IN F O R M A T IO N TO USERS

This material was produced from a m icrofilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Pege(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You w ill find a
good image o f the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed
the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The m ajority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Departm ent, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE
received.

NOTE:

Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as

Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zaab Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

I

I

73-29,744
McCovNELL, Lawrence F., 1932A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING BY SCHOOL AEMINISTRATORS ON
THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS OF SELECTED
MIQIIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1973
Education, administration

U n iv e rs ity M icro film s, A XERQXCompany , A n n A rb o r, M ic h ig a n

A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF COLLECT I VE
B ARGAINING BY SCHOOL A D M I N I S T R A T O R S
ON THE M A NA G EM E NT FU N CT I O N S OF
S EL ECTED M I C H I G A N SCHOOL
DI STRICTS
By
L a wr e nc e F. M c Co n ne l l

A THESIS

Sub mitted to
M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the d e g r e e of
D O C T O R OF P H IL O S O P H Y
D epartment of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Higher Ed ucation
197 3

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF C OL L EC T I V E
B AR G A IN I NG BY SCHOOL A D M I N I S TR A TO R S
O N THE MANAGE M EN T FUNCTIONS OF
SELECTED MICHIGAN SCHOOL
DISTRICTS
By
Lawre nc e F, McConnell

The p r i m a r y pu r pose of this

study was to i n v e s t i ­

ga te the simil ar i ti e s and diffe r en c es
of school

superintendents,

in the pe rc eptions

secondary pr i nc i pa l s and

ele m en t a r y p r i n c i p a l s concerning the influence of a d m i n ­
is trative c o l l e c t i v e bargaining on the m a n a g e m e n t
fu nctions of M i c h i g a n school districts
l ec t iv e bargaining

is being practiced.

in w h i c h c o l ­
The m a n a g e m e n t

functions consid e re d in this study are di vi d ed into four
*
m a i n sections:
(1) Decisi on - ma k in g and Involvement;
(2) Accountability;

(3) Communications,

and

(4) Structure.

Met ho d ol o gy
The d a t a for this study were ob t ained from p r i n ­
c ip a ls and superintendents,

in f ou rteen M i c h i g a n public

school districts, wh o had personal ex p er i en c e w it h
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b argaining agreements.

All respondents

w e r e asked to answer fifty-one identical qu estions.

Lawrence F. McConnell
The s uperintendents were as ked to answer each q u e s t i o n
twice, once as it applied to el e me n ta r y principals and
agai n as it related to s e co ndary principals.

Responses

from each school d i strict w e r e treated separately
o rder to a s s u r e independence of the data.

in

The F test

was emp loyed to analyze the v a r i a b i l i t y of school mean
scores.
M a j o r Fi n di n gs
This study re veals that there is no significant
d if f er e nc e in the perceptions of elementary principals,
secondary principals and su p er in t en d en t s concerning the
effe cts of nego tiations o n the princi pa l 's d e c i s i o n ­
m ak i ng a u t h or i ty and i nv o lv e me nt in adminis t ra t iv e
decision,

his ac countability for the instructional

p ro g r a m and general m a n a g e m e n t of his assigned building
or his c o m m u n ic a ti o n to and
Further,

from the superintendent.

the da ta support the the ory that there are

no s i g n i f i c a n t differences

in the perceptions of the

p rincipals and super intendents c on c er n in g any ch a ng e
in structure of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e organi za t io n resulting
from m a n a g e m e n t bargaining.
R es p on s es related s p e c i f i c a l l y to ch anges
principal's
authority,

sy stem-wide r e s p o ns i bi l it i es ,
b u dg e t control,

in the

building

salary and benefits and

i nvolvement in preparation for and the process of
teacher neg otiations showed no pa t te r n of di v e r g e n c e

Lawrence F . McConnell
between pe r c e p t i o n s of e lementary princi p al s and secondary
principals,

nor secondary principals and superintendents.

The only c at e g o r y w hi c h showed any d i f f e r e n c e
perception of change,
ing,

in the

resulting from m a n a g e m e n t b a r g a i n ­

between the e l em e n t a r y princ ipals and s u pe r in t en d en t s

was the area of principals' salary and benefits.

The

elementary p ri n ci p a l s sa w the results of bargaining as
being s i g n i f i c a n t l y mo re beneficial
cipals than did
however,

the superintendents.

is o n l y a m a tt e r of degree,

to e l e m e n t a r y p r i n ­
This difference,
as further a na l ys i s

of the d a t a re ve als that bo th c a te go r ie s v iewed the
effects as being positive.
All a d m i n i s t r a t o r ca t eg o ri e s perceived significant
changes in the m a n a g e m e n t functions of school d i s t r i c t s
as a result of a d mi n i s t r a t i v e bargaining and these changes
are in a p o s i t i v e d i r e c t i o n , indicating

inc reases or

improvements in the si t uation or c o n d i t i o n consi d er e d
in this study.

The s u pe r intendents and pr i nc i pa l s c o n ­

curred that signif ic a nt

increases had taken place in the

d eg r ee to w h i c h principals are held ac c o u n t a b l e for the
m a n a g e m e n t of their schools and staffs.

E lementary and

secondary p r i n c i p a l s agreed that there we re si g ni f ic a nt
changes

in the p r in c ip a l' s d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a u t h o r i t y and

i nvolvement in a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s as well as
structural ch an ges

in the a dm i n i s t r a t i v e organization.

Lawrence F. McConnell
Superintendents'

responses d i ffered when an s w e r ­

ing in r e lation to elementary princip a ls or secondary
principals.

Su perintendents perceived administrative

ba rgaining as resulting in an increase of inv olvement of
element a ry principals

in decision-making,

not per ceive this as resulting

w hi l e they did

in any s i g n i f ic a nt increase

in the secondary princi pa l' s involvement.

The sup erin­

tendents p e r c e i v e d the effectB of n egotiations by a d m i n ­
istrators as producing no structural ch a ng e as the
s up e rintendent relates to the second a ry principal,

but

as having a positive structural change as the s u pe r in ­
tendent and e lementary principal under s ta n d e a c h o t h e r ’s
role and position in the o rg a nizational structure.
Finally,

all categories of respondents agreed that

a dminis t ra t iv e bargaining produced no s i g n i f i c a n t change
in c o m m u n i c a t i o n bet ween and among the board of education,
s up e rintendent and principal.

E le m en t ar y and secondary

principals perceived an increase in i nvolvement in
de c i s i o n - m a k i n g

for themselves,

yet the superintendent

did not v i e w bargaining as affecting secondary pr incipals
this way.

Consequently,

superintendents

in the p erceptions of the

included in this study,

princ ip a ls realized m o r e benefits,
m ak i ng

elemen ta r y

in terms of d e c i s i o n ­

involv e me n t than did secondary principals.
Only secondary princ i pa l s see a significant

increase in their system-wide responsibilities.

Lawrence F. McConnell
S up e ri n te n de n ts did not perceive any signi ficant cha nge
for either secondary o r e l em e nt a ry p rincipals in this
category.

El ementary principals

saw no c h a n g e in their

role re lated to system-wide re sponsibilities.
gories o f respondents perceived signifi c an t

All c a t e ­

increases

in the p ri n c i p a l ' s authority to administer his building,
his invo lvement in b ud g et d e v e l o p m e n t and budget a d m i n ­
istration,
teachers'

and his s alary and benefits in r e l a t i o n to
salaries and benefits.

This latter category

showed the greatest d e g r e e of change,
cance l evels ranging from .001 to
In summary,
included

with the s i g n i f i ­

.01.

p ri n ci p al s and superi nt e nd e nt s

in this study generally concurred that a d m i n i s ­

trative c o l l e c ti v e bargaining did influence the m a n a g e m e n t
practices of the school distr i ct and that these c hanges
w er e for the better.
alike,

S up e ri n t e n d e n t s and principals,

s a w increases in the prin cipal's

a dm i n i s t r a t i v e decisions,

involve m en t in

as well as the d e g r e e to wh i c h

he is held accountable for his area of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
responsibility.
changes

Surprisingly,

the section d e a l i n g w it h

in c o mm unications among and b etween the s u p e r ­

intendent,

principal and board of e d u c a t i o n was the only

area for w h i c h no significant c h a n g e was p e r c e i v e d by
any c a t e g o r y of respondent.

A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF COLLEC TI V E
B ARGAINING BY S CH O OL AD M IN I S T R A T O R S
ON TH E M A NA G EM E NT FU NCTIONS OF
S EL ECTED M I C H I G A N SC HOOL
DISTRI CTS
By
L aw rence F. Mc C on n el l

A THESIS

Submitted to
M i c h i g a n State U ni v er s it y
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the d e g r e e of
D O C T O R OF P H IL O SO P HY
D epartment of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Higher Education
1973

AC KNO WLE DGM ENT S

Many persons have helped to make this d i s s e r t a t i o n
possible.
friend,

Dr.

Howard Hickey, m y c om mi t te e ch a ir m an and

has provided wi se counsel and valuable e n c o u r a g e ­

m en t throughout my studies.

The writer

is also

to Dr. Clyde Campbell who served as a constant
mo t i v a t i o n during my doctoral program.

indebted
source of

Acknowledgments

are also due to the Mott Foundation for p r o v i d i n g the
financial assis tance necessary for the writer t o complete
this project and to Mr. James Maas,

whose assistance

the statistical d ev e lo p me n t of this study was
Finally, my apprec ia t io n to my wife,
our six children,

in

invaluable.
Suzie,

and

w it h ou t wh o se constant understanding,

e n c o u r a ge m en t and pa tience this study would n o t
been possible.

ii

have

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I.

II.

Pa ge
ST ATEMENT OF T H E P R O B L E M .....................

1

Introduction ................................
P u r p o s e .....................
Scope and L i m i t a t i o n s .....................
Definition of T e r m s .........................
H y p o t h e s e s ...................................
Summary and Ov e rview
. . . . . . .

1
9
10
10
11
12

SELECTED REVI EW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E

.

.

.

.

14

Historical and Legal Background.
. . .
Negotiations Setting in the State of
M i c h i g a n ................................
The Principal and Teacher N eg o t i a t i o n s
.
The Pr i nc i p a l - M a n a g e m e n t T e a m vs.
A dm i ni s tr a ti v e Negoti a ti o ns . . . .
S u m m a r y ....................................
III.

IV.

V.

DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ............................

14
20
26
35
43
45

Introduction ................................
Source of the D a t a .................
Instrum entation ............................
A n a l y s i s ....................................
S u m m a r y ....................................

45
45
48
91
92

ANALYSIS OF T H E D A T A .........................

94

Instrument A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ..................
Statistical Proce dure .....................
P r e s e n ta t io n and An a ly si s of Data . . .
Summary
. . . . .

^4
54
55
75

SUMMARY,

C ONCLUSIONS AND RECOM ME N DA T IO N S.

.

76

S u m m a r y ....................................
C o n c l u s i o n s ................................
Im plications of the S t u d y ..................
Recommendations for Future R e s e a r c h
.
.

76
78
86
87

iii

BI BL IOGRAPHY

.......................................

AP PENDICFS
Appendix
A.

List of M a n a g e m e n t F u n c t i o n s From VThich
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Statements Were Developed

B.

Cover Letter and Principals'

C.

S u pe r i n t e n d e n t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

Q u e s t io n na i re
.

.

.

.

LIST OF TABLES

F-tcst Results for the Di f fe r en c es in the
M e a n Scores of Elementary Princip a ls
and S u pe r in t en d en t s in Each of the Four
Sections and the Total Q u e s t io n na i re .

56

F-test Results for the D ifferences in the
Mean Scores of Elementary Princi p al s and
S ec o nd a ry P rincipals on Ea ch of the Four
S ubsect i on s and the Total Qu e st i on n ai r e .

57

F-test Re sults for the D i f f e re n ce s in the
Me an Scores of Se condary Principals and
S up e ri n te n de n ts on Each of the Four S ub ­
sections and the Total Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

58

F-tost Results for Eleme ntary Principals and
Secondary Principals' Res ponses on S ub ­
scales of Sect ion I C o nc e rn i ng Decision
M a k i n g and I n v o l v e m e n t ........................

59

F-test Results of Elementary Principals' and
Superintendents' Respon ses on Subscales of
Se ction I C o nc e rn i ng D e ci s i o n Making and
Involvement
...................................

GO

F-tcst Results of Secondary Principals' and
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ' Responses o n Subscale of
Section I C o nc e r n i n g D ec i si o n M a ki n g and
Involvement
. ................................

61

F-t e st Results for the D if f er e nc e from Three
of the M e a n Scores of El e me n ta r y Principals
on Ea ch of the Four Sections and the Total
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ...................................

62

F-test Results for the D i f f e r e n c e from Three
of the Mean Scores of Secondary Principals
on Ea ch of the Four Sections and the Total
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ...................................

63

v

ge
F-test Results for the Diffe rence from T h re e of
the M e a n Scores of Superintendents'
Responses as They Perceive Elementary
Principals on Each of the Four Sections
and the Total Questi o nn a ir e ..................

G3

F-test Results for the Difference from Three of
the M e a n Scores of Superintendents'
Res ponses as Th ey Per ceive Sec ondary
P rincipals on Each of the Four S u bsections
and the Total Questi o nn a ir e ..................

64

F-test Results for the Di fferences from Three
of the Mean Scores of Elementary Princ i pa l s
on Subscales of Section I, Decis io n -M a ki n g
and Involvement ................................

65

F -t e st Results for the Differe nce from T hr e e of
the M e a n Scores of Seco ndary P rincipals on
Subscales of Section I, De c is i on - Ma k in g
and Involvement ................................

65

F -t e st Results for the Differences from Three
of the Mean Scores of Superintendents'
Responses as the Qu e stionnaire Relates to
E lementary Principals on Subscalcs of
Sect ion I, De c is i on - Ma k in g and I nvolvement

.

66

F-test Results for the Differences from Three
of the Mea n Scores of S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s '
Respon ses as the Q ue s t i o n n a i r e Relates to
S ec o n d a r y Princ ipals on Subscales of
S ec t i o n I, D e ci s ion-Making and Involvement

.

66

F r e q u e n c y Distr ib u ti o n of Responses C on c er n i n g
G en eral Effects of Ad mi n i s t r a t i v e B a r g a i n ­
.....................
ing o n School Districts

68

F r e q u e n c y Distr ib u ti o n of Responses C on c er n in g
the P ra ctice of M a na g em e nt Team Principles .

69

Sta t em e nt s for Which Greater than 7 0 P er Cent
of E a c h Ca t egory of Respondents In dicated
No Ch a ng e .......................................

70

S t a t e m e n t s for W h i c h Gr eater than 50 P e r Cent
of E a c h Category of Re spondents Indicated
C h a n g e ..........................................

71

vi

Page

Table
19.

20.

21 .

22

.

-test Results of D i c h o t o m i z e d Data Relating
M e a n Score o f Responses to S t at ement 29
(Accountability) to M e a n Sc o re of
Re sponses to Statements 5, 7, 10, 11, 14
and 20 (Decision-Making and Involvement) .

72

-test Results of D i c h o t o m i z e d Da ta Relating
Mean Scores of Respon ses to St a tement 31
(Accountability) to M e a n S cores of
Re sponses to Statements 1, 2, 3, 4, 18
(Decision-Making and Involvement)

73

-test Results of D i c h o t o m i z e d Data Relating
Mean Scores of R e sp o ns e s to S t at e m e n t 50
(Structure) to Me a n S co r es of Responses
to Statements 6 and 8 (Decision-Making
and Involvement) and S t a t e m e n t 4 2 (Com­
munication) ....................................

74

-test Results of D i c h o t o m i z e d Da ta Relating
Mean Scores of Responses for S t at e m e n t 48
(Structure) to M e a n Score R e sp o ns e s for
Statements 38, 39 and 43 (Communications).

vii

CHAPTER I
S T A T E M E N T OF THE PR OB LEM
I nt r od u ct i on
In 1965 the M i c h i g a n State Legislature passed
Public Act 37 9, w h i c h es t ab l is h ed

the right of public

employees to c o l l e c t i v e l y bargain w i t h their e m p l o y e r s .
One significant c o n s e q u e n c e of this legislation has been
a redefinition of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among boards of
education,

superintendents,

nel and the instructional
sector.

ad mi n is t ra t iv e staff p e r s o n ­

staffs w i t h i n the public school

The advent of t e a c h e r co l le c ti v e bargaining w i t h

boards of education d i s r u p t e d the traditional role of
school administrators as being of f i c i a l spokesmen for
the interest of teachers.
teachers

By c o l l e c t i v e bargaining,

found a m e t h o d of repres e nt i ng themselves and

their interest d i r e c t l y to the board of education.
The first t h ru s t of teacher negotiations was
directed at salary and w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n improvements.
Once significant g ains
domains,

had been estab li s he d in those

such ha l lowed m a n a g e m e n t functions as teacher

assignments and transfers,

pupil

sup ervision and e v a l ­

uation became l e gi t i m a t e and frequent topics of

1

2

n e g o t i a t i o n between the teachers'

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and

the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the board of education.
S po k e s m e n for teacher unions

in M i c h i g a n have been

ve ry open in d ef ining their ultimate goal
trol over the educational system.

T h is o b j e c t i v e was the

t o p i c of a presen t at i on by Richard Neal,
tary,
Neal

as that of c o n ­

Executive Secre­

National A ss o ci a ti o n of Edu cational Negotiators.
p re d icted that teacher unions w o u l d

strive

trol of public e d uc a t io n by gaining c o n c e s s i o n s
local

boards

r egulat i on s ,

from

in such areas as a d m i n i s t r a t i v e rules and
th rough clauses d e fining m a i n t e n a n c e of

s t a n d a r d s and past practices,
c er t if i ca t io n ,
missals

for c o n ­

academic freedom,

transfer, evaluation,

teacher

promot io n s,

and r ecruitment practices.^
It beca me readily apparent that teachers'

and

dis­

demands

s u b s e q u e n t concessions made by the b oard at the

negotiating

table would encroach u p o n ar e as previously

c o n s i d e r e d e x c l u s iv e ly management p e r r o g a t i v e s .
A n d o r s o n views

Lester

the impact of teacher n e g o t i a t i o n s on

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s as follows:
A s a result of the end-run ma de by teachers, c o n ­
fusion was created within the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e staff
w i t h res pect to their authority and the role required
for their positions.
Board m e m b e r s and a dm i ni s tr a to r s

S p e e c h by Richard Neal, A nn u al Fa ll C o nf e r e n c e
of M i c h i g a n Negotiations Association, Pontiac, Michigan,
O c t o b e r 1 and 2, 197 0.

3

had not g e n e r a l l y a n ticipated their changing roles
under c o l l e c t i v e bargaining, and it was too late
to do it while b a r g a i n i n g was in s e s s i o n . 2
Teacher n e g o t i a t i o n s place the principal
position of isolation.

He was pr o hi b it e d by law from

serving with the teachers
for bargaining and

in a

in formulating

in m a n y

their d e m a n d s

instances he was not co nsulted

concerning the fo r m u l a t i o n of board of education b a r g a i n ­
ing positions,

p o l i c i e s and guidelines.

He, thus,

fre­

quently found himself r e s p o n s i b l e for the ad ministration
of a negotiated a g r e e m e n t over wh i ch he had no influence.
The not result,

in m a n y cases,

made at the n e g o t i a t i n g

was that conce ssions we re

tab le wh i ch influenced

function of the principal,

the

cither by re s tr i ct i ng his

authority to a d m i n i s t e r his building and/or changing his
scope of responsibility.

T he re s ultant reaction of the

principals was to se e k m e t h o d s
in the process of p o l i c y

to b ec o me more involved

formul a ti o n and d e cision m a k i n g

in policies w h i c h a f f e c t their p ro f es s io n al roles.
At the 1970 Nation a l A s s o c i a t i o n of Elementary
Sch ool Princi pals Convent i on ,

Joseph Formica,

Ex e cu t iv e

Secretary of the C o n n e c t i c u t E l em e nt a ry School Princi p al s
Association,

2

stated,

"School boards co n t i n u a l l y n e go t ia t e

Lester W. A nd e rs o n, "M an agement Team Con cept,"
M ic h ig a n School Board Journal, XVII (March, 1969), 7-9,
23 .

4

teac her demands wi thout consulting th e ir m i d d l e m a n a g e ­
men t personnel,

the principals,

and they u s u a l l y wind up

g i v i n g away the ki tchen sink.""*
The u n de rtone of this c o n v e n t i o n was that the
e l e m e n t a r y school

principal was not a c c e p t e d as a full

a dm i n i s t r a t o r b y either the local b o a r d or central
administrators.
ranged

Suggestions for s o lving this d i l e m m a

from demanding re presentation o n the board of

e d u c a t i o n negotia t in g teams, w h i c h d e v e l o p w r i t t e n ag r ee ­
m e n t s w i t h teacher organization,

to the e s ta b l i s h m e n t

of separate bar gaining units r e p r e s e n t i n g the interest
of m i d d l e m a n a g e m e n t exclusively.
As a re s ul t of his r es e a r c h in the field of p a r ­
t ic i pa t o r y management,

Murray Adams concludes:

In the e ducational hierarchy, the o f f i c e of the
principal w a s the first to be t h r e a t e n e d by teacher
contracts.
T he adversary r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n
teachers and ad ministrators w h i c h c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n ­
ing has fostered, bewilder and f r u s t r a t e principals.
Th ey p er c ei v e themselves as being suspect by their
staff and as being outside the c o t e r i e of the central
o ff i ce and the bargaining team for the board.
The
literat u re in this area from 1966 to the pr esent
emphas i ze s the principal as the "forgo t te n man" or
the "man in the middle."
This c h a n g e in the c o l l e c ­
tive attitu d e of teachers c r e a t e d a g ro w i n g concern
among principals that the ri ght of t ea chers to
n eg o tiate wages, hours and w o r k i n g c o nd i t i o n s was
e roding their authority and was forcing them to
o pe r a t e w i t h a h a nd i c a p . 4
3

XVI

Eric Rhodes,
(August 1, 1970),
4

e d ., E du c at o rs N e g o t i a t i n g Service,
3.

M ur r ay Adams, "A House D i v i d e d , " M i c h i g a n
Scho ol Board J o u r n a l , XVIII (July, 1971), 21-22, 2f5.

5
To r e l i e v e

the "man in the m iddle"

movements d e v e l o p e d w i t h i n school d i st r i c t s
of Michigan.

O n e was

syndrome,

two

in the state

the organization of school a d m i n i s ­

trators into c o l l e c t i v e bargaining units.

T h e legality

of such an o r g a n i z a t i o n was established by m e a n s of the
Hillsdale c a s e

in 1968.

In this case,

the M i c h i g a n

Employment R e l a t i o n s Commission ruled that s c ho o l s u p e r ­
visors and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s below the p o s i t i o n of s u p e r ­
intendent h a v e
units.

the right to organize and f o r m bargai n in g

This d e c i s i o n was appealed to the M i c h i g a n Ap pellant

Court which u p h e l d

the decision of the C o m m i s s i o n .

5

The f i r s t M i c h i g a n school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o r g a n i ­
zation was o f f i c i a l l y recognized in J a n u a r y of 1969
Lakeshore S c h o o l District.

in the

At the time of this writing,

there are t h i r t y - f o u r M ic h i g a n school d i s t r i c t s

in w hi c h

a dministrative b argaining units have been o f f i c i a l l y
recognized b y

their boards of education.^

The c o n c u r r e n t movement,
involvement of

fostering v o l u n t a r y

all administrators in d e c i s i o n s aff ecting

5
D e c i s i o n and Order in the M a tt e r of H i ll s d a l e
Community S c h o o l s (employer) and Hi llsdale C o m m u n i t y
School P r i n c i p a l s and Supervisory A s s o c i a t i o n (petitioner)
and the M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n Association (special interv e n o r ) (December, 1968).
^ E d w a r d Keller, Executive S e c r e t a r y of M i c h i g a n
Association o f Elementary School Principals, pe r so n al
interview (October 5, 1972).

6
them, was termed

the M a n a g e m e n t Te am Concept.

Adams

defines this co n ce p t as f o l l o w s :
Involvement of subordinates in the d e c i s i on - ma k in g
process in m a t t e r s w h i c h affect them, a formal
or ganizational s t ru c tu r e which provides an avenue
for subordinates to participate in the re s ol u t i o n
of problems c o n f r o n t i n g management, free and open
c ommuni c at i on am o ng subordinates and w i t h their
superiors, and ac c ou n ta b il i ty of sub ordinates by
giving them c o ntrol over the factors w h i c h c o n ­
tribute to the o p e r a t i o n of their programs.?
In February,

1971,

the M i ch i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of

School A d mi n i s t r a t o r s publication.

R e f l e c t i o n s , c a rr i ed

a front page a n n o u n c e m e n t of statewide me e ti n gs s p on s or e d
jointly by the M i c h i g a n Association of School

Boards

(MASB), M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s
(MASA), M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of Secondary School P r i n c i ­
pals

(MASSP), M i c h i g a n As s oc i at i on of Elementary School

Principals

(MAESP)

and M ic h i g a n Congress of Scho ol

Administrators

(MCSA).

The purpose of these m e e t i n g s

was to discuss

the pros and cons of team m a n a g e m e n t

versus a d m i n i s t r a t i v e negotiations.
stated the p r o b l e m as

This p u b l i c a t i o n

follows:

Each school board faces an important q u e s t i o n r e l a ­
tive to the m a n a g e m e n t function of the district.
That question, s i mp l y stated, is "do w e want to
operate as a m a n a g e m e n t team w h ic h includes all
a dm i nistrators in the local de c is i o n - m a k i n g pr ocess

7

Mur r ay Adams, "A Study of the P e r c e p t i o n s of
Elementary P rincipals, Secondary Princi pals and S u p e r i n ­
tendents w i t h R e sp e ct to the Practice of the M a n a g e m e n t
Team Concept" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. U n i v e r s i t y
of Michigan, 1971), p. 15.

7
to include policy and p r o c e d u r e s and s a l a r i e s , or
are these decisions to be ne go t ia t ed w i t h the
g
a dm i nistrative staff across the b a r g a i n i n g table?"
In an effort to ascertain w h y the M a n a g e m e n t Team
Concept was accepted as a suitable me t ho d of involvement
for some administrators, w h i l e n e g o t i a t i o n s were pursued
by other administrators;

and

further to d e t e r m i n e

negotiations by ad ministrators and
M anagem e nt Te am C oncept were

p a r t i c ip a ti o n

in conflict,

of successful

intensive

to ide ntify attrib u te s

school m a n a g e m e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n s and to

identify circumstances

surrounding

the i nc r ea s in g u t i l i ­

zation of formal negotiations by e d u c a t i o n a l
trators,

in the

the Ethics and

Manage m en t Relations C o m m i t t e e of M A S B held
meetings for the p u rpose of trying

if

adminis­

Practicing educational ad m in istrators,

uni­

vers ity specialists and private s e ct o r m a n a g e m e n t
personnel

served as resource

The committee found
reasons cited
to organize
1.
2.
3.

people to the committee.
that the four mo s t c o m m o n

for administrators c o n s i d e r i n g

it ne c es s ar y

to bargain c o l l e c t i v e l y were:

The unilateral behavior of the top a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
leadership.
Lack of meaningful in v o l v e m e n t in d e c i s i o n making.
The relative success teachers have e x p e r ie n ce d
in improving their s a l a r i e s and w o r k i n g c o n ­
ditions .

g

Michiga n A s s o c i a t i o n of Scliool Admini st r at o rs ,
R e f l e c t i o n s , February, 1971.

8
4.

The lack of a signifi ca n t voice in ma t te r s of
t h e i r own p r of e ss i on a l d e s t i n y . ^
T h r e e of these four reasons rela te to lack of

involvement,

yet the c o m m i t t e e reported that some a d m i n ­

i st r at o rs co n cl u de d that their o rg a ni z at i on

into

n e g o t i a t i n g units removed them still further from the
administrative decision-making p r o c e s s .
In the r es earch co nducted by M u r r a y Adams relative
to the p e rc e pt i on s of the superintendent,
p ri n c i p a l

secondary

and e le m en t ar y principal c o nc e rn i ng the p e r ­

c e p t i o n of e a c h about the d e g r e e of i n v o l v e me n t of the
p ri n c i p a l

in m a n a g e m e n t

endorsement

functions,

he found that the

to the concept of a m a n a g e m e n t team by ma ny

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s has been m o r e of a v er b al committ m en t
than actual

practice.

The extent to w h i c h p ri n ci p al s

p e r c e i v e their involvement is s ig n i f i c a n t l y less than
the superintendents'
involvement.^

p e r c e p t i o n of the principals'

Adams'

study d ea lt w i t h those di stricts

r e p o r t e d l y p racticing the M a n a g e m e n t T e a m Concept.
Considering

the two studies,

A da m s co ncluded that

the M a n a g e m e n t T e a m C o n c e p t does not n e c e s s a r i l y satisfy
t he pri ncipals'

p e r c e iv e d need of involvement,

and the

g

C.
Keith Groty and Dav id C. Smith, "Approaches
to a M a n a g e m e n t T e a m — A Report of the Ethics and M a n a g e ­
m e n t R e l a t i o n s C o m m i t t e e of M ASB," M i c h i g a n School Board
Journal, XVII, No. 7 (September, 197 0) , 8^ W.
^Adams,

"Study of P er ce p t i o n s , "

0 £.

c i t ., p.

21.

9
M A S B survey indicated that the foremost reason for
a dm i nistrators organizing

into co l le c t i v e bargaining

units was to affect their involvement in decis i on s w h i c h
influence their role,

r esponsibilities and authority.

There is therefore a need

to examine the influence c o l ­

lective barga ining by admini st ra t or s has had on the
invo lvement of principals in m a n a g e m e n t decisions and
the impact such organization has had upon c o m m u n i c a t i o n s ,
structure and principal ac countability w i t h i n the total
m an a ge m en t staff.

Further,

there is a need

to examine

the c o m p a t a b i l i t y of a d mi n i s t r a t i v e c ollective bargai ni n g
and the practice of the M an a ge m en t T e am Concept.
Purpose
This study is d e si g n e d to m e a s u r e the s i mi l ar i ti e s
and d i f f e r e n c e s in the perception of school s u p e r i n t e n ­
dents,

secondary principals and e l e m e n t a r y princi p al s

con c er n in g the influence of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e bargain i ng
on the
pals

involvement of secondary and e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i ­

in the m a na g em e nt

publ ic school districts
ing is being practiced.

function of selected M i c h i g a n
in w h i c h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b a r g a i n ­
The m a n a g e m e n t

functions c o n ­

sidered are d i vi d ed into four m ajor areas:

(1) D e c i s i o n ­

m a k i n g and Involvement;

(3) C o m ­

m u n i c a t i o n s and

(2) Accountability;

(4) Structure.

10

S cope and Limitations
The study includes on ly those
part of the m a n a g e m e n t

items d e em e d

function of school a d m i n is t ra t or s

as identified by M u r r a y A dams

in a survey of r e p r e s e n t a ­

tives of the following organi zations:
MCSA, MSBA, M A S A .

to be

MASSP, M A E S P ,

The list of m a n a g e m e n t

functions is

not nece ssarily i n c l u s i v e , ^
All school d i s t r i c t s w h i c h qualified ac cording
to the criteria e s t a b l i s h e d

arc included

in the study.

The validity of the findings r e s t upon the accur ac y of
those included to recall levels of

involvement in m a n a g e ­

ment functions pr i or to the adve nt of b a rg a in i ng and
their assessment of the influ e nc e of bargaining as d i s ­
tinguished from other u n a c c o u n t e d for influences.
This study does not

include a dm i ni s tr a to r s

involved in the m a n a g e m e n t of school districts,

other

than the s up e rintendent and principals.
D e f i n i t i o n of Terms
M a n a g e m e n t Team C o n c e p t .— Invol vement of s u b o r d i ­
nates in the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r oc e ss

in m a t t e r s w hi c h

affect them,

structure w h i c h

a formal o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

provides an a v en u e for s u b o r d i na t es to pa r t i c i p a t e

in

the resolution of p r oblems c o n f r o n t i n g ma nagement,

free

and open c o m m u n i ca t io n among subor d in a te s and w i t h their

^Adams,

"Study of Pe r ceptions," o£>. c i t . , p.

130.

11
superiors and a c co u nt a bi l it y of sub ordinates by giving
them control over the factors w h i c h contr ib u te to the
o pe r a t i o n of their programs.
Middle M a n a g e m e n t .— A d m i n i s t r a t i v e or supervisory
p ersonnel ex cluding the s u pe ri n te n de n t and

the assistant

superintendents.
P e r c e p t i o n .— An intuitive c o g n a t i o n or

judgment.

Secondary School P r i n c i p a l .— A d mi n i s t r a t i v e head
of a school

building or complex to which

or all grades

5 through 12, exclusively,

students in any
are assigned.

Hlementary School P r i n c i p a l .--Admin i st r at i ve

head

of a school buil ding or complex to w h i c h s t udent in any
or all of grades k i n d e r ga r te n t hr o ug h 6, exclusively,
are assigned.
Hypotheses
This study will test four primary hypotheses:
Hyp o th e si s A :
There is no significant d i f f e r e n c e in the perceptions
of elementary school pr i nc i p a l s as c o mp a r e d to the
p er c ep t io n s of the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of s ch ools w it h
respect to the influence of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e collec tive
b ar g ai n in g on ma n a g e m e n t functions.

12
Hypothesis

D:

There is no si g ni f ic a nt d i f f e r e n c e in the perce pt i on s
of the e le m en t a r y school pr i n c i p a l s as compared to
the perceptions of the secondary school principals
w i t h respect to the influence of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
collective b a r g a i n i n g on m a n a g e m e n t functions.
Hypothesis C :
There is no s ig n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in the p e r c e p t io n s
of the se condary school principals as c o mp a re d to the
perceptions o f the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of schools wi th
respect to the influence of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e co l le c ti v e
bargaining o n m a n a g e m e n t functions.
Hypothesis D :
The process o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o l l e c t i v e barga ining
has had no s i g n i f i c a n t effect u p on m a n a g e m e n t
functions as p er c eived by s u p e r i nt e nd e nt s and
school principals.
S um m ar y and O v e r v i e w
The influence of the formation of a d m i n i s tr a ti v e
bargai n in g units on the m a n a g e m e n t of school di s tr i ct s
is a m at t er of concern,

not only to boards of education,

but also to m i d d l e m a n a g e m e n t pe rsonnel
units.

The need

for s u c h o r g a n i z a t i o n

as a result of la ck of

included

in su ch

is said to d ev e l o p

i nv o l v e m e n t of ad m in i s t r a t o r s in

de cisions which i nf l u e n c e them and their roles wi thin
the organization.
The w r i t e r will a tt e m p t to a sc e rtain w h et h e r
the process of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b argaining has affected
the involvement of and c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h a dm i n i s t r a t o r s
w i t h i n bargaining units.

13
T h e review of the literature will
historical

inves tigate the

and legal d e v e l o p m e n t s of c ol l ec t iv e bargaining

in the field of public education.

The review will

further

investigate the effects of teacher n e g o t i a t i o n s on the
role,

r e sp o ns i b i l i t i e s and au t hority of the pr incipal.

And finally the wr i te r will e xplore
cerning

the litera tu r e c o n ­

two possible o p ti o ns o p e n to p r i n c i p a l s — m a n a g e ­

men t team p a r t i c i pa t io n or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e bargaining.
T h e remaining chapte r s will d e s c r i b e the de sign
of the s t u d y and p re s en t and an alyze the data.
will be followed

by the c o nc l ud i ng c h a p t e r

a summary of the findings,
will be made.

This

in w h i c h

r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s and c o nc l us i on s

CH APTER II
SELECTED R E V I E W OF T H E LITER ATURE

This is a selected review of the
related to collective bargaining
cation.

in the

literature
field o f e d u ­

The first section p re sents a b ri e f historical

and legal

background of the development of collect i ve

bargaining,

first in the private

public sector.

The second

gence of bargaining

sector and then

in the

section focuses on the e m e r ­

in the state of Michigan, w i t h p a r ­

ticular focus on the formation o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b a r g a i n ­
ing units.

The following sections summarize the cu rrent

research and literature on the effects of
ing on the role of the principal

and the

teacher b a r g a i n ­
fa ctors w h i c h

foster the management tea m a p proach to a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
of school districts as opposed to

the f or m at i on of

ad ministrative collective bargaining.
Historical and Legal Background
By the year 1932, most co u rt s had

a cc epted the

vi ew that employees in the private sector could co m b i n e
for purposes of negotiating.

The employer,

however,

had the right to fire an employee for joining a union.

14

15
Further,

the courts

such as boycotts,

tended to rule that u n io n tactics

strikes or even p i ck eting were

illegal.^

In that year, p a ssage of the N or r is - La G ua d ia Act
reflected a laissez-faire philosophy on the part of the
federal govern m en t concerning employment relations
the private sector.

in

The m a i n effect of this act was to

d ep r iv e the federal courts of jur isdiction in m o s t

labor

d i s p u t e s .2
In the following year

(1933)

the National Industrial Recovery A c t
to cope w i t h the great depr ession.

the C on gress passed
(NIRA)

in an effort

Section 7

(a) of the

Act included a forthright endorse m en t of c o l l e c t i v e
bargaining,

but it contained no ef f ec t iv e pe n alties

for noncompliance.

The National Labor Board,

established

to sett le disputes,

had little effect because it had no

a ut h ority to pe n alize employers for unfair labor pract i c c s .3
The period

of 193 2 through 193 5 was on e m a rked

by intense industrial c o nflict and instability in

^Myron L ie b erman and Mi c ha e l 11. Moscow, C o ll e c t i v e
N egotiations for Teachers:
An A p p r o a c h to School A d m i n is tration (C h i c a g o : Rand McNally & C o . , 1966')', pT 65.
2 I b i d ., p . 66 .
3

Herbert R. Northrup and G o r d o n F. Bloom, Governm e n t and Labor (Homewood, 111.:
Richard D. Irwin, 1963),
p p . 46-47.

16
l ab o r - m a n a g o m e n t relations.

It was

in this setting that

the National L a b o r Relations Act, m o r e c om m on l y known as
the Wa gn er Act,

was passed by Congress

in 1935.

The

W agner Act is co n s i d e r e d to be one of the most s i g n i f i ­
cant labor laws ever enacted

in the United States.

A c c o r d i n g to L i c b o r m a n and Moscow,
Congress'

p a s s a g e of this a c t

said that,

4

in effect

because of the

g reat d i s p a r i t y of power b e t w e e n the individual employee
and his employer,
neutral b e tween

government

them.

to limit employers'

could no longer remain

C o ngress c o n s i d e r e d

it necessary

rights to oppose the emplo yee's

o r g a n i z a t i o n into bargaining units.

The W agner Act

strongly encouraged c o l l e c t i v e bar gaining and c o n s t i ­
tuted a fundamental turning
cerning

labor relations.

point in public policy c o n ­

In legal

rights ac c orded employees u n d e r
new;

however,

theory, ma n y of the

the W a gner Act were not

this A c t provided enforc em e nt of the

e mp loyee righ ts by a p p r o p r i a t e a d m i n i st r at i ve m e a s u r e s
and legal

sanctions.

An other area of contro ve r sy

settled was t h a t of right to representation.

El e ct i on

of employee r ep r e s e n t a t i o n r ep laced the strike as a
5
d ev i ce for g a i n i n g r e c o g n i t i o n by the employee.

4

L i e b e r m a n and Moscow,

J Ibid.,

pp.

68-7 0.

oja. c i t . , p.

69.

17

By 1947

the public attitude and that of Congress

toward unions had changed considerably.

There had

developed a w i d es p re a d con cern that the balance of power
had swung too far

in the unions'

this p u bl i c concern,
Act in June,

favor.

As a result of

Co ngress passed the Taft Hartley

1947, which,

limiting union influence,

along w i t h other provisions
guaranteed em ployees the right

to refrain from union pa rticipation.

The T a f t - H ar t lc y

Act was designed to protect the individual employee and
union member

from certain union p r ac tices and to shift

the balance of pow er be tw een u n i o n and employer to a
more equitable divis io n of power.
The legisl a ti o n cited has applied to individuals
and o r g a n i z at i on s associated w i t h inters t at e commerce.
Since school boar ds are su bd ivisions of state government,
school employees are em ployees of a po l itical subdivision
of the state.

Consequently,

school em ployees are

excluded from the c ov e ra g e of this F e deral
However,

legislation.

the d e v e l o p m e n t of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining

in the

p rivate sector has had a sign ificant in f lu e nc e on b a r g a i n ­
ing in the public sector.
The idea that public em p loyees should
same rights to ba rgain for their wages,

have the

hours and w o r k ­

ing conditions has just r e ce n t l y become an accepted fact.
P robably the g r e a t e s t st i mulant to tlie formation of

18
public employee bargaining resulted from Executive Order
10988,

issued by President Kennedy on J a nuary 17,

1962.

This order was a result of the report of a
special task force appointed to study and make r e c o m ­
m endations w i t h regard to e mp l oy e e- m an a ge m cn t r e l a t i o n ­
ships in the federal service.
A cc o r d i n g to W i l l i a m B. Voslou,

this or d er was

the first g o v e r n m e n t - w i d e official policy on colle ctive
e mp loyee representation.

It spelled out clearly the

right of e m pl oyees to organize,

to have their o r g a n i ­

zation accorded official recognition and, u n de r specific
conditions,

to negotiate agreements w i t h agency m a n a g e ­

m e n t on w orking conditions.^
Isolated examp le s of public e m p l o y e e barga ining
ag reements existed pri or to the 1960's.
the city of P hi l a d e l p h i a had entered

As early as 1937

into a bilateral

ag reement w i t h a labor organi z at i on re p r e s e n t i n g

its

7

employees.

Other govern m en t al units could be cited

w h i c h had d ev e loped b argaining p ro c ed u re s w i t h em ployee
groups before the I 9 6 0 * s.

However,

in 1960 not one state

had authorized c o l l e c t i v e negotiations
cat i on by statute.

in public e du ­

Because of E x ec u ti v e Order 10988

^Wi lliam B. Voslou, C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining in the
U.S. Federal Service (Chicago^ 1 1 1 . : Public Personnel
Assn. , 1966) , p"I 2~.
7

L ie b er m an and Moscow,

oj>. c i t . , p. 84.

19
and the su b se q ue n t press by public em ployee g r o u p s to
be r e co g ni z ed

for bargaining p u r p o s e s , collec ti v e b a r g a i n ­

ing began to arrive de

facto,

if not de jure,

and state

legi slatures began the process of legalizing p u b l i c
n e g o t i a ti o ns

by passage of acts d ef ining the r e la t io n g

sh ip of e m p l o y e e o r ganizations to school boards.
By 1 9 6 6 legislative a u th o ri t y permitting or
requiring c ollective n e g o t i a t i o n s had been i nt r od u ce d
one - third of

the states,

po pulated ones.

9

including m o s t of the h ea v il y

In s o m e instances

separate statutes

reg u l a t e d b o a r d s of e d u c a t i o n — school
a ti o ns exclusively,
Rhode I s l a n d .
consin,

as

in

employee n e g o t i ­

in the states of Co n n e c t i c u t and

In other cases

such as M ic higan and W i s ­

s c hool employees are co vered by broad l e g i s l a t i o n

regulating all state and local public employment.*'®

Thus,

a bo dy of laws governing public employee b a rg a in i ng
b e g a n to b u i l d up w h i c h paralleled the early d e v e l o p m e n t s
leading to the Wagner A ct of 1935 and the T a f t - H a r t l e y
Act

in 1947,

w hich w e r e the f ou n da t i o n for the r e c o g ­

n i t i o n of u n i o n s in the private sector.
Q

E d w a r d B. S h i l s and Taylor C. Whittier, T e a c h e r s ,
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining tNew Yorlcl
T h o m a s Y. C r o w e l l Company, 1968), p . 5T7
9
L i e b e r m a n and Moscow,

0 £.

c i t . , p.

387 .

*"®Arvid Anderson, "State Reg ulation of E m pl o ym e nt
Reg u la t io n s in Education," in Re a di n g s on C o l l e c t i v e
N e g o t i a t i o n s in Public Education, ed. by S t a n l e y E l a m ,
M y r o n Lieberman, and Micliael M o s c o w CEnglewood Cliffs,
N.J.:
P r e n t i c e Hall, Inc., 1968), Ch. 1 and 11, pp. 10312.

20
Negoti a ti o ns Se tting in the
State of Michigan
In the state of 7-lichigan, the Hutchi ns o n Act of
1947 set the guidelines,

statutes and m a ch i n e r y for

collective bargai ni n g in the private sector and public
utilities.

Public Act 379,

passed

in 1965, am en ded the

H utchinson Act and extended the rights of pub lic employees
to organize

for the purpose of c o l l e c t i v e negotiations.

This act placed a m a nd a te u p o n public employers

to

recognize e m ployee bargain in g units and to en ter into
collective negoti at i on s at the request of a d u l y organized
unit.
The result of Act 379 in M i c h i g a n was an immediate
response by public employees,
schools,

to organize.

partic u la r ly

According

Labor M e d i a t i o n Board Report,

in public

to a Mi c higan State

a p p r o x im a te l y 99 per cent

of the pu b li c ed ucation em ployers voted to o r ga n iz e
collec t iv e bargaining units subsequ e nt to p a ssage of
PA379.

This number was reportedly d o ub l e the vo te for

the private e mployment sector of our w or k i n g p o p u l a t i o n .^
The q u e s t i o n of unit d e t e r m i n a t i o n and co m mu n it y
of interest quic kly became an issue in Michigan,

as it

did in o t h e r states following the e n a c t m e n t of public

Robert Pisasski, m ember of M i ch i g a n State Labor
M e d i a t i o n Board, in a speech given to the Oa k la n d County
School Board Association, at Bloomf i el d Hills, Michigan,
March, 1966.

21
empl oyee bargaining

legislation.

question,

according

to Lieberman

inclusion

Cor exclusion)

trative personnel.
hurdle,

The most di f fi c ul t
12

was the qu e stion of

of various levels of a d m i n i s ­

This was

in no w a y an unexpected

as unit de t erminations outs ide ed ucation are

also characterized by m u c h controversy.
Act u al unit d e te r minations concern i ng a d m i n i s ­
trators vary.
exist.

Three major sources of unit d e te r m i n a t i o n

They are St a te laws,

Relations Boards and

State Employ m en t and Labor

school boards.

In Oregon and Washington,

13

admini s tr a ti v e

personnel arc included by law and there is no a l t e r n a ­
tive except

individual representation

(in O r e g o n ) , w h i l e

in Co n ne c ti c ut the u ni t includes e ve r y o n e below the rank
of superintendent,

but a majori t y of the pe r so n ne l voting

in either the teacher-special service category,
adm i ni s tr a ti v e- s up e rv i so r y category,
trative personnel

or the

can require a d m i n i s ­

to be excluded from the basic teacher

unit.
In Massachusetts,

Mi c hi g an and Wisconsin,

unit

det e rm i na t io n s are m a d e by the state labor relations
boards.

Th e W i sc o ns i n Employment Re l ations Board

CWERB)

has included teaching princ ipals in a n e g o t i a t i n g unit

12 Lieberman and Moscow,
^ ^ I b i d ., pp.

158-61.

oj}, c i t . , p. 154.

22

of c l a s s r o o m teache rs if the principal was
teaching

50 per cent of his time.

inv olved

Principals,

in

assistant

principals and other a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and ad v is o r y p e r s o n ­
nel were e xc luded from b a r g a i n i n g units of c l a s s r o o m
teachers.
School board d e t e r m i n a t i o n s vary widely.
instances,

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s have b e e n included in the

bargaining unit,
school board.

when t he d e t e r m i n a t i o n was m a d e by the

However,

superseded by law.

s u ch r u l i n g s have since been

W h e r e ou tside sources,

relations experts and attorneys,
boards,

In some

such as labor

have been used by school

d e te r minations h a v e u s u a l l y excluded a d m i n i s t r a ­

tive personnel

in teachers'

In Michigan,

bargai ning units.

t he Public E mp l oy m en t R e la t io n s Act

(PERA) does not speci f ic a ll y e x c l u d e indiv iduals em p lo y ed
as execu tives or supervisors from its coverage.
partic u la r sections of P E R A incorporate,
provisions of the Labor
(LRMA).

The L R M A docs

sp e c i f i c a l l y ex clude indivi d ua l s
supervisors from its co verage.

of LRMA d e f i n e s e mp l o y e e for pu r p o s e s of

this act to include:

"— any e m p l o y e e - - b u t shall not

include any individual employed
supervisor.

by reference,

R e la t io n s and M e d i a t i o n Act

employed as executives or
Sect ion 2(e)

However,

as an e x e c u t i v e or

„ 14

^ R e s e a r c h C o m m i t t e e of the M i c h i g a n C o n g r e s s of
School Administrators, A Survey of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e B a r g a i n ­
ing Un i ts in Michigan P ub l ic Schools^ S e p t e m b e r , 1971,

p. 1.

23
The q ue stion of the legality of school a d m i n i s ­
trators in M ic higan o rganizing

to b ar g ai n centered around

the r e la t io n sh i p of the LRMA as it relates to the PERA.
Those who opposed admini s tr at i ve bargaining m a i n t a i n e d
that,

when the two acts are read

istrative bargaining

in c onjunction,

admin­

is c l early p r o h i b i t e d .

The co n fl i ct emerges from the r e l a ti o ns h ip of
section 13 PERA and Section 9(e)

of LRMA.

S ec t io n 13

(PERA) p ro v i d e s in part:
The board shall de c id e in e a c h case, in o rd e r to
insure public employees the full be n ef i t of their
right to self-orga nization, to c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n ­
ing and o t he r w i s e to ef f ec t ua t e the p ol icies of
this act, the unit a p pr o pr i at e for the p ur p o s e s of
c ol l ec t iv e bargaining as provided in S ec t io n 9 of
Act 176 of the Public Ac ts of 1939.15
Se ct ion 9(e)

of LRMA in part provides;

The board, after consul ta t io n w i t h the parties, shall
d et e rm i ne su ch a barga in i ng un it as will be s t secure
to the em p loyees their right of c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n ­
ing.
The un it shall be eith er the employ e es of one
employe r e mp l o y e d in one plant or business e nt e rp r is e
w ithin this state not holding e xe c ut i ve or s u p e r ­
viso ry positions, or a craft unit, or a p l an t unit,
or a s ubdivision of the foregoing units . . . 16
It is the express i n co r p o r a t i o n of S ec t i o n 9(c)
of LRMA into PERA w h i c h caused the conflict.
Th e S a g i n a w County Road Commission,
Op inion 196,

1967 L a b o r

first d e a l t w it h the issue of the right of

s upervisory pe r sonnel

in the public sector to bargain.

T h e M ic h ig a n L ab o r M e di a t i o n Board held that a b a rg a in i ng

1 5 I b i d ., p.

2.

24

unit of foremen employed by the Saginaw County Road C o m ­
m is s io n was an a ppropriate collective bar gaining unit
en titled to all benefits provid e d by the PERA.
The issue of the right of school administrators
to bar gain co l le c ti v el y was tested when the Hillsdale
Com m un i ty S c hools Pr incipals and Supe rvisory A s s o c i a t i o n
(PSA) pe t it i on e d the Board for a recog ni t io n el e ction for
a unit composed of the f o l l o w i n g :
High school, junior high and eleme n ta r y principals,
c ur r ic u lu m coordinator, reading coordinator, ESS A
coordinator, c o o pe r at i ve educat ion coordinator, head
librarian and physical e d uc ation director; exclu d in g
teachers, superintendent, as sistant superintendent,
business m a na g er and all non-cer t if i ed employees.
The Hi llsdale Board of Education opposed the
p etition on the g ro u nd s that executive and supe rvisory
personnel have no rights to colle ct i ve l y b argain u n de r
PERA;

the proposed unit was

inappro priate be c au s e the

princip a ls super vised the staff specialists
posed unit;

and

in the p r o ­

since the PSA was af filiated wi t h the

M ic h ig a n Education A s s o c ia ti o n

(MEA), it would be an

in appropriate unit because the parent o r g a n i z a t i o n
r epresents

the teachers.

CMEA)

The Labor M e d i a t i o n Board

up he ld the earlier Sa ginaw Co u nt y Road Commis s io n
decision,
The
of

granting exclusive r e pr e se n ta t io n to PSA.

Board held that there existed a sufficient c o m m u n i t y
interest betw een staff specialists and the princip a ls

to c on s ti t ut e a bargaining unit.

^ I b i d ., p. 4.

25
This c a s e was appealed to the M i c h i g a n Court of
Appeals.

The Ap p e a l s C ou r t affirmed the B oard's e a r l i e r

d e c i s i o n allowing public supervi s or y e mp l oyees to b a r g a i n
collectively.
In a similar case before the MLRB,

the Board

held

that executive employees w e r e not included un d er the p r o ­
visions of PERA.

In its d e c i s i o n in City of De troit and

18
Governmental A c co u n t s and Analy s is A s s o c i a t i o n ,
the
Board held that

including executives

in c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining u n i t s would d e fe a t the pr imary purp ose of
PERA.

The Board held that executive e mp l oyees are so

in tr insically c on n ec t ed w i t h the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of p o l i c y
that

their e n ga g e m e n t in c o n c e r t e d ac t iv i ti e s could

damage,

not enhance,

in this decision,

the statut ory purpose.

cited a line of d e m a r c a t i o n b e tw e e n

"managerial e m pl o ye e s and employees who,
may be supervisory,
w h i c h affects

The Board,

a l th o u g h t h e y

arc not pr imarily c r e a t o r s of p o l i c y

the total activities of an emp loyer o r of

a m a j o r di v i s i o n or de p ar t me n t thereof.
As of this writing,

legi slation requiring or

p ermitting pu b l i c e m pl o ye e negoti a ti o ns has not y et
been enadted

in all states.

However,

the p r es s u r e

for

such laws is g r o w i n g as a result of the g a i n s in s a l a r y
and improved w or k in g conditions m a d e by teac hers
states where b argaining exists.
1Q
M L R B de c i s i o n 187,

The right of

1969.

in

26
administrators,
dent,

b e l o w the level of assist a nt s u p e r i n t e n ­

to ba r g a i n c o l l e c t i v e l y has also b e e n established

in those states permitting or requiring p ub l ic em p l o y e e
bargaining.

There are v ar i at i on s

adm i n i s t r a t i v e representation,
approval appears to be the

in the method of

but the m o s t common

formation of separate units

repr esenting m i dd l e m a n a g e m e n t a dm i n i s t r a t o r s exclusively.
T h e Principal and Te a c h e r Negotiations
M a n y of the c ol l ec t i v e b a rg a in i ng demands of
teachers can be satisfied o n l y th rough gaining a share
of the po wer now held by p ri nc i p a l s
trators.

and o t h e r ad minis-

. 19
A c c o r d in g to Benjamin Ep stein
most n e g o t i ­

ati ons in the first stage of de v e l o p m e n t and most a g r e e ­
me nts w h i c h emerged from initial ba r ga i n i n g were c o n c e r n e d
primarily or e x c l u s iv e ly w i t h salary p r o b l e m s and related
c om p e n s a t i o n
increments,
ment

for teachers.

They d e a l t w i t h salaries,

medical and hospital

insurance,

rate of p a y ­

for e x t r a assignments and o t h e r m o n e t a r y c o n s i d e r ­

ations.

But the second and third g e n e r a t i o n of tea cher

n e g o t i a t i o n s and a g re e me n ts were no longer so s imple or
n ar r ow in scope.

A g r e e m e n t s are n o w long and e l a b o r a t e

d oc u me n ts c ov ering a wide range of
funding pro cedures,

items

staff recruit ment,

such as school

s el e ct i on and

" ^B e n ja m in Epstein, "What Is N e gotiable," P r o ­
fessional Ne g o t i a t i o n s P am phlet No. 1 (Washington, D.C.:
National A s s o c i a t i o n of S e co n da r y ScTiool Principals,
1201 16th Street, N.W., 1969), pp. 3, 4.

27

placement,

curriculum,

supervision,

ev a lu a ti o n and s o m e ­

times even such intangible items as academic

freedom.

Such agreements have the ob vious e f f e c t of
diminishing a dm i nistrative p r e r o ga t iv e and d e t e r m i n a t i o n - narrow ing the range of the d ec i si o n- m ak i ng p o we r s of
administrators.
The thrust of teacher b argaining gr o up s has b ee n
m ad e clear by both the N at ional Education A s s o c i a t i o n
(NEA)

and the American F e d e r a t i o n of Teachers

The 1968

summer issue of

IDEA,

20

(AFT).

published by the K e t t e r ­

ing Foundation carried p ar a l l e l interviews w i t h NEA
spokesmen Allen West and AFT P re s ident Charles Cogen.
West presented the NEA p os i t i o n as follows:

"We take

a po s ition that everyt hing that affects the q u a l i t y of
edu c ation is negotiable."

He went on to st ate that

teachers would no longer be satisfied with p a r t i c i p a t i o n
in policy and c u rr i c u l u m d e v e l o p m e n t
tration selected teachers.

through a d m i n i s ­

T ea chers would d e t e r m i n e

their own spokesmen as a resu lt of b a r g a i n i n g .
voiced a similar position for the AFT.
"There is no limit to how far w e 111 go.

Cogen

He stated:
We c l a i m our

jurisdiction is as extensive as the total a r e a of e d u ­
cation ."

20

(Dayton,

IDEA,
Ohio),

P ublication of the Kettering Foundation,
Summer, 1968.

28
In a s pe e ch before the M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of
S econdary School Principals
1966,

held in Detroit,

December,

B en j a m i n Epstein said:

The e n ti r e re lationship between p r in cipal and staff
w hich has existed for m a n y years is being changed.
Principals h av e begun to be in co n f l i c t w i t h s u p e r ­
intendents and school boards, w h o they feel are too
easily permitting too m u c h of their (the principals')
needed au t ho r it y to be taken away from them during
negotiations in which s i m u l t a ne o us l y their (the
principals') r esponsibilities are being increased.
E pstein held that princ i pa l s

feel this co n fl i ct

chiefly b ecause they arc e x cl ud e d from the bargain i ng
process e v e n though the principals'

fu nctions and a c t i v i ­

ties were constantly a topic of negoti a ti o ns
board and

teachers.

be t we e n the

He s t a t e d as follows:

When repres entatives of teacher o r g a n i z a t i o n s sit at
the b a rg a in i ng table w i t h the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t and
m embers of the board of education, a c o n s i de r ab l e
p or t io n of items they d e a l with, im pinge upon, and
s eriously af f ec t the respo n si b il i ti e s, powers,
d ec i s i o n m aking functions, and po s si b ly al m os t
every pr e ro g at i ve that principals have in r e l a t i o n ­
ship to the staffs they are re q u i r e d to s u p e r v i s e . 2 2
Sh ils and Whittier

support Epstein's v ie w s on

the influence of teacher bargaining on the princip a l' s
role, a u th o ri t y and responsibility.

They c o n c l u d e the

following:

21

B enjamin Epstein, "A P ri n c i p a l Does Some S o ul Searching in the New Era o f C o l l e c t i v e N e go t ia t io n s, "
A speech given at the M A S S P Convention, Detroit, M i ch i ga n ,
December 1, 1966, p. 5.
^ ^ I b i d ., p . 6 .

29
Obviously, the principals' prerog a ti v es have been
u nder fire and gr a du a l l y whitt l ed do w n by teacher
negoti ations.
Too ma ny d i st r i c t s have ignored
p rincip a ls and have not permitted them to pa r ti c ip a te
or even to be consulted d ur i ng the process of
negotiations.
O f t e n principals are the last to
learn about wliat happened at the barga ining table.
T h e teache rs are better informed and d r o p into the
p r i n c i p al ' s of f ic e and tell him about their n ew
rights.
W i th o u t a de quate repres en t at i on of the
p ri n ci p al s on the negoti a ti n g team, items are
negotiated w h i c h m ig h t m a k e it impossible for the
p rincipal to do his job.23
Terrance Hatch,

24

is tration at U t a h State,
stating

P r of e ss o r of Educational A d m i n ­
supports the views of Epstein,

that the principal o pe rates

from a base w h i c h is

not legally legislated and on e w h i c h is some what p o w e r ­
less.

He m a i n t a in s that the pr incipal has been str ipped

of m u c h of his leadership ro le by central
and is removed

a dm i ni s tr a ti o n

from the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g center of the

school o p e r at i on as a result of n e g o t i a ti o ns conce s si o ns
made to teachers by boards of education.
In the same publication,
pal's

Luntz secs the p r i n c i ­

role in the c o m m u n i c a t i o n s n e tw o rk of the school

syst em weakened by negotiations.

His views are as

follows:
T he "leadership" role in the light of r e ality of the
d i s t r i b u t i o n of p o we r among the teachers, school
b oa r ds and superinte ndents, and the p r e s c r i b e d role

23
24

Shils and Whittier,

0 £.

c i t ., p.

534.

T er rance E. Hatch, "The P ri n c i p a l ' s Role in
C ol l ec t i v e N e go tiations," B u lletin of the N A S S P , LV,
No. 3 59 (December, 1971), 26-3 9.

30

of the principal in the school burcacracy, is an
unrea li s ti c one.
M a n y teachers realize that,
alt hough their buildi ng pr incipal functions in the
formal o r g a ni z at i on as the c o m m u ni c at i on s link in
the line between themselves and the central a d m i n ­
istration, they can m o r e readily achieve their
goals via the informal communications channels
m ai n ta i ne d among teacher o r g a n iz a ti o n leaders, chief
a dm i nistrators and board members.
This is especially
true in school d i s t r i ct s where, in their rush to
m o l l i f y teacher militancy, s up e rintendents ma i nt a in
an "opendoor" and board m em b e r s an "open telephone
line."
In situations where blat ant dy s f u n c t i o n of
the formal o r g a n i z a t i o n exists, teachers p er ceive
the principal as being in a p os ition to pr ov ide
only tentative decisions pe n di n g approval of
higher-ups, at best.
When such relationships exist,
teachers soon find it m o re fruitful to by-pass the
principal co m pl e t e l y - - o r engage in a m o c k and/or
courteous i n t e r a c t i o n .25
Taking the o p posite v i e w point,

L i eb erman and

M o s c o w di s agree that it is a goal of the teacher unions
to assume m an a ge m en t of school districts.

T h e y summarize

their op inion as follows:
Many a d m i n i st r at o rs and school boards have a
fear that teachers want to "take over the system,"
and that collect i ve n e g o t ia t io n s are the opening
w e d g e in this effort.
A l t h o u g h there m a y be i n d i ­
vidual teachers or o r g a n i z a t i o n leaders who have
this objective, this fear is us ually not warranted.
To the ex tent that a teacher o rg a ni z at i on
becomes involved in d a y - t o - d a y administration, it
is losing its reason for existence.
The organization
has a p ro t ec t iv e function.
That is, it is supposed
to ensure that c er tain ad m in i st r at i ve ac tions are
performed equitably and efficiently.
The organi­
zation cannot serve this protec ti v e function by
assuming these ad m in i s t r a t i v e r es p on s ib i li t ie s
itself.
If it does, who is then a v ai l ab l e to
ensu re that the or g a n i z a t i o n perf orms these
actions in the de s i r e d man ner?
It is n a i v e to
cont end th at the teac hers need an o r ga n iz a ti o n to
protect them from the administration, but not from
25

Robert Luntz, "Grievances and Their R e s o l u t i o n s , "
B ul letin of the N A S S P , LV, No. 359 (December, 1971) .

31

the organi z at i on w h e n it exercises a d m i n i s tr a ti v e
functions.
Actually, teachers m a y need p r o t e c t i o n
from both the a dm i nistration and the organization,
a po s s i b i l i t y which d e s e r v e s m o r e at t ention than it
has r e ceived thus far.
In p r i v a t e e m p l o y m e n t unions typically d o not
m a n a g e and do not w a n t to manage.
Where th ey do,
the cause is weak, and inefficient m a n a g e m e n t more
o f t e n t ha n it is p o w e r - h u n g r y unions.
One m a y
q ue s ti o n t h e relevance of p r iv a te e m p l o y m e n t to
public education, but for wh a te v er value it has,
e xp e ri e n c e in the p r i v a t e sector cl early indica tes
that e m p l o y e e o r ga n iz a ti on s do n o t "take ov e r" under
c o l l e c t i v e negotiations.
Gi v en the additional
o bs t acles involved, t h e y arc e v en less l i k e l y to do
so in p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n . 26
The c o nflict c a u s e d p r in c ip a ls by t ea c he r ncgotiations is b r o u g h t into focus by A l l e n and Sclimidt.
They itemized

27

seven areas of c on flict d ir e c t l y related

to teacher bargaining.
1.

The principal has u s ually had the p r e r o g a t i v e
of m a k i n g teacher a s s i g n me n ts to s pe c ia l or
honors classes;

2.

n o w this is negotiable.

The principal lias us ually b ee n r e s p o n s i b l e
m ak i ng

assig nments

to n onteaching du ties;

for
this

is a l s o negotiable.
3.

G r i e v a n c e p ro c ed u re s can be used to r e f l e c t on a
principal's a b i l i t y to a dminister a school;
many grievances,
2 fi

poor ad mi n is t ra t iv e ability.

L i e b e r m a n and Moscow,

27

too

ojd.

c i t . , pp.

240-41.

.
Roy Allen and J o h n Sclimidt, "C ol lective N e g o t i ­
ations and Edu cational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , " UCEA and the C o l ­
lege of Ed u ca t i o n of the Univers i ty of Arkansas, 1966,
p. 54 .

32
4.

If a p r in cipal loses a grievance,

how can he

save face w i t h his staff, w i t h th e su perintendent
or w i t h his board of education?
5.

When the n e go t ia t io ns c oncern p hy s i c a l
and instr u ct i on a l m a te r i a l s

in the school,

docs the principal represent,
6.

facilities

tea chers or board?

When the teacher agreem ent gives teac hers
right to transfer,

who

the

what is the p o s i t i o n of the

principal who sees requested t r an s fe r s a d v e r s el y
af fecting the school program?
7.

What

is the p r i n c i pa l 's po s i t i o n w h en he secs

financial resou r ce s of the school being us ed to
attract n e w teachers,

at the e x p e n s e of adequately

c om p en s at i ng experienced

teachers?

Areas of co n f l i c t caused by teacher n e g o t ia t io n s
range

from the p r i n c i p a l ' s need to p r ot e ct his r ights

on the one h a n d , to c on t in u ed r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of teacher
i nt e re s t as they in f lu e n c e the in structional p r o g r a m on
the other.
According

to Lieber m an and Moscow,

28

collective

negotiations by teachers does w ea k en the a u th o ri t y of
line ad m in i st r at i ve personnel.
more

It leads either to a

important role for c e r t a i n staff or the e x er c i s e

of line function by staff personnel.
28

L i e b e r m a n and Moscow,

P ri o r to

o|J. c i t . , p. 366.

33

ne gotia tions,

there we re only a d m i n i s tr a ti v e limits on

the princip a l' s discretion.
sot by the agreement.

Afterwards,

In addition,

there are limits

appeals of the

pri n ci p al ' s d ec i sions are no longer made only to another
line administrator,

but may go to a staff person.

T h e dy n amics of the bar gaining process tend to
lead to system - wi d e rules according to L i e b e r m a n and
Moscow,

29

thus further limiting the line a d m i n i st r at o r' s

d iscretion.

If one principal's faculty m e e t i n g s are

longer than others,
there

word gets around.

Consequently,

is a press toward system-wide rules w i t h a c o n ­

s eq uent d e c r e a s e of

the principal's authority.

d uring and after negotiations,

Before,

there is a strong tendency

for a staff person to bo the focus of efforts to bring
c on s i s t e n c y out of d e c e n t ra l iz e d line personnel.
In a survey of building principals,
reported

Cunningham

30

that principals perceived teacher n eg o ti a ti o ns

as a search for power which would usurp the pr e ro g at i ve s
of the building principal.

He further stated that the

spe ctre of two negot iating parties,
r ep r es e nt s the principal,

2 9 I b i d . , p.

neither one of w h i c h

reaching accord by swapping

368.

^ L u v e r n L. Cunningham, "I mplic ations of C o l l e c ­
ti ve Neg otiations for the Role of the P r incipal," in
Readings on C o l l e c t i v e Ne g otiations in P ub l ic E d u c a t i o n ,
e d . by E l a m , L i e b e r m a n and M o s c o w ( Ch i ca g o: Rand M c N a l l y
& Co., 1967), pp. 299-313.

34

s uc h tilings as w o r k rules that have b e e n the princi p al ' s
preroga t iv e s until now is a source of
tration,

if not panic,

increased

frus­

for the building administrator.

Interviews w i t h principals

from d i s t r i c t s now negotia t in g

con t racts revealed as m uc h d i s i l l u s i o n m e n t and d i s t r u s t
w i t h the s u p e r i n t e n t 's role as with the teachers o r g a n i ­
zation .
Because the result of teacher n e go t ia t io n s

has

su ch a d i r e c t bearing upon the a ut h or i ty and r e s p o n s i ­
bilities of the building principal,

the degree of

the

princip a l' s involvement in the establ i sh m en t of a d m i n i s ­
trative and board bargaining positions and the ac t u a l
b argaining p r ocess has been the subject of many a rt i cl e s
and mu ch discussion.
C o m p a n i o n articles

in the J an uary,

of the M i chigan Element a ry Principal

31

P r i n c i p a l — Ne g ot i at o r or Observer?" and
the Negotiating Team."

32

"The

"Principals On

and the second,

a u t h o r e d by
by a p r i n c i ­

agreed on the necessity of the p r incipal's

m en t in the p reparation and process of

issue

wer e titled,

T he first article,

a board of e d uc ation member,
pal,

1967,

involve­

negoti at i on s on

31

Jay Van Sweden, "The P r i n c i p a l - - N e g o t l a t o r or
O bserver?" The M i c h i g a n Elementary P r i n c i p a l , X X X X I
(January, 1967), i O .
32
.
•
All e n TenEyck, "Principals o n the N e g o t i a t i n g
Team," The M ic h i g a n Elementary Principal, XXXXI (January,
1967), 11.

35

behalf of the board of education.
su pported by David Sargent,
Massach u se t ts ,

This posit i on was

former c h a i r m a n of Wellesley,

School Co m mi t t e e in an article he wrote

for the M a s s a c hu s et t s E lementary School P r in c ip a ls
Association J o u r n a l .

Sargent declared:

Thus for the sake of educational excellence, the
principal m u s t jump into the c o l l e c t i v e bargaining
melee.
But perhaps of more i m p o r t a n c e to himself,
if he do es not, if he insists on neu trality, he may
find his job w h i t t l e d away as the teac hers a s s o c i ­
at ion on one hand and the school c o m m i t t e e on the
other take pieces of his r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to t h e m ­
selves.
Such a pr o c e s s could in time leave the
p ri n cipal the c h i e f clerk of the building,
respo ns i bl e for n o n - e d uc a ti o n ro u t i n e and record
ke ep ing o n l y . 33
The Pr i n c i p a l - M a n a g e m e n t T e a m v s .
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e N e g o t i at i on s
W hile there are factors w h i c h are p a rt i cu l ar to
the reasons for sp ecific groups of e m p l o y e e s organi z in g
into c o l l e c t i v e ba r ga i ni n g units,

there are c o m m o n c o n ­

d i t i o n s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s present in m o s t cases wh e n
e mp l oyees select bargaining o r g a n i z a t i o n s to r ep r esent
their salary,
interests.

fringe benefits and w o r k i n g c o nd i t i o n s

A cc o r d i n g

to E. Wright B a k k e , P r o f e s s o r of

E co n omics at Yale University,

the m o s t

important of

these p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s w h i c h pre cede bargai n in g are:

33

David Sargent, "The M a n In Between," M a s s a c h u ­
setts E l em e nt a ry School Principals A s s o c i a t i o n Journal
( r e p r i nt e dj , M i c h i g a n Elementary School P r i n c i p a l XX XX III
(September-October, 1
) , 14 .

36
1)

Social P r o d u c t s : Whore the goods or services p r o ­
duced arc social pr o ducts in the sense that no one
employee's c o n t r i b u t i o n p r od u ce s the whole.
It is
d i f f i c u l t to d i s e n t a n g l e for pers onnel evaluations
the v a l u e of any e m pl o ye e 's contri bu t io n to the
total p r o c e s s .
2) Impersonality of R e l a t i o n s : When an organ i za t io n
is large en ou gh so that there are several strata of
supervision b et ween the employee and the d e c i s i o n ­
making employer, the p r o b l e m is to find and get to
the employer.
The implication is that m a n y p e r ­
sons cannot d o this indivi d ua l ly but it can be
done by c o ll e c t i v e l y focusing their search and
d ea l i n g s in an o r ga n iz a ti o na l representative.
3) Employers As A n Or ganized G r o u p : When the
’'employer** Ts in reality another gr o up of or g an i z e d
employees (or agents) ca ll ed "management," the
implication is that an organized group is needed
to deal with them.
In the case of a school system,
the school s u p e r i n t e n d e n t and the school board c o n ­
stitute an o r ga n i z e d g r o u p of empl oyees of the
public.
4) G ro u p Concerns and P er sonal C o m p l a i n t s : W h e n an
effort is made to present effecti v el y the human
and profes s io n al interests shared by the wh o le
g ro u p some p e rs o n has to speak up.
Lacking the
support of the u ni t ed front of an organized group,
this person is likely to be labeled a troublemaker,
an agitator, d i sloyal and other terms scarcely
des igned to increase the person's job security.
It became a pp arent in Michigan,

after the first

formal agree ments w e r e readied between boards of e d u ­
cat i on and teacher unions,
c um s ta n ce s leading
wer e developing.

that the conditions and c i r ­

to a d m i n i st r at i ve bargaining units
The l iterature left little doubt that

two primary courses of acti on were open to m i dd l e m a n a g e ­
m e n t employees to re s o l v e the c on f licts in their roles,
r ights and r es p on s ib i li t ie s caused by teacher negotiations.
The De troit Free Press carried an ar ticle in December,
■J J

ber 15,

Rhodes, Ed u ca t or s N eg o ti a ti n g Service
1970), 2.

(Novem­

37
1966,

entitled,

in Limbo." 3 5
p rincipals

"School Pri ncipals Find New Law Puts Them

The writer expressed his op i n i o n that the

in M i c h i g a n did not Know where they b el o ng e d

or w h o m they should represent and support.
arti cle titled,

In a follow-up

"School Of f ic i al s Want Out of Limbo,

the w ri t er pred icted that Michi g an principals w o u l d

find

their way out of the c o n f u s i o n by forming c o l l e ct i ve
bargaining units of their own.
In Michigan,

the basic qu e s t i o n b e c a m e — h o w could

a dm i ni s tr a ti v e personnel,
as m i d d l e management,

particu l ar l y those c lassified

bring

their pr o fessional

inte rests

and talents to bear on negoti at i on s be tween school boa rds
and

teacher unions and further how could

the pr o fe s si o na l

w e l l - b e i n g of m id d le m a n a g e m e n t p er so n ne l be best m a i n ­
tained and advanced?

In the state of Michigan,

"pro tective reactions" developed.

two

The first wa s the

con c e p t of the Ma n ag e m e n t Team in w h i c h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
functions and policies are based on shared d e c i s i o n
m ak i ng and p a r t i c i p a t o r y g r o u p management.

The second

re action which em erged as a result of teacher ba r ga i n i n g
was the formation of ad m in i s t r a t i v e barga ining units.

35
D et roit Fre e P r e s s , D ec e mb e r 1, 1966,

p.

2B.

p.

ISA.

£
D et roit Free Press,

F eb ruary

5, 1967,

38
In May,
Concept"

1967,

appeared

an article titled

"Single M a n a g e m e n t

in the M i ch i g a n E l em e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l . ^

In this article T aggart and R e ynolds d is c u s s

the new r o l e

of the el e m e n t a r y principal re s ul t in g from teacher
bargaining.

The y state:

" . . .

somewhat un e xp l o r e d relationship,

b ec ause of

the new and

it is imperative that

the survival of the total a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e st a blishment
be based u p o n mutual u nd e rstanding,

open c om m un i ca t io n

and c o o p e r a t i o n from all me m be r s of

the m a n a g e m e n t team."

D es p i t e the outcry for m e a n i n g f u l m a n a g e m e n t t e a m
formations,

in so me d i s t r i c t s m i d d l e m a n a g e m e n t p e rs onnel

quickly c h o s e to form formal bargaining units.
Higgenbotliam viewed

this m o v e as an effort

Richard

in the part

of p r i n c i p a l s to g a i n pr o te c t i o n and security.

Writing

for the M i c h i g a n School Board J o u r n a l , he stated:
Princip a ls in the "in-between" p o s i t i o n will
look first to their o w n p r o t e c t i o n and later, if
at all, to the good of the district.
Princ ipals
in this kind of si tuation join and form unions for
their p r o t e c t i o n and security.
The Board of E d uc a ti o n
and the S u pe r i n t e n d e n t mu st take the principal out
of the "in-between" p o sition by ad o pt i n g a team
m a n a g e m e n t basis for o p e r a t i o n of the district.
The Board m u s t pr o vi d e training and guidance for
the pr i ncipal w ho may feel he is in "no-man's land,"
a place wh ere he d o e s n ' t have teachers* confidence
and r es p e c t and top level m a n a g e m e n t support.
The

37

Donald T ag g ar t and F r a n c i s Reynolds, "Single
M a n a g e me n t Concept," M i c h i g a n E l em e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l , X X X X ,
No. 5 (May, 1967), 8-TT:

39
Board m u s t help him re al ize that he is manage me n t#
a part of the team# and is not just a g o - b e t w e e n
for teachers and the b o a r d . 38
C.

Keith G r o t y and David C. Smith in v estigated

the reasons a d m i n i s tr a to r s ci te
negotiations.
1)
2)
3)
4)

for enga ging

in co l le c ti v e

The four most c o m m o n arc:

The un i l a t e r a l behavior of the top a d m i n i s t r a ­
tive leadership.
The lack of m e a n i n g f u l involvement in de c i s i o n
making.
The re l a t i v e success te a chers have e x p e r ie n ce d
in improving th eir salar i es and w o r k i n g co n di t io n
w i thout need of p a t e r n a li s ti c behavior.
The lack of a s i g n i fi c an t voice in m atters of
their own profe ss i on a l d e s t i n y . 39
A survey of 175 a dm i ni s tr a to r s in 21 of the

22

M i c h i g a n school d i s t r i c t s where a d m i n i st r at o rs c o l l e c ­
tively bargained was reported

in a 1971 p u b l i c a t i o n of

the Mi c h i g a n C o ng r e s s of School Ad m in i s t r a t o r s A s s o c i ­
ation.^

The R e s e a r c h C o m m i t t e e which c o n d u ct e d the

survey asked each respon d en t to list in r a n k order
identified pr o bl e m a r ea s in t e r m s of their

G

i mportance

in precipi t at i ng the formation of an ad m in i s t r a t i v e
bar g ai n u ni t in his school district.

The p r io r i t y

list

38

Richard Iliggenbotham, "The Principal As Manager,"
M ic h ig a n School Board Journal# XVIII# No. 2 (April, 1971),

■*^C. K ei t h Groty and D a v i d C. Smith# "A R e p o r t of
the Ethics and M a n a g e m e n t Re l at i o n s C o m m i t t e e of MASB#
M i c h i g a n Scliool Board Journal# XVII, No. 7 (September#

1976), a.
40

--------------

Re s e a r c h C om m it t ee of the M i c h i g a n C o n g r e s s of
School Ad m in istrators, 0 £. c i t .# p. 11.

40

is g iv e n below,

w i t h number one being co nsidered m os t

important by the respon d en t s and the others l i st e d in
descend i ng rank order:
Rank

Item

1

Teacher n e g o t ia t io n s erode a d m i n i s t r a t i v e role

2

Problems of c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h school board

3

Problems of d e f i n i t i o n of r ol e and r es p on s i b i l i t y

4

Salary and Fringe benefits

5

Problems of c o m m u n ic at i on w i t h superintendent

6

Display of power to the board of e d u c a t i o n
A panel of experts from the field of la b o r -

m a n a g e m e n t r el a tions d i s c u s s e d

the r a m i f i c a t i o n s of

ad ministrative bargai ni n g for school districts,

question­

ing the idea t h a t such bargaining w o u l d result in
solution of the pr o blems w h i c h a d m i n i s t r a t o r s pe r ce i ve d
as those causing

them to organize.

41

The panel m embers

expres sed c o nc e r n that the d iv ision between the board of
e du c ation and s u pe r i n t e n d e n t on one side and the middle
m a n a g e m e n t m e m b e r s on the ot h er could create an adversary
re lationship w h i c h could ev en t ua l ly
of the purposes

lead to d e s t r u c t i o n

for w h i c h a d m i n i s t r a t o r s or ganize,

as, b etter communications,

such

m o re v oi c e in d e c i s i o n making

and improved salaries.

^ P a n e l di scussion, M ic h i g a n Congress o f School
A dm i nistrators Conference, Eastern M i c h i g a n University,
Mar c h 11, 1971, Panel member s:
C h a r l e s M. Rehmers,
Harry Casselman, Leon Cornfield, J a m e s Tobin a n d Wi ll iam
R. Ralls, Moderator.

41

Several articles

in the Phi De l ta Kappan d i s ­

cussed the concern s up e ri ntendents and ot h er school
a dm i ni s tr a to r s perceived as a result of teacher b a r g a i n ­
ing upon the relationship of

boards of education,

intende nts and other school administrators.
J o s e p h Cr o ni n

super­

In 1967,

called for a reappraisal of the w e b of

r el a t i o n s h i p s school boards and s uperintendents ha ve wi th
p ri n ci p a l s because of the r e c e n t spread of teacher
negotiations.
L ouis P a n u c h and E d g a r Kelley suggest that a d m i n ­
istrative b ar g a in i ng units selected by some g r oups of
a dm i ni s tr a to r s to g a i n a p a r t n e r s h i p
w i t h boards of ed u cation h a v e
to constructive changes,
sta tus quo.
st ate the

or

in decision m a k i n g

the po t ential

for le a di n g

for simply p e r p e t u at i ng

In this article of October,

1970,

the

they

following:

A ra pidly emerging and still u n clear area of p r o ­
fessional c on c er n is the d ir e c t i o n of pr o fe s si o na l
organiz ations.
Some groups, in r e s p o n s e to teacher
militancy, have called for the pr i ncipal to b e c o m e
part of a "management team" a pp r o a c h to school
a dministration.
In Ne w York City and in Detroit,
strong or g anizations of p r i n c i p a l s - - s e p a r a t e f ro m
teachers or top a d m i n i s t r a t o r s — are in existence.
These groups ca n be l e a d e r s in i nc r eased profe s si o na l
c o n c e r n and pres sures for c o n s t r u c t i v e change, as
m an y teacher groups h a ve been.
T h e y could also
b ecome self-centered a g e n c i e s for p ro t ec t i o n of the

AO

J os e ph Cronin, " Sc h oo l Boards and Principals,
Before and After N e g o t i a t i o n s , " Phi D e l t a K a p p a n ,
November, 1967, pp. 123-24.

42

ri gh ts of principals, when such rights repre sent a
c li n gi n g to traditional c o n c e p t s — such as rigid
p ro m ot i on a l p a t t e r n s — w h i c h no longer serve the
needs of a chan ging society and its educational
i n s t i t u t i o n s .43
B ecause the formation of ad m in i st r at i ve b a r g a i n ­
ing units

in e d uc a ti o n is still limited and recent,

resear ch o n

the actual ef fects of this m e th o d of m i d d l e

m a n a g e me n t bargaining verses m a n a g e m e n t
is p r e l i m i n a r y and incomplete.

team involve m en t

The literature c o n c e r n i n g

the a d v a n t a g e s and d i sa d v a n t a g e s of each me t h o d
marily speculative at this time.

is p r i ­

However, m a n y a u th o rs

suggest that better communications,

more middle manage­

ment involv e me n t in d e c i s i o n s and more p r o d u c t i v e u t i l i ­
zation of the admini st r at i ve staff w i l l resu lt from
i mp l ementation of the ma n a g e m e n t team concept.
One

further impact of a d m i n i st r at i ve b a r g ai n in g

upon the relationships of boards of education,

top

m an a ge m en t and m i d d l e m a n a g e m e n t staff m em b e r s

in school

d is t ricts

is p r ed icted by L i e b e r m a n .

following

shifts emerging:

He foresees the

Of all the signifi c an t c o n s e qu e nc e s of c o l l e c t i v e
negotiations, pe r haps the one w h i c h has r e c e i v e d the
least a t te ntion thus far is the g a i n in the p o w e r
of a d m i n i s tr a to r s and the corres p on d in g d e c l i n e
in the power of school boards.
This shift has g on e
u n n o t i c e d b ec a u s e so m u c h a t t e n t io n has be e n d e v o t e d
to the increased power of teacher o r g a n i z a t i o n s
v i s - a - v i s bo ar ds and administrators.
T here is no
d o u b t that such a shift has occurred.
It is not
a

n

Louis P a n u c h and Edgar A. Kelley, "The H i g h
School Principal:
Pro Ac t iv e or Re a c t i v e Role?"
Phi
Delta K a p p a n , LII, N o . 2 (October, 197 0), 92.

43

gen e r a l l y recognized, however, that e qu a ll y important
shifts of p o w e r and authority have been taking place
w i t h i n as we ll as b e t w e e n the employer and employee
sides.
Negoti at o rs for school boards m u s t have the
a ut h or i ty to negotiate.
If they mu st first secure
the approval of their boards for e a ch individual c o n ­
cession, negotiations are p r a c t i ca l ly impossible.
Furthermore, the d yn amics of n e g o t i at i on s require
that negoti a t or s be in a po s it i on to m a k e a deal at
the a p pr o pr i at e t i m e — and this literally m a y be any
ti me of the d a y or night, w h e n it may be v i r t u a l l y
im possible to have a board meeting.
Thus boards
of e d uc a ti o n have i n creasingly found it neces s ar y
to de l e g a t e m o r e autho ri t y to their n e g o t i a ti n g
teams; the latt er have been m a ki n g more and m o r e
of the crucial d e c i s i o n s g o ve r ni n g school personnel
r e l a t i o n s h i p s .44
Wh ile Li e be r m a n presents no d o c u m e n t a t i o n for
this prediction,

further experi en c e in the ne g ot i at i on s

area by school boards,

a d mi n i s t r a t o r s and teachers should

provide suitable data from which such a shift of authority
and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g prerog a ti v es m a y be s c i e n t i f i c a l l y
analyzed.
Summary
This ch a pt e r has presented an historical and
legal setting

for the em e rgence of c o l l e c t i v e bargain i ng

by school a d m i n i st r at i ve units in educati on.
a t t e n t i o n was
of Michigan,
conducted.

focused u p o n this d e v e l o p m e n t

P a rt i c u l a r
in the state

where the r e s e a r c h for this d i s s e r t a t i o n was
The

influence of t eacher n e g o t i a t i o n s was

investigated as it a pp lied to the c h an g e in the

44

M y r o n Lieberman, "The F u t u r e of C o l l e c t i v e
Ne gotiations," Phi Delta Kappan, LIII, No. 4 (December,
1971), 215.

44
relat io n sh i p of the building principal
s up e ri n te n d en t s and school boards.
literature concerning

to teachers,

Finally,

the current

the advantages and d is a dv a nt a ge s

of a d m i n i s tr a ti v e bargaining wa s p r es e n t e d as c o m p a r e d
to invol vement of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s with in the c o n c e p t of
m a n a g e m e n t teams.

This se c t i o n itemized conditions w h i c h

p r e c i p i t a t e the f o rm ation of bargai ni n g units as p e r ­
ceived by those included in such units and by experts
in the field of ma n a g e m e n t relations.

CHAPTER

III

DESIGN OF T H E STUDY
Introduction
The pr i ma r y purp ose of this study is to investigate
the s i m i l a r it i es and d i f f e r e n c e s
school superintendents,

in the p er ce p ti o ns of

se c ondary pr i nc i pa l s and e l e m e n ­

tary p ri n ci p a l s concerning the

influence of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

c o l l e c ti v e barga in i ng o n the m a n a g e m e n t functi ons of
M ic h i g a n

school d i s t r i c t s in w h i c h c o l l e c t i v e bargaining

is being practiced.

The m a n a g e m e n t fu n ct i on s considered

in this study are divided into four m a i n sections:
(1) D e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and Involvement,
(3) C o m m u n i c a t i o n s and

(2) A cc o untability,

(4) Structure.

Source of the Data
At the time this r e s e a r c h pr oblem was identified
(September,

197 2) there were a total of 608 public

school d i s t r i c t s

in the state of Michigan.

of those districts,

In 34

boards of e du c at i on had formally

r ec o gn i ze d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g units,
organized

for the pu rpose of r e p r e s e nt i ng mi d d l e

45

46
m a n a g e m e n t personnel

In negotiations w i t h their respective

boards of education concerning wages,
co nditions

benefits and wo rking

for administrators.

It was de t er m i ne d that only those school di s tr i c t s
in w hi c h the superintendent was present as an administrator prior to the a do ption of

formal adminis t ra t iv e

b argaining would be included in the study.

Additionally,

only those current principals wh o had served as a d m i n i s ­
trators w i t h i n the school system prior to r e cognition of
the ad m in istrative ba rgaining un it are included,
study d e a l s wi th p e rc e iv e d changes,

as the

re quiring the

r espondents to compare condit i on s and situations b efore
and after ma n a g e m e n t bargaining began.

A n o t h e r limi ting

c riteria for inclusion in the study is the r equirement
that at least one ag r eement be t we e n the board of e du c at i on
and the ad m in i st r at i ve bargaining unit has be en c o n ­
summated.

This was d o n e to elimin ate the inclusion of

re sp ondents who had not served u nd e r the c o nd i ti o ns of
a negotiated agreement.
Us ing the above criteria,

the superin t en d en t s

of the re maining fi fteen school d i st ricts we re personally
contacted by the writer,

who re quested p e r m i s s i o n to c o n ­

du ct the study in their r es p ec t iv e school districts.
F ou rteen of the fifteen su p er intendents a g re e d to p a r ­
ticipate.

The remaining superintendent ag r ee d to p a r ­

ticipate w i t h qua l i f i c a t i o n s w h i c h were u n a c c e p t a b l e to
the writer,

so his school d i s t r i c t was disqualified.

47
The 14 school di s tr i c t s

included

in the study

range in e nrollment from 3,8 00 stud ents to 39,000 s t u­
dents,

ac cording

to the 1971-7 2 M i c h i g a n Ed ucation

A s s o c i a t i o n D ir e c t o r y

statistics.

T h r e e of the school

s ystems are in the 20,000 to 40,000 s tudent enrollment
category,

4 in the 7,500 to 10,000 s tu de n t e nr o ll m e n t

c a t e g o r y and 7 in the 3,500 to 7,500
category.

One d is t ri c t

Core City district,

student enrollment

is classified as a M e t r o po l it a n

as d e f i n e d by the M i c h i g a n Departm e nt

of Ed ucation for c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of school d i s t r i c t s
r ep o rting local

results of the M i c h i g a n Educational

A ss e ss m e n t P r og r am . ^
standard,
1

10

for

Using

the same c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

d i s t r i c t s are descr i be d as urban fringe,

as city and the rema ining

as town.

2

Q ue s ti o nn a ir e s w e re d el iv e re d by the w r it e r to
all

school d i s t r i c t s

included in the study,

all a d mi n i s t r a t o r s q u al i f i e d
study.

a d d r es s ed to

for p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the

The total potential of respondents was 14

s uper­

intendents and 184 principals.
A 100 per cent r es ponse was re c e i v e d fr om s u pe r ­
intendents and a 69 per c en t response from principals.
By school d i s t r i c t size c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s the to tal per­
c e n t a g e of re s ponses was as

follows:

Local D i strict Results M i c h i g a n Educati o na l
A s s e s s m e n t Program, M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of Education,
Lansing, Michigan, 1971.

48
School Di s tr i ct Size

P e r c e n ta g e Response

40.000 - 20 , 00 0 stu dents

57%

10.000 -

7 , 5 0 0 students

84%

7,500 -

7 , 4 9 9 stud ents

80%

The q u e s t i on n ai r es w e r e d is s e m i n a t e d via i n t e r ­
school mailing

systems and

re sponses

were returned in

p ro v i d e d self-addressed stamped envelopes

via U.S. mail.

I n s t r u me n ta t io n
In his s t u d y on t h e Managem e nt Te am Concept,
Adams

2

developed

a list of fift y-three statements related

to the m a n a g e m e n t

functions of school districts

(sec

A pp endix A ) .

T h e s e statements were divided

major areas:

(1) Decision Making and Involvement,

Structure,

(3) C o m m u n i c a t i o n s and

into four
(2)

(4) Accountability.

This list was submitted by Adams to the Exec utive Board
of the Michi ga n A s s o c i a t i o n of S e co n da r y School P r i n c i ­
pals,

the E xe c ut i ve Board of the M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n

of Eleme ntary S c ho o l Principals,

the Executive Board of

the M i chigan A s s o c i a t i o n of Professors of Educa tional
Ad ministration,

the E xe c ut i ve Board of the M i c h i g a n

A ss o c i a t i o n of School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s and the R e p r e s e n ­
tative Council of

2

the M i c h i g a n Congress of School

Murray Adams, "A Study of the P er c ep t io n s of
E lement a ry Principals, Se c on d a r y Princi p al s and S u p e r i n ­
tenden ts with R e sp e ct to the P ra ctice of the M a n a g e m e n t
Te am C o n c e p t ” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, U n i v e r si t y
of Michigan, 1971), p. 130.

49
A dm i n is t ra t or s for their individual reactions.
were requ ested to answer
statement.

"agree" or "disagree"

Respondents
to each

S e v e n t y- f iv e per cent agreement was e s t a b ­

lished as a m i n i m u m level

for acceptance.

exceeded this p ro - determined

All items

level of agreement.

This writer utili ze d Ada m's validated list of
statements

from w h i c h to d e v e l o p a series of fifty-one

st atements d e s i g n e d to m e a s u r e the d eg r ee of change,
any,

if

in the areas of d e c i s i o n making and involvement,

accountability,

c o mm u n i c a t i o n s and structure of school

d istricts included in the study which resulted since the
beginning of a dm i nistrative bargaining.
The
writ er

instrument,

as m od i fi e d and de v eloped by the

(see A p p e n d i x D ) , was informally field tested for

clarity and sp e c i f i c i t y by selected practic ing a d m i n i s ­
trators and coll ege p r ofessors,

after w h ic h m i n o r

m o d i f i ca t io n s were m a d e to el i mi n at e ambiguity.
of the f if t y-one statements
one of five respo ns e ranging
to "greatly decreased."
respond o n c e

Each

in the q u es t io n na i re r e qu i re s
from "greatly increased"

Principals were re quested to

for ea c h statement.

S up e ri n te n de n ts were

requested to respond twice for eac h statement,

o n c e as

it related to elementary p r i n c i p a l s and once as it
related to secondary principals.

The dual r e sp o n s e by

superi n te n de n ts was emplo y ed because previo us studies
have revealed that the p er c ei v ed level of involv em e nt

50
in de c i s i o n m a k i n g and the de g re e of communi c at i on is
higher be t we e n secondary pr i nc i p a l s and superi nt e nd e nt s
than it is be tween e l em e nt a ry principals and s up e r i n ­
tendents.

The questi on n ai r e was d e v e l o p e d to solicit

direct i on a l responses, w it h statements of low numeric
value being in a positive direction,
ceived

increase or improvement

dition being considered,

r e presenting a p e r ­

in the s i t u a t i o n or c o n ­

and the higher nume ric va l u e

representing a perc eived d e c r e a s e or d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f
the situ ation or condition under consideration.
Additional information o b tained
include age,

sox,

c ur rent position,

from r e s p o n d e n t s

years served as an a d m i n i s tr a to r
total years

in

in school a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

and p a r t i c i p a t i o n on board of e d u c a ti o n negotiating
teams.

All re sp ondents were al so asked to e va luate the

general effects of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b a rg a i n i n g on the
school d i st r i c t and ea ch was asked,
his d i s t r i c t is practicing

if in his opinion,

the princi p le s of the M a n a g e ­

ment T e a m Concept.
In the cover letter a c c o m p a ny i ng

the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

(see A pp e n d i x B ) , all r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e guaranteed
anonymity,

but q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e c o d e d to permit

ide n tification of the school districts to w h i c h they
apply.

51
A n a l y s is
The data w er e key punched a n d subscales were
formed.

A re l ia b il i ty test of the total q u e s t i o n n a i r e

and four major se c ti o ns p r o d u c e d the following

results.

Reliability
C o o f f i^ lcnt

Sc-c.tl2 g
Total Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
Sec t i o n I (Involvement a n d D e c i s i o n ­
making)
Sec t i o n II (Accountability)
Section III (Communications)
S ec t io n IV (Structure)

.95
.90
.74
.86

.85

The mean scores and f re q ue n cy distri bu t io n s of
each q u e s t i o n n a i r e
those statements

item w e r e o b t a i n e d

in o r d e r

to identify

in which the g r e a t e s t or l e a s t p e r c e i v e d

change had occurred.

To a s su r e independence of the data,

respon ses from e a c h school d i s t r i c t are t re a te d separately
from every other

school district.

Paired m e a n analysis

of the r es p o n s e s of all e l e m e n t a r y principals,

all

s ec o ndary pr i nc i pa l s and the superi ntendent of each
school d is t r i c t are conside r ed
ferences and F scores.

in reporting m e a n d i f ­

Tiie data w e r e analyzed

of the four main sections,

for e a c h

su bscalos of the m a i n se c ti o ns

and the total q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
The s ub s c al e s were

formed

by considering

q u e s t i o n n a i r e statements s p e c i f i c a l l y related
wide r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of princi pa l s,
o perate assigned buildings,

to s ys t e m -

their a u t h o r i t y

budget control,

to

salary and

52
benefits and

in v ol v em e nt

scores w e r e co m pu t e d
Res p on s es

in teacher negotiations.

F

for each of these subscales.

to statements of

ac c ou n ta b il i ty are

analyz ed as they relate to corresponding r es p o n s e s to
statements of d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and
done by d i c h o t o m i z i n g

involvement.

This is

the data in t o two categories,

responses

indicating c h a n g e in a p os i t i v e d i r e c t i o n and

responses

indicating no change or change

di rection.

Re sults are reported

Similarly,
are c o n s i d e r e d
respo nd i ng

in a negative

in F scores.

r e s p o n se s to s t a t e m e n t s of s t ru c tu r e

in r e l a ti o ns h ip to

statements

in the o t h e r

responses of c o r ­
three m a i n se ctions

of the quest i on n ai r e.
R es p o ns e s to questions re lating

to the general

effe ct of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e barga i ni n g and the de g re e to
wh i c h the M a n a g e m e n t T e a m Concept

principles are practiced

in the d i s t r i c t are presented by frequency d is t ribution.
Summary
The

instrument used in t hi s study is d e s i g n e d

m ea s u r e the changes in ma n ag e m e n t

functions of school

d i s t r i c t s as a r esult of ad m in istrative b a r g a i n i n g as
per c ei v ed by superintendents,
e l e m e n t a r y princ ip a ls .
d es c r i b e d

s ec o n d a r y p r i n c i p a l s and

In this cha pter the writer

the d e v e l o p m e n t of the q ue s tionnaire,

the

to

53
m e th o d of selecting the study population,

the a d m i n i s ­

tration of the q u e s t i o nn a ir e and the m e t h o d s of i n t e r ­
preting the data.

C H A P T E R IV
ANALY SI S OF THE D AT A
I nstrument Ad m in i s t r a t i o n
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e u s e d to c ol lect the d a t a for
this study was a d m i n i st e re d d u ring the m o n t h of October,
1972.

One hundred e i g h t y- f ou r e le m en t ar y and secondary

p ri n ci p a l s and 14 s uperintendents w e r e asked
pate

in the study, w h i c h represented

100

to p a r t i c i ­

per cent of

those el i gible according to the c r it e ri a established.
All s u pe r i n t e n d e n t s and 127 p r i n c i p a l s c o mp l e t e d and
returned the instrument,
return.

w h i c h r e pr e se n te d a 7 0 per cent

Three of the e l em e nt a ry principals'

we re spoiled,

so the d a t a

returns

from the 14 superintendents,

37 s ec o nd a ry pr i nc i p a l s and 87 e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s
were placed on c om puter c ar d s and p ro c e s s e d t h r o u g h the
M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y CDC 3600 and 6500 computers.
S tatistical P ro c ed u re
In this chapter,
be an a ly z ed

the statistical h y p o t h e s e s will

in light of the data collected.

The pa i r e d

m e a n F T e s t will be u t i l i z e d as the pri mary m e th o d of
s ig n i f i c a n c e testing.

A n a r bi t r a r y si g ni f ic a nc e level

54

55
of

.05 was c h o s e n for purposes of this study.

of the major four categories w e r e

Sub -scales

formed prior to

analysis of the dat a to test the co r r e l a t i o n of responses
to related statements.

These d a t a are a n alyzed using

F Te st scores and frequency distributions.
That d a ta related d ir e c t l y to the m ai n hypotheses
of this study are presented first.
and additional

statistical

S u bs c a l e analysi s

information c o m p i l e d from the

col l ec t ed data are presented

following the m a i n hypotheses

test.
For the p u rposes of this study, manage m en t
functions of school d i st r ic t s are divided
main areas:

into four

(a) D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g and Involvement,

(b) A cc o untability,

(c) C o m m u ni c at i on s and

(d) Structure.

Mean scores of e a c h category o f respondents,
ference in their me an scores,

the d i f ­

F score and level of s i g ­

n if i cance are presented for e a c h area as well as for
the total q u e s t i o n n a i r e as a test of e a c h hypothesis.
P r e s e n t a t i o n and A n alysis of Data
Hyp o th e si s A :
There is no significant d i f f e r e n c e in the pe rceptions
of el e me n ta r y school principals as c om p ar e d to the
p e r c e p t i o n s of the su p erintendent of schools w i t h
r es pect to the influence of a dm i ni s t r a t i v e collec t iv e
bar g ai n in g on m an a ge m en t f u n c t i o n s .

56

H ypothesis B ;
There is no significant di f fe r en c e in the percept i on s
of the e l em e n t a r y school principals as compared to
the p e rc e pt i on s of the secondary school principals
with respect to the influence of adminis t ra t iv e
c ollective barga ining on m a n a g e m e n t functions.

Hypothesis C :
There is no significant di ff e r e n c e in the p e r c e p ti o ns
of the s ec o nd a ry school p rincipals as compar e d to the
perceptions of the s up e rintendent of schools w i t h
respect to the influence of adminis t ra t iv e c o ll e c t i v e
bargaining on ma n a g e m e n t functions.

The da ta presented

in Tables 1,

reject Hypotheses A, B and C.

2 and 3 fail to

Based on the populat i on of

this study and the m a n a g e m e n t areas

tested,

there is no

s ignificant d i f f e r e n c e in the p e rc e pt i on s of the e l e ­
m e n t a r y principals,

secondary principals and s u p e r i n ­

tenden ts c on c er n i ng the effects of a d m i n i st r at i ve b a r g a i n ­
ing on the m a n a g e m e n t functions of school di stricts
c onsidered in this study.

O
0

►a
3 o
ft it
P »

tin5>

Q

ft 3 3 p
C p ft 3 0
P 0 3< 3

P
c
(5
i3
P
0
0
3

o
c
0
(0
ft

ito n

l in
e go

p

m

nee

» (tppi
ft cro 1

Section of
Questionnaire

P P < ft
0 p ft JT
3 ft 3 P
to>< 0 3

P

0
3

3
N
P
\
P
to

-o -o -o o

<Tt

isouo

Mean Score
Secondary Principal

Differences
Between Means

o
Cl

out
C (3
POP
0 0 0

0
3

rt

p
0
3

3

1

it o n

a
d

o

p3 o3 o
C 3 0 & p
o CC 3
ft 3 3 P P
C P ft 3 0
P « ft < 3
(5 ft r 0 I
ftp p i
p p< &
0 p o *•
3 rt 3 P
3 ■< 0 3
3 UJ
ft

Section of
Questionnaire

3 ft

CD
o

CD OD 'J CO

UlOOU

Mean Score
Elementary Principal

-vl
UJ

o
CO

ft 3 3

N) to to IO

t♦« *
5,1’■J 'j
^

Mean Score
Superintendent

mohh
© UjfOh-

Difference
Between Means

NJ CD -J vC
W «nj CO

F Score

P 3

z
\
CD

z z z z

w

w

tn w m tn

Level of
Significance

(5U3
3P
rt p r
p 3 3"
0 0 0
3 p
3-C 3
ftft o
p p ft
P B3
0

0

3

o p
0X3
ft c
p 4!! P

0 P rt
3 P
3 3
0
ft p•0
3
T
CLo3i p
P rt
rt » F

3"

jq s:
c
P
F Score

O•

ft tti I
3" I
0 0 ’
'I
p I

p 3 ft

fta n
P fto

10

3H
n >
0 05
p t4
ffl FI
0 3

POP
0 3 0
cram

to to to to

to

1 /1 3

to to to to

Kean Score
Elementary Principal

c
0
U3
P
0
s

o
c

to n >

°

KJ
«

CD CD ■O QD

ClP <7iLi

ft I
(9 P I
0 it
m 3 0
0 03
C 3 it
n rt
ftp
3 P (5
C< 3
r
c
O" P
O P ft
0 P 0
ft 3
Kfl
Kl
0 P0
SUP
3 ft
ft 3
3
Q.ft
3 C.
ft CL p

0

Freedom

PJ
P
0
0
CL
0

to to to to

H

30
ft ft
P ft
P P

of

rt

0
Pi
to
*
CD
W

Ml I

zr a *1

3 iD

r

3 -a
>
b o a
o p tZ0R
3
to
0
Ml0
n n

n

\G

®

0

ft

p

a 0

3 0*
rt CL p
O m
rt n n
ft C 0
Ft P
(3ft
lO P 3
C PO
0 3 3
3 ft 3
ft 0
P- 3 p
0 0* 3
3 0
3 3 ft
ft rt y
p

(5 p 3

X.
tn

2 2 2 2
W
W
tn ci tn ti

Level of
Significance

3 0
ft
O3
ft
n

zr

m
-J

58
TABLE 3 . — F-test results for the d ifferences in the m e a n
scores of secondary p r i n c i p a l s and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s on each
of the four subsections and the total q u e s t i o n n a i r e
in
r-t
rt

U)
d
a) rt
o rt
d
rt
d d
rt rt
4-1 rt
4-1 S
-H 4~>
a a)
CQ

rt

V) r-t
<u o
M c
O -H
O V4
tn a.
c
rt d
rt rt
rc
c
o
o
a>
to

U> A->
rt d
u a)
O T]
o d
tn a)
aj
d d
rt ‘>-t
(U d
“ rt
Or
o
10

D ec i si o n- M ak i ng
and Involvement
A cc o un t ab i li t y
C om m unications
Structure

2.77
2 .73
2.77
2 .79

2.80
2.73
2.87
2.63

.03
—

.15

.10

.16

.6 8
.98

tJ/S
iV s
iV s

Total Q u e s t i o n ­
naire

2.76

2.78

.0 2

.09

N/S

d
4J -H
O m
a
d d
o o
•H -H
4->
O U)
a) rt
to a
c*

rt

44 u
O d
rt
<-« o
rt -H
U1
rt ‘H
dl d
tr>
•H
t-Tj

rt

u
o
o
to
u,

11/ S

—

Degree of F r ee d om = 1/12

These data are further a n a l y z e d by the f or m at i on
of subscales of S u b s e c t i o n I w h i c h deal w i t h
D ec i si o n- m ak i ng and
the principals'

Involvement.

Responses d e a l i n g w i t h

s ystem-wide re s po n s i b i l i t i e s

9, 13),

his specific bu ilding au t ho r it y

12,

20),

14,

and b en efits
involvement

budget c ontrol
(numbers 23,
(numbers 18,

s ignificant d if f e r e n c e s
superintendents.

19,

(numbers

(numbers 9, 10,

24,

25,
21,

26),
22)

(numbers

11),

1

5, 10,
salary

and n e g o t i a t i o n s

are a na lyzed

for

in r e sp onses by p r i n c i p a l s and

,
11,

59
Data from Tables 4,

5 anrl

6

s h o w that there is no

sig nificant d i ff e re n ce in the p e rc e pt i on s of e l em e nt a ry
principals,
cerning
ment

secondary principals and superintendents c o n ­

the changes that have taken place in the m a n a g e ­

functions of those school d i s t r i c t s surveyed,

the areas of principals'
bu ilding authority,

in

system-wide responsibilities,

bu dg et control or invol vement in

board of e d uc ation negotiating positio ns.
in perception of such c h a n g e s

A difference

is o b s e r v e d b e t w e e n the

elementary principals and superin t en d en t s c o n c e r n i n g the
effects of a d mi n istrative bargaining on salary and benefits
for principals.

This is significant at the

.05 level.

TABLE 4.--F-tcst results for e l e m e n t a r y principals and
secondary principals' r e sp onses on subscales of s e ction I
c oncerning d e c i s i o n making and involvement

04 M
o
c
(1) o
rH "H
nj 4-i
o o
w m
n tn
3 XI
cn 3
to

S ystem-wide
R esponsibilities
Buildi ng
Authority
Budg et Control
Sala ry and
Benefits
N egotiations
Involvement

<
—\
<0
0,
•H
U
QJ G
U H
O U
o CO
UJ
!>i
G G
nl (0
QJ 4J
e g
0)
h
3
rH
w

rH
a,

•H
O
0) c
H H
O M
O Or
CO
G G
rtJ «0
QJ -o
E G
o
O
QJ
to

IT)
G
QJ 3
O Q>
G E
QJ
M G
QJ 0)
04 0)
04 3
-H 4J
a a)
CQ

2.83

2. 64

.19

2 .02

N/S

2.67
2.62

2.75
2 .6 6

.08
.04

.74
.15

N/S
N/S

2.74

2 .56

.18

3 .39

N/S

3 .05

3 .06

.01

.02

N/S

De grees of F r e e d o m = 1/12

0)

u

o
o
to
Ua

0)
O
y-1 G
O
u
i—1 H
QJ 04
> -H
QJ G
►J tr>
•H
to

60
T AB L E 5.— F - te s t r esults of e l e m e n ta r y p r i n c i p a l s ’ and
superintendents' respo n se s on subscales of section I c o n ­
c erning d e c i s i o n ma k in g and involvement
.—I
a,
i
u

Q-J

o
a)
r— t G
flj o
O

in 4-i
43 o
O

QJ

to to

qj

g

44 - H

o n
U Oi

to

4J

in

G
QJ Q)

QJ d
o m
G QJ

J-4 T3
o c

O Q)
tO 43
g

>1

G
m
0)
S

M
rj
4-*
c
QJ

G r4
<fl V4
QJ QJ
DU
0

to

%

QJ

u
o

qj

u

qj

*44

QJ

o

u
to

g

Q-l QJ
«44 QJ
•H £
a 43
aj
CQ

H

O
G

o

o
*H

QJ <44

*H

>

Pu

qj

dJ

d
tn

•H
to

1—\
tu

S ystem- w id e
R e s p o n si b il i t ies
Building
A ut h o r i t y
Budg et C o ntrol
S al a ry and
Bene fits
N eg o t i a t i o n s
Involvement

2 .83

2.88

.05

.21

N/S

2.66

2.72
2 .57

.06
.07

.66

2 .64

.23

N/S
N/S

.6 8

2 .39

.29

8

.70

.05

3. 10

2 .87

.23

1.40

N/S

2

Degr ees of F re e d o m = 1/13
H yp o th e s i s D ;
The p r ocess of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e collective bargaining
has had no signi ficant e ffect upon m a n a g e m e n t
fu nctions as p e rc e iv e d by su p er i n t e n d e n t s and
principals.
i
T o tes t this hypothesis,
e l e m e n t a r y principals,

school m e a n sco res for

secondary p r i n c i p a l s and b o t h

responses of superi nt e nd e nt s w e r e compu t ed and analyzed
for s i g n i fi c an c e as they d i ff e r e d
"remained the same" r e sp o n s e s

from the a b so l ut e

(a numeric

score of

3) .

School m eans are u t i l i z e d to e l i m i n a t e the u n b a l a n c e d
influence of larger school d i s t r i c t re s ponses as

61
c om p a r e d to the f e w responses received
school districts.

from smaller

The d e s i g n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

permits analysis of the d i r e c t i o n of the change,
p er c ei v ed by the respondents.

Mean scores

if any,

significantly

less than 3 show po s itive change and m e a n scores s i g n i f i ­
c an t ly greater than 3 s ho w negative c h a n g e as p er c e i v e d
by the r e s p o n d e n t s .

Difference
Between Means

F Score

Level of
Significance

2 .64

2 .87

.23

3.03

IV S

2.75
2.66

2.74
2 .61

.01
.05

.01
.90

N/S
u/s

2. 56

2.46

.10

.80

u/s

3 .06

2 .96

.10

.41

N/S

Mean
Secondary

Mean Score
Superintendent

Score
Princi;

Q.

i

Subscale of
Section I

TAB L E 6 .--F-test results of secondary princ ipals' and
superintendents' r es p on s es on subscalc of section I co n ­
c er n in g d e c i s i o n making and involvement

System-wide
R e s p a n si b il i ti e s
B ui lding
Authority
Budget Control
S al a r y and
Benefits
Negot iations
Involvement

Degrees of F r e e d o m = 1/12
The d a t a pr esented

in Table 7 reve al that e l e ­

m e n t a r y pr i nc i p a l s

included in this study do p e r c e i v e a

s i g n i f i ca n t c h a n g e

in the total m a n a g e m e n t fun ction

62
c on s id e re d

in this study as a result of a d mi nistrative

bargaining.

This c h a n g e is in a po s itive direction,

wi th the principals perceiving positive changes,

IJull

hypothesis D, as it relates to el ementary principals,
is rej c c t o d .
TABLE 7 , — F -t e st re s u l t s for the d i f f e r e n c e from throe of
the m e a n scores of elementary principals on each of the
four sections and the total q u es t io n na i re
Level of
Signi ficancc

Mean
Score

F Score

D ec i s i o n Making
and Involvement
Accountability
Communications
St ructure

2.74
2 .6 8
2 .80
2. 57

6.29
10.62
1 .69
8 .51

.05
.0 1
N/S
.05

Total Q u e s t i o n ­
n aire

2.72

6.83

.05

Sec t io n of
Questionnaire

D egrees of Freedom = 1/13
The data presented
dary princ ip a ls

8

reveal that S e c o n ­

included in this study d o perceive a

s ig n if i ca n t change
sidered

in Table

in the total m a n a g e m e n t

functions c o n ­

in this study as a result of a dm i n i s t r a t i v e

bargaining.

This c h a n g e is in a positive direction,

w i t h pr incipals perceiving p os it i ve change.
h yp o th e si s D,

IJull

as it relates to se condary principals,

is r e j e c t e d .
The data presented

in Table

9 rev eal tlvat s u p e r i n ­

t en dents perce i ve a cliange in the total m a n a g e m e n t
f un ction of el e me n ta r y school principals as a resu lt

63
T AB L E 8 .— F-test results for the d i f f e r e n c e from three of
the me an scores of se condary p r i n c i p a l s o n each of the
four sections and the total q u e s t i o n n a i r e
Section of
Questionnaire

Mean
Score

„
„ COIT G
p
*'

Level of
Signif i ca n ce

Dec ision Making
and Involvement
Accountability
C om m un i ca t io n s
Structure

2.77
2.73
2 .77
2.79

9.99
20 .93
3 .29
5 .59

N/S
.05

Total Q u e s t i o n ­
naire

2.76

11 .45

.0 1

.0 1
.001

De grees of Freedom = 1/12

T A B L E 9.— F-test results for the d i f f e r e n c e from three of
the me an scores of superintendents' r es p onses as they
p er c e i v e e lementary p ri n ci p al s on ea ch of the four
sections and the total q u e s t i o n n a i r e
Section of
Q u e s t i o nn a ir e

Mean
Score

_
_
p SCOJTC

2.74

N/S
.0 1
.05

Dec ision-Making
and Involvement
A cc o un t ab i li t y
C om m un i c a t i o n s
S tructure

2.77
2.57

5.00
11 .45
3 .38
12 .48

Total Q u e s t i o n ­
naire

2.72

7.19

2.68

Degrees of Freedom = 1/13

Level of
Signifi c an c e

.05
.01

64
of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e bargaining.
a po s it i ve direction.

Null

Again,

this cliange is in

Hypothesis D, as it relates

to s u p e r i n te n de n ts and elemen t ar y princ ipals,
The da t a pr e sented

in T a bl e 10 reveal

is rejected.
that s u pe r ­

in tendents p e r c e i v e a ch a n g e in the total m a n a g e m e n t
functions of secondary school pr i nc i p a l s as a r es u lt of
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e bargaining.
direction.

This c h a n g e

Null Hy p ot h es i s D, as

is in a positive

it r el ates to s up e r i n ­

tendents and secondary principals,

is rejected.

TA13LH 1 0 . — F - t e s t results for the d i f f e re n ce from three of
the me a n scores of superintendents' r es p on s es as they p e r ­
ceive s e co n da r y princi pa l s on ea c h of the four subsections
and the total q u e s t i o n n a i r e
Section of
Que s t i o n n a i r e

M ea n
Score

F Score

Decis ion-Making
and Involvement
Accountability
C o m m u n ic a ti o ns
St ructure

2.83
2.70
2 .80
2.85

4 .31
28 .33
4 .08
2.24

Total Q u e s t i o n ­
naire

2.80

7.72

Level of
Signif icancc

N/S
.001

N/S
N/S
.05

D eg r ee s of Freedom = 1/13
S ub s cales
4,

5 and

6

Tab les 11,

identical

to those pr e se n t e d

are analyzed in relation to H y p o t h e s i s D in
12, 13 and 14.

These

of S ection I, Decision-flaking and
for e l e m e n t a r y principals,

subscales are a d i v i s i o n
Involvement.

M ea n scores

secondary p r i n c i p a l s and s u p e r ­

intendents are computed and analyzed

for signif i ca n ce as

they d i f f e r fro m the a bs o lu t e "remained
of 3 .

in Tables

the same" response

65

TABLE 1 1 . — F-test results for the di f f e r e n c e s from three
of the m e a n scores of e l e m e n t a r y p r in c i p a l s on subscalcs
of s ection I, d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and involvement
Section of
Questionnaire
System - wi d e
R es p on s i b i l i t i e s
Build ing
Auth or ity
Budget Control
Salary and
Benefits
Negotia tions
Involvement

Mean
Score

F Score

Level of
Signi f icancc

2.83

2.18

N/S

2.70
2.59

12.18
7.47

.0 1
.05

2 .39

22 .63

.0 0 1

2 .87

.60

N/S

D eg r e e s of F reedom = 1/13

TABLE 1 2 . — F -test results for the d i f f e r e n c e from three of
the m e a n scores of secondary p ri n ci p a l s on subscales of
section I, d e c i s i o n -making and in volvement
S ec tion of
Questionnaire
Sy stem-wide
R es p on s i b i l i t i e s
Building
A uthor ity
Budget C o nt r ol
Salary and
Benef its
Negot iations
In volvement

Mean
Score

„ _
F Score

2.65

12.32

.01

2.75

14.59
11.82

.01

2.66

2 .56

13.05

.01

3 .06

.23

N/S

D eg r e e s of F r e e d o m = 1/12

Level of
„.
.c .
Signif i ca n ce

.01

66
T AB L E 1 3 , --F-test results for the d i f f er e nc e s from three
of the mean scores of superintendents' responses as the
q u e s t i on n ai r e relates to elemen ta r y principals on subscales of section I , d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and involvement
Se ction of
Q ue s t i o n n a i r e
Sy st em-wide
R espons i bi l it i es
Build ing
A ut h o r i t y
Budget Control
S alary and
Benef its
N egotiations
In volvement

Mean
Sc ore

F Score

Level of
Signif icanee

2 .88

.71

N/S

2.72
2 .57

7 .02
7.83

.05
.05

2.39

22 .63

2.87

.60

.001

N/S

De grees of F re e d o m = 1/13

T ABLE 14 . -- F -test results for the d if f e r e n c e s from three
of the mean scores of superinte ndents' re s ponses as the
q u e s t i o n n a i r e relates to se c ondary pr i nc i pa l s on s u b ­
scales of section I, d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and involvement
Se ction of
Q u e s t i o nn a ir e
Syst em-wide
R es p on s ib i li t ies
Build ing
Autho ri t y
Budget Control
Sa la ry and
Benef its
N egotiations
Inv olvement

Mean
Score

«
F „
Score

2 .83

2.29

N/S

2 .6 6
2 .64

15.95
6.73

.01
.05

2 .69

10.07

.01

3 .10

.57

N/S

D eg r ee s of F r e e d o m = 1/13

„ .Level
.c . of
S i g n i f i ca n ee

67
Only

secondary principals pe rceived a significant

chan ge in their s y st e m- w id e r es p on s ibilities,
th ree c a t e g o r i e s a g r e e d
has taken pl a ce in the

and all

that n o signifi c an t d i f f e r e n c e
involvement of p r i n c i p a l s

in

management

and board of ed u ca t io n po l ic i e s and proce du r es

con c er n i n g

teacher n e gotiations.

El e me n ta r y principals,

secondary pr i n c i p a l s and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s all p e rc eived
positive c ha n ge s in the principals'
d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g roles related

i n v o l v em e nt and

to b ui l di n g authority,

budget cont rol and salary and benefits.
levels r a n g e d

from

.05 to

Si g nificance

.001 w i t h i mp r ov e me n ts

in

salary and benefits c o n s i s t e n t l y the highest s i g n i f i c a n c e
level.
A l l r e sp o nd e nt s were asked
In your opinion,

the following question:

g e n e r a l l y w h a t af f ec t has a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

c ol l ec t iv e bargaining

had on your di s tr i ct ?

T h e r e were tlrree po s sible responses:
no significant e f f e c t and wh o le s om e .
s ummarizes

d etrimental,

Table 15

the responses.

Over

50 per ce nt of the s ec o ndary and e l em e n t a r y

p r i n c i p a l s percei ved m a n a g e m e n t b ar g ai n i n g as having a
w h o l e s o m e effect u p o n the school di strict.

T h e largest

p e r c e n t a g e of the s up e ri n t e n d e n t s v i e w the e f f e c t of
bar g ai n in g as insignificant.

68

TABLE 1 5 . - -Frequency di s t r i b u t i o n of responses concerning
ge neral effects of a d m i n is t ra ti v e bargaining o n school
districts
Detr imental

Number

Number
Elemen tary
Pr incipal
Secondary
Pr incipal
Superin­
tendent
C om p os i te

No Significant
Effect
%

Wholesome
Numb er

't

5

5.7

32

36.8

50

57 .5

4

10.8

14

37.8

19

51 .4

4
13

28 . 6
9.4

7
54

50.0
39.8

3
72

21 .4
51 .B

One ad d it i o n a l q u e s t i o n asked of all r e s p o nd e nt s
was:

In your opinion,

is your d i st r i c t p r a c t i c i n g the

p r i n c i p l e s of the Management T e a m Co n cept?

T a b l e 16

summarizes re s po n s e s to this question.
Interestingly,

100 per cent of the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s

c on s id e r e d the p r in c i p l e s of the m a n a g e m e n t t e am c on c ep t
to be pra cticed

in their sc h oo l districts.

and th r ee - te n th s per cent of

Fifty-nine

the e l em e nt a ry p r i n c i p a l s

and 4 0.5 per cent of the se co n da r y p ri n ci p al s disagre ed.
The frequency of v a r i o u s responses to e a ch
q u e s t i o n was s tudied to d e t e r m i n e w h i c h areas were p e r ­
c eived by re s p o n d e n t s to be least af f ected by m a n a g e m e n t
b argaining and w h i c h were m o s t affected.
in w h i c h each c a te g or y of r es p o n d e n t s

Those questions

indicated no c hange

G9
in 70 per cent of the c as e s were identified.

Doth

responses of each s up e rintendent were averaged

to give

one response.
TABLE 1 6 . — Frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses con cerning
t he practice of ma n a g e m e n t team p r i n c i p l e s
No
Number
E lementary
Principal
Secondary
Principal
Superin­
tendent
C om p osite

%

Number

?,

Number

59 .3

8

9.3

27

31 .4

15

4 0.5

3

8.1

19

51 .4

0
66

0

48 .2

0
11

0
8.0

14
60

for w h i c h greater than

of each c at egory of respon de n t

50 per c e nt

Table

17 and

show the s ummary of these findings.
T h e design of

this study pr ovides for an analysis

of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between selected
A c c o u n t ab i li t y

(Section

D ecisio n -M a ki n g and
the l im i t e d

statements on

II) and related s t at e me n ts on

Involvement

(Section I ) .

Because of

spread of responses on qu e st i o n s o n A c c o u n t a ­

(majority of responses we re either 1,

2 or 3),

the d a t a are dicliotomized into two responses.
1 and 2 are considered
sidered

.
4 3.8

100

indicated either an increase

or d e c r e a s e are identi fied and reported.

bility

'I

51

Tho s e q ue s tions

Table 18

Yes

Don't Know

to be 2.

1 and re s ponses 3, 4 an d

T ab l es 19 and

Responses
5 are c o n ­

20 are summar i es of the

F-Test a na lysis of th e se data, d e si g n e d to d e t e r m i n e if

70
T A B L E 17 .--Statements for w h i c h greater than 70 per cent
of each c a t e g o r y of r e s p o n de n ts indicated no change
N um b e r of Re spondents
Indicating no C h a n g e

Statement
Nu mb er

Elementa ry
N
N
N
N

1 6a
34b
36 C
6d

= 76
= 0.4
= 6G
= 61

Secondary
N
N
N
N

=
=
=
=

31
33
26
30

Total
Number

Perc en t a g e

Superin­
tendents
N
N
II
II

119 .5

= 12.5
= 13
= 10.5
= 10

110

102 .5
101

87 . 3
79.6
75.0
73 . 3

a lG = F r e e d o m to attend board meetings.
sionnl

b 34 = A c c o u n t a b i l i t y
employees.
30 = O p p o r t u n i t y

for e va l ua t in g

nonpro fes-

to learn by doing.

= Consideration

for one holding a m i n o r i t y

opinion.

resp ondents who indicated a p os itive pe r ce p t i o n of ch a n g e
on statements of a c c o u n t a b i l i t y

(Section

II)

also

r es p on d ed p o s i ti v el y to rela ted statem e nt s on D e c i s i o n ­
m ak i n g and

Involvement

(Section I) and

if those who i n d i ­

c at e d no change or negative c ha n ge on Se c t i o n

II also

indicated a similar response on Section I.
Table 19 reveals a h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n b et w ee n
p o s i t i v e resp onses by secondary and e le m en t a r y p r i n c i p a l s
on statement 29 w h i c h asked

the d e gr e e to w h i c h the

s up e rintendent liolds the pr incipal a c c o u n t a b l e

for the

o ve r-all e du c at i on a l c l imate of his building and to s t a t e ­
ments

5, 7,

10,

11,

14 and 20.

T h es e st a te m en t s deal

TABLE 1 8 .--Statements for which greater than SO per cent cf each category of respondents indicated change
Number and K ea n Score of Respondents

State­
ment
N LLO.ber

E l e m e n t a r y Pr i n c i p a l s
Positive

23a

» 51
(601)

N ■ 32
(37.2%)

bb

Ind. i c .a tir.g Change

S e c o n d a r y Principals

Negat ive

Kea n

N » 7
(8.31)

2 . 3t

68.3

N = 19
(22.lt)

2 . Bt

59.3

1

Superin t e n d e n t s

Positive

Negative

Kean

N • 24
(64.91)

N - 2
15.41)

2.3 0

70.3

N ” 10
(71. 41)

N • C

2.14

- 14
(37. Si)

N =6
(16.31)

2.78

34.1

n

- 6
(42.91)

- 2
(14.21)

2.71

'•

1

a
23 - Principals'
bB

« Principals'

influence cr. their salaries and benefits.
involvement m

deci s i o n s affecting

then.

Positive

Nega t i v e

Mean

Po sitive

Negative

71.4

N * 85
(12.3)

N - 9
(6.611

69.1

57.1

N = 52
(3 3.01)

N - 27
(19.71)

57.7

1

1

72
TABLE 1 9 . — F-test results of d i c h o t o mi z ed data r el a t i n g
mea n score of responses to statement 29 (accountability)
to m e a n score of responses to st atements 5, 7, 10, 11, 14
and 2 0 (decision-making and involvement)
Fre quency
of
Responses

Element ary
Principals
Secondary
Principals
Superintendent
El. Princ. Resp onse
Superi ntendent
S. Princ, Response

with the principals'

F
Score

Degrees
of
F reedom

Level of
Signifi­
cance

1

2

35

52

21.21

1/8 5

.0005

17

20

4 .38

1/35

.05

6

8

1/13

u/s

(j

8

1/13

u/s

.524
2 .97

authority to e s t a b l i s h r e g u l a t io n s

for the o p e r a t i o n of their buildings,

their

influence in

hiring t e a c h e r s , i n volvement in d e v e l o p m e n t and a d m i n i s ­
tration of their building budgets,
for teachers and the principals'
ing the instruetional p ro gram
Superintendents'

inservice p r o g r a m s

in v ol v em e nt in d e t e r m i n ­

for their buildings.

responses did not show a r e l a t i o n s h i p

be tween the two variables.
Table

20 data reveal no s ignificant r e l a t i o n s h i p

between respondents'

a n sw e rs to s t at e me n t 31, w h i c h c o n ­

cerns the d e g r e e to w h i c h principals are held r e s p o n s i b l e
for implementing board and a d m i n is t ra t io n p o l i c i e s and
the responses to statements 1, 2, 3, 4 and B.
statements deal wi th the principals'

These

i n vo l ve m en t in

73
T ABLE 20.— F - t e s t results of d i c h o t o m i z e d data re l at i ng
m e a n scores of re s po n se s to statement 31 (accountability)
to m e a n scores of responses to statements 1, 2, 3, 4, 18
(decision-making and involvement)

Elemen t ar y
Princ ip a ls
Secon da r y
P r i n c i pa l s
Sup e ri n te n de n ts 1
Responsc-El.
Superintendents'
Response-Sec.

Frequency

F

D e gr e es

L u v e l o£

„ °
Responses

Score

_ ° .
Freedom

Si g ni f ic a nc e
3

1

2

30

57

.2 57

1/8 5

N/S

13

23

.036

1/34

N/S

7

7

.005

1/13

N/S

7

7

.077

1/13

N/S

system-wide p o l i c y development,

his u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the

d e c i s i on s made by the board and s up e rintendent and his
f re e do m to e va l u a t e the effect iv e ne s s of

such policy.

Table 21 data reveal a s ig n i f i c a n t r e l a t io n sh i p
bet w ee n resp onses of e l e m e n t a r y principals,

s e co n d a r y

p ri n ci p a l s and s u p e r in t en d en t s to q u e s t i o n 50
and

their respo n se s to s tatements

6

,

8

(structure)

and 42.

These

statem e nt s deal w i t h the re c ep t io n of the s up e ri n te n de n t
to suggestions and expressed opinions of principals.
A further analysis re lates the d i c h o t o m i z e d data
of S e ction IV

(Structure)

to related s t at e me n ts

r e m a i n i n g se c tions of the q u e s t i on n ai r e.

Again,

in the
all 1 &

2 responses are gr ouped in r es ponse 1 and 3, 4 a nd
respo ns e s are c o n s i d e r e d

to be

2

.

5

74
TABLE 2 1 . — F-test results of d i c h o t o m i z e d data relating
mean sc o re s of responses to statement 50 (structure) to
mean scores of responses to stateme nts 6 and 8 (d ecision­
making and involvement) and statement 4 2 ( c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) .
Frequency
^
J
„
„
Responses

„
F
Score

1

Elementary
Pri n ci p a l s
Secondary
Princip a ls
S uperintendents
Elem entary
R es p on s e
Superintendents
S ec o ndary
R e sponse

T
.
r
Level of
S i^gnificance

D egrees
_ of .
Fr e edom

27

57

28.91

1/83

.0005

9

27

34.76

1/35

.0005

7

7

17.81

1/13

.001

7

7

15.02

1/13

.005

Ta ble 22 data reveal a s i gnificant r el a ti o ns h ip
between responses of elementary principals/

second ary

p rincip a ls and s u p e r i n te n de nt s to q u e s t i o n 48
and their r e s p o ns e s to statem e nt s

38,

statements deal w i t h the u n d e r s t a n d i n g

(structure)

39 and 43.

T hese

the pr i ncipal and

s up e rintendent have for e a c h o ther's role and problems.

75
T A B L E 22.— F-test results of dichot o mi z ed data relating
m e a n scores of responses for statement 48 (structure) to
m e a n score responses for statements 38, 39 and 4 3 (communi­
cations)
Frequency
of
Respons e
1

Elementary
Princ ipals
S ec o nd a ry
P rincip a ls
S up e ri n te n de n t s
Elementary
Response
Super in t en d en t s
S ec o n d a r y
Re sponse

F
Score

De grees
of
Fr ee dom

Level of
S ig nificance

2

23

61

14 .70

1/83

.0005

12

24

6.39

1/35

.05

10

6.76

1/13

.05

15.37

1/13

.01

4
5

9

Summary
The purp ose of this chapter has been to present
the statistical d a t a gathered
fail

in this

study.

The data

to support the r ej e ct i on of H ypotheses A , B and C .

T he data do support

the rejection of H ypothesis U,

that significant di f f e r e n c e s
of school districts,
bargaining,

in the m a n a g e m e n t

in

functions

as a result of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

are perceived by superintendents,

p ri n ci p a l s and secondary principals.

e le m en t ar y

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY,

CO N C L U S I O N S AND

RECOMM E ND A TI O NS
Summary
The spread of collective bargaining
education has been a recent p he n om e no n
States.

In Micliigan,

Public Act

in public

in the United

379 which was passed

by the state legislature in 1965 clearly establ is h ed
the right of

teachers and other n o n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e school

em ployees to bargain for wages,

b e nefits and w o r k i n g c o n ­

ditions w i t h boards of education.
C oncessions gained
education,
upon and,

by teachers,

from boards of

through the bargaining pro cess encroa ch e d
in some cases,

usurped m a n a g e m e n t p r erogatives

pr eviously co n si d er e d to be the e x cl u s i v e rights of
building principals and other mi d dl e m a n a g e m e n t employees.
In addition,

the economi c gains a c hieved by t e achers in

the first rounds of negotiations appeared
istrators to have na rrowed

the g ap between the salaries

of c la s s r o o m teachers and administrators.
of public

school m i d d l e manage m en t

loss of authority,

to m a n y a d m i n ­

The concerns

for their potential

status and r e l a t i v e economic

76

77
a d va n t a g e m a n i fe s te d itself in two ways.

One was the

m o v e m e n t to ad opt the M a n a ge m en t Team Concept as the
formally recognized method of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of school
districts.

Proponents of this c o n c e p t m a in t ai n ed

that

its pr a ctice would provide m id d le m a n a g e m e n t wi t h an
a cc e pt a bl e method of sharing

in board and a dm i ni s tr a ti v e

policy and p r oc edure d e v e l o p m e n t — thus reducing the loss
of co ntrol of m a na g em e nt
others.

Further,

functions

by principals and

the r e c o g n i t i o n of principals,

d ir e c t o r s and ot her mi d dl e m a n a g e m e n t admini s tr a to r s
as true members of the m a n a g e m e n t of the school d i s t r i c t
was expected

to restore lost status and assure an ade quate

c o m p e n s a t i o n spread between teac her and administrator.
The ot h er movement,
most concerned with,
bargaining units,

and the one this study

is

is the formation of adminis t ra t iv e

usually c om posed of all adminis t ra t or s

below the level of Assist a nt Su p er intendent.

The pr actice

of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s organizing to barg ain w i t h boar ds of
e du c a t i o n

for wages,

benefits and w orking condi ti o ns was

immediately c h al l en g ed by a school

board in Michigan.

The Mi c hi g a n Employment Relations C o m m i s s i o n ruled that
middle m a n a g e m e n t a d mi n is t ra t or s d o have the right to
bargain c o l l e c t i v e l y and this ruling was upheld by the
M ic h i g a n Ap p el l a t e Court.
The p u rp o se of this study was to determ i ne
those

intimately involved

if

in the a d m i n is t ra t io n of public

78
schools and a dm i ni s t r a t i v e bargaining,
tendents and principals,

namely the s u p e r i n ­

perce iv e the effects of m a n a g e ­

m e n t bargain ing d i f f e r e n t l y or similarly.
this study set out to d e t e r m i n e

Secondly,

if the practice of

management bargaining had any effect on the m a n a g e m e n t
functions of school districts,
wer e positive or ne g a t i v e

and

if so,

if the e f fects

in the perceptions of those

involved.
C o n c l u si o ns
The data collected
there

for this study reveal that

is no signifi c an t di f fe r e n c e

element ary principals,
tendents co n ce r n i n g

in the p e r c e p t i o n s of

secondary pri ncipals and s u p e r i n ­

the e f f e c t s of n eg otiations on the

p rincipal's de c i s i o n - m a k i n g au t hority and i n volvement
in a d mi nistrative decision,

his ac c ou n ta b il i ty

for the

instructional prog ram and general ma n ag e me n t of his
assigned building or his c o m m un i ca t io n to and from the
superintendent.

Further,

the data support the theory

that there are no s ig n if i ca n t diffe rences
ceptions of
any change
resulting

in the p e r ­

the p rincipals and su p er intendents c o nc e rn i ng
in structure of the a dm i nistrative o r g a n i z a t i o n

from m a n a g e m e n t bargaining.

F ur ther refinement of the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g
involvement section of
responses

the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

related sp e ci f ic a ll y to changes

pr incipal's

s ystem-wide responsibilities,

and

into those
in the
bui lding

79
authority,

budget control,

salary and bene fits and

inv olvement in p r ep a ra t io n for and the process of
teacher n e g o t i at i on s showed no p at tern of d i v e r g e n c e
between p e r c e p t i o n s of e l em en t ar y p r in c ip a ls and
secondary principals,
superintendent s.
difference

nor secondary p r i n c i p a l s and

The only c a t e g o r y w h i c h showed any

in the p e rc e pt i on of change,

m an a ge m en t bargaining,

from

betw een the e l e m e n t a r y princip a ls

and su p er i n t e n d e n t s was
and benefits.

r es u lt i ng

the area of principals'

salary

The e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s saw the results

of ba rgaining as being

signif ic a nt l y m o r e b en e fi c ia l

to

el ementary principals than did the superintendents.
This difference,

however,

is on ly a m a t t e r of de gree,

as later an alysis of the d a t a reveals that both groups
of a d m i n i st r at o rs viewed

the effects as being po sitive.

The responses of superintendents,

el e me n ta r y

princip als and s e co n da r y princip a ls w e r e ana lyzed
d etermine

if they perce i ve d ch a ng e s

functions of school di s tr i c t s
trative bargaining.

in m a n a g e m e n t

as a result of a d m i n i s ­

This was done by c o n s i d e r i n g

c at e g o r y of r e sp o nd e nt separately and c o n s i d e r i n g
responses

to each of

to

ea ch
their

the four main s e ct i o n s of the

q u e s t i o n n a i r e as well as their c o m p o s i t e r e s p o n s e to
the total questionnaire.
All

four c a t e g o r i e s of r e s p o nd e nt s pe r ce i ve d

signifi c an t changes

in the m a n a g e m e n t

functions of

80
school d i s t r i c t s as a re s ul t of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e barga ining
and these cha nges are
increases or
in q u e s t i o n

in a positive direction,

imp rovement

in the situa tion or c o n d i t i o n

(Total Questio n na ir e ).

interestingly,

indica ting

On the subscales,

all c a t e g o r i e s of r e s p o nd e nt s c o n c u r r e d

that s i g n if i ca n t increases had taken place in the d e gr e e
to wh i c h p r i n c i p a l s are held account a bl e for
ment of their schools and staffs.
d ar y p r i n c i p a l s a g reed that

Elemen t ar y and s e c o n ­

there w e r e signifi c an t c h an g es

in the pr i nc i pa l 's d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g
ment

the m a n a g e ­

authority and

involve­

in a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s as well as s t ru c t u r a l

changes

in the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e organization.
Superintendents'

re sponses di f fered w h e n a ns w er i ng

in re l ation to e le m en t a r y p r i n c i p a l s or s e co ndary p r i n ­
cipals.

S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s pe r ce i ve d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b a r g a i n ­

ing as r e su l ti n g

in an increase of

m en t ar y p ri n ci p a l s
percei ve

involve m en t of e l e ­

in d e c i s i o n m a k i n g while they d i d not

this as r e su lting

in any si g ni f ic a nt

in the se c ondary p r i n c i p a l ' s

involvement.

increase

The s u p e r i n ­

tendents pe rceived the e f fe c ts of ne g o t i a t i o n s

by

admin is t ra t or s as pr o d ucing no structural c h a n g e as the
s up e rintendent
as having

relates to the s e co ndary pr i nc i pa l ,

a po s itive struct ural c h a n g e as the s u p e r i n ­

tendent and e l e m e n t a r y pr incipal u n d e r s t a n d

e a c h ot h e r ' s

role and p os ition in the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l structure.
Finally,

but

all c at e go r i e s of re s p o n d e n t s agreed

that

81

a dm i ni s tr a ti v e b a rg a in i ng produced

no signif ic a nt c h an g e

in c o m m u n i c a t i o n

the board of education,

between and among

s up e rintendent and principal.
Pre vious
experts

studies,

anti the v i ew p o i n t of many

in the field of educat io n al

administration,

suggest that se condary principals carry m o r e
with the

s u pe rintendent and affect

in fluence

the d i r e c t i o n of

d e c i s i o n s more than do e l em e nt ar y pr incipals.
relatively fewer
school

system,

The

secondary admini strators wi t hi n a

the public v i sa b i l i t y of the curricular

and e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r p ro grams of the

secondary school

and the higher economic and liierarchical
to the s ec o nd a ry

status ascribed

pr i nc i pa l 's role are suggested reasons

for this condition.
The findings of

this study support

a dm i ni s tr a ti v e b a rg a in i ng
in volvement

in d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g .

p ri n c ip a ls and
net e f fe c t

increases

the p r i n c i p al ' s

Both the el e me n t a r y

super intendents ag r ee d that

for e l e m e n t a r y principals.

for

this was

increase

themselves,

the

s up e rintendent d i d not v i e w bargai ning as af fecting
secondary pr i nc i pa l s

this way.

Co n s e q u e n t l y ,

percept i on s of the superin t en d en t s
study,

included

e l e m e n t a r y principals r ea lized m o r e

in terms of d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g

the

Interestingly,

while the s ec o nd a ry principals perceived a n
invo lvement in d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g

the idea that

in the

in this
benefits,

involvement than did

in

82
secondary principals,

who pr e d i c t a b l y were m o r e

than e le m en t ar y principals prior to bargaining.
istrative bargaining

appears to be a loveler

involved
Admin­

in this

regard .
T h e findings relating
resulting
above.

to structural changes

from a d mi n is t ra t iv e ba rgaining support the

A ga i n both secondary and eleme ntary principals

perceive

structural changes,

in a positive direction.

The su p e r i n t e n d e n t s do not co n si d e r bargaining to have
improved
regard,

the lot of the seco ndary prin cipal

in this

but do sec bargaining as having caused

ments of

im pr ove­

the e lementary princi p al ' s position within the

organization.
Further refinement of Section I (Decision-Making
and Involvement)

into subsections d e aling w i t h system-

wide r e sp o ns ibilities,
trol,

building authority,

budget c o n ­

salary and benefits and negotia t io n s involvement

provide

some interesting a n a l y s e s .
Only s ec o n d a r y principals

increase

in their

see a significant

system-wide responsibilities.

Superin­

tendents did not perceive any s ignificant c h a n g e for
either secondary or elementary principals in this
category.

Elementary principals saw no ch an ge in their

role re l at e d to sy stem-wide responsibilities.
categories of respondents perceived

All

si gn ificant i nc r eases

in the p rincipal's authority to administer his building.

83
his in vo lvement in b ud g et d e v e l o p m e n t and budget a d m i n i s ­
tration and
teachers'

his sala ry and benefits

salaries and benefits.

in re l ation to

This latter c a t e g o r y

showed the greatest d eg r ee of change,
cance l ev e ls ranging

from

of re sp ondents co n curred
ment of pr i nc i p a l s

.001 to

w i t h the s i g n i f i ­

.01.

that no c ha n ge

All c at e go r ie s
in the i n v o l v e ­

in the d e v e l o p m e n t board of ed ucation

negotia t in g po sitions or pr a ctices had ta ken place.
W h e n asked about the general effects of a d m i n i s ­
trative ba r ga i ni n g on their respective school districts,
m o r e than one- half of the e le m en t ar y and secondary
p ri n ci p al s

responded that

it was wholesome.

tendents di d not sh are this view,
responding

that b ar g ai n in g

Superin­

wi th 78.6 per ce n t

had either a d e t r i m e n t a l or

no si gnificant e ffect on the di strict.
A mu c h m o r e d i v e r s e response was r e c e i v e d by the
following q u es t i o n w h i c h asked w h e t h e r or not the
p rinciples of the M a n a g e m e n t Team Co n c e p t were being
practiced

in the district.

answered affirmatively.

All of the s u p e r in t en d en t s

However,

of the se c ondary p r i n c i p a l s

more than one-half

shared this view,

31.4 per c en t of the element a ry principals.

but only
Approximately

60 per c e n t of the latter g r o u p answered this q u e s t i o n
negat i v e l y .
The data w e r e an a l y z e d to d e t e r m i n e w h i c h s t a t e ­
ments soli cited r e s p o n s e s

indicating

the g r ea t e s t

change

84
and the least change by all ca t eg o r i e s of respondents.
The practice of a d m i n i st r at i ve negoti a ti o ns

is perceived

by princi p al s and su p er i nt e nd e nt s as having

little,

any,

if

influence on the freedom of p ri n ci p al s to attend

board of ed u ca t i o n meetings,

the d e g r e e of a c co u n t a b i l i t y

of pr i nc i pa l s for evaluation of n o n p r o f es s io n al
assigned

to their buildings,

their

personnel

freedom to learn by

do ing and the amount of re spect and c o n s i d e r a t i o n other
a dm i ni s tr a to r s have for a principal who holds an o pi n io n
d if f er e nt

from the majority.

The greatest change,
bargaining,
related
and

perceived

as a result of ad m in i s t r a t i v e

by all c a t e g o r i e s of r e sp o nd e nt s

to the influence of pr i nc i p a l s on their salary

fringe benefits and

w hich affect

them.

Lhcir

involvement in decisions

In terms of sa la ry and benefits,

respondent c ategories p er c ei v ed

this change to be in a

highly po s i t i v e d i r e c t i o n wh ile the r e sp o n s e s
in involvement

in d ec i si o ns a ff e c t i n g

per cent of the r e spondents viewed
the p r in c ip a l' s

cent viewed
The

involvement,

statistical

T hi r ty - ei g ht

these ch a ng e s as

the changes as d e c r e a s e s
final

to ch ange

p r in c ip a ls were

less skewed to the po s i t i v e di r ec t io n .

increasing

all

wh i l e

19.7 per

in involvement.

treatment of the data

col l ec t ed

for this study d e a l s with the r e l a t i o n s h i p of

responses

for e a ch catego r y of res pondent

to statements

of A c c o u n t a b i l i t y and S t r u c t u r e to c o r r e s p o n d i n g statements

85
of Involvement and Communication.
d a t a into posit iv e responses#

By d i c h o t o m i z i n g

on one hand,

and negative responses on the other,
to d e te r m i n e

the

and neutral

the writ er attem pted

if those respondents wh o p e rc eived

increases

in the a c c o u n t a b i l i t y of principals al so pe r ceived
increases

in their

involv em e nt in d e c i s i o n and c o m m u n i ­

cations w i t h i n the school system.
Elemen t ar y and secondary p r i n c i p a l s who p er c ei v e
sign ificant

increases in their a c c o u nt a bi l it y for the

overall r e s p o ns i bi l it i es
per c e i v e c o r r e s p o n d i n g

for assigned bu i ldings d o also

increases

in t h ei r involv em e nt

in decis i on s that effe ct their bui lding and p r o g r a m
supervision.

Th e re was no signi ficant c o r r e l a t i o n

b et w ee n the responses of s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s on items of
a c c o u n t ab i li t y and those ma t c h e d

items of d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g

and comm unication.
Similarly,

a high c o r r e l a t i o n of po s i t i v e

res p onses to the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the p os i ti o n of the
p ri n cipal

in the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h i e r a r c h y to p o s i t i v e

responses to related items of c o m m u n i c a t i o n and a c c o u n t a ­
bility was
perce iv e d

found.

All c a t e g o r i e s of r e s p o n d e n t s who

in c reases in their u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the

p os ition of the principal

in the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r g a n i ­

zation also perce i ve d an increase

in mu t ua l u n d e r s t a n d i n g

of the role and e x p e c t a t i o n of the principal b e t w e e n
s up e rintendont and principal.

86
Implications of the Study
The findings of this study should serve to
relieve some of the anxieties of those students of
a dm i ni s tr a ti v e or ganization and

superintendents who

have been predicting dire consequences as the result
of middle managem e nt bargaining in publ ic school d i s ­
tricts.

T h e y should

further help to dispel the opinion

that principals and superintendents hold dra matically
di fferent vi ewpoints concerning the effects of a d m i n i s ­
trative bargaining.

Principals and superintendents

included in this study generally concurred that a d m i n i s ­
trative c ollective bargaining did influence the m a n a ge m en t
practices of

the school di s t r i c t and that these changes

w e r e for the better.
alike,

saw increases

Superintendents and principals,
in the p rincipal's

a dm i ni s tr a ti v e decisions,

involvement in

as well as the degree to which

he is held accountable for his area of administrative
responsibility.

Surprisingly,

the section dealing wi th

cliangcs in communications among and b e tween the s u p e r i n ­
tendent,

principal and board of education was the only

se ction of the questionnaire for w h i c h no significant
c hange was perceived by any ca t eg o ry of respondent.
As m a y have been expected,
of m a n a g em e nt bargaining was

the grea test influence

felt by all to be its

influence o n the salary and fringe benefits of

87
principals.

All ca t eg o ri e s of ad m in i st r at o rs c o n s i d e r e d

bargaining to tiave si g n i f i c a n t l y

increased the c o m p e n ­

sati on received by pr incipals.
One last
The

interesting o b s e r v a t i o n should be made.

invo lvement of p ri n ci p al s

in their o w n bargain i ng

u ni t s does not s ig nificantly affect their
input,

either p o s i t i v e l y or negatively,

of e du c ation p o l i c i e s or p os i t i o n s
other unions w it h in

individual

into the board

for n e g o t i a t i o n s wi t h

the school district.

Some a ut h o r i t i e s

have suggested that the u n io n activi t ie s of p r in c ip a ls
would reduce or e li m in a te
b ar g ai n i n g

their

involv e me n t in the

strategy of the board of education.

Such

d oe s not appear to be the case.
Recommendations

for Future Resear ch

This study was c o n c e r n e d p r i m a r i l y with the
s i m i l a r it i es and d i f f e r e n c e s
sch ool p r i n c i p a l s and
resulting

su p er i nt e nd e nt s a b o u t the ch anges

from a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

n e c e s s a r i l y limited

in the percept i on s of

bargaining.

in scope.

M an y o t h e r s are a f f e c t e d

by m a n a g e m e n t b a r g a i n i n g and a similar

i n v e st i ga t io n of

their p erceptions should prove profitable.
in clude teachers,

school

It was

board members,

T h e s e would

other li n e

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and staff admini st r at o rs .
A further
ment

i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the

impact of m a n a g e ­

bargaining on a d m i n i s t r a t o r s could extend be y on d the

abs t r a c t co n ce p t of p e r c e p t i o n s

to the m e a s u r e m e n t of

88
abso lute changes.
changes

This m ight be accomp l is h ed by m e a s u r i n g

in p er c en t ag e s of the total budget o v e r which

the principal exer cises discretion,
his r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for hiring,
d is c h a r g e of em p loyees assigned

specific c h anges

promotion, d e m o t i o n and
to his building and

actual changes in the r e la t i o n s h i p of his s a l a r y and
benefits to that of other classi fi c at i on s of school
d is trict employees.

in

B IB L I O G R A P H Y

BIBLIO GRAPHY
Books
A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of School Administ rators.
Roles,
R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , Re l ationships of the School
B o a r d , Su p er i nt e nd e nt , and S t a f f . W a s h i n g t o n ,
B . C . : T h e A m e r i c a n A s s o ci a ti o n of School
A dministrators, 1963.
IJlam, Stanley; Licberman, Myron; and Moscow, Michael.
Readings on C o l l e c t i v e N e g o ti a ti o ns in Public
Education.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice
Hall, Inc., 1968.
Epstein,

Benjamin.
The P r i n c i p a l 1s R o l e in Co l le c t i v e
N c g o t i a t i o n s ~ B c t w e e n Teachers a nd School B o a r d s .
W a s h i n g t o n , B.C.:
National A s s o c i a t i o n oT
Se condary School Principals, 1965.

Licberman, Myron.
The F u t u r e of Public Education.
Chicago:
Phoenix B o o k s , U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o
Press, 1960.
_________ , and Moskow, M i c h a e l H.
Collective Negotiations
for Teachers:
An Appro a ch to S chool A d m i n i s tratioTH
C h i c a g o ; Rand M c N a l l y and Co 7~, I"966 .
Moskow,

Michael.
Te a chers and U n i o n s . Philadelphia:
U n i v e r s i t y oi' P e n n s y l v a n ia , 1966 .

Northrup, Herbert R., and Bloom, G o r d o n F.
Government
and Labor.
Homewood, 111.:
R ic h a r d B. Irwin,
1963 .
Sclimidt, Charles T», Jr.; Parker, Hyman; and Repas, Bob
A Gui de to C o l l e c t i v e N e g o t i a t i o n s in E d u c a t i o n
Social S c ie n ce R e s e a r c h Bureau.
East L a n s i n g :
Mic higan State University, 1967.
Shils,

Edward B., and Whittier, Taylor C.
Teachers,
Administ rators, and Collective B a r g a i n i n g .
New Y o r k : Thomas Crowell C o ., 1968.

89

90
Stinnett, T. M.; Kleinmann, Jack 11.; and Ware, Ma r th a L.
P r o f e s si o na l N e g o t i a t ion in Public E d u c a t i o n .
New York:
Macmil l an Co., I960.
Voslou,

W i l l i a m D.
Collective Bargaining in the U . S .
Federal S e r v i c e . C h i c a g o , 111.:
Public Personnel Association, 196G.
Journ al s and Periodicals

Adams,

Murray.
"A House Divided."
Mi c higan School Board
Journal, XVIII (July, 1971) .

Anderson, Lester W.
"Management T e a m Concept."
M i ch i g a n
School Board J o u r n a l , XVII (March, 19 69).
Cronin,

J o s e p h II.
"School Boards and P rincipals Before
and After Negotiations."
Phi Delta Ka p p a n
(November, 1967).

Dudley,

James.
"The h'lementnry P r i n c i p a l — The M a n
Middle."
Pace Setter (March, 1967).

educators N eg o ti a ti n g S e r v i c e .
XVII

(November

XVI

in the

(August 1, 1970).

_______

.

15, 1970).

Epstein,

Benjamin.
"What Is Negotiable."
P r of e ss i on a l
N eg o t i a t i o n s P am phlet No. 1 . National Association of Se c ondary School Principals, Washington,
D . C . , 1969.

G r o t y , Keith C., and Smith, David C,
"Approaches to a
M an a ge m e n t T e a m — A Report of the Ethics and
M an a ge m e n t Relations C o m m i t t e e of the MASB,"
M i c h i g a n School Board J o u r n a l , XVII, No. 7
(September^ 1970) .
“
Hatch,

Ter rance K.
"The Principal's Role in C o l l e c t i v e
N eg o tiations."
Bulletin of the IJASSP, LV
(December, 1971).

Higgenbotham, Richard,
M i c h i g a n School

"The Principal as Manager."
Board J o u r n a l , XVIII (April,

Ke ttering Fo undation.
IDEA.
cation, Dayton, Ohio,

1971).

Ke t tering F o u n d a t i o n P u b l i ­
Summer, 1968.

Licberman, Myron.
"The Future of C o l l e c t i v e Ne g ot i a t i o n s . "
Phi D e l t a K a p p a n , LIII (December, 1971).

91
Luntz,

Robert.
"Gricvenccs and Their Resolution."
B ul l et i n of the N A S S P , LV (December, 1971).

M ic h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
R e f l e c t i o n s , February, 1971.
Pinis,

Fritz.
"No Place to Hide."
tary P r i n c i p a l , XXXXI, No.

1

The M i c h i g a n E l e m e n ­
( S e p t e m b e r , 1966).

_________ .
"No Time to Lose."
The M i ch i g a n Elementary
Pr inc i p a l , XXXXII, TJo, 5 (May, 1968).
Panuch,

Lonis, and Kelley, Kdgar A.
"The High School
Principal:
Pro A c t i v e or Reactive Role?"
Phi
D el t a K a p p a n , LII (October, 1970).

Reynolds, Francis, and 'l’aygert, Donald.
"Single M a n a g e ­
ment Concept."
M i ch i g a n E le m en t ar y P r i n c i p a l ,
XXXX (May, 1967).
Sclimidt,

Ch arles T., Jr.
"The Q u e s t i o n of the Recogni t io n
of
Pr incipal and Other Su p er v is o ry U n i t s in
Pu bl ic e du c ation C o l l e c t i v e Ba rgaining."
Labor
L aw J o urnal (May, 1968).

Ten Eyck, Allan.
"Principals on the N eg o ti a ti n g Team."
The M i c h i g a n El e me n t a r y Principal, X X X X I (January,
1967).
V an Sweden, Jay.
"The P r i n c i p a l - N e g o t i a t o r or Observer?"
The M i c h i g a n Element a ry P r i n c i p a l , XXXXI, No. 3
( Ja n ua r y, 1967).
White,

Joe.
"A D e c i s i o n in the Making."
The M i c h i g a n
E le m en t a r y P r i n c i p a l , XXXI, No. 5 (May, 1967) .
O t h e r Sources

Adams,

Murray.
"A S tu d y of the P e r c e p t i o n s of Eleme n ta r y
Principals, S ec o n d a r y P r i n c i p a l s and S u p e r i n ­
tendents w i t h R e s p e c t to the Pr a ctice of the
M a n a g e m e n t T e a m C o nc e pt . "
Un p u b l i s h e d Ph.D.
dissertation. U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1971.

D etroit Free Press.
Febru ar y

December
5, 1967.

1, 1966.

92
Epstein,

Benjamin.
"A Prin cipal Does Some S ou l -Searching
in the N e w Era of C ol le c ti v e Negotiations.*'
A
speech g i v e n to the M i chigan A s s o c i a t i o n of
S ec o n d a r y School Principals at their annual
c o n v e n t i o n held in Detroit, Michigan, De c ember 1
and 2 , 19 6 6 .

G a r v e r , G eo r ge Gaylin.
"A Study of the R e l a t i o n s h i p
Between Se l ected Va r iables and the A t t i t u d e s of
Pub lic School P r i n c i p a l s in O ak l an d County,
Michigan, C o n c e r n i n g Co l le c ti v e Bargain i ng for
Public School Teachers."
U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D.
di ssertation, D e p a r t m e n t of Education, M i ch i g a n
State Un iversity, 1967.
Keller,

Edward.
P er sonal Interview w i t h the Executive
Director, M i c h i g a n A s s o c i at i on of E l em e nt a ry
School Pr in cipals, East Lansing, Michigan,
O ct ober 5, 197 2.

Michigan,

General

School L a w s , Section 423.215.

M ic h i g a n Co n gress of Sc ho ol Adminis t ra t or s .
Panel d i s ­
c us s io n at Ea s te r n M i ch i g a n University, M a r c h 11,
1971 (panel members:
Le on Cornfi eld, Harry
Casselman, W i l l i a m Ralls, C h ar l es R i h m u s and
James T o b i n ) .
M ic higan De p a r t m e n t of Education.
Local
of M i c h i g a n A s s e s s m e n t P r o g r a m .
M ic h ig a n^ 1971.

D i s t r i c t Results
Lansing,

M ic h i g a n Labor M e d i a t i o n Board,
"Decision and Order in
the M a tt e r of H il l sd a le C o m m u n i t y Schools
(Employer) and H il l sdale C o m m u n i t y Schools
P r i n c i p a l s and S u p e r v i so r y A s s o c i a t i o n (Peti­
tioner) and M i c h i g a n Ed ucation A s s o c i a t i o n
(Special I n t e r v e n o r ) D e c e m b e r , 1968.
M i c h i g a n Lab or R el a t i o n Board D e c i s i o n 187,
Neal,

1969.

Ricliard. S p e e c h to the M i c h i g a n N e g o t i a t i o n s
A s s o c i a t i o n in Pontiac, M i ch igan, O c t o b e r 1,

1970

Pisarski, Robert.
S p e e c h given at O a k l a n d C o u n t y School
Board A s s o c i a t i o n meeting, B l o o m f i e l d Hills,
Michigan, March, 1966.

93
R esearch Committee of the M i c h i g a n Congre s s of School
Admi nistrators.
A Su r ve y of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Bargaining Un i ts in M i ch i ga n Publ ic S c h o o l s .
East Lansing, M i c h i g a n , 1971^
U.S.

Government.
Section

8

Labor M an a ge m e n t Relations Act of 1 9 4 7 .
(D).

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
LIST OF M A N A G E M E N T F U N C T I O N S F R O M WH I CH
Q U E S T I O N N A I R E ST A T E M E N T S WERE D E V E L O P E D

APPENDIX A
L IS T

OF

MANAGEMENT

Q U E S T IO N N A IR E

F U N C T IO N S

STATEMENTS

FROM

WERE

W H IC H

DEVELOPED

Follo wi n g arc statements w h i c h m a y or may not d es c r i b e the
clraracteristics of the M a n a g e m e n t Team Concept.
The p u r ­
p os e of this instrument is to seek your o pi n i o n as to
w he t h e r or not you agree or d i s a g r e e w i t h e a c h statement.
Therefore, it is impor tant uliat you record y o ur true f o o l ­
ing con cerning the statement.
INTER-ACTION INFLUENCE
D E C I S I O N - M A K I N G AN D INVOLVEMENT

1.

2.

3.

*1 .

Ag ree

D is a g r e e

De c is ion-making should involve all
.administrators who will be affected
by the decision.

_____

_________

System - wi d e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e policies
concern i ng the o p er a ti o n of e l e m e n ­
tary and secondary b u il d i n g s should
be de t er m in e d o n l y after joint d i s ­
c us sions w i th the s u pe ri n te n de n t and
the principals.

______

_________

Final decisio n -m a ki n g, as it af fects
the district, should bo the p r e r o g a ­
tive of the superintendent.

______

_________

Pr i nc i pa l s should not be c o ns u lt e d in
the f ormulation of po li c y w h i c h is to
be recommended to the board.

5.

It is not ne c es s ar y that princi pa l s
unders t an d why d e c i s i o n s w e r e made.
Il
i r. on ly n e ce s sa r y for them to
implement the decisions.

0.

it is not ne c essary that pr i nc i pa l s
always agree w i t h the d e c i s i o n s of the
board, su p er i n t e n d e n t or the a d m i n i s ­
trative cabinet.

7.

Principals should not ev a l u a t e the
e f f e c t i ve n es s of d e c i s i o n s previously
made by the board, su p er i n t e n d e n t or
the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e cabinet.

94

___

95
D E C I S I O N - M A K I N G AND I N V O L V E M E N T — c on t i n u e d
Agree
8.

9.

10.

Pr i nc i p al s should h a v e the authority
to e st a bl i sh rules and procedures for
the o p e r a t i o n of their building p r o ­
vid ing they are c o n s i s t e n t with
board and a d m i n is t ra t iv e policy.

_____

D e ci s ion-making should encourage a
g i v e - a n d - t a k e p ro p o s i t i o n directe d
toward establishing an environment
in which d i f f e r e n c e s of opinion are
respected.

_____

Since su p er i nt e nd e nt s are ultimat e ly
r es p on s ib l e for what happens in a
district, they should not permit
p rincipals to e s t a b l i s h rules and
p rocedures for the o p e r a ti o n of
their buildings.

_____

11.

Principals should be consulted as
to the n um b er of t e a c h e r s needed
for their in struc tional program.________ _____

12.

Principals should be held r e s p o n ­
sible for the ov erall educational
cli mate of their buildings.

13.

Since b ud g et f or m ul a ti o n is the
res p on s ib i li t y of the su p e r i n ­
tendent, he alone s ho ul d d et e rm i ne
the al l oc a t i o n of m o ni e s.

14.

Pr i nc i pa l s and their staffs should
be free to de t ermine how money
all ocated to their building is
spent w i t h i n previous budgetary
approval.

15.

No one should bo e m p l o y e d in a
building without the principal's
approval.

16.

Pr i nc i pa l s should not be involved
in interviewing and recomme nding
n on p ro f es s io n al s seeking e m p l o y ­
m e n t in their building.

_____

___

D is a gr e e

96
D E C I S I O N - M A K I N G AND I N V O L V E M E N T — c on t in u ed
A gree
17.

In-service ed u cation programs
should be develo p ed by central
office staff and not left to
principals in individual buildings.__________

18.

Princ ipals should in te r vi e w and
recommend all p ro fessionals
seeking employm e nt in their
buildings.

__ ___

19.

The board should p ro v id e in-service
o p p o r t u n i t i e s for the purpose of
d ev e lo p i n g better w o r k i n g relations
between principals and their
superin tendent.____________________________ _____

20.

Principals should not be encouraged
to attend school board meetings.________ _____

21.

Principals should be represented by
m e m b e r s h i p on the board team that
n eg o ti a te s c o nt r a c t s w i t h teachers.__________

22.

Principals should be involved along
with central staff pe r so nn e l in
d et e r m i n i n g the instructional
p ro g ra m in their building.

_____

As a result of c o l l e c t i v e n e g o t i ­
ations, pr i nc i pa l s should no
longer be held r e s p o n si b le for the
i ns t ructional prog ram in their
buildings.

_____

C o ll e c t i v e n eg o t i a t i o n s should be
between the board and teachers.
P ri n ci p al s should not be asked to
p a r t i c ip a te in the proceedings.

_____

Pr i nc i pa l s not on the board
negot ia t in g team should be
informed re g ul a r l y of the status
of n e go tiations.

_____

23.

24.

25.

26.

Principals should r e v i e w the final
con t r a c t w i t h m e m b e r s of the
n egotiating team so as to know the
intent and r a m i f i c a t i o n of each
article.

97
DEC I SI O N- M AK I NG AND IN V OL V EM ENT--continued

27.

28.

P r in c ip a ls sliould be assured by the
s u p e r i n te n de n t and board of the
opp o rt u ni t y to be involved in the
d e t e r m i n e t i o n of their salary and
w or k i n g conditions.

A£ roc

Dis agree

______

_________

P r in c ip a l s should be c o n s i d e r e d as
an integral part of manafjumcnt.

A D D I T I O N A L FACTORS C O N C E R N I N G DE C I S I O N - M A K I N G W H I C H YOU
THINK SHOU LD BE C O N S I D ER E D IN THE C R I T E R I A FOR A
M A N A G E M E N T TEAM:

S TR U C T U R E
29.

There should be a formally struct ur e d
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n in which
p rincip a ls have r e pr e s e n t a t i o n in
formulating s y stem-wide policies.

30.

The c on tents of the agenda for the
n d m i n i s L r a t i v o council should be
d e t e r m i n e d only by the superintondent.

31.

D i s c u s s i o n in the a dm i n i s t r a t i v e
c ou n ci l should be free and o p en
w i t h o u t fear of reprisal.

32.

'Die a d m i n i s t r a t i v e co uncil should be
a place w h e re p r in c ip a ls and the
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t can bring their
c on c e r n s and expect to find
solutions.

A D D I T I O N A L FACTORS C O N C E R N I N G S T R U C T U R E W HI C H YOU T HI N K
SHOULD BE C O NS I D E R E D IN TH E C R I T E R I A FOR A M A N A G E M E N T
TEAM :

98

COMMUNICATION
Agree
33.

Ther e alwa ys should be di alogue
between the superintendent, or his
r epresentative, and principals on
m atters of mutual c o n c e r n bef ore
final d e c i s i o n s are made.

34.

Principals should not be involved in
d i s c u s s i o n s of the educat io n al goals
of the district.
T h e y should be
d et e rm i ne d by the board and the
superintendent.

35.

The su p erintendent should hold
regularly scheduled me et i n g s to
inform p r i n c i p a l s of the "state of
the d i s t r i c t ."

36.

T h e s u pe r intendent is respon si b le
for the to tal district; therefore, he
c an't c o n s i d e r suggestions of i n d i ­
vidual principals.

37.

The s up e ri n te n de n t should u n d e r s ta n d
the pr o blems of the principals but
it is not ne c es s a r y for p r i n c i p a l s
to u nd e rs t an d the p r oblems of the
superintendent.

38.

The s u pe rintendent and princip a ls
should feel free to d i sc u ss i m p o r ­
tant things about their job w i t h
e ac h o t h e r .

39,

The flow of information should be
pr incipal to superintendent,
s uperin t en d en t to principal and
principal to principal.

Disagree

99
C O M M U N I C A T I O N — continued

40.

P r i n c i p a l s should k n o w the s u p e r i n ­
tendent's p e r c e p t i o n of the office
of the principal.

A gr e e

D is a g r e e

______

_________

A D D I T I O N A L FACTORS C O N C E R N I N G C O M M U N I C A T I O N W H I C H YOU
T H I N K S H O U L D BE CO N S ID E R E D IN THE C RI T E R I A FO R A M A N A G E ­
M EN T TEAM:

ACCOUNTABILITY
41.

P r in c i p a l s should be held respons i bl e
to the s u p e r i n te n de n t for the
m a n a g e m e n t of their building.

42.

Pr i nc i p a l s should be ac c ou n ta b le for
the i ns tructional pr o grams in their
buildings.

43.

P r i n c i p a l s sliould be held a c c o u n t a b l e
for implementing b o ar d and a d m i n i s ­
tr ative policy as directed.

44.

B e ca u se he is a p r of e s s i o n a l
em ployee, the p r i n c i p a l ' s e f f e c t i v e ­
ness should not be e v a l u a t e d .

45.

The instru ct i on a l p r o g r a m as it is
o p e r a t i n g in a b ui l d i n g should be
e va l u a t e d peri odically.

4 6.

T e a c h e r s are p r o f e s s i o n a l people,
therefore, they s hould not be
a c c o u n t a b l e to th eir principal.

47.

N o n p r o f e s s i o n a l personnel (cus­
to di ans and cooks) sh o ul d not be
a c c o u n t a b l e to the p r in cipal but
to a supervi s or who u n d e r s t an d s
their p r o b l e m s .

100

A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y — continued
Agree
48.

When a compl a in t r e ga rding a building
reaches the superintendent, he should
resolve it w i t h o u t involving the
principal.

4 9.

When a pro fessional is d i s t u r b e d at
the building level, he should feel
free to by-pass his principal and
go d i re c t l y to the superintendent.

50.

Problems of n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n ­
nel should first be r ef e r r e d to the
principal for solut io n b efore
central office b ecomes involved.

51.

Principals m u s t "live" w i t h their
teachers; therefore, they should
not be required to e v al u a t e
teachers.

52.

Princi pals should e v a l u a t e p e r i o d i ­
cally the e f f e c t i ve n es s of n o n ­
p ro fessionals on their staff.

53.

Each p os i t i o n in the a d mi n i s t r a t i v e
hi erarchy should have a job
description.

Disagree

_____

A D D I T I O N A L FACTORS C O N C E R N I N G A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y WH ICH YOU
T H I N K SHOULD BE C O N S I D E R E D IN T H E C RI T ER I A F O R A M A N A G E ­
M E N T TEAM:

AP P E N D I X B
C O V E R L E T T E R AND PRINCIPALS'

Q U E S T I ON N AI R E

APPENDIX B

Dear

Principal:

T h e r e are c u r r e n t l y t h i r t y - f o u r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s in M i c h i ­
g a n in w h i c h a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a r e o r g a n i z e d f o r c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n ­
ing.
M y d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n w i l l d e a l w i t h t h e c h a n g e s this
h a s b r o u g h t a b o u t i n t he m a n a g e m e n t f u n c t i o n s o f s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s
involved.
Y o u r s u p e r i n t e n d e n t has a g r e e d to c o m p l e t e a q u e s t i o n n a i r e
s i m i l a r to t h e o n e e n c l o s e d
W o u l d y o u p l e a s e take a few min ute s
t o r e s p o n d a l s o , a n d t h e n r e t u r n t he q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n the s e l f addressed envelope.
A s u m m a r y o f the r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y w i l l
b e s e n t to a l l p a r t i c i p a t i n g s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s .
Thank

you

for

your

cooperation.
Sincerely t

Larry

McConnell

101

102
T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e h a s to d o w i t h t h e m a n a g e m e n t f u n c t i o n s of s c h o o l
districts
Its p u r p o s e is to a c c e s s c h a n g e s t h a t h a v e t a k e n p l a c e in
Michigan school districts where administrators collectively bargain.
No
i n d i v i d u a l or s c h o o l d i s t r i c t w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d in the study.
Secondary
p r i n c i p a l s ( i n c l u d i n g m i d d l e s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ) are a s k e d to c o n s i d e r e a c h
q u e s t i o n as it a p p l i e s to s e c o n d a r y p r i n c i p a l s o n l y .
Elementary principals
a r e a s k e d fo c o n s i d e r e a c h q u e s t i o n s b it a p p l i e s t o e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s
on i y .
P l e a s e p l a c e the n u m b e r of the a n s w e r w h i c h y o u feel b e s t d e s c r i b e s
t h e c h a n g e s , if a n y , t h a t h a v e t a k e n p l a c e i n y o u r d i s t r i c t s i n c e y o u r
a d m i n l s ;r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n w a s o f f i c i a l l y r e c o g n i z e d as t he b a r g a i n i n g
u n i t for a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

Current

£ ___/ E l e m e n t a r y

Title

Sex

Principal

Middle

School

Junior

High

School

Principal

Senior

High

School

Principal

/

/

/

/ Female

£

/ Male

Principal

Age

To*, a i N u m b e r of Y e a r s -n
School Administration

N u m b e r of
Position

Years

J

in C u r r e n t

____
/

____

£ __ /

A r e y o u a M e m b e r of
a
N e g o l a t i n g T e a m for the
B o a r d of E d u c a t i o n

£___/ Y e s
____
/___ / N o

In y o u r o p i n i o n , g e n e r a l l y w h a t a i f e c t h a s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g h ad on y o u r district.

J_

f Detrimental

£

/ No

Significant

In y o u r o p i n i o n , is y o u r d i s t r i c t
t he M a n a g e m e n t T e a m C o n c e p t .

t

, Yes

£ __ i N o

£ ___ / D o n ' t

Effect

practicing

Know

the

£ ___ / W h o l e s o m e

principles

of

INV O LV E ME N T AND D ECISION-MAKING
The
and
the
a

a m o u n t ot d i s c u s s i o n h e l d b y
p r i ncipals about s y s t e m - w i d e
o p e r a t i o n of s c h o o l s h a s
Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

:

t he s u p e r i n t e n d e n t
policies concerning

Remained
' he s a m e

d

Decreased

e

Greatly
decreased

e

Greatly
decreased

e,

Greatly
decreased

c

G r e a t ly
decreased

T h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n p u t b y p r i n c i p a l s ' in the
f o r m u l a t i o n of p o l i c y w h i c h is to b e r e c o m m e n d e d
to the b o a r d has
a.

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remained
the s a m e

d.

Decreased

T h e p r i n c i p a l s ' u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e r e a s o n s for
d e c i s i o n s m a d e by the B o a r d a n d s u p e r i n t e n d e n t has
a.

Creatly
increased

b.

Increased

<• . R e m a i n e d
the s a m e

d.

Decreased

T h e p r i n c i p a l s ' f r e e d o m to e v a l u a t e the c 1 f e c t i v e n e s s
o f d e c i s i o n s p r e v i o u s l y m a d e b y the b o a r d , s u p e r i n ­
te n d e n t or a d m i n i s t r a t i o n c a b i n e t has
a.

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c

Remained
t he s a m e

d.

Decreased

T h e d e g r e e t ; w h i c h p : l n c i p a l s h a v e a u t h o r i t y to
e s t a b l i s h r u l e s a n d p r o c e d u r e s t or the o p e r a t i o n
their b uildings, c o n s . s t a n t w i t h b o a r d and
a d m i n i s t r a t i 'e p o l i c y , h a s
a.

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remained
'he s a m e

d.

of

Decreased

e . Greatly
decreased

T h e a m o u n t of r e s p e c t a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r a p r i n c i p a l
w h o h a s a n o p i n i o n d i f f e r e n t f r o m the m a j o r i t y of
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s has
a-

The
and
has

a

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

Remained
t he s a m e

d

Decreased

e . Greatly
decreased

i n f l u e n c e of t h e p r i n c i p a l s c o n c e r n i n g t h e n u m b e r
p r e p a r a t i o n ot t e a c h e r s a s s i g n e d t o t h e i r b u i l d i n g s

Greatly
increased

b. Increased

*

Remained
the same

d

Decreased

e . Greatly
decreased

104
8-

I n g e n e r a l , t he i n v o l v e m e n t
w h i c h af fe c t t h e m has
a.

9.

The
t he
a-

10.

11.

12.

Remained
the s a m e

principals' involvemen
in
district wide budget has
Greatly
increased

the

a.

c.

Remained
the s a m e

b.

Increased

Increased

for

a.

Remained
the s a m e

b.

Increased

c.

d.

Decreased

d.

the

d.

b.

Increased

c.

Greatly
decreased

e . Greatly
decreased

of

Decreased

e . Greatly
decreased

administration

d.

Decreased

T h e p r i n c i p a l s ' i n v o l v e m e n t in the e m p l o y m e n t
p r o f e s s i o n a l e m p l o y e e s for t heir b u i l d i n g has
Greatly
increased

e

of

Decreased

development

The principals' responsibility
of t h e i r b u i l d i n g b u d g e t s h a s
Greatly
increased

in d e c . l i o n s

development

in

Greatly
increased

b.

the

The principals' involvement
their buil ding budgets has

Remained
the s a m e

d.

of

e

Greatly
decreased

non-

Decreased

e . Greatly
decreased

T h e p r i n c i p a l s ' i n v o l v e m e n t in the d e v e l o p m e n t of
i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s f or t he s y s t e m h a s
Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remained
the s a m e

d.

T he p r i n c i p a l s ' i n v o l v e m e n t in d e t e r m i n i n g
e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s for t h e i r b u i l d i n g s h a s
a.

15.

Increased

Remained
the s a m e

a.

14.

b.

c

a.

13.

Greatly
increased

of p r i n c i p a l s

Greatly
increased

b

Increased

c.

Remained
t he s a m e

T h e a m o u n t of i n s e r v i c e o p p o r t u n i t i e s
a t t e n d a n c e , s e m i n a r s , etc ) w h i c h the
for p r i n c i p a l s has

a. Greatly
increased

b- lnrreased

r

Decreased

Greatly
decreased

e

inservice

d.

Decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

(eg. c o n f e r e n c e
board provides

Remained
the same

d. Decreased

. Greatly
decreased

105
16.

The
a.

17.

Remained
the s a m e

d.

Greatly
increased

b-

Increased c

Greatly
increased

b

Remained
t he
same

Decreased

d

Remained
t he
same

d

Greatly
increased

b.

Greatly
increased

b.

on

Increased c . Remained
the
same

Greatly
increased

b.

e . Greatly
decreased

Board
other

Decreased

Board

d.

e - Greatly
decreased

and

Decreased

principals concerning
for n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h

Increased c

has

e . Greatly
decreased

of

Decreased

e . Greatly
decreased

of p r i n c i p a l s i n d e t e r m i n i n g
for Mieir b u i l d i n g s has

Increased

c

Remained
the same

d

Increased

c

Remained
the s a m e

Decreased

e

Greatly
decreased

principals
orher

d

Decreased

Greatly
decreased

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h p r i n c i p a l s a r e h e l p e d to u n d e r ­
s t a n d the intent a n d r a m i f i c a t i o n of a l l a g r e e m e n t s
n e g o t i a t e d w ith e m p l o y e e groups has
a.

23.

board meetings

T h e a m o u n t o f i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o all
c o n c e r n i n g t he s t a ’u s of n e g o l a t i o n s w i t h
employee groups has
a.

22.

attend

I n c r e a s e d c-

T h e d e g r e e of i n v o l v e m e n t
t he i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o g r a m
a.

21.

b-

to

T h e a c t u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of p r i n c i p a l s
E d u c a t i o n n e g o t i a t i o n teams has
a.

20

principals

T h e a m o u n t of i n p u t b y
of E d u c a t i o n p o s i t i o n s
employee groups has
a.

19.

Greatly
increased

of

T h e a m o u n t of g i v e a n d t a k e b e t w e e n p r i n c i p a l s
other administrators, directed toward arriving
at a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n h a s
a.

18.

freedom

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

Principals' Influence
fringe benefits has

a. Greatly
increased

c-

Remained
the s a m e

concerning

b. Increased

their

c. Remained
the same

d.

Decreased

salaries

, Greatly
decreased

and

d. Decreased

e. Greatly
decreased

106
24,

25,

The r e l a t io ns hi p
b e n e f i t s to t h a t

of p r i n c i p a l s s a l a r i e s a n d f r i n g e
of o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s h a s

a.

Increased

Remained
the s a m e

d.

principals salaries
t e a c h e r s has

b. I n c r e a s e d

Greatly
increased

b.

c.

Increased

The working conditions
district have
a.

28.

Greatly
Increased

c.

Decreased

i

Greatly
decreased

i

Greatly
decreased

and fringe

Remained
t he s a m e

d. D e c r e a s e d

The r e l a t i o n s i p of p r i n c i p a l s ' s a l a r i e s a n d fringe
b e n e f i t s to t h a t o f s c h o o l d i s t r i c t n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l
e mployees has
a.

27.

b.

T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of
b e n e f i t s t o t h a t of
a.

26,

Greatly
increased

Greatly
improved

The degree
management
a.

b.

of

Improved

c

Remained
the s a m e

principals

c.

in

Remained
t he s a m e

d

Decreased

this

d.

b.Increased

c.

Remained
the s a m e

d.

school

Deteriorated

to w h i c h p r i n c i p a l s
a re a p a r t of
team
inthis
school district has

Greatly
increased

. Greatly
decreased

c.

Greatly
Deteriorated

the

Decreased

e

Greatly
decreased

ACCOUNTABILITY
29.

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h t he s u p e r i n t e n d e n t
p r i n c i p a l s a c c o u n t a b l e f o r t he o v e r a l l
e d u c a t i o n a l c l i m a t e of b u i l d i n g s h a s
a.

30.

b

Increased

c.

Remained
t he s a m e

d.

the

Decreased

i

Greatly
decreased

i

. Greatly
decreased

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h t he s u p e r i n t e n d e n t h o l d s p r i n ­
c i p a l s r e s p o n s i b l e for the m a n a g e m e n t of their
buildings has
a.

31.

Greatly
increased

holds

Greatly
increased

b. I n c r e a s e d

c

Remained
the s a m e

d.

Decreased

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t h o l d s
principals responsible for implementing b o a r d
a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o l i c y , as d i r e c t e d , h a s

a. Greatly
increased

b. Increased

c. Remained
the same

d

Decreased

e, Greatly
decreased

107
32.

T h e f r e q u e n c y w i t h w h i c h the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t
e v a l u a t e s the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t he p r i n c i p a l s
a-

33.

d-

Decreased

Greatly
Increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remained
t he s a m e

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

d.

Decreased

e,

Greatly
decreased

e

Greatly
decreased

e

Greatly
decreased

e

Greatly
decreased

e

Greatly
decreased

e

Greatly
decreased

are held accountable
personnel assigned

Remained
t he s a m e

d.

Decreased

Greatly
Increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remained
the s a m e

d.

t he

Decreased

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remained
the s a m e

d.

Decreased

T h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r p r i n c i p a l s to c o m m u n i c a t e
a n d s u g g e s t i o n s t o t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o r h is
representative has
a.

38.

Remained
the s a m e

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h t h e p r i n c i p a l s h a v e t he o p p o r ­
t u n i t y to lear n b y doin g, i n c l u d i n g the f r e e d o m
to m a k e m i s t a k e s , a n d to l e a r n f r o m t h e m , h a s
a.

37.

c.

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t i n v o l v e s
p r i n c i p a l s regarding complaints about their
b u i l d i n g has
a.

36.

Increased

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h t he p r i n c i p a l s
for e v a l u a t i o n of n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l
to t h e i r b u i l d i n g s h a s
a.

35.

b.

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h t he p r i n c i p a l s a r e h e l d a c c o u n t a b l e
f o r e v a l u a t i o n o f t e a c h e r s a s s i g n e d to t h e i r b u i l d i n g s
has
a.

34.

Greatly
increased

has

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remained
t he s a m e

d.

ideas

Decreased

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h p r i n c i p a l s k n o w t h e s u p e r i n t e n ­
d e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t he r o l e o f t he p r i n c i p a l h a s

a. Greatly
Increased

b. Increased

c. Remained
the same

d. Decreased

e. Greatly
decreased

108
39.

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h t he s u p e r i n t e n d e n t k n o w s
p r i n c i p a l s p e r c e p t i o n of t h e r o l e of t he
superintendent has
a.

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c

Remained
the s a m e

d.

the

e . Greatly
decreased

Decreased

COMMUNICATIONS
40

T h e c h a n c e f o r d i a l o g b e t w e e n th e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ,
h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , a n d p r i n c i p a l s o n m a t t e r s of
m u t u a l concern w h i c h takes piace befo r e a final
d e c i s i o n is m a d e h a s
a.

41.

43.

c

Remained
the s a m e

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c

d

Remained
* he s a m e

to

a.

Remained
the same

Greatly
improved

b

Improved

The understanding
p r o b l e m s faced b y
Greatly
increased

b.

c.

t he

Decreased

e

Greatly
decreased

Increased

c.

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c

d.

Decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

superintendent

the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t
the p r i n c i p a l s has

d.

has

Remained
t he s a m e

T h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g the p r i n c i p a l s
f a c e d by the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t has
a.

45.

Increased

T h e r e c e p t i o n of s u g g e s t i o n s
by p r i n c i p a l s has

a.

44.

b

T h e q u a l i t y a n d r e g u l a r i t y of t he m e e t i n g s c a l l e d
b y t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t to k e e p p r i n c i p a l s i n f o r m e d
o f t h e " s t a t e of t he d i s t r i c t " h a s
a.

42.

Greatly
Increased

or

have

of

Remained
'he s a m e

of

t he

d.

Decreased

t he

d

b. Increased

c

Remained
the same

e

Greatly
decreased

e,

Greatly
decreased

problems

Decreased

T h e f r e e d o m p r i n c i p a l s h a v e to d i s c u s s i m p o r t a n t
a b o u t t h e i r J o b s w i t h t he s u p e r i n t e n d e n t h a s

a. Greatly
Increased

c . Greatly
deteriorated

Deteriorated

things

d. Decreased

e. Greatly
decreased

109
46.

T h e a c c u r a c y a n d a m o u n t of i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e to
t he p r i n c i p a l s f r o m t he b o a r d , s u p e r i n t e n d e n t a n d
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e cabinet has
a.

4 7.

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remained
rhe same

d.

. Greatly
dec ceased

Decreased

T h e a c c u r a c y a n d a m o u n t of i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m the
p r i n c i p a l s to t h e s u p e r l n t e n d e n t a n d b o a r d h a s
a.

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c

Remained
'he s a m e

d

Decreased

Greatly
decreased

sir u :t u r e

48.

T h e d e g r e e to
w h i c h principals u n ders'an d their role
a n d p o s i t i o n in t h e
a d m inistrative hierarchy has
a

49.

T h e d e g r e e to
r e p o r t i n g a re
a.

50.

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased c

Remained d
he same

Decreased

w h i c h f o r m a i l i n e of c o m m u n i c a t i o n
a d h e r e d t o in ' h i s d i s t r i c t h a s
b

Increased c

R e m a i n e d d.
f he s a m e

Greatly
do c r e a s e d

and

. Greatly
dec r e a s c d

Decreased

T h e d e g r e e to
w h i c h administrative statf meetings
p r o v i d e the o p p o r t u n i ' y f or p r i n c i p a l s to s h a r e
ideas and conc erns w it h other a d m i n i s t r a t o r s has
a.

51.

Greatly
Increased

Greatly
increased

b.

I n c r e a s e d c.

Remained d
*h e s a m e

. Greatly
decreased

Decreased

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h p r i n c i p a l s c a n d e t e r m i n e c o n t e n t s
of the a g e n d a f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f m e e t i n g s h a s
a.

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c

Remained
:he s a m e

d

Decreased

e

Greatly
decreased

APPEN DI X C
SUPERINTENDENT Q U E S T I O N N A I R E

A PP E ND I X C

T h e a t t a c h e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s d e s i g n e d to m e a s u r e y o u r
a s s e s s m e n t of c h a n g e s , if a n y , t h a t h a v e t a k e n p l a c e as a
r e s u l t of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b a r g a i n i n g in y o u r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t .
P l e a s e r e c o r d s e p a r a t e a n s w e r s a s the q u e s t i o n s a p p l y to
secondary principals (including middle school principals)
and as t hey a p pl y to e l e m e n t a r y pri n c i p a l s .
N o i n d i v i d u a l o r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t w i l l b e i d e n t i f i e d in
this study.
A s u m m a r y of the r e sul ts w i l l be m a d e a v a i l a b l e
to e a c h p a r t i c i p a t i n g s c h o o l d i s t r i c t as s o o n as t he d a t a
has b e e n analyzed.

Before
p r o v i d e t he

a n s w e r i n g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,
i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u e s t e d below:

would

you

please

____

N u m b e r of Years S e r v e d
in C u r r e n t P o s i t i o n

[ ___/

Number of Years S e r v e d
as A d m i n i s t r a t o r i n
Current District

/___ /

In y o u r o p i n i o n , g e n e r a l l y w h a t a f f e c t h a s
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g had on
your district.

j_

/ Detrimental

_/___ / N o

Significant

Effect

]____/ W h o l e s o m e

In y o u r o p i n i o n , i s y o u r d i s t r i c t p r a c t i c i n g
t he p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e M a n a g e m e n t T e a m C o n c e p t

/

/

Yes

jJ___/

No

/

110

/

Don't

Know

INVOLVEMENT AN D

DECISION-MAKING

Elementary
Principals

Secondary
Principals

T h e a m o u n t of d i s c u s s i o n h e l d by t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t
and p ri n c i p a l s about system- wid e p o l i cie s concerning
the o p e r a t i o n of s c h o o l s h a s ____________________________________ _______
a.

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c. R e m a i n
same

the

d.

Decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

T h e o p p o r t u n i t y for i n p u t by p r i n c i p a l s ' in the
f o r m u l a t i o n of p o l i c y w h i c h is to b e r e c o m m e n d e d
to the b o a r d h as
a.

Greatly
Increased

b.

Increased

c. R e m a i n
same

the

d.

Decreased

T h e p r i n c i p a l s ' u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t he r e a s o n s for
d e c i s i o n s m a d e b y the B o a r d and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t has

_______

a.

e.

Greatly
decreased

e.

Greatly
Decreased

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remain
same

the

d.

Decreased

T h e p r i n c i p a l s ' f r e e d o m to e v a l u a t e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s
of d e c i s i o n s p r e v i o u s l y m a d e by t he B o a r d , s u p e r i n ­
t e n d e n t or a d m i n i s t r a t i o n c a b i n e t h a s
a. G r e a t l y
increased

b.

Increased

c. R e m a i n
same

the

d.

Decreased

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h p r i n c i p a l s h a v e a u t h o r i t y to
e s t a b l i s h r u l e s a nd p r o c e d u r e s f o r t he o p e r a t i o n of
t h e i r b u i l d i n g s , c o n s i s t e n t w i t h b o a r d and
a d m i n is tra tiv e policy, has
a. G r e a t l y
increased

b.

Increased

c. R e m a i n
same

the

d.

Decreased

_______
e.

Greatly
decreased

T he a m o u n t of r e s p e c t a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n f or o n e
w h o h a s a n o p i n i o n d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e m a j o r i t y has

a. Greatly
increased

b. Increased

c. Remain the
same

d. Decreased

e. Greatly
decreased

112

Elementary
Principals
The
and
has
a.

8.

9.

10.

11,

12.

i n f l u e n c e of t he p r i n c i p a l s c o n c e r n i n g t he n u m b e r
p r e p a r a t i o n of t e a c h e r s a s s i g n e d to t h e i r b u i l d i n g s

Greatly
Increased

c.

Remain
same

In g e n e r a l , t he I n v o l v e m e n t
w h i c h affect th e m has

of

principals

a-

c.

Remain
same

Greatly
increased

b.

b.

Increased

Increased

T h e p r i n c i p a l s ’ involvem ent In
t he d i s t r i c t w i d e b u d g e t h a s

t he

a.

c.

Remain
same

The principals* Involvement
t h e i r b u i l d i n g b u d g e t s has

in

the

a.

c.

Remain
same

Greatly
increased

Greatly
increased

b.

b.

Increased

Increased

a.

Remain
same

b.

Increased

c.

the

d.

the

the

d.

d.

d.

Increased

c.

e.

Greatly
decreased

Decreased

e. G r e a t l y
decreased

of

Decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

of

Decreased

t he a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

t he

d.

The principals' i n v o l v eme nt In the e m p l o y m e n t
p r o f e s s i o n a l e m p l o y e e s f or t h e i r b u i l d i n g h a s
b.

Decreased

in de c i s i o n s

development

for

Greatly
increased

the

development

The principals' responsibility
of t h e i r b u i l d i n g b u d g e t s h a s

Greatly
increased

11

Secondary
Principals

Remain
same

t he

d.

Decreased

of

non­

Decreased

T h e p r i n c i p a l s ' i n v o l v e m e n t I n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of
inservice e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s f o r the s y s t e m has
a.

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remain
same

the

d.

Decreased

The principals' inv o l v e m e n t in d e t e r m i n i n g
e d u c at ion p r o g r a m s for their b u i l d i n g s has

inservice

a. Greatly
increased

d. Decreased

b. Increased

c. Remain the
same

e. Greatly
decreased

Elementary
Principals
15.

T he a m o u n t o f l n a e r v i c e o p p o r t u n i t i e s (eg. c o n f e r e n c e
a t t e n d a n c e , s e m i n a r s , e t c . ) w h i c h th e b o a r d p r o v i d e s
for p r i n c i p a l s h a s _________________________________________________ ________
a. G r e a t l y
increased

16.

T he

f r e e d o m of

a. G r e a t l y
increased

17.

Greatly
increased

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

b.

Increased

b.

Increased

b.

Increased

T he d e g r e e of i n v o l v e m e n t
the I n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o g r a m
a. G r e a t l y
increased

21.

principals

c. R e m a i n
same

to attend
c.

t he

board

Remain
same

the

c.

Remain
same

t he

c.

Remain
same

t he

T he a c t u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of p r i n c i p a l s
E d u cat ion n e g o t i a t i o n teams has
a. G r e a t l y
increased

20.

Increased

d.

Decreased

meetings
d.

d.

e.

Greatly
decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

has

Decreased

and

Decreased

The a m o u n t of input by p r i n c i p a l s c o n c e r n i n g Board
of E d u c a t i o n p o s i t i o n s f o r n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r
e m p l o y e e g r o u p s h a s ________________________________________________ ________
a.

19.

b.

T he a m o u n t o f g i v e a n d t a k e b e t w e e n p r i n c i p a l s
other a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , d i r e c t e d tow a r d a r r i v i n g
at a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n h a s
a.

16.

Secondary
Principals

b.

Increased

c.

Remain
same

on

the

d.

Decreased

Board

e.

Greatly
decreased

of
________

d.

Decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

of p r i n c i p a l s in d e t e r m i n i n g
for their b u i l d i n g s has
c. R e m a i n
same

the

d.

Decreased

The a m o u n t of i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e to a ll p r i n c i p a l s
c o n c e r n i n g t he s t a t u s o f n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r
employee grou ps has

a. Greatly
increased

b. Increased

c. Remain the
same

d. Decreased

e. Greatly
decreased

________

Elementary
Principals
22.

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h p r i n c i p a l s a r e h e l p e d t o u n d e r ­
s t a n d the i n t e n t a n d r a m i f i c a t i o n of all a g r e e m e n t s
n e g o t i a t e d w i t h e m p l o y e e g r o u p s h a s ____________________________ _______
a.

23.

25.

26,

27.

b.

Increased

Greatly
increased

b.

c.

Remain
same

concerning

Increased

c.

the

d.

Decreased

their s a l a r i e s

Remain
same

the

d.

Decreased

of p r i n c i p a l s salaries a nd fringe
of o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s h a s

a.

Increased

Greatly
increased

b.

The relationship
b e n e f i t s to t h a t

of
of

a.

Increased

Greatly
increased

b.

c.

Remain
same

the

principals salaries
t e a c h e r s has
c.

Remain
same

d.

and

the

Decreased

d.

Decreased

of p r i n c i p a l s ' salaries a n d fringe
of s c h o o l d i s t r i c t n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l

a.

Increased

b.

The worki ng conditions
d i s t r i c t have
Greatly
improved

The d e g r e e
management

b.

of

Improved

c.

principals

c.

Remain
same

to w h i c h p r i n c i p a l s
t eam in this s c h o o l

a. Greatly
increased

b. Increased

Remain
same

the

d.

in t h i s

the

d.

Decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

c.

Greatly
decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

school

Deteriorated

are a part of
district has

c. Remain the
same

Greatly
decreased

fringe

The relationship
b e n e f i t s to t h a t
e m p l o y e e s has
Greatly
increased

e.

and

The r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e n e f i t s to t h at

a.

2d.

Greatly
increased

Principals' influence
fringe benefits has
a.

24.

Secondary
Principals

e.

Greatly
deteriorated

the

d. Decreased

_______

e. Greatly
decreased

____

ACCOUNTABILITY

29

11.

11

b.

Increased

c.

Remain
same

t he

d.

Decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

_____

a.

e

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remain
same

t he

d.

Decreased

T h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t he s u p e r i n t e n d e n t h o l d s
p r i n c i p a l s r e s p o n s i b l e f or i m p l e m e n t i n g b o a r d
a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o l i c y , as d i r e c t e d , h a s
Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remain
same

the

d.

Decreased

has

a.

Decreased

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remain
same

t he

d

Greatly
decreased

_______

T h e f r e q u e n c y w i t h w h i c h the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t
e v a l u a t e s t he e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the p r i n c i p a l s

e.

Greatly
decreased

_____
e.

Greatly
decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h t he p r i n c i p a l s a r e h e l d a c c o u n t a b l e
for e v a l u a t i o n of t e a c h e r s a s s i g n e d to t h e i r b u i l d i n g s
has
a.

14

Greatly
increased

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t h o l d s p r i n ­
c i p a l s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the m a n a g e m e n t of t h e i r
buildings has

a-

12.

Secondary
Principals

T h e d e g r e e to v h i c h t he s u p e r i n t e n d e n t h o l d s the
p r i n c i p a l s a c c o u n t a b l e f or the o v e r a l l
e d u c a t i o n a l c l i m a t e o f b u i l d i n g s h a s __________________________ _______
a.

10.

Elementary
Principals

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remain
same

The degree to w h i c h the p r i n c i p a l s
f o r e v a l u a t i o n of n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l
to t h e i r b u i l d i n g s h a s
a

Greatly
Increased

b.

Increased

c.

the

d.

Decreased

are he l d a c c o u n t a b l e
personnel assigned

Remain
same

_______
the

d.

Decreased

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t i n v o l v e s
principals regarding complaints about their
building has

a

Greatly
increased

b. Increased

c. Remain the
same

e.

Greatly
decreased

the

d. Decreased

_______

e. Greatly
decreased

116

36

.

Greatly
Increased

Greatly
increased

Increased

c.

R e m a i n the
same

b.

Increased

c.

Remain
same

the

Decreased

e

Greatly
decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

ideas

d,

b.

Increased

c.

Remain
same

the

Decreased

d.

T he d e g r e e to w h i c h the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t kn ow s
p r i n c i p a l s p e r c e p t i o n of the r ol e of the
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t has

a. G r e a t l y

b.

Increased

c.

Decreased

T he c h a n c e for d i a l o g b e t w e e n the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ,
his r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , a nd p r i n c i p a l s o n m a t t e r s of
m u t u a l c o n c e r n w h i c h takes p l a c e b e f o r e a f i n a l
d e c i s i o n is m a d e h a s
a.

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remain
same

the

e.

Greatly
decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

the

R e m a i n the
d. D e c r e a s e d
same
COMMUNICATIONS

increased

**0

d,

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h p r i n c i p a l s k n o w the s u p e r i n t e n d ­
e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the role of the p r i n c i p a l has
a. G r e a t l y
Increased

39

b.

T h e o p p o r t u n i t y for p r i n c i p a l s to c o m m u n i c a t e
and s u g g e s t i o n s to the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t or his
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e has
a.

38.

Secondary
Principals

The d e g r e e to w h i c h the p r i n c i p a l s h a v e the o p p o r - u n i t y to learn by d o i ng , I n c l u d i n g the f r e e d o m
to m a k e m i s t a k e s , a n d to learn f r o m them, h as
a.

37

Elementary
Principals

d

or

Decreased

e,

Greatly
decreased

c.

Greatly
decreased

The q u a l i t y and r e g u l a r i t y of th e m e e t i n g s c a l l e d
by the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t to ke ep p r i n c i p a l s i n f o r m e d
of the " s t a t e of the d i s t r i c t " h as
a,

*•<?

Greatly
increased

b,

Increased

c.

T he r e c e p t i o n of s u g g e s t i o n s
by p r i n c i p a l s has
a. G r e a t l y
Improved

b.

Improved

to

R e m a i n the
same

d.

Decreased

the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t

c. R e m a i n
same

the

d.

Deteriorated

e.

Greatly
deteriorated

Elementary
Principals

1^-7

43

The understanding
problems faced by
a

44

b.

the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t h a s of the
the p r i n c i p a l s h as __________________________ _______
Increased

c.

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

b.

Increased

c.

increased

47

the

d. D e c r e a s e d

Remain
same

t he

d. D e c r e a s e d

T h e f r e e d o m p r i n c i p a l s h a v e to d i s c u s s I m p o r t a n t
a b o u t their j o b s w i t h t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t h a s

a. G r e a t l y

46

Remain
s a me

e.

Greatly
decreased

T h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g the p r i n c i p a l s h av e o f the p r o b l e m s
f a c e d by the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t h a s ________________________________ _______
a

4b

Greatly
increased

Secondary
Principals

Remain
same

the

d.

e.

Greatly
decreased

things
_______

Decreased

e.

Greatly
decreased

T h e a c c u r a c y a n d a m o u n t of i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e to
t he p r i n c i p a l s f r o m the b o a r d , s u p e r i n t e n d e n t a n d
a dm ini str ati ve cabinet has

_______

a.

e.

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remain
sa me

the

d.

Decreased

Greatly
decreased

T h e a c c u r a c y a n d a m o u n t of i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m the
p r i n c i p a l s to the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t a nd b o a r d h a s

_______

a

e.

Greatly
increased

b

Increased

c.

Remain
s am e

t he

d.

Decreased

Greatly
decreased

STRUCTURE

48

49

'tie d e g r e e to w h i c h p r i n c i p a l s u n d e r s t a n d t h e i r r o l e
a nd p o s i t i o n in the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h i e r a r c h y h a s

_______

a

e.

Greatly
increased

b.

Increased

c.

Remain
same

the

d. D e c r e a s e d

T h e d e g r e e to w h i c h f o r m a l l in e of c o m m u n i c a t i o n
r e p o r t i n g a r e a d h e r e d to i n this d i s t r i c t has

a

Greatly
increased

b. Increased

c. Remain the
Bame

Greatly
decreased

and

d. Decreased

e. Greatly
decreased

118

Elementary
Principals

Secondary
Princi pa Is

The d eg r e e to w h i c h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f m e e t i n g s
p r o v i d e the o p p o r t u n i t y for p r i n c i p a l s to shar e
ideas and c o n c e r n s w i t h o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s has
a. G r e a t l y
i n c r ea s ed

b.

Increased

c. R e ma i n
same

the

d. D e c r e a s e d

. Greatly
decreased

The d e g r e e to w h i c h p r i n c i p a l s can d e t e r m i n e c o n te n ts
of tlie a g e n d a for a d m i n i s t r a t i v e sLa ff m e e t i n g s has
a. G r e a t l y
increased

b.

I nc r e a s e d

c. R e m a i n
same

the

d. D e c r e a s e d

e.

Greatly
decreased