal, Egg— cational Leadership, that, "The curriculum involves complicated problems which . . . cannot be adequately 9David Seldon, "Beyond Negotiations," Challenges to Collective Bargaining(Eugene, Oregon: Pacific North- west Assembly of Columbia University, 1967), p. 11. 10Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Resolution, March, 1967, quoted by Bishop, Negotiation in Curriculum, p. 6. resolved through negotiation."ll He argued that negoti- ations are typically characterized by conditions of stress, power confrontations, and compromises and that these factors do not contribute to the thoughtful pro- fessional judgments necessary for sound curriculum development. One might conclude that the conflicting positions of teachers and administrators on the negotiability of curriculum matters would create an unresolvable issue. Apparently, for most school districts, such was not the case. A study by Wildman concluded that, "There are relatively few instances where specific substantive issues that might be considered in the policy or 'pro- fessional' realm have become the focus of pointed con- flict at the bargaining table."12 A study by the Michigan Department of Labor sup- ported the observations of Wildman. A survey of the Michigan school districts which had experienced a break- down in the bargaining process and utilized the services of a state mediator or fact finder between 1965 and 1968 revealed only one case involving a dispute over the 11John W. Bennion, "The Curriculum Administrator and Negotiations," Educational Leadership, January, 1969, p. 349. 12Wesley A. Wildman, "Teachers and Collective Negotiations," in White Collar Workers, ed. by Albert A. Blum (New York: Random House, 1971), p. 155. union's right to share in making educational policy.13 ‘When the fact finders and mediators were asked to list the five most important issues in dispute when they entered each case, they cited only salary and related 14 In less than items in the vast majority of cases. 10 per cent of the disputes was "contract scope" or "managerial rights" perceived as one of the most impor- tant issues.15 The absence of disputes over teacher participation in educational policy formation does not mean that the issue was ignored by the negotiating parties. In 1968-69 at least 154 contracts in Michigan contained a provision for teacher involvement in the selection and distribution of textbooks; 245 limited pupil ratio or class size; and 163 made reference to the instructional aids which were available for teachers' use in the development, planning, and teaching in the classroom.16 By the 1969-70 school year, nearly 200 master contracts in the state included l3Michigan Employment Relations Commission and the Division of Planning, Programming and Statistics, Fact Finding in Public Employee Disputes in the State of MiChigan 1965-1968*TLansing: Department of Labor, 1970), p. 6. 14 15 Ibid., p. 4-8. Ibid. 16National Education Association Research Division, Neggtiation Agreement Provisions 1968-69 (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, December, 1969), pp. 347-59. a provision for a joint instructional policies council or curriculum committee.17 The emergence of a contract provision which uses the joint committee to resolve curriculum issues was a rather natural compromise to the problem facing the negotiators. It was apparent to most that it was unwise to negotiate specific curriculum provisions or content. If the scope of negotiations were to become too broad, the bargaining process would become too unwieldy and time consuming.18 Since most negotiators were interested in reaching an agreement and not in struggling with the com- plex problems of educational programs, they often agreed to create a separate structure for teacher participation in decision-making regarding educational policy. The idea for a joint committee met with the approval of most curriculum specialists, as they were 19 already on record as favoring a curriculum council. They reasoned that by removing curriculum development from 17Michigan Education Association Research Division, Summary of Agreement Provisions 1969-70 (East Lansing: MiChigan Education Association, 1970), p. xii. 18Dean E. Conine, "The Effect of Collective Negoti- ations on the Role of the Superintendent of Schools of Six Selected Colorado School Districts" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1969). 19American Association of School Administrators and Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, quoted in Bishop, Nggotiation in Curriculum, p. 4. the bargaining table, they would be able to avoid the adversary relationship with teachers as well as the inhibiting nature of contracts which contained specific articles on curriculum and instruction. Teachers also welcomed the idea of a joint com- mittee. They were apparently more interested in estab- lishing their right to participate in curricular policy decisions and insuring their opportunity to do so than in actually setting the policies during a bargaining session. By incorporating the curriculum council into the master contract and appointing several of it members, many bargaining agents felt that they could use the grievance procedure or future negotiations to resolve disputes over whether teachers had a sufficient voice in 20 Thus, determining educational policies and programs. the joint curriculum committee came into existence in many districts with each side feeling it had accomplished a major victory. This, after all, is the nature of good collective bargaining agreements. Need for Study American schools are currently facing the challenge of meeting the educational needs of a rapidly changing and highly volatile society. The critics of the curriculum 20John Metzler, "What Is Negotiable?," Educators Negotiating Service Special Reports, August 1, 1969, p. 3. and educational practices are large in number and strongly supported. Many Americans appear ready for considerable change in the educational system and fear that too many teachers and administrators will put the reform of the educational program on a second list of priorities to be dealt with sometime in the future after personnel needs and bargaining powers have been secured.21 The paramount concern of the public is the edu- cational welfare of its children and not the economic welfare of its teachers. In the light of the rising costs of public education and the mounting criticism of the schools, it is understandable that many people are asking what effect collective bargaining will have on the quality of the educational program. Will the newly won power of teachers be used to solve educational prob- lems and constructively nurture change, or will it be directed at freezing the present unacceptable programs, structures, and administrative practices? It is very difficult to answer the above question. Not only is collective bargaining a new process in the educational setting, but many variables affect the pro- cess, and the community lacks agreement on what consti— tutes quality education. Nevertheless, there is a 21George E. Dickson and Samuel L. Creighton, "Who Is This Person We Call Teacher?," Educational Leadership, February, 1969, p. 458. 10 general need to undertake the task of evaluating the impact of collective bargaining on the educational pro- gram. Since the negotiating parties have generally delegated the development of the curriculum to joint committees, there is a specific need to identify the concerns expressed by these committees and to determine whether these committees are working toward improving the program and encouraging curriculum development. If the negotiating process has resulted in the formation of curriculum councils which are perceived as compatible with change and contribute to continued curriculum develoPment, the proponents of collective bargaining and the critics of education should be informed. If, on the other hand, studies indicate that the negotiating process has generated curriculum councils which inhibit change and discourage program development, educators should be expected to revise their claims and strategies and develop some alternative procedures. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to determine in what ways joint curriculum committees established in negotiated contracts are perceived as influencing the process of curriculum development in selected Michigan school dis- tricts. The research is concerned mainly with the answering of these basic questions: ll 1. What time and resources have been utilized since 1968 by joint curriculum committees established in negotiated master contracts? 2. What topics have been studied and implemented by these joint curriculum committees? 3. In the opinion of selected educators, what influence have the joint curriculum committees had on the factors which contribute to curriculum develOpment? Scope and Limitations of Study The study is limited to the forty-nine school districts in Michigan which were identified by the NBA Research Division as having a provision for a joint com- mittee for curriculum review in their 1968-69 master contracts.22 The group consists of those districts known by NEA to have negotiated a curriculum council and admittedly is neither the total population nor a randomly selected sample of the districts in Michigan which negotiated a joint committee for curriculum review in their 1968-69 master agreements. Therefore, no attempt is made to generalize the results of this inves- tigation beyond the population of this study. 22National Educational Association Research Division, Negotiation Agreement Provisions 1968-69, 12 The research is also limited to an examination of the influence of continuous joint curriculum committees; it does not include an investigation of the impact of other specific contract provisions which might have affected the instructional program during the time studied. The scope of the study is further limited by the fact that the process of curriculum development is studied in more detail than the specific programs resulting from the work of the committees. The assumption is made that the curriculum is the result of an inter- action of complex factors, primary of which are the desires, beliefs, values, knowledge, skills, and atti- tudes of the persons involved in the school. The study, therefore, attempts to identify the degree to which joint curriculum committees have promoted the interaction of these factors and contributed to the personal and pro- fessional growth of staff members. No effort is made to examine actual materials, objectives, or course out- lines produced by the committees. The study was conducted in the spring and summer of 1971 and relies entirely on the perceptions and opinions of selected educators in the forty-nine dis- tricts. No attempt is made to compare these percep- tions with any objective measurement of actual com- mittee operations. All the educators surveyed held l3 leadership positions in their districts, and it is assumed that their perceptions are key factors in determining their behavior toward the committees, and that their opinions will influence future negotiating sessions which will establish the fate of the curriculum councils. Since the research in the field of public school negotiations and resulting joint curriculum committees is so recent and sparse, the major portion of the study is descriptive in nature. Statistical data are kept to a minimum with only one test for significance involv- ing matched pairs of teachers and administrators used to determine if their perceptions are significantly dif- ferent. No attempt is made, however, to manipulate variables or determine the cause of the phenomena iden- tified by the study. To increase the validity and reliability of the study the responses of the teachers and the administrators are recorded and tabulated separ- ately and a composite made for each district. Definition of Terms Below are the definitions of several terms which are used in this study. The understanding of the intended meaning of these terms will assist the reader in his understanding of the study and help to minimize misin- terpretation of the data presented. 14 Bargainipg or Collective Bargaining.--The process whereby representatives of the employees (teachers) and the employer (school board) jointly: (1) negotiate a written agreement or contract which sets the wages, hours, and other conditions to be observed; (2) admin- ister the existing agreement, and (3) informally consult on matters of common interest.23 Negotiation.--A term which describes the process used to reach agreements during collective bargaining. It differs from "discuss," "confer," and "consult" in that it requires two equal parties that are each able to utilize pressure to induce the other to compromise.24 Professional Negotiation.--A phrase coined by the National Education Association in an attempt to create a semantic difference from the traditional labor union term "collective bargaining." It describes basically the same process and infers a liberal interpretation of the items to be negotiated as conditions of employment. Collective Negotiation.--A term created by those who did not want to show partiality to either the AFT or the NEA. It combines the union phrase "collective 23Derek C. Bok and John T. Dunlop, Labor and the American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970), p. 517. 24Metzler, "What Is Negotiable?," p. 2. 15 bargaining" and the association phrase "professional negotiation" and describes the same process. All three terms will be used interchangeably in this paper to avoid repetition. Bapgaining Agent.--The organization elected by the employees (teachers) and recognized by the employer (school board) as the exclusive representative of the employees in matters concerning their wages, hours, and conditions of employment regardless of whether the employees are members of the organization.25' Master Contract, Contract, Master Agreement, or Agreement.--A formal written agreement between an employer (school board) and the bargaining agent for its employees (teachers). It defines the conditions of employment, rights of the employee organization, and the procedures to be followed in settling disputes that arise during the stated term of the agreement.26 Mediation.--A process by which a third party attempts to assist the negotiators in reaching an agree- ment by offering suggestions, advice, and other means 25Myron Lieberman and Michael H. Moskow, Collec- tive Negotiations for Teachers: An Approach to SchooI Administration (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1966), p. 317. 261bid., p. 416. 16 short of dictating a settlement. In Michigan this service is provided for school districts by the state government.27 Fact Finding.--A service of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (formerly known as Labor Mediation Board). An appointee hears the issues in dispute after collective bargaining and mediation have faultered and then issues a non-binding report of a "fair settlement."28 Curriculum.--A term to describe the educational climate of a school. It encompasses all school oriented learning experiences,29 and can be seen in the people and ways in which the people interact with one another in a 30 school situation. It reflects the current desires, beliefs, values, knowledge, attitudes, and skills of the people in schools.31 27rbid., p. 314. 28Charles T. Schmidt, Jr., Hyman Parker, and Bob Repas, A Guide to Collegtive Negotiations In Education (East Lansing: Social Science Research Bureau, Michigan State University, 1967), p. 44. 29Hulda Grobman, Evaluation Activities of Curricu- lum Projects: A Starting_Point, American Educational ResearCh Association Monograph Series on Curriculum Evalu- ation (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1968), p. 5. 30Donald F. Cay, Curriculum: Desi n for Learning (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril Company, 1966 , p. 2. 31Alice Miel, Changingthe Curriculum: A Social Process (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1946), p. I:- l7 Curriculum Development.--The orderly study and improvement of the educational climate of a school or a school district. It is generally associated with the following activities:32 (1) Identifying and stating educational objectives; (2) Providing instructional aids and materials; (3) Increasing the skills of teachers; (4) Generating student activities and programs; (5) Creating guides and courses of study. Curriculum Committee.--A group which initiates and coordinates the studies, experiments, and innovations related to curriculum development. It makes decisions, formulates recommendations, and participates in the administration of the policies associated with curric- 33 ulum and instruction. This committee takes on a new meaning when it becomes a joint committee. Joint Committee.--A group created by labor and management which provides the machinery to consult with one another during the term of their collective agreement. 32Edward A. Krug, Curriculum Planning_(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), pp. 3-4. 33American Association of School Administrators and Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop- ment, quoted in Bishop, Negotiation in Curriculum, p. 4. 18 Such arrangements usually involve officials from both sides and specialists concerned with particular problems. The purpose of the committee is generally to explore special questions, construct, and administer a continu- ing program, and resolve underlying problems, thereby narrowing the range of issues taken to subsequent con- 34 In this paper the terms "joint tract negotiations. committee," "curriculum committee," and "curriculum council" are used interchangeably to avoid repetition. Overview In Chapter I a frame of reference for the study was developed. It included the historical background to collective bargaining in public education and the evo- lution of the contract provision establishing a joint curriculum committee. Also developed in the chapter were the need for a study, the purpose, scope and limi- tations of the study and a definition of some of the key terms found in the study. A review of the literature and research associated with collective bargaining and curriculum development is presented in Chapter II. The legal basis for negotiating curriculum provisions under the Michigan Public Employment Act is presented and the administrative basis for using joint committees to develop curriculum is explored. 34Bok and Dunlop, Labor and Community, pp. 221-22. 19 In Chapter III the procedures followed in design- ing and conducting the study are explained. These include a discussion of the sample, scope, survey instrument, and methodology used in the study. Each item is explained in some detail along with the underlying assumptions and accompanying rationale. The data obtained from the survey instrument are presented and analyzed in Chapter IV. The educators who participated in the survey are classified, and their opinions on the work of joint curriculum committees are tabulated and summarized. In Chapter V the steps taken to conduct the study are summarized and the resulting conclusions are dis- cussed. Also presented in the final chapter are recom- mendations for the future Operation of curriculum coun- cils and topics which appear to be suited for further investigation. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction The literature selected for review as a prelude to this study is presented in two sections in this chap- ter. In the first section, the rationale and legal precedents for negotiating curricular policy under the Michigan Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) are explored. By studying the decisions and the interpre- tations of the courts and administrative agencies which have ruled on the scope of negotiations, one can better understand the present atmOSphere in which teachers and school administrators attempt to negotiate curricular policies. In section two the rationale for co-professional involvement in curricular planning and teacher partici- pation in educational policy decision-making is explored. The research presented provides mixed evidence as to the actual extent and degree of effectiveness of the cooper- ative group method for curriculum development. It does, 20 21 however, reveal the evolution of the negotiated joint committee as a means to review and develop the instruc— tional program. Legal Bagis for Negotiating Curriculum The state of Michigan had extensive experience with collective bargaining in its private sector before it seriously considered extending the right of negoti— ation to teachers. After the 1964 election many state lawmakers were responsive to pleas of teachers and other public employees for the right to engage in collective bargaining. It took the House Labor Committee only ten minutes of formal discussion before reporting out the bill which would amend the Public Employment Relations Act.1 The bill passed with a 90-6 vote in the House2 and by a 34-1 margin in the Senate.3 The law took immediate effect with the signature of the Governor and extended to the teachers and all other public employees in the state similar rights and protections 1Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of Michigan, 1965, Regular Ses§ion, p. 1,866. 21bid., p. 2,841. 3Jourp§1 of the Senate of the State of Michigan, 1965, Regular Session, p. 1,648. 22 granted to workers in the private sector by previous acts of Congress4 and the State Legislature.5 As educators prepared for the first round of negotiations under the law, one question emerged as crucial: what subjects were legitimate issues for negotiation? Some teachers in the United States clearly have the specific legal right to negotiate " . . . cur- riculum, textbook selection, in-service training and student teaching programs . . . " in addition to their salaries and working conditions,6 but the Michigan law is not as precise. It was patterned after the private sector legislation and applies to a wide variety of public employees. It uses rather general terms to describe the items for negotiation and requires only that the public employers " . . . bargain collectively with representatives of its public employees . . . in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and 4The National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act), 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C. section 151; The Labor Management Relapions Act, 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act): 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C. section 141. 5Michigan Labor Relations and Mediation Act, Act No. 176 ofithe Public Acts of 1939 as amended, Michigan Statutes Annotated, section 17:454 (1)-(31). 6Quotation is taken from the 1969 Supplement to the Revised Code of the State of Washington as reproduced in Donald H. Wollett and Robert H. Chanin, The Law and Practice of Teacher Negotiations (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of NationaITAffairs, 1970), p. 1,057. 23 other conditions of employment. . . . "7 The Act does not clearly define the "conditions of employment" for teachers nor does it suggest what specific topics would be tolerated as acceptable for the negotiating process. Any broadening of the sc0pe of negotiations in Michigan to include curricular policy decisions would have to be accomplished through the bargaining strength of the teachers, the acquiescence of the school boards, or the interpretations of courts and administrative agencies. Teachers, of course, had a strong interest in broadening the scope of negotiations to include as many professional and policy issues as possible. They had been referred to as "professionals" for many years and felt that they had a legitimate interest in every decision that affected their pupil clientele and the effectiveness of their work.8 Not only did teachers have a genuine interest in the policy and curricular decisions of the school dis- trict, but they also felt qualified to participate in them. One superintendent expressed the observation that most of the teachers in his district sincerely believed 7Michigan Statutes Annotated, Section 17:455 (lOe)-(11Y. 8T. M. Stinnet, Jack H. Kleinmann, and Martha L. Ware, Professional Negotiation in Public Education (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), p. 155. 24 that they could do his job better than he,9 and indeed many of the teachers did have comparable knowledge and training. Teachers more than ever before felt that they were experts in their specialized teaching areas and, therefore, should have a broad range of autonomy in determining how their teaching skills were to be utilized in the classroom.10 Much of the literature on curriculum and adminis- tration supported the claims of the teachers. Bennion, writing in the official journal of curriculum supervisors, expressed the belief that "The major responsibility for decision making in the area of curriculum and instruction rightly belongs to the teacher."11 He justified his claim on the basis of the extensive training, knowledge, and skills that teachers possessed and the observation that both the substance and the process of teaching are the primary responsibility of teachers. He thus concluded 9William B. Gould, "Public Employment: Mediation, Fact Finding and Arbitration," American Bar Association Journal, September, 1969, p. 836. 10Thomas P. Gilroy, Anthony V. Sinicropi, Franklin D. Stone, and Theodore R. Urich, Educator's Guide to C01- lective Negotiations (Columbus: Charles E. Merril, 1969), p. 71. 11John W. Bennion, "The Curriculum Administrator and Negotiations," Educational Leadership, January, 1969, p. 349. 25 that teachers should provide the leadership for decision making in the area of curriculum and instruction. Another factor contributing to the pressure to extend the scope of bargaining to include curricular issues was the competition between the two teacher organi- zations. The NBA and the AFT were each seeking the position of sole bargaining agent in several districts in Michigan. Each attempted to convince the teachers that it was the more "professional" organization and to assure them that indeed no limit would be placed on the scope of negotiations.12 Once elected, a local organi- zation attempted to get the most comprehensive agreement possible in order to insure its reelection and provide a precedent to assist its affiliates in neighboring districts. With an absence of legislative guidelines and a lack of experience in collective bargaining, school boards were forced to react to teacher demands in highly individualistic manners. Some school boards chose to fight hard to keep the negotiation topics limited to those specifically cited in the law. This tactic did not, however, eliminate the issue of scope from the bargaining table. When a teacher organization faced a school board which refused to negotiate any item unless it was related 12Gilroy, and others, Educator's Guide, p. 21. 26 to "wages, hours or conditions of employment," the teachers seldom dropped their demands for participation in the curricular decision making. Instead the negoti- ators developed logical arguments attempting to demon- strate that the curriculum was a part of the teacher's "conditions of employment."13 While appearing on the surface to be a mere semantic ploy by the teachers, the argument proved dif- ficult to refute. To differentiate educational policy from working conditions is an extremely difficult task. Wildman saw the basic decisions concerning many aspects of curriculum, methodology, and textbook selection as " . . . clearly both policy questions for the board or administration and professional concerns for the teaching staff."14 Stinnett, Kleinmann, and Ware also saw a link between program adaptations and working conditions whether it be a change in the student-teacher ratio, the use of TV and multi-media instruction, the extension of the school day, or the addition of a librarian. They stated that, ”The decision to implement each of these 13Samuel Lambert, "Report on Negotiations Legis— lation," Educators Negotiating Service Special Reports, September 15, 1970, p. 4. 14Wesley A. Wildman, "Teachers and Collective Negotiations," in White Collar Workers, ed. by Albert A. Blum (New York: Random House, 1971), p. 154. 27 practices has undoubtedly been reached after consideration of certain alternatives which would also affect the teacher's conditions of work."15 The logical arguments used by teachers to connect curricular policies with their wages and working con- 16 ditions was observed by Ralph Smith. He noted that, Once a bargaining agent has the weight of statutory certification behind it, a familiar process comes into play. First the matter of salaries is linked to the matter of work load; workload is then related directly to class size, class size to range of offerings, and range of offerings to curricular policies. The process described by Smith was not an auto- matic one; several school boards resisted the demands of teacher organizations and sought interpretations from courts and administrative agencies in the hope of clari- fying the legitimate scope of negotiations. One of the first such cases involved a Michigan school district. In 1966, the North Dearborn Heights School Board would not accept the argument that curricular policies were linked to teacher working conditions and refused to bargain curricular matters with the certified AFT local. The union filed an unfair labor practice claim with the Michigan Labor Mediation Board and presented their 15Stinnet, Kleinmann, and Ware, Negotiation in Education, p. 154. 16Ralph S. Smith, Jr., "Collective Bargaining in Higher Education," Michigan Law Review, March, 1969, p. 1,075. 28 rationale to the trial examiner. Robert Pisarski, the Chief Trial Examiner for the mediation board, saw the relationship and ruled that teachers, under the law, had the right to " . . . evaluate curriculum and class sche- dules, size of classes, selection of textbooks, materials and supplies . . . " He considered these and a long list of other items to be ”terms and conditions of employment which are proper subjects of collective bargaining . . . and in refusing to discuss these terms and conditions of employment . . . the employer . . . [is in] . . . vio- lation of Section 10(a) and (e) of the [Public Employment 17 The school board and the union Relations] Act." reached an agreement soon after the hearing before the trial examiner, and his opinion was never appealed to the state Labor Mediation Board or the courts. It thus stands today as an unchallenged opinion that curriculum policy is linked to working conditions in the Michigan setting. Evidence of the apparent acceptance of this judg- ment can be found in the research of Steele. She con- ducted a detailed study of a random sample of the master contracts with teachers in Michigan during the 1966-67 and 1967-68 school years. She discovered thirty provisions 17North Dearborn Heights School District and Local 1439, North Dearborn Heights Federation of Teachers, C66 E-46 1965-66 Labor Opinions, Michigan Labor Mediation Board, p. 445} 29 which were found in one or more of the contracts that affected in some way the instructional program. She concluded from her study that there were significantly more instructional provisions in the contracts of 1967-68 than in the previous year and that a trend had been established that would result in more instruction- related provisions in future contracts.18 While the research indicated that many provisions affected the instructional program, few provisions in master agreements specifically spelled out curriculum programs or instructional procedures. A survey in 1966 of the 6,000 largest school districts in the United States revealed that most of the more "professional" matters such as the structure of in-service programs and the specific curriculum and instructional practices were not to any significant degree subjects of written bilateral agreements.19 Based on the responses of 70 per cent of the districts, Wildman concluded that curriculum and 18Marilyn Harger Steele, "Has Collective Bargain- ing Contributed to Instructional Improvement in Michigan Schools?" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969), p. 135. 19Wesley A. Wildman, "The Nature and Dynamics of Teacher Organization-School Administration Negotiating Activities and their Impact on School Administration," in Collective Negptiations and Educational Administration, ed._by_Roy B. Allen and John Schmid (Fayetteville: Col- lege of Education, University of Arkansas, 1966), p. 47. 30 methodological subject matter were just beginning to receive attention in agreements. A study of the teachers in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area supported the findings of Wildman's survey and sug- gested that the reason few early contracts contained detailed curriculum procedures was because teachers were not militant about obtaining a voice in the edu- cational decision making process.20 Phelps, after a survey of Michigan teachers, observed that they too were inclined to avoid making militant demands for participation in curriculum decisions in early contracts. He found that the greatest emphasis was on formalizing policies related to salaries, leaves, fringe benefits, and non- instructional processes.21 Teacher militancy was reserved for welfare items. These early concerns of teachers for welfare items did contribute to a significant court case in 1969. Teachers were demanding a wide range of monetary benefits, and Judge Phillip C. Elliott of the Genessee County Circuit 20Geraldine Ann Evans, "Perceptions of and Atti- tudes Toward the Use of Collective Bargaining Power" {unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 968). 21James L. Phelps, "Difference of Attitudes Toward Collective Bargaining Goals in Education: The DevelOpment and Application of an Instrument" (unpublished Ph.D. dis- sertation, University of Michigan, 1970), p. 31 Court was asked to rule on the legality of teachers negotiating fringe benefits under the PERA. In making his decision, Judge Elliott cited legal arguments and precedents which could also have bearing on the legality of negotiating curricular policies. He noted that the Public Employment Relations Act had been modeled after the National Labor Relations Act and ruled that the state statute authorized and required a school board " . . . to bargain with its teachers' representative about any subject that would be a lawful objective of a union of private employees . . . unless . . . agreement on such subject is prohibited, contrary to law or an abuse of the public employer's authority or discretion."22 The decision by Judge Elliott, while resolving the question of fringe benefits, did not specifically resolve the question of the negotiability of curricular change and educational policies. The decision did, how— ever, indicate the direction of thinking that the court would probably take if it were to resolve this question. Citing the similarity of the PERA to the NLRA, Judge Elliott suggested that the decisions of the federal courts and the National Labor Relations Board be used as precedents in determining what is a "lawful objective" of a union. 22Case No. 13414, April 22, 1969 (Mt. Morris Edu- cation Association), reported in Government Employees Relations Report, No. 269, May 12, 1969, pp. B5-6. 32 The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the courts have taken a rather permissive attitude toward ruling on proper subjects for negotiations and management rights. Soon after the Taft-Hartley act amended the National Labor Relations Act, the United States Supreme Court was faced with the question of what were negotiable items and what constituted an unfair labor practice for failure to bargain on a particular issue. In 1951 the Court ruled (NLRB v. American National Insurance) that the NLRA did not regulate the substantive terms governing wages, hours, and working conditions and that the NLRB may not, either directly or indirectly, compel con- cessions or sit in judgment upon the substantive terms of collective bargaining agreements. Chief Justice Vinson, speaking for the Court, stated that bargaining for a management rights clause which would exclude cer- tain items from negotiation and arbitration is not per g3 an unfair labor practice, and each case should be judged individually.23 Seven years later the Supreme Court heard another case (NLRB V. Wooster) which involved the scope of negoti- ations. Justice Burton, delivering the opinion of the court, identified three classifications into which the subjects of collective bargaining could fall: mandatory, 23National Labor Relations Board v. American National Insurance Company, 343 U.S. 404, 96 L. Ed. 1041 (1951). 33 permissive, and illegal.24 The employer and the employee representative mg§E_bargain with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and they mgy bargain about other legal matters if bgph wish to do so. The refusal of one party to bargain in the per- missive area is not an unfair labor practice, but the refusal of one party to bargain in the mandatory area is. Justice Harlan offered a Separate Opinion in which he expressed the fear that the Court, through this decision, was opening the door for the NLRB to rule on the substantive aspects of bargaining issues by deter- mining whether or not a labor demand fell into the man- datory area as a condition of employment. He noted that the legislative history of the Act, the previous decisions by the Board, and the Court's views in American National Insurance cited above, all revealed that the character of collective bargaining agreements was unsettled and evolving in nature. "Provisions which two decades ago might have been thought of as the exclusive concern of labor or management are today common-place in collective 25 bargaining agreements." He concluded that the Court should assure the parties engaged in collective bargaining 24National Labor Relations Board v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corporation, 356 U.S. 342, 2 L. Ed. 2nd. 823, 78 S. Ct. 718 (1958). 25NLRB v. Wooster, 2 L. Ed. 2 nd. 834 (1958). 34 the greatest degree of freedom in their negotiations and require the Board to remain as aloof as possible from ruling on substantive aspects of issues which result in requiring or prohibiting negotiations on specific demands presented by one of the parties. Another case (Fiberboard v. NLRB) involving the scope of negotiations was heard by the Supreme Court in 1964. In attempting to resolve the meaning of "terms and conditions of employment," Chief Justice Warren examined existing agreements. In presenting the Opinion of the Court he stated that, "while not determinative, it is appropriate to look to industrial bargaining practices in appraising the propriety of including a particular subject within the scope of mandatory bargaining."26 He reasoned that not only did industrial experience reflect the interests of labor and management, but it also iden- tified what subjects were amenably suited to the collective bargaining process. Justices Stewart, Douglas, and Harlan, while con- curring with the Court, expressed their feelings that the decision should not be broadly applied and that the cri- teria expressed by Chief Justice Warren in reaching a decision in this case should not serve as precedents.27 26Fiberboard Paper Products Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 57 L.R.R.M. 2612 (1964). 271bid., p. 2,615. 35 Stewart in presenting the Concurring Opinion reasoned that the existence of a subject in current industrial contracts may only indicate that the parties have often considered it mutually advantageous to bargain over the given issue and not that it falls within the statutory meaning of "conditions of employment" and is thus a mandatory item for negotiations. Justice Stewart emphasized that the intent of the law by Congress was to adopt a narrow con- cept of "conditions of employment." While he recognized the diverse interpretations to which the phrase is sus- ceptible, he maintained that not all decisions which indirectly affect the employees' work are subject to compulsory collective bargaining. If a court or administrative agency were to hear a case today involving the legitimacy of curricular policy as a negotiable issue under Michigan's Public Employee Relations Act, two positions could be persua- sively presented. Given the wording of the law and the spirit of Wooster (p. 30) the teachers could argue that curricular policy is a "condition of employment" and thus it is an unfair labor practice for the school board not to negotiate the issue. They could then use logic and link salaries to work load, class size, range of offerings, and curricular policy. The teachers could conclude that nearly all school board decisions are 36 mandatory subjects of negotiation and cite Pisarski's decision in the North Dearborn Heights case (p. 26) to support their claim. Also lending support to the arguments of the teachers is the application of Chief Justice Warren's criteria established in Fiberboard (p. 32). In 1970-71 at least 180 master contracts in Michigan between teacher organizations and school boards included a provision for a joint instructional policies council or curriculum com- mittee; at least 110 contained procedures for the place- ment of students requiring special attention; over 130 included statements limiting class size and establishing required alternatives; and 25 contained a statement of policy regarding textbooks and reading materials for students.28 A school board which did not wish to negotiate curriculum policy could also find support for its position. Using the history of the National Labor Relations Act and the PERA in Michigan the board could argue that curricular matters were never intended to be included in the scope of negotiations much less be a mandatory issue. Supported by the arguments of Justice Stewart in Fiberboard (p. 32) the board could ignore the 28Michigan Education Association Research Division, Summary of Selected Agreement Provisions 1970-71 (East Lansing: Michigan Education Association, 1971), p. vi. 37 present contract provisions in other districts and cite at least seven United States Circuit Court decisions which interpreted the statutory language of the "model" NLRA to exclude various kinds of management decisions 29 from the scope of the duty to bargain. The Wisconsin Supreme Court30 and the New York Supreme Court31 have each ruled specifically that subjects of study, curriculum, and educational policy decisions are not related to wages, hours, or conditions of employment, and thus are not sub- jects for negotiation. To emphasize its point, the school board could cite American National Insurance (p. 30) and reason that it had a right to negotiate a management functions clause which would specifically exclude curricular decisions and educational policies from negotiations. At least two contracts in Michigan contained such a clause in 1968-69.32 29See 57 L.R.R.M. 2,616 (1964). 30See 155 N.W. 2nd. 82 (1967). 31See 68 L.R.R.M. 2,761 (1968). 32National Education Association Research Division, Negotiation Agreement Provisions 1968-69 (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, December, 1969), p. 316. 38 Administrative Basis for Joint Curriculum Committee A survey of the literature over the past twenty years on school administration and curriculum development reveals a widespread consensus that the curriculum is best developed and installed by team work and co- professional approaches.33 Generally the "cooperative group method of curriculum development" consists of giving all teachers an opportunity to contribute to the "evolving curriculum" while concentrating the greatest responsibility for planning and coordinating the develop- ment in the hands of a smaller group referred to as the curriculum committee or the instructional council.34 Although it is difficult to show experimentally that one method of curriculum development is superior to another, several have attempted to demonstrate that the cooperative group method is a very successful and desirable procedure for creating curricular policies. Girshefski, in a study of the circumstances influencing curricular changes in selected women's colleges, con- cluded that the most important element for successful implementation and continued practice of any revision 33William F. Young, "Curriculum Negotiations: Present Status--Future Trends," Educational Leadership, January, 1969, pp. 342-43. 34Clayton E. Buell, "Guidelines for Curriculum Development," Educational Leadership, December, 1968, p. 293. 39 in the curriculum was the extensive involvement of the faculty throughout the period of formulation and imple- mentation.35 Krey's study of elementary and secondary school teachers in a midwestern city revealed that curriculum plans were implemented to a greater extent by those teachers who had an opportunity to participate in the planning, implementing, and evaluating of the curricular activities.36 Similar findings were discovered by Verduin after conducting a case study of a Michigan school district. He concluded that the c00perative approach to curriculum change fostered valuable changes in the participants and worthwhile change in the curriculum. He cited specifi- cally that the method resulted in an increased awareness ‘and interest in educational problems related to the curriculum and a more democratic professional attitude with better rapport and more concern for students, fellow educators, and education in general.37 35Sister Mary Jeanne Girshefski, "Circumstances Affecting Curricular Change as Exemplified in Selected women's Colleges" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, St. Louis University, 1968). 36Robert Dean Krey, "Factors Relating to Teachers' Perceptions of Curricular Implementation Activities and the Extent of Curricular Implementation" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1968). 37John Richard Verduin, Jr., "An Evaluation of a COOperative Approach to Curriculum Change" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962), pp. 3-4. 40 While the cooperative approach appears to be recognized as one of the best methods for developing the educational program, only a few school districts actually practice the method. Metzler has noted that although there is probably no book on educational administration written in the past twenty-five years which does not advocate a type of c00perative curriculum planning, there are very few boards or administrators who have taken these writings seriously enough to actually estab- lish a mechanism by which consultive participation is conducted on a broad or regular basis.38 A survey of nineteen school superintendents in Kent County, Michigan, supported this observation. Maxcy discovered that comprehensive, systematic educational planning was not generally practiced in the local school districts and that teachers were not adequately involved in the planning of educational programs.39 One could conclude that administrators and curriculum leaders have been more articulate in their writing and speaking about 38John Metzler, "What Is Negotiable?," Educators Negotiating Service Special Reports, August 1, 1969, p. 3. 39Horace P. Maxcy, Jr., "Dimensions of the Edu- cational Planning Process: A Study of Educational Plan- ning Processes in Selected Michigan School Districts" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). 41 democratic curriculum development and teacher involvement than they have been in actually putting the procedure into practice.40 While classroom teachers in elementary and secon- dary schools and their organizations have not played a significant role in the decision-making associated with curricular policies, the movement to collective bargaining may change this. The negotiating process and the result— ing contracts appear to be giving teachers a greater voice in the curricular decisions which were previously the exclusive province of school boards or administra- tors.4l Seamon, after surveying teacher contracts, observed that collective negotiations had been used to establish building and district councils in the hope of improving communications and interaction between teachers, administrators, and school boards.42 A study by Groty of the 103 school districts in the metropolitan Detroit area revealed that collective bargaining had resulted in the formation of many joint 4oWendell M. Hough, Jr., "A Better Curriculum Through Negotiation?," Educational Leadership, March, 1969, p. 534. 41Michael H. Moskow and Robert E. Doherty, "United States," in Teacher Unions and Aesociatiogg, ed. by Albert A. Blum (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1969), p. 319. 42Harold P. Seamon, "Trends in Collective Negoti- ations," Know How, May, 1970, p. 5. 42 committees. While topics concerning working conditions were the most frequent concern of these groups, the second largest number of joint committees were found to be studying and recommending curriculum policies.43 Whether teachers will actually exercise any more influence through these new curriculum committees than they did prior to collective bargaining remains to be seen. It is apparent that many teachers perceive them- selves as more influencial on curriculum matters with the presence of collective bargaining. Marquardt, in a survey of the opinions of elementary teachers in twelve Michigan school districts, discovered that the teachers tended to perceive that they were more involved in planning the in-service program and shaping the cur- riculum as a result of negotiations. While they expressed belief that they had more opportunity to participate in curriculum development, they also agreed that the school board continued to control the educational policy decisions.44 43Charles Keith Groty, "The Utilization of Con- tractually Established Joint Committees in Selected Michigan School Districts" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1970), pp. 74-75. 44Edward Theodore Marquardt, "Perceptions of Ele- mentary Teachers of the Impact of Collective Negotiations" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Michi- gan, 1969). 43 Indeed it is the intent of many school boards and administrators to maintain control over decision making and limit the influence of teachers on negotiated cur- riculum councils. At a work conference on collective bargaining the participating educators concluded that it is necessary for the school board to maintain its power to decide unilaterally what is good and best for the children and the school system. While the task force recognized that teachers had skills and knowledge in the area of curriculum, they expressed the belief that these talents should be expressed in the form of advice and not in the form of demands or actual decisions.45 The Michigan School Board Association (MSBA) has taken a position similar to that of the work conference. In 1968 the MSBA informed local negotiators of the intent of the Michigan Education Association to negotiate an instructional council. In reviewing the proposed pro- vision of the MBA and presenting their counter proposal the school board association noted that " . . . consul- tation with teachers on educational policies and practices has been employed for years; it has the advantage of 4SChester M. Nolte, ed., Labor Law and Education (Denver: University of Denver Bureau of Educational Research, September, 1968), p. 72. 44 keeping the matters in the study and advisory stage. "46 The MSBA document warned, however, that curriculum decisions are not proper subjects for collective bargaining or teacher committees and that curricular decisions should be solely the responsi- bility of the board. The document also informed negotiators that the decisions of the board on edu— cational policies should not be permitted to fall into the grievance procedure. The research by Groty of the joint committees in Southeastern Michigan showed that the school boards in that geographical area had been successful in keeping their curriculum councils at the "study and advisory" stage. Of the 201 joint committees reported, 88 per cent were of the "study" type. Seven committees (less than 4 per cent of total) administered in-service programs, but none of the joint committees which administered district policies had responsibilities in the area of curriculum or instruction.47 Only 4 per cent of the com— mittees studied had presented formal recommendations, and of the thirteen recommendations made by curriculum 46Michigan School Board Association, "The 1968 MBA Master Contract for Negotiation," The Michigan School Board Journal, February, 1968, pp. 16—17. 47 pp. 59-62. Groty, "Utilization of Joint Committees," 45 committees, only three represented a decision which had previously been made by the administration.4 An investigation by the United States Office of Education also revealed that joint curriculum committees had not accomplished any particularly impressive results. In most of the cases studied the joint meetings only provided a channel for continuing communication between the administration and the teachers, and substantive gains were few and far between.49 Redmond, conducting a survey in 1968 of the schools in central Michigan, discovered that the teachers believed that curriculum councils should be provided in master contracts and should exert a strong influence on curriculum development. She also discovered, however, that the teachers from districts without councils desig— nated in their contracts actually perceived more changes in subject areas and organizational patterns of their schools than did the teachers from districts which had joint curriculum committees.50 481bid., p. 69. 49Wildman, "Teachers and Negotiations," in White Collar Workers, p. 157. 50Lois A. Redmond, "A Comparison of Teachers' Perceptions of Curriculum Development in Selected Dis- tricts With'and Without Curriculum Councils" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). 46 The factors which contribute to the ineffectiveness of joint curriculum committees are varied and complex. No doubt some committees are stiffled by the unwillingness of school boards and administrators to relinquish their decisiondmaking power. In other cases the lack of pro- ductivity can be traced to the unwillingness of the teachers or their organization to commit much effort to the area of curriculum development. Teachers and their bargaining agents, like administrators and curriculum leaders, often talk a better game than they play. As Dickson and Creighton have observed, teachers are basi- cally conservative by nature and generally satisfied with the status quo. While they may give the appearance of willingness to react to change in the society by discuss- ing the topic, when all the talking is over surprisingly little is accomplished in actually modifying the edu- cational program.51 Teacher unions are often more inter- ested in obtaining highly visible and substantial "vic- tories" at the negotiating table than in achieving subtle and sometimes unpopular modifications in curriculum policy.52 Unions are also cautious about becoming too much a part of the policy making body, less they lose 51George E. Dickson and Samuel L. Creighton, "Who Is This Person We Call Teacher?," Educational Leadership, February, 1969, p. 456. 52Wildman, "Teachers and Negotiations," in White Collar Workers, p. 157. 47 their adversary role in collective bargaining. The pri- mary function of the teacher union is to insure that cer- tain administrative actions are performed equitably and efficiently and not to become directly engaged in the day-to-day operations of the schools.53 Summary A review of the literature reveals that educators have advocated the involvement of teachers in the process of curriculum development for many years, but few school districts have actually implemented the practice on a regular basis. Given the interests, training, and skills of teachers, many writers predicted that the new collective bargaining process in education would result in greater teacher participation in educational policy decision making. While few of the early master contracts in Michigan contained specific provisions on instructional programs and practices, several did contain provisions which indirectly affected the curriculum. Included in these early contracts were provisions for joint committees to study and review educational policies. The accomplish- ments of these joint curriculum committees appears to be mixed; some researchers reported greater implementation and improved staff relations, while others discovered 53Myron Lieberman and Michael H. Moskow, Collective Negotiations for Teachers: An Approagh to School Admin- iStration (ChiEago: Rand McNally and Company, 1966), p.7240. 48 few recommendations and program developments. One of the reasons for the mixed findings is probably the varied interests, talents, and priorities of the educators involved. Whether teachers and their unions had the legiti- mate right to negotiate curriculum issues and engage in educational policy decision-making was one of the first issues faced by the bargaining parties. The law in Michigan is vague on the permissible scope of negoti- ations, and the courts and administrative agencies have remained aloof from questions which direct themselves to the legal substance of negotiations. It appears that if the teachers and their unions have a great deal of power and place a high priority on negotiating edu- cational policies, the subject will be negotiated and teachers will influence the curriculum. At the same time, if the teachers are more interested in welfare items or their bargaining agent has little or no power, curriculum issues will not be negotiated and the teachers will have little influence on the instructional program. It is the personalities and priorities of the individuals along with the power of the bargaining parties in each case that will probably determine what subjects are negotiated and what results from the negotiations. One of the most frequent results of negotiations in Michigan has been the establishment of a joint 49 curriculum committee to study and develop educational programs. This study attempts to identify the resources, topics of study, and actual accomplishments of some of these committees. The steps taken to design this study are explained in Chapter III. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The selected literature in the fields of curricu- lum development and collective bargaining revealed that many master agreements have established a structure parallel to contract negotiations for the purpose of reviewing and developing curricular programs. Fre- quently this structure included a joint curriculum committee. Before a study could be made of the operation and influence of these joint curriculum committees, many pre- liminary steps had to be taken. School districts which have established joint curriculum committees had to be identified; the areas for study had to be chosen; a survey instrument had to be designed, tested, revised, and administered; participating educators had to be selected and contacted; and the results of the survey had to be recorded, tabulated, and interpreted. In this chapter the details of each of the above steps is eXplained in some detail and defended with an accompanying rationale. 50 51 Identification of Sample The study began as an attempt to discover the influence of joint curriculum committees on the edu- cational programs in Michigan school districts since the advent of collective bargaining. Very few school districts were engaged in collective bargaining before 1965 and only a few of the early contracts contained a provision for a joint instructional policies committee. By 1968 many of the school districts were negotiating their third contract with teachers, and several of the 1968-69 agreements provided for joint committees to review and develop curricular policies. In 1971, the year of this study, those school districts which had established joint curriculum committees in their 1968-69 contracts and had maintained the provision in subsequent agreements, had three years of experience with the pro- cess. The sample used in this study was drawn from the population of all the K-12 public school districts in Michigan which negotiated a contract with teachers for the 1968-69 school year and provided in that agreement for a joint committee to study curricular policy. In order for the study to be feasible and at the same time meaningful, the school districts selected for participation had to be limited in number, represent a variety in size, wealth, and geographical location as well as be a part of the pOpulation. Neither the Michigan 52 Department of Education nor the Michigan Education Associ- ation was able to supply a definitive list of all the districts in the population, and it was difficult to obtain a random sample of the unknown population. The only districts known to be a part of the population were those which had responded to a 1969 survey made by the National Education Association. Forty-nine of the Michigan school districts that participated in the survey indicated that they had a provision for a joint curriculum committee in their agreement for the 1968-69 school year.1 This group was a feasible number to study, and contained districts which varied in size, wealth, and geographical location.2 The sample for this study thus consisted of all forty-nine of the districts identified in the NEA survey. Determinipg the Scope of Study To focus the study more clearly and limit its variables, three general questions for investigation were drafted. These questions were formulated after a review of the literature and reflected the conclusions of much 1National Education Association Research Division, Negotiation Agreement Provisionsll968-69 (Washington, D.C.: National—Education Association, December, 1969), pp. 347- 59. 2See Appendix A for a description of the size, wealth, and geographical location of the forty-nine districts in the sample. 53 of the related research on the operation of curriculum councils and curriculum development. Each attempted to identify areas where the influence of the joint committee could be measured. 1. What resources in the form of personnel, time and money are available and used by the joint curriculum committees? Many educators believe that extensive use of materials, time, consultants, and other human resources should be used in devel- oping educational programs. It was assumed in this study that a curriculum council must exten- sively utilize a variety of resources if it is to influence the educational program. What topics have been studied and implemented into programs by the curriculum councils? While no one curriculum committee should be expected to have studied or implemented all of the possible innovations in educational practice, the criteria for measuring the influence of a council should include the extent to which they have studied possible changes and implemented new programs. It was assumed in this study that a joint cur- riculum committee must have studied possible innovations and made recommendations which have resulted in new educational programs if it is to be said to be influencing the curriculum. 54 3. What effect have the joint committees had on some of the factors which contribute to cur- riculum development? In this study the cur- riculum is thought of as the educational climate which results from the interaction of people in the schools. It is assumed that the council is influencing the curriculum if it is developing this interaction and influencing the attitudes, skills, and beliefs of the school staff and stu- dents. Design of the Instrument To gain information on the operations and influence of the curriculum councils in the sample, a questionnaire was developed following the guidelines of Goode and Hatt, Grobman, and Richburg.3 The instrument was designed to obtain information from educators in the sample districts which would answer the above three questions. A review of related research provided direction for translating the general questions into specific items for the questionnaire. Several of the guidelines for developing curriCular programs presented in the work of 3William J. Goode and Paul K. Hatt, Methods in SocialjResearch (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1952); Hulda GrObman, Evaluation Activities of Curriculum Pro- jects: A StartingPoigE, American EducatiOnal Research Associatibn Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1968); Robert W. Richburg, Using Evaluation to Improve Instruction (Denver: Association of American Geographers, February, 1970). 55 Buell became specific criteria for measuring the influence of curriculum committees. His suggestions included: (1) the involvement of teachers, principals, students, parents, and community leaders; (2) the provision of adequate time, facilities, and secretarial help; (3) the development and maintenance of open communication chan- nels; (4) the use of in-service programs to change the values, skills, and understandings of teachers; and (5) the utilization of research and experimentation by staff.4 The characteristics and accomplishments of cur- riculum committees discovered by Phillips in his study of sixteen school districts in southwestern Michigan provided assistance in framing questions for this study and anticipating the answers that would likely be made by the respondents. Especially helpful was his list of the major accomplishments of curriculum councils and his discovery that the highest ranking councils involved more people and spent more time in meeting than did the lowest 0 C 5 ranking counc1ls. 4Clayton E. Buell, "Guidelines for Curriculum Development," Educational Leadership, December, 1968, pp. 293-970 5John Milton Phillips, "A Study of the Signifi- cance of the Systemwide Curriculum Council as an Agent of Curricular Change in Selected School Districts in Southwestern Michigan" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). 56 Another source that provided assistance in the design of the questionnaire was a recent article by Brimm. In creating his "test" for readers he identified fourteen recent innovations in education with which the modern educator should be familiar.6 These topics were also possible areas for study by curriculum committees. In addition to the sources cited above several other writings provided suggestions and guidelines for designing the instrument used in this study. Those worthy of mention include the works of Groty, Hough, and Red- mond.7 Initial drafts of the questionnaire were reviewed by colleagues to determine their clarity and suitability. A prototype instrument was developed and sent to eight educators who were familiar with the operations of a joint curriculum committee, but were not included in the sample to be studied. The group consisted of two teachers serving as presidents of local bargaining agents, one teacher who held elected office in the Michigan Education 6R. P. Brimm, "What Is Your PDKQ? (Phi Delta Kappan Quotient)," Phi Delta Kappan, March, 1971, p. 415. 7Charles Keith Groty, "The Utilization of Con- tractually Established Joint Committees in Selected Mich- igan School Districts" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1970); Wendell M. Hough, Jr., "A Better Curriculum Through Negotiations?," Educational Leadership, March, 1969, pp. 531-34; Lois A. Redmond, "A Comparison of Teachers' Perceptions of Curriculum Develop- ment in Selected Districts With and Without Curriculum Councils" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). 57 Association, one MEA Field Representative, one superinten- dent, one district director of instruction, one middle school principal, and one member of the research staff at Michigan State University. Based on the results of the piloted questionnaire, two questions were eliminated because they provided irrelevant information, and ten were reworded or modified in some way to improve their clarity and validity. The field test verified the adequacy of the directions and the length of the instru— ment. After the survey instrument had been finalized it was reproduced by off-set printing on yellow paper.8 Source of Data Two educators from each of the forty-nine school districts in the sample were chosen to receive the revised questionnaire. The instrument, a cover letter, and a stamped return envelope were sent in mid-May, 1971, to the president of the local teachers association and the administrator most directly responsible for curriculum 9 development in each of the sample districts. The actual name of each educator was obtained by using the Michigan 8In several marketing studies questionnaires on yellow paper were found to have the highest percentage of return. See Mildred Parten, Surveys, Polls and Samples: Practical Procedures (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 161. 9Copies of the cover letter and questionnaire can be found in Appendix B. 58 Education Directory and the files of the Michigan Edu- cation Association. Each was asked to fill out the survey instrument or give it to a colleague who was more familiar with the work of the curriculum council. The participating educators were assumed to be knowl- edgeable about the operation of the joint curriculum council because of their position in the district. On June 1, 1971, two weeks following the initial mailing, a post card was sent to those educators from whom no questionnaire had yet been received. Each survey instrument had been coded so that it was known who had returned his questionnaire. (On June 25, 1971, after the school year had ended for most teachers, a third mailing was made. Each educator who had still not returned his survey was sent a short note asking for his cooperation, a second questionnaire, a copy of the original cover letter, and another stamped return enve~ lope.lo Treatment of the Data As the questionnaires were returned, the responses were separated into “teacher" and "administrator" cate- gories and the opinions of each were recorded and tabu- lated. For those questions which related to the use of resources, the topics studied and the accomplishments of 10Copies of the post card and follow-up note can also be found in Appendix B. 59 the councils, a composite was made using the responses of both the teachers and administrators. In some cases, when answers differed between the teachers and adminis- trators in the same district, a mean response was recorded for the district. The assumption was made that such a compromise would be a more objective description of the council than would either one of the individual responses. Even if the assumption were not true, no feasible method was available for determin— ing which response was more accurate. In other cases the information received was such that a compromise response was inappr0priate and the data were recorded as being the perception of "at least one educator in the district." At all times attempts were made to preserve the uniqueness of the various councils and participating educators. Some grouping and categor- izing was necessary, however, in order to clarify the presentation and simplify the analysis. For those questions that concerned the influence of the council on the factors contributing to curriculum deve10pment, the responses were translated into a number value using a Likert scale. This scale enabled one to tabulate a mean score for all the councils on each question in the category as well as a total score for each respondent to all twelve questions in the category. The educators were then paired by district and a test 60 for mean difference of the matched educators was conducted to determine if the administrators and teachers differed significantly in their perception of the influence of the curriculum council. The procedure suggested by Armore was used to test the statistical hypothesis that there was no difference in the perceived influence of joint cur- riculum committees on the factors that contribute to curriculum development between teachers and administrators in the same school districts.11 This test was an attempt to measure the validity of the survey instrument. It was assumed that the responses of the participants would represent a valid description of the influence of the joint curriculum council if there were no significant difference between the perceptions of the teacher and the administrator reporting on the same council. Summary Several steps were involved in designing and con- ducting this study. A sample was identified and drawn from the school districts in Michigan which had established joint curriculum committees in their master contracts for the 1968-69 school year. The scope of the study was limited and focused on variables that would indicate the influence of joint curriculum committees. These areas included the 11Sidney J. Armore, Introduction to Statistical Analysig and Inference for Peychology and Edgcation (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966), pp. 392-97. 61 use of resources, the extent of study and implementation of new programs, and the affect of the committee on other factors that contribute to curriculum development in a school district. After field testing a survey instrument, the researcher identified and contacted educators from the sample districts. Those not responding to the initial mailing were again contacted and urged to participate. The results of the survey were recorded and tabulated noting both the similarities and the differences of the individual school districts and the participating edu- cators. With the exception of one test for mean difference in matched pairs to determine the validity of the survey instrument, all the data in the study are presented in descriptive forms and tables. The findings are pre- sented in Chapter IV and summarized in Chapter V. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction The data obtained from the survey instruments are presented and analyzed in this chapter. Educators who participated in the survey are classified, and their views on the operation of curriculum committees are summarized. Replies to the questionnaire are reported and interpreted so that data are available to answer the three basic questions: 1. What resources in the form of personnel, time, and money are available and used by the joint curriculum committees? 2. What topics have been studied and implemented into programs by the curriculum councils? 3. What effect have the joint committees had on some of the factors which contribute to our- riculum development? 62 63 Sources of Data Completed questionnaires were returned by 84 per cent of the forty-nine Michigan school administrators identified as serving in a school district which had a joint curriculum council. The typical participant was a superintendent or an assistant superintendent who had been employed in his district for twelve years. Three- fourths of them began their work prior to the enactment of the Public Employment Relations Act in 1965. Most of the respondents had been active members of the dis- trict negotiating team or the joint curriculum committee, and nearly one-third of them had been active in both groups. A profile of the roles and responsibilities of the participating administrators is presented in Table 1. Forty-nine Michigan teachers who held leadership positions in districts with joint curriculum councils were also surveyed. Nearly 78 per cent of them responded with a completed questionnaire. The average length of employment for the responding teachers was seven and one-half years. Over 70 per cent of them had been in the district since collective bargaining had been sanctioned by the state legislature in 1965, and nearly 80 per cent of them had served at some time since 1965 as president of the local teachers'association. Nearly all had played some role in either negotiating 64 TABLE l.--Roles and responsibilities of forty-one adminis- trators participating in survey. Number Percentage Position in District Superintendent 18 43.9 Assistant Superinten- dent 15 36.5 Curriculum Coordi- nator 4 9.8 Other 4 9.8 Total Zl' 100.0 Role in Negotiations Member of Team 27 65.9 Consultant to Team 8 19.5 None _6_ 14.6 Total 41 100.0 Role on Curriculum Com- mittee Member of Committee 22 53.6 Permanent Advisor 8 19.5 Occasional Consul- tant 7 17.1 None 2 4.9 Did Not Answer 2 4.9 Total Tl I50.5 master contracts or developing curricular programs; one- half had participated in both activities. A detailed summary of the roles and responsibilities of the thirty- eight participating teachers appears in Table 2. The educators who participated in the survey repre- sented forty-six different school districts or 94 per cent of the sample surveyed. Each district was reported as having some type of joint curriculum committee, although several committees were perceived as inactive or 65 TABLE 2.--Roles and responsibilities of thirty-eight teachers participating in survey. Number Percentage Role in Negotiations Member of Team 29 76.3 Consultant to Team 6 15.8 None 3 7.9 Total 38' 100.0 Role on Curriculum Com- mittee Member of Committee 23 60.5 Consultant to Com- mittee 2 5.3 Other 2 5.3 None 10 26.3 Did Not Answer _1 2.6 Total 38 100.0 ineffective. In thirty cases a completed questionnaire was received from both an administrator and a teacher in the same school district. These two independent reports permitted the construction of a composite response to describe the nature and Operation of thirty joint cur- riculum councils. The descriptions of the remaining six- teen committees were based on the perceptions of one reporting educator in each district. Use of Human Resources The size and composition of the curriculum com- mittees were not precisely clear from the data collected with the survey instrument. Often a teacher and an administrator from the same district would differ in 66 their replies and a composite response was needed if any generalizations were to be made. The collected data revealed a range in council size of between three and forty-four members, but the average committee was comprised of fifteen members with a majority of them ranging between eight and eighteen members. The survey indicated that all forty-six of the reported committees used teachers as active members and nearly all included principals. Counselors and central staff employees also served on a majority of the com- mittees. School board members, librarians, social workers, parents, and students were included as members on at least one council. Table 3 presents a summary of the membership composition of the joint curriculum com- mittees. The data obtained from the questionnaires also showed that teachers, in addition to serving as members, often selected some of the members of the joint com- mittees. Nearly two-thirds of the councils included at least one member who had been chosen by the teacher bar- gaining agent, and several others included members elected or nominated by a vote of the entire teaching staff. In all, over 80 per cent of the committees were reported as having members selected in some way by the teachers. 67 TABLE 3.--Membership composition of joint curriculum com- mittees. Element Represented Number of Percentage of on Committee Committees* Committees* Classroom Teachers 46 100.0 Principals 42 91.3 Central Staff 33 71.7 Counselors 24 52.2 School Board 13 28.3 Parents 12 26.1 Students 8 17.4 *A committee was recorded as having an element represented if at least one educator from a district indi- cated that the element was represented on the council. The responding educators indicated that classroom teachers also served as advisors and consultants to the joint committees. In nearly 85 per cent of the districts surveyed, a respondent stated that additional teachers were consulted during curriculum committee work. Ideas and suggestions were also frequently received from admin- istrators in the district, textbook representatives, col- lege faculties, and intermediate school district person- nel. Parents, community leaders, students, and educators from outside the district were also used by some com- mittees to gather information and advice. A listing of the types of personnel utilized as consultants by the joint councils is presented in Table 4. 1The data in all of the tables in this study refer to forty-six joint curriculum committees in Michi- gan between 1968-1971. 68 TABLE 4.--Types of consultants reported used by joint curriculum committees. Number of Percentage of Type Of consultant Committees* Committees* Other Teachers in District 39 84.8 Textbook Publishers 27 58.7 Other Administrators in District 26 56.5 Intermediate School District 26 56.5 College Personnel at 24 52.2 Community Leaders '7 18 39.1 Parents 18 39.1 Teachers in Other Districts 11 23.9 Administrators in Other Districts 10 21.7 Foundation Personnel 6 13.04 Others Including State Department of Education 6 13.0 None 1 2.2 * A committee was recorded as using a consultant if at least one educator in the district indicated use. The information received from the survey instru- ment further indicated the extent to which the above con- sultants were used by the joint committees. Although districts varied in the number and frequency of con- sultants used on various topics, only one reported a failure to use outside resources. Eighty-four per cent of the districts were reported as "frequently" using human resources apart from committee members, with 22 per cent of the committees reported as using at least one consultant for each topic studied. The use of additional human resources for secre— tarial help was also indicated by the participating 69 educators. While no committee was reported as having exclusive rights to a clerical aide, 80 per cent did have access to the services of paid secretaries. Those councils that did not receive paid secretarial assistance were said to have made use of student help, committee members, and other volunteers. Use of Time Participating educators in over 80 per cent of the districts stated that their curriculum committee scheduled a meeting at least once a month. While the educators described committees that met anywhere from once to forty times during the school year, the majority ranged between ten and twelve. The period in the day immediately following the dismissal of school was reported as the most frequent time for curriculum council work. Seventy-three per cent of the committees were said to hold at least part of their meetings during that time. The data also revealed that released time for meetings was provided by eighteen dis- tricts and fifteen met in the evening. None reported meeting on the weekend, but three did indicate that the summer months were used for some of their committee work. Frequently a council would combine meeting times by beginning on released time and continuing after school or into the evening. Table 5 provides the reported as 70 TABLE 5.-—Reported meeting times of joint curriculum com- mittees. When Meetings Were Held Number Percentage Only After School 17 37.8 Only During the School Day 8 17.7 Only in the Evenings 4 8.9 Only in the Summer 0 0.0 Combination of Two or More of the Above 16 35.6 frequency distribution of the times used for meetings by the joint curriculum committees. The survey data revealed a wide variance in the amount of time devoted to committee meetings in the dif- ferent districts. One educator reported that his council met only once a year for a total of two hours, while seven other committees were said to meet frequently and total over sixty hours in session. The typical group met between eighteen and forty hours during the school year and averaged thirty-two hours in session. A summary of the reported time devoted to curriculum committee meet- ings is provided in Table 6. Use of Money The data collected in this investigation did not clearly reveal the amount of money Spent by the school districts on their curriculum committees. As reported above, 80 per cent of the districts provided paid secre- tarial assistance to their committees, and 40 per cent 71 TABLE 6.--Amount of reported time devoted to joint cur- riculum committee meetings. . Number of Range in Quartile Committees Hours Mean 4 11 40 - 73 57.7 3 11 30 - 38 33.3 2 10 18 - 27 22.2 1 10 2 - 17 12.6 T2 '2“_- 73 —31.8— * This table is based on composite responses. One administrator reported committee work in excess of 100 hours. granted some released time for scheduled meetings. Both of these practices clearly involve the expenditure of district funds. The amount of the instructional budget expen- ditures that were directly influenced by the work of the councils was minimal or unknown. Thirty-seven per cent of the educators reported that they were uncertain as to the affect of the joint committee on instructional program expenditures. Of those educators who did estimate their council's influence on the budget, nearly three- fourths of them indicated that the work of the council affected less than 20 per cent of school district expen- ditures. Table 7 summarizes the responses received on this topic. 72 TABLE 7.--Estimated amount of instructional budget expen— ditures directly influenced by work of joint curriculum committees. Percentage of Budget Number of Percentage of Influenced by Council Councils Councils 0 - 20 21 45.6 21 - 40 4 8.7 41 - 60 2 4.3 61 - 80 l 2.2 81 - 100 1 2.2 Unknown or Uncertain 17 37.0 Total 46 166.0 Topics Studied by Committees From the data received it was difficult to deter- mine exactly what tOpics had been considered by the joint curriculum committees. The teacher and the administrator, reporting on the work of the same committee, often pro- vided conflicting answers when asked to identify the topics studied. Since no composite answer could be recorded for a council which was reported to have both "studied" and "not studied" a t0pic, the council was assumed to have considered the t0piC if at least one educator in the district indicated that a study was made. Generalizations about the committees were based on the data obtained following this assumption. The educators reported that a wide variety of topics had been studied by the curriculum councils. All of the sixteen possible changes listed in the question- naire were said to have been studied by at least one-third 73 of the committees surveyed, and eleven of the sixteen tepics were reported to have been examined by over one- half of the joint committees. Other topics of special interest to a particular district were also reported studied. The collected data showed that over 80 per cent of the curriculum committees had considered revisions to existing courses, additions of new courses, adoptions of text materials, or modifications in some K-12 subject area. Development of in-service programs and the pur- chase of instructional supplies were the reported con- cerns of over three-fourths of the councils. Other issues reported to be of interest to a majority of the councils included the use of paraprofessionals, the revision of the criteria for evaluating curricular pro- grams, the adoption of new teaching methods, the develop- ment of new staffing patterns, and the creation of poli- cies related to student evaluation and promotion. A summary of the major topics said to be studied by the curriculum committees is found in Table 8. Programs Implemented A detailed summary of the actual implementations made in the districts with joint curriculum committees was difficult because of the conflicting replies from the educators surveyed. The data on implementation were tabulated in a similar manner to that of topics studied. 74 TABLE 8.--Topics reported to have been studied by joint curriculum committees. Number of Percentage of TOPIC Committees* Committees* Revision of Existing Courses 41 89.1 Addition of New Courses 40 87.0 Adoption of New Text Materials 38 82.6 Revision of K-12 Subject Area 38 82.6 Development of In-Service 36 78.3 Instructional Supplies Purchase 35 76.1 Use of Teacher Aides 28 60.9 Revision of Criteria for Evaluating Curriculum 25 54.4 New Teaching Methods 25 54.4 Student Evaluation and Promotion 24 52.2 Experimentation and Research 22 47.8 Philosophy of Education 22 47.8 Teacher Evaluation 17 37.0 Performance Contracting 16 34.8 Compensatory Education 15 32.6 * A committee was recorded as studying a topic if at least one educator in the district reported that it had been studied. A district was recorded as having adopted an innovation if at least one educator in the district believed that a program had been started as a result of joint committee work. The following generalizations are based on the data collected in this manner. The objectives of most curriculum councils included the adoption of new textbooks, the design of curriculum guides, and the development of in-service programs. These three items were the reported results, 75 or anticipated results, of over two-thirds of the com- mittees. A complete listing of the expected results of committee work is found in Table 9. TABLE 9.--Expected results of joint curriculum committee efforts. Forms in Which Committee Number of Percentage of WOrk Is Expressed Committees Committees Textbook Adoptions 37 80.4 Curriculum Guides 31 67.4 In-Service Programs 31 67.4 Annual Reports 21 45.7 Restructure of Organi- zation 20 43.5 Policy Statements 19 41.30 The information provided by the survey instrument showed that in nearly 90 per cent of the districts a respondent could cite at least one educational program which had resulted from a joint committee recommendation. Over one-half of the districts were said to have imple- mented five or more changes in the curriculum as a result of joint council recommendations. Table 10 presents a graphic summary of the number of reported changes made by the surveyed districts. Several specific changes were reported by the educators who participated in the survey. The respondents indicated that a majority of the districts had adopted textbooks recommended by joint curriculum committees. A majority also had developed in-service programs, 76 TABLE 10.--Frequency of curriculum changes made as a result of joint committee recommendations. Number of Number of Cumulative Cf as a Per- Changes Districts Frequency centage of Total 0 5 5 11.1 1 4 9 20.0 2 3 12 26.7 3 4 16 35.6 4 4 20 44.4 5 4 24 53.3 6 4 28 62.2 7 5 33 73.3 8 l 34 65.6 9 5 39 86.7 10 - - - ll 2 41 91.1 12 3 44 97.8 13 - - - l4 - - - 15 - - - l6 1 45 100.0 Mean equals 5.42 changes per district. 77 purchased instructional supplies or added new courses to the existing curriculum based on the suggestions of joint councils. Table 11 lists the types of programs reported implemented in school districts following a recommendation of a joint curriculum committee. TABLE 11.--Types of changes made as a result of joint cur- riculum committee recommendations. Number of Percentage of Type Of Change Districts Districts Adoption of New Textbook 31 67.4 Development of In-Service 25 54.3 Purchase of Instructional Supplies 24 52.2 Addition of New Course 23 50.0 Revision in Existing Course 22 47.8 Use of Teacher Aides 17 37.0 Revision in K-12 Subject Area 17 37.0 Utilization of Staff 16 34.8 Evaluation of Students 12 26.1 Methods of Teaching 10 21.7 Philosophy of District 10 21.7 Experimentation in Program 10 21.7 Evaluation of Teachers 9 19.6 Evaluation of Curriculum 8 17.4 Development of Compensatory Education 8 17.4 Entering Performance Contract 2 4.3 Perceived Influence of Committees The perceived influence of the joint committees on factors associated with curriculum development was obtained by asking each respondent to express his assessment in terms ranging from "strongly negative" to "strongly 78 positive." These responses were then translated into a number value using a Likert scale with gge_representing "strongly negative" and pipe representing "strongly posi- tive." A score of fiye would thus indicate that the respondent was unable to measure the influence of his committee. A value was then recorded for each factor by using the responses of the educators reporting on each council. If the participants from the same school district differed in their assessment, an average value between the two was recorded. This data enables one to determine the over-all perceived influence of the forty— six committees by tabulating a mean score for each factor associated with curriculum develoPment. The data supplied by the participating educators indicates a wide variance in their perceptions of the affect joint curriculum committees had on the total instructional program. The overall opinion of the edu- cators is that the joint councils have exerted some influence in shaping the curriculum and have provided a slightly positive influence on the factors that con- tribute to curriculum development. Some believe that their councils are strong positive forces in shaping the educational programs while others feel their com- mittees are ineffective or actually negative influences on program development. A composite summary of the 79 perceived influence of joint committees on factors associ- ated with curriculum development is presented in Table 12 on page 80. An examination of the data indicates that the work of the typical council helped to increase the amount of teacher participation in curricular decisions and broaden the scope of the instructional program. The committee exerted a slightly positive influence on all of the other selected factors contributing to curriculum development, but was barely effective in increasing the harmony, respect, skills, and accountability of the pro- fessional staff. The typical council represented by a mean score was not, however, without exception. The wide range in the responses indicated that some committees are per- ceived as much more effective or much less influential than the mean. Selected comments of the participating educators help to illustrate the unique nature of the individual committees and warn of the dangers in using averages to make generalizations. Although each district reported the existence of a clause establishing a joint cur- riculum committee in their 1968-69 contract, several educators expressed the feeling that they are "just get- ting started." 80 TABLE 12.--Type and amount of perceived influence exerted by joint committees on factors contributing to curriculum development. Factors Contributing to * * Curriculum Development Range Mean Increasing the Amount of Teacher Participation in Curriculum Decisions 3-9 6.64 Broadening the Scope of the Instructional Program 5-9 6.49 Encouraging Experimentation in Instruction and Curriculum 3-9 6.31 Providing Interesting and Rele- vant Instruction to Students 3-9 6.27 Clarifying the Objectives and Priorities of Curriculum 3-9 6.24 Improving Communications Within the District 3-9 6.22 Generating Widespread Teacher Interest in Curricular Reform 3-9 6.20 Promoting Staff Harmony and Co-operation 3-9 6.09 Promoting Mutual Respect Among Teachers and Administrators 1-9 6.07 Improving the Quality of Staff In-Service Programs 1-9 6.04 Increasing teacher accounta- bility for Instructional Practices 3-9 5.88 * The range in scores represents the composite ratings given the joint curriculum councils by the par- ticipating educators. The scores of forty-six different councils are represented in the range and used to deter- mine the mean. A score of one indicates that the council was perceived as exerting a_§trong1y negative influence on the factor listed; a score of nine indicates that the council was perceived as exerting a strongly positive influence on the factor listed. 81 The following statements are examples of comments made by participating educators who feel that their joint curriculum council are "just getting started." The present council has been very busy getting reorganized. It did not function for two years due to lack of interest of both parties. The Curriculum Committee is presently in its second year and just beginning to produce constructive results. The joint committee has only been in the district three years. Under the previous superintendent and union president the committee did not function. It has been activated this year. This type of committee you have in mind is not yet in permanent existence and was only in its begin- ning state this year. Some of the reorganizing is accompanied by the hope that the "new committee" will be more effective than the previous one. The following comments illustrate this hope. The newness of our committee makes it impossible to do well on this survey. Our previous joint council was very ineffective, but again I have hopes. Our district does provide for a curriculum council within the master agreement, but it was never dev- eloped or followed at any level. Because of this we are rewriting this entire part of our contract into a workable one, we hope! . . . the ineffectiveness of the operation of the Curriculum Council has made teachers aware of the need to have a stronger voice in curriculum and related matters. 82 The comments of several respondents reveal that their districts have made some modification in the con- cept of the joint curriculum committee. A few of these modifications are discussed in the following statements. Our master agreement does not provide for a cur- riculum council. It provides for a Professional Council that deals with many kinds of issues includ— ing curriculum. We have an elementary curriculum council and a secondary curriculum council. Each building has a curriculum council plus one for the school-wide areas and co-ordination. The 1971-72 master contract provides for a Pro- fessional Council. This committee was established to work on any educational problem which we may have. The three major problem areas at the present time are curriculum, split sessions, and state assessment. When commenting on the lack of success of the joint committees, several respondents took the opportunity to express what they believed to be the reasons for the ineffectiveness. Included in their observations are the following statements. . . . this council has actually been a deterrent to initiation of curriculum change which is much needed in this district primarily because it is "game time" for militant teachers and members of our administra- tive negotiating team. The council is not effective for curriculum change because it is subject oriented and administration dominated. 83 With the uncertain financial conditions facing edu- cation the curriculum council has turned out to be only a discussion group. We still struggle over general staff acceptance of role and power of the instructional council. We have no administrative leadership. There is currently disagreement between buildings as to the validity of the council's decisions. We want to do it our way. Our council has been too concerned about the mechanics of textbook selection and courses of study. The mem- bers have been selected by the administration and are not answerable to the association. The curriculum council is beginning to show signs of becoming a political forum for teachers, adminis- trators, and others. It is not responsible for its decisions or recommendations. It can refuse to recommend a very good program and there is no "penalty"--it can support a very poor program and not suffer for it either. The board of education is unwilling to fund any new programs. Validity of Test Instrument In this study it was assumed that the responses of educational leaders would represent a valid description of the operation and influence of joint curriculum committees. To verify this assumption and determine if the respondents differed significantly in their description of similar councils, a test for mean difference of matched pairs of educators was conducted. A "score" for each educator was obtained by totaling the Likert value of his response to question seventeen on page three of the questionnaire 84 with his answers to the eleven items on page five.2 The procedure suggested by Armore was then used to test the statistical hypothesis that there was no difference in the perceived influence of joint curriculum committees on the factors that contribute to curriculum development between teachers and administrators in the same school districts.3 The results of this test are presented in Table 13. TABLE l3.--Resu1ts of test for mean difference in thirty pairs of scores for teachers and administrators on per- ceived influence of joint curriculum committees on some of the factors shaping the curriculum. Degrees of Freedom 29 Hypothesized Difference in Scores 0 Actual Mean Difference in Scores 4.96 Test Statistic 4.35 Significance .001 From the data collected, one can conclude with over 99 per cent of confidence that teachers and admin- istrators differ in their perceptions of joint curriculum 2Sidney J. Armore, Introduction to Statigtical Analysis and Inference (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966). pp. 392-96. 3See Appendix B. 85 committees. Administrators tend to view the councils as exerting a more strongly positive influence on the factors contributing to curriculum development than do teachers. Since educators differ in their reported perceptions, the response of just one educator from a district would not necessarily represent a valid des- cription of the nature and operation of the council. The validity of the description might possibly be in- creased by including both teachers and administrators in the survey and increasing the number of responses in each category from each district. Summary In this chapter the data collected by the survey instrument were presented and analyzed. The teachers and administrators who participated in the survey gave dif- fering and sometimes conflicting reports on the operation of the joint curriculum committees in their districts. A test for mean difference in matched pairs of edu- cators revealed that administrators and teachers dif- fered in their reported perceptions of the influence of the joint councils beyond the .001 level of significance. Generalizations could therefore be made only after con- structing composite responses for each district. The data from these composite responses indicated that the typical curriculum committee was composed of 86 fifteen members, of which some were always teachers. Principals, central staff, or counselors were also included on a majority of the committees. Nearly all committees were reported as utilizing advisors and consultants. Teachers, textbook represen- tatives, administrators, intermediate school district staff, and college faculties were said to be the most frequent sources for consultant help. Paid secretarial services were also provided for most of the committees. The average council met about once a month, usually after school, for a total of thirty-two hours a year. The topics examined by the committees varied from district to district. Eleven topics were reported studied by a majority of the councils4 and most had studied and recommended five or more changes which had been implemented by the districts. The five areas most frequently mentioned for study and implementation were textbook adoption, revision of existing courses, develop- ment of in-service programs, the addition of new courses, and the purchase of instructional supplies. 4The eleven topics reported studied by a majority of the councils were: Revision of existing courses, Addition of new courses, Adoption of new courses, Revision of K-12 subject area, Development of in-service programs, Purchase of instructional supplies, Use of teacher aides, Revision of criteria for evaluating curriculum, New teaching methods, and Student evaluation and promotion. 87 The overall opinion of the educators surveyed was that the joint councils had exerted some influence in shaping the curriculum and had provided a slightly positive influence on the factors that contribute to curriculum development. The range in replies was great, however, and many unique situations were reported. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine the ways in which joint curriculum committees established in negotiated contracts were perceived as influencing the process of curriculum development in selected Michigan school districts. In this chapter the steps taken to conduct this investigation are summarized and the result- ing conclusions are discussed. While providing insight into the questions raised in this study, the data col- lected also suggest areas which need further exploration. The related tOpics which appear to be suited for future research are presented at the end of this chapter. Background to Study The involvement of teachers in the process of cur- riculum development has been advocated for many years. With the advent of collective bargaining in public edu- cation teacher participation in curricular decision- making takes on a new dimension. Teachers can now 88 89 demand involvement, and joint committees have been estab- lished in several master agreements to insure the right of teachers to participate in curriculum planning. Scope of Study This study began as an attempt to discover the perceived influence exerted by these joint committees on the educational programs in Michigan. To focus the study more clearly and limit the variables, three general questions were drafted. The objective of the investi- gation then became that of collecting and analyzing data concerning these questions: 1. What resources in the form of personnel, time, and money are available and used by the joint curriculum committees? 2. What tOpics have been studied and implemented into programs by the curriculum councils? 3. What effect have the joint committees had on some of the factors which contribute to cur- riculum development? Sources of Data To obtain the information needed to answer these questions, a survey instrument was constructed, tested, and sent to selected educators. The sample used for this study included one teacher and one administrator 90 from each of the forty-nine Michigan school districts which had indicated to the NEA that they had included a provision for a joint curriculum committee in their 1968-69 master contract. The questionnaires returned by forty-one administrators and thirty-eight teachers provided information on forty-six different joint cur- riculum committees. Limitations of the Study The study was limited to the forty-nine Michigan school districts which were known to have negotiated a provision for a joint curriculum committee in their 1968-69 master contracts. They neither represented the total population nor a randomly selected sample of the districts in Michigan which provided for joint cur- riculum committees in their 1968-69 agreements. There- fore, results obtained from this investigation were not generalized beyond the population of the study. The scope of the study was limited to the exami- nation of the role that joint committees played in the process of curriculum development. No detailed exami- nation was made of other contract provisions which might affect the instructional program. The actual materials, course outlines, or curriculum guides produced by the school districts were also not subject to examination. Reported perceptions and opinions of selected educators provided the data for the study. No attempt 91 was made to manipulate variables or determine the cause of any of the phenomena discovered. The major portion of the study was thus descriptive in nature. Findings of the Study The educators who participated in the survey gave differing and sometimes conflicting reports on the oper- ation of joint curriculum committees. Generalizations could be made only after constructing a set of composite responses for each district where conflicting reports were given. The data collected, after composite responses had been recorded, indicated that most curriculum committees had limited their size to between eight and eighteen members. Each included teachers in its membership and most included principals, counselors, or central staff personnel. Approximately one-fourth of the committees included parents as members and 17 per cent extended invitations to students to become voting members. The committees were not reported as limiting their sources for ideas and suggestions to their member- ship. The opinions and advice of other personnel were sought by all but one committee when developing cur- riculum. Most committees relied heavily on the teachers and administrators in their own districts for direction in planning, and several sought assistance from other sources. Textbook publishers were consulted by nearly 92 60 per cent of the councils; ideas and suggestions were obtained from college faculties or intermediate school district personnel by over one-half of the committees; parents and students were reported used as consultants by 30 to 40 per cent of the responding councils. The data revealed that the typical committee met for thirty hours during the school year, with sessions scheduled approximately once a month. Some school dis— trict monies were spent on the operation of the com- mittees, because released time for meetings was provided in nearly 40 per cent of the districts and paid secre- tarial assistance was available in 80 per cent of the districts. The topics reported to have been studied and implemented by the joint councils varied from district to district. A majority of the committees were reported as having studied and implemented at least five edu- cational innovations. The areas most frequently mentioned were textbook adoption, revision or addition of student courses, development of in-service programs for teachers, and the purchase of instructional materials. The over-all opinion of the educators surveyed was that the joint curriculum committees had exerted some influence in shaping the educational climate of the schools and had provided a slightly positive influence on the factors which contributed to curriculum development. 93 The range in replies was great, however, and many unique situations were uncovered by the survey. Moreover, a test for mean difference in thirty matched pairs of edu- cators revealed that administrators and teachers dif- fered in their reported perceptions of the influence of curriculum councils beyond the .001 level of significance. While the administrators gave a higher rating to the joint committees, it was the general impression of both groups that the councils had helped to increase the amount of teacher participation in curricular decisions and to broaden the scope of the instructional program. Conclusions and Implications The information collected and analyzed in this investigation provides some insight into the nature and influence of joint curriculum committees studied. Listed below are some of the conclusions reached after examin- ing the data and some of the possible implications of the findings. 1. The joint curriculum committees in individual districts differ greatly in their composition, operation, and influence. Districts were reported as having committees with from three to forty-four members. At one extreme was a council which met only once during the year for a total of two hours and used no outside help. At the other end 94 of the spectrum was a committee which met once a week and spent over 100 hours in session while using many advisors and consultants. The topics studied and the programs implemented also varied from district to district. It would appear that the unique nature of the districts, their resources, and the individual personalities and priorities of their personnel contributed to a varied use of the joint com— mittee as a tool for curriculum development. The existence of a similar provision in the master contracts of two school districts cannot be interpreted as meaning that both have similar methods for developing curricular poli- cies. A researcher who desires to determine the effect of negotiations upon educational programs must look beyond mere contract language. 2. Administrators and teachers differ in their per- ception of the nature and influence of joint cur- riculum committees. Often a teacher and an administrator from the same school district would differ in their replies to questions. Various sizes, membership compositions, and meeting times were often reported for the same committee. Some respon- dents also differed in their perception of the use of consultants, the topics studied, the programs implemented, and the influence of the council on the factors which con- tribute to curriculum development. Several factors may have contributed to these differences in perceptions: 95 The nature and operation of the curriculum council may have been poorly communicated within the dis- trict. One, or both, of the educators may not have been adequately informed on the work of the committee. A different meaning may have been given to the terms used in the questionnaire. Some educators may have stretched their imaginations when read- ing the terms, permanent member, studied, or implemented, while others may have adopted narrow interpretations of the terms. A different frame of reference may have been used by the educators. The respondents may have had different amounts of knowledge, gained their knowledge from different sources, or served on the committee at different times. Their answers may have reflected the work of the committee since 1968, or they may have been based only on the most recent efforts of the committee. Some may have considered the views expressed by colleagues while others may have used only their personal experience as a basis for reply. The work of the committee may have been duplicated or augmented by the efforts of some other person or group in the school district. If a curriculum 96 program had been studied or implemented partly because of the work of some other person, group, or contract provision, the educators may have had difficulty determining to what degree the total process was influenced by the curriculum committee. The development of in-service pro— grams and the purchase of instructional materials appeared to be areas where this problem especially arose. E. Several other factors may have contributed to the differences in the responses received from the same school district. Some participants may have had better memories, been more honest, or been more desirous of impressing the researcher. 3. The typical joint curriculum council has fifteen members. Some of its voting members are teachers or counselors; some are principals or central staff employees. Only occasionally are edu- cational specialists, lay adults, or students included on the committees. The size of most of the committees was less than those receiving the highest rankings in the study by Phillips and very similar to those receiving his lowest ratings.1 The scope of membership also appeared to be more narrow than that generally suggested by curriculum specialists. While no widely accepted criteria exist for 1The curriculum committees that received the highest rankings averaged twenty-five to thirty-five 97 evaluating curriculum committees, it would appear that most councils in this study could strengthen their role by including students and adult laymen as members. 4. Teachers exert influence on the typical com- mittee by selecting some of its members and serving as consultants and advisors. It appears that the talents, skills, and training of teachers in the area of curriculum and instruction were recognized by most of the joint committees. In addition to serving as members of the committees, teachers were able to participate in the selection of the members and often served as consultants to the committees. The data indicated the extensive participation of teachers in the decision-making process predicted in the literature on collective bargaining. When the committees were per- ceived as weak or ineffective, the criticism was fre- quently made that the teachers did not have adequate voice on the committee or that it was dominated by the administration. 5. Consultants are frequently used by the typical curriculum committee. Ideas, direction, and advice for curriculum development were provided largely by educators. School members; the councils that received the lowest rankings averaged fifteen to nineteen members. See John Milton Phillips, "A Study of the Significance of the Systemwide Curriculum Council as an Agent of Curricular Change in Selected School Districts in Southwestern Michigan" (un- published Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). 98 district personnel, intermediate district staff, and col- lege faculties were utilized by most committees, but only a few sought opinions and suggestions from com- munity adults or students. Apparently some joint councils have not yet tapped all the potential human resources available for curriculum development suggested by curriculum specialists. 6. The typical joint curriculum committee surveyed schedules a meeting at least once a month and holds session for over thirty hours during a school year. The time devoted to curriculum planning by the councils appeared to be regular and quite extensive. The thirty-two hours of meetings per school year repre- sented an amount slightly more than the time spent by the highest ranking councils in Phillips' study and consid- erably more than the lowest rated councils.2 The infre- quent use of released time and summer months for com- mittee activities suggests that most school districts are unwilling to Spend school district funds to support the operation of the committees. The wide range in total time devoted to curriculum planning by the various 2The highest ranking councils averaged twenty- seven hours per school year in meetings; the lowest rank- ing councils averaged eighteen hours. See John Milton Phillips, Ed.D. dissertation. 99 committees further indicates that some districts are not fully utilizing the joint committee as a vehicle for developing educational programs. 7. Joint curriculum committees have studied a num- ber of possible educational innovations. All of the sixteen educational practices identi- fied by the selected recent literature as worthy of school district consideration were reported as being studied by at least 32 per cent of the committees. In addition to the sixteen innovations listed in the question- naire, several other items were reported as studied by the joint committees. The data suggests that current edu- cational practices have been considered for adoption in school districts which have established joint curriculum committees, but it does not reveal how detailed the studies were nor does it indicate how instrumental these studies were in the final decisions made by the school districts. 8. The work of joint curriculum committees has resulted in revision of the educational program. In nearly 90 per cent of the forty-six reporting districts, an educator was able to identify a curriculum revision that had resulted from the efforts of a joint committee. A majority of the councils were described as having contributed to at least five innovations since 1968. One could conclude that the joint curriculum 100 committee can be compatible with change and can actually help to initiate modifications in the educational program. However, the existence of five councils which were reported as not contributing to new innovations, and the existence of comments from educators describing the council as a "political forum," indicate that the role of change agent is not an automatic one for a council established in a master agreement. 9. Most curriculum committees established in master agreements have a small effect on the instructional program and a slightly positive influence on the other factors which contribute to curriculum development. While educators generally perceived the joint com- mittee as exerting a positive force in shaping the cur- riculum many reported it as a negligible or negative influence. The data collected suggested that the council is more likely to increase teacher participation in cur- ricular decisions and broaden the scope of instruction than it is to promote respect, harmony, or accountability on the staff. The research data further indicated that the joint council, while capable of providing a positive force toward improving instruction, was by no means a panacea. Many factors and variables undoubtedly determine what success a joint curriculum committee will have in influencing the development of a sound educational pro- gram. 101 Recommendations The following recommendations are based on the research, experiences and perceptions of this writer: 1. Joint curriculum councils should broaden their perceptions by using a greater variety of human resources as members and consultants. Students, lay adults, and educators from other school dis- tricts should be encouraged to directly participate in the process of curriculum development. Joint curriculum councils should expand their operational definition of curriculum development to include more than the study and adoption of new textbooks and courses. Committee members should examine closely the underlying philosophy of education held by their staff in addition to their basic beliefs about human growth and learn- ing. The committees should devote more attention to the process of human interaction taking place in their schools and utilize staff in-service pro- grams and teacher evaluation as tools for promot— ing professional growth and curriculum improvement. Joint curriculum committees should develop a more systematic approach to the identification of topics to be studied, financed, and evaluated. Given their limited resources of time and money, 102 the councils should operate from a clearly defined set of priorities and focus their efforts toward clearly defined objectives. Wide differences in opinion of what has been studied, recommended, and implemented should not exist among members of the same committee. Joint curriculum committees should be provided with adequate time, sufficient money, and defi- nite responsibilities or be eliminated from teacher contracts. More important than these mechanical aspects, however, are the attitudes and values of the participating educators. The successful operation of a joint council depends largely on the willingness of its members to genuinely share power in the decision-making process and actively seek constructive methods for curriculum improvement. Research should be conducted to identify the variables that contribute to successful cur- riculum councils. Case studies are needed to determine how the committee is influenced by differences in size, scope of membership, teacher attitudes, and administrative practices. Researchers should also conduct future investi- gations in selected districts to identify some 103 of the factors that contribute to the varied responses in teachers and administrators. Evi- dence is needed to determine why members of the same council are unable to agree on the nature, operation, and influence of their joint cur- riculum committee. Further research is also needed to examine in more depth the programs that resulted from joint committee efforts. A study of the new programs reported as "implemented" by the districts in this survey should be made at a future date to determine how real and long lasting were the reported changes. The whole atmosphere created by collective bar- gaining needs to be examined from the standpoint of its effect on curriculum development. Joint committees are but a small part of this climate. Research is needed to identify other elements which emerge from negotiations to influence the educational program. Once identified, some attempt can then be made to assess their impact. The passage of time and accompanying research will be needed to determine whether the newly won power of teachers is being used to solve edu- cational problems and constructively nurture needed changes. B IBL IOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Armore, Sidney J. Introduction to Statistical Analysis and InferenceIEOr Psychology and Education. New York: John Wiley and Sons, I966. Bok, Derek C., and DunlOp, John T. Labor and the American Community. New York: Simon and'Schuster, 1970. Cay, Donald F. Curriculum: Design for Learnin . Indian- apolis: Bobhs-MerrilllCompany, Inc., I 66. Gilroy, Thomas P.; Sinicropi, Anthony V.; Stone, Franklin D.; and Urich, Theodore R. Educator's Guide to Collective Negotiapions. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Pu lshing Company, 1969. Goode, William J., and Hatt, Paul K. Methods in Social Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., I952. Krug, Edward A. Curriculum Planning, New York: Harper and Brothers PubliShers, 1957. Lieberman, Myron, and Moskow, Michael H. Collective Negotiations forTeachers:ilAn Approach to School AdminiStratibn. Chicago: Rand McNally and Com- pany, 1966. Miel, Alice. Chapging_the Curriculum: A Sogial Process. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1946. Moskow, Michael H., and Doherty, Robert E. "United States." Teacher Upions and Associations. Edited by Albert A. Blum. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1969. Parten, Mildred. Surveys, Polls and Samples: Practical Procedures. New York: Harper and’Bros., 1950. 104 105 Schmidt, Charles T., Jr.; Parker, Hyman; and Repas, Bob. A Guide to Collective Negotiations in Education. East Lansing: Social Science Research Bureau, Michigan State University, 1967. Stinnett, T. M.; Kleinmann, Jack H.; and Ware, Martha L. Professional Negotiation in Public Education. New York: MacMillan Company, 1966. Wildman, Wesley A. "Teachers and Collective Negotiations." White Collar Workers. Edited by Albert A. Blum. New York: Random House, 1971. . "The Nature and Dynamics of Teacher Organi- zation--School Administration Negotiating Activi- ties and Their Impact on School Administration." Collective Negotiations and Educational Adminis- tration. Editedmhy Roy B. Allen and thn Schmid. Fayetteville: College of Education, University of Arkansas, and the University Council for Edu- cational Administration, 1966. Wollett, Donald H., and Chanin, Robert H. The Law and Practiceof Teacher Negotiations. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1970. Periodicals Bennion, John W. "The Curriculum Administrator and Negotiations." Educational Leadership, January, Brimm, R. P. "What Is Your PDKQ? (Phi Delta Kappan Quotient)." Phi Delta Kappan, March, 1971, p. 415. Buell, Clayton E. "Guidelines for Curriculum Development." Educational Leadership, December, 1968, pp. 293-97. Dickson, George E., and Creighton, Samuel L. "Who Is This Person We Call Teacher?" Educational Leadership, February, 1969, pp. 455-58. Gould, William B. "Public Employment: Mediation, Fact Finding and Arbitration." American Bar Associ- ation Journal, LV (September, l969l, 835-41. Hough, Wendell M., Jr. "A Better Curriculum Through Negotiation?" Educational Leadership, March, 1969, pp. 531-34. 106 Michigan School Board Association. "1968 MBA Master Con- tract for Negotiations." The Michigan School Board Journal, XIV (February, 1968), 5-34. Seamon, Harold P. "Trends in Collective Negotiations." Know How, XXVIII, No. 9 (May, 1970), 5. Smith, Ralph 8., Jr. "Collective Bargaining in Higher Education." Michigan Law Review, LXVII, No. 5 (March, 1969), 1,067-82. Young, William F. "Curriculum Negotiations: Present Status-Future Trends." Education Leadership, January, 1969, pp. 341-43. Unpublished Material Conine, Dean Edward. "The Effect of Collective Negoti- ations on the Role of the Superintendent of Schools of Six Selected Colorado School Dis- tricts." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Colo- rado State College, 1969. Evans, Geraldine Ann. "Perceptions of and Attitudes Toward the Use of Collective Bargaining Power." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1968. Girshefski, Sister Mary Jeanne. "Circumstances Affecting Curricular Change as Exemplified in Selected WOmen's Colleges." Unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, St. Louis University, 1968. Groty, Charles Keith. "The Utilization of Contractually Established Joint Committees in Selected Michigan School Districts." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1970. Kalish, Thomas Francis. "The ScOpe of Collective Bargain- ing Agreements in Selected School Districts in Illinois and Wisconsin." Unpublished Ph.D. dis- sertation, University of Wisconsin, 1968. Krey, Robert Dean. "Factors Relating to Teachers' Per- ceptions of Curricular Implementation Activities and the Extent of Curricular Implementation." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1968. 107 Marquardt, Edward Theodore. "Perceptions of Elementary Teachers of the Impact of Collective Negotiations." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1969. Maxcy, Horace P., Jr. "Dimensions of the Educational Planning Process: A Study of Educational Planning Processes in Selected Michigan School Districts." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Phelps, James L. "Difference of Attitudes Toward Col- lective Bargaining Goals in Education: The Development and Application of an Instrument." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1970. Phillips, John Milton. "A Study of the Significance of the System-Wide Curriculum Council as an Agent of Curricular Change in Selected School Districts in Southwestern Michigan." Unpublished Ed.D. dis- sertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Redmond, Lois A. "A Comparison of Teachers' Perceptions of Curriculum Development in Selected Districts With and Without Curriculum Councils." Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1969. Steele, Marilyn Harger. "Has Collective Bargaining Con- tributed to Instructional Improvement in Michigan Schools?" Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Verduin, John Richard Jr. "An Evaluation of a Cooperative Approach to Curriculum Change." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962. Other Sources Bishop, Leslee J. Collective Negotiation in Curriculum and Instruction: Questions and Concerns. Wash- ington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1967. Government Employment Relations Report, No. 269, May 12, I969, pp. B 5-6. 108 Grobman, Hulda. Evaluation Activities of Curriculum Projects: A Starting Point, American Educational Research Associatibn Monograph Series on Cur- riculum Evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1968. Groty, C. Keith. "State Public Employee Laws Affecting Teachers." East Lansing, 1971. (Mimeographed.) Labor Management Relations Act (Taft-Hartley Act). Statutes at Lar e, Vol. LXI (1947). U. S. Code, VOI. XXXIX (I950). Lambert, Samuel. "Report on Negotiations Legislation." Educators Negotiating Service Special Reports, September 15, 1970. Lieberman, Myron. "Collective Negotiations by Teachers." Public Empleyee Relations Library, No. 5. Chi- cago: Public Personnel Association, 1968. Metzler, John. "What Is Negotiable?" Educators Negoti- ating Service Special Reperts, August 1, 1969. Michigan Education Association. Michigan Public School District Datay_l968-69. East Lansing: MiEhigan Education Association, 1969. Michigan Education Association Research Division. Summary of Agreement Provisions 1969-70. East Lansing: Michigan Educatibn Association, 1970. Michigan Education Association Research Division. Summary of Selected Agreement Provisions 1970-71. East LanSing: Michigan Education Association, 1971. Michigan Employment Relations Commission and The Division of Planning, Programming and Statistics. Fact Findi_g in Public Employee Dispgtes in the State of Michigan l965-l968. Lansing: Department of Labor, 1970. Michigan House of Representatives. Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of Michigan, 1965 Regular SesSibn. Michigan Labor Mediation Board. Findings of Fact Con- clusions of Law and Orders 1965-66: Labor Opinions. 109 Michigan LaborRelations and Mediation Act. Act No. 176 of the Public Acts of 1939 as amended. Michigan Senate. Journal of the_Senate of the State of Michigan, I965, Regular SessiOn. Michigan Statutes Annotated. Section 17:455 (1968). National Education Association. Research Division. Negotiation Agreement Provisions 1968-69. Washington, D.C.: National Education Associ- ation, December, 1969. National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act). Statutes at Lar e, Vol. XLIX (19935). U. S. Code, Vol. XXIX 2). Nolte, M. Chester, ed. Labor Law and Education, Report of the Work Conference on Collective: Bargaining, Denver, Colorado, July 8- 9, 1968. Denver: Uni- versity of Denver, Bureau of Educational Research, 1968. Richburg, Robert W. Using Evaluation to Improve Instruction. Boulder: Association of American Geographers, 1970. Seldon, David. "Beyond Negotiations." Challen es to Collective Bargaining. Eugene, Oregon: Pac1fic Northwest Assemhly of Columbia University, 1967. Waugh, William J. "Teacher Strikes Taking on New Dimensions." The State Journal (Lansing, Michigan), January 21, 197i} APPENDICES APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE 1. List of School Districts Surveyed 2. Comparison of Sample With State \qummanNH o o o o o o o o l-‘l-‘I-‘H LONE-‘0 O 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 110 Forty-Nine Michigan School Districts In Sample Airport Community Schools Bay City School District Brighton Area Schools Brown City Community Schools Capac Community Schools Centerline Public Schools Chippewa Valley Schools Clarkston Community Schools Concord Public Schools Crestwood Schools Dearborn Heights Public Schools No. 7 Dexter Public Schools Ecorse Public Schools Elkton-Pigeon-Bay Port Schools Fennville Public Schools Freeland Community Schools Grand Ledge Public Schools Grandville Public Schools Holt Public Schools Howell Public Schools Jefferson Public Schools Lake Fenton Community Schools Lake Orion Community Schools Lakewood Public Schools Lansing Public Schools Mason Consolidated Schools Monroe Public Schools Northville Public Schools Onstead Community Schools Otsego Public Schools Petoskey Public Schools Pinckney Community Schools Royal Oak Public Schools Rudyard Township Schools Saginaw Public Schools Saginaw Township Schools Saline Area Schools Sault Ste. Marie Public Schools South Haven Public Schools South Lyon Community Schools South Redford Schools Tawas Area Schools Van Dyke Public Schools Waverly Schools Wayne Community Schools West Bloomfield Schools West Branch--Rose City Schools Westwood Community Schools wyoming Public Schools lll Comparison of Sample with State1 Michigan Sample Average Number of Teachers Per District: 162 237 State Equalization Valuation Per Pupil: 15,108 14,413 Median Operation Millage (allocated and voted combined): 19.55 20.11 Geographical Distribution of Districts: Percentage of Percentage of MBA Region Teachers in Teachers in Michigan Sample 1-2 26.5 20.6 6-7 20.9 19.7 3-8-10 18.2 29.5 3-5-9-11 21.4 20.0 12-13-14-15-16-17-18 13.0 10.2 1Data are for the school year 1968-69. They are compiled from material presented in the publication of the Michigan Education Association, Michigan Public School District Data, 1968-69 (East Lansing: Michigan Education Association, 1969). APPENDIX B MATERIALS USED IN SURVEY Cover Letter to Administrator Cover Letter to Association President Joint Curriculum Committee Questionnaire Postcard, Second Mailing Letter, Third Mailing 112 1442 L Spartan Village Michigan State University East Lansing. Michigan 48823 Dear My reading of the professional literature reveals that your school district has traditionally expressed a concern for quality instruction and curriculum development. It is be- cause of your position of leadership in the district that 1 am seeking your assistance. As part of my doctoral studies at Michigan State University I am conducting research on the work of district curriculum committees. It is my understanding that your district was one of the first in Michigan to provide for a curriculum council in a written master agreement with teachers. and I would be most interested in your comments and reactions to its operation. Enclosed is a survey which provides you with an opportunity to describe the work of your committee and express your opinions about its operation. If you wish to take part in the survey. please indicate your response to each item and return the questionnaire to me. preferably by June 1. 1971. The number at the top or the survey is to assist me in obtaining a return of all questionnaires. and your response will remain anonymous. If you do not wish to take part in the survey. you may want to pass it on to another administrator who is familiar with the work of the curriculum committee. If no one in your district is able to respond to the survey. would you please return the unanswered questionnaire in the enclosed envelope. If you have any questions about the survey or the use of the information. please feel free to contact me. I truly appre- ciate the time and consideration this request requires. and I would be most pleased to share with you my findings by sending you an abstract of the study if you so desire. Sincerely yours. Kenneth R. Noble 113 1442 L Spartan Village Michigan State University East Lansing. Michigan 48823 Dear My work in the Michigan Education Association reveals that your school district has traditionally expressed a concern for quality instruction and curriculum development. It is because of your position of leadership in the district that I am seeking your assistance. As part of my doctoral studies at Michigan State Univer— sity I am conducting research on the work of district curriculum committees. It is my understanding that your district was one of the first in Michigan to provide for a curriculum council in a written master agreement with teachers. and I would be most interested in your comments and reactions to its operation. Enclosed is a survey which provides you with an opportunity to describe the work of your committee and express your opinions about its operation. If you wish to take part in the survey. please indicate your response to each item and return the questionnaire to me. preferably by June 1. 1971. Your response will remain anonymous as the number at the top of the survey is only to assist me in obtaining a re- turn of all questionnaires. If you do not wish to take part in the survey. you may want to pass it on to another teacher who is familiar with the work of the curriculum committee. If no one in your dis— trict is able to respond to the survey. would you please return the unanswered questionnaire in the enclosed en— velope. If you have any questions about the survey or the use of the information. please feel free to contact me. I truly appre- ciate the time and consideration this request requires. and I would be most pleased to share with you my findings by sending you an abstract of the study if you so desire. Sincerely yours. Kenneth R. Noble 114 JOINT CURRICULUM COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE Counting this year as a full year. how long have you been em- ployed by your current school district? years What is the title of your current position in the district? (If a teacher. also indicate position held in teachers' organ- ization.) What role(s) have you played in negotiating the master con— tracts in your district? chief negotiator no role member of negotiating team other (specify below) consultant to team In your district does the administration or the Board of Educa- tion meet in committee to study curricular matters with teachers? yes no not sure Describe the role that the teachers' organization plays in selecting the members of this curriculum committee. What role(s) have you played on this curriculum committee? chairman occasional consultant voting member no role permanent advisor other (specify) Did a similar curriculum committee exist prior to collective negotiations? yes no not sure Comments: 10. 11. 12. 13. 115 How many of the following people serve as permanent members of your current curriculum council? Put the number of each in the left blank. classroom teachers counselors parents central staff principals students school board members other (Specify) To what extent are people other than permanent members utilized as consultants or sources of information for the curriculum council? some are utilized on each topic studied some are utilized on nearly all topics studied occasionally used as special needs arise seldom used by the council never used to my knowledge If consultants or resource personnel have been used by the council. indicate who these people have been by checking as many as apply. college personnel other teachers in district foundation personnel other administrators in district community leaders teachers in other districts textbook publishers administrators in other districts parents intermediate school district staff students other When does the council meet? Check as many as apply. during the school day Saturdays right after school during the summer months evenings other (specify) How often does the council meet during the school year? once a week every two months every two weeks other (specify) once a month Approximately how many total hours does the council meet during the year? hours 116 14. What type of secretarial and clerical assistance is given the council? a person with exclusive responsibilities to council a person with responsibilities to others in addition to council no assistance given to the council other (specify) 15. What percent of the INSTRUCTIONAL budget would you estimate is directly influenced by the work of the council? 0 — 20% ______ 41 — 60% 81 - 100% 21 - 40% _____ 61 - 80% ._____ unknown 16. In what form(s) are the results of the council expressed? annual reports ._____ in—service programs curriculum guides restructure of organization policy statements _____ other (specify) textbook adoptions 17. How would you describe the current role played by the curriculum council in shaping the curriculum in your district? very great influence very little influence great influence no noticeable influence some influence Additional comments on the council's use of time. personnel. and resources: 117 Below are listed several possible topics for study by a curriculum coun- cil or one of its subcommittees. Using the key below. place a check in the column which best describes the work of the council on each topic. Additional space is provided at the end for additional topics. of programs implemented or comments. KE Y 2; — Not studied as yet by the council Currently under study by the council LUNH I p l — Recommendation from study awaiting implementation Recommendation from study has been implemented in actual program examples TOPICS Revision of existing courses Addition of new courses Purchase of instructional supplies Staff utilization (i.e. team teaching) Use of paraprofessionals——teacher aides Teacher evaluation Revision of K-12 program in a subject area .Adoption of new books and materials Student evaluation and promotion Revision of district's philosophy of education Development of staff in—service programs .i. .- "vii. .1014)..- Revision of criteria for evaluating curriculum Methods of instruction (i.e. discovery) ..-.... -+--~ Experimentation and research in curriculum (Compensatory education for students Performance contracting Additional comments and examples of topics studied .. .....L._.......... by council: 118 Below are listed several factors which are often associated with the shaping of school curriculum. Indicate the type and amount of influ— ence you believe the curriculum council has had in promoting these factors. KEY: SP--Strongly positive influence P--Positive influence U--Neutral or unknown influence N--Negative influence SN——Strongly negative influence FACTORS SP P [I N SN l. Generating widespread teacher interest in curriculum reform. 2. Increasing the amount of teacher participa- g tion in curricular decisions. 1 3. Encouraging instruction and curricular experimentation. if“- 4. Improving the quality of staff in-service programs. 5. Promoting mutual respect among the teachers and administrators. 6. Clarifying the objectives and priorities of the instructional program. 7. Providing interesting and relevant instruc- tional programs for students. 8. Broadening the scope of the instructional program. 9. Improving communications within the district. 10. Increasing teacher accountability for in— structional practices. ll. Promoting staff harmony and cooperation. .Additional comments on the role and influence of the curriculum coun— cil in shaping the curriculum in the district: 119 June 1, 1971 Dear Educator: A few weeks ago I sent you a questionnaire which asked for information and opinions on the operation of the Joint Curriculum Committee in your school district. If you have not returned the questionnaire as yet, I would appreciate your doing so in the near future. If you have passed it on to a colleague, would you please give him this reminder too. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Kenneth R. Noble 1442 L Spartan Village East Lansing, Michigan 48823 120 June 25, 1971 Dear Mr. Smith: You may recall receiving a letter and a questionnaire similar to those with this note. I do not believe that I have received your response. In the hope that you still wish to participate in the survey but may have misplaced your materials, I am sending you a second set. I am very interested in your views on the curriculum committee in Jonesville and I hope you will be able to complete the questionnaire. In either case, I do appreciate the consideration you will give my request. Sincerely, Kenneth R. Noble HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES 1| 1 1| ”WI "111 HIHWI ll” I111 HIW ll! 1111111 NHI 31293101609414