6 9 - 2 0 ,9 2 1 ROCKHOLD, Jon E „ 1938A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION AND SUPERINTENDENTS' ATTITUDE TOWARD PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT PROVISIONS IN SELECTED MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS. University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan 69-20,921 ROCKHOLD, Jon E „ 1938Michigan State U niversity, Ed.D., 1969 Education, ad m in istratio n University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION AND SUPERINTENDENTS' ATTITUDE TOWARD PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT PROVISIONS IN SEIECTED MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS By Jon E. P.ockhold A TII2SIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administration and Higher Education 1960 A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION AND SUPERINTENDENTS1 ATTITUDE TOWARD PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT PROVISIONS IN SELECTED MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS By Jon E. Hockhold AN ABSTRACT CF A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administration and Higher Education 19^9 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION AND SUPERINTENDENTS* ATTITUDE TOWARD PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT PROVISIONS IN SELECTED MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS Jon S. Rockhold THE PROBLEM The problem of the study was twofold: (l) to determine the in­ fluence of the Michigan Education Association concerning what was sought for local education association master agreements, and (2) to determine how reasonable local superintendents considered these requests or demands. An additional part of the problem was to attempt to determine anticipated areas of conflict in professional negotiations between local education associations and superintendents. THE HYPOTHESES Five null hypotheses were developed and treated in the analysis of data. The intent of the hypotheses was to determine the following: 1. Were local education associations influenced by the Michigan Education Association concerning what was sought for the master agreement? 2. Did local education association leaders and superintendents differ in their perceptions of the reasonableness of nego­ tiation provisionsT 3. Did local education association leaders and superintendents differ in their perceptions of MEA influence in professional negotiations? Were there some provisions which local education associations Jon C. Rockhold planned to inolude In future negotiations? 5. Were there some provisions which would probably never be sub­ mitted to negotiations? When possible, t scores were computed and the null hypotheses were rejeoted at the .05 level of significance* A different measure was established for those hypotheses which did not lend themselves to statistical analysis. THE PROCEDURES The Investigator secured a copy of the Michigan Education Associ­ ation Sample Professional Agreement, which contained the state associ­ ation's professional negotiation provision recommendations. Two questionnaires were developed, one for superintendents and the other for local education association loaders. Upon selecting a random sample of MSA affiliated local education associations, questionnaires were sent to the school district superintendent and local education assoolatlon president. Reminder questionnaires were sent to those who did not return the initial one. Completed questionnaires were returned from more than three-fourths of the districts included in the sample. THE FINDINGS The analysis of data led to definite conclusions for the hypotheses and other relevant material gathered in the study. These conclusions follow: 1. The Michigan Education Association did exert considerable in­ fluence on the scope of local master agreement demands. 2. Superintendents tended to underestimate the influence of the Michigan Education Association, as related to which negotiation demands were made to the board of education. 3. Superintendents tended to perceive that most professional ii Jon E. Rockhold negotiation items were unreasonable. b. Local education association leaders appeared to feel that nearly all provisions were clearly negotiable; however, some demands were not made to boards of education because of minimal student enrollment and/or goographic location. 5* No one catagory of the questionnaire received inordinate amount of consideration; rather, local education associations requested provisions from each seotion of the instrument. 6. Elementary teachers appeared to receive the least consideration in .terms of teaching hours and pupil contact. 7. There was little unanimity in the amounts of salary, insurance benefits, sabbatical leave, and longevity pay demands. 8. Local education association leaders and superintendents did not agree on what provisions were allowed by the board of education prior to tho inception of professional negotiations. Recommendations for further research were included in the final chapter of the study. iii TABLE OF COTITENTS Pa g e chapter I. II. III. Introduction to the study 1 Introduction 1 Statement of tho problem 1 Definitions of torms h Limitations of tho study 5 Significance of tho study 6 Procedures of the study 6 Organization of tho study 7 Review of tho literature P< Introduction £ Professional negotiation in tho publicsector f- Underlying causes for professionalnegotiation 13 Rolo of tho superintendent 21 Tho associations and professionalagreements 25 Summary 36 Dosign of the study 37 Introduction 37 Design of tho instruments 37 Analysis of the instruments liO Selection of the sample The hypotheses Treatment of the data U7 The bases for accepting or rejectingthonull hypothesis Summary v hR IV. V. Presentation of the data 50 Introduction 50 Analysis of the null hypotheses 50 Analysis of the additional data 72 Summary £6 Findings, conclusions, and recommendations £7 Introduction £7 The problem £-7 Tho Procedures utilized in the study 89 Findings from the null hypotheses 90 Additional findings 9^ Conclusions 96 Recommendations for further research 100 Bibliography 103 Appendices 109 vi s m R P U S T OF TABLES PAGE TABLE 3.1 Divisions of the questionnaire 40 3.2 Student population of school districts used in the study 46 4.1 An analysis of the influence of the Michigan Education Association on professional negotiation provisions, showing influence as related by local education association loaders 51 4.2 An of by as analysis of the difference in perception of the degree influence exerted by the Michigan Education Association local education association leaders and superintendents, related to professional negotiation provisions 4.3 An analysis of the difference in perception of the reasonableness of professional negotiation provisions as related by superintendents, where the local education association mean and standard deviation were assumed at 2.0 and 0.0, respectively 6l 4.4 An analysis of those professional negotiation provisions which local education associations stated would be included in future initial submission agreements 65 4.5 An analysis of those professional negotiation provisions which local education associations stated would be excluded from future initial submission agreements 70 4.6 An analysis of local education association leaders * and superintendents1 responses concerning those provisions which were allowed by the boards of education before the passage of Public Act 379 73 4.7 An analysis of local education association leaders' responses concerning those provisions which have been incorporated into professional agreements since the passage of Public Act 379 76 4.8 Additional provisions not listed on the questionnaire, but added by the respondents 78 4.9 Kean salary requests and ranges of requests submitted by the respondents 79 4.10 Mean and range of the amount of annual salary increments at the bachelor's, master's, and master plus thirty hours level 80 4.11 Mean and range of the number of annual salary increments at the bachelor's, masters, and master plus thirty hours level 80 vii 56 TABLE PAGE 4.12 Mean and range of the number of weekly unassigned periods at the elementary, Junior high, and senior high schools 81 4*13 Mean and range of the number of weekly pupil-toachor contact hours at the elementary, Junior high, and senior high schools 81 4.14 Kean and range of the number of weekly teaching periods at the elementary, Junior high, and senior high schools 82 4.15 Mean amounts of dollars and number of years of longevity payments to teachers following a prescribed number of years of service in the school district 84 4.16 Mean percentage of salary and number of years of longevity payments to teachers following a prescribed number of years of service in tho school district 84 v iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Tho production of t>hls thesis would have been a near impossibility except for the counsel and encouragement of many people. The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. David C. Smith, the thesis director and major advisor, for knowing the exact time to say yes or no as the circumstances dictated* Dr. Clyde M. Campbell, diroctor of the Mott Intornship, gave constant encouragement throughout the entire doctoral program as did Dr. Ernest 0. l'elby and countless others. A special recognition should bo given to my follow Mott Intorns from Michigan State University who shattered and refined my thinking through­ out our year together Ky wife, Sasilda, must be singled out because of her constant encouragement throughout the entire graduate program. has been the key to the completion of the degree. Her understanding My sons, Brian and Eric, have learned to be almost without a father and have made "dissertation" a household word. Ho doctoral student could ask for wore. Jon E. Rockhold October, 1968 ix CHAPTER 1 THE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Professional negotiations are now a significant factor in Michigan public schools* Signed agreements between local boards of education and local education associations have brought a great deal of controversy about requests made to boards of education and how the request evolved. Some have cited the Michigan Education Association as being the chief instigator in determining the requests which were presented to tho board of education while others conceived that the requests grew primarily from within local education association. Nearly all school districts in Michigan, however, have adopted professional negotiation agreements. Professional negotiations and professional agreements are both destined to be a phenomenon which may well spread rapidly throughout the nation. Some states may find that professional negotiations took place locally, but other agreements may have been coordinated from a state education association. Other states may find that either tho local association or the state association exerted greater influence concerning the provisions for negotiations. In any event, it seems that state educational associations will have some part in the determination of the content of professional negotiations agreements throughout the nation. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Essentially, the problem was to determine to what extent the Michigan Education Association (MEA), through its Sample Professional Agreement, has influenced local education associations in determining the requests or demands made to boards of education. There seemed to , 2 be a reeling that the Michigan Education Association had considerable Influence; nevertheless, there was no quantitative evidence to support the contention* Because the Michigan Education Association issued a proposed sample agreement to all local education association affiliates, it was assumed that there would be a close relationship because of the following: In order to provide equal and good educational opportunities for all the children of Michigan, this document is provided with the intent of establishing terms and conditions of professional employment that are as nearly uniform as possible for teachers throughout the state. There is little justification for teachers in small communities working under standards less favorable than those recognized as fair which prevail in larger communities. For this reason, local associations are urged to follow as closely as they can the Recommended Education Association Agreements for 1968-69. While there will necessarily be some variation among school districts beoause of local conditions, this Sample Agreement should be regarded as a statement of minimum professional goals for negotiations during the school year.* An additional part of tho problem of the study was to determine superintendents* attitudes concerning the following: (i) what did superintendents perceive to be the influence of the Michigan Education Association concerning what was requested for the professional negotia­ tion agreement, and (2) how reasonable the superintendents considered the requests or demands. The study attempted to determine what provisions were being sought by the local education association for the next professional agreement; to Isolate areas of agreement and conflict; and to measure perceptions of the respondents* concerning the reasonableness of the provisions. ^Michigan Education Association, MEA Sample Professional Agreement (East Lansing: Michigan Education Association, 196?), no page. The provisions of the I-fEA Sample Professional Agreement were con­ sidered and provisions contained within it determined the criteria for the type and nature of requests made to local boards of education. The study attempted (l) to determine the degree to which the local education association presidents perceived the extent to which the Michigan Education Association coordinated and/or directed tho content and nature of requests made to local boards of education by local education associations, and (2) to determine the degree to which superintendents perceived tho extent to which the Michigan Education Association coordinated and/or directed the content and nature of requests made to local boards of education by local education associations. Superinten­ dents also reacted to the reasonableness of the various provisions. This study attempted to respond to tho following questions: 1. How closely did local education associations follow the prototype agreement published by tho Michigan Education Association? What group, the state or the local education association, was instrumental in determining the requests made to the boards of education? 2. What were the potential areas of conflict common to mary school districts? 3* What provisions were likely to be sought for the future professional agreements? h. What were the major areas of potential agreement and conflict between the local education association and local administrators in regard to the reasonableness of the individual requests or demands7 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS Several terms relevant to the Investigation wore used throughout the text of the study. Their definitions follow: National Education Association (NEA): The National Education Association is the national organisation composed of teachers, administrators, and educators in various phases of the profession. Each state has an affiliated organization which works closely with the national organization. Michigan Education Association (KEA): The Michigan Education Association is the state association affiliated with the National Education Association and composed primarily of teachers and charged by its members to work for tho betterment of education and teacher welfare. Local Education Association: "A typo of voluntary organization of teachers in a local district . . . primarily concerned with the improvement of the teachers* economic welfare, but also devoted to improving teaching efficiency, promoting of educational reforms, and conducting programs of social activities."^ The Local Education Association is usually affiliated with a State Education Association. Superintendent: "The chief executive and advisory officer charged with the direction of schools in a local school administrative unit, as in a district, city, town, township • • ."3 Board of Education: "A corporate body legally constituted and authorized, usually chosen by popular election from a district at large, Carter V, Good, Dictionary of Education (New Yorkj McGraw-Hill Company, 1959), p. 551. •*Ibid., p. 538 5 to direct the programs of education within the specified territorial limits of the school districts. Professional Negotiation i f,A set of procedures to provide an orderly method for teachers and school boards through professional channels to negotiate on matters of mutual concern, to reach mutually satisfactory agreement on these matters, and to establish educational channels for mediation and appeal in the event of impasse.’’^ Professional Negotiation Agreement; 'The finally agreed-upon document, which contains the terms of the nogotiated contract and which binds the parties to certain actions for a specified period of time.'^ In Michigan, it is generally referred to as tho Master Agreement. Sample Professional Agreement: The document prepared, duplicated and distributed to the local education associations by the Michigan Education Association which explained the type and nature of requests to bo made to the local boards of education. Initial Submission Requests: The listing of items and/or provisions which the local education association delivers to the board of education stating what provisions they seek to negotiate. This was also referred to as the Initial Negotiation Package. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The study was restricted to those Michigan school districts in **Ibid. p. 62. ^Office of Professional Development and Welfare, Guidelines for Professional Negotiations (Washington: National Education Association 19&3J * P. 6. 6„ George B. Redfern and Forrest E. Conner, The School Administrator and Negotiation (Washington: American Association of School Administrators, 1968),p. 77, 6 which the local education association was affiliated with tho Michigan Education Association. It was further delimited to a representative sample of those school districts which were negotiating professional agreements. No attempt was made to study school districts whore professional agreements were negotiated with representatives of another national organization or by an Independent organization. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Tho study had several bases for significance. First, tho local education associations showed its roaction to tho provisions of tho Sample Professional Agroement, which was distributed by tho Michigan Education Association. Second, the date derived suggested the degree to which tho Michigan Education Association actually influenced the professional negotiations movement throughout tho State of Michigan. Third, the superintendents* responses Indicated their perception of the influence of the Michigan Education Association. Fourth, by evaluating superintendents* responses as to the reasonableness of the responses, conflict areas— and to a limited degree, the intensity of conflict— could be investigated. Fifth, the study provided an instrument that might be used in similar studies. PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY A random sample from the entire population of Michigan school districts was established for this study. A questionaire was sont to the president of the local education association and a similar, but not identical, questionnaire was sent to tho superintendent of the school district (See Appendices B and D). Names and local education 7 association data were supplied by the Michigan Education Association while corresponding namos of superintendents were taken from a publication of the Michigan State Department of Educatiion* In the evont that tho questionnaires were not returned, another questionnaire was sent together with a reminder letter. Completed questionnaires from both parties of a single school district woro evaluated to provide a comparative analysis* ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY The organization of the study was as follows: Chapter 1 served as an Introduction to tho study, explaining tho problem and purposes of tho study and dofining tho torrjis which wore relevant to the 3tudy. Chapter 11 presented a review of tho literature of professional negotiations a3 it dealt with tho rolo of the National Association and tho Michigan Education Association, combined with the writing and research of others which dealt specifically with profes­ sional negotiations and the content of negotiation agreements. nstruments used Chapter 111 dosoribed the development of the two f in the study, the seloctlon of the sample, and the techniques to be employed in the analysis of the data derived from tho purvey. The hypotheses were also stated. Chapter IV contains the presentation and analysis of the data derived from the survey, Illustrating the significance of tho data by the use of textual material and tables. Chapter V provides the presentation of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations drawn from the analysis of data. for further research were also included. Recommendations CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE INTRODUCTION As urbanization has Increased and American society has grown more varied and complex, collective action has become a marked characteristic of our time. Ours has become more and more a society of groups with vested interests. groups. Government is in large measure a product of pressure This is not as bad as it may sound. There are checks and balances in the operation of these groups which tend to keep apy group from holding Inordinate influence. When one group becomes too powerful, has too great Influence upon legislation, or engages in overt acts of monopoly or selfishness, society as a whole tends to control it by counter legislation or collective action against it. Such a wystera doe3 not work perfectly or invariably to correct abuse. In general, however, it does work. Such is the case in education. Confrontations between teachers and administrators have occurred with great frequency as teachers demand to be heard through the process of professional negotiation. The scope of this chapter includes reasons for the rise of teacher militancy and the official roles of the National Education Association. The chapter also includes an analysis of provisions which are usually Incorporated into professional negotiation agreements and statements concerning the role and position of the superintendent as he relates to professional negotiations. PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATIONS IN THE PUBLIC DECTOR As teachers, administrators, and boards of education have reacted -to tho now phenomena of professional negotiations in education, each group has been placed in a divisive stance. This has caused a great deal of concern from several quarters as to its reasonableness. Discussing the apparent schism between teachers and administrators and/or their respective groups, John Gardner, former Secretary of tho Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, issued the following cautionary note: The cure is not to work against the fragmentation of leadership, which is a vital element in our pluralism, but to create better channels of communication among significant leadership groups, especially in connection with the great issues which transcend any particular group,* In like manner, Schmidt, Parker, and Repas stated that organiza­ tional collective action was one means whereby better channels of communication could be established. Citing those who felt that negoti­ ations could develop great conflict in some school settings, thoy countered with the statement that the collective negotiations process was a satisfactory and successful device for the resolution of potential or actual employer-etnployee conflict in education. Through this means mutual aims and attitudes were introduced early and steps to eliminate them were enacted more rapidly then through any other means. Wildman and Perry, on the other hand, established that the mere element of introducing collective negotiations into the schools invited a conflict situation. Once negotiations were enacted, both parties had a vested ^■Francis Keppel, The Necessary Revolution in American Education (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966), p, 162. 2 Charles T, Schmidt, Hyman Parker, and Bob Repasi A Guide to Collective Negotiations in Education (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1^67J* P* 8* 10 right to protect.-^ These varied positions continued, however, and both groups indicated that tho present movement toward collective action by teachers will continue at a rapid pace. Schmidt, Parker, and Repas noted that education differed from other public sector collective bargaining as it provided for additional goals such as the enhancement of teaching as a profession, and the advancement of tho individual teacher and quality education. They categorized the goals of employer-employee organizations in collective negotiations as follows: ”(l) to survive as an organization and to grow, (2) to improve their members* wages, hours, and conditions of work, (3) to control jobs for the membership of the organization, . . . and (*0 to formulate and jointly administer with the management group a system for the adjudication of grievances and the resolution of disputes arising during the terra of tho collec­ tive agreement.”* Rirther analyzing collective negotiations in the public sector, Jensen offered six postulates contributing to greater general under­ standing of the process: Postulate 1. A genuine interdependence exists between the two parties . . . It also is a reflection of ideological compati­ bility. Bargaining takes place within . . . the system and both parties are committed to the support of the system. Postulate 2, The parties, however, also have diverse or conflicting Interests . . . One should not expect a leader to ignore his role as an advocate, and he should not be urged to be a stateraan nor to be concerned primarily with the public interest. Postulate 3. (An employee group) is not a monolithic organi­ zation. At least three groups in it may be recognized: the hierarchy or paid staff, the dedicated or core group, and the rank and file. Each of these groups has separate needs. Other internal differences may be division between seniors and juniors, ^Wesley A. VUldraan and Charles R. Perry, •'Group Conflict and School Organization.11 Phi Delta Kannan. X L V U (January, 1966), pp. 2h4— 51. Schmidt, Parker, and Repas, Collective Negotiations, pp. **-5. or between (specialized) and (unspecialized). Each of these factors may have to be accommodated. Management, too. In addi­ tion to having interests which in part are diverse from those of the (employee organization), is characterized by sub-groups, each of which has separate interests and needs* Postulate 4. The parties to collective bargaining are not completely informed of the precise nature of the position of the other . * • • Even when each of the chief negotiators under­ stands the requirements of settlement, the internal bargaining in either the (employer) or the (employee) group may be critical. What may appear to be ritual is a necessary allowance of time to work out serious internal differences. Postulate 5* Both parties operate within certain internal and external restraints • • • • Bylaws and policies, as well as tho internal politics of the organization, sets limits for bargainers. The parties (also) must operate within tho restrictions and limits imposed by society, whether in the form of laws, customs, economics, politics, or morals. Postulate 6. It must be assumed that the partlos, over time, find some balance of posor . . . .cPower to paralyze is alien to the collective bargaining process. Wirtz apparently concurred with the above in declaring that a pragmatic doctrine of public employment must evolve. He set forth four elements which wore necessary to promulgate its implementation: (1) it must bo assumed that bi-lateral relations are ". . . inevitable, proper, and desirable in public employment in this country". (2) tho system which evolves must bo jointly determined and representative of all those affected by it, (3) serious consideration will necessarily be given to the right of public employees to strike, and (4) employees should provide ", . . maximum practicable participation . . . " and administering their employment relationships. In developing Wirtz established that bi-lateral decision making was mandated in the public sector. However, no mention was made to the degree of codetejnination of the inherent 5 Vernon Jensen, "The Process of Collective Bargaining the Question of its Obsolescence," Industrial and Labor Relations Review. XVI (July, 1963), pp. 549-50. purposes governing such determinations. Issuing a cautionary note about the rise of professional negotiations in education and tho public sector, Taylor amphasized that teachers and boards of education must consider what is finan­ cially and educationally possible in providing solutions to educational and teacher problems. Tho public sector is quite different from tho private sector in that operating funds must be extracted from political bodies. Generally the school, not being a profit agency can not mako decisions to acquire additional monies without prior public approval. Teachers must be cognizant of this in light of the fact that teacher salaries are but one of tho many priorities which a board of education 7 must face.' Brown concluded that teachers' and society's goals are sometimes in conflict. He illustrated that teachers doslre (l) to earn an adequate and appropriate living and (2) to work in conditions which pornit ono's abilities and energies to be productive. Society, on the othor hand, has as its goal that learning demands in pur time are of unprecedented complexity. Teaching skills of a high order are now demanded— and extensively obtained. Having a largo cadre of teachers with high instructional abilities, society has not needed to compensate teachers by offering high salaries or enticing working conditions. Brown suggested that greater stress has been given to working conditions Vhllard Wirtz, "Public Employment and °ublic Policy," in Headings on Collective Negotiations in Public Education, eds, by Stanley Elam, Myron Iiebeman, and Michael H. Koskow (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 196?), p. 8. ? George W. Taylor, "The Public Interest in Collective Negotiations in Education," Phi Delta Kaopan. XLV111 (September, 1966), pp. 16-22. 13 Q and materials then to salaries. Yforking conditions and materials appeared to be only part of tho problem. Seeming to agree with most referrents, West presented three trends which have brought professional negotiations about into the increasing forefront. They are as follows: . The feeling by teachers that they are a part of tho educa­ tional team, fully able to assume decision-making responsi­ bilities for the scope of a sound school program and to improve policies as they relate to them, . The pressures erupting from population growth, social changes, and competition for the tax dollar has made teachers communi­ cate with administrators and boards of education to satisfy the needs, as they are apparent to them. . Teachers feel that public service is unique and requires . unique methods of negotiation, which are not compatible with those used in the private sector.7 UNDERLYING CAUSES FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATIONS Professional negotiations in the public sector now seem to be a part of the modus operand!. Teachers and other public employees demand to be included in organisational decision-making concerning the amount of their salaries and the policies which govern their working conditions. Societal changes and organizational philosophy have altered to such a degree that this new phenomenon Is now a part of the contemporary scene. fi George W. Brown, "Teacher Power Techniques," American School Board Jounal. CL11 (February, 1966), pp. 11-13. o' Allen W. West, ,fLocal Associations Hove Toward Professional Negotiation," NEA Journal. LI 11 (February, 196**), pp. 26-28. Teachers are accused of being militant. Some have condemned teachers1 actions and yearned for the passivity that was once the teachers1 mode* Lee suggested that today's American teachers are not the same type as their predecessors} rather, they have different ideol­ ogies. He cited their ideological differences as (i) teachers are now concerned about matters of national needs and policies as communica­ tions media have brought the public to understand national military and social phenomenon, (2) the academic disciplines are being taught to be mastered, by teachers who know and understand their subject, and (3) learning is now conceived to be a continuous process, ruling out the divisional calibration of grade placement.*-® Miller partially concurred but established a rather different point with his indication that teachers are becoming more professional by their desire to be involved in decision-making, as it affects their teaching. On the other hand, this rise in professionalism has boon lessened by the advancement of negotiations and labor techniques. Those divergent views presented a polar position which does not work to tho betterment of education. Because written agreements specify hours of work, class size, and other items, specialists are at a severe loss to enact any curricular innovation or experimentation. These tasks can be done only by and with teachers, who are as yet unwilling to violate the agr­ eement. ***®Gordon C, Lee, "The Changing Role of the Teacher," in The Changing American School, ed. by John I. Goodlad, The Sixty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Inc.) , pp. 20-22, ^William C. Hiller, "Curricular Implications of negotiation," Educational Leadership. XXIII (April, 1966), pp. 533-36. 15 Thr riso of professional negotiations, howovor, does not rost solely with the teaching faculty. Redressing administrators and boards of education for their lack of providing reasonable guidance to toachor3 Boy and Pine stated that teachers have too long been consid­ ered all things to all people. While expecting them to accomplish their instructional goals, administrators have done little to holp teachers understand their role. Teachers have been burdened with clerical tasks and supervisory duties instead of allowing them teaching time and time to plan effectively. The result has boen conflict between the teacher idealized and what ho has found to be real. This then has led to fierce negotiations over points which aro not or should not be tho teachers' responsibility.^ As negotiations became more heated and the items more varied, administrators felt tho need to determino the reasons for tho change in teachers' attitudes. The American Association of School Administrators, sensing the need for co-determination of policies which affect teachers and students, analyzed the reasons, rights, and scope of professional negotiation and summarized them as follows: 1. The Western culture inherently ha3 allowed workers tho chance to help determine policies under which they work. This has been one of tho marks of a free democratic society. 2. Teachers feel that their participation in the formulation of policy can be highly productive to the school system because they are more cognizant of existing problems, 3. Since schools operate for the benefit of the students, teachers ^Angelo V. Boy and Gerald J. Pine, "Needed for Teachers: A Role Description.11 Clearing House. XXXVIII (September, 1963), pp. 7-12. 16 have held that anything Is subject to negotiation.^ Advocating teachers having a strong voice in educational decision­ making, West felt that teachers were right and their aim3 would ultimately prevail. He advised administrators to work closely with teachers because of the following* ...The educational problems in tho growing urban and suburban areas are so camples, and tho pressures and demands so severe and diverse, that acceptable educational programming and ad­ ministration is a task that threatens to overwhelm local school boards.1^ West urged that administrators and teachers look upon themselves as peers and mutually work toward the greater ends of education. Factors leading to staff conflict and the professionalism of toachlng developed yet another rationale of understanding teacher militancy. Corwin found that as teachers became more professional, more specialized, and possessing better background of knowlodgo, differences of opinions among themselves and their administrators in­ creased both in number and intensity. It was their professional devotion that motivated them to differ with administrators.1^ Batchelder seemed to agree with Corwin and others concerning the teachers' rise in professionalism, but noted that teachers have become militant because of economic pressures placed upon them. Teachers 13 American Association of School Administrators, School Adminis­ trators View Professional negotiations (Washington* American Associa­ tion of School Administrators, 19^6),p. 27. ^Allen W. West, "What'3 Bugging Teachers?" XLVIII (October 16, 1965), p. 88. Sr '-day Review. ^Ronald G. Corwin, Tho Develoment of an Instrument for Examining Staff Conflict in the Public Schools (Cooperative Research Project No, 193**, Office of Education, United State Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1963), pp. 309-H* 17 search for a dignity which is rightfully theirs because of the social status, but deprived because of their low economic status. Trying to establish, education as a profession, they have united behind the pro­ fessional association to develop procedures and practices to secure dignity, both socially and economically.-^ The highest priority in conflict situations and professional negotiations agreements remained salary provisions, however, various interpersonal relationships contri­ buted to it. Batohelder was upheld in a recent study of the National Education Association Research Division. The NEA survey showed that many factors were directly related to teacher dissatisfaction. It was apparent that teachers, nevertheless had several considerations other than salary.-*-7 Lieberman, a strong advocate for professional negotiations in education, presented reasoning for professional negotiations in one of his early works. 1. They were as followsi In enterprises employing large numbers of personnel doing the same kind of work, the individual employees doing such work are practically helpless to improve their lot by individual negotiations with their employers. 2. Collective negotiations strengthens an occupation group. 3. Most people, regardless of the type of employment in which they are engaged, wish to have a voice in the determination of their working conditions. ■ Collective bargaining provides a means whereby the employees can choose someone whose job it is to ascertain, express, and advocate tho view of the employees. 4. Inasmuch as the status of any occupational group is partially dependent upon the extent to which the group has a voice in the determination of its working conditions, and individual negotiations are not practical as a means of expressing the l^Richard D. Batohelder, "Today's Militant Teachers," NEA Journal. LTV (September, 1965), PP* 18-19. 17"Are Teachers Happy?" pp. 40-41. NEA Research Bulletin, XLVI (Kay, 1968), 18 views of employees concerning their working conditions, collective bargaining offers the most feasible method of raising the status of the employees. 5. The existence of a large number of people doing the same kind of work inevitably leads to common interests* Common interests lead to joint action to advance those interests* 6 . There are grave dangers in any system of employment which relies chiefly upon decisions handed down from the top to determine the conditions of employment. In particular situa­ tions there may be no substitute for coercion, but the fact is that there is an increase in employee efficiency and responsibility where employees have a corporate responsibility in the determination of their working conditions. Griffiths concurred that superintendents and boards of education may have inadvertently caused the professional negotiations upsurge in educa­ tion. He identified specific reasons for the rise and presence of teacher-superintendont-board of education conflict by citing the follow­ ing: 1* The needs of teachers have not been realised* Teachers have expected administrators to fulfill their needs; however, this fulfillment has not been realised. 2. Superintendents have an outmoded concept of themselves. They are no longer the teacher of teachers and must now look to the expertise of the teaching staff for the solution of problems. 3* Boards of education hold an unrealistic and outmoded concept of their role. They hold too much confidence in their legal and vested power, falling to look upon the teachers as professionals who are capable of conducting their own affairs.^-9 Blanks, trying to determine reasons for teachers' collective action, presented a more straightforward listing as he identified the following: (l) the elimination of paternalistic administration, (2) the emasoulation -*-%lyron lieberman. Education as a Profession (Englewood Cliffs: Prentlce-HaU, Inc., 1956), pp. 3^1-42. l^Daniel Griffiths, "Board-Superlntendent-Teacher Relations: Viable Alternative to the Status Quo," in Struggle for Power in Education, eds. by Frank W. Lutz and Joseph J. Azzarelli (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966), pp. 100-02. 19 of tho teacher's role In largo and complex sohool systems, (3) increased teacher anxiety and insecurity due to organisational complexity, (4) the increasingly difficult task of gaining material resources from public taxes, (5) more teachers who are vitally concerned about controlling their vocational careers, and (6) the membership fight between the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.20 Stinnett, Kleirmann, and Ware-members of the National Education Association staff— presented six causal factors which they had identi­ fied as a result of their work within the NEA. Their evaluation corre­ sponded quite closely with those above illustrating and/or administra­ tive viewpoints. Warning that their listing may not exhaust all possibilities they represented the followingt 1. A feeling, by teachers, that economic injustice had been perpetrated on them. While other groups were earning more, they were not. 2. Teachers became embittered because the public had allowed the schools to be neglected, which resulted in inadequate facili­ ties and general deterioration throughout the nation. 3. Teachers had lost their identity in the largeness of the sohool system. They were treated more as a thing, and less as persons. h. Public employees in general have now earned a new status. 5* Teachers felt they had the right and responsibility to help determine policy which governed their labor. 6 . The civil rights movement had a strong psychological effect on teachers. Viewing themselves as second class individuals, they felt analoguous to those who were fighting to be freed from oppression,21 20yirgii Blanke, "Teachers in Search of Power."The Educational Forum. XXX (January, 1966), pp. 231-35* 2IT. M. Stinnett, Jack H. Kleinmann, and Martha L. Ware, Professional Negotiations in Public Education (New Yorks The Macmillan Co., 1966), pp. h-6. 20 Lieberman and Moskow concurred with the preceding, but added what they called the "snowball effect" to their listing. They determined that the "snowball effect" was that which followed from teachers oopylng the actions and attitudes of teachers In adjoining areas and/or states.^ Redfem and Conner, attempting to determine factors of teacher militancy, presented similar findings to those mentioned above and added some which had not been previously mentioned. added are as follows: Those which were (1 ) Increase in number of new teaohers coming from labor union families and background, (2 ) Increased awareness of recent researoh on personnel practices, and (3 ) reaction against oversupervision or inappropriate supervision. 23 Birdsell concluded from his study of the status of professional negotiations that a majority of teachers wanted and expected the opportunity to discuss professional problems with their boards of education. This being one of their chief goals, both teachers and superintendents agreed that channels should exist whereby teachers could communicate .directly with boards of education. One of his addi­ tional conclusions was that superintendents included in the study and nearly all teachers felt that the superintendent should be included in both negotiation procedures and determinations of whom and what appears ^Myron Lleberman and Michael H. Moskow, Collective Negotiations Teacherst An Approach to Sohool Administration (Chicago: Rand McNally Company, 1966), pp. 55-60. 23George B. Redfem and Forrest E. Conner, The School Administra­ tor and Negotiation (Washington: American Association of School Administrators, 1968), pp. 22-23 . 21 before the board of education.^ Both Schiff and Kite concluded the major determining factor in cases of teacher strikes was economic. They acknowledged, however, that there may have been other causal factors which contributed to embittered negotiations and probable strikes.25»26 THE ROLE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT As teaohers have organised for professional negotiations, the superintendent of schools has been placed in a severe dilemma. Keppel affirmed that the current and growing conflict between teaohers and administrators was a serious one. He noted: .... Only two factors seem clear: education must learn the niques of negotiation and arbitration, and the states will be­ come more important factors in the final decisions on salaries and working conditions. The superintendents, sharing their responsibilities with association and union leaders, have the opportunity to chart the new course.2” One of the greatest dllemnas which confronted superintendents was the lack of a specifio role to follow. Stinnett, KLeinmann, and Ware summarized that there were but three postures that a superintendent may assume in professional negotiations: (l) he may refrain from any part ^Donald F. Bird aell, "A Study of the State of Professional Nego­ tiation in Selected School in Twelve Midwestern States" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa, 1965)* pp. 15-53* 25Albert A. Schiff, "A Study and Evaluation of Teachers1 Strikes in the United States," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1953). PP* 110-116. ^Robert H. Kite, "A Study to Detexmine the Degree of Influence Selected Factors Had in Causing Strikes and to Determine the Degree to Which These Factors Were Present in School Districts in Which Teacher Strikes Were Averted," (unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Univer­ sity of Mississippi, 196*0, pp. 112-117. 27Keppel, The Necessary Revolution.. p. 1**1. 22 whatsoever, (2) he nay negotiate with the teachers as the representative of the board of education, or (3 ) he may serve as a resource person and * and act as a neutral third party.2® WUdman, speaking of the role of the superintendent in professional negotiations Indicated that superinten­ dents were in an untenable position when acting as an interpreter of both the board of education and the teaohers. Few, if any, superinten­ dents can successfully act as the "man in the middlen to evolve mean­ ingful negotiations.^ Campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee, feeling that the superintendents’ role was that of a statesman, differed with this reasoning and main­ tained the following: In most cases, the superintendent can become the spokesman for neither group. Instead, he may, with good fortune, become an agent to assist each group in understanding the position and reasoning of the other, he may see that relevant facts are made available to both groups, and he may actually evolve some recommended solutions not Initially acceptable to either group.™ Stating that the above position was unrealistic, Llberman noted that a superintendent’s tenure hinged on how he served the board of education. position. He indicated that the superintendent was in a dlchotomous Superintendents cannot serve the board of education and the teachers in professional negotiations. His responsibility must be to the board of education; therefore, it was deemed foolish to consider his 28 Stinnett, Kloinmann, and Ware. Professional Negotiations., p. 113* 29wesley a . WHdman, 'Teacher Collective Action in the U.S., 1965,” ^-n Negotiation in the Schools, eds., R. E. Ohm. and 0. 0. Johns (Norman, Oklahoma: College of Education, University of Oklahoma, 1965), pp* 25-26. ^Raold F. Campbell, Luvem L, Cunningham, and Roderick F. McPhee, The Organization and Control of American Schools (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Ino., 19^5), p» 210, 23 role as a neutral third pa r t y . B l a n k e n s h i p agreed that the superin­ tendent was clearly the executive agent of the board. It was the superintendent's responsibility to direct negotiations for the board as well as to develop a cadre of young negotiators which could supple­ ment him. Although he might not want to represent the board of educa­ tion at the bargaining table* he needed to be Constantly apprised to communicate with the board of education and must carry on with the board of education to advise as to the negotiability on certain items. Noting that professional negotiations were causing practicing superintendents great concern about their role in professional negoti­ ations, the American Association of School Administrators developed a statement to ease his dilemna. This statement provided that a superintendent should be chiefly concerned with the student. This allegiance to the learner was to be shared by the superintendent and the teaching staff. His responsibility was to provide favorable conditions for the toaohlng-learning process. In doing this he would work with the staff in satisfying their professional goals.33 This position was further advanced by the 19&3 Guidelines for Professional Negotiations. which advocated the superintendent's role as being a member of the united profession* refraining from direct responslByron LLeberman, "The Impact of Collective Negotiations Upon Teacher-Administrator Relationships*" in Readings on Collective Negoti­ ations in Public Education, eds., by Stanley M. Elam* Myron LLeberman, and Michael H. Moskow* Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1967), pp. 229-33. 32Alden H. Blankenship* "The Role of the Superintendent in Teacher Negotiations." Theory Into Practice. XI (April, 1955)» pp. 70-7^ 33xhe Association* Roles. Responslbilites. Relationships of the School Board. Superintendent, and Staff (Washingtont American Association of School Administrators* 1963 ). pp. 8-9* 2b bllity to either the teachers or the board of education. Rather, he was 'Vi­ to act as a fulcrum giving aid and information to both s i d e s * T h i s position was further advanced by the American Association of School Administrators; however, the Association pledged itself" . . . to resist any effort to displace the superintendent and his authority in matters affecting the interest and welfare of school personnel. To satisfy these aims, the same publication developed a compre­ hensive statement which attempted to specify how personnel policies and professional negotiation matters could be enacted with a minimum of conflict between tho two polar positions. The scope of the statement dwelled on the superintendent involving as many as possible in the development of operational policies. Further, such deliberations should be characterized by accommodations by all parties in satisfying the needs of the local school district, Dykes concluded that professional negotiations have altered the role of the superintendent through the evolution of shared determination of policies. The Administrator has been forced to allow teachers a voice in decision making, and in doing so strengthened his own position. !Io was now able to lead more effectively as a result of teachers demanding a voice in the evolution of policies. Goal determination and respective responsibilities have been solidified by teachers and administrators working cooperatively. The superintendents' chief role now has chanced * Vl -^Office of Professional Development and Welfare, Guidelines for Professional Negotiation (Washington: National education Association, 1963i", pp. 21-22. 35The Association, Roles. Responsibilities. Relationships. p.13 36Ibid.t pp. 12-13 to effectively administering the ongoing and emerging program.^ THE ASSOCIATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL AGREEMENTS As teaohers have begun to negotiate with their administrators and boards of education for a myriad of proposals and provisions* claims and counterclaims have been hurled by each group. One side suggested that this new phenomenon was a labor type tactic while the other contended strongly that negotiation was a step toward professionalism. LLeberman* an advocate for teachers' rights and professionalism, stated the latter view in the following mannert One clear lesson to be learned from the history of the professions is that systematic attention to the problems of professionaliza­ tion by any practitioner is always a prerequisite to the pro­ fessionalization of any occupation. . . . Thus if the acknow­ ledged professions be taken as a guide* teaohers cannot expect to achieve professional status until the teachers themselves partici­ pate in the drive toward professionalization. This drive for professionalism and negotiations have become a major concern of educators recently. However* the seeds which spawned pro­ fessional negotiations were not laid in the early I960*s. Rather* the NEA Executive Committee approved the following polloy statement in 19^7* which appeared to be the first indication of a movement toward pro­ fessional negotiations. on salary considerations. This policy stressed group action by teachers It suggested that a committee be composed to speak for the entire faculty in recommending a single salary schedule .*^9 ^Archie R. Dykes* "The Emergent Role of Administrators and the Implications for Teacher-Admlnistrator Relationships," in Collective Negotiations and Educational Administration. ed. by Roy B. Allen and John Schmid (Columbus, Ohio: University Council for Educational Administration, 1966) pp. 33-^2. ^®IAeberraan, Education as a Profession* p. 13* 39NEA Executive Committee, "The Professional Way to Meet the Educa­ tion Crisis," NEA Journal. XXXVI (February, 19^7)» P* ^7* It would appear that this was one of the first official positions taken by the professional group;, however, the widespread fomentation of professional negotiations grew rapidly following President John F, Kennedy’s signing of Executive Order #10988, This order signalled the right of federal employees to organize and negotiate with their federal employing units for personnel policies and working conditions. The Executive Order established a pattern for public employees in seeking negotiation rights. As public employees, teachers began efforts to gain legislation in their respective states which would give them negotiation privileges,^® Since then eleven states have enacted legislation approving teacher negotiation and several other states have bills before their legisla­ tures seeking this right State education associations have begun to work to organize local education associations as well as to broaden tho knowledge and tactics of professional negotiation throughout their re­ spective states. On the national level, Lieberman noted that the MSA is making additional provisions for inoreased professional negotiations throughout the nation. It has budgeted much more money and established regional offices to assist local education associations. He speculated that by 1970 about eighty percent of the nation's teachers will be teaching in states which have some type of teacher negotiation statute. u p Building powerful forces throughout the nation has been character^®The Association, Administrators View Professional Negotiations. pp. 15-16 . ^Stinnett, Kienraann, and Ware, Professional Negotiations. pp. 36-38 ^■lyron Lieberman, "Collective Negotiations, Status and Trends," American School Board Journal. CIV (Cctober, 1967), pp. 7-11. 27 igtic of tuny organizations. The same has been true of public education as more and more teaohers have been organised. The NEA Journal listed three priorities which should help local education associations to accu­ mulate power and enable them to have a full voice in school affairs: (1 ) obtaining a written professional negotiation agreement, (2 ) build up mem­ bership in local, state, and national associations, and (3 ) Involve more lyi young teachers. J The professional associations were eager to be a part of this move­ ment. As a result, the National Education Association, during its 1962 Denver convention, took a much more progressive and/or militant stand than .ever before with the following determined language: The National Bduoatlon Association insists on the right of profes­ sional associations, through democratically seleoted representa­ tives, using professional channels, to participate with boards of education in the determination of policies of common concern,in­ cluding salary and other conditions of professional service. ^ This seemingly opened the pathway to a determined effort to allow and assist local and state professional associations begin and/or con­ tinue efforts for recognition through professional negotiation. The previously cited Guidelines were revised and made more specific in 1965, now generalizing a more philosophical and well defined scope of matters of negotiation. This statement concluded that n. • .negoti­ ations should inolude all matters which affect the quality of the educational system.1^ The 1965 Guidelines for Professional Negotiation further advocated ^"The More We Grow, The More We Do," NEA Journal. LEV (May, 1965), pp. 26-27. ^NEA, 1963 Guidelines, p. 6 . ^^NEA, 1965 Guidelines. pp. 21-22* 28 exclusive recognition of a single assooiation and negotiating for a U teachers, not Just those who belong to a particular association* The final result of the negotiations was to be an agreement which would deal with such things as the terms and conditions of employment. For the first time, the National Education Assooiation advocated written agreements.^ The American Assooiation of Sohool Administrators, attempting to stay within the general framework established by the NEA, soon noted that comprehensive negotiation agreements were an advantage to the smooth operation of schools as various roles and procedures were specifically delineated. Specific advantages to the existence of a negotiation a- greement were that communications would be enhanced and teachers would lyy have a voice in the decision-making process. r A great deal of oonfusion existed, however, as there was little determination of how written agreements were to be expressed. West, an upper echelon National Education Assooiation staff member, concluded that professional agreements should include at least the following five points, if it was to be an effective processt (l) recognition of local association as the official spokesman for teachers, (2 ) provision for regular meetings between the board of education and the local associa­ tion, (3 ) provision guidelines for how negotiation is to take place, in­ cluding the role of the superintendent, (4) provision for a system to deal with an empasse, if one should occur, and (5) provide for how agreements should be expressed. ^NEA, Guidelines. 1965. p. 12. ^Association, Administrators View Professional Negotiations, p. 3£*» **8Allen W. West, "Local Associations Move Toward Professional Negotiation," NEA Journal, IJII (February, 196*0, pp. 26-27. 29 This, however, appeared to be an oversimplification of what was es­ tablished In such agreements. Wildman and Perry specified more closely what oould and no doubt would be considered to be a part of the agreement. They suggested the followingi (l) salary, (2) optimal or reasonable class size, (3 ) seniority, (M) transfers and promotion policies, (5) "battle pay", (6 ) money collection, (7 ) length of school day, and (8 ) frequency kq and length of after school meetings, 7 lieberman presented a comprehensive listing of negotiable areas'5^ and collaborated with Moskow in a later work which further identified items which could be included in negotiation agreements. They noted that this listing was not at all exhaustive and did not inolude such items as recognition, or reference to legislation covering previously signed agreements between the local association and the board of education, lieberman and Moskow suggested that written agreements could easily in­ corporate the following negotiable items: Accident benefits Book duty Cafeteria duty Central placement Class size Compensation for extra duties Cumulative absence Damage to teacher property Duty free lunch period Hospitalization Insurance In-service courses Jury duty leave without pay legal assistance for teachers length of sohool day Medical examinations Military leave Paid absence for negotiators Pensions Personal leave Preparation periods Professional meetings Promotions Relief from nonteaching duties Sabatical leaves Salary schedule Seniority Sick pay Summer school assignments Teacher aides Teaching assignments Teaching hours Transfers Washroom facilities'5 ^^Wlldman and Perry, Group Conflict, p. 250. 5°Lieberman, Education as a Profession, p. 357* '^Tdeberraan and Moskow, Collective Negotiations. p. 227. 30 The American Assooiation of School Administrators prepared a simi­ lar listing of those areas which they felt to be negotiable. Although not concurring unanimously with Lieberman and Moskow, a close relation­ ship existed in the possible content of written master agreements. Their listing follows: Curriculum Inservice education Personnel policies Teaohlng assignments Recrultmont of Teaohers Discharge and discipline of teachers Provision for physical facilities for teaohers Grievance procedures Recognition of the negotiating team Lunch periods Rest periods Salaries Wages Welfare benefits Class size Leaves of absence Expiration date of negotiation agreement This listing concluded with an item which suggested that other items could be added if they were mutually agreed-upon matters which directly affected the quality of the educational program.-^ Wildman, in a study of professional agreements signed to date in large sohool districts, reported that n. . .Most of the more pro­ fessional matters, such as the structure of in-service, instruction and curriculum, and the health and safety of children, in general have not yet become the subjects of written bilateral agreements.Contracts to date have dealt with factors of working conditions, fringe benefits, and salary provisions. Curricular and subject matter considerations will be soon Included in teaoher-organization-board of education agree­ ments, he oonoluded, as provisions where teachers are allowed to meet and consult with the board of education are now appearing in many ^Association, School Administrators View Professional Negoti­ ations . pp. 39-^0 . ^Wesley A. Wildman, "What Prompts Greater Teacher Militancy?11 American School Board Journal. C U V (January, 196?)* p» 28. professional agreements. q)i Daly, feeling that salary considerations have been highlighted far too much, suggested that "Instead of enumerating Items In writing, most agreements use a broad statement such as 'all other matters of educa­ tional concern* or 'all matters affecting'.the quality of the educational program. He argued that the emphasis should be placed on the many facets of the teachers1 professional ooncern rather than tho special working conditions and salary Items which were characteristic of many agreements• Attempting to estimate the scope of written agreements throughout the nation, the National Education Association completed a study of the 15*1-0 agreements on file for the 1966-67 school year. These data follow: Negotiation Procedure Procedure for recognition of employee organisation Procedure for specific items included or excluded Provision for negotiating sessions Procedure for Impasse In negotiation Scope of Agreement General statement of parties to agreement General statement of recognition Classification of persons covered or excluded Effect on prior rules and policies Information pertinent to negotiation (financial) Nondiscrimination clause against membership in employee organisation Use of sohool communications, bulletin boards, mall boxes Use of building facilities Check-off or dues deduotlon Organisational representatives allowed time off without loss of salary for negotiation sessions or grievance hearings Teacher Activity Individual or minority representation to the administration Teachers' rights under law not abridged 374 456 1061 524 629 908 421 256 543 528 458 371 335 172 187 115 ^ *Ibid., pp. 27-32 . ^Ronald 0. Daly, "Professional Negotiations," NEA Journal. U V (May, i965). p p . 30-31. Board Rights General statement or responsibility Instructional Program School oalendar or year Pupil ratio and class size Instructional aids which are available for the teachers' use In the classroom Selection and distribution of textbooks Student extracurricular activities supervision Integration of education for textbooks, pupils, and staff Parent-teacher conferences Curriculum review Teacher aides Teacher qualification Personnel Policies and Practices Grievance procedure Method of selection of arbitrator, mediator, or review panel for grievance procedure Transfers Promotion to higher classification Teaching assignment in subject areas Procedure for teacher evaluation Lunch period for elementary teachers Lunch periods for secondary teaohers Assault cases and pupil discipline Teacher facilities Duty free periods for planning Teaching hours or day Salary Policy Salary credits for prior growth and experience Salary schedule Salary increments for professional preparation Extra-duty for special activities Fringe Benefits Terminal leave or severance pay Tuition reimbursement Travel allowance for transportation, food, lodging Part or full premium payments by board or other agency Health insurance life insurance Income protection or disability insurance liability insurance Available through board cooperation only Tax sheltered annuity life Insurance Income protection or disability Insurance 33 Absences with Full or Pert Pay Sick leave Personal business leave Educational conferences Bereavement leave Jury duty Sabbatical leave Court summons or other legal action General (not specified) leave Other school visitations Family illness leave Selective service examinations 106 163 152 142 130 126 108 106 104 34 88 Absenoes Without Pay Maternity leave Military leave Siok leave Public office or political campaigns General (not specified) Peaoe Corps Professional business leave Sabbatical leave Foreign exchange teaching-* 233 193 138 99 98 92 88 66 30 A similar survey conducted by the Michigan Education Association of the contents of professional negotiation agreements throughout the State of Michigan garnered the following* The data was derived from 333 local agreements from Michigan school districts. 1* 2. 3* 4. 5* 6* 7* 8* 9* 10 . 11. Provision that individual teacher agreements are subject to terms of master agreements Arbitration as final step in grievance disposition Provision for employment of teacher aides Reference to Professional Code of Ethics Provision for extended school year to increase educational opportunity Provision for teaoher-board of education consultation on school district fiscal programs Provision for required membership or equivalent fees Provision for continuing negotiations on regular monthly basis Provision for teacher participation in curriculumstudy Provision for regularly scheduled meeting for curriculum study Reference to student teachers* conditions 292 133 88 221 20 121 25 27 215 107 65 "^National Education Assooiation. "What's Negotiable?" NEA Research Bulletin. XLVX (May, 1968), 42-3. 12. 13• lh. 15* 16 . Requirement that teaohers be assigned in major or minor area fields Requirement that contracts only be offered new teaohers with bachelor's degree or higher degree, and provisional or penaanent certificates Provision for board requirement to provide legal counsel to teachers in school related incidents Specific requirement for maximum class size Provision for teacher employment beyond the regular sohool year for development or evaluation of school program. 57 212 89 203 123 33 Teacher salaries also received considerable attention throughout Michigan as teachers attempted to negotiate for more salary. Although not laying claim to the increased salaries earned by Michigan teachers, a Michigan Education Association report noted that median salaries in­ creased as much as $92**-.00 for the 1966-67 school year for those teachers who held the master's degree.5® The above indicated extreme divergency in the scope of written master agreements signed in Michigan, which would suggest a rather loose form of coordination; however, Schmidt, Parker, and Repas presented the following statement which suggested that the reverse was truei . . . The MEA operates throughout the state in a strong advisory capacity, with its local organization. For example, in the first two years of negotiations, the state organization circulated a "suggested11 master agreement to a U local organizations, assisted in the local bargaining when asked or where a "target district" had been selected, and attempted to have all local units submit their negotiated agreements to MEA headquarters for review and comments before the agreements were signed and ratified. Addi­ tionally, field representatives are assigned throughout the state from central MEA headquarters to assist the local organizations in a variety of ways, including bargaining. Finally, the similarity of many of the local MEA agreements strongly suggests that cen­ tralized rather than local control may be the chief characteristic ^Stanley Hooker, John Meeder, and Thomas J. Northey. Survey of Selected Data from 333 Education Assooiation Agreements. 1967-68 , (East Lansing; Michigan Education Association, 1967), pp. ^8-79. 5®*'MEA Break Thru," Michigan Educational Journal. D d V (January, 1967), pp. 17-20. 35 of tho USA bargaining structure. $9 Stinnett, Kleinmann, and Ware concluded that the success of the local education association hinged greatly on the role the state educa­ tion association assumes. They poreeivod that for maximum good, the state education association should serve as a strong advisor to tho local association-assisting them in the areas where help was needed. In general, they advised that the state associations should always con­ sider that it was on alert to ways of facilitating the growth and direc­ tion of tho local association. This might easily include such things as dissemination of material and providing personnel to assist in a great numbor of ways. Articulation between the state and local education association must be continuous and meaningful if the local education association is to meet its goals. Stinnett, Kloinmann, and Ware emphasized that educational associa­ tions have worked and must continue to work in concert with one another toward the betterment of education. Citing how local organizations' programs are of utmost importance to the state and national associations the local association has been the one which is chiefly important, Tho purpose of the larger organization is to assist tho local association’s development. They specifically felt that this was true as it pertained to professional negotiations as both the state and national associations have published widely and given consultation to local associations in the development of local professional agreements.^ -^Schmidt, Parker, and Repas, Collective Negotiations. ;. 13. Stinnett, Kleinmann, and Ware, Professional Negotiations, p. 83, 61 - Ibid., pp. 90-100. 36 SUMMARY This chapter attempted to explain the role of professional negotia­ tion In the public seotor, primarily as the phenomenon existed in the field of education. Data were presented which explained the means by which professional negotiation arrived in eduoation by showing causes which brought It about. The respective roles of the Michigan Education Association, the National Education Association and the local education associations were presented together with an analysis of the intent and content of written master agreements between local education associations and boards of education* Recent research concerning the content of master agreement was cited. One section pertained to the superintendent of schools and the role he occupied in professional negotiations. 37 CHAPTER III THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY INTRODUCTION The purpose of 'this chapter was to present the design of the study: explaining the construction of tho instruments, the sample to be studied, and the treatment of the data* The hypotheses were also stated* THE DESIGN OF THE INSTRUMENTS The items contained in the instruments employed in this study were developed from the contents of the Michigan Education Association Sample Professional Agreement distributed to all affiliated local associations. Tho investigator itemized the major provisions contained in it, and sum­ marized its contents into brief statements. The Bureau of Research Consultation of Michigan State University aided in developing the items and the rating scales on which tho respondents estimated the Influence of the Michigan Education Association with respect to requests and/or demands made to boards of education, the status of provisions being negotiated by local education associations, and superintendent's percep­ tions of the degree of reasonableness of each item. (See Appendices B and D). Following the development of the instruments, the investigator conf forred with personnel from both the Michigan Education Association Re­ search Division and the Michigan Association of School Administrators for their editorial comments and oriticisras. Upon their recommendations, minor adjustments were made before the Instruments were field tested. The field testing of the instruments was accomplished by sixteen Mott Interns in Flint, Michigan. were made. After additional study, further changes Prior to sending the instruments to various school districts, 38 the Bureau of Research Consultation of Michigan State University was again consulted, to study the two questionnaires and make any final recommendations • Together with a stamped return address envelope, an introductory letter and directions for completing the questionnaire was sent to superintendents and local assooiation presidents. Each group was asked to complete the following: The local association. Each local association president was asked to report what was lnoluded in the initial package that the local asso­ ciation presented to the board of education. He was asked to note if the provision was sought from the Board of Education. If the request was made, he was Instructed to estimate the degree of influence of the Michigan Education Association in establishing the Item for negotiation. A Likert scale was constructed for the respondent to estimate the degree of MSA influence which ranged as follows: (l) entirely MEA influence, (2) mostly MEA influence, partly local member influence, (3) half MEA In­ fluence, and half local member Influence, (h>) mostly local member In­ fluence, (5) partly MEA Influence, and (6 ) entirely local influence. Local association presidents also were asked to indicate reasons for not making a request to the board of education even though it was In­ cluded in the MEA sample,agreement. The possible reasons were as follows: (l) our school district allowed this provision before Public Act 379 was in effect, (2) our negotiations have obtained this provi­ sion since Public Aot 379 was in effeot, (3) our local assooiation will attempt to obtain this provision in future negotiations, and (h) our local association will not attempt to obtain this provision in future negotiations. 39 The local superintendent. Each local superintendent was asked to detennlne what was Included In the Initial package that the local associ­ ation presented to the board of education. If the Item was Included the respondent was Instructed to estimate the influence of the Michigan Education Association in making the request. The same IAkert scale was used to estimate MEA influence, which ranged as follows: (l) entirely MEA influence, (2) mostly MEA Influence, partly local member Influence, (3) half MEA influence and half local member influence, (4-) mostly local member influence, partly MEA influence, and (5) entirely local member Influence. Local superintendents were asked to respond reporting their percep­ tions of why requests for specific provisions were not made to the board of education. The possible reasons offered were as follows: (l) our school district allowed this provision before Public Act 379 was in effect, and (2 ) our negotiations have obtained this provision since Public Act 379 was in effect. It was assumed that superintendents would be unable to respond to the other two categories which were presented to the local assooiation presidents. Local superintendents were also asked to estimate how reasonable they considered the request. A Idkert scale was constructed which of­ fered the following responses': (1 ) very reasonable, (2 ) reasonable, (3 ) partly reasonable, partly unreasonable, can not decide (h) unreasonable, (5) very unreasonable. It was assumed that the local association would consider the requests to be reasonable; therefore, this scale was not offered to local associations. Content questions. Several questions were included for both groups to respond to common questions concerning salary schedules, contract hours, severance pay, longevity pay, insurance benefits, and similar 40 provisions* ANALYSIS OF THE INSTRUMENTS The Instruments were divided into categories * each representing a different part of the negotiations agreement. The classifications were drawn from a similar classification schema published by the National Education Association Research Division.^ The various divisions follow: negotiation procedures, scope of agreement, professional activity, in­ structional program, personnel practices and procedures, salary and supplemental income, fringe benefits, full or partial premium payments, absences with full or partial pay, and absences without pay. Table 3*1 shows the provisions within each category: TABLE 3.1 - DIVISIONS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE Item Number 1. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 2. 3* 4. 5* Catagory/provision NEGOTIATION PROCEDURE The local association will have exclusive representation Negotiating meetings will be held regularly throughout the year Negotiations will begin between March 1 and March 15 each year Individual teacher contracts will be subject to the master agreement The master agreement will be considered part of the policy of the board of education Any section declared illegal will not invalidate the en­ tire agreement SCOPE OF AGREEMENT The local association will have theuse of the school district's equipment and facilities The board of education will consult with the local associ­ ation on academic policies The board of education will consult with the local associ­ ation on fiscal policies The board of education will consult with the local associ­ ation on building construction policies. ^"National Education Association, "What's NegotiableT" NEA Research Bulletin. XLVI (May, I968), pp. 42-43. TABLE 3-1 - (continued) Item Number 6. 7. 8. 46. 47. 48. 49* 50. 41. 42. 45. 65 . 66 . 67 . 68 . 13. 14. 17. 18. 20. 21. 22. ■ Catagory/provision Teachers will join the local association or pay the equivalent amount to the association The board of education will deduct local association dues from checks of teachers The board of education, upon written authorization by the teacher, may deduct other items from teachers 1 checks The standards of the previous agreement will be upheld If other school districts join with this school district, this agreement will be upheld If this school district joins with another school district, the board of education will help to find positions for the teachers in this district in adjacent districts Teachers will not strike within the dates of this agree­ ment The board of education will not use unfair labor prac­ tices as defined by PERA, Section 10 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY The local association will establish a procedure to deal with teacher ethics The local association will establish a procedure to initiate proceedings against a teacher who violates the Code of Ethics Voluntary workshops and/or conferences held after school may be established by the local association or board of education initiative Supervisors of student teachers will have at least a master*s degree Student teachers will be honorary members of the local association Money received by the district for placing student teachers will be used for educational uses (workshops, conferences, etc.) The supervising teachers will file a report of the student teaoher*s progress every four weeks INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM Maximum pupil-teacher contact hours will be specified A maximum pupil-teacher ratio will be established The board of education will hire psychologists and/or visiting teachers A teacher reference library will be established in each school Teachers* aides will be provided Department chairmen will be provided The board of education will try to hire only qualified and certified teachers TABLE 3.1 “ (continued) Item Number 23* 35* 9* 10* 11* 12. 16. 2U-. 26. 36. 37* 38. 39. ^0. 51* 52. 63 . 6^. 69. 70. 71* 73* 7Z*. • 75* 76. Category/provision The board of education will not hire temporarily certified substitutes for more than ninety days Teachers will have academic freedom in subject matter choice and determination PERSONNEL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES A reporting and leaving time is specified for teaohers A duty free and specific time allotment is specified for teachers* lunch periods Rest periods are specified for elementary teachers Rest periods are specified for specialised teachers (music, art, etc.) Teachers will be paid for being required to attent meet­ ings more than a specified amount of hours per week or month The board of education, if possible, will fill positions from within the organization Each teacher will contribute a specified number of days annually to a common bank for sick leave Probationary teachers will be evaluated a specific number of times annually Tenure teaohers will be evaluated a specific number of times annually There will be a specific length of the observation of teachers performance Evaluation of the teacher will be placed in written form Teachers will have access to their personnel file The Tuesday and Wednesday following Labor Day will be used for preschool conferences School will officially open with pupils in attendance on the Thursday following labor Day The local board of education will pay a specific amount daily and/or hourly to substitute teaohers Preference will be given to tenure teachers for extra teaching assignments (driver training, summer school, etc.) A teacher may exclude an incorrigible student from class for one day The board of education will provide reduced class size and/or more free periods to teachers who have large numbers of discipline cases in their classes The board of education will provide an attorney to repre­ sent the teacher if legal action is brought against him for discipline cases in their classes The board of education will pay for lost, damaged, or stolen clothing or personal property which a teacher en.. counters in school A Joint Instructional Council will be established A Discipline Review Board will be established A grievance procedure will be established ^3 TABLE 3.1 - (continued) Item Number 15. 19* *f3. 53* 5^. 55* 56. 59* ^* 57* 58* 60. wl* 62. 25* 27. 28. 2 9. Category/provision SALARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL INCCME The board of education will provide additional compensa­ tion for teacher overload Uniforms will be supplied for specialized teachers (art, Industrial arts, home economics) The board of education will reimburse teachers for courses taken In NCATE universities Teaohers new to the district will receive full credit on the salary schedule for their prior experience The board of education will pay, over and above the salary schedule, a specified amount or percent for teachers1 longevity In the school district The board of education will reimburse teachers a specified amount for post master*s degree course work The board of education will pay additional compensation for extra duty assignments The board of education will provide severance pay to teachers who are leaving the school district FRINGE BENEFITS Teachers may attend professional meetings at the expense of the board of education The board of education will pay a specified amount of money for expenses to teachers who are required to drive throughout the school district The board of education will provide liability insurance for teachers who are required to drive throughout the school district FULL OR PARTIAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS The board of education will provide each teacher with a life Insurance policy of a specified value The board of education will provide uninterrupted, 12 month health Insurance to eaoh teacher The board of education will provide family health insur­ ance to each teacher ABSENCES WITH FULL OR PARTIAL PAY Teachers will have unlimited sick leave provisions which accrues at 15 days annually The board of education will pay the difference between sick leave benefits and Workmen's Compensation benefits for Injury to the teacher while at school Teaohers contracting childhood diseases will be paid salary during absence from school and will not lose days of accrued sick leave benefits A specified number of days will be allot©d for profes­ sional or personal business leave TABLE 3*1 “ (continued Item Humber 30. 31. 72 . 32. 33* 3^* Catagory/provision The board of education will pay the difference between a teaoher's regular salary and jury duty salary, If he la required to serve suah duty The board of eduoatlon will make provision for sabbatical leave after a specified terra of service In the school dis­ trict In the event of a teacher being Injured by a student, he will suffer no loss of Income or sick leave for his recu­ perative period ABSENCES WITHOUT LEAVE The board of eduoatlon will make provision for a leave of absence after a specified term of servloe In the school district Leaves of absenoe will be granted, ranging up to four years, when requested by the teacher Maternity leaves up to eighteen (18) months will be granted upon request by the teacher SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE The population for this study was comprised of school districts in which the Michigan Education Association concluded that professional negotiation agreements were being negotiated for the next school year(s). These school districts represented all sizes of student population and geographical location within the state of Michigan. One hundred and sixty school districts were randomly selected for inclusion in the study. Having selected the school districts, the investigator asked for and received the names and addresses of the presidents of the local education association. Similarly, the investigator appeared before the Executive Council of the Michigan Association of School Administrators to explain the purpose and procedures of the study. This group unanimously approved a resolution endorsing the study and enlisting the support of its mem­ bers. It further approved the Investigator's placing a notation in each questionnaire sent to superintendents which explained the groups' action 45 and quoted the resolution* (See Appendix I) Superintendents' names and addresses were then obtained which corresponded to those school dis­ tricts previously randomly selected for the study* The return of the data. As previously mentioned* each school dis­ trict to be included in the study received two questionnaires. One was sent to the school superintendent while the other was sent to the local education association president. Each was asked to return the question­ naire in approximately two weeks. Those who did not return the ques­ tionnaire within this time period were sent another letter and question­ naire* again soliciting a response. A total 122 or 76.25 percent of the school districts returned the questionnaires which were sent to them* either initially or following the second letter and questionnaire. The local association officials return­ ed 77 questionnaires or 48.12 percent of those submitted. The superin­ tendents returned 93 or 56.12 percent of those submitted to them. Ejy comparing the usable questionnaires returned from each district* it was determined that 47 school districts* 28,38 percent of the total sample* were to be paired for inclusion in the analysis of the data. The student population in the forty-seven school distriots studied ranged from over 600 students in grades one through twelve to more than 18*000 students in grades kindergarten through twelve. Each district was assured that its responses and school district name would be held in strict anonymity. in the study. Table 2 showed the student population of each school 46 TABLE 3.2 - STUDENT POPULATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS USED IN THE STUDY school district size number of school 11 20 3 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 N=47 1-999 1000-1999 2000-2999 3000-3999 4000-4999 5000-5999 6000-6999 8000-8999 14000-14999 18000-18999 THE HYPOTHESES The hypotheses to be studied In this Investigation were as follows, expressed In null form: Hypothesis One. Public educators who participated In this study per­ ceived that the Michigan Education Association Sample Professional Agree­ ment did not Influence the provisions that were negotiated for the local professional agreement. Hypothesis Two. Local education association leaders and superinten­ dents who were a part of this study did not differ in their perceptions of the influence of the Michigan Education Association concerning those provisions which were sought for the local association agreement. Hypothesis Three. Local education association leaders and superin­ tendents who were a part of this study did not differ in their percep­ tions of the reasonableness of provisions which were Included in the initial submission agreement. Hypothesis Four. Several provisions were not included in present initial-submission agreements which local education associations planned to include in future initial submission agreements. ^7 Hypothesis Five. Several provisions contained on tho instrument were not considered inappropriate to local education association leaders; therofore, they felt that these provisions would be included in future initial submission agreements. TREATMENT OF THE DATA The data from the two instruments were arranged so that they wore re­ corded on electronic data processing data cards. The data were punched onto cards using the data processing equipment of the Computer Institute for Social Science Research of Michigan State University. After the cards wore punched, they were verified and an initial print-out of the data was obtained, using tho CISSR ONEWAY program. The initial print­ out was used for additional verification and possible correction of the dock of data cards. Data were further analyzed by tho computer, using tho STAT series UNEQ1 ROUTINE. This program yielded simple statistics such as the fre­ quency, 3um, mean, standard deviation, sun of spuaros, and related simple statistics for each category of the two instruments. In addition, the statistic was computed to allow the investigator to note the statis­ tical significance between the two means on each item. The study established the minimum level of .05 for all statistical tests of significance. Null hypotheses were rejected if the level of significance rose above this level. Null Hypotheses Four and Five did not lend themselves to statistical analysis; therefore, they were re­ jected only when five or more local education associations responded ac­ cordingly. The Investigator determined that five such responses would reject the jypotheses. with these decisions. The 3ureau of Research Consultation concurred BASES FOR ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THE NULL HYPOTHESES Tho decisions to accept or reject the null hypotheses stated in tho study were made on tho following rationales: Hypothesis One, Those provisions which had a mean of 3.0 and/or above, as identified from the local education association instrument, were considered to be accepted and influenced by tho Michigan Education Association, The 3.0 level showed that the KEA was instrumental in the decision to make the request/demand. After close study, tho Bureau of Research Consultation upheld the decision to reject the hypothesis at this point. Hypothesis Two. The data from each provision on the two instruments wore compared for analysis. The data were analyzed for statistical sig­ nificance by measuring the difference between the two means established by the respondents. A t score was then computed to measure the level of significance and thus accept or reject the null hypothesis at the .05 level. Hypothesis Three. Tho data from each provision on the superinten­ dents questionnaire were analyzed for statistical significance. Since an assumption in the study was that tho local education association con­ sidered each provision as being reasonable, a mean of 2.0 and a standard deviation of 0.0 was established. This mean corresponded to the ranking which the superintendents stated as being reasonable. Using these data a t score was computed for measuring the level of significance. Hypothesis Four. The data fron tho local education association in­ struments were tabulated to learn which provisions were to be included in future initial negotiation packages to the boards of education. The in­ tent was to determine the scope of professional negotiations for the future. The investigation determined that this hypothesis was considered ^9 to be rejected when five or more local education associations noted that they planned to include this provision in future Initial submission agrearaents. The Bureau of Research Consultation concurred with the decision. Hypothesis Five, The data from the local education association questionnaire were tabulated to learn which provisions were to be ex­ cluded from future negotiations with the board of education. The intent was to determine those provisions which local education associations felt would probably not be negotiated into a master agreement. The investi­ gator determined that this hypothesis was considered to be rejected when five or more local eduoatlon associations noted that they planned to ex­ clude this provision from future initial submission agreements. The Bureau of Research Consultation concurred with this decision. SUMMARY CHAPTER III presented the design of the study. Explanations were made concerning the development of the two questionnaires and the items were made a part of each division of the instruments. The selection of the random sample was explained and an analysis of school enrollment was presented. The null hypotheses and the treatment of the data were pre­ sented and discussed. 50 CHAPTER IV THE PRESENTATION OF THE DATA INTRODUCTION Tho purpose of this chapter was to present the data which were col­ lected during the study. Each null hypothesis was troated separately. Other information gleaned from the two instruments was presented and discussed as they had revelanco to the study. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA /• NULL HYPOTHESIS ONE Public educators who were a part of thisttudy perceived that the Michigan Education Association Sample Professional Agreement did not in­ fluence tho provisions that were requested for tho local professional agreement. Local education association leaders wero requested to indicate their perception of the degree of influence which the Michigan Education Asso­ ciation exerted on tho local education associationfs inclusion of items submitted to the local board of education for the next professional negotiations. The investigator assumed that if a perception was made, it was taken as fact. These responses were tabulated to provide a comparative analysis of Michigan Education Association and local education associa­ tion Influence. Mean scores and standard deviations were computed to determine the degree of Influence. As previously stated, the null hypothesis was rejected when tho mean score of the local education association's responses on an item reached a level of 3*0 or above. Data derived from the analysis resulted in the rejection of the null hypothesis in at least one provision in each catagory of the instrument. The null hypothesis was rejected for all provisions in three categories: fringe benefits, full or partial premium payments, and absences without 51 pay. In total, tho m i l hypothesis was rejected for fifty-four of the eighty^one provisions contained on the questionnaire. each category as followst It was rejected In one of six provisions were rejected In the negotiation procedure category; four of seven, professional activity; sixteen of twenty^three, personnel practices and procedures; five of eight, salary and supplemental Income; three of three, fringe benefits; three of three, full or partial premium payments; three of seven, ab­ sences with full or partial pay; and three of three, absenoes without pay. This seemed to Indicate that the Michigan Education Association exerted considerable Influence on local education associations concerning the initial packages. Table 4.1 explained the influence of the Michigan Education Associa­ tion on provisions submitted to local boards of education for the local professional agreement. These data established the mean and standard deviation for each'provision listed on the Instrument. The table showed those provisions which caused the null hypothesis to be accepted or re­ jected. TABLE 4.1 - AN ANALYSIS OP THE INFLUENCE OF THE MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ON PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATION PROVISIONS, SHOWING INFLUENCE AS RELATED BY LOCAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION LEADERS. Item NEGOTIATION PROCEDURE 1. Exolusive representation 77. Regular meetings for negotiation 78. Negotiation begin between March 1-15 79. Individual contraot subject to master agreement 80. Agreement to be part of board policy 81. Illegal section will not invalidate agreement Mean Standard Deviation accept/reject 2.91 2.70 1.26 .82 accept accept 3.13 .99 reject 2.12 1.18 accept 2.51 1.29 accept 2.38 1.24 accept 52 TABLE 4.1 - (continued) Item SCOPE OP AGREEMENT 2 . Association will have use of buildings and facilities 3. Board will consult on academic policies 4. Board will consult on fiscal policies 5. Board will consult on building construction 6 . Teachers will join the associa­ tion or pay equivalent amount 7. Board may deduct dues, eto. 8 . Board may deduct other things 46. Previous agreement will be up­ held 47. Agreement will be upheld in case of consolidation 48. If merged, board will find positions for teachers 49. Teachers will not strike 50. Board will not use unfair labor practices PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY 1. Association will deal with' teacher ethics 42. Association will initiate pro­ ceedings against teaohers 45. Workshops will be held on board or association initiative 65. Student teacher supervisors must have masters degree 66 . Student teaohers will be honorary member 67 . Money to be used for educational' expenses 68 . Supervising teaoher will'file report every four weeks INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY 13. Maximum pupil-teacher contact hours speoifiod 14. Pupil-teacher ratio specified 17. Teacher aides hired 18. Referenoe library in each building 20 . Psychologists or visiting 0 teachers hired 21 . Department chairmen designated Standard Mean ' Deviation accept/reject 3.68 1.32 reject 3.57 .98 reject 3.00 ' 1.17 reject 3.29 1.20 reject 2.56 3-77 3.72 1.10 1.43 1.30 accept reject reject 3.17 1.20 reject 3.06 1.39 reject 2.77 3.15 1.17 1.31 accept reject 2.52 1.15 accept 2.89 1.41 accept 2.86 1.23 accept 3.47 1.06 reject 2.67 '1.15 accept 5.00 0.00 reject 4.16 .98 reject 3-67 2.30 reject / 3.22 3.44 3.55 1.35 1.36 1.29 reject reject reject 4.00 1.15 reject 3.61 4.33 .98 .82 reject reject 53 TABLE 4.1 - (continued) Item 22 . Hire only qualified and certified teachers 23. Only qualified substitutes hired for more than 90 days 35. Teachers will have academic freedom PERSONNEL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES 9. Reporting and leaving time specified 10 . Duty free lunch periods 11 . Rest periods, elementary teachers 12 . Rest periods, specialized teachers 16. Maximum hours for meetings 24. Promote from within 26 . Sick leave bank 36. Probationary teachers evaluated 37. Tenure teaohers evaluated 38. Length of teacher evaluation 39. Evaluation in writing 40. Teacher access to personnel file 51. Tuesday and Wednesday after Labor Day for conferences 52. School opens on the Thursday after Labor Day 63. Substitute salary 64. Tenure teaohers take extra teach­ ing assignments, if they want them 69. Incorrlglbles dismissed from class for one day 70. Smaller classes for large number of discipline cases Board attorney will represent 71. teaohers 73. Board will pay for damaged, lost, or stolen property 74. Joint Instructional Council 75. Discipline Review Board 76. Grievanoe procedure SALARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME 15* Teacher overload 19. Board will provide uniforms 43. Board will pay for NCATE courses 53. Full credit for past experience 54. Longevity pay 55. Reimburse for post masters courses Mean Standard Deviation 2.75 1.14 accept 2.64 1.22 accept 3.30 1.33 reject 3.90 3.3* 3.24 3.24 3.14 3-37 3.12 2.96 2.79 2.90 3.37 3.23 1.21 1.32 1.25 1.10 1.21 1.19 1.55 1.10 .83 .88 1.04 1.24 reject reject reject reject reject reject reject accept accept accept reject reject 3.00 .71 reject 2.86 2.96 1.35 1.10 accept accept 3.53 1.28 reject 4.12 l.U reject 3.33 1.51 reject 2.95 1.19 accept 2.87 3.25 2.51 2.02 1.36 1.39 1.29 1.05 accept reject reject accept 3.46 3.oo 2.92 2.82 3.16 1.13 1.49 1.44 1.17 1.07 reject reject accept accept reject 3.44 1.29 reject accept /reject 54 TABLE 4.1 - (continued) Standard Deviation Item Mean 56. Pay for extra duty assignments 59. Severance pay 3.69 2.64 1.14 .74 reject accept 3.39 1.13 reject 3.81 1.24 reject 3.65 1.17 reject 3.25 3.22 3.28 1.23 1.23 1.10 reject reject reject 2.92 1.04 accept 3 .04 1.16 reject 2.42 3.37 .79 1.18 accept reject 2.87 3.10 1.33 1.18 accept reject 2.96 1.36 accept 3.21 3.17 3.32 1.24 1.17 1.20 reject reject reject FRINGE BENEFITS 44, Board will pay for expenses at professional meetings 57. Board will pay for required automobile expenses 58. Board will pay for required automobile insurance FULL 60. 6l. 62. OR PARTIAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS Life insurance Uninterrupted health insurance Family health insurance ABSENCES WITH FULL OR PARTIAL PAY 25. Sick leave, 15 days annually 27. Board will pay difference between Workmen *s Compensation and salary 28. No loss of pay for teacher having childhood diseases 29* Personal and professional leave 30. Board will pay difference between salary and Jury duty pay 31* Sabbatical leave 72. No loss of income for attack by student ABSENCES WITHOUT PAY 32. Leaves allowed 33* Four year leave 34. Maternity leave, 18 months accept/reject NULL HYFOTHESIS TWO Local education aaaociation leaders and superintendents who were a part of this study did not differ in their perceptions of the influence of the Michigan Education Association concerning the provisions which were sought for the local association agreement. Local education association leaders and superintendents were asked to indicate the degree of influence which they felt the Michigan Sduca- 55 tlon Association exerted in those provisions which were requested for the local association professional agreement. Responses for each provision were tabulated from each group and the data were treated. Mean scores and standard deviations were computed a t score was computed to determine the statistical differences between the two groups. As previously stat­ ed. the null hypothesis was rejected when the t score was significant at or above the .05 level. An analysis of the difference between the two means showed that a significant difference existed in thirty-one of the eighty-one items on the instrument. The null hypothesis was rejected for at least one pro­ vision in eaoh category except the one entitled absences without pay. The category entitled full or partial premium payments was the only di­ vision where the responses caused the null hypothesis to be rejected for t all provisions in the catagory. It was rejected a specific number of times in each division as follows: two of six provisions were rejected in the negotiation procedure catagory; five of twelve, scope of agree­ ment; two of seven, professional activity; two of nine, instructional activity; seven of twenty-three, personnel practices and procedures; five of eight, salary and supplemental income; benefits; two of three, fringe three of three, full or partial premium payments; seven absences with full or partial pay; three of none of three, absences with­ out pay. In general, the summarisation of the data showed that local educa­ tion associations were influenced more by the Michigan Education Association than superintendents perceived to be the case. This was evidenced not only by the rejection of the null hypothesis on thirty-one occasions, but also that the mean scores of local education associations on most responses were higher than those tabulated for the superin- 56 tendent's responses. Table 4.2 showed the means and standard deviations Tor the various items as reported by local education association leaders and superin­ tendents. A t score was also shown as well as Its statistical signifi­ cance in the cases where such was warranted. Finally, Table 4.2 Indi­ cated whether the data for each Item warranted the acceptance or reject­ ion of the hypothesis in each item of the questionnaire. TABLE 4.2 - AN ANALYSIS OP THE DIFFERENCE IN PERCEPTION OF THE DEGREE OF INFLUENCE EXERTED BY THE MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION BY ' LOCAL EDUCATION LEADERS AND SUPERINTENDENTS t AS RELATED TO PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATION PROVISIONS Item NEGOTIATION PROCEDURE 1. Exclusive representation 77. Regular meetings for negotiations 78. Negotiations begin March 1— 15 79* Individual contract subject to master contract 80. Agreement to be part of board policy 81. Illegal section will not Invalidate agreement SCOPE OF AGREEMENT 2 . Association will have use of buildings and facilities 3. Board will consult on academic policies 4. Board will consult on fiscal policies 5. Board will consult on building construction 6 . Teachers will join ass'n or pay equivalent 7. Board may deduct dues 8. Board may deduct other things a ss significant at .05 level b s significant at .01 level Association Mean S D Superintendent Mean S D t score 2.91 1.26 2.06 1.06 2.89b 2.70 .82 2.86 1.07 .34 3.13 .99 2.17 1.03 2.48s 2.12 1.18 1.97 1.19 .52 2.51 1.29 2.27 1.15 .76 2.38 1.24 2.36 1.26 .06 3*68 1.32 3.00 1.34 2 .06a 3.57 .98 2.70 1.36 2.40s 3 .oo 1.17 2.32 1.16 1.84s 3.29 1.20 2.58 1.31 1.42 2.56 3.77 1.10 1.43 1.46 2.72 0.59 1.31 4.l8b 2 .92b 3.72 1.30 3.23 1.24 1.37 57 > TABLE 4.2 - (continued) Item PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY 1. Association will deal with teacher ethics 42. Association will initiate proceedings against teacher 45. Workshops will be held on board of association ini­ tiative 65. Student teacher supervisor must have masters degree 66 . Student teachers will be honorary members 67. Money to be used for educational expenses 68. Supervision teacher will file report each 4 weeks INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY 13- Maximum pupil-teacher contact hours 14. Pupil-teacher ratio 17. Teacher aides hired 18. Reference library in each building 20. Psychologists or visiting teachers hired 21 . Department chairmen 22 . Hire only qualified and certified teachers 23. Only qualified substitutes hired for more than 90 days 35. Teachers will have academic freedom a =s significant at .05 level b = significant at .01 level Superintendent Mean S D t score 3.17 1.20 2.21 1.25 2 .86b 3.06 1.39 2.23 1.18 1.59 2.77 3.15 1.17 1.31 2.25 2.93 1.29 1.28 1.06 .49 2.52 1.25 1.88 1.22 1.59 2.89 1.41 2.24 1.30 1.45 2.86 1.23 1.80 0.79 2.3«a 3.47 1.06 3.31 1.11 0.39 2 .6? 1.15 2.75 1.26 .09 5.00 o o. 46. Previous agreement will be upheld 47. Agreement will be upheld in case of consolidation 48. If merged, board will find positions for teaohers 49. Teachers will not strike 50. Board will not use unfair labor praotlces Association Mean S D 2.00 1.41 3 .00b 4.16 .98 3.50 1.00 1.04 3.67 2.30 2.60 1.14 .90 2.22 3.44 3.55 1.35 1.36 1.29 2.24 2.28 2.75 1.15 1.13 .50 2 .32a 2.71a 1.17 4.00 1.15 3.11 1.45 1.60 3.61 4.33 .98 .82 3.12 3.20 1.26 1.10 1.25 1.97 2.75 1.14 2.24 1.09 1.71 2.64 1.22 ' 2.39 1.29 .62 3.30 1.33 2.47 1.30 1.91 58 TABLE 4.2 - (continued) Item Association Mean S D a = significant at *05 level b =* significant at .01 level 3.03 2.57 2.71 2.50 1.90 2.48 1.40 1.05 1.20 1.16 1.08 .74 1.31 .55 2.90b 2.46a 1.28 1.62 2.63a 2.58a 2.36a 3.12 3.05 1.36 1.28 .46 2.71 3.39 1.70 1.41 .30 .06 2.58 1.59 1.61 2.57 1.98 .46 2.67 2.96 1.86 .98 .21 1.95 2.53 ' 2.69 1.39 1.38 2.24a 3.14b 1.80 .84 2.02 2.37 1.12 1.57 2.21 2.44 2.27 1.97 1.19 1.38 1.15 1.16 1.37 1.69 .76 .23 3.46 3.00 1.13 1.49 2.27 2.18 1.12 1.25 3.03b 1.37 2.92 1.44 2.43 1.40 .93 2.82 3.16 1.17 1.07 1.94 1.92 1.06 00. SALARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL INCCME 15* Teacher overload 19. Board will provide uniforms 43. Board will pay for NCATE courses 53. Pull credit for past ex­ perience 54. Longevity pay 55. Reimburse for past masters courses t score 0 00• PERSONNEL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES 9. Reporting and leaving time 3*90 1.21 Duty free lunch period 10. 3.3** 1.32 3.24 11. Rest periods. elementary 1.25 1.10 12. Rest periods specialized 3.27 1.21 16. Maximum hours for meetings 3.14 24. Promote from within 3.37 1.19 Sick leave bank 26. 3.12 1.55 36. Probationary teachers evaluated 1.10 2.96 .83 2.79 37. Tenure teachers evaluated 38. Length of teacher obser­ .88 vation 2.90 1.04 39. Evaluation In writing 3.37 Teacher access to personnel file 1.24 3.23 51. Tuesday and Wednesday after labor Day for conferences 3.00 .71 52. School opens on Thursday 2.86 after Labor Day 1.35 Substitute salary 3.60 1.19 63* 64. Tenure teachers take extra 1.28 assignments, If they want 3.53 4.12 1.11 69. Incorriglbles ejected 70. Smaller classes for large numbers of discipline cases 3.33 1.51 71. Board attorney will repre­ sent teacher 1.19 2.95 73. Board will pay for lost, damaged, stolen property 2.87 .1.36 74. Joint Instructional council 3.25 1.39 75. Discipline Review Board 1.29 2.51 76. Grievance procedure 2.03 1.05 Superintendent Moan S D 2.45a 3.58b 3.44 1.29 3.00 1.24 .98 59 TABLE 4.2 - (continued) Superintendent Mean S D Item Association Mean 5 D 56 . Pay for extra duty assignments 59. Severance Pay 3.69 2.64 1.14 .74 2.94 1.77 1.29 .83 2.45? 2.88 3.39 1.13 2.35 1.26 u 3.21° 3.81 1.24 3.38 1.06 1.35 3.65 1.17 2.58 1.24 2.35a 1.23 2.33 1.03 2 .36a 1.23 1.10 2.36 2,25 1.06 .97 2.89b 3.74b 1.04 1.79 .89 u 3.06 1.16 2.45 1.34 .79 1.60 .70 1.18 2.90 1.40 1.6? 1.33 1.18 2.04 2.54 .86 1.32 2.58a 1.48 1.36 2.26 1.14 1.88 1.24 1.17 1.20 2.78 2.75 3.00 1.35 1.71 1.00 1.08 .46 .91 FRINGE BENEFIT 44. Board will pay for expenses at professional meetings 57. Board will pay for required automobile expenses 58. Board will pay for required automobile Insurance FULL OR PARTIAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS 60 . life Insurance 3.25 61. Uninterrupted health Insurance 3.22 62, Family health Insurance 3.28 ABSENCES WITH FULL OR PARTIAL PAY 25. Sick leave, 15 days 2.92 27. Board will pay the difference between Workmens Compensation 3.04 and salary 2B, No loss of pay for teacher having childhood diseases 2.42 29. Personal and professional leave 3.37 30. Board will pay difference between salary and Jury duty pay 2.87 31. Sabbatical leave 3.10 72. No loss of income for attack by student 2.96 ABSENCES WITHOUT PAY 32. Leaves allowed 33. Four year leave 34. Maternity leave, 18 months a » significant at .05 level b ts significant at .01 level 3.21 3.17 3.32 t score 1.55 2.54a 60 NOLL HYPOTHESIS III Local education association leaders and superintendents who were ji part of this study did not differ In their perceptions of the reasonable­ ness of provisions which were included in the initial submission agree­ ment . Superintendents were requested to indicate their perception of the reasonableness of the provisions which were included on the superinten­ dents 1 questionnaire. Responses for each provision were tabulated and a mean and standard deviation were computed for each item. Since there was no corresponding scale on the local education association questionnaire, tho investigator assumed a mean of 2.0 and a standard deviation of 0.0 for responses from this group. This measure was the one where superin­ tendents reported their perception of the reasonableness of individual provisions. Using the above data, a t score was computed to establish f the statistical difference between the two groups. As previously stated, the null hypothesis was rejected when the t score was significant at the .05 level. An analysis of the difference between the two means on each item showed that sixty of the eighty-one provisions caused the rejection of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis was rejected at least once in every division of the questionnaire. The null hypothesis was rejected for all provisions in the catagorles entitled instructional activity, full or partial premium payment, and absences with full or partial pay. The null hypothesis was rejected in each category as follows: three of six provisions were rejected in the negotiation procedure division; seven of twelve, scope of agreement; ity; two of seven, professional activ­ eighteen of twenty-three, personnel practices and procedures; seven of eight, salary and supplemental income; two of three, fringe 61 benefits; three of three, full or partial premium payments; seven, absences with full or partial pay; pay. seven of two of three, absences without A total of fifty-five (55) provisions met the criteria to reject the null hypothesis at the .01 level. Table 4*3 showed the mean scores and standard deviations for the various items as superintendents responded to them. A t score was also reported as. well as its statistical significance noted. Finally, Table 4.3 indicated whether the data for each item warranted the acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis in each item of the questionnaire. The data were presented in the various catagotd.es of the instrument. TABLE 4.3 - AN ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENCE IN PERCEPTION OF THE REASON­ ABLENESS OF PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATION PROVISIONS AS RELATED BY SUPERINTENDENTS, WHERE THE LOCAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION WERE ASSUMED AT 2.0 AND 0.0 RESPECTIVELY NEGOTIATION PROCEDURE 1. Exclusive representation Regular meetings for negotiation 77. 78. Negotiations begin March 1-15 79. Individual contract subject to master contract 80. Agreement to be part of board policy 81 . Illegal section will not invalidate agreement SCOPE OF AGREEMENT 2 . Association will have use of buildings and facilities 3. Board will consult on academic policies 4. Board will consult on fiscal policies 5. Board will consult on building construction 6. Teaohers will join association or pay equivalent 7. Board may deduct dues 8. Board may deduct other things a = significant at .01 level. Superintendent Mean S D t score 1.977 2,878 2.707 .672 .872 .814 -.22 6.45* 5.56a 2.024 2.425 .780 .984 .20 2.73a 2.143 r'v CO O'• - Item 1.18 1.953 2.227 2.689 .722 .859 .874 -.43 1.75 5.29a 2.907 1.192 4.99s .747 11.82a 1.26 .18 3.842 2.155 2.000 62 TABLE 4.3 - (continued) Item 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Previous agreement will be upheld Agreement will be upheld in case of consolidation If merged, board will find positions for teachers Teaohers will not strike Board will not use unfair labor practices PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY 1. Association will deal with teacher ethics 42. Association will initiate proceedings against teacher Workshops will be held on board or 45. association initiative 65. Student teacher supervisors must have masters degree 66. Student teachers will be honorary members 67. Money to be used for educational expenses 68. Supervising teacher will file report each 4 weeks Superintendent Mean S D t score 3.095 .983 7.22a 3.028 1.028 6,00a 3.1 H 1.714 .919 .891 7.25? -2,08 2.020 1.72 .36 3.841 .906 2.047 1.133 .2? 2.100 .672 .98 2.703 1.051 4.05a 2.432 1.325 1.98 2.029 1.317 .13 2.194 1.117 1.04 2.881 3.488 2.973 2.53? .916 1.077 .866 1.027 6.23a 8.82a 6.83a 3.35* 2.524 3.04 .634 1.082 5.36a 6.11 13.32a INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY 13. Maximum pupil-teacher contact hours 14. Pupil-teacher ratio 17. Teacher aides hired 18. Reference library in each building 20. Psychologists or visiting teachers hired 21. Department chairmen 22. Hire only qualified and certified teachers 23. Only qualified substitutes hired for more than 90 days 35. Teachers will have academic freedom 2.364 .917 2 .63b 2.614 3.023 .919 1.035 4.3Bb 6.47a PERSONNEL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURE 9. Reporting and leaving time 10. Duty free lunch period 11. Rest periods, elementary 12. Rest periods, specialized 16. Maximum hours for meeting 2.133 2.155 2.651 2.585 3.561 .842 .673 .870 .865 1.026 1.06 1.54 4.91a 4.33* 9.74s a sr significant at .01 level b = significant at .05 level 63 TABLE 1*,3 - (continued) Item Superintendent Mean S D 21*. Promote from within 3.089 26. Sick leave bank 3.537 36. Probationary teachers evaluated , 2.022 2.066 37. Tenure teachers evaluated 2.588 38. Length of teacher observation 3.786 39. Evaluation in writing *10. Teacher access to personnel file 2.636 Tuesday and Wednesday after Labor 51. Day for conferences 3.590 52. School opens on Thursday after Labor Day 3.821 63. Substitute salary 2 .1*05 61*. Tenure teachers take extra assignments, if they want 3.256 69. Incorrigibles ejected 3-310 70. Smaller classes for large numbers of discipline cases 3.293 71. Board attorney will represent teacher 2.525 73. Board will pay for lost, damaged, stolen property 3.302 7b. Joint instructional council 2.286 3.250 75. Discipline Review Board 76. Grievance procedure 3.889 SALARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME 15* Teacher overload 19. Board will provide uniforms *3. Board will pay for'NCATS courses 53. Full credit for past experience 5b. Longevity pay 55. Reimburse for past masters courses 56. Pay for extra duty assignments 59. Severance Pay 1 .11*5 .897 .702 .751 1.076 .606 I.I83 6.38a 10.97a .59 .59 3.58a -2.29 3.63a 1.163 8.5i*a 1.01*8 1.037 10.85? 2.53 1.115 1.158 7.39s 7.33a .901 .876 9.19a 3.96a 1.186 1.066 1.025 .487 7.20a 1.039 .968 1.06? 1.201 .952 .982 .668 .889 1.7b 7.32a 12.21*a 8.91a 9.72a 7.15a 8.51a 10.1?a 5.1ba .89 13.72a < 2.705 1.112 2.01*7 .815 .38 2.558 .983 3.72a b.z ia • CO *o FRINGE BENEFITS bb. Board will pay for expenses at professional meetings 57. Board will pay for required automobile expenses Board will pay for required automobile Insurance 3.^29 3.^52 3.163 3.558 3.512 2.811* 2.089 3.860 t score a = significant at .01 level b = significant at .05 level 64 TABLE 4.3 - (continued) Item Superintend ent Mean 5 D FULL OR PARTIAL PREMIUM PAYMENT 60. Life insurance 61. Uninterrupted health insurance 62. .Family health Insurance 3.116 2.783 3.093 .931 .917 1.087 7.86a 5.79a 6.59® 3.524 .890 11.10* 2.659 1.077 4.06a t score ABSENCES WITH FULL OR PARTIAL PAY 25. Sick leave, 15 days 27. Board will pay.the difference between Workmens Compensation and salary 28. No loss of pay for teachers having childhood diseases 29. Personal and professional leave 30. Board will pay difference between salary and jury duty pay Sabbatical leave 31. 72. No loss of Income for attack by student 3.550 2.511 1.011 .815 9.71® 3.69® 2.512 2.658 2.500 .910 .925 .834 3.68® 6.22® 3.89® ABSENCES WITHOUT PAY 32. Leaves allowed 33. Four year leave 34. Maternity leave, 18 months 2.279 2.805 2.465 .984 1.145 .960 1.86 4.50® 3.18® a = significant at .01 level NULL HYPOTHESIS FOUR Several provisions were not included in present initial submission agreements which local education associations planned to Include In future Initial submission agreements. Local education association leaders were requested to identify provisions which they felt the local education association would incorpo­ rate into future negotiations with the local board of education. These responses were then tabulated to provide an analysis of those provisions most frequently identified. As previously stated, the null hypothesis was rejected for those items on which five or more local education asso­ ciations responded that this item would be included in future negotiation packages. 65 This hypothesis was Intended to determine those professional negoti­ ations provisions about which local education associations clearly felt were negotiable items, but were withheld from present negotiations. Such responses could give an indication of those items about which local edu­ cation associations wished to negotiate. Further, this analysis might establish a pattern for the scope of negotiations in future years. It also gave the study an additional dimension by identifying possible reasons for local education associations' not including the items in the / present initial submission agreement. The data determined that only thirteen provisions contained on the questionnaire did not meet the criteria to reject the null hypothesis, leaving a total of sixty-eight provisions which local education associ­ ations planned to include in future negotiation packages. It was found , that more than eighty percent of the provisions listed on the questionf nalre were considered negotiable at some future date. Such data indi­ cated that local education associations have considered many provisions, and accepted most of them as worthy of inclusion in future initial negotiation packages. Table 4.4 showed the number of responses of local education associatipns reporting that the provision would be submitted in future initial submission agreements* TABLE 4.4 - AN ANALYSIS OF THOSE PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATION PROVISIONS WHICH LOCAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS STATED WOULD BE INCLUDED IN FUTURE INITIAL SUBHSSION AGREEMENTS Item NEGOTIATION PROCEDURE 1. Exclusive representation 77. Regular meetings for negotiations 78. Negotiations begin March 1-15 Number of Responses accept/reject 0 16 11 accept reject reject 66 TABLE 4.4 - (continued Item 79. 80. 81. Number of Responses accept/reject 1 3 accept accept 6 reject 0 15 11 17 accept reject reject reject 23 1 2 8 reject accept accept reject 16 reject 17 6 10 reject reject reject 10 reject 17 reject 13 reject 20 18 17 reject reject reject 17 reject 21 24 10 21 15 15 8 reject reject reject reject reject reject reject 14 3 reject accept Individual contract subject to master agreement Agreement to be a part of board policy Illegal section will not invalidate agreement SCOPE OF AGREEMENT 2. Association will have use of buildings and facilities 3. Boardwill consult on academic policies 4. Boardwill consult on fiscal policies 5* Boardwill consult on building construction 6. Teachers will join association or pay equivalent amount 7. Board may deduct dues 8. Board may deduot other things 46. Previous agreement will be upheld 47. Agreement will be upheld in case of consolidation 48. If merged, board will find positions for teachers 49. Teachers will not strike 50. Board will not use unfair labor practices PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY 41. Association will deal with teacher ethics 42. Association will initiate proceedings against teacher 45* Workshops will be held on board or association initiative 65 . Student teacher supervisor will have masters degree 66. Student teachers will be honorary members 67 . Money to be used for educational expenses 68. Supervising teacher will file report every four weeks INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY 13* Maximum pupil-teaoher contact hours 14. Pupil-teacher ratio 17. Teacher aides hired 18. Reference library in each building 20. Psychologists or visiting teachers hired 21. Department chairmen hired 22. Hire only qualified and certified teachers 23. Only qualified substitutes hired for more than 90 days 35* Teachers will have academic freedom 67 TABLE 4.4 - (continued) Item PERSONNEL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES 9. Reporting and leaving time 10. Duty free lunch period 11. Rost periods, elementary 12. Rest periods, specialized 16 . Maximum hours for meetings 24. Promote from within 26. Sick leave bank 36. Probationary teachers evaluated 37* Tenure teachers evaluated 38. Length of teacher observation 39. Evaluation in writing 40. Teacher access to personnel file ‘ 51* Tuesday and Wednesday after Labor Day for conferences 52. School opens on Thursday after Labor Day 63 . Substitute salary 64. Tenure teachers take extra assignments, If they want them 69 . Incorriglbles ejected 70 . Smaller classes for large numbers of discipline cases 71. Board attorney will represent teacher 73* Board will pay for loss, damaged, or stolen property 7^. Joint Instructional Council 75. Discipline Review Board 77. Grievance procedure SALARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL INCCHE 15. Teacher overload 19* Board will provide uniforms ^3• Board will pay for NCATE courses 53* Pull credit for past experience 54. Longevity pay 55. Reimburse for post masters courses 56. Pay for extra duty assignments 59. Severance pay Number of Responses 2 4 18 21 18 3 18 8 8 15 5 5 10 7 8 16 accept/reject accept accept reject reject reject accept reject reject reject reject reject reject reject reject reject 13 reject reject 20 9 reject reject 20 17 27 1 reject reject reject accept 22 15 21 18 17 17 2 15 reject reject reject reject reject reject reject reject 6 reject FRINGE BENEFITS 44. Board will pay for expenses at professional meetings 57. Board will pay for required automobile expenses 58. Board will pay for required automobile insurance 7 reject 14 reject FULL OR PARTIAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS 60 . life insurance 23 reject 68 TABLE 4.4 - (continued) Number of Responses Item 61 . 62. Uninterrupted health insurance Family health insurance ABSENCES WITH FULL OR PARTIAL PAY 25. Sick leave, 15 days 27. Board will pay difference between Workmen's Compensation and salary 28. Board will pay for teacher having childhood diseases 29. Personal and professional leave 30. Board will pay difference between salary and jury duty pay 31. Sabbatical leave 72. No loss of income for attack by student ABSENCES WITHOUT PAY 32. Leaves allowed 33. Four year leave 34. Maternity leave, 18 months accept/reject 23 10 reject reject 24 reject 11 reject 19 1 reject accept 5 18 9 reject reject reject 11 16 11 reject reject reject NULL HYPOTHESIS FIVE Several provisions contained on the instrument were not considered Inappropriate to local education associations: therefore, they felt that these provisions would be included in future initial submission agree­ ments . Local education association leaders were requested to Identify pro­ visions which they felt the local education association would exclude from future initial submission agreements. These responses were then tabulated to provide an analysis of those provisions most frequently identified. As previously stated, the null hypothesis was rejected for those items when five or more local education associations responded in manner. This hypothesis resulted in an identification of those responses which local education association leaders considered to be irrelevant or 69 undesirable to the needs of the local education association or the school /• district. Respondents noted that these provisions would never be sub­ mitted as a part of the initial submission agreements. A total of forty- six of the eighty-one provisions met the criteria to reject the null hypothesis, thus Indicating that these items might be permanently ex­ cluded from negotiations. Some of the returned questionnaires carried notations that those provisions dealing with student teaching were not applicable as the school district did not participate in a student teaching program with any college or university. Provisions dealing with department chairmen, psychologists and visiting teachers, and required automobile insurance and/or expenses were also ruled inappropriate by some school districts. It was also noted that intra-district travel was not possible as only one school building existed in the school district. Others indicated that the small pupil enrollment did not justify the selection of department chairmen while others noted that psychologists and visiting teachers were hired and their services were supplied by the intermediate district office* The null hypothesis was rejected at least one time for each division of the questionnaire. It was rejected for each provision listed in two catagories, professional activity and absences without leave. There ap­ peared to be no apparent trend in other catagories except that at least one provision garnered a sufficient number of responses to reject the null hypothesis. It may be found in Table 4.5 that the number of re­ sponses of local education associations reporting that the provision would be excluded from future initial submission agreements. The data were presented in the various catagories of the questionnaire in stating the acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis. 70 TABLE 4,5 - AN ANALYSIS OF THOSE PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATION PROVISIONS WHICH LOCAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS STATE W0UU3 BE EXCLUDED FRCM FUTURE INITIAL SUBMISSION AGREEMENTS Item Number of Responses accept/reject 0 " 15 10 accept reject reject ?fSG0TIATTON PROCEDURE 1. Exclusive representation 77. Regular meetings for negotiations 78. Negotiations begin between March 1-15 79. Individual contract subject to master agreement 80. Agreement to be part of board policy 81. Illegal section will not Invalidate agree­ ments SCOPE OF AGREEMENT 2. Association will have use of building and facilities 3. Board will consult on academic policies 4. Board will consult on fiscal policies 5. Board will consult on building construction 6. Teachers will join the association or pay equivalent amount 7> Board may deduct dues. etc. 8. Board may deduct other things **■6. Previous agreement will be upheld 47. Agreement will be upheld in case of consolidation 48. If merged, board will find positions for teachers 49. Teachers will not strike 50. Board will not use unfair labor practices PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY 41. Association will deal with teacher ethics 42. Association will initiate proceedings against teachers 45. Workshops will be held on board or association initiative 65 . Student teacher supervisors must have masters degree 66. Student teachers will be honorary members of the association 68. Supervision teacher will file report every four weeks 77. Money to be used for education expenses, student teaching INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY 13. Maximum pupil-teacher contact hours specified 1 1 accept accept 3 accept 0 1 5 8 accept accept reject reject 1 0 2 4 accept accept accept accept 11 reject 13 13 8 reject reject reject 11 reject 10 reject 10 reject 22 reject 26 reject 25 reject 19 reject accept 71 TABLE 4.5 “ (continued Item 14. 17. 18. 20. 21. 22. 23. 35. Pupil-teacher ratio specified Teacher aides hired Reference library In each building Psychologists or visiting teacher hire Department chairmen designated Hire only qualified and certified teachers Only qualified substitutes hired for more than 90 days Teachers will have academic freedom Number of Responses accept/reject 0 20 5 2 14 0 accept reject reject accept reject accept 3 5 accept reject 4 0 4 8 14 4 14 8 6 15 3 2 accept accept accept reject reject accept reject reject reject reject accept accept 28 29 7 reject reject reject 8 reject PERSONNEL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES 9. Reporting and leaving time specified 10. Duty free lunch periods 11. Rest periods, elementary teacher 12. Rest periods, specialized teacher 16. Maximum hours for meetings 24. Promote from within • 26. Sick leave bank 36. Probationary teachers evaluated 37. Tenure teachers evaluated 38. Length of teacher observation 39. Evaluation in writing 40. Teacher access to personnel file 51. Tuesday and Wednesday after Labor Day for conferences 52. School opens on Thursday after Labor Day 63. Substitute salary 64. Tenure teachers take extra teaching assignments, if they want them 70. Smaller classes for large number of discipline cases 71. .Board attorney will represent teachers 73. Board will pay for damagod, lost and stolen property 74. Joint instructional council 75. Discipline Review Board 76. Grievance procedure 8 4 reject accept 7 7 18 1 reject reject reject accept SALARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL INCCME 15. Teacher overload 19. Board will provide uniforms 43. Board will pay for NCATE courses 53. Full credit for past experience 54. Longevity pay 55. Reimburse for post masters courses 59. Severance pay 8 17 8 3 5 3 16 reject reject reject accept reject accept reject / 72 TABLE 4.5 - (continued) Item Number of Responses accept/reject 4 accept 1 accept 9 reject 5 1 reject accept accept 7 reject 6 reject 8 1 reject accept 5 3 reject accept 4 accept 5 18 7 reject reject reject CD . FRINGE BENEFITS 44. Board will pay for expenses at professional meetings 57. Board will pay for required automobile expenses Board will pay for required automobile Insurance FULL 6o. 61 . 62. OR PARTIAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS Life insurance Uninterrupted health Insurance Family health Insurance 0 ABSENCES WITH FULL OR PARTIAL PAY 25. Sick leave. 15 days annually 27. Board will pay difference between Workmen's Compensation and salary. 28. No loss of pay for teacher having childhood diseases 29. Personal and professional leave 30. Board will pay difference between salary and jury duty pay 31. Sabbatical leave 72. No loss of income for attaok by student. days lost ABSENCES WITHOUT PAY 32. Leaves allowed 33. Four year leave 34. Maternity leave, 18 months ANALYSIS OF THE ADDITIONAL DATA Local education association leaders and superintendents were both requested to identify provisions which were already accepted by the board of education before Public Law 379 was in effect. Although there wds general agreement between the two groups, several discrepancies ex­ isted in the responses to the various provisions as the two groups occa­ sionally disagreed in their responses. Table 4.6 showed the responses of both local education association leaders and superintendents. The 73 data wore presented in the catagories of the questionnaire. TABLE k.6 - AN ANALYSIS OP LOCAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION LEADERS AND SUPERINTENDENTS1 RESPONSES CONCERNING THOSE PROVISIONS WHICH WERE ALLOWED BY THE BOARDS OF EDUCATION BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF PUBLIC ACT 379 Item — Responses Superintendent Association NEGOTIATION PROCEDURE 1. Exclusive representation 77• Regular meetings for negotiations 78. Negotiations begin between March 1-15 79. Individual contract subject to master agreement 80. Agreement to be part of board policy 81 . Illegal section will not invalidate agreements SCOPE OF AGREEMENT 2. Association will have use of building and facilities 3- Board will consult on academic policies k. Board will consult on fiscal policies 5. Board will consult on building' construction 6 . Teachers will join the association or pay equivalent amount 7. Board may deduct dues, etc. 8 . Board may deduct other things 46. Previous agreement will be upheld 47. Agreement will be upheld in case of consolidation 48. If merged, board will find position for teachers **9. Teachers will not strike 50. Board will not use unfair labor practices PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY hi. Association will deal with teacher ethics 42. Association will Initiate proceedings against teachers 45. Workshops will be held on board of association initiative 65. Student teacher supervisors must have masters degree 66 . Student teachers will be honorary members of the association 67« Money to be used for education expenses, student teaching 68 . Supervising teacher will file report every four weeks 2 2 3 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 9 10 8 8 7 5 k 6 2 11 12 4 2 10 9 2 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 5 3 3 2 4 3 3 0 1 0 2 3 1 1 U- 74 TABLE 4.6 - (continued) Item Responses Superintendent Association INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY 13. Maximum pupil-teacher contact hours specified 14. Pupil-teacher ration specified 17. Teacher aides hired 18. Reference library in each building 20. Psychologists or visiting teacher hired 21. Department chairmen designated 22. Hire only qualified and certified teachers 23. Only qualified substitutes hired for more than 90 days 35. Teachers will have academic freedom 4 1 6 11 8 8 5 1 0 4 7 2 3 2 3 4 0 4 6 1 1 2 3 5 4 5 4 7 7 4 6 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 7 0 0 6 4 2 PERSONNEL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES 9. Reporting and leaving tine specified 10. Duty free lunch periods 11. Rest periods, elementary teachers 12. Rest periods, specialized teachers 16 . Maximum hours for meetings 24. Promote from within 26. Sick leave bank 36. Probationary teachers evaluated 37. Tenure teachers evaluated 38. Length of teacher observation 39. Evaluation in writing 40. Teacher access to personnel file 51. Tuesday and Wednesday after Labor Day for conferences 52. School opens on Thursday after Labor Day 63. Substitute salary 64. Tenure teachers take extra teaching assignments, if they want them 70. Smaller classes for large number of discipline cases 71. Board attorney will represent teachers 73. Board will pay for damaged, lost, and stolen property 74. Joint instructional council 75. Discipline Review Board 76. Grievance procedure 1 2 2 3 4 4 2 3 1 2 1 0 SALARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL INCCHE 15* Teacher overload 19. Board will provide uniforms 43. Board will pay for NCATE courses 53. Pull credit for past experience 54. Longevity pay 55. Reimburse for post masters courses 56. Pay for extra duty assignments 1 6 5 2 5 6 6 0 0 1 1' 3 2 4 75 TABLE 4.6 - (continued) Responses Superintendent Association Item 59. Severance pay FRINGE BENEFITS 44. Board will pay for expenses at professional meetings 57. Board will pay for required automobile expenses 58. Board will pay for required automobile insurance FULL 60. 61. 62. OR PARTIAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS Life insurance Uninterrupted health insurance Family health insurance ABSENCES 'WITH FULL OR PARTIAL PAY 25. Sick leave, 15 days annually 27. Board will pay difference between Workmen's Compensation and salary 28. No. loss of pay for teacher having childhood diseases 29. Personal and professional leave 30. Board will pay difference between salary and jury duty pay 31. Sabbatical leave 72. No loss of income for attack by student, days lost ABSENCES ’ WITHOUT PAY 32. Leaves allowed 33. Four year leave 34-. Maternity leave, 18 months 3 0 9 5 6 5 7 5 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 0 5 2 4 7 0 3 6 4 1 3 1 2 8 5 4 3 2 0 It was noted that superintendents perceived that the school dis­ tricts allowed more of these provisions, prior to the passage of Public Law 379* than did the local educational association. Superintendents stated that the provisions were present more frequently than did the local education association except in the cases of three items1 items 70 , 71, and 62. Item 62 dealt with insurance benefits while items 70 and 71 dealt with personnel policies and procedures. Local education association leaders and superintendents were 76 requested to Identify provisions which had been incorporated into pro­ fessional agreements since the passage of Public Law 379* Table 4.7 showed the responses which identified those provisions which have been incorporated into agreements* TABLE 4.? - AN ANALYSIS OF LOCAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION LEADERS CONCERNING THOSE PROVISIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO PROFESSIONAL AGREEMENTS SINCE THE PASSAGE OF PUBLEC ACT 379 Item Response NEGOTIATION PROCEDURE AGREEMENT 79* Individual contract subject to the master agreement 1. Exclusive representation 81, Illegal section will not invalidate agreement 80. Agreement to part of policy 78. Negotiations begin between March 1-15 77* Regular meeting for negotiation 13 12 12 8 5 3 SCOPE OF AGREEMENT 4. Board will consult on fiscal policies 2. Association will have use of building and facilities 3* Board will consult on academic policies 5. Board will consult on building construction 7* Board may deduct dues. etc. 8. Board may deduct other things 50. Board will not use unfair labor practices 46. Previous agreement will be upheld 48. If merged, board will find positions for teachers 6 . Teachers will join the association or pay equivalent 47, Agreement will be upheld in case of consolidation 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 1 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY 45. Workshops will be held on board or association initiative 41, Association will deal with teacher ethics 67* Money to be used for educational expenses 42. Association will initiate proceedings against teacher 66 . Student teachers will be honorary members 65 . Student teaoher supervisors will have master degree 68 . Supervising teaoher will file report every four weeks 5 4 4 2 1 0 0 INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY 14. Pupil-teacher ratio established 13* Pupil-teacher contact hours specified 23. Only qualified substitutes hired for more than 90 days 35* Teachers will have academic freedom 18, Reference library in each building 20 , Psychologists or visiting teachers hired 21 . Department chairmen designated 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 77 TABLE 4.7 - (continued) Item 17. 22. Response Teacher aides hired Hire only qualified and certified teachers PERSONNEL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES 39. Evaluation in writing 40. Teacher access to personnel file 10. Duty free lunch periods 9. Reporting and leaving time specified 36. Probationary teachers evaluated 12. Rest periods, specialized teachers 37. Tenure teachers evaluated 11. Rest periods, elementary teachers 26. Sick leave bank 16. Maximum hours for meetings 24. Promote from within 51. Tuesday and Wednesday after Labor Day for conferences 76. Grievance procedure 71. Board attorney will represent teacher 73. Board will pay for damaged, lost, and stolen property 52. School opens on Thursday after Labor Day 64. Tenure teachers take extra teaching assignments, if they want them 70. Smaller classes for large number of discipline cases 75. Discipline Review Board 63. Substitute salary 74. Joint Instructional Council 2 2 10 9 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 2 13 8 8 3 3 3 3 2 1 SALARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME 54. Longevity pay 56. Pay for extra duty assignments 19. Board will provide uniforms 53. Full credit for past experience 55. Reimburse for post masters courses 59. Severance pay 43. Board will pay for NCATE courses 15. Teacher overload 6 6 5 4 4 4 3 2 FRINGE BENEFITS 57. Board will pay for required automobile expenses 44. Board will pay for expenses at professional meetings 58. Board will pay for required automobile insurance 5 4 2 FULL 60. 61. 62. 2 2 2 OR PARTIAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS Life insurance Uninterrupted health insurance Family health insurance ABSENCES WITH FULL OR PARTIAL PAY 72. No loss of income for attack by student on days lost 8 78 TABLE 4.7 - (continued) Item Response 30. Board trf.ll pay the differencebetween salary and jury duty pay No loss of Income for teacherhavingchildhooddiseases Personal and professional leave Board will pay difference betweenWorkmen'sCompensation and salary Sabbatical leave . Sick leave* 15 days annually 28. 29* 27. 31* 25* ABSENCES WITHOUT PAY 34. Leaves allowed 33* Four year leave 32, Maternity leave* 18 months 7 6 6 5 3 1 5 3 1 Responses were gathered for each item In each catagory of the questionnaire. The tabulation revealed that only two provisions listed on the questionnaire had not been included in at least one local agree­ ment. Both of these* Items 65 and 68, were In the division of the in­ strument entitled professional activity. The Negotiation Procedure catagory appeared with more frequency in professional negotiation agree­ ments since the passage of Public Act 379 than did any of the other catagories. TABLE 4.8 - ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS NOT INCLUDED 0N THE QUESTIONNAIRE, BUT ADDED BY THE RESPONDENTS Provisions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5» 6. 7. Each teacher will have two free passes to school sponsored activities Teachers will suffer no loss of pay for their tardiness in arriving at school because of bad road conditions The local association president will have one day released time weekly to conduct association business A policy book will be developed for each building The board of education will consult with the local association prior to taking any action which is a result of community pressure The boairf of education will respect the human rights of teachers Administrators will not be allowed to prevent teacher transfers from one school building to another 79 TABLE 4.8 - (continued) Provisions 8. 9. 10. 11. The salary schedule will reflect professional growth The board of education will allow attendance at workshops or educational meetings as the representative of the association The board of education will allow twenty days of sick leave to be transferred into the school system A procedure will be established for teachers to be evaluated by their fellow teachers Table 4*8 showed the listing of the provisions which local associa- tions requested from boards of education which were not made a part of the questionnaire. Eleven such negotiation items were Identified from the responses of the two groups. There did not appear to be a dispropor­ tionate number of additional items in any one catagory. Each was supplied by the local association questionnaire, and in most cases was confirmed by the superintendent's questionnaire. Respondents were asked to state the minimum and maximum salary levels requested in the initial negotiation package. They were asked to supply this Information at three salary levels: bachelor's degree, master's degree, and master's degree plus thirty hours. The number of school districts responding to this varied somewhat in each category. Table **.9 showed the mean and range of each division. TABLE 4.9 - MEAN SALARY REQUESTS AND RANGE OF REQUESTS SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS Degree Bachelor Master Master 30 number districts 45 43 17 mean minimum $6666 7836 9212 number of districts 42 39 16 10642 10792 11124 range low high $5700 6100 6400 $16400 15200 18400 The amount of annual increment varied greatly, from a low of $150 minimum for teachers holding the bachelor's degree to $500 mmrtmuw for 80 teachers holding the master's degree plus thirty hours additional. A total of thirty-five districts responded at both the bachelor's and master's degree level and thirteen districts responded for the master's degree plus thirty hours catagory. Table 4.10 showed the mean salary increment in each division and the range of salary increments reported by the respondents. TABLE 4.10 - MEAN AND RANGE OF THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL SALARY INCREMENTS AT THE BACHELOR'S, MASTER'S, AND MASTER PLUS THIRTY HOURS LEVEL number of districts Degree Bachelor Master Master 30 35 35 13 mean salary inorement $326.75 321.00 358.00 range low high 150 150 225 465 500 500 The number of Increments varied greatly, from a low of eight incre­ ments to a high of fourteen years in each catagory. Forty^five school ✓ districts responded at both the bachelor's and master's degree level and sixteen sqhool districts responded at the master's degree plus thirty hours level. Table 4.11 showed the mean number of increments in each division and the range of the number of Increments in each oatagory as reported by the respondents. TABLE 4.11 - MEAN AND RANGE OF THE NUMBER OF ANNUAL SALARY INCREMENTS AT THE BACHELOR'S, MASTER'S, AND MASTER'S PLUS THIRTY HOURS LEVEL Degree Bachelor Master Master 30 number of districts 45 45 16 mean number of increments 10.35 10.84 11.12 range low 8 8 8 high 14 14 14 Respondents were asked to note the number of weekly unassigned periods at each of the school levels; elementary, Junior high, and senior 81 high. The range of weekly unassigned periods varied from no unassigned periods to at each level to ten unassigned periods at both the Junior and senior high school levels. The number of districts also varied from thirty school districts reporting the number of weekly unassigned elementary periods to thirty-nine school districts reporting this data about the senior high schools. Table 4.12 showed the mean number of weekly unassigned periods in each division and the range of weekly un­ assigned periods as reported by the respondents. TABLE 4.12 - MEAN AND RANGE OF THE NUMBER OF WEEKLY UNASSIGNED PERIODS AT THE ELEMENTARY, JUNIOR HIGH, AND SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Schools Elementary Junior High Senior High number of districts mean number of unassigned periods 30 38 39 2.73 5.47 4.89 range low high 0 0 0 6 10 10 Respondents were asked to note the number of weekly contact hours that teachers worked with pupils at each school level: elementary, Junior high, and senior high schools. The range of weekly contact hours varied from twenty-four at the Junior and senior high school levels to forty hours weekly at all three levels. Table 4.13 showed the mean number of weekly pupil-teacher contact hours and the range in each division as re­ ported by the respondents. TABLE 4.13 - MEAN AND RANGE OF THE NUK3ER OF WEEKLY PUPIL-TEACHER CONTACT HOURS AT THE ELEMENTARY, JUNIOR HIGH, AND SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS School Elementary Junior High Senior High number of districts 30 32 32 mean number weekly contact hours 30.5 28.28 29.16 range low hiEh 25 24 24 40 40 40 82 Respondents were also asked to note the number of weekly teaching periods at each of the school levels: junior high, and senior high. The .range of weekly teaching periods varied from twenty teaching periods at the junior and senior high school to forty-five teaching periods at the same levels. The number of districts reporting varied from forty school districts at the junior and senior high schools to thirty school dis­ tricts at the elementary school level. Table if.lif showed the mean number of weekly teaching periods in each division and the range of weekly teaching periods as reported by the respondents. TABLE *f.l*f - MEAN AND RANGE OF THE NUMBER OF WEEKLY TEACHING PERIODS AT THE ELEMENTARY, JUNIOR HIGH, AND SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS number of districts School Elementary Junior High Senior High mean number of teaching periods 30 if0 ifO range low high 27.81 25 27.37 26.75 20 20 35 if5 if5 Concerning required attendance at meetings, four school districts reported that the local association sought to negotiate for a weekly maximum number of hours for after school meetings. Three local education associations requested a maximum of one hour weekly and the fourth local education association requested one and one-half maximum hours weekly for * after school meetings. Sixteen local associations sought to negotiate for a monthly maximum number of hours for after school meetings. The range varied from one hour monthly to a maximum of five hours monthly for after school meet­ ings. The mean number of hours for after school meetings was for 2.3*f maximum hours per month. Local association leaders and superintendents alike were asked to 83 respond to whether the Initial negotiation agreement requested teacher aides. High school districts responded that the local education assoc­ iation sought to negotiate for the hiring of teacher aides. The range of teachers aide to be assisted by an aide varied from a high of one teacher aide per two teachers to a low of one teacher aide to assist thirty teachers• Both local association leaders and superintendents were requested to respond to whether the initial negotiation package requested sabbatical loaves for teachers after a specified term of service in the district. Thirteen school districts reported that the local association planned to negotiate a sabbatical leave provision. The amounts varied from one hundred percent of salary to ten percent of full salary. In like manner, the number of months requested for sabbatical leave varied from six months to twelve months. The mean percent of full salary allowance which the local association requested was 55*22 percent of full salary while the mean number of month's requested for sabbatical leave was 11 .k6 months. Local association leaders and superintendents were asked to report whether the negotiation agreement contained a provision for longevity payment to teachers after a prescribed nunber of years in a school dis­ trict. Thirteen school districts responded that such a provision was requested. Seven school districts proposed a sabbatical leave allowance of a percentage of the salary after a prescribed number of years of service while six responded that the request was made for a flat grant following a prescribed number of years of service. Tables ^-.15 and 4,16 showed the mean amounts and/or percentages as well as the mean number of years negotiated for longevity payments, as reported by the respondents. 84 TABLE 4.15 - MEAN AMOUNTS OF DOLLARS AND NUMBER OF YEARS OF LONGEVITY PAYMENTS TO TEACHERS FOLLOWING A PRESCRIBED NUMBER OF YEARS OF SERVICE IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT first second third ___________________ payment____________payment______ ; _________ payment amount dollars $200.00 $350.00 12.5 17.5 $516.67 after # years 21.67 The first longevity payment was requested after a mean of 12,5 years for a mean amount of $200 ; the second payment was requested after a mean of 17*5 for a mean amount of $350; and the third longevity payment was requested after a mean of 21.67 years for a mean amount of $516.67. Con­ cerning those school districts which requested a percentage longevity payment rather than an amount of dollars longevity payment, the first longevity payment was requested after 13*85 years for a mean percentage of 6 .28 ; the second longevity payment was requested after 19.5 years for a mean percentage of 10.55; and the third longevity payment was requested after 22.8 years for a mean percentage of 10.16. Table 4.16 showed this data in tabular fonn. TABLE 4.16 - MEAN PERCENTAGE OF SALARY AND NUMBER OF YEARS OF LONGEVITY PAYMENTS TO TEACHERS FOLLOWING A PRESCRIBED NUMBER OF YEARS OF SERVICE IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT percentage of salary first payment second payment third payment 6.28 10.55 10.16 after # years 13.85 19.5 22.8 Local association leaders and superintendents were asked to note whether the initial negotiation package submitted by the local education 85 association requested a provision for the amount of dollars a substitute teacher would earn for his service in the district. districts responded Twenty-three school that the local education association sought to nego­ tiate for substitute teacher salary. All responded that they requested salary on a full day basis rather than an hourly basis. The range of amount requested for substituted teacher payment varied from a low of twenty dollars daily to a high of thirty-five dollars daily. The mean requested amount for substitute teacher daily payment was $26.35. Local association leaders and superintendents were asked to note whether the initial package submitted by the local association requested a provision for health insurance. Forty-one districts responded that the local association did Include this provision in their initial sub­ mission document. Sixteen of the school districts sought partial pay­ ment of health insurance benefits from the board of education and twenty-five of the local associations sought full premium payment by the board of education. Local association leaders and superintendents were asked to note whether the negotiation package submitted by the local association re­ quested a provision for life insurance. Eighteen school districts re­ ported that the local association was seeking life insurance premium payments paid by the board of education. The range of the amount re­ quested varied from a policy valued at $2,000.00 to one valued at $12,500.00. The mean life insurance policy value which was requested by the local association was $6 ,611.00. Local association leaders and superintendents were requested to note whether the negotiation package submitted by the local association re­ quested a provision for a maximum pupil-teacher ratio* districts responded that such a provision was requested. Twenty school The range of 86 *■ maximum pupil-teacher ratio varied from a low of twenty-five students per teacher to a high of thirty-three students per teacher. The mean number of students per teacher was 26 .1*. SUMMARY Chapter IV presented an analysis of the data derived from the study as the hypotheses and additional data were presented and treated sepa­ rately. It appeared that the Michigan Education Association generated considerable influence concerning the type and nature of negotiation items, and that superintendents tended to underestimate the MEA's influ­ ence in this respect. Even while superintendents considered most items quite unreasonable, local education association leaders noted plans for an increase in the number of future negotiation items. The data suggested that local education association leaders considered nearly all items to be negotiable. Additional data were presented and explained as it had relevance to the study. 87 CHAPTER V THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter was to present the findings and conclu­ sions of the study as well as to indicate recommendations for further research* A brief review of the problem, purpose of the study and the procedures utilized were also presented. THE PROBLEM Essentially, the problem was to determine to what extent the Michigan Education Association (MEA), through its Sample Professional Agreement, had influenced local education associations in determining the requests made to the boards of education. There seemed to be much speculation that the Michigan Education Association had considerable influence; nevertheless, there was no quantitative evidence to support this contention. It was hypothesized there would be a close relation­ ship because of the following: In order to provide equal and good educational opportunities for all the children of Michigan, this document is provided with the intent of establishing tern and conditions of professional employment that are as nearly uniform as possible for teachers throughout the state. There is little Justification for teachers in small communities working tinder standards less favorable than those recognized as fair which prevail in larger communities. For this reason, local associations are urged to follow as closely as they can the Recommended Education Association Agree­ ments for 1968-69* While there will necessarily be some variation among school districts because of local conditions, this Sample Agreement should be regarded as a statement of minimum professional goals for negotiations during the school year. An additional part of the problem of the study was to determine superintendents' attitudes concerning the following: (l) how did •^Supra,, p.2. 88 superintendents perceive the influence of the Michigan Education Associ­ ation and (2 ) how reasonable did superintendents perceive those requests or demands* The study attempted to determine what provisions wero being sought by the local education association for the next professional agreemtnt; to isolate areas of agreement and conflict; and to measure perceptions of the respondents1 concerning the reasonableness of the provisions. The provisions of the MEA Samply Professional Agreement were con­ sidered and provisions contained within it determined the criteria for the typo and nature of requests made to local boards of education* The study attempted (l) to determine the degree to which the local education association presidents perceived the extent to which the Michigan Education Association coordinated and/or directed the content and nature of requests made to local boards of education by local education associ­ ations, and (2 ) to determine the degree to which superintendents per­ ceived the extent to which the Michigan Education Association coordi­ nated and/or directed the content and nature of requests made to local boards of education by local education associations. Superintendents wore also asked to report their perception of the various provisions* This study attempted to speak to the following questions: 1. How closely did local education association follow the prototype agreement published by the Michigan Education Association? '^hat group, the state or the local education association, was instrumental in sug­ gesting the requests made to the boards of education? 89 2. What were the areas of conflict common to many school districts? 3« What provisions wore being sought for the next professional agreement? b. What were the major areas of agreement and conflict between the local education association and local administrators in regard to the reasonableness of the Individual requests? THE PROCEDURES UTILIZED IN THE STUDY To attempt to satisfy the requirements of the problem, it was necessary to construct two different questionnaires for submission to the two referrent groups. One questionnaire was prepared for submission to local education association leaders while the other was prepared to be submitted to local superintendents. Following the construction of the instruments a random sample of one hundred and sixty Michigan school districts was drawn for inclusion in the study. The appropriate questionnaire was then mailed to the local education association president and the superintendent in each of the selected school districts. Totally, 122 or 76,25 percent of the school districts returned at least one of the questionnaires. Both question­ naires were returned and considered usable from forty-seven school dis­ tricts, or 28*38 percent of the sample. The data from the forty-seven school districts were those which were included in the final analyses. Five null hypotheses were measured and other additional data were collected for presentation In the study. statistically and by inspection. data processing cards. The data were treated both A H data were punched onto electronic A total of two standard computer program were utilized in the compilation of the data: ONEWAY and UNEQ1. program was developed for the third null hypothesis. A special This program, a 90 product of the programming applications group of the computer laboratory at Michigan State University, was written to measure the statistical significance of the difference of means of the reasonable scale. This was necesslatated because the means and standard deviations from the local education associations were assumed rather than determined from data supplied from local education associations. FINDINGS FROM THE NUI1 HYPOTHESES The null hypothesis were changed from their initial statements into question form in an attempt to present the findings more fully. Theso data follow: Hypothesis number one: Did local education association leaders feel that the Michigan Education Association exerted any influence on what provisions were submitted in the initial negotiation package? Local education association leaders were asked to indicate the influence of the Michigan Education Association concerning the content of the negotiation package. The treatment of the data included the tabu­ lation of responses and computation of the mean for each provision listed on the questionnaire. The first null hypothesis wa3 rejected a total of fifty-four to eighty-one times by the data. This suggested that the influence of the Michigan Education Association was great, especially in the divisions of the questionnaire entitled fringe benefits, full or partial premium pay♦ ments, and absences without pay. The null hypothesis was rejected for all provisions in each of these three instances. Further, the null hypothesis was rejected at least once in each division. There appeared to be no other apparent emphasis except that mentioned above, yet. 91 Michigan Education Association Influence was considered strong in each division of the questionnaire. Clearly, the data Indicated a strong in­ fluence of the Michigan Education Association in all professional negotiation provisions with a full two-thirds of the provisions meeting or surpassing the criteria to reject the null hypothesis. Hypothesis number two: Did- local education association leaders and superintendents who were a part of the study differ in their perception of the Influence of tho Michigan Education Association concerning those items which were sought for the local agreements? Local education association leaders and superintendents were asked to indicate the degree of Influence which they felt the Michigan Education Association exerted on those provisions which were requested for suggested negotiations by the local education association agreement. Responses for each provision were tabulated from each group. The data suggested that local education associations were influenced more by the Michigan Education Association than superintendents generally perceived. The null hypothesis was rejected a total of thirty-one times in the eighty-one provisions listed on the questionnaires. In each category, the null hypothesis was rejected in at least one instance. Full or partial premium payment was the only division of the question­ naire where all provisions met tho criteria to reject the null hypothesis for each provision. The other rejections of the null hypothesis were spread fairly evenly throughout the other divisions of the questionnaire. Generally, means derived from data from local education associations were higher than means derived from superintendents* questionnaires. This suggested that superintendents should expect that local education associations will continue to follow the lead of the state organization, possibly to the extent of negotiations being conducted on a 92 total statewide basis. Administrators might be well advised to form a coalition of some type to present a united front throughout the state. It did appear that considerable difference existed in the two groups1 perceptions of the influence of the Michigan Education Association con­ cerning the provisions sought for the local master agreement. Hypothesis number three: Did local education association leaders and superintendents who were a part of this study differ in their perceptions of the reasonableness of provisions which were included in the Initial submission agreement? Superintendents were requested to indicate their perceptions of tho reasonableness of the provisions which wore included on the superindont's questionnaire. Responses for each provision were tabulated and a k mean and standard deviation wore computed. Since no corresponding scale appeared on the local education association questionnaire, the investi­ gator assumed and established a moan of 2.0 and a standard deviation of 0.0 for responses from this group. This implied that superintendents find nearly all negotiation items very unreasonable. Efforts should bo expended to find reasons why theso items are requested by teachers. Similarly, superintendents* reactions need to be studied to determine the cause(s) of the conflict. It wa3 evident that both groups felt strongly about their respective positions. Resolution of such conflict would make the operation of school systems more effective for the needs of the students. An analysis of the difference between the two means from each pro­ vision showed that a total of sixty of the eighty-one provisions met the criteria to reject the null hypothesis. It was rejected at least once in every division and was rejected for all provisions in three divisions of the questionnaire: instructional activity, full or partial premium payments, and absences with full or partial pay. The data caused the null hypothesis to be rejected in nearly three-fourths of the provisions, most of which— fifty-five provisions— were rejected at the ,01 level. Hull hypothesis four, Vfere thore some provisions which local edu­ cation associations planned to include in future initial sub­ mission agreements, but did not include in the current initial negotiations package7 Local education association leaders were requested to Identify pro­ visions which they felt the local education association would incorpo­ rate into future initial submission agreements. These responses wore then tabulated to provide an analysis of those provisions most fre­ quently identified. It appeared thatmost provisions null hypothesis as it met the criteria to roject the was rejected in sixty-eight of the eighty-one provisions contained on the questionnaire. The null hypothesis was re­ jected for all provisions in five of the divisions of the questionnaire and at least once in every division. It was rejected for all provisions in the following categories: professional activity, salary and supple­ mental income, fringe benefits, full or partial premium payments, and absences without pay. It was evident that many provisions were withheld from present negotiation, but will be presented to boards of education in forthcoming professional negotiations. This finding suggested that local education associations plan to broaden the scope of negotiations in the future. The data suggested that several areas dealing with salary, fringe benefits, and supplemental in­ come features will be negotiated with increasing frequency. Local education associations apparently felt that nearly anything was nego­ tiable. The biggest concern was when to include the item into the 9^ initial negotiation package. Null hypothesis five. Were there some professional negotiation provisions which local education association leaders felt would probably never be submitted to the local board of education? Local education association loaders were asked to identify pro­ visions which they felt local education associations would exclude from future initial submission agreements. These responses were tabulated to provide an analysis of those provisions most frequently identified. Forty-six of the eighty-one items on the questionnaire met the criteria to reject the null hypothesis. Several local education associ­ ations noted that the provision was inappropriate to their school dis­ trict for various reasons, mainly because of geographic location and size of the student enrollment. This suggested that the MEA influence on statewide uniformity in initial negotiations packages could be a dis­ service to the local school district. The uniformity could force irrel­ evant and/or inappropriate negotiations items on the school district while disregarding some other pressing needs. There appeared to be no apparent trend evident in other catagories except that at least one pro­ vision in each category gathered sufficient responses to reject the null hypothesis. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Other related information was requested from local education associ­ ation leaders and/or superintendents. The findings from these data were as follows: 1. Local education association leaders and superintendents were requested to Identify provisions which were allowed by the board of education prior to the passage of P. A. 379* Although there 95 was general agreement between the two groups, several discrep­ ancies existed In the answers. It was noted that the perceptions of superintendents exceeded those of the local education association concerning what was allowed prior to the enaotment of P. A. 379* This suggested an apparent lack of communication.between the board of education, superintendent, and the local education association. Local superintendents and local education association leaders noted only eleven negotiations items which were requested, but not listed on the MSA Sample Professional Agreement. This further supported the hypothesis that the M£A exerted considerable influence on the scope of negotiations throughout Michigan. Local education association leaders and superintendents were requested to Identify provisions which had been Incorporated Into professional negotiation agreements since the passage of P. A, 379* It appeared that provisions in each division of the questionnaire were Included in the analysis; thus, all cate­ gories listed on the questionnaire have been considered in pro­ fessional negotiation. This lent further support to the finding that local education associations are considering that nearly any item is negotiable. The amount of salary requests or demands varied considerably, as did the amount and number of Increments. Analysis of this data indicated that salary considerations were determined on the local basis, primarily established on the ability of the school district rather than an MEA minimum recommendation. 96 5, Elementary teachers appeared to be given less consideration In terms of unassigned teaching periods, pupil contact hours, and the number of weekly teaching periods. In each instance, elementary teachers spent more clock hours with pupils than did their counterparts in the secondary schools. Knowing this, education associations and administrators would be aware that elementary teachers may seek relief from this situation in any number of possible ways. Steps could bo taken to remedy this situation before it reaches a more critical plane. 6 . Demands for longevity pay, sabbatical pay, teacher aides, insurance benefits, and pupil teacher ratio varied markedly. Several school districts requested those provisions, however, there wa3 little indication of any specified amount which were presented uniformly. This might be one of the greatest problem areas in negotiations if uniformity comes throughout the state, Tho MEA may even rondor strong recommendations which will bring the same demands to nearly all boards of education. This will present a more united front of teachers as they negotiato with boards of education. c o :;c l u s i o n s Several conclusions were reached as a result of the findings ’which * were determined by the analysis of tho data derived from tho two questionnaires. 1. The conclusions follow: The Michigan Education Association exertod considerable in­ fluence in tho decisions of the local education associations to request certain professional negotiation provisions from the boards of education. Much of the infliience was registered 97 In Areas directly related to financial consideration. considerable Influence was evident In all areas. However, This led to the conclusion that the tlEA will, under present operation, i probably continue to grow in influence in negotiations. 2 . Superintendents tended to underestimate the influence of the Michigan Education Association in their determination of its influence, concerning what professional negotiations pro­ visions were sought for the local agreement. Superintendents might be well advised to work closely with their local education association to keep steady communications in operation. This might well alleviate some of the problem of their underestimation. 3* Superintendents tended to perceive that most professional negotiation provisions were unreasonable. The analysis of data allowed the conclusion that parts of each category were un­ reasonable and that nearly three-fourths of the negotiations items were clearly unreasonable. This conclusion adds credi­ bility to the charge that administrators are bargaining in poor faith. if. Many local education associations are planning to present nearly any professional negotiation provision, as listed on this questionnaire, in future initial submission agreements. It appeared that nearly all provisions were considered negotiable by many local education associations* It would appear from this that the phenomena of conflict in negotiations has just begun. If all things are negotiable, close attention will need to be given to communications so that the local education association and the superintendent know the needs and circumstances of the 98 other at all times. Many local education associations noted that certain pro­ fessional negotiation provisions listed on the questionnaire would not be Included in future initial submission agreements. Many of the provisions were rejected because of circumstances of minimal student enrollment and/or geographic location. This lends great support for the contention that negotiations should be maintained on tho local rather than state level. Needs of school districts are too diverse to be controlled on a state­ wide basis. A great deal of indecision occurred as to the status of some professional negotiation provisions. Some of the provisions were listed both as those which would never be requested. A possible factor in this indecision might have been the recent adoption of professional negotiation in many other Michigan school districts. This recency could have led to the ambiva­ lence related to tho status of these provisions. It would appear, though, that local education associations will rapidly organize their positions on the scope of negotiations. Superintendents, more than local education association leaders, perceived that boards of education allowed more of the pro­ visions prior to the passage of P.A. 379. This apparent con­ fusion and/or disagreement may have been the result of a lack of communications and understanding between the superintendent and the faculty. Fhrther, such disagreement and/or confusion may have been one of the causes of the rise of professional negotiation in these school districts. There appeared to be no one specific category of the question- naire which had received an excessive amount of attention in previously negotiated agreements. Rather, at least part of each category had been Included in existing local agreements. This tended to support the previously mentioned conclusion that many local education associations considered nearly any provision as being negotiable. 9» Further supporting the conclusion that the Michigan Education Association influenced the scope of professional negotiation agreements, only oloven provisions wore submitted by local education associations which were not previously contained on tho questionnaire. The converse would have been true if many more provisions wore included in the initial negotiations package, but not listed on tho questionnaire. 10. A wide range of salary requests existed at each .degree level, thus showing a wide latitude in local education associations requesting what was appropriate to the local needs and abilities to pay salaries to the faculty. 31. Elementary teachers appeared to receive the least consideration of the teachers in terms of weekly unassigned periods, weekly contact hours, and weekly teaching periods. Elementary teachers tended to liave more contact hours with pupils. 12, Because local education associations wanted a minimum number of after school meetings, inservice education and curriculum development could be a major problem. Such a provision might well release teachers from the privilege and responsibility of attempting to develop innovations and carry out curriculum development projects. 13. Sabbatical leave provisions were reportedly quite inconsistent 100 as to what was requested by local education associations. In the main, however, an increase in suoh requests might well be anticipated. 1^. A longevity pay provision was requested by less than one third of the school districts; however, the requests which were made were fairly ambitious. There was little difference in terms of whether requests were made for a percentage of the salary or a flat amount of money. 15* Nearly all local education associations responded that family health Insurance benefits were being requested for inclusion into the local agreement. This provision appeared to be one of the few which nearly all local education associations agreed should be negotiated. 16. There was little uniformity concerning what amount was requested for life insurance benefits. The wide range of the amount re­ quested concerning the policy value led to the conclusion that further indecision and confusion might accompany this provision in later years. 17. There was general agreement concerning the establishment of a pupll-teacher ratio. Many school districts reported that such a request was made and the pupil-teacher ratio was fairly well solidified. RSCaiEHDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The results of the study answered many questions which were per­ tinent to the scope of professional negotiation and the influence of a state education association. B\irther insights were given to superin­ tendents 1 attitudes concerning the reasonableness of each provision. 101 The scope of this study did offer data on the questions which were originally posed; however, certain relevant questions remained unclear. These unanswered questions constituted the rationale for stating the following recommendations for further research. Future investigators might well find these helpful in the development of studies in tho general areas of professional negotiation. 1. This study could be replicated. If such a replication were undertaken, it should be planned to Include a larger sample or to compare the results from Michigan and another state. Care should be taken in selecting another state where the state education association apparently controls the scope and nature of negotiations within the state. This would suggest the difference in the influence of the two state education associations. The Investigator could determine other states which he wished to study in an attempt to study the influence of other state education associations as compared to the Michigan Education Association. 2. A significant segment of this study was the determination of superintendents' attitudes concerning the reasonableness of individual provisions. It would be recommended that a study be undertaken to determine the difference in the perception of both groups. The present study assumed that local education associations considered each provision to be reasonable, which may or may not have been a safe assumption. 3. .It would be recommended that a study be completed which not only determined which professional negotiation provisions were sought from the board of education but also those provisions which were finally incorporated into the local agreement. Such a study 102 could Incorporate tho present local education association questionnaire to elicit the inital requests* An additional questionnaire would need be developed to acquire the provisions which were finally made a part of the local agreement. b. An additional study could be completed whereby local education associations ranked the priority of professional negotiation provisions which they had requested. This would seemingly determine the degree of importance which local education associations attached to individual provisions. Such a study would help determine tho relative importance of individual professional negotiation provisions. 5. A great deal of discussion has emerged about the intent of negotiations items. A study could be completed whereby local education association leaders and superintendents determined whether the intent of the provision was curriculum development or teachers welfare. SU1MARY Chapter V presented a short review of tho problem, purpose, and design of the study. The findings were presented for each null hypothesis and additional data which was incorporated into the study. Conclusions were drawn from these findings and presented under a separate section of the chapter. Finally, a section of the chapter was prepared which suggested recommendations for further research in areas closely related to the general subject of professional negotiations and the influence of professional associations. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Tho American Assembly. Challenges to Collective Bargaining, Edited by Lloyd Ulman. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.. 1967. American Association of School Administrators, School Administrators View Professional Negotiations. Washington: American Associations of School Administrators, 1966. Borelson, Bernard and Gary A. Steiner. Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 19^. Best, John W. Research In Education. Englewood Cliffs: Prentic e-Hall, Inc., 1959. Slau, Peter M. and W, Richard Scott. Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962. Campbell, Haold F., Luvem L, Cunningham, and Roderick F. MeFhee. The Organization and Control of American Schools. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Morrill Books, Inc., 1965* Crow, Lester D. and Alice Crow. Introduction to Education. American Book Company, 1966, New York: Corwin, Ronald G. The Development of an Instrument for Examining Staff Conflicts in the Public Schools. Cooperative Research Project No. 193^* Office of Education, United Statos Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. ’Washington: Government Printing Office, 1963. Dyke3 , Archie R, The Emergent Role of Administrators and the Impli­ cations for Teacher-Administrator Reia-Mnnships. Collective Hegotiation3 and Educational Administration. Edited by Roy 3. Alien and John Schmid. Columbus, Ohio: University Council for Educational Administration and University of Arkansas, 1966. Eurich, Alvin C. His Honey Enough?" The Great Debate. Edited by Scott C. Winfield, Clyde H. Hill, and Robert W. Burns. Englewood Cliffs: Prentic e-Hall, Inc., 1959. Fischer, John H, Education." Education. H. Moskow. "A Framework for looking at Collective Negotiations in Readings on Collective Negotiations in Public Edited by Stanley M. Elam, Myron IAeberman, and Michael Chicago: Rand-HcNally and Company, 1967. Garrett, Henry E. Statistics in Psychology and Education. David McKay Company, Inc., 19oZ. New York: Good, Carter V. Dictionary of Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959Groider, Calvin and Stephen Romine. American Education. Third Edition. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1965. 1<& Griffiths, Daniel, "Board-Superintendant—Teacher Relations: Viable Alternatives to the Status Quo," Struggle for Power in Education, Edited by Frank W, Lutz and Joseph J, Azzarelli, New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966 . Hecker, Stanley, John Meoder, and Thomas J. Northey. Survey of Selected Data From 333 Education Association Agreements. 1967-68, East Lansing: Michigan Education Association, 19^8, Katz, Daniel and Robert L, Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations, New York: John "Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Keppel, Francis, The Necessary Revolution in American Education. New York: Harper & Rox, Publishers, 19^6 Lieberraan, Myron and Michael H. Moskow. Collective Negotiations for Teachers: An Approach to School Administration. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1936T lleberman, Myron. Education as a Profession. Hall, Ino., 1 9 5 ^ Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- liebeman, Myron, The Future of Public Education, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, i 960. liebeman, I-Jyron, "The Impact of Collective Negotiations Upon TeacherAdministrator Relationships." Readings on Collective Negotiations in Public Education. Edited by Stanley M. Elam, Myron Lieberraan and Michael H. Moskow, Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 196?. James G. March , ed. Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 19^5^ Metcalf, Henry C. and L. Urwick, eds. Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers. Presthus, Robert. 1962. The Organization Society. New York: Alfred A. Knoof, Ree, Gordon C. "The Changing Role of the Teacher." The Changing American School. Edited by John I. Goodlad. Sixty-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: The Uni­ versity of Chicago Press, 1966, Redfem, George B, and Forrest E. Conner. The School Administrator and Negotiations. Washington: American Association of School Administrators, 1968, Scott, William G, The Management of Conflict: Appeal Systems in Organizations. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. and The Dorsey Press, 1965* Schmidt, Charles T., Hyman Parker, and Bob Repas. A Guide to Collective 105 Negotiations in Education. Press, 1967* East Lansing: Michigan State University Steffensen, James P., Teachers Negotiate with Their School Boards. United States Office of Education Bulletin 19^4» No. 40. Washington: Government Printing Office, 196**. Stinnett, T. M., Jack H. Kleinmann, and Martha L. Ware. Professional Negotiations in Public Education. New York: The Macmillan Co., Tyler, Ralph, ed. Social Forces Influencing American Education. Sixtieth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961. Walton, Richard E. and Robert B. Kersie. A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. New.York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,1^5 Wlldman, Wesley A. "Teacher Collective Action in the United States, 1965*" Negotiations in the Schools. Edited by R. E. Ohm and 0. D. Johns. Norman: College of Education, University of Oklahoma, 1965. WLrtz, W. Willard. ’'Public Enployment and Public Policy." Readings on Collective Negotiations in Public Education. Edited by Stanley M. Elam, Myron XAeberman, and Michael H. Moskow. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1967* PERIODICAL ARTICLES "Are Teachers Happy7" National Education Association Research Bulletin. XLVT (May, 1968), £6-41. Satchelder, Richard D. "Today's Militant Teachers." NEA.Journal. LIV (September, 1965), 18-19. Bechtal, James. "NEA and Teacher Unions Bicker and Battle for Recognition" The Nation's Schools, LXXIV (August, 1964), 35-41. Beckor, Harry A. "Collective Bargaining May Force School Boards to Organize," American School Board Journal. CIIH (October, 1966), 57-58. Blanke, Virgil. "Teachers in Search of Power," XXX (January, 1966), 231-38. The Educational Forum. Blankenship, Alden H. "The Role of the Superintendent in Teacher Negotiations." Theory Into Practice. XI (April, 1955), 70-74. Boy, Angelo V* and Gerald J. Pine. "Needed for Teachers: A Role Description." The Clearing House. XXXVIII (September, 1963), 7-12. Brown, George W. "Teacher Power Techniques," American School Board Journal. C L U (February, 1966), 11-13. Combe, George W., Jr. "How to Minimize Teachers vs Boards* Conflict Over Collective Bargaining,*' American School Board Journal. C L I H (August, 1966), 53-55. Corwin, Ronald G. 'Militant Professionalism: Initiative and Compliance in Public Education," Sociology of Education. XXXVUI (Summer, 1965), 310-31. Daly, Ronald 0. '•Professional Negotiations." NEA Journal. U V (May, 1965), 30-31. Dashlell, Dick. "Teachers Revolt in Michigan," Phi Delta Kappan. K U X (September, 1967), 22-26. Doherty, Robert E. "Letter to a School Board," Phi Delta Kappan. XLVHI (February, 1967), 272-77. Doherty, Robert E., 'Public Interest at Stake." American School Board Journal. CLV (October, 1967), 11-14. •Improvement of Instruction." NEA Journal. LTV (May, 1965), 28-29. Jensen, Vernon. "Tho Process of Collective Bargaining and tho Question of Its Obsolescence." Industrial and Labor Relations Review. XVI (Julv. 1963), 5^9-50. Lioberman, Ityron. "Collective Negotiations: Status and Trends," American School Board Journal. CLV (October, 1567), 7-11. looking Beyond Negotiations," Michigan Education Journal. XLV (September, 1967), 23-25 . Lowe, William T. "Who Joins Which Teachers' Group?" Toachors' College Record, (April, 1965), 614-623. Manning, William R. "Negotiations: The Process in Collective Bargaining," American School Board Journal. CLIH (August, 1966), 14-16 Metzler, John H. and Oscar Knade, Jr. "A Tranquilizer for Negotiations," American School Board Journal. CLV (December, 1967), 12-13. 'MSA Break Thru," Michigan Education Journal. XIIV (November, 1966), 1. •MEA Break Thru," Michigan Education Journal. KLEV (January, 1967), 17-20. Miller, William C. •'Curricular Implications of Negotiations," Educational Leadership. XXIH (April, 1966), 533-536. Moeller, Gerald H. 'Bureaucracy and Teachers" Sense of Power," The School Review, LXXII (Summer, 1964), 137-57. Moskow, Michael H. "Teacher Organization: An Analysis of the Issues," Teachers' College Record. IXVI (February, 1965), 453-63. 107 National Education Association Executive Committee, "The Professional Way to Meet the Educational Crisis," NEA Journal. XXXVI (February, 19^7). **7. Nolte, M. Chester. "Teacher Militancy May Be Counter Pressure," American School Board Journal. C U (October, 1965) * 7-8. Robbins, Russell and Herbert H. Hughes. 'Measurement of the Attitudes of Teachers Toward Teaching as a Profession," Journal of Educational Research, IX (February, 1967 ), 2**3-J*,8. Sheehan, Wilfred J. 'State Associations Work Closely with Locals," NEA Journal. U U (February, 196*0,20-21. Steot, Marion L. 'Professional Associations: More Than Unions," Teachers1 College Record, IXVI (December, 196*1-), 203-18. Stiles, Lindley J. "Idoas From Abroad for Winning Teacher Loyalty," Phi Delta Kappan. XLV (March, 196*0 , 27&-S2. Taylor, George W. "The Public Interest in Collective Negotiations in Education." Phi Delta Kappan. XLVIH (September, 1966), 16-22. "Tho More We Grow, the More We Do," NEA Journal. LTV (May, 1965 ), 26-27. 'Ware, Martha, ^Professional Negotiation," NEA Journal. II (November, 1962) 28- 30. West, Allen W. "Local Associations Move Toward Professional Negotiations," NBA Journal. U U (February, 196*1-), 26-28. West, Allen W. "What's Bugging Teachers?" Saturday Review. X L V U I (October 16, 1965)* 88. lrWhat's Negotiable?" National Education Association Research Bullotin. XLVT (Hay, 1968)“,“ *+2-43. Wildraan, Wesley A. and Charles R. Perry. "Group Conflict and School Organization.” Phi Delta Kappan. XLVII (January, 1966) 2***f-51. WUdman, Wesley A. "What Prompts Greater Teacher Militancy?" American School Board Journal. CIIV (March, 1967), 27-32. PAMPHLETS AND BULLETINS Office of Professional Development and Welfare. Guidelines for Professional Negotiations. Washington: National Education Association, 1963. Office of Professional Development and Welfare. Guidelines for Professional Negotiations. Washington: National Education Association, 19o5. Office of Professional Development and Welfare* Selected Statements of School Board. Administrator« Teacher Relationships * Washington: National Education Association, 19^5* Michigan Education Association* 1967 MEA Platform. Continuing Policies. Current Resolutions* East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Education Association, no date. Roles. Responsibilities, Relationships of the School Board. Superinten­ dent. and Staff. Washington: American Association of School Administrators and National Education Association, 1963* UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Birds ell, Donald F* "A Study of tho Status of Professional Negotiation in Selected Schools in Twelve Midwestern States." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Xowa, 1965* Kite, Robert H. "A Study to Determine the Degree of Influence Selected Factors Had in Causing Teacher Strikes and to Determine tho Degree to Which Tese Factors Were Present in School Districts in Which Teacher Strikes Were Averted." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Mississippi, 19&4-. Redmond, James F. "Administrative Factors Affecting Teachers Strikes." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Teachers' College, Columbia University, 19^7* Schiff, Albert A. "A Study and Evaluation of Teachers' Strikes in the United States." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1953* APPENDIX A 110 The direction* lilted below should be used In completing the questionnaire. This sheet is not bound into the questionnaire to allow reference to the proper responses in the designation of your choices to the various Items. DIRECTIONS You are asked to follow these directions in completing this questionnaire j 1. COLUMN " A ** i In COLUMN ** A " check whether o r not the provision is being sought for the new professional agreement between the board of education and the local association. If you check " Yes H in Column A, go to Column 8 and check the most appropriate answer. If you check " No " In Column A, go to Column C and check the most appropriate answer. 2 . COLUMN " B M: In COLUMN " B " your marking indicates how much the state education association ( MEA ) and the local members Influenced the Inclusion of this provision in the Initial agreement submission. The responses are as follows i 1. Entirely MEA Influence. 2. Mostly MEA influence, partly local member influence. 3 . Half MEA influence and half local member influence. 4 . Mostly local member Influence, portly MEA Influence. 5 . Entirely local member influence. 3 . COLUMN « C » : In COLUMN " C " your marking Indicates why you feel this provision was not included in the initial agreement submission. The various reasons are as follows : 1. O ur school district allowed this provision before P. A. 379 was In effect. 2. Our negotiations have obtained this provision since P. A. 379 was in effect. 3 . O ur local associotton will attempt to obtain this provision in future negotiations. 4 . Our local association will not attempt to obtain this provision in future negotiations. KEY APPENDIX B 112 QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS Column A Yes 1. The local association w ill hove exclusive representation. 2. The local association w ill hova w a q u tp o s n t and fa c ilitie s . 3. Tho board o f education w ill consult w ith th e local aesodatton on academ ic p o licies. 4. The board o f education w ill consult w ith th e local association on fiscal p o lic ie s. 5* The board o f ed u catio n w ill consult w ith th e local association on building construction p o lic ie s. 6. Teachers w ill |o ln th e lo c a l association o r p a / an e q u iv alen t amount to th e association. 7. The board o f ed ucation w ill deduct lo cal association dues from checks o f te a c h e rs. 8. The board o f ed u catio n , upon w ritten authorization by th e teo ch er, may d educt o th e r items from te o c h e n ' checks* Column 8 Column C 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 o f th e school d istric t's 9. A reporting and leaving tim e for te o c h e n Is specified. 10. A duty free and sp ecific tim e allotm ent Is specified for te o c h e n ' lunch periods. II. Rett periods a re sp ecified for elem entary te o c h e n . 12. . Rest periods are sp ecified for sp ecialized teo ch en ( m usic, a r t, e t c . ) . 13. Maximum p u p tl-te a c h e r c o n ta c t hoOrs o re specified. 14. A maximum p u p il-te a c h e r ra tio w ill b e established. 15. The board of ed u catio n w ill provide oddltlonol compensattoi for teo ch er o v erlo ad . - 1- A No ' 3 4 113 QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS Column A Yes No Column B Column C 1 2 3 4 5 1 16* T w d x n will b e p a id fo r being req u ired to attend m eetings more than o specified am ount of hours p e r w eek o r month* 17* The board o f ed u catio n w ill hire psychologists a n d /o r v isitin g te o c h e n . 18. A teocher reference llbroty will b e established In each sch o o l. 19. Uniforms w ill be supplied for s p e c ia liz e d teo ch en ( a rt. Industrial arts, home econom ics. ) 2 0 . Teochen* aides w ill b e provided. 2 1 . D epartm ent chairm en w ill b e s e le c te d . 2 2 . The board o f ed u catio n w ill try to h ire only qualified and c e rtifie d te o c h e n . 2 3 . The board of education w ill not h ire tem porarily c e rtifie d substitutes for more th an ninety d ay s. 2 4 . The board o f ed u catio n w ilt, If p o ssib le, fill positions from Inside the o rg a n iz a tio n . 2 5 . T eochen w ill have u n lim ited sick le a v e provisions w hich accrues a t 15 days an n u ally . 2 6 . Each teocher w ill c o n trib u te a sp ecified number o f days an n u ally to o common b ank for sick le e v e . 2 7 . The board o f ed u catio n w ill pay th e difference betw een sick leove benefits an d W orkmen's Com pensation benefits for tn{ury to the te a c h e r w hile a t sc h o o l. 2 8 . T eo chen contracting childhood d iseases will be paid salary during cfcsence from school a n d w ill not lose days o f accrued sick le a v e b en efits. 2 9 . A specified number o f days will b e a llo te d for professional o r personal business le a v e . - 2 - | 2 3 4 QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS Column A Yes No 3 0 . The board o f ed u catio n w ill p a y the difference b*lw««n a teach er’s re g u la r salary a n d jury duty salary. If h a It required to sarva such d u ty . 3 1 . Tha board o f oducatlon w ill m ake provision fo r sabbatical loava a fta r a specified tarm o f sarvtca In tha school district 3 2 . Tha board o f education w ill m aka provision for a Io w a o f d n s n c a a fta r a specified tarm o f sarvlca In th a school d istric t. 3 3 . Leaves o f ab se n c e w ill b e g ra n te d , ranging up to four years, w han requested b y th a te o c h ar. 3 4 . M aternity le a v e s of up to e ig h te e n ( I B ) months w ill be g ran ted upon request b y th e teacher* 3 5 . Teachers w ill have acad em ic freedom In su b je c t m atter ch o ice o r determ in atio n . 3 4 . Probationary teochers w ill b e ev alu ated a sp e cific number o f times annually* 3 7 . Tenure te a c h e rs w ill b e e v a lu a te d a specific num ber of times a n n u a lly . 3 8 . There w ill b e a specific len g th o f the observation of teo ch er's perform ance. 3 9 . Evaluation o f th e te a c h e r w ill b e p laced In w ritte n form. 4 0 . Teachers w ill have access to th e ir personnel f ile . 4 1 . The local association w ill establish a procedure to deal w ith te a c h e r e th ic s. 4 2 . The local association w ill establish o procedure to In itiate proceedings against a te o c h e r who violates th e Code of Ethics. 4 3 . The board o f education w ill reim burse teochers fo r courses taken In approved NCATE univ ersities. -3 - • Column ft Column C 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS Column A Yes No Column B Column C 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 44. Teochers moy a tte n d professional m eetings o l the expense of the board of ed u catio n . 45 . Voluntory workshops a n d / o r conferences h eld a fte r school may be established b y the local association or board o f education In itia tiv e . 46. The standards o f the previous agreem ent w ill be upheld. 47. If other school districts |o!n w ith this school d istrict, this agreement will be upheld. 48. If this school d istric t fains w ith an o th er school d istrict, the board of education w ill h elp to find positions for the teachers In this d istrict In o d |o cen t d is tric ts. 49, Teachers w ill not strike w ithin th e d ales o f this agreem ent. 50. The board o f education w ill not use u n fair labor practices as defined by PERA, Section 10. 51. The Tuesday an d W ednesday follow ing Labor Day w ill be used for pre-school conferences. 52, School w ill o ffic ia lly open w ith pupils In attendance on the Thursday follow ing Labor D ay. 53. Teachers new to the d istric t will re c e iv e full credit on the salary schedule for their prior e x p e rie n c e. 54, The board o f ed ucation w ill reimburse teochers a specified amount for post m aster's d eg ree course w ork. 55. The board o f ed u catio n w ill p a y , over and above the salary schedule, a specified amount o r p ercen t for teocher’s longevity In th e school d istric t. 56. The board of education w ill pay oddltlonol compensation for extra duty assignm ents. 57. The board of ed ucation w ill pay a sp ecified amount o f money for c o r expenses to teachers who o re required to drive throughout the school d istric t. -4 - * 4 116 QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS Column A Ye* 58 , The board o f education w ill p ro v id e liab ility Insurance for teochere who o re required to d riv e throughout th e school d istric t. 59 . The board o f education will p a y teachers who a re leaving the school d istric t severance p a y . 60 . The board o f educotlon w ill prov id e each te a c h e r with a life Insurance p o licy o f a sp ecified vo lu e. 61 . The board o f ed u catio n w ill p ro v id e family h eo lth Insurance to each te a c h e r. 62 . The board o f ed u catio n w ill p ro v id e uninterrupted, 12 month heolth Insurance to e o ch te a c h e r. 63 . The local board o f education w ill p ay a sp ecific amount dolly a n d /o r hourly to substitute teochers. 64. Preference w ill b e given to te n u re teochers for e x tra te o c h Ing assignments ( driver tra in in g , summer school, e tc . ) 6 5 , Supervisors o f student teochers w ill have a t le ast a m aster's deg ree. 6 6 . Student teochers w ill be honorary members o f th e local association. 6 7 . Money receiv ed by the d istrict fo r ploctng student teochers w ill bo used fo r educational uses ( workshops, conferences, e t c . )___________________________________________________ 6 8 . The supervising m aster teo ch er w ill file a report o f the student teo ch er's progress ev ery four w eeks. 69. A teocher m ay exclude an In co rrig ib le student from class fo r one doy. 70. The board o f ed ucation w ill p ro v id e reduced class size a n d / more free periods to teachers who have targe num ber of discipline cases In their classes. 71. The board o f ed ucation w ill p ro v id e an atto rn ey to represent th e teacher If le g a l octlon Is b rought against him for discipline o f a stu d en t. 5 - No Column B ^ I Column C 1 2 3 4 117 QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS * Column B Column C 1 2 3 4 5 I Column A Yes No 72 . In the ev en t o f a teo ch er being Injured by a student, he w ll tuffer no Io n o f Income o r tic k le a v e far hit recuperative p eriod. 73 . The board of education will p a y for loit.dam oged, o r stolen clothing o r personal property which a teo ch er encounters In school. 74 . A joint Instructional Council w ill b e established. 75 . A D iscipline Review Board w ill b e established. 76. A grievance procedure w ill b e estab lished. 77. N egotiating m eetings w ill be h e ld regularly throughout the y e a r. 78. N egotiations w ill begin betw een M arch I and M arch 15 each y e a r. 79. Individual teo ch er contracts w ill b e subject to the m aster agreem ent. 80. The m aster agreem ent w ill be considered part o f the p o licy o f th e board o f ed u catio n . 81. Any section d eclared Illegal w ill n o t Invalidate the en tire agreem ent. In (lit follow ing sp o cei, writ* a shorf statem ent o f any provisions which th e local o ig a n lz a tlo n In itia te d , which have n o t been lit ted obove. Then ch eck the appropriate 82. 83. 84. 1 2 3 4 FJ" 118 PART II In th* spoees provided below fill In the ipecific provisions of your latest Initial agreement submission. If any of the Items are not applicable, leave blank. I . Salary Schedule : Educational Level Bachelor's Master's Annual Salary Maximum Minimum Increments Amount N o . of Yrs. Master's + 30 2. Contact hours and assigned periods : Number of w eek­ ly unasstgned periods Number of week­ ly teaching periods Number of week­ ly contact hours Elementary Junior High Senior High 3. Maximum required attendance a t meetings t Tha maximum amount of time that a teocher may be required to stay after school for professional meetings Is hours weekly a n d / o r ____ hours monthly. 4 . Teocher Aides : The board of educotion will use one teocher aide p e r teochers. ( number ) 5 . Sabbatical leaves t The board of ed u calo n will p a y % salary per ____ month period, or % solory p e r month period. ( num ber) (number) 6 . Longevity Roy t In addition to regular salary, the local association Is asking the board of education to allow a longevity pay of % after ____ years, ____ % after years, a n d ___ % a fte r years. ( number ) ( number ) ( numEer) 7. Substitute Pay t The local association Is asking that the board of education pay substitute teochers | per day or $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ per hour. 8. Insurance Benefits s The local association Is asking that the board of education provide each teocher with a Life Insurance policy benefit of $ . It further asks that the board of education pay for Health Insurance benefits on a * ____ ____ ( check o n e ) | [ full basis [" 1 partial basis 9. Pupil Teocher Ratio : The local association Is requesting the board of education to establish a ratio of ____ pupils for each full time teacher. -7- 119 PART III Please antwcr the following questions. The Items drawn from them will be used for return Identification purposes only and no reference to school names or geographical area will be used. 1. What Is the name of the school district ? ' 2. Who completed this questionnaire ? ( Check those persons who participated ) t 1. Local association president 2 . Executive secretary 5 . Assistant Superintendent 6* Principal 3 . Negotiator { association ) 7. Negotiator ( board of education ) 4 . Superintendent 8. O ther 3. How many students are enrolled In the school district ? Return Questionnaire To t Jon E. Rockhold 965 East Seventh Street Flint, Michigan 48503 - 8 - ___ ____________ APPENDIX C 121 The directions listed below should be used In completing the questionnaire. This sheet Is not bound Into the questionnaire to allow reference to the proper responses In the designation of your choices to the various Items. DIRECTIONS 2. COLUMN A i In COLUMN " A 11 check whether o r not the provision is being sought for the new professional agreement between the board o f education and the local association. If you check " YES * in COLUMN A, go to COLUMN B and check the most appropriate answer. If you check MN O ” In COLUMN A, go to COLUMN C and check the most appropriate answer. 3. COLUMN B i In COLUMN " B " your marking Indicates how much you feel the state education association ( MEA) and the local association Influenced the inclusion oF this provision In the initial agreement submission. The responses are as follows : 1. Entirely MEA Influence. 2. Mostly MEA Influence, portly local member Influence. 3 . Half MEA Influence and half local member influence. 4 . Mostly local member influence, partly MEA Influence. 5 . Entirely local member Influence. 4 . COLUMN C ; In COLUMN " C " your marking Indicates why you feel this provision was was not Included in the Initial agreement submission. The various reasons are as follows : 1. Our school district allowed this provision before P. A. 379 was In effect. 2. Our negotiations have obtained this provision since P. A. 379 was in effect. 5 . COLUMN D ; In COLUMN " D “ your marking indicates how reasonable you feet such a provision is. The various responses are as follows s 1. Very Reasonable . 2 . Reasonable • 3. Partly Reasonable, Partly Unreasonable, C an't Decide. 4 . Unreasoncble. 5 . Very Unreasonable. r --- p ----r KEY Yes No columns! I C ^ 1 12|3 |4 5 ] 7" 2 D 1 2 T 7 S APPENDIX D 3^3 q u e s t io n n a ir e C O I UMNS SAMPLE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS Ye* I . The locol ostoclolfon w ill hove exclusive t t p r t t i n lotion. 2 . The local association w ill have use o f the *chool district** equipm ent ond fo cllltle* . 3 , The boord of education w ill consult with the local oisoclotlon on ocodem lc pollcle*.________________ 4 . The board of education w ill consult with the local o*soclatlon on fltc a l pollcle*.____________________ 5, The board o f ed ucation w ill consult w ith the local association o n building construction pollcle*. 6 . Teocher* w ill Join the local association o r pay on eq u iv alen t am ount to the a* » o c to tlo n ._____ 7 . The board of ed ucation w ill d ed u ct locot association duet from check* o f teocher*. 8 . The board o f e d u c a tio n , upon w ritten authorization by the teo c h e r, may deduct o th e r Item* from teocher*1 ch eck * . 9 . A reporting ond leaving tim e for teacher* It specified 10. A duty free ond ip e d f lc lime allotm ent It specified for teocher*1 lunch period*. 11. Rest period* a re specified for elem entary teocher* 12. Rett period* a re specified for sp e c ia liz ed teochers ( music, a rt, e t c . ) .________ 13. Maximum p u p ll-te a c h e r co n ta c t hours are sp ecified . 14. A maximum p u p ll-te o c h e r ra tio w ill be established. IS. The board c f ed u catio n w ill provide additional com pentoltrn far te a c h e r o v e rlo a d . No mu ITT^ 12 h QUESTIONNAIRE COLUMNS SAMPLE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS Y at 16. Teochen w ill bo p aid for b rin g required to ottend moating* more than a specified amount o f hour* par week o r month* 17. Tha board of oducatlon w ill hire psychologists a n d / o r visiting ta o c h a n . 18. A teocher reference library w ill b e established In each school. ________ 19. Uniform* w | II be supplied for specialized teo ch an ( a rt, Induttrlol a rts, home econom ies. ) 20 . T eochen1 aides w ill be provided. 21, Department cholrmen w ill be selected . 22. The board o f education w ill not hi re only qualified ond certified teochers. 23. The board o f education will not hire temporarily certified substitutes for more than ninety days. 24 . The board o f education w ill. If possible* fill positions from Inside the org an izatio n. 25. Teochers wifi have unlim ited sick leave provisions which occrues a t 15 days annuolly. 26. Each teocher w ill contribute a specified number of days annually to a common bonk for sick lea v e . 27. The board o f education will pay th e difference betw een sick leav e benefits and Workmen's Compen­ sation benefits for ln|ury to th e teocKer w hile a t school. 2 8 , Teochen contacting childhood diseases will be paid salary during absence from school and w ill not lose days o f accrued sick leav e benefits. 29. A specified number of days will be allo ted for professional or personal business leav e. 2 - No ^ 112 13 M l 5 QUESTIONNAIRE COLUM NS SAMPLE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS A Yes 3 0 . Tha board o f ad u catlo n w ill pay th a d ifference batw aan a te o c h e r's reg u lar salary and Jury duty salary , If h a fi required to serve such d u ty . 3 1 . Tha board o f aducatlon w ill maka provision for sab b atical loav a a fta r o tp a c lfla d tarm o f la rv lc a In tha school d istric t. 3 2 . Tha board o f ad u catlo n w ill maka provision for a locrva o f absanca a fta r a spoclflad tarm o f sorvlea In tha school d istric t. 3 3 . Laavas o f absanca w ill b a gran ta d , ranging up to four y e a n , whan raquastad b y th a tao ch ar. 3 4 . M o tam lty laavas o f u p to alg h ta a n ( 1 8 ) months w ill b e grantad upon req u ast b y th a ta o ch ar. 3 5 . Teochars w ill h av a oeodam lc fra adorn In subject m atter ch o ice o r d eterm in atio n . 3 6 . Probationary teachers w ill b a evoluoted a sp ecific num ber o f times an n u a lly . 3 7 . Tenure teochers w ill b e e v a lu a te d a sp ecific number o f times an n u ally . 3 8 . T h a n w ill b a a sp ecific length o f the observation o f te a c h er's perform ance. 3 9 . Evaluation o f th e teo ch er w ill b e p la ce d In w ritten form. 4 0 . T eochen will h av e occess to th e ir personnel f ile . 4 1 . The local association w ill establish a procedure to d eal w ith te a c h e r e th ic s. 4 2 . The lo cal association w ill establish a procedure to In itia te proceedings again st a tea c h e r who v io late s the Code o f Ethics. 4 3 . The board o f ed ucation w ill reimburse te o c h e n for courses taken In approved NCATE universities, , -3 - No B 1 2 3 4 5 C 1 2 D I 2 3 4 5 226 QUESTIONNAIRE COLUMNS SAMPLE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS A Yes 4 4 , T to c h m m ay aft«nd professional meetings a t th a expense o f Hi* board o f e d u c a tio n , 4 5 . Volunlory workshops a n d /o r conferences h e ld a fte r school may b e established by th e local association o r board o f ed u catio n In itia tiv e . 4 5 . The standards o f the previous agreem ent w ill b e upheld. 4 7 . If other school districts Join w ith this school d istrict, this agreem ent w ill b e upheld. 4 8 . If this school d istrict Joins w ith another school district, the board o f e d u catio n w ill help to find positions for the teochers In this d istrict In odfocent districts. 4 9 . Teochen w ill n o t strike w ithin the dates o f this agreem ent. 5 0 , The board o f ed ucation w ilt n o t use unfair labor practices as defined by PERA, Section 10. 5 1 , The Tuesday retd W ednesday following Labor Day w ill be used fo r pre-school conferences. 5 2 . School w ill o ffic ia lly o p e n w ith pupils In a tte n d ­ a n ce on th e Thursday follow ing Labor Day, 5 3 . Teochers new to the d istric t w ill receive full c re d it on the salary schedule for p rio r ex p erien ce. , 5 4 . The board o f education w ill p a y , over and ab o v e thi salary sc h ed u le, a specified am ount or p ercen t for teach er's longevity In th e school d istrict. 5 5 . The board o f education w ill reimburse teachers a specified am ount for post m aster's degree course work. 5 6 . The board o f ed u catio n w ill p ay oddltlonal com pen­ sation for e x tra duty assignm ents. 57* The board o f ed u catio n w ill p a y o specified am ount o f money for c a r expenses to teach ers who a re re q u ir­ ed to driv e throughout th e school district. -4 - No B 1 2 3 4 5 C 1 2 D 1 2 3 4 5 127 QUESTIONNAIRE COLUMNS SAMPLE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS A Yes No 8 1 2 3 4 5 C 1 2 D 1 2 3 4 5 5 8 . The board o f ed u catio n will p ro v id e lia b ility Insurance for te o c h e n who ore required to drive throughout th e school d istric t. 5 9 . The board o f ed ucation w ill p a y te o c h e n who are leaving the school district se v e ra n c e p ay . 6 0 . The board o f ed ucation w ill p ro v id e each teocher w ith a life Insurance policy o f a specified v alu e . 6 1 . The board o f ed u catio n w ill p ro v id e uninterrupted, 12 month h e a lth Insurance to e o c h teo cher. 6 2 . The board o f ed u catio n w ill p ro v id e family h ealth Insurance to eoch te o c h e r. 6 3 . The local b o ard o f education w ill p ay a specific amount d a lly a n d /o r hourly to substitu te teo c h e n . 6 4 . Preference w ill b e given to te n u re te o c h en for ex tra teaching assignments ( d riv e r training, summer school, e tc . ) - 6 5 . Supervtson o f student te o c h e n w ill have ot least a m aster's d e g re e . 6 6 . Student te o c h e n w ill be honorary members o f the local asso ciatio n . 6 7 . Money re c e iv e d by the d istric t fo r placing student te o c h e n will b e used for e d u c a tio n a l uses (workshops conferences, e t c . ) • 6 8 . The supervising m aster te o c h e r w ill file a report of the student te a c h e r's progress ev ery four weeks. 6 9 . A teocher m ay exclude an In c o rrig ib le student from c lo u for o n e d a y . - 7 0 . The board o f ed u catio n w ill p ro v id e reduced class size an d /o r m ore free periods to te o c h e n who have large number o f discipline cases In th e ir classes. 7 1 . The board o f e d u catio n w ill p ro v id e an ottom ey to represent th e te o c h e r If legal o c tlo n Is brought against him for d iscip lin e o f a stu d e n t. -5 - 128 QUESTIONNAIRE COLUMNS SAMPLE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS Ye* 72. In Hie e v e n t o f a te a c h e r being Injured b y a student he w ill suffer no lost o f Income o r lic k le av e fo r h it recuperative p eriod. 73. The board o f education w ill p ay for lost, dam aged, or itolen clo th in g o r p e n o n a l property w hich a teocher encounter* In tc h o o l. 74. A joint Inttructlonal C ouncil will be e ita b llih e d . 75. A d ltc lp lln e Review Board w ill be e ita b llih e d . 76, A g rlev o n ce procedure w ill b e e ita b llih e d . 77. N egotiating m eeting! w ill b e held regularly throughout th e y ear.________________________ 76. N egotiation! w ill begin betw een M arch I and Morch 15 eoch y ear. 79 . Individual teo ch er c o n tract! w ill be tu b je c t to the moiter agreem en t. ._______________________________ 80. The m atter agreem ent w ill b e com ldered p a rt o f the policy o f th e board o f ed u catio n .____________ 81. Any section d eclared Ille g a l w ill not in v a lid a te the entire ag reem ent.__________________________________ In the follow ing ip o cet, w rite a ihort statem ent of o n / provisions w hich the lo c a l o rg an izatio n In itiated which have not been listed ab o v e. Then c h e c k the 82. 83. 84. 6- No ^ 129 PART II In the tpoces provided below nil tn the q>eclflc provisions of your latest Initial agreement submission. If any of the Items are not q»pllcable, leave blank* I. Salary Schedule > Educational Level Bochelor's Master** Annual Salary Maximum Minimum Increments Amount N o. of Yrs. Master's ♦ 30 2. Contoct hours and assigned periods t Number of w eek­ ly unassigned periods Number of week­ ly teaching periods Number of week­ ly contoct hours Elementary Junior High Senior High 3. Maximum required attendance a t meetings : The maximum amount of time that a teacher may be required to stay after school for professional meetings Is hours weekly a n d / o r ____ hours monthly. 4. Teocher Aides i The board of education will use one teacher aide p e r teochers. ( number) 5. SobbaHcol Leaves : The board of educafon will pay % salary per month period, or % salary p e r month period. ( number) (num ber) 6. Longevity Pay > In addition to regular salary, the local association is asking the board of education to allow a longevity pay o f % after _ _ years, % after yeors, years. ( number ) ( number ) a n d ___ % a fte r (num ber) 7. Substitute Pay t The local association Is asking that the board of education pay substitute teochers > per. day or $ _ _ _ _ _ _ per hour. 8. Insurance Benefits r The local association Is asking that the board o f education provide eoch teacher with a Life Insurance policy benefit of $ . It further asks that the board of education pay for Health Insurance benefits on a r __________________ ( check o n e ) | | full basis j | partial basis 9. Pupil Teocher Ratio * The local association Is requesting the board of education to establish a ratio of ____ pupils for eoch full time teacher. -7 PART III P lease o m w e r th e fo llo w in g q u e s tio n s . The Item s drow n from them w ill b e u se d fo r re tu rn Id e n tific a tio n p u rp o ses o n ly o n d n o re f e r e n c e to sc h o o l n am e s o r g e o g r a p h ic a l a r e a w ill b e u sed . 1. W h at Is th e n a m e o f y o u r s c h o o l d is tr ic t ? 2 . W ho c o m p le te d th is q u e s tio n n a ir e ? ( C h e c k th o s e p erso n s w ho p a r tic ip a te d ) : I . B usiness M a n a g e r 2 . S u p e rin te n d e n t 3 . A ssista n t S u p e rin te n d e n t 4 . P r in c ip a l 5 . N e g o tia to r ( B oard o f E d u c a tio n ) _ _ 6. O t h e r __________________________ 3 . How m any stu d e n ts o re e n r o lle d In th e sc h o o l d is tr ic t ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Return Questionnaire To : Jon E. Rockhold 965 East Seventh Street Flint, Michigan 48503 APPENDIX 5 132 May 13, 1968 Return to : Jon E. Rockhold 965 East Seventh Street Flint, Michigan 48503 Dear Sir : Professional negotiations are now a significant foclor in Michigan Public Schools. Signed agreements between local education associations and boards o f education have brought much controversy about requests made to the board o f education and how the request evolved. This study will attempt to answer the following questions : 1. How closely do local associations follow the prototype agreement published by the Michigan Education Association ( MEA) ? Whot group, the state or the local education association, Is Instrumental in evolving the requests mode to the board of education ? . 2. What are th e areas of conflict common to many school districts. ? 3. What are the major areas o f agreement and conflict between the local associations and local administrators in regard to the reasonableness of the Individual requests? 4. Do the refeirent groups perceive that the request is made primarily for instruction­ al Improvement or teacher w elfare ? The purpose of this study Is to determine what provisions are sought for the new master contract; to isolate areas of agreement and conflict; and to test perceptions of the respondents concern­ ing the Intent of the provisions. The Items are those which are currently being negotiated in the state of Michigan. The final analysis could be of great value toward meaningful negotiations and the resolution of conflict between local associations and boards of education to help identify major areas of conflict in the state. The investigation Is being completed with the cooperation of Michigan State University and will result in a doctoral dissertation. The findings could be made available to any interested groups or organizations. Responses will be kept in strictest confidence and no allusions will be mode to district names or particular areas o f the s ta te . Your cooperation In the completion of the questionnaire is essential. It is designed for completion in d»out fifteen ( 15 ) minutes. We urge you to complete the questionnaire and return It before June 1, 1968. Thank you for your assistance. Jon c . Rockhold Investigator ' --David C. SmWf College of Education Deportment of Administration and Higher Education Michigan State University APPENDIX F 13^ May 13, IWB Return to : Jon E* Rockhold 965 East Seventh Street Flint, Michigan 48503 Dear S ir : Professional negotiations are now a significant factor in Michigan Public Schools* Signed agreements between local education associations and boards o f education have brought much controversy about requests mode to the board of education and how the request evolved. This study w ill attempt to answer the following questions i 1* How closely do local associations follow the prototype agreement published by the M ichigan Education Association ( MEA) ? What group, the state or the local education au o ctatlo n . Is Instrumental In evolving th e requests made to the board of education ? . 2. What are the areas of conflict common to many school districts. ? 3. What a r t the major areas o f agreement and conflict betw een the local associations and local administrators In regard to the reasonableness o f the individual requests? 4. Do the referrent groups perceive that the request is mode primarily for instruction­ al improvement or teacher w elfare ? The purpose of this study Is to determine what provisions are sought for the new master controct; to isolate areas of agreement and conflict; and to test perceptions o f the respondents concern­ ing the Intent of the provisions. The items are those which are currently being negotiated In the state o f Michigan* The final analysts could be of great value toward meaningful negotiations and the resolution of conflict between local associations and boards o f education to help Identify major areas of conflict In the state. The investigation Is being completed with the cooperation of M ichigan State University ond will result in a doctoral dissertation* The findings could be mode av ailab le to any interested groups or organizations. Responses will be kept In strictest confidence ond no allusions w ill be mode to district names or particular areas o f the stotel Your cooperation In the completion o f the questionnaire Is essential. It is designed for completion In cbout fifteen ( 15 ) minutes. We urge you to complete the questionnaire and return It before June 1, 1968. Thank you for your assistance. Sincere I irT t. Rockhold Investigator ' ^Dovld C . Smmf College of Education Department of Administration and Higher Education Michigan State University APPENDIX G 136 REMINDER You recently received a copy of the enclosed questionnaire and were requested to complete and return it by June lf 1968* To date, the questionnaire has not been received* If you sent it in the last few days, please accept my thanks and disregard this reminder questionnaire* If you did not complete it, please complete this one* You may remember that the NASA Executive Council approved this study on May 15* 1968, by passing a unanimous resolution favoring the 3tudy. The effect of the resolution was that research in the area of negotiations was badly needed and that this study could be of value in helping to minimize conflict. Please complete and return this by June 21, 1968. It is essential this information is received. There appears to be no other practical way that such data can be collected. Thank you for your assistance. APPENDIX H 138 REMINDER You recently received a copy of the enclosed questionnaire and were requested to complete and return It. been received. To date, the questionnaire has not If It was sent in the last few days, please accept my thanks and destroy the enclosed. If not, we need your responses to these items. Both Mr. Northey and Mr. Patterson of the Michigan Education Association (MEA) have worked closely in the development of this project concerning the design, scope, and structure of the questionnaire. Your responses will be helpful to the MEA and the education profession in planning in the area of professional negotiations. The MEA has suggested that the president of the local associations would be the ones most knowledgeable about this area. You have worked with the proposals which have been prepared for submission to the board of education; therefore, your knowledge and opinions will be of great consequenco. Please, complete and return this to me by June 21. It is essential that this information is received as there is no other way that such data can be collected. Thank you for your assistance. APPENDIX I The investigator appeared before the Executive Committee of the Michigan Association of School Administrators to explain the nature and scope of this project. As a result of this explanation, this group unanimously approved the following resolution* Because of the problems arising through professional negoti­ ations and the lack of research in this area of study, this proposed study may be of significant value.