INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm 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 Page(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 with 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 will find a
good image of 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 with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority 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 Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE:
received.

Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as

Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Z e e b Road
Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106

76-5536
COREY, Carlton Cranmer, 1938THE PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS
ON ASPECTS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1975
Education, administration

Xerox University Microfilms,

©

Copyright by
CARLTON CRANMER COREY
1975

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

THE PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF COLLECTIVE
o

NEGOTIATIONS ON ASPECTS OF SPECIAL
EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN
By
C arlton Cranmer Corey

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State U n iv e rs ity
in p a r tia l f u lf illm e n t o f the requirements
f o r the degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f Elementary and Special Education
1975

ABSTRACT
THE PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF COLLECTIVE
NEGOTIATIONS ON ASPECTS OF SPECIAL
EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN
By
C arlton Cranmer Corey
The purposes o f th is study were 1) to in v e s tig a te and re p o rt
m a te ria l found in teacher-board co n tra cts which appeared to have a
d ir e c t e ffe c t on Special Education; 2) to in v e s tig a te and re p o rt the
perception o f Special Education d ire c to rs as to the e ffe c ts o f teacherboard co n tra cts on the f i e l d o f Special Education; and 3) to provide
base lin e data r e la tiv e to the above mentioned m a te ria l during a period
o f time previous to the passage o f the Mandatory Special Education Act
in Michigan (PA 198 o f 1971).
The problem to which th is in v e s tig a tio n addressed i t s e l f was
the lack o f in fo rm a tio n a v a ila b le which may be used as a basis fo r
e va lu a tin g and im proving teacher-board co n tra cts r e la tiv e to the f ie ld
o f Special Education.
The review o f the lit e r a tu r e focused on 1) a d e fin itio n o f
c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s , 2 ) , the p rin c ip le s o f c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s ,
3) negotiable to p ic s , and 4) the e ffe c ts o f n e g o tia tio n s .
The study c o n sists o f two major p o rtio n s .

The f i r s t is an

a n a lysis o f 68 teacher-board co n tra cts from school d is t r ic t s in

C arlton Cranmer Corey
Michigan who had lo c a l d ire c to rs o f special education during the
1969-70 school year.

The second was a survey o f these d ire c to rs to

gather t h e ir opin io n concerning the e ffe c ts o f the c o lle c tiv e negotia­
tio n process on t h e ir special education programs.
were used as the data base.

F o rty-n ine responses

The study was d e s c rip tiv e and a ll data

were organized to provide a concise and y e t reasonably d e ta ile d p ic ­
tu re o f both the co n tra cts and the d ir e c to r s ' op inio ns.
The research questions to which th is study addressed i t s e l f
were:
1.

What are the number and content o f c o n tra c t items
p e rta in in g to special education in the selected con­
tra c ts ?

2.

What has been the e xte n t o f involvement o f special
education personnel in the n e g o tia tio n process?

3.

What are the perceived e ffe c ts o f the c o lle c tiv e nego­
t ia t io n process on special education programs as
reported by lo c a l d ire c to rs o f special education?

4.

What changes in o r a d d itio n s to c u rre n t con tracts
are seen by lo c a l d ire c to rs as being needed and
ju s t if ia b le f o r the improvement o f special education
in t h e ir d is t r ic t ?

Twenty-two fin d in g s are re porte d.
1.

Major fin d in g s were:

The m a jo rity o f the d is t r ic t s paid a f l a t ra te s a la ry d if f e r e n t ia l
to a l l special education personnel.

2.

The m a jo rity o f co n tracts co n ta in in g statements regarding the regu­
la r te a ch e rs1 r e s p o n s ib ility f o r students whom he/she f e l t were

C arlton Cranmer Corey
in need o f special help fo r p h y s ic a l, mental o r emotional
reasons.
The s o c ia lly d e via n t o r d is ru p tiv e c h ild dominates the d e scrip ­
tio n s o f handicapped c h ild re n in the c o n tra cts.
The co n tra cts provided few guarantees fo r special education s t a f f
involvement in a d m in is tra tiv e processes, and committee planning
processes r e la tin g to handicapped c h ild re n .
V ir t u a lly a l l special education s t a f f o th e r than school psycholo­
g is ts were included in the bargaining u n it.
Over o n e -h a lf o f the d is t r ic t s d id not have special education
s t a f f on the teachers' n e g o tia tio n team.
The fo llo w in g major conclusions were reached.
The vast m a jo rity o f the special education s ta ffs were covered by
n egotiated agreements.
The special education s ta ffs were not adequately represented in
the c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n process.
There was l i t t l e

support found in the co ntracts fo r an in te g ra tio n

o f special education and re g u la r students.
A number o f c o n tra c t items had a p o te n tia lly detremental e ffe c t on
the educational programs fo r handicapped c h ild re n .
Special education programs have not been notably a ffe c te d by the
c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n process.
There was a la ck o f involvement o f special education a d m in is tra to rs
in the c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n process.

In Memory o f my fa th e r
W ill Herbert Corey
who believed in people

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my deepest a p p re cia tio n to Charles E.
Henley, my committee chairman, fo r h is encouragement and u n s e lfis h
c o n trib u tio n s o f time and e f f o r t , which c o n trib u te d so much toward
the completion o f t h is document.

To the o th e r members o f the com­

m itte e L u c ille K. Barber, Howard W. Hickey and James E. K e lle r I
wish to express many thanks fo r t h e ir assista nce.

Each c o n trib u te d

in a special and meaningful manner.
To my w ife Donna, many thanks f o r s tic k in g w ith me and
nudging me a t the a p p ro p ria te moments.

Your p ra is e , and f a it h in

me and my work, made the task bearable.
To those many others who added t h e ir o p in io n s , words o f
encouragement, and hard work I express my a p p re c ia tio n and g ra titu d e .

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................v i i
LIST OF FIGURES
.........................................................................v i i i
CHAPTER
I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION

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

1

C o lle c tiv e N e gotiations from the P riv a te to the
P u b lic Sector .............................................................................
C o lle c tiv e N e g o tiatio ns in the P ublic Schools ................
Need fo r the S t u d y .....................................................................
The Problem and P u rp o s e .............................................................
Research Questions .....................................................................
L im it a t io n s .....................................................................................
A ssu m p tio n s.....................................................................................
D e f i n i t io n s ........................

2
4
7
11
11
12
13
13

A SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................

15

In tro d u c tio n .................................................................................
D efining C o lle c tiv e N egotiations .........................................
P rin c ip le s o f C o lle c tiv e N egotiations .................................
Negotiable I t e m s ....................
Perceived E ffe c ts o f the N egotiations Process ................
The Superintendent in the N e g otiatio n Process ................
The P rin c ip a l in the N eg otia tion Process ........................
E ffe c ts o f C o lle c tiv e N egotiations on S a la rie s . . . .
Other E ffe c ts o f C o lle c tiv e N egotiations (P o s itiv e
V i e w s ) .........................................................................................
Other E ffe c ts o f C o lle c tiv e N egotiations (Negative
Views) .........................................................................................
The C o lle c tiv e N e g o tiation Process and Special
E d u c a tio n .....................................................................................
P e r c e p t.............................................................................................

15
15
17
21
27
29
31
34

METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES

36
40
42
43

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

45

A nalysis o f Contracts .................................................................
Item S e le c tio n , Recording and C ategorizing ................
Treatment o f the D a t a .............................................................
The Opinion S u r v e y .....................................................................
P u rp o s e .........................................................................................
Development o f the Q uestionnaire ....................................
The P ilo t S tu d y .........................................................................
The Final Q uestionnaire .........................................................

45
46
49
50
50
50
51
52

iv

CHAPTER

IV.

Page
A d m in is tra tio n o f the S u r v e y .............................................
C a tegorizing and Tabulating the Q uestionnaire
Responses....................................................................
Treatment o f the D a ta .............................................................
The P o p u la tio n s ........................................................................

52

RESULTS.................................................................................................

58

53
54
54

A nalysis o f C ontract Items
........................................
58
S alary D iffe r e n tia ls f o r Special Education
62
P e rs o n n e l.............................................................................
Handicapped Students in Regular Classrooms . . . . .
65
Class S i z e .............................................................................
70
R e fe rra l and Placement o f Special Students . . . . .
73
Time Commitments f o r Special Education Personnel . . 77
Maintenance and Expansion o f Special Education
P r o g ra m s ..............................................................................
81
Special Education S ta ff on Committees ............................
82
In te g ra tio n o f Special Education Students in to
84
Regular C la s s e s ....................................................................
P ro visio n s o f Space and M a te ria ls f o r Special
Education Personnel .............................................................
86
Length o f School Day fo r Special Education Students . 87
In -S e rv ic e Days fo r Special Education S ta ff ................
88
Special Education Programs included in Summer School.
89
M iscellaneous .............................................................................
89
90
Results o f the S u rv e y .............................................................
S ta ff Covered by Local C ontract .........................................
91
D ire c to rs Involvement w ith the C o lle c tiv e Negotia­
tio n P r o c e s s ........................
92
Special Education S ta ff Represented on N eg otiating
Team s......................................................................................
93
Changes in S ta ff Working C onditions . . . . ................
94
Changes in the A d m in is tra to rs ' Job A ttrib u te d
to C o lle c tiv e N e gotiations .............................................
96
Changes in the Q u a lity o r Q ua ntity o f the O veral1
Special Education Program .................................................
97
C ontract Items Having a D ire c t E ffe c t on Special
E d u c a tio n .............................................................................
98
S a tis fa c tio n w ith Current C ontract ................................
98
A d d itio n s to C ontracts Mentioned by Respondents . . .
101
Suggested D eletions from Local Contracts
Recommended by Respondents ............................................. 101

v

Page

CHAPTER
V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS,
RECOMMENDATIONS................................................

104

Summary..................................................................................... 104
F i n d i n g s ................................................................................. 106
Findings R e latin g to the Analysis o f Contracts . . .
Findings Related to the Results o f the Survey . . . .
D is c u s s io n ............................................................................. 108
C o n c lu s io n s ............................................................................. 116
Recommendations ............................................................................
Recommendations f o r Special Education S ta ff and
A d m in is tra to rs ....................................................................
Reconmendations fo r Further Research ............................

106
107
117
117
117

APPENDICES
A.

TABLE 17.

CONTRACT ITEMS BY CATEGORY AND DISTRICT

. . .

119

B.

LETTERS TO LOCAL SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTORS

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

122

C.

THE OPINION SURVEY.................................................................. 124

REFERENCES..............................................................................................................129

vi

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE

Page

1.

School D is t r ic t S i z e ..........................................................................

56

2.

D ire c to r L o n g e v ity .............................................

56

3.

D is tr ib u tio n o f C ontracts by Category and Sub-Category . .

60

4.

Number o f D is tr ic ts and t h e ir F la t Rate S alary
D i f f e r e n t i a l ............................

63

5.

S ta ff P o sitio n s Not Included in Local C ontracts

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

6.

Involvement o f Di re c to rs in the C o lle c tiv e N e gotiations
Process
........................................

93

7.

Special Education S ta ff Represented on N e g o tia tin g Teams .

94

8.

Changes in S ta ff Working C onditions

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

95

9.

Changes in the A d m in is tra to r's Job A ttr ib u te d to
C o lle c tiv e N egotiations .............................................................

96

10.

Changes in the O verall Special Education Program .................

97

11.

C ontract Items Reported as Having a D ire c t E ffe c t on
Special Education .........................................................................

99

12.

S a tis fa c tio n With Local C ontract ..................................................

100

13.

Reasons fo r S a tis fa c tio n With Local C ontract .........................

100

14.

Reasons fo r D is s a tis fa c tio n With Local C ontract

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

101

15.

Suggested A d d itio n s to Current Contracts ..................................

102

16.

Suggested D eletions from Local Contracts ..................................

103

17.

C ontract Items By Category and D is t r ic t

119

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

92

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1.

Page

D is trib u tio n o f Item Frequencies by Number o f
C o n t r a c t s .........................................................................................

viii

61

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Throughout the h is to ry o f c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s , prim ary
emphasis has centered around a "balance o f power" between an employer
and an employee.

As is pointed out elsewhere in th is study, laws and

agreements o f many types have been w ritte n concerning working con ditio n s , rig h ts o f employers and employees, and methods o f developing
these documents.
The process o f c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n in education has much
in common w ith n e g o tia tio n s in o the r p u b lic and p riv a te in s t it u t io n s .
Working c o n d itio n s and s a la rie s remain the prim ary concerns.

Educa­

tio n is unique in th a t i t is entru ste d w ith a r e s p o n s ib ility to it s
consumer, the stu d e n t, unprecedented in any o th e r la b o r s itu a tio n ,
p riv a te or p u b lic .
In education, c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s are conducted between
teacher groups and boards o f education.

The p upil o r his parents are

seldom represented except through a member o f the educational community
E ith e r p rofessional s t a f f or a board member.

Both the teacher groups

and the boards have a commitment to the c h ild re n and parents they serve
However, in some cases, th is commi tment may become endangered through
the in te rv e n tio n o f seemingly necessary p o lit ic a l concerns.
Because o f th is possible c o n f lic t o f in te r e s ts , considerable
concern has been expressed, regarding the long term e ffe c ts o f
1

2
c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s on c h ild re n .

A d e s c rip tio n o f these thoughts

and fe e lin g s as found in the lit e r a t u r e ,

is

presented in Chapter I I .

The vast m a jo rity o f m a te ria l r e la tiv e to the e ffe c ts o f c o lle c tiv e
n e g o tia tio n s is confined to the teachers and students in "re g u la r
e d u c a tio n ."

I t is the in te n t o f th is study to extend th is f ie ld o f

in v e s tig a tio n in to "sp ecial education" programs which have been
developed f o r handicapped students.

C o lle c tiv N egotiations from the
P riva te to the P ublic Sector
The problems s t i l l faced by some p u b lic school
the area o f c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s are p a r t ia lly due to
adequate le g is la tio n and g u id e lin e s .

systems in
a lack o f

This s itu a tio n is s im ila r to

th a t o f p riv a te in d u s try before 1935, when the National Labor Rela­
tio n s Act (Wagner A ct) was ushered in by the New Deal.

This a ct

removed form er r e s tr ic tio n s placed on the employee unions and forbade
employers from d is c rim in a tin g between union and non-union workers.
" I t made u n iv e rs a l, fo r the f i r s t tim e, the basic r ig h ts

o f workers to

organize and bargain c o lle c tiv e ly w ith employers" ( S h ils , & W h ittie r ,
1968, p. 128).
The T a ft-H a rtle y Act (Labor-Management R elations Act o f 1947)
provided a 1i s t o f s ix p ra c tic e s which were deemed u n fa ir i f p a r t ic ­
ipated in by la b o r.

I t balanced out some o f the stre n g th the la b o r-

unions had acquired by the passage o f the Wagner Act and i t s
ammendments.
The Landrum -G riffin Act o f 1959, was enacted to re g u la te
the in te rn a l a f f a ir s o f the unions themselves.

"The need f o r g re a te r

3
governmental re g u la tio n was based upon the u n eth ica l and undemocratic
p ra c tic e s documented by the McClellan Committee" (Lieberman, 1966,
p. 76).

Some o f the p ra c tic e s found by the McClellan Committee

involved la b o r o rg a n iza tio n leaders re ce ivin g kickbacks, b rib e s , and
o th e r in flu e n ce s from employers.
A ll o f the above le g is la tio n applied only to p riv a te
employees who worked f o r companies th a t engaged in some type o f in t e r ­
s ta te commerce.
were in vo lve d .

T herefore, not a ll employees in the p riv a te se cto r
I t is recognized, however, th a t the vast m a jo rity o f

employees worked f o r companies which did engage in some type o f in t e r ­
s ta te commerce.
P h ilad e lp h ia was probably the f i r s t major m u n ic ip a lity to
e n te r in to an agreement w ith i t s employees in 1937.

Since th a t tim e

many communities have negotiated various types o f c o lle c tiv e agree­
ments w ith t h e ir p u b lic employees.

These communities have not been

required to re p o rt t h e ir agreements w ith t h e ir p u b lic

employees to

any given agency.

Therefore, comprehensive data on such agreements

are not a v a ila b le .

"As o f 1965, lo ca l a f f i l i a t e s o f the American

Federation o f S ta te , County, and Municipal Employees (AFL-CIO)
reported a to ta l o f over 500 agreements negotiated w ith s ta te and
lo c a l p u b lic employers" (Liberman, 1966, p. 85).
A study undertaken by the New York C ity Dept, o f Labor in
1955, showed th a t m unicipal employee o rg a n iza tio n s or unions
were to be found in each o f the 18 U.S. c it ie s w ith a popula­
tio n o f over 500,000. In 95% o f the c it ie s w ith a p o p u la tio n
o f over 50,000 there was a t le a s t one or more la b o r organiza­
tio n s f o r m unicipal employees. In 58 percent o f c it ie s w ith
a population o f less than 50,000 there were one o r more la b o r
o rg a n iza tio n s . ( Shi 1s & W h itte r, 1968, p. 120)

4
A very im portant event in the f ie ld o f p u b lic employment
occurred on June 22, 1961 when President Kennedy appointed a special
task fo rce to study the employee-management re la tio n s in the fe deral
se rvice .

A fte r re c e iv in g the re p o rt o f th is task fo rc e , President

Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, on January 17, 1962.
This order guarantees fed era l employees the r ig h t to jo in
o rg a n iza tio n s o f t h e ir choice. Such org a n iza tio n s are to
be accorded in fo rm a l, fo rm a l, o r e xclu sive re c o g n itio n ,
depending upon the p ro p o rtio n o f e lig ib le federal employees
they represent. (Lieberman, 1966, p. 83)
The passage o f Executive Order 10988, opened the door fo r
p u b lic employees outside the fe d e ra l government to seek o rg a n iza tio n a l
re c o g n itio n .
By October o f 1964, 15 sta tes had enacted s ta te la b o r r e la ­
tio n s a c ts , which gave p u b lic employees the r ig h t to organize.

As o f

February 1975, 33 sta te s had le g is la tio n which guaranteed p u b lic
employees the r ig h t to jo in an o rg a n iza tio n fo r the purpose o f re p re ­
senting t h e ir in te re s ts in bargaining w ith t h e ir employer.

In three

o f these s ta te s , however, statues are so w ritte n th a t the r e s tr ic tio n s
involved may w ell tend to dissuade employees from jo in in g o rga n iza tio n s
( Labor R elations R eporter, 1975).

C o lle c tiv e N egotiations in the P ub lic Schools
The teachers a sso cia tio n o f Norwalk, Connecticut apparently
provides the f i r s t example o f c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s in the p u b lic
schools o f the United S tates.

In 1946 an agreement was adopted by the

board and the Norwalk Teachers A sso cia tion (NTA) which d e a lt w ith
s a la rie s o n ly.

That c o n tra c t re s u lte d from a b it t e r teachers s tr ik e .

5
The NTA was a t th a t tim e independent but jo in e d the Connecticut
Education A sso cia tio n in 1957.
In the years between 1946 and 1962, many agreements were
entered in to by boards, and school s t a f f s , which were, in
e f f e c t , what are now termed p rofe ssio n a l agreements. . . .
V ir t u a lly a l l these agreements, in c lu d in g those in C onnecticut,
except the Norwalk C o ntract, were inform al in nature but were
o f f i c i a l l y adopted by boards and recorded in t h e ir minutes.
( S tin n e tt, 1966, p. 7 ).
Because the m a jo rity o f the n e g o tia tio n a c t iv it y in p u b lic
schools is in it ia t e d by teacher o rg a n iz a tio n s , a b r ie f h is to ry o f the
two m ajor teacher o rg a n iza tio n s in th is country is a p p ro p ria te .
"The N ational Education A ssociation (NEA) is an independent,
v o lu n ta ry , nongovernmental o rg a n iza tio n a v a ila b le to a l 1 profe ssion al
teachers" (NEA, 1965a, p. 15).

I t s basic purpose is "to ele vate the

ch a ra cte r and advance the in te re s ts o f the profession o f teaching,
and to promote the cause o f popular education in the United S tates"
(NEA, 1965a, p. 13).
The NEA was founded in 1852, as the National Teachers
A ss o c ia tio n .
F i f t y years a f t e r i t s o r ig in i t s t i l l had only about 2,000
teachers as members. . . . With the help o f school superintend­
ents , memberships in NEA increased from about 10,000 a t the end
o f World War I to 120,000 in 1922. A fte r th is tim e , growth was
steady except f o r the Depression years. In the f i f t i e s , the
average gain in membership was about 40,000 per year. (S h iIs
& W h ittie r , 1968, p. 21).
By 1965 the NEA had a membership o f 943,581 which included
classroom te a ch e rs, s p e c ia lis ts , and school a d m in is tra to rs .

As o f

February 21, 1975 the membership had grown to 1,643,704 (NEA Reporter,
A p r il, 1975, p. 3).
The American Federation o f Teachers (AFT) dates back to
1916.

At th a t tim e , the members o f the AFT and the NEA m aintained a

6
complementary re la tio n s h ip w ith each o th e r.

The NEA concerned i t s e l f

w ith the p rofe ssio n a l ro le o f tea chin g, w h ile the AFT assumed the
r e s p o n s ib ility f o r improving the economic status o f teachers.
Membership flu c tu a te d during the e a rly years as the AFT and
the NEA became more co m p e titive .

By 1958 membership in the AFT was

about 55,000 and by 1965 i t had swelled to 110,000.

As o f September

1974, the membership o f the AFT had grown to about 414,000 (Shanker,
September, 1974, p. 4 ).
The c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s in New York C ity in 1960-61,
appear to be the s t a r t o f c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n as i t is viewed
today.

The a c t iv it ie s in New York C ity a t th a t time re su lte d in a

rapid expansion o f both the AFT and the NEA.
The NEA which had been opposed to the concept o f negotia­
tio n s reached a tu rn in g p o in t in 1962, when i t adopted the term
"p ro fe ssio n a l n e g o tia tio n s " a t i t s Denver convention.
In M ichigan, c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s began on May 28, 1963,
when the D e tro it Federation o f Teachers submitted p e titio n s to the
D e tro it Board o f Education c a llin g f o r a re p rese n tation e le c tio n
(Riordan, 1963).

These n e g o tia tio n s were follow ed by the passage o f

Michigan P ublic Act 379, which was signed in to law by Governor Romney
on J u ly 23, 1965o Once Act 379 was in tro d u ce d , i t was supported by
the Michigan Federation o f Teachers and the Michigan Education Associa­
tio n .
This Act is not confined to p u b lic school teachers but
a p p lie s to most s ta te and lo ca l p u b lic employees.

I t provides fo r the

" r ig h t o f p u b lic employees to organize; p ro te cts employees from

/

7
unlawful in te rfe re n c e , . . . and e sta blish es u n fa ir lab or p ra c tic e s "
(Lieberman, 1966, p. 50).

This Act was one o f the f i r s t o f i t s kind

in the country and appears to have acted as a model fo r several other
s ta te s .
Since the passage o f th is a c t, Michigan has become one o f
the most a c tiv e sta te s in the area o f c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s .

As o f

May 1973, over 570 lo c a l school d is t r ic t s in Michigan had w ritte n
agreements w ith t h e ir boards.

This represents s lig h t ly more than

85% o f the K-12 and K-8 d is t r ic t s in the sta te (NEA Handbook, 1973-74,
p. 261).

Need fo r the Study
Concern f o r the e ffe c t o f the negotiated co n tra cts in
Michigan on handicapped c h ild re n and the f ie ld o f Special Education
is evidenced in several published statements.

The Michigan Federated

Chapters o f the Council fo r Exceptional C hildren (1968) expressed th is
concern when i t recommended the c o n tra c t p ro v is io n :

"The encourage­

ment o f special programs fo r handicapped c h ild re n is the proper
concern o f a ll educators.

The c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t o f handicapped

c h ild re n to an education s h a l1 not be abridged by co n d itio n s o f work
is s u e s ."

This same group sponsored a re v is io n o f Section VI o f the

1969-70 Sample Michigan Education Assoc. (MEA) Agreement.
The MEA Sample Contract sta te d :
The p a rtie s recognize th a t c h ild re n having special p h y s ic a l,
mental and emotional problems may re qu ire s p e cia lize d c la s s ­
room experience and th a t t h e ir presence in re g u la r classrooms
may in te r fe r e w ith the normal in s tru c tio n a l program and place
e x tra o rd in a ry and u n fa ir demands upon the teacher. Teachers
b e lie v in g th a t such students are assigned to t h e ir classroom,
may request t h e ir tra n s fe r and s h a ll present arguments fo r such

8
request to the J o in t In s tru c tio n a l P o lic ie s C ou ncil, whose
decision w i l l be f i n a l . Special a tte n tio n w i l l be given to
reducing class size where special students are placed in the
re g u la r classroom o f a newly employed, inexperienced teacher
w ith o u t p r io r approval o f the a s s o c ia tio n .
The p a rtie s , to a s s is t the teacher cooperate to increase the
psychological te s tin g program, to add a t le a s t
more school
p sychologists to the schools o f the d i s t r i c t , to employ addi­
tio n a l v is it in g teachers, and to c o rre la te the a c t iv it ie s o f
the teachers so as b e tte r to meet the needs o f special students
in the community. (Michigan Education A ssoc., 1969)
The Michigan Federated Chapters o f the Council fo r Excep­
tio n a l C hildren requested on March 14, 1970, th a t th is section be
changed to read as fo llo w s :
The p a rtie s fu r th e r recognize th a t p ro v is io n o f such special
classrooms o r program m o d ific a tio n s is a r e s p o n s ib ility o f
the Board o f Education, and th a t there be no placement o f
c h ild re n w ith special problems o f concern in re g u la r c la s s ­
rooms fo r purposes o f avoiding th is r e s p o n s ib ility . Teachers
b e lie v in g th a t c h ild re n having special p h y s ic a l, m ental, and
emotional problems have been placed in t h e ir rooms in an
e f f o r t to avoid development o f a more a p p ro p ria te educational
environment may appeal to the J o in t In s tru c tio n a l P o lic ie s
C o u n c il, fo r re s o lu tio n o f the problem. The decision o f the
Council w il l be f i n a l . When special students e ith e r re ce ivin g
o r not re c e iv in g o th e r su pp ortive s e rv ic e s , are placed in a
re g u la r classroom , a tte n tio n w i l l be given to reducing class
s iz e , and/or o th e r demands on the teachers tim e and energy.
Special students s h a l1 not be placed in the re g u la r classroom
o f a newly employed, inexperienced teacher w ith o u t p r io r approval
o f the J o in t In s tru c tio n a l P o lic ie s C o u n cil. (Michigan Federa­
tio n Chapters o f Council fo r Exceptional C h ild re n , 1970)
The e f f o r t s o f th is council appear to have had only 1imi ted
success in in f!u e n c in g a change in the suggested c o n tra c t language.
The MEA Sample C ontract fo r the school year 1975-76 contains a m o d ifi­
c a tio n o f the 1969-70 c o n tra c t which re ad s:
The p a rtie s recognize th a t c h ild re n having special p h y s ic a l,
mental and emotional problems, herein defined as "handicapped"
may re q u ire special education experience, and th a t t h e ir
presence in re g u la r classroom s, w ith o u t a p p ro p ria te programming
may in te r fe r e w ith the normal in s tr u c tio n a l program and place

9
e x tra o rd in a ry and u n fa ir demands upon the teacher. Teachers
b e lie v in g th a t such students are assigned to t h e ir classroom
w ith o u t a p p ro p ria te programming may r e fe r such c h ild to the
su p e rintendent. The superintendent s h a ll commence an Educa­
tio n Planning and Placement Committee fo r such c h ild pursuant
to R 340.1722 to consider the problems o f the classroom teacher
and p o ssib le changes in the c h ild 's programming. The classroom
teacher s h a ll be allowed to f u l l y p a rtic ip a te in the Committee
d e lib e ra tio n s . Special a tte n tio n w ill be given to reducing
class s iz e where special students are placed in the re g u la r
classroom. Special students w ith "le a rn in g d is a b ilit ie s " sh a ll
not be placed in the re g u la r classroom o f a newly-employed or
inexperienced teacher w ith o u t p r io r approval o f the A sso cia tio n .
(Michigan Education A s s o cia tio n , 1975)
The Michigan A ssociation o f Interm ediate Special Education
A d m in is tra to rs (MAISEA) entered in to i t s minutes a motion onOctober
1968 which reads:

16,

"That MAISEA sponsor a dialogue or conference among

the CEC, MEA, Michigan School Board A s s o c ia tio n , PTA, and the AFT, to
discuss the problem o f handicapped youngsters being negotiated out o f
the
p.2 ).

classroom ."
To date

This motion was seconded and passed (MAISEA, 1968,
the w r ite r has not been able to fin d evidence th a t such

a meeting took place.
The Special Education S ta ff o f the East D e tro it P ublic
Schools presented a 1i s t o f items to t h e ir n e g o tia tin g team on March 11,
1969, which has as i t s prologue the fo llo w in g :
We hold these tru th s to be s e lf-e v id e n t:
T hat, a l 1 c h ild re n e n te rin g the p u b lic schools were not created
equal w ith respect to in te lle c tu a l c a p a c ity , physical develop­
ment, s o c ia l m a tu rity , emotional s t a b i l i t y , o r home environm ent;
T hat, th e re must be a philosophy o f compensatory education. The
g re a te r the need, the g re a te r s h a l1 be the e ffo r ts on b eh alf o f a
c h ild ;
That, the handicap o f any c h ild is the r e s p o n s ib ility o f a ll o f us;
That, th e re is nothing so unequal as an equal educational oppor­
t u n it y f o r unequal c h ild re n .
(Special Education S ta ff o f East
D e tro it P u b lic Schools, 1969, p. 1)

10
Other evidence o f the concern fo r the e ffe c ts o f c o lle c tiv e
n e g o tia tio n s on special education is found in an a r t ic le by Sosnowsky
and Coleman (1971) when they say,
In review ing occasional co n tra cts we were impressed w ith the
dearth o f s p e c ia l-e d u c a tio n -o rie n te d c o n tra c t item s. Though
in many cases items d e a lt in d ir e c tly w ith special education,
they possessed p o te n tia lly serious im p lic a tio n s fo r the f ie ld
and c e r ta in ly f o r c h ild re n , (p. 610)
Sosnowsky and Coleman (1969) stated in t h e ir conclusions
th a t:
I t seems warranted to s ta te th a t c o lle c tiv e b a rg a in in g , f o r the
most p a rt and w ith in the 1im its o f th is study, has not improved
the f i e l d o f special education. . . . A tte n tio n given to the
"Handicapped" seems to predominate f o r the d is ru p tiv e or soc a lle d "e m o tio n a lly d istu rb e d " c h ild . Contract provisio n s are
fre q u e n t and c le a r in expressing in to le ra n c e toward "problem
behavior" . . . . The bargaining process may fo rce upon special
education, a t le a s t in M ichigan, an obsolete approach th a t is
in e ffe c tiv e f o r c h ild re n and untenable fo r the f ie ld . . . .
The Michigan special educator must become aware o f the fa c t th a t
t h e ir re g u la r classroom colleagues a t the bargaining ta ble s have
made, and intend to make, commitments th a t may r e s u lt in the
expansion o f special education programs in a way th a t c u rre n t
th in k in g deems undesirable, (p. 23)
Evidence o f a seeming lo w -le v e l involvement in the p ro fe s­
sional n e g o tia tio n process by special education s t a f f is noticed when
one reads the MEA Survey o f Teachers' A ttitu d e s Concerning Negotia­
tio n s (1968-69).

This survey studied seventeen categories o f co n tra c t

items in c lu d in g " d is c ip lin e " by asking some 90 questions o f several
hundred teachers.

At no place was the handicapped chi Id or Special

Education mentioned.
From the above evidence, the author concludes th a t several
o rg a n iza tio n s and in d iv id u a ls are concerned about the impact o f col le c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s on special education.
appears to be l i t t l e

At th is tim e , there

o r no in fo rm a tio n in th is area.

11
The Problem and Purpose
The issue to which th is study addresses i t s e l f is the lack
o f in fo rm a tio n a v a ila b le which may be used to form a basis f o r e v a l­
uating and improving teacher c o n tra c ts .

This study w ill deal p r i -

a r i l y w ith those aspects o f the co n tra c ts which are thought to
e ffe c t Special Education s t a f f and programs.

This type o f inform a­

tio n is necessary before members o f the special education profession
can take the i n i t i a t i v e in making th o u g h tfu l p o s itiv e changes in
teacher c o n tra c ts .
The purpose o f th is study is to :

1) in v e s tig a te and re p o rt

m a te ria l found in teacher c o n tra c ts , which appears to have a d ir e c t
e ffe c t on Special Education and; 2) to in v e s tig a te and re p o rt the
perception o f Special Education d ire c to rs as to the e ffe c ts o f teacher
co n tra cts on the f ie ld o f Special Education.
This study can provide a p o in t o f departure o r base 1ine
concerning the above mentioned m a te ria l during a period o f time before
the passage o f the Mandatory Special Education Act (PA198 o f 1971) in
Michigan.

This a c t and i t s r e la tio n to th is study is discussed in

Chapters IV and V.

Research Questions
The fo llo w in g research questions r e f le c t the prim ary con­
cerns o f the study:
1.

What are the number and content o f c o n tra c t iterns p e rta in in g to
special education in the selected contracts?

12
2.

What has been the e xte n t o f involvem ent o f Special Education
personnel in the n e g o tia tio n process?

3.

What are the perceived e ffe c ts o f the c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n
process on special education programs as reported by lo c a l
d ire c to rs o f Special Education?

-4.

What changes in , o r a d d itio n s

to ,

c u rre n t co n tra cts are seen

by lo c a l d ire c to rs as being needed and ju s t if ia b le fo r the
improvement o f special education in t h e ir d is t r ic t ?

L im ita tio n s
1.

The study was 1imi ted to lo c a l Michigan d is t r ic t s having Special
Education D ire c to rs approved by the S tate Department o f Educa­
t io n .

D ire c to rs who served more than one d i s t r i c t were not

included.
2.

The op in io n survey used in the study was 1imi ted to the per­
ceptions o f these lo c a l d ire c to rs o f special education.

3.

The open-ended nature o f the opinion survey w h ile maximizing
the p r o b a b ility o f tapping concerns th a t are c e n tra l in the
minds o f the respondents, prevented a h ig h ly system atic por­
tra y a l o f each respondent's opinions on the various c o n tra c t
p ro v is io n s .

4.

The study is based in p a rt on the perceptions o f the respondents
and the w r ite r .

13
Assumptions
1.

It

is assumed th a t special education s t a f f and students are

unique in t h e ir re la tio n s h ip to the c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n
process.

This uniqueness appears to stem from the lim ita tio n s ,

m ental, physical and emotional o f the students and the time and
e f f o r t needed on the p a rt o f the teacher to deal w ith these
lim it a t io n s .
of

The lack o f m a te ria ls , the 1i mi ted a tte n tio n span

some s tu d e n ts , and a d d itio n a l planning tim e , are examples o f

d iffe re n c e s which may place the special education teacher in a
s ig n if ic a n t ly d iffe r e n t teaching s itu a tio n than th a t o f h is
"re g u la r" education co u n te rp a rt.
2.

It
in

was assumed th a t the lo c a l d ire c to rs o f special education are
a p o s itio n to give the most v a lid opinions o f the e ffe c ts o f

a lo c a l c o n tra c t on the o v e ra l1 special education program in
t h e ir d i s t r i c t .
3.

I t was assumed th a t the respondents read the qu estio nna ire

care­

fu l ly and responded c o n s c ie n tio u s ly to the iterns.

D e fin itio n s
1.

C lu s te r—A c o n s te lla tio n o f c o n tra c t iterns which hold one problem­
s o lv in g approach to a given s itu a tio n in common.

2.

Item —The

w r itte n expression o f an idea which stands alone and

meets the c r it e r ia o u tlin e d in Chapter I I I o f th is study.
3.

P rofessional N e g o tia tio n s , C o lle c tiv e N e g o tia tio n s, C o lle c tiv e
Bargaining—These terms are used interchangeably in the 1it e r a tu re .

A thorough discussion o f t h e ir meaning is included in

14
Chapter I I o f t h is study.

Except in the cases o f d ir e c t

q u o ta tion s, the term; " c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n " w i l l be used
throughout t h is study.
4.

Special Education--Those m o d ific a tio n s o f , or a d d itio n s to school
p ractice s intended f o r the "o rd in a ry "

c h ild which are o riented

to the development o f maximum s k i l l s and knowledge in the handi­
capped c h ild .
5.

Teacher C ontract, W ritten Agreement--A w r it t e n document con­
ta in in g the matters agreed to and is signed by the lo ca l s t a f f
orga n iza tio n and the board o f education a t the conclusion o f
n e g o tia tio n s .

6.

Category--A c o n s te lla tio n o f c o n tra c t

items which

has one ra th e r

broad issue or concern in common.
7.

Sub-category--A p o rtio n o f a category o f c o n tra c t iterns.

This

d iv is io n was used only when the categories were s u f f i c i e n t l y
large as to encompass several issues which were judged to be
p o t e n t i a l ly confusing to the reader.

CHAPTER I I
A SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In tro d u c tio n
This review explores areas o f the l i t e r a t u r e in the f i e l d o f
c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n s which apply d i r e c t l y to the to p ic a t hand.
The areas chosen are:
1.

Defining c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tion s

2.

P rin c ip le s o f c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tion s

3.

Negotiable to p ics

4.

E ffe c ts o f n e g o tia tio n s

These to p ic s were chosen w ith f u l l re c o g n itio n o f the
importance o f many other issues w ith in the f i e l d which might be l o g i ­
c a ll y included.

Such areas as the legal status o f p u b lic employee

n e g o tia tio n , the process o f n e g o tia tio n , grievance procedures, the
design o f c o n tra c ts , e t c . , are a l l recognized as re la te d to t h i s study.
However, t h e i r in c lu s io n is not seen as adding s i g n i f i c a n t l y to t h is
review.

D efining C o lle c tiv e Negotiations
When d e fin in g c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n s , i t is advisable to
f i r s t consider several formal d e f i n i t i o n s , and then develop a d e f i n i ­
tio n which a pplies to a p a r t i c u la r time and place.

15

16
The terms C o lle c tiv e N e g o tia tio n s, Professional Negotiations
and C o lle c tiv e Bargaining, are used interchangeably in the l i t e r a t u r e .
There is some controversy as to which term should be used.

B a s ic a lly

these terms r e fe r to two p a rtie s s i t t i n g down and developing t h e i r
mutual concerns in to a w r itt e n agreement which governs t h e i r r e la t i o n ­
ship f o r a given period o f time.
S tin n e tt (1966) and the American Association o f School
A dm inistrators (AASA) (1966) r e f l e c t s im ila r views concerning a d e f i n i t io n o f professional n e g o tia tio n .

S tin n e tt (1966) stated th a t pro­

fessional n e g o tia tio n i s :
A set o f procedures, w r it t e n and o f f i c i a l l y adopted by a local
s t a f f o rg a n iz a tio n and the school board, which provides an
o rd e rly method f o r the school board and s t a f f o rg a n iza tio n to
negotiate on matters o f mutual concern, to reach agreement on
these m a tte rs , and to e s ta b lis h educational channels f o r media­
t io n and appeal in the event o f an impassee. (p. 2)
H e rtlin g (1970) and Perry (1968) based th e i r d e fin i t io n o f
professional n e g o tia tio n s on the notion th a t n e g o tia tion s represent
a power s tru g g le between teachers and school boards.
fe lt

th a t

H e rtlin g (1970)

n e g o tia tio n s c o n s titu te "a system f o r accomodating power--

the power o f one p a rty to s e rio u s ly in f r in g e upon the power o f the
other p a rty.

Negotiations represent a power stru g g le between teachers

and school boards w ith the balance now s h if t in g to teacher groups"
(p. 42).
Doherty (1967a) saw n e g o tia tio n s as a "method o f communica­
t io n and p a r t ic ip a t io n " (p. 7).

Other d e f in it io n s were o ffe re d by

Schmidt (1967, p. 1 ), Hannan (1966, p. 57), the Massachusetts Depart­
ment o f Education (1969) and the National Education Association (NEA),
(1969a).

Andree (1970) saw c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n s as "a b il a t e r a l

17

behavior in v o lv in g le g itim a te performance, open communication,
in t e g r i t y and good f a i t h .

I t is p u b lic r e la tio n s w ith professional

performance adequately communicated" (p. 4).
A view o f c o lle c t iv e bargaining was o ffe re d by Cogen
(1968) when he s ta te d ;
C le a rly c o lle c t iv e bargaining is the economic phase o f the
democratic process. I t provides f o r p a r t ic ip a t io n by the
governed in the governing process. I t is a re c o g n itio n o f
the teacher and the a d m in is tra to r in the realm o f d e c isio n ­
making, a t le a s t in a wide v a r ie ty o f matters, (p. 11)
The problems o f semantics and d e f i n i t i o n o f the n e g o tia tio n
procedures to which t h is study addresses i t s e l f were thoroughly d is ­
cussed by Lieberman (1966).

This author summarizes the s it u a t io n

when he s ta te d :
The e ss e n tia l p o in t is th a t a l l such c o lle c t iv e procedures,
. . . must answer c e rta in questions: What persons seek to be
represented? What s h a l1 be the scope o f negotiations? Who
should in t e r p r e t agreements in case o f c o n f li c t in g in t e r p r e t a ­
tions? How do teachers change t h e i r representative? What are
the r ig h ts o f m a jo rity and m in o rity o rg a n iz a tio n s , and o f
in d iv id u a l teachers under the procedures to be established?
And, How should impasses be resolved? (p. 5)

P rin c ip le s o f C o lle c tiv e N egotiations
Many agreements contain a statement o f philosophy under­
ly in g n e g o tia tio n s .

This statement may be labeled In tro d u c tio n ,

Preamble, Purpose, or P rin c ip le s and amounts to a discussion o f the
o v e ra l1 goals and ph ilo so p h ica l base on which the ne g o tia tion s w i l l
take place.
These p r in c ip le s are g e n e ra lly developed by the lo c a l bar­
gaining u n it s , but are ofte n based on published statements from various
professional groups, s ta te g u id e lin e s , and in d iv id u a l authors.

18
A l e g a l i s t i c approach toward the establishment o f p r in c ip le s
f o r c o lle c t iv e ne g o tia tion s was expressed by W o lle tt and Chanin (1970).
The e ssential underpinnings o f c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n s in
p u b lic education are tw ofold.
F i r s t , teachers must have the r i g h t , w ith o u t legal or other
r e s t r a i n t , to form and j o i n employee o rganizations o f t h e i r
own choosing, to designate these o rganizations as t h e i r
representatives f o r the purpose o f dealing w ith t h e i r employing
school boards, and to p a r tic ip a te in re la te d o rg a n iza tio n a l
a c tiv itie s .
Second, both the teacher o rg a n iza tio n and the school board must
have the c a p a city , again w ith o u t legal or o th e r r e s t r a i n t , to
engage in a process o f give and take n e g o tia tio n s o f the genus
found in arm 's-length bargaining in the market place, (p. 1:1)
The National Education Association has made several s t a t e ­
ments concerning n e g o tia tio n s .

Some o f these statements form a

ph ilosophical foundation upon which Guidelines f o r n e g o tia tio n s have
been based.

The fo llo w in g are excerpts from such statements:

The teaching profession has the u ltim a te aim o f p roviding the
best possible education f o r a l 1 people. I t is a professional
c a llin g and a p u b lic t r u s t . Boards o f education have the same
aim and share t h is t r u s t .
. . . The National Education Association in s is t s on the r i g h t
o f professional a s s o c ia tio n s , through d e m o cra tic a lly selected
representatives using professional channels, to p a r t ic ip a te
w ith boards o f education in the fo rm u la tio n o f p o lic ie s o f
common concern . . . .
(NEA, 1962, p. 178)
The a t t it u d e o f the NEA concerning the r e la tio n s h ip o f pro­
fessio n a l n e g o tia tion s to the la b o r movement was stated in an
extention o f the above statement.
. . . The te a ch e r's s it u a t io n is completely uni ike th a t o f
an in d u s t r ia l employee. A board o f education is not a p riv a te
employer, and a teacher is not a p riv a te employee. Both are
committed to serve the common, i n d i v i s i b l e in t e r e s t o f a l 1
persons and groups in the community in the best possible edu­
cation f o r t h e i r c h ild re n . . . . In d u s t r ia l disputes c o n c ilia tio n machinery, which assumes a c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t and a
d i v e r s i t y o f purpose between persons and groups, is not
appropriate to professional n e g o tia tio n in p u b lic education.
(NEA, 1962, p. 178)

19

The American Association o f School A d m in istrato rs (AASA)
(1963), the Kansas Association o f School Boards & the Kansas State
Teachers Association (1965), the Pennsylvania State Department o f
Public In s tru c tio n (1968), and the V irg in ia Education Association
(1968) are examples o f the various associations and groups who also
have published statements o f philosophy.

The V ir g in ia Education

Association (1968) stated th a t:
3. To provide the most e f f e c t iv e le a rning environment, close
and e ff e c t iv e communication, understanding and cooperation
among classroom teachers, a d m inistra to rs and school boards are
e s s e n tia l.
4. Teachers are uniquely q u a lif ie d to make important con­
t r ib u t io n s to the form u la tio n o f p o lic ie s re la te d to the gen­
eral improvement o f in s tr u c tio n a l programs and to the
establishment o f good personnel p o lic ie s .
5. Classroom teachers, a d m in is tra to rs , and school boards
together should seek pathways f o r j o i n t development o f p o lic ie s
and p ractice s and work out procedures f o r t h e i r r e a l iz a t i o n ,
recognizing th a t the school board has f u l l legal r e s p o n s ib ilit y
f o r making f i n a l decisions. ( V ir g in ia State Department o f
Education, 1968)
The American Association o f School A d m in istrato rs stated
th a t:
We believe th a t teachers, school a d m in is tra to rs , and school
boards must together seek pathways y e t uncharted in the area
o f personnel p o lic ie s and p ra c tic e s .
. . . we believe th a t the r i g h t to discuss pros and cons and
to p a r tic ip a te in developing a program does not imply th a t
r i g h t to make decisions. The board must re ta in i t s responsi­
b i l i t y and legal r i g h t to make decisions.
We believe th a t no m atter how generous and benevolent a r b i t r a r y
decisions may be, they have a d e b i l i t a t i n g e f f e c t . When people
are involved, they not only assume r e s p o n s ib ilit y f o r making
decisions work, but each performs a t a higher le v e l o f pro­
d u c tiv ity . . . .
(AASA, 1963, pp. 12-13)

20
Andree (1970) has suggested several preambles from which
draftsmen f o r a negotiated agreement may wish to borrow.

An example

o f these suggested preambles r e f l e c t s one o f the approaches being
used to e s ta b lis h a "p hilo so ph ica l base" f o r n e g o tia tio n s.
Whereas, the p a rtie s h e re to fo re , desire to cooperate in
e s ta b lis h in g and m aintaining proper and s u ita b le conditions
s a tis fa c to r y to employer and employee and to provide methods
f o r f a i r and peaceful adjustment o f a l 1 disputes th a t may
a ris e between the p a rtie s hereto . . . and to promulgate
ru le s and re gu la tio n s and to e s ta b lis h and declare p o lic ie s
to insure a proper conduct o f the school and r e la tio n s
between the board and i t s employees, (p. 154)
The above preamble is based on a labor-management model.
The NEA has provided preambles o f a d i f f e r e n t type to be used in
teacher co n tra cts .

For example:

The Board and the Association recognize t h e i r r e s p o n s ib ili ti e s
toward each other and toward the community f o r n e g o tia tin g
in good f a i t h and seeking agreement on matters o f mutual con­
cern. Neither w i l l demean the process, and both recognize
th a t the co n tro l 1ing determinant o f p o lic y development and
implementation is the q u a lit y o f the educational program and
the welfare o f the c h ild re n . (National Education A ssociation,
1965, pp. 20-21)
The 1968-71 c o n tra c t between the Huron Valley Education
Association and the Huron Valley Public Schools Board o f Education
has a statement o f purpose which provided an example o f a p h i­
losophy w r itte n d i r e c t l y in to a c o n tra c t.

A short excerpt from

t h is co n tra c t reads:
The p a rtie s hereto recognize th a t they have a common responsib i l i t y beyond t h e i r c o lle c t iv e bargaining r e la tio n s h ip . . . .
The Board, because o f i t s dual ro le as an employer and as the
governing body . . . , has o b iig a tio n s on the one hand to i t s
employees . . . and on the otherhand, to the c itiz e n s [ o f the
school d i s t r i c t ] , as well as to the State o f Michigan, . . .
The A sso cia tio n , because o f i t s dual ro le as the bargaining
agent f o r c e rta in employees and as a professional o r g a n iz a tio n ,
has the o b lig a tio n on the one hand to represent the employees,

21

. . . and on the o th e r hand to the board, teachers, students,
parents, and the p u b lic in general to maintain high q u a lity
education, (p. i i i )
Another way o f addressing the problem o f developing a
philosophy is to s ta te an o b je c tiv e .

This has been done by the

National Education A sso cia tio n , (1965).

They saw as the primary

o b je c tiv e o f professional n e g o tia tio n the establishment " f o r teachers,
through t h e i r lo ca l a s s o c ia tio n s , a formal ro le in the development o f
educational p o lic ie s which a f f e c t them and the q u a lit y o f the educa­
tio n a l program to which they c o n trib u te t h e i r professional competence"
(p. 1).
In summary, each o f the above statements included a r e f e r ­
ence to the reaching o f mutual agreement on matters o f mutual concern.
Much o f t h is concern centers around developing a pattern o f negotia­
t io n which w i l l be b e n e fic ia l to teachers, boards o f education, and
c h ild re n .

Emphasis was placed on p ro te c tin g the r ig h ts o f teachers

and boards.

In a d d itio n to t h i s , however, several philosophical s ta te ­

ments did mention the j o i n t r e s p o n s ib ilit y o f both teachers and boards
to the community and students.

The various statements seemed to f a l I

in to three major ca te g o rie s ; the l e g a l i s t i c model, the labor-management
model, and the mutual r e s p o n s ib ilit i e s model.

The mutual responsi­

b i l i t i e s approach appeared to be dominant in the 1it e r a t u r e .

Negotiable Items
The iterns w ith which t h is study deals are q u ite s o p h is ti­
cated when compared w ith teacher c o n tra c t items o f a few years ago.
W ritten agreements have evolved to t h is s ta tu re over the past decade

22
from very simple beginnings.

New York C ity and a few other large

school d i s t r i c t s are notable exceptions.

Most agreements which

emerged from e a rly bargaining were concerned " p r im a r ily o r e x c lu s iv e ly
w ith s a la ry problems or re la te d iterns in v o lv in g fin a n c ia l compensation
f o r teachers" (E pstine, 1969, p. 2).
Agreements are no longer so simple or narrow in scope.

Some

go " f a r beyond the scope o f some o f the most elaborate and s o p h is t i­
cated o f the u n io n -in d u s try contracts in the p riv a te sector" (Epstine,
1969, p. 1).
"A major d i f f i c u l t y in d e fin in g the scope o f negotiations
is th a t negotiable items fre q u e n tly a f f e c t non-negotiable ones. . . .
In education, the problem is ofte n re fle c te d in controversies over
whether an item is a co n d itio n o f employment or a m atter o f 1Educa­
tio n a l Pol i c y 1" (Liberman, 1966, p. 227).
The two major groups representing the m a jo rity o f tdachers
in the United States have adopted s im ila r p o sitio n s on what the scope
o f n e g o tia tio n s ought to be.
The NEA1s p o s itio n was r e fle c te d in the fo llo w in g s ta te ­
ment:
A professional group has r e s p o n s ib ilit ie s beyond s e l f - i n t e r e s t ,
in c lu d in g a r e s p o n s ib ilit y f o r the general welfare o f the
school system, . . . N egotiation should include a l 1 matters
which a f f e c t the q u a lit y o f the educational program. (NEA,
1965, p. 21)
The AFT1s p o s itio n on the scope o f nego tia tion s was s im ila r .
Cogen (1965), described the AFT's p o s it io n :
We would place no 1im i t on the scope o f nego tia tion s - the
iterns which are subject to bargaining process. Anything on
which the two p a rtie s can agree should become a p a rt o f the
agreement: . . . I look f o r a great expansion in the e f f e c tiv e

23

scope o f n e g o tia tio n s . . , . Obviously, class s iz e , cu rricu lu m ,
h ir in g standards, e x t r a - c u r r ic u la r a c t i v i t i e s - in f a c t , any­
th in g having to do w ith the operation o f the school is a m atter
f o r professional concern and should thus be subject to c o lle c ­
t iv e bargaining, (pp. 2,7)
Other examples o f support f o r a very broad range o f n e g o ti­
able iterns were given by Kennedy (1966), the Massachusetts Department
o f Education (1969), and Kuhn (1967).

Grade Teacher (1967) magazine

reported an in te rv ie w w ith fo u r members o f the education profession.
This panel supported the notion th a t there should be few i f any,
r e s t r ic t io n s on the scope o f n e g o tia tio n s .
S tin n e t (1966) argued th a t:

"The philosophy inherent in

professional n e g o tia tio n is th a t teachers, . . . have a deep and
transcendent in t e r e s t in a l l matters which may bear upon the standards
o f t h e i r p ra c tic e . . .

(p. 68).

The laws o f various states place some 1im ita tio n s on the
scope o f n e g o tia tio n s in p u b lic education.
y e t not well defined.

These 1im ita tio n s are as

A few authors have made statements concerning

these legal 1im ita tio n s .
Lambert (1970) stated th a t:
I t is our p o s itio n th a t p riv a te sector d e f in it io n s are unduly
r e s t r i c t i v e when applied to teacher-school board n e g o tia tio n .
. . . we propose th a t a broad and somewhat open ended d e f i n i t io n
o f the scope o f n e g o tia tio n be adopted - to w i t , th a t a school
board be o b iig a te d to negotiate in regard to the terms and condi­
tio n s o f professional service and o th e r matters o f mutual concern,
(p. 4)
The ro le th a t sta te laws play in d e fin in g the scope o f nego­
t i a t i o n was discussed by Lieberman (1966).

He reported th a t the m a jo rity

o f s ta te s ta tu te s dealing w ith the scope o f c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tion s
in the p u b lic school s e ttin g "g e n e ra lly r e s t r i c t the scope o f

24
n e g o tia tio n s to 'c o n d itio n s o f employment' . . . the meaning o f t h is
phrase o r i t s precise a p p lic a tio n is not a l l c le a r" (p. 222) .

Two

exceptions to t h is g e n e ra lity were seen in C a lifo r n ia in which "the
scope o r repre se n ta tion s h a l1 include a l l matters r e la tin g to
employment c o n d itio n s and employer-employee r e la tio n s " (Liberman,
p. 223).
As can be seen, what may reasonably and le g a lly be included
w ith in the scope o f n e g o tia tio n s is a t present, a la r g e ly unanswered
question.
The American Association o f School A d m in istrato rs (1966),
f e l t th a t a ra th e r broadly defined concept o f n e g o tia tio n is most
persuasive.

The AASA believed n e g o tia tio n , in good f a i t h , may well
. 4K

•

encompass a l 1 o r some aspects o f p o lic y governing some 17 items.
Examples o f these iterns are:

Curriculum , Teaching assignments,

Provision o f physical f a c i l i t i e s f o r teachers, Recruitment, D is c ip lin e
and Discharge o f teachers, S ala rie s and Welfare b e n e fits , e tc .
The Association went on to say, th a t i t "believes th a t some
items are not negotiable and t h a t a school board may refuse to bargain
about non-negotiable subjects w ith o u t v io la t i n g i t s agreement to
negotiate in good f a i t h " (p. 38).

These non-negotiable items included

any item which v io la te s s ta te laws; determ ination o f f in a n c ia l and
pupil accounting systems; the s e le c tio n o f the superintendent o f
schools; and the s e le c tio n o f legal counsel to the board o f education.
These are only a few o f the iterns mentioned by the AASA.
Advocates o f a more 1imi ted scope o f n e g o tia tio n s included:
Wildman (1967), the National A ssociation o f Secondary School

25
P r in c ip a ls , (NASSP) (see A c ke rly, 1969), the American Association o f
School A d m in is tra to rs (1968), and Rudman (1969).
The NASSP's p o s itio n was documented by A cke rly, (1969).
Several statements were o f p a r t ic u la r in t e r e s t :
Issues not re la te d to employee w e lfa re , but in v o lv in g school
and educational p o lic ie s are not proper subjects f o r bar­
ga in in g . . . . Teachers should be insured the r ig h t to
express t h e i r views, but decisions should be made on the
basis o f research, ra th e r than bargaining s tre n g th , (p. 8)
The fundamental c r i t e r i o n - e sse n tia l to the p r in c ip a l and
p u b lic a lik e - is th a t some reasonable lim it a t io n s be stated
in order th a t the e n t ir e range o f p u b lic educational problems
and p o lic ie s w i l l not be s e ttle d by the power plays and com­
promises c h a r a c t e r is t ic o f the bargaining process, (p. 11)
E pstine, (1969) has also stated th a t the National Associa­
tio n o f Secondary School P rin c ip a ls believed:
No item
decided
g a tio n ,
devises
is best

should be considered n e g o tia b le , which could be
on the basis o f the re s u lts o f s c i e n t i f i c in v e s t i ­
evaluations o f experimental e f f o r t s , o r other
used by p rofessional e x p e rtise to determine what
f o r the education o f p u p ils ,
(p. 21)

The American Association o f School A dm inistrators (1968),
has made the f o i l owing statement about the scope o f n e g o tia tio n s .
A d m in istra to rs and board members should th in k very c a r e f u lly
about the p o s s i b i l i t y th a t there may be c e rta in management
and board r ig h ts and prerogatives th a t should not be r e l i n ­
quished o r made the su b je ct o f n e g o tia tio n , (p. 51)
The a sso cia tio n went on to i l l u s t r a t e and l i s t what iterns
they f e l t were n egotiable and those they f e l t were non-negotiable.
Rudman (1969) examined master c o n tra cts from across the
nation and i d e n t i f i e d 23 major areas which have been negotiated.

Of

these, 12were judged to be poor areas f o r n e g o tia tio n in th a t they
were seen as r e s t r i c t i n g both the a d m in is tra to r and the teacher when

26
they become p a rt o f a le g a l, binding document.
" d i r t y dozen" included:

Examples o f the

"textbook s e le c tio n and use, class s iz e , and

the b u ild in g repre se n ta tive and his ro le in a d m in is tra tio n " (p. 63).
Rudman (1969) goes on in his a r t i c l e to p o in t out eleven
to p ic s which he f e l t
o f these were:

are appropriate f o r n e g o tia tio n .

Examples

Salary schedules, Promotion p o lic ie s a ffe c tin g

teachers, and R e lie f from non-teaching chores (p. 26).
Moskow (1966) studied 20 school d i s t r i c t s across the
n a tio n , making several p e rtin e n t o b se rva tio n s:
1) Salary n e g o tia tio n s played an important p a rt o f the
t o t a l n e g o tia tio n s . . . . In a d d itio n , sa la ry n e g o tia tion s
took up the la rg e s t percentage o f time . . . and caused
the g reatest c o n f l i c t between p a rtie s .
2) C lass-size p rovisio ns w i l l probably become more common
in the fu tu re . . . because o f the p u b lic support the
teachers could receive.
3) With the growing problem o f in t e g r a t io n , tr a n s fe r
p o lic ie s f o r teachers w i l l probably become a common subject
f o r n e g o tia tio n s ,
(pp. 219-222)
Smith (1971) developed an instrument which i d e n t if ie d areas
o f primary concern o f teachers in the professional n e g o tia tio n
process.

His i n i t i a l in v e s tig a tio n im plied th a t the teachers d is ­

tin g u is h between two general areas o f n e g o tia tio n namely, professional
d uties and working c o n d itio n s .

His fin d in g s in d ic a te th a t teachers

express most in te r e s t in c o n tra c t iterns which p e rta in to professional
d u tie s .

According to Smith (1971), teachers appear to be w i l l i n g

to be more passive when i t comes to items dealing w ith working con­
d it io n s .

27
John M etzler (1969) reported a case study o f the model
agreement published by the s ta te o f New Jersey.

He reported th a t

there are 35 a r t i c l e s and an index r e fe r r in g to 633 separate and
d i s t i n c t iterns.

He f e l t

These iterns are grouped in to three major headings:

a)

Teacher o rga n iza tio n in te re s ts

b)

In d iv id u a l teacher in te re s ts and,

c)

General concerns

th a t what is negotiable should be defined by a n a lysis o f

the e f f e c t o f these n e g o tia tio n s upon the educational process.

Perceived E ffe c ts o f the N egotiations Process
In a f i e l d o f so cial endeavor which is s i i g h t l y more than
f i f t e e n years o ld , i t is not s u rp ris in g to fin d a dearth o f em pirical
evidence concerning the e ffe c ts o f the processes involved.

So i t

i s , when one reviews the 1it e r a t u r e o f c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n ' s
e f fe c ts .
Many a r t i c l e s have been w r it t e n about the changing roles
and re la tio n s h ip s o f p r in c ip a ls , te a ch e rs, and superintendents, due
to n e g o tia tio n s .

Speculations concerning the e ffe c ts o f s t r ik e s ,

causes o f teacher m ilit a n c y , and the long range outcome o f the col le c t iv e n e g o tia tio n process are p l e n t i f u l .

However, few studies

have brought e m pirical evidence to t h i s discussion.
One study which presents some evidence based on extended
observations o f the e ffe c ts o f n e g o tia tio n s was w r it t e n by Liberman
(1973).

28

He f e l t

th a t the "co n tra ctu a l dimension o f ne g o tia tion s

is fo rc in g school management to achieve le v e ls o f precisio n and
e q u ity th a t were not necessary in the days o f u n ila t e r a l form ulation
and implementation o f personnel p o lic ie s " (p. 16).
He pred icte d :
A.

Stronger p ro te c tio n f o r tenured teachers

B.

Shorter probationary period

C.

The NEA and AFT w i l l merge

D.

The view th a t "e veryth in g is nego tia ble " w i l l lose
support both l e g a l ly and p r a c t ic a l l y .

E.

An increase in the a c t i v i t y o f superintendents on
the management side o f the n e g o tia tin g ta b le .

F.

P rin c ip a ls w i l l move more toward management.

A lle n Smith (1972) f e l t th a t i t was impossible to e s ta b lis h
a " d i r e c t cause and e f f e c t r e la tio n s h ip between c o lle c t iv e negotia­
tio n s and teachers s a la r ie s " (p. 268).

I t appears th a t t h is statement

may be generalized to o th e r perceived e ffe c ts o f n e g o tia tio n s .

The

major p o in t o f concern f o r Smith was the la ck o f co n tro l groups and
the in d ir e c t e f f e c t t h a t n e g o tia tio n s in one d i s t r i c t may have on
neighboring d i s t r i c t s .
The lack o f c e r ta in t y o f the e ffe c ts o f c o lle c t iv e negotia­
tio n s was r e f 1ected by Redfern (1968) when he sta te d :
No one can p r e d ic t w ith c e r t a in t y what the prospects are f o r
the fu tu re in te a c h e r-p rin c ip a l r e la tio n s h ip s . The pessimists
fo r-s e e a widening o f the g u l f th a t separates teachers and
p r in c ip a ls , e s p e c ia lly as n e g o tia tio n in t e n s if ie s the adver­
sary r o le o f each.
O ptim ists r e je c t the th e o ry th a t n e g o tia tio n nece ssa rily
destroys an e f f e c t iv e working r e la tio n s h ip between a p r in c ip a l

29
and his s t a f f . They believe th a t n e g o tia tio n merely in s t it u t e s
a d i f f e r e n t process f o r decision making, (p. 25)

The Superintendent in the Negotiation Process
The NEA (1965a) took the p o s itio n th a t:
The Superintendent o f Schools should seek ways to bring the
lo c a l asso cia tio n and the school board together so th a t they
can develop a professional n e g o tia tio n agreement . . . he
recognizes th a t shared r e s p o n s ib ilit y in p o lic y determina­
t io n is a professional concept, (p. 9)
The NEA (1965a) went on to s ta te :
The Superintendent o f Schools is both the executive o f f i c e r
o f the Board, . . . and the primary professional advisor o f
the Board. He also has a r e s p o n s ib ilit y to the professional
s t a f f as a member and leader o f th a t s t a f f . The Superintendent
has the r e s p o n s ib ili ty . . . to provide inform ation to teachers
and the Board, to help c l a r i f y the issues, and to stim u la te
both groups to put f o r t h t h e i r best e f f o r t s ,
(p. 24)
Steffensen (1964) reported th a t the AFT regards the super­
intendent as the employer a t a n e g o tia tio n session.

This view is

echoed by Shi Is (1968) when he stated t h a t :
While the NEA and the AFT . . . both c a ll f o r teachers and
school boards to s e le c t representatives f o r the two bargaining
committees, the AFT's p o s itio n is th a t the superintendent is
not acceptable as a spokesman f o r both teachers and the board
a t the bargaining sessions, but should be p a rt o f the board's
n e g o tia tio n team. (p. 313)
Rasmussin (1967) and the AASA (1966), advocated a " t h i r d
p a rty " ro le f o r the superintendent during the n e g o tia tio n process.
The American Association o f School A dm inistrators (1966)
f e l t t h a t the su p erintendent's basic o b iig a tio n was to the welfare
o f the p u p ils and to leadership in the fo rm u la tio n o f sound edu­
ca tio n a l p o lic y .

30
He should be an independent t h i r d p a rty in the n e g o tia tio n
process. He should review each proposal in l i g h t o f i t s
e f f e c t upon students and work c lo s e ly w ith both the board
and s t a f f representatives in an attempt to reach agreement
in the best in te re s ts o f the educational program, (p. 54)
Evans (1967) discussed the pros and cons o f t h is "middle
man r o le " and concludes th a t t h is is not the most favorable fu n c tio n
f o r the superintendent.

He f e l t

th a t "on the basis o f the a p p lic a ­

tio n o f sound a d m in is tra tiv e and o rg a n iza tio n a l theory and p r a c tic e ,
the most appropriate ro le o f the superintendent should be th a t o f
n e g o tia to r f o r the board" (p. 12).

This a t t it u d e was also held by

the National Association o f Secondary School P rin c ip a ls as re fle c te d
by Epstine (1965).
Steffensen, (1964a) c ite d several examples o f the super­
intendent ro le during n e g o tia tio n s .

Denver Colorado and Butte

Montana presented two d if f e r e n t views.
Denver provides th a t n e g o tia tio n s be c a rrie d on between the
teachers' association and the superintendent o f school s.
Changes in board o f education p o lic y must receive u ltim a te
confirm ation o f the board; otherw ise, the board . . . i s
involved i f the superintendent and the te a ch e rs1 representa­
tiv e s have reached an impasse. . . . Unlike Denver, in Butte
a l 1 n e g o tia tion s are c a rrie d on d i r e c t l y between the teacher
orga n iza tio n representatives and the board o f education. I f
the Butte board wishes the superintendent to n e gotiate . . . ,
a formal a u th o riz a tio n is issued f o r the superintendent to
act as an agent o f the board, (p. 45)
S tin n e tt (1966) devoted an e n t ir e chapter to the "Role o f
the Superintendent in Professional N e g o tia tio n ."

He saw three

patterns o f superintendent involvement in n e g o tia tio n s ;
a)

r e fr a in in g from ta kin g p a rt in n e g o tia tio n s ,

b)

p a r t ic ip a t io n as re presentatives o f the board o f edu­
c a tio n and

31

c)

p a r t ic ip a t io n as a resource both to the teachers
and the board.

S tin n e tt re je cte d the f i r s t a lte r n a t iv e as "unacceptable
and un d e sira b le ,"

did not fe e l th a t the second a lt e r n a t iv e is

compatable w ith the p rofessional s ta tu re o f the superintendent and
supports the t h i r d .
Rasmussen (1967)

fe lt

th a t the superintendents ro le w i l l

change as a r e s u l t o f c o ll e c t i v e n e g o tia tio n s .

He f e l t

the super­

intendent w i l l be a new breed o f p ro fe s s io n a l, a " g e n e r a lis t 's
g e n e r a lis t , a ja c k o f a l 1 tra d e s , but a master o f a new tra d e ,
p o l i t i c a l l y s o p h is tic a te d . . .

a man capable o f guiding his col -

leagues toward new heights o f p rofessional competence and d ig n it y "
(p. 102)
The superintendent w i l l be;
A p o l i t i c a l creature
and by a s p ir a tio n an
tio n s w ith teachers,
but a h ig h ly p o l i t i c

- by d e f i n i t i o n an educational p o l i t i c i a n ,
educational statesman. . . . In his r e la ­
he must be not only a s k ill e d p o l i t i c i a n ,
colleague . . . .

Deprived o f most o f his decision-making power, he must instead
help his subordinates to e s ta b lis h g u id e lin e s f o r planning and
policy-m aking. . . . In his re la tio n s h ip s w ith the community,
the superintendent, . . . must be capable o f fo rm u la tin g broad
s o c ie ta l g oals, through a deep understanding o f the general
needs o f s o c ie ty .
(Rasmussen, p. 103)

The P rin c ip a l in the N egotiation Process
The r o le o f the p r in c ip a l in n e g o tia tio n s was not c le a r ly
defined.

"In a few communities the p r in c ip a l is involved on the

teachers' team; in a few instances on the a d m in is tra tiv e o r board
team; and, in most cases not a t a l l " (King, 1969, p. 138).

32
Edwards (1970) reported th a t in Rhode Is la n d , p r in c ip a ls
are s p e c i f i c a l l y excluded from the n e g o tia tio n process; and th a t
Michigan1s la b o r r e la tio n s board in te r p r e ts the law to exclude them.
Edwards continues, "His exclusion im plies th a t he has no vested
in te r e s ts .

Contrary to t h is view, i t seems evident th a t his s tra te g ic

p o s itio n allows him to have a commanding view o f the problems th a t
come under co n sideration in n e g o tia tio n proceedings" (p. 311).
King (1967), Cronin (1967), Rhodes (1967), and Andree (1970)
advocated an a c tiv e ro le f o r the p r in c ip a l in the n e g o tia tio n process.
Arguments both f o r and against in clu d in g the p r in c ip a l on
the teachers' n e g o tia tio n team were presented by King (1967).

His argu­

ments f o r the p r i n c i p a l 1s in c lu s io n included:
a) A d m in is tra tiv e and f a c u lty concerns cannot r a t i o n a l l y be
separated, . . .
c) I t strengthens the a d m in is tra tiv e fu n c tio n and a t the same
time democratizes the a d m in is tra tiv e process, . . .
e) Teachers and p r in c ip a ls are both agents o f the board o f
education, (p. 46)
Arguments against in c lu d in g the p r in c ip a l on the teachers' n e g o tia tin g
team included:
a)

A fe a r o f a d m in is tra tiv e coercion,

b)

An apparent or assumed c o n f l i c t o f in t e r e s t , . . .

d) A "suspect" a t t it u d e toward the p r in c ip a l as the super­
intendent 1s agent, (p. 47)
King went on to argue t h a t :

" I f the q u a lit y o f educational program

is to be maintained throughout the n e g o tia tio n process, some way is
going to have to be devised f o r the b u ild in g p r in c ip a l to play a
ro le o f in flu e n c e on items under co n sideration a t board-teacher

33
n e g o tia tio n " (p. 120).

He then o u tlin e d fo u r methods c u r r e n tly being

used to accomplish t h is goal.
Cronin (1967) suggested the in c lu s io n o f the p r in c ip a l on
one or several o f the committees serving in an advisory capacity to
the superintendent as a method o f in v o lv in g the p r in c ip a l in the
process or n e g o tia tio n .
Rhodes (1967) stated th a t "much o f the burden o f day-to-day
implementation o f the agreement o fte n re sts w ith the p r i n c i p a l . . . .
I f the p r in c ip a l does not understand what he should do and should not
do, there w i l l be misunderstandings" (p. 35).

He went on to sta te

th a t the p r in c i p a l 's r e s p o n s ib ilit y is not only to understand the
re g u la tio n s in the c o n tra c t, but to be able to present them and t h e i r
meaning from management's viewpoint to members o f the s t a f f .
Several authors predicted th a t the ro le o f the p r in c ip a l w i l l
change over the next few years as a r e s u lt o f c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n s ,
Several o f these p re d ic tio n s are included below.
Dempsey (1973) made several p re d ic tio n s concerning the ro le
o f the p r in c ip a l in n e g o tia tio n s .

He concurred w ith many authors

p re vio u sly mentioned, th a t c u r r e n tly p r in c ip a ls are ou tsid e rs in the
n e g o tia tio n process.

He predicted th a t:

1.

P r in c ip a ls are in f o r a long haul in the area o f ro le
d e f i n i t i o n ; r e la t i v e to c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n s .

2.

P rin c ip a ls w i l l move more toward the management side
o f the n e g o tia tio n ta b le ;

3.

P rin c ip a ls w i l l be forming independent bargaining u n its
and,

4.

P rin c ip a ls w i l l become more management, team o rie n te d .

34
Dykes (1966) p red icte d :
1.

The a d m in is tra to r w i l l become stro n g e r, more pow erful,
and more i n f l u e n t i a l .

2.

A d m in is tra tiv e values and behavior w i l l become
in c re a s in g ly democratic.

3.

The A d m in is tra to r's ro le w i l l become more p o l i t i c a l in
character.

4.

The fo s te rin g and advocating o f innovation w i l l be an
in c re a s in g ly important fu n c tio n o f the a d m in is tra to r.

Redfern (1968)

fe lt

th a t no one can p r e d ic t w ith c e r ta in ty

what the fu tu re holds f o r te a c h e r-p rin c ip a l r e la tio n s h ip s .

He reported

th a t the pessimists forsee a "widening o f the g u lf th a t separates
teachers and p r in c ip a ls " (p. 25).
O ptim ists r e je c t the theory th a t n e g o tia tio n nece ssa rily
destroys an e f f e c t iv e working r e la tio n s h ip between a p r in c ip a l
and his s t a f f . They b elieve th a t n e g o tia tio n merely i n s t i t u t e s
a d if f e r e n t process f o r decision making. . . . Perceptive
p r in c ip a ls can a d ju s t to the new order w ith o u t loss o f e f f e c ­
tiveness. I t is la r g e ly a m atter o f . . . fin d in g more meaning­
f u l ways to make o th e r s t a f f , as human resources, capable o f
c o n trib u tin g f a r more than they may be doing a t present.
(p. 25)
01 son (1967) concluded "Most thought on the m atter o f the
p r i n c ip a l 's ro le in p rofessional n e g o tia tio n is thus f a r j u s t
thought . . . .

In f i n a l a n a ly s is , th e n , the argument r e a l l y could

be resolved on moral ground - the r e s p o n s ib ili t y o f the t o t a l school
s t a f f to the students" (p. 32).

E ffe cts o f C o lle c tiv e Negotiations on Salaries
This is the one area in which there appears to be some
cu rre n t em pirical data a v a ila b le .

35
Thorton (1972) developed arguments which tend to support
the notion th a t c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n s have increased s a la rie s at
le a st a t the lo ca l le v e l.

This concept was supported by Baird

(1971), who made a comment which challenged a previous a r t i c l e
by Kasper (1959).

The p o in t was made by B aird, th a t although

Kasper had reported 1i t t l e r e la tio n s h ip between c o lle c t iv e negotia­
tio n and s a la r ie s , th a t he (B a ird ) was using inapp ro p ria te s t a t i s t i c a l
methods and was looking a t too broad a geographical area.
Thorton and Smith both agreed th a t increases in s a la rie s
can be shown to be associated w ith c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n s , but
th a t a d ir e c t cause and e f f e c t on re la tio n s h ip s is most d i f f i c u l t
to e s ta b lis h .
Smith (1972)

made several observations concerning the

e ffe c ts o f c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n s on teachers s a la r ie s .

He con­

curred w ith the basic arguments o f Thorton (1972) and f e l t th a t:
Although the evidence does not in d ic a te th a t average teacher
s a la rie s f o r the nation have s u b s t a n tia lly increased r e la ­
t i v e to o th e r groups in recent y e a rs , t h i s does not mean th a t
c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n s have had no e f f e c t on teachers1
s a la rie s . Since the CN d riv e took place during a period
in which the teacher shortage was being e lim in a te d , i t may
have been responsible f o r preventing a decline in te a ch e rs1
s a la rie s r e la t i v e to o th e r groups. A lso, s u b s ta n tia l gains
may have been experienced by a smal1 number o f school systems
w ith o u t a f f e c tin g the na tio n a l average n o tice a b ly.
Rehmus (1968) c a rrie d the argument th a t c o lle c t iv e nego­
t ia t io n s have a ffe c te d s a la rie s a b i t f a r t h e r when he stated th a t:
"Bargaining seems to have produced pay increases averaging 10-20%
higher than teachers would have otherwise have received" (p. 30).

36
He also pointed out th a t even though the demand f o r teachers has
decreased, s a la rie s have been kept up.

He a t t r ib u t e s a t le a s t

some o f t h is to the c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n process.

Other E ffe cts o f Col 1e c ti ve Negotiations
(P o s itiv e Views)
"Professional n e g o tia tio n laws can do more f o r the
improvement o f in s t r u c t io n than anything th a t has happened in
American Schooling in 100 y e a rs , in c lu d in g Sputnik" (NEA, 1967,
p. 28).

This is but one example o f the strong p o s itiv e fe e lin g

th a t has been expressed concerning professional n e g o tia tio n s .
Doherty (1967), Perry (1970), and Reason (1967) saw
c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n as representing a new source o f power
which can lead to more and b e tte r education f o r a l l .
is r e fle c te d in such statements a s:

This fe e lin g

"A determined teacher o rg a n i­

zation can e x tra c t from the community expenditures f o r education
th a t the school a d m in is tra tio n and the school board, . . . are
powerless to secure" (Doherty, 1967, p. 121).

Paul Reason (1967)

stated th a t " I see the n e g o tia tion s process as serving . . .

a

useful prodding fu n c tio n which e v e n tu a lly w i l l help to get people
to recognize the importance o f education and th a t q u a lit y educa­
tio n 1ike o th e r things o f q u a lit y requires a c e rta in expenditure
o f e f f o r t and money" (p. 23).

37
Increased teacher r e s p o n s ib ili t y and a c c o u n ta b ility are
reported to r e s u lt from some c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n processes:
Negotiation puts a c e rta in amount o f e xtra pressure on the
teacher in terms o f his own p rofessional ism. . . . I f we're
n e g o tia tin g f o r more professional c o n d itio n s , more p ro fe s­
sional co n sid e ra tio n , more professional pay, we'd b e tte r be
w i l l i n g to do a t o t a l l y professional jo b .
(Grade Teacher,
1967, p. 70)
This concern f o r teacher a c c o u n ta b ility and i t s r e l a t i o n ­
ship to c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tion s was shared by Wagoner (1970).

He

f e l t th a t:
School boards must bargain to e s ta b lis h and maintain t h e i r
own r ig h ts - the r i g h t to expect th a t teachers w i l l improve
the performance o f t h e i r students, the r i g h t to hold teachers
accountable f o r t h e i r p u p ils ' f a i lu r e s and to reward them f o r
t h e i r successes in the classroom. The f i r s t step is f o r boards
to begin to negotiate to e s ta b lis h o b je c tiv e performance
c rite ria ,
(p. 22)
John Trock (1966)

fe lt

t h a t n e g o tia tio n s have charged

teachers w ith a new r e s p o n s ib ili t y f o r the fu n c tio n and operation
o f the school system.

He fe e ls th a t they "must accept t h is responsi-

b i 1i t y along w ith t h e i r new o p p o rtu n ity f o r expression" (p. 14).
Doherty (1967a) saw c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n s as having
several e f fe c ts :
I n d ir e c t e f fe c t s ;
1.

The 1 i f t on teacher morar

2. Being p a rt o f a broad, s o c ia l ly o rie n te d la b o r movement
helps to make the teacher more s e n s itiv e to the needs o f
s o c ie ty , and more p a r t i c u l a r l y to those c h ild re n s e ttin g
in his classroom.
3. The e lim in a tio n o f non-teaching chores, . . . frees
the teacher to devote more time to his professional
d uties and re lie v e s him o f avoidable f a tig u e .

38
4. The p ro v is io n o f d u ty -fre e lunch periods . . .
elim in a tes a degrading element in the teachers working
day.
D ire c t e f f e c t s ;
1.

More d e lin e a tio n o f r e s p o n s ib ilit ie s

2.

Greater use o f s p e c ia lis ts

3.

More e f f e c t iv e schools,

(p. 27)

Doherty concludes th a t " A ll in a l l the changing patterns
in employment r e la tio n s in p u b lic schools are and w i l l be a whole­
some influ e n ce on the q u a lit y o f education" (p. 18).
Evidence suggests th a t c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n s have
enlarged the teachers ro le in d i s t r i c t wide decision-making (Love,
1968, p. 171).

Love (1968) found th a t teacher involvement was

g reatest " in the area o f educational p o lic ie s followed by s a la ry
matters and by a few o th e r personnel p o lic ie s " (p. 172).
K i1kenny (1969) has studied teacher p r i o r i t i e s o f n e g o tiable items and issues.

His study was conducted w ith in the framework

o f schools c o n tro lle d by the U.S. Department o f Defense.

These

teachers chose the fo llo w in g s ix items as the most im portant f o r
n e g o tia tio n .
1)

Teacher-Pupil Relations and Classsize

2)

Assignments o f teachers to classes

3)

Duty fre e periods f o r planning during the school day

4)

Salary c r e d its f o r a d d itio n a l professional preparation

5)

Salary schedule

6)

Salary c r e d its f o r pervious experience

or su b je ct areas

39
The lowest p r i o r i t i e s were in the areas o f o rganizational
s e c u rity and the process o f n e g o tia tio n s .

I t is in te re s tin g to note

th a t h a lf o f these items p e rta in to s a la rie s .
In a d d itio n to s p e c if ic issues Love (1968) observed th a t
c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n created a new s tru c tu re f o r decision making
w ith in a school d i s t r i c t and a readjustment o f the ro le s

o f the

teachers in th a t system.

in which

He s p e c if i c a lly saw f i v e areas

teachers ro le s had undergone s ig n if i c a n t change.
1)

These were:

A ll teacher in te re s ts were involved

2) The i n i t i a t i v e f o r evoking decisions s h i f t i n g more
toward the teachers
3) Mutual decision making between tea ch e rs,
and boards is being required
4) School a u th o r it ie s are being required
teacher recommendations

a d m in is tra tio n
to e ffe c tu a te

5) Teachers have a more co n siste n t voice in decision
making.
The e ffe c ts o f n e g o tia tio n s on teachers was noted p r im a r ily
in the area o f personnel p o lic ie s .

There was l i t t l e

or no evidence

in the 1it e r a t u r e o f teachers a ctin g in the ro le o f chi Id or program
advocate.
Holtleman (1972)

gave an o p t im is tic view o f c o lle c t iv e

bargaining when he stated th a t :

"Through bargaining we have seen

class loads reduced, s p e c ia lis ts added, the curriculum enriched, and
a d d itio n a l funds appropriated f o r research, e v a lu a tio n , and improving
a c c o u n ta b ility " (p. 49).

40
Other E ffe c ts o f C o lle c tiv e N egotiations
(Negative Views)
The s tr ik e is the most dram atic o f the problems which can
be a ttrib u te d to c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s .

They have the obvious

e ffe c t o f d is ru p tin g the schools' flo w o f services to students and
thus extend and fragment the school year.
Perhaps as im portant as the d is ru p tiv e e ffe c t o f these . . .
s trik e s is the psychological in flu e n ce they may have on
school c h ild re n . We expect our teachers to teach respect
f o r law and o rd e r, not merely as a textbook o r academic
e xe rcise , but by example. I f teachers do s tr ik e in v io la ­
tio n o f the law and gain c e rta in concessions the re b y, th is
lesson in Real P o lit ic w i11 ha rd ly be lo s t on t h e ir students.
(Doherty & Ober, 1967, p. 123)
Doherty and Ober (1967) went on to re p o rt th a t grievance
procedures have been abused.

Sometimes the grievance machinery is

used as a p o lit ic a l weapon to b rin g non-members and d is s id e n t members
in to 1in e .

He also p o in ts out th a t grievance procedures can in tim id a te

an a d m in is tra to r who sees h im se lf as an educational le ad er.
Another problem which can be exacerbated by c o lle c tiv e
bargaining is th a t o f d is lo d g in g incompetent teachers from the c la s s ­
room.

The NEA and the AFT are not 1ik e ly to introd uce much q u a lity

c o n tro l o f teacher performance in to t h e ir model agreements a t a time
when they are in com petition w ith each o th e r f o r membership.
While c o lle c tiv e bargaining may one day be successful in
ra is in g s a la rie s to a p o in t where enough h ig h ly competent
men and women w i ll be a ttra c te d to the f i e l d , . . . we s h a l1
in the meantime, . . . be faced w ith no a lte rn a tiv e but to
pay these same high s a la rie s to many teachers who don11 even
"earn" what they are p re s e n tly paid.
(Doherty & Ober, 1967,
p. 124)
H e rtlin g (1970), Perry (1968), and Redfern (1968a), have
discussed the e ffe c ts o f c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s on the d e cision

41
making process.

They f e l t th a t a basic cleavage is being formed

between teachers and those in supervisory o r employer p o s itio n s .
They saw the p o lit ic a l and economic power o f teachers as being
s u b s titu te d fo r ra tio n a l persuasion and concern f o r educational goals.
They express concern th a t these fa c to rs w i l l reduce our e ffic ie n c y
in d e liv e rin g educational services and w i l l u ltim a te ly r e s u lt in a
loss f o r the c h ild re n .
C arlton (1967) conducted an a ttitu d e study o f teachers in
North C arolina concerning n e g o tia tio n s .

He found th a t by and la rg e ,

the teachers in his population were a ra th e r bland group in t h e ir
a ttitu d e toward teacher m ilita n c e , and c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n .

He

reported th a t they reacted in a g e n e ra lly negative manner to the
questions about s trik e s .

This blandness was a ttr ib u te d to the lack

o f m ilita n c y in North C arolina and the la ck o f exposure o f teachers
to the n e g o tia tio n process.
Davies and K1ine (1973) pointed out th a t "teachers engaged
in more advanced forms o f c o lle c tiv e b a rg a in in g , . . . demonstrated
a less p o s itiv e re la tio n s h ip between p r in c ip a l and te a c h e r."

They

also p o in t out th a t "Although the avowed purpose o f p rofe ssio n a l
education o rg a n iza tio n s is to promote teacher u n ity , in fo rm a tio n
. . . tended to repudiate th is a ffirm a tiv e o b je c tiv e " (p. 6).
S tile s (196 8)suggested th a t c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s may
have a lie n a te d the p u b lic :
Poor p u b lic in fo rm a tio n as w e ll as badly planned ta c tic s also
threaten the teacher n e g o tia tio n s movement. Teachers, s tu d e n ts,
parents, and the p u b lic in general are confused about the real
issues, the actio n s advocated o r taken, and re s u lts achieved.

42
Teachers are lo s in g p u b lic confidence because people do not
understand t h e ir problems and do not support the methods used
to solve them, (in s id e cover)
Gregg (1969)

saw n e g o tia tio n s as a mixed b le ssin g .

As a

method o f determ ining educational p o lic y i t has
probably created more involvement and more trauma in the
community . . . than had e xiste d p re v io u s ly . The attendant
p u b lic ity which accompanies the adversary re la tio n s h ip be­
tween teacher o rg a n iza tio n s and boards o f education has
probably produced g re a te r awareness and consequent g re a te r
involvement o f the community . . . in educational d ecisio n
making, (pp. 45-46)
Concern was expressed fo r the c h ild re n who are caught in the
middle o f the labor-management b a ttle by George Park (1970) a physician
from Chicago.

He f e l t

th a t "many c h ild re n are s u ffe rin g because

there are many a d u lts a c tin g f o r 1t h e ir r ig h t s 1 w h ile ig n o rin g the
r ig h ts and needs o f these c h ild re n " (p. 40).

Park p o in ts to the

importance o f cooperation between school board, teachers, a d m in istra ­
to rs , and parents when the education o f a c h ild is a t stake.

He f e l t

th a t "The le a rn in g disabled c h ild , who needs e x tra cooperation and
understanding, is s u ffe rin g most o f a ll from s p lin te re d e ffo r ts and
the f r i c t i o n w ith in the educational system" (p. 40).

The C o lle c tiv e N eg o tia tio n Process
and Special Education
The dearth o f lit e r a t u r e in te g ra tin g the c o lle c tiv e n e go tia ­
tio n process and special education became very apparent to the w r ite r
w hile composing th is chapter.

Both a tr a d itio n a l 1ib ra ry search

and two computer a ssisted searches o f the 1ite r a tu r e re s u lte d in only
s ix references which in te g ra te d these two areas.

43
Of these s ix only one refere nce , the Sosnowsky and Coleman
(1971) study c ite d in Chapter I , was judged to have a d ir e c t bearing
on th is to p ic .

The o th e r references were a) summaries o f laws in

o th e r sta te s r e la tin g to Special Education, b) a case study o f a
c o n tra c t in a p riv a te school fo r handicapped c h ild re n , and c) a
speech made by U.S. Commissioner o f Education to the Annual Meeting
o f School Board members in which the need fo r a d d itio n a l a tte n tio n
to the education o f handicapped c h ild re n was b r ie f ly mentioned.

Perceptual Theory
Much o f th is study is based on the perceptions o f the w r ite r
and the respondents.

Because o f th is dependency on p e rce p tio n , a

b r ie f statement concerning perceptual theory seems a p p ro p ria te .
Many authors o ffe r d e fin itio n s o f pe rcep tion .

One d e f in i­

tio n o ffe re d by Gibson (1969) defines perception as "the process by
which we o b ta in firs t-h a n d in fo rm a tio n about the world around us"
(p. 3 ).

He goes on to p o in t out th a t perception " e n ta ils [a ] d is ­

c rim in a tiv e , s e le c tiv e response to the s tim u li in the immediate
environment (p. 3 ).
The psychological set o f a person seems to in flu e n c e his
p erce p tio n .

The ro le o f "s e t" in perception is described by many

a u th o rs ; Demer (1960), Gibson (1969), and Forgus (1966); to mention
a few.

In essence a psychological set is the t o t a l i t y o f background

experience which a person brings to a given s itu a tio n .

Because the

ro le o f set is so im portant in p e rce p tio n , i t can be argued th a t any
perception is a combination o f the s tim u li c u rre n tly im pinging upon

44
an in d iv id u a l plus the background which th a t in d iv id u a l brings to the
s itu a tio n .
The in d iv id u a l's perception o f the world is a b io lo g ic a l
process which has many lim it in g fa c to rs .

This b io lo g ic a l process

is su b je ct to many lim ita tio n s which a llo w perceptions to de viate
from r e a lit y .

The co n d itio n s which cause these d e v ia tio n s o r

d is to rtio n s are described by T rankell (1972).

He sees these condi­

tio n s as:
1.

The s e le c tiv e character o f p e rce p tio n , which lim it s
the in te rp re ta tio n s o f the e xte rn a l s ig n a ls to which
a person is exposed has foundation in the in d iv id u a l's
e a r lie r experiences.

2.

The lo g ic a l completion mechanism, which o fte n re s u lts
in a fa ls e p ic tu re o f the se rie s o f events.

Donald Norman (1973) addressed the process o f answering
questions.

He notes th a t when people are asked questions "the y do

not sim ply go in to t h e ir memory and respond w ith a p p ro p ria te inform a­
tio n " (p. 163),
Rather, they f i r s t in v e s tig a te the question i t s e l f , determ ining
whether i t is se n sib le o r n o t, o r what i t s exact re fe re n ts are.
Even when some in fo rm a tio n is re trie v e d , i t is 1ik e ly to be
deeply embedded w ith in a general s tru c tu ra l framework d e te r­
mined by knowledge o f the world i t s e l f , and th is e xtra inform a­
tio n can bias the type o f memory responses th a t are given.
(p. 163)
For the purpose o f th is b r ie f review the above m a te ria l is
presented as an example o f the many lim ita tio n s on human p e rce p tio n .

CHAPTER I I I
METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES
This study is d ivid e d in to two major p o rtio n s .

The f i r s t

is an a n a lysis o f negotiated co n tra cts in Michigan during the
school year 1969-70 to determine the amount and type o f m a te ria l
r e la tin g to special education programs.

The second is an a n a lysis

o f re actio n s o f lo c a l special education d ire c to rs toward these
c o n tra c ts .
The emphasis o f th is study is to re p o rt both c o n tra c t
content and the perceptions concerning the e ffe c ts o f these con­
tra c ts on the f i e l d o f special education.

The respondent popula­

tio n was chosen to maximize the v a lid it y o f statements concerning
these e ffe c ts .

A nalysis o f Contracts
A l i s t o f lo c a l d is t r ic t s having d ire c to rs o f special edu­
ca tio n approved by the D iv is io n o f Special Education a t the Michigan
State Department o f Education in the school year 1969-70 was obtained.
There were 68 d is t r ic t s on t h is l i s t .

Although the data were c o lle c te d

during the w in te r o f the 1970-71 school y e a r, co n tra cts from the

46

previous school year were used.

This was necessary because several

d is t r ic t s experienced a g rea t deal o f delay in the r a t if ic a t io n o f
th e ir 1970-71 school year c o n tra cts.
A ll but fo u r o f the co n tra cts from the school d is t r ic t s
mentioned above were borrowed from the f i l e s o f the Michigan Educa­
tio n A sso cia tio n .

The remaining co n tra cts were requested and

received from the d is t r ic t s themselves.
Because o f the diverse nature o f the c o n tra c ts , each was
read in i t s e n tir e ty .

Many iterns r e la tin g to the f ie ld o f special

education were found in the footnotes and the appendices o f the
c o n tra c ts .

Item S e le c tio n , Recording
and C ategorizing
A given p o rtio n o f the c o n tra c t (ite m ) was judged to be
o f s ig n ific a n c e f o r th is study when:
a.

I t contained terms r e fe r r in g to a given Special Educa­
tio n p rofe ssio n a l group, i . e . , Special Education
Teacher, School P sych o lo g ist, School Social Worker,
e t c . , and/or

b.

I t contained terms r e fe r r in g to any c la s s ific a tio n
o f handicapped c h ild , i . e . , em otio n a lly d is tu rb e d ,
m e n ta lly re ta rd e d , p h y s ic a lly handicapped, e t c . , and/or

c.

I t contained terms which were c lo s e ly re la te d to special
education o r handicapped c h ild re n , i . e . , d is r u p tiv e ,
unable to a d ju s t, in need o f special a tte n tio n , chronic
d is c i p iin e problem, e tc .

As each c o n tra c t was read, iterns which met the above
c r it e r ia were recorded on index cards.

Each item was recorded on a

separate card and id e n tifie d w ith the name o f the school d i s t r i c t

47
represented in the c o n tra c t from which i t was taken.

No attem pt was

made to ca te g o rize the items u n t il a ll co n tra cts were read.
The categories and sub-categories to be used in re p o rtin g
the items were decided upon o n ly a fte r repeated attempts to develop
a p p ro p ria te groupings.

At f i r s t , the categories used by Sosnowsky

and Coleman (1969) were tr ie d .
fit.

I t was found th a t many items did not

A t th is p o in t several fe llo w graduate students and two members

o f the d is s e rta tio n committee were assembled.

The cards w ith the

items on them were d is trib u te d randomly to members o f th is group.
Suggestions fo r categories were recorded on a blackboard.

Each

member o f the group sorted his cards in to these various c a te g o rie s.
As items appeared which did not f i t e x is tin g categories the e x is tin g
categories were m odified or new categories were added and recorded.
This was done as a group process w ith each member checking h is items
to see i f they would f i t in w ith the suggested changes.

From these

meetings some 25 categories were defined in which about 95% o f the
iterns f i t adequately.
Upon review o f these 25 categories i t was noted th a t several
(10) had only a few (1-5) iterns in them.

In the absence o f previous

adequate models the in v e s tig a to r attempted a system o f la rg e r ca te ­
g ories which could then be subdivided in to su b-categories.

The

r e s u lt is the 1i s t o f th irte e n c a te g o rie s, w ith sub-categories pre­
sented below:
1. Salary D iffe r e n tia ls fo r Special Education Personnel
2. Handicapped Students in Regular Classrooms
a. Items d e fin in g c h ild re n
b. Items d e scrib in g help given to the re g u la r
c. Items s e ttin g an id e n tifia b le tone (mood)

teacher

48
3.

Class size

4.

R eferral and Placement o f special students
a. Items concerning r e fe r r a l procedures
b. Items concerning placement p o lic y
c. M iscellaneous m a te ria l r e la tin g to r e fe r r a l and
placement

5.

Time commitments fo r special education personnel

6.

Maintenance and expansion o f special education programs

7.

Special Education s t a f f on committees

8.

In te g ra tio n o f special education students in re g u la r
classes

9.

P ro visio n o f space and m a te ria ls f o r special education
personnel

10.

Length o f school day f o r special education students

11.

In -s e rv ic e days fo r special education s t a f f

12.

Special education programs included in summer school

13.

Miscellaneous

As a p p ro p ria te c o n tra c t items were assembled they were
grouped in to c lu s te rs .

These item c lu s te rs have as t h e ir basis o f d e f i­

n itio n a s im ila r approach to a given c o n tra c t issu e.

These c lu s te rs

d i f f e r from sub-categories in th a t they d e fin e an approach to an
issue and the sub-categories id e n t ify the issue or concern.
These categories and sub-categories represent a compromise
between re p o rtin g v ir t u a l ly each item and making g e n e ra liz a tio n s so
broad th a t they lose d e f in itio n and fu n c tio n .

The in te n t o f the

w r ite r was to develop groupings which would a llo w the data to be
presented in a concise and readable form w ith o u t lo s in g accuracy.
The task o f c a te g o riz a tio n was made d i f f i c u l t because many
items were worded d if f e r e n t ly even when r e fe r r in g to s im ila r p o lic ie s

49
regarding a given issue.

In order to present data as under­

standably as p o s s ib le , item c lu s te rs contain examples o f the items
when a p p ro p ria te .

These items were chosen to give the reader

the w idest p o ssib le range o f wording found in any given
c lu s te r.

Treatment o f the Data
A fte r a ll items were sorted in to c a te g o rie s, each
category was reviewed f o r s im ila r it ie s and d iffe re n c e s among
the item s.

From th is review sub-categories and c lu s te rs were

e sta b lis h e d .

A frequency o f items and d is t r ic t s represented

in each category, sub-category and c lu s te r was e sta b lish e d and
summarized in ta b le form.

The categories were rank ordered by

s iz e .
The content o f each cate go ry, and sub-category was
summarized.

Any c o n tra c t item which did not f i t in to the above

Mentioned paradigm was placed in a m iscellaneous p o rtio n o f the
a p p ro p ria te category.

Many o f the most in te re s tin g and "con­

t r o v e r s ia l" items appear in these m iscellaneous p o rtio n s .
No attem pt was made to analyze any given c o n tra c t.
The purpose o f t h is p o rtio n o f the study was one o f de scribing
the population o f c o n tra c ts .

50
!
The Opinion Survey
Purpose
The purposes o f the q ue stionnaire were discussed and
decided upon in meetings between the w r ite r and h is d is s e rta tio n
committee chairman.

Four major purposes were delin ea te d.

These were:
a.

To determine the o v e ra ll perceived e ffe c ts , i f
any, o f lo c a l con tracts on lo c a l special educa­
tio n programs.

b.

To determine the s p e c ific p o rtio n s o f the lo ca l
c o n tra c ts , i f any, seen as having an e ffe c t on
special education programs.

c.

To determine those changes, i f any, in the lo ca l
c o n tra cts seen as being a pp ropriate and ju s t if ia b le
f o r fu tu re co n tra c ts .

d.

To determine the e xte nt o f involvement in the
n e g o tia tio n process o f the lo c a l d ire c to rs o f
special education and members o f t h e ir s ta ffs .

Development o f the Q uestionnaire
In accordance w ith the above purposes, questions were
developed which were designed to gather as much data as p ossible in
a concise and p recise manner.

Several approaches were considered

in c lu d in g u t ili z a t i o n o f an extended l i s t o f questions which could
be checked "yes" o r " n o ."

While developing th is l i s t o f q u e stio n s,

i t soon became apparent th a t the d iv e r s ity o f co n tra cts and programs
would make the l i s t o f questions unreasonably long.

I t would also

n e ce ssita te the reading o f many questions by the respondent which
would not apply to h is p a r tic u la r d i s t r i c t .

51
Another approach considered was the development o f fiv e
broad questions to which each respondent could re act in an "openended" manner.

This approach was abandoned f o r fe a r th a t the

questions allowed so much la titu d e o f in te rp r e ta tio n th a t the
responses would be o f 1i t t l e

use as data.

The approach decided upon combined fe a tu re s o f both "open"
and "o b je c tiv e " questions.

The questions used had many o f the

fe a tu re s o f those used in s tru c tu re d in te rv ie w s .

Four s p e c ific

questions concerning the special education program were asked.
Five open-ended questions were decided upon which requested p er­
ceptions o f the e ffe c ts o f lo c a l co n tra cts on the lo c a l special
education program.

Two questions were asked concerning what changes

in , o r a d d itio n s to , the lo c a l c o n tra c t the respondent would lik e to
have.

A b r ie f d e s c rip tio n o f the lo c a l program was requested, along

w ith f iv e questions which sought in fo rm a tio n concerning the d ir e c to r 's
and s t a f f s ' involvement w ith the n e g o tia tio n process.

A f in a l ques­

tio n perm itted the respondent to add any comments he wished about
the c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n process in h is d i s t r i c t .

The P ilo t Study
A d r a f t o f the qu e stio n na ire was submitted to fo u r lo ca l
d ire c to rs o f special education and to Dr. W il1iam Sosnowsky o f Wayne
State U n iv e rs ity fo r comment.
The above persons were contacted to v e r ify the v a lid it y
o f the questions asked.

They were interview ed e ith e r p e rso n a lly or

by phone and t h e ir comments on the q ue stio n n a ire were noted.

T h e ir

52
responses acted as a guide in rewording some o f the questions.

This

was done to b e tte r is o la te the d is c re te issues addressed by th is
study.

The Final Questionnaire
The f in a l q u e stio n na ire was based on the d r a f t used in the
p il o t study, and incorporated many o f the suggestions made by both
the respondents to the p i l o t study and members o f the d is s e rta tio n
guidance committee.

The q u estion naire in i t s f in a l form appears in

Appendix C,

A d m in is tra tio n o f the Survey
The q u e stio n na ire and a cover le t t e r were mailed to the
68 lo c a l d ire c to rs o f special education in the s ta te o f Michigan
whose d i s t r i c t 's co n tra cts were included in the c o n tra c t p o p u la tio n .
Each q u e stio n n a ire was numbered and id e n tifie d on a master
l i s t m aintained independently o f a ll o th e r data in order to guarantee
c o n f id e n tia lit y o f in fo rm a tio n .
A fo llo w -u p le t t e r in c lu d in g a second qu e stio n n a ire and
stamped envelope was mailed three weeks a f te r the o r ig in a l survey
to those not responding to the f i r s t m a ilin g .

A th ir d le t t e r was

sent to fo u r d ire c to rs asking f o r t h e ir cooperation in re tu rn in g the
form.

53
C ategorizing and T abulating
the Q uestionnaire Responses
A fte r approxim ately 50% o f the questionnaires were returned
the w r ite r in v ite d three o f h is fe llo w graduate students in Special
Education A d m in is tra tio n to a meeting to help judge, develop ca te ­
g o rie s , and ta b u la te responses to the q ue stio n n a ire .

The returned

q u e stionnaires were d is tr ib u te d among the judges and the w r ite r
acted as re cord e r.

Each response was read aloud to the group.

As

each response was read i t was e ith e r made the basis o f a new cate­
gory o r was assigned to an e x is tin g category.

As th is task progressed,

categories were m odified to in clu de more responses o r were elim inated
as in a p p ro p ria te .

A ll changes were discussed and agreed upon by the

judges and were so recorded.
A ll responses to a given question in the questionnaire were
recorded before the next was considered.
A fte r the i n i t i a l categories fo r the responses were devel­
oped, the w r it e r fu r th e r re fin e d the wording and met w ith the judges
to discuss the changes.

As more questionnaires were returned the

w r ite r assigned the responses to the e x is tin g ca te g o rie s.

When th is

task was completed the w r ite r again met w ith the judges to assure
the appropriateness o f the c a te g o riz a tio n o f responses and to check
some minor re v is io n s o f wording in the t i t l e s o f the cate go ries.
The re s u lts o f th is c a te g o riz a tio n are presented in
Chapter IV.

Treatment o f the Data
A ll data from the qu e stionnaire were organized to answer
research questions two through fo u r.

Various ta b le s summarize the

responses and, along w ith the t e x t , describe the reaction s o f the
respondent population to the q u e stio n n a ire .

(For fu rth e r explana­

tio n o f the respondent population please see below .)

Frequencies

o f response and the content o f the responses co n trib u te d the major
p o rtio n o f the data used to answer the above mentioned research
questions.
The establishm ent o f means and o th e r d e s c rip tiv e s t a t is t ic s
were not seen as a p p ro p ria te due to the d iv e r s ity and low frequencies
o f the responses.

In several cases the w r ite r found i t advisable

to attend to responses which had very low frequencies (1 o r 2
responses) as much as to those which were more common.

The Populations
As can be seen above, th is study deals w ith two popu latio ns.
One, a p o p ulation o f co n tra cts representing 68 school d is t r i c t s , and
the o th e r, a p o p ulation o f lo c a l special education d ire c to rs from
these same school d i s t r ic t s .

The c h a ra c te ris tic s o f the co n tra c t

population are discussed a t the beginning o f th is chapter.

The Respondent Population
The respondent population consisted o f the 68 lo ca l d ire c to rs
who were working in the lo c a l d i s t r i c t a t the time the c o n tra c t used
in t h is study was in e ffe c t.

55
The re a c tio n o f lo c a l d ire c to rs o f special education is
seen as being most a p propriate fo r th is study as they are in the
most advantageous p o s itio n to judge the e ffe c ts o f co n tra cts on
th e ir d i s t r i c t 's special education programs.

They are assumed to

be aware o f the fe e lin g s o f the special education teachers and
the d i s t r i c t 's a d m in is tra tio n r e la tiv e to the c o n tra c ts .

Because

o f t h e ir unique p o s itio n i t is also assumed th a t the lo c a l d ire c to rs
would be best able to synthesize the fe e lin g s o f these te a ch e rs,
a d m in is tra to rs 3 and school board members in to v a lid p ro je c tio n s
concerning the s tru c tu re and e ffe c ts o f fu tu re co n tra cts r e la tiv e
to special education.
F i f t y - f iv e (81%) o f the d ire c to rs responded.

Of these

responses, fo rty - n in e (49) o r 89% contained data th a t could be
scored.
Below is a b r ie f summary o f the size o f the d is t r ic t s and
the lo n g e v ity o f the d ire c to rs in the d is t r ic t s which make up the
respondent population used in th is study.

More a c c u ra te ly , the

fig u re s presented below are based on a p o rtio n o f those who received
the q u e stio n n a ire which represents 72% o f th a t p o p u la tio n .

This

group o f respondents w ill be re fe rre d to as the respondent popula­
tio n .
As can be seen in Table 1 the d is t r ic t s whose student
population ranged from fiv e to ten thousand made up the la rg e s t group
o f d is t r ic t s in the respondent p o p u la tio n .

This population does not

include D e tr o it, the s ta te 's la rg e s t school d i s t r i c t .

The mean lo ca l

d i s t r i c t size o f 12,386 students p o in ts to the fa c t th a t interm ediate

56
school d is t r ic t s c a rrie d the major a d m in is tra tiv e burden fo r special
education in the m a jo rity o f sm alle r d is t r ic t s in Michigan

TABLE 1
School D is t r ic t Size ( to t a l student membership)

Size o f D is t r ic t s

Number o f D is tr ic ts

More than 15,000

13

10,000 to 15,000

7

5,000 to 10,000

22
7

3,000 to 5,000
T otal

49

Range: 3,750 to 38,195
Mean: 12,386

Below is a summary o f the years o f employment in cu rre n t
p o s itio n held by the respondents whose re a ctio n s were used in th is
study.

TABLE 2
D ire c to r Longevity

Length o f Time

Number o f D ire cto rs
8

More than 10 years
5 to 10 years

20

1 to 4 years

21
T otal

Range:
Mean:

1-1/2 years to 14 years
5.8 years

49

57
Several d ire c to rs o f special education who were employed
in the 1970-71 school year were not included in th is study as they
were not employed during the 1969-70 school year when the con tracts
under in v e s tig a tio n were in e ffe c t.

The recent expansion o f special

education services is re fle c te d in Table 2 when one notes the la rg e
number o f d ire c to rs who had been employed in p o s itio n less than f iv e
years.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This chapter
o f C ontract Item s, and

is d ivid e d in to two major p o rtio n s : 1) Analysis
2) Results o f the Survey.

The "A n a lysis o f C ontract Items" addresses i t s e l f to the
research q u e stio n :

"What is the number and content o f c o n tra c t iterns

p e rta in in g to Special Education in the selected p op ulation o f con­
tra c ts ? "
The "R esults o f the Survey" provides data on the remaining
research questions:

(1)

What has been the e xte n t o f involvem ent o f

Special Education personnel in the n e g o tia tio n process?, (2) What
are the perceived e ffe c ts o f the c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n process o f
Special Education programs as reported by lo c a l d ire c to rs o f Special
Education?, and (3) What changes in , o r a d d itio n s to c u rre n t con­
tra c ts are seen by lo c a l d ire c to rs as being needed and ju s t if ia b le
fo r the improvement o f Special Education in t h e ir d is t r ic t ?
Throughout th is study, the terms d i s t r i c t and c o n tra c t are
used

interchangeably. In a l l cases, each d i s t r i c t is represented by

one and o n ly one c o n tra c t.

A nalysis o f C ontract Items
A d e s c rip tio n o f the m a te ria l which p e rta in s d ir e c tly to
Special Education found in the 68 c o n tra cts studied is presented
58

59
he re in .

The procedure used to id e n tify these various items is

described in Chapter I I I .
Table 3 o u tlin e s the various categories and sub­
categories in which items from the c o n tra cts are d is tr ib u te d .
Chapter I I I contains a discussion o f the procedure used in
a r r iv in g a t the ca te g o ries presented below.

Any one c o n tra c t

may be represented more than once i f i t contains m a te ria l a p p li­
cable to more than one category o r sub-category.

For example,

a c o n tra c t may co n ta in m a te ria l on s a la ry d if f e r e n t ia ls , the
r e fe r r a l and placement o f "s p e c ia l s tu d e n ts ," and class siz e .
In t h is case the c o n tra c t would be counted three tim es.
As
id e n t if ie d .

seen in Figure 1 there were

326 c o n tra c t iterns

This produces an average o f

4 .8 items per c o n tra ct

w ith a range from one to 18 iterns per c o n tra c t.

A d e ta ile d tabu­

la tio n o f the c o n tra c t iterns by category and d i s t r i c t can be seen
in Appendix A.
An

item is a sentence, phrase o r grouping o f sentences

which expresses a

w e l1-d e fin e d thought. Several iterns

may be

contained w ith in one c o n tra c t clause and conversely, several
clauses may be necessary to develop one item .
o f Terms in Chapter I . )
w ith regard to :

(See D e fin itio n s

Each o f the ca teg orie s is discussed

1) the frequency o f iterns; 2) a d e s c rip tio n o f

the d if f e r in g approaches to the issues in the category; and
3) examples from the c o n tra c ts when a p p ro p ria te .

60
TABLE 3
D is tr ib u tio n o f Contracts by Category and Sub-Category
Percent o f
Contracts (Based
on 68 co n tra cts)

Number o f
Contracts
Category and Sub-Category

Sub­ Total in Sub­ Total in
category category category category

I . Salary D iffe r e n tia ls fo r Special
Education Personnel........................
I I . Handicapped Students in Regular
C la ssro o m s........................ ....
A. Items d e fin in g c h ild re n . .
B. Items d e scrib in g help given
to the re g u la r tea che r. . .
C. Items s e ttin g an i d e n t i f i ­
able tone (mood)....................
III.

41

60.3

40

58.8

35

51.5

22

33.4

Class size .........................................

IV. R eferral and Placement o f
"Special students" . . . . . .
A. Items concerning r e fe r r a l
procedures.................................
B. Items concerning placement
p o lic y .........................................
C. M iscellaneous m a te ria l. . .

66.2

45

28

41.2

24

35.3

21

30.7

9
8

13.2
11.7

V. Time Commitments f o r Special
Education Personnel........................

17

25.0

V I. Maintenance and Expansion o f
Special Education Programs . . .

10

14.7

V II. Special Education S ta ff on
Committees .........................................

10

14.7

V I I I . In te g ra tio n o f Special Education
Students in to Regular classes. .

6

8.8

IX. P ro visio n o f Space and M a te ria ls
f o r Special Education Personnel.

6

8.8

X. Length o f School Day fo r Special
Education Students .........................

3

4.4

X I. In -S e rv ic e Days f o r Special
Education S ta ff. . . . ................

3

4.4

X I I . Special Education Programs in ­
cluded in Summer School................

2

2.9

X I I I . M iscellaneous.....................................

9

13.2

13

Mean
4.8
Median
4
Mode
]_
Total Contracts
68
Total Items
326

12
11
10
(/I

+J

o
(O
s+J
c
o
o
o

s0)

JO

9
8

7
6
5

Cl

4
3

2
1
r -

7

8

9

10

— ,—

—I—

12

13

—

1—

14

1—

— I—

15

16

—

— I—

Number o f Items per Contract

FIGURE 1
D is trib u tio n o f Item Frequencies by Number o f Contracts

17

18

62
The examples used were chosen to give the w idest possible
range o f d iffe re n c e s found w ith in a category o r sub-category o f
item s.

They in clu d e both the most " t y p ic a l" item and, i f the

size o f the category p e rm its, one o r more o f the a ty p ic a l s ta te ­
ments.

I.

Salary D iffe r e n tia ls f o r Special
Education Personnel
As seen in Table 3, the s u b je ct o f s a la ry d if f e r e n t ia ls

paid to special education personnel was mentioned in 45 (66.2%)
o f the c o n tra c ts .

F o rty -n in e items are included in th is ca te ­

gory.
A.

F la t ra te d if f e r e n t ia l (13 d is t r ic t s - - 1 5 iterns)
This c lu s te r o f iterns represents d is t r ic t s which base

th e ir special education d if f e r e n t ia l on a f l a t ra te paid to a l 1
special education personnel.

A p o in t o f confusion may a ris e as

some co n tra c ts do not recognize d ia g n o s tic ia n s (now known as school
psych o lo g ists) and school so cia l workers as p a rt o f the bargaining
u n it.

(See data r e la tin g to research question # 2 .)

These f l a t

rates ranged from $125 to $500, w ith three d is t r ic t s using the
$400 fig u re (see Table 4 ).
B.

D iffe r e n tia ls ( in d o lla r amounts) which vary w ith jo b
c la s s ific a tio n (10 d i s t r i c t s - - ! 1 iterns)
These s a la ry schedules included a d if f e r e n t ia l based on

the various c la s s ific a tio n s o f Special Education personnel.

These

63
TABLE 4
Number o f D is t r ic t s and t h e ir F la t Rate Salary D iffe r e n tia l

Amount o f D iffe r e n tia l

Number o f D is tr ic ts

$125

1

$200

1

$220

1

$250

1

$300

2

$350

1

$400

3

$425

1

$500

2
Total

13

d if f e r e n t ia ls ranged from a low o f $51 per year fo r a classroom
teacher o f the Educable M entally Impaired to a high o f $1,000 fo r a
d ia g n o s tic ia n .

Each d i s t r i c t va rie d both in the amount o f d i f f e r ­

e n tia l and the jo b c la s s ific a tio n in vo lve d .

Due to the com plexity

o f the d a ta , a d e ta ile d d e s c rip tio n was judged to be im p ra c tic a l fo r
th is study.
C.

D iffe r e n tia ls ( in percentages) which vary w ith jo b c l a s s i f i ­
c a tio n (8 d i s t r i c t s - - 9 item s)
In these d i s t r i c t s , the s a la ry d if f e r e n t ia l was based on a

percentage o f the base

s a la ry f o r a B achelor's Degree o r on a per­

centage o f the contracted s a la ry fo r the in d iv id u a l a t a given step
on the s a la ry schedule.

This percentage changed w ith the various jo b

c la s s ific a tio n s w ith in the d i s t r i c t .

64
Five d is t r ic t s used the contracted s a la ry o f the in d iv id u a l
as a base f o r t h e ir d if f e r e n t ia l and three used only the base sa la ry
in computing the d if f e r e n t ia ls .

The percentages used ranged from a

low o f 3% to a high o f 10%.
D.

D iffe r e n tia ls based on percentage ap plie d to a ll special
education personnel (6 d i s t r i c t s — 7 item s)
These d is t r ic t s had a d if f e r e n t ia l based on one percentage

applied e q u a lly to a ll c la s s ific a tio n s o f special education personnel.
Four o f these d is t r ic t s based t h e ir d if f e r e n t ia l on a percent o f the
step in the pay schedule on which an in d iv id u a l is placed.

The

remaining three d is t r ic t s based t h e ir d if f e r e n t ia l on the s ta rtin g
step f o r new teachers w ith a B achelor's Degree.

The percentages

ranged from 2.5% to 10%.
E.

M ixture o f d o lla r and percentage d if f e r e n t ia ls (3 d is t r ic t s - 3 item s)
This group o f d is t r ic t s expressed i t s d if f e r e n t ia ls by

g iv in g some jo b c la s s ific a tio n an increase based on a f l a t ra te in
d o lla rs and others based on percentages.

This appears to r e fle c t a

fragmented approach to the development o f a s a la ry schedule.
F.

A r b itr a r y a c c e le ra tio n o f Salary Schedule (2 d i s t r i c t s —
2 item s)
These d is t r ic t s accelerated the in d iv id u a l on the sa la ry

schedule as t h e ir means o f c re a tin g a special education d if f e r e n t ia l.
G.

El i mi n a tio n o f the d if f e r e n t ia l (2 d i s t r i c t s — 2 i terns)
These d is t r ic t s have e lim in a te d o r p rojecte d the e lim i nation

o f the pay d if f e r e n t ia l fo r special education personnel.

65

Other methods were used by three school d is t r ic t s to
increase the y e a rly income o f special education personnel which can­
not be considered a tru e d if f e r e n t i a l .

Two d is t r ic t s extended the

special education te a ch e rs1 work year w ith commensurate s a la ry
increases.

Another d i s t r i c t wrote in to i t s c o n tra c t an overtim e

allowance which allowed s p e c ific special education personnel to
claim a s p e c ifie d amount o f overtim e.

Category Summary
A ll but two o f the d is t r ic t s m entioning s a la ry d if f e r e n t ia ls
m aintain some form o f added payment f o r special education personnel.
Two d is t r ic t s have in d ic a te d th a t t h e ir p o lic y is one o f e lim in a tin g
the d i f f e r e n t i a l .

The form o f payment used most o fte n was a " f l a t

ra te " given to a ll special education s t a f f .

Several o th e r forms o f

payment were used, these included percentages o f various steps on the
s a la ry schedule, and payment f o r overtim e and/or extended c o n tra c t
years.

II.

Handicapped Students in Regular Classrooms
As seen in Table 3, th is su b je ct was mentioned in 41 con­

tra c ts o r 60.3% o f the c o n tra c t p o p u la tio n .
These students were mentioned more than once in 37 con­
tra c ts .

This category is d ivid e d in to th re e s u b -c a te g o rie s :

items

d e fin in g c h ild re n ; iterns r e fe r r in g to the manner in which the teacher
w ill be helped; and iterns which appear to se t a tone (mood) r e la tiv e
to handicapped students in the re g u la r classroom.

66
These c o n tra c t items r e fe r to c h ild re n who were in re gu la r
classrooms and who e x h ib ite d behavior which might make them e l i g i b l e
f o r special education s e rvice s.

The m a jo rity o f these items appeared

to r e fe r to c h ild re n w ith emotional o r so cia l problems.
A.

Items Defining the Children
The c o n tra c t items are stated here as d ir e c t quotes or

paraphrases from the c o n tra c ts .

A ll 41 d i s t r i c t s in t h is category

are represented.
1. The c h iId re n were described as those " re q u ir in g the
a tte n tio n o f special counselors, social workerss law
enforcement personnel, p h y s ic ia n s , or other professional
persons." (22 d i s t r i c t s - - 2 3 iterns)
2. The c h ild re n were described as those "having special
p h y s ic a l, m ental, and emotional problems . . . ."
(12 d i s t r i c t s - - 1 2 iterns)
3. The c h ild re n were described as d is r u p tiv e or having
d is c i p li n a r y problems along w ith other c h a r a c te r is tic s .
(7 d i s t r i c t s - - 7 items)
4. The c h ild re n were described as "Any pupil who is
determined by the a d m in is tra tio n a f t e r co n s u lta tio n w ith
app ro p ria te q u a lif ie d professional people to be incapable
o f a d ju s tin g to the re g u la r classroom ." (3 d i s t r i c t s - 3 items)
5. The c h ild re n were characterized as being c e r t i f i e d
e m o tio n a lly d is tu rb e d .
(2 d i s t r i c t s - - 2 items)
6.

Miscellaneous items:

(6 d i s t r i c t s - - 6 iterns)

a. "The Board recognizes i t s r e s p o n s ib ilit y to con­
tin u e to give a l 1 reasonable support and assistance
to teachers w ith respect to the maintenance o f control
and d is c i p iin e in the classroom. The Board acknowledges th a t exceptional c h ild re n sometimes re qu ire
special education and treatment by s p e c ia lly c e r t i f i e d
teachers and o th e r personnel."
b. " In the event the chi Id does not q u a lif y f o r
special placement, the teacher s h a ll receive a l 1

67
possible advice, assistance, and service from other
personnel r e la t i v e to the needs o f the c h i l d . "
c. " In the event a c h ild does not q u a lif y f o r special
education placement . . .
d. " . . . p u p ils who need special a tte n tio n or t r e a t ­
ment . . . ."
e. " . . . e m otionally d is tu rb e d , underachievers, or
c u l t u r a l l y disadvantaged."
f.
" . . . f o r e m otionally d is tu rb e d , p h y s ic a lly handi­
capped or m entally handicapped c h ild r e n . "
B.

Items Describing the Help Given to Regular Class Teachers
T h i r t y - f i v e o f the 41 d i s t r i c t s in t h is category are

represented here.

The reader w i l l note a wide d iv e r s it y regarding

t h is issue.
1. This c lu s t e r o f items represents d i s t r i c t s in which
help was given to the re g u la r teachers o f these d i s t r i c t s
by r e lie v in g the teacher o f her r e s p o n s ib ilit ie s f o r the
c h ild in question.
(17 d i s t r i c t s - - 1 7 items)
Examples:
a. " . . . the Board w i l l take reasonable steps to
r e lie v e the teacher o f r e s p o n s ib ilit ie s w ith respect
to such p u p ils , once i t is determined outside help is
r e q u ir e d ."
b. "Personnel b e lie v in g such students are assigned
to t h e i r classrooms may request t h e i r tr a n s fe r and
s h a ll present evidence supporting t h is request to the
p r in c ip a l and Pupil Personnel Department which sh a l1
recommend a ppropriate a c t io n . "
2. The common denominator here is a general reference to
the f a c t th a t something should be done to help the teacher
but no guarantee o f s p e c ific help was given. (12 d i s t r i c t s 12 i terns)
Examples:
y

a. "The board recognizes i t s r e s p o n s ib ili t y to con­
tin u e to give reasonable support and assistance to

68

teachers w ith respect to the maintenance o f control
and d is c ip lin e in the classroom."
b. "Special a tte n tio n w i l l be given whenever special
students are placed in a re g u la r classroom."
3. Help in the d i s t r i c t s represented in t h is item c lu s te r
was the reduction o f class size when a handicapped c h ild
was in a re g u la r classroom. (9 d i s t r i c t s - - 9 items)
Examples:
a. "Whenever p o ssib le , special a tte n tio n w i l l be
given to reducing class size when such special s tu ­
dents are placed in a re g u la r classroom."
b. "In computing class load, a c h ild awaiting
placement in special programs s h a l1 be counted as
two s tu d e n ts ."
4. Help was guaranteed
However, the exact type
(6 d i s t r i c t s - - 6 items)

to the re g u la r class teacher.
o f help was somewhat unclear.

Examples:
". . . the teacher s h a ll receive re g u la r counseling
and/or other assistance (which may include v i s i t a t i o n
from the special education department) to aid the
teacher in handling the p u p i l ."
5.

Miscellaneous

(3 d i s t r i c t s - - 3 iterns)

Examples:
a. One d i s t r i c t deals w ith the problem o f handicapped
c h ild re n in the re g u la r classroom by o u t ! in in g a sevenstep procedure which can lead to special class placement.
At each step, the procedure and person responsible is
c le a r ly stated.
b. " . . . the Board w i l l take the necessary steps to
r e fe r the c h ild to the appropriate s e r v ic e . "
c. " . . . personnel b e lie v in g th a t such students are
assigned to t h e i r classrooms may request t h e i r tr a n s fe r
and . . . ."

69
C.

Items Which Appear to Set a Tone (Mood) R elative to
Handicapped Students in the Regular Classroom
Due to the s u b je c tiv e nature o f t h is m a te r ia l, the w r i t e r

has chosen to abandon the re g u la r format f o r the presentation o f
data.

Below is a b r i e f presentation o f the m ate ria l which is

in te rp re te d as s e ttin g a d e f i n i t e tone in the co n tra cts r e la t iv e
to the handicapped c h ild in the re g u la r classroom.
Twenty-two con tra cts contained m aterial which appeared
to set a tone or mood in the c o n tra c t.

Examples o f t h is m aterial

are:
1. "The teacher may not f a i r l y be expected to assume the
r o le o f warden or custodian o f em otio n a lly disturbed s tu ­
dents or be charged w ith the r e s p o n s ib ili t y o f psycho­
therapy. "
2. " . . . t h e i r [handicapped c h iId re n ] presence in
re g u la r classrooms may in t e r f e r e w ith the normal in s t r u c ­
tio n a l program and place e x tra o rd in a ry and unreasonable
demands upon the teacher or s tu d e n ts."
3. "The Board recognizes th a t i t is not fe a s ib le f o r
re g u la r teachers to accept the r e s p o n s ib ili t y f o r
in s tr u c tin g p u p ils who need special a tte n tio n or tre a tm e n t."

Category Summary
This category contains the la r g e s t number o f co n tra c t iterns
and is one o f the most d ive rse.

The

category is divid e d in to three

sub-categories.
The d is r u p tiv e or s o c ia lly deviant c h ild dominates.
m a jo rity

The

o f the d e s c rip tio n s o f t h i s type o f c h ild are broadly worded

and could include those who are in the normal process o f maturation
and growth.

70
With the exception o f f iv e d i s t r i c t s , the r e s p o n s ib ili ty
fo r determining the c h i l d 's need f o r special help is not w e lldefined.
The p r e v a ilin g p a tte rn o f help given to the re g u la r class
teacher, who has a suspected handicapped c h ild in her room, is e ith e r
a vague o f f e r o f help or the removal o f the teacher's r e s p o n s ib ilit y
f o r the c h ild .

The next most frequent approach to t h is s itu a t io n is

the reduction o f class siz e .

This s o lu tio n appears to be based on

the assumption th a t fewer c h ild re n in the class is s u f f i c i e n t help
and w i l l a llo w the re g u la r classroom teacher to adequately deal w ith
the handicapped c h ild .

III.

Class Size
The 28 d i s t r i c t s which had statements in t h e i r contracts

p e rta in in g to the class size and case loads o f special education
personnel represent 41.2% o f the co n tra cts in the study.

T h irty -o n e

iterns are in t h is category.
A.

A general acceptance o f the s ta te recommended maxima
(15 d i s t r i c t s - - 1 5 iterns)
Items in t h is c lu s te r represent an approach which is

characterized by statements accepting the s ta te recommended maxima
f o r special education classes.

These statements are worded using

some form o f the phrase, "State recommendations sh a l1 be observed,"
or the number designated are id e n tic a l to those recommended by the
sta te .

71

Examples:
1. Special education and co nsultant loads s h a ll not exceed
the maximum standards adopted by the Michigan Department o f
Education.
2. Special classes f o r handicapped or m entally retarded
. . . 15 p u p ils .
B.

Some maxima in each d i s t r i c t s p e c ifie d a t below sta te
recommendations. (5 d i s t r i c t s - - 5 iterns)
In t h is c lu s t e r maximum class sizes are set a t or below the

sta te recommendations.

In each d i s t r i c t , the maximum f o r at le a s t

one program are set below s ta te recommendations.
Examples:
1. Early elementary special education "Type A" rooms w i l l
not exceed a maximum o f twelve. Upper elementary "Type A"
rooms w i l l not exceed a maximum o f f i f t e e n .
2. In order to provide placement f l e x i b i l i t y in programs
. . . the Board w i l l attempt to hold enrolIm ent in these
special education classes to less than the s ta te defined
capacity a t the opening o f the school year.
C.

Some maxima f o r classes in these d i s t r i c t s are set higher
than the s ta te recommendations. (5 d i s t r i c t s - - 5 iterns)
One d i s t r i c t had set the maximum f o r P a r t i a l l y Seeing and

Hard o f Hearing a t two p u p ils per class above the sta te recommenda­
tio n s , the o th e r increased the maximum class size f o r "Type A"
classes by f iv e p u p ils per room.
D.

State recommendations held as ideal--escape clauses
included
(4 d i s t r i c t s - - 4 items)
These d i s t r i c t s have worded t h e i r con tra cts so th a t more

students than the s ta te recommends may be placed in t h e i r special
education classes.

72
Example:
I f the size o f any Special Education class exceeds the
sta te recommendations, the co n su lta n t in Special Educa­
t io n w i l l e xplain the reason to the teacher concerned.
I f the teacher is not s a t is f ie d , the teacher may request
th a t the a d m in is tra tio n explore w ith the Union the pos­
s i b i l i t i e s o f reducing the size o f the class.
E.

Optimum and maximum class sizes are stated
2 items)

(2 d i s t r i c t s - -

These d i s t r i c t s had defined both an optimum and maximum
number o f students f o r t h e i r special education classes.
were set a t sta te recommendations w ith one exception.

The maxima
The class

size in one d i s t r i c t f o r the e m otionally d isturbed was set a t two
over the s ta te recommendations.
Example:
Optimum
Special classes f o r handicapped
or m entally retarded
Emotionally disturbed classes
The above d e s c rip tio n covers al 1
class size in

t h e i r co n tra cts.

Maximum

12

15

9

12

the d i s t r i c t s who mention

Below are two a d d itio n a l statements

concerning class size th a t were found in the c o n tra c ts .

They are

presented in an abbreviated form.
Examples:
1. "A p ro p o rtio n a l reduction in Special Education classes
. . . would be made by use o f fe d e ra l funds from the ESEA
a c t."
2.
" . . . the goal s h a ll be one so cia l worker f o r each
Junior High and one male and one female so cia l worker f o r
each High School and an o v e ra l1 r a t i o o f one so cia l worker
to twelve hundred p u p ils . . . . 11

73
Category Summary
In summary, 19 o f the 27 d i s t r i c t s re p o rtin g m aterial in
t h is category complied w ith , o r had sm aller classes than the sta te
recommendations.

Six d i s t r i c t s e it h e r had an escape clause which

would allo w the class size to be more than the s ta te recommendations
or had maxima la rg e r than s ta te standards.

The remaining two

d i s t r i c t s had a mixture o f sm aller and la r g e r maxima than the sta te
recommendations.

IV.

Referral and Placement o f Special
Students
The terms " r e f e r r a l " and "placement" as used in t h is d is ­

cussion have reference both to students s t a r t in g and te rm in a tin g
special services.

They also r e f e r to both the re g u la r and special

classrooms.
This category is divid e d in to three s u b -c a te g o rie s.

Each

sub-category contains several item c lu s te rs which represent d if f e r e n t
approaches to the r e f e r r a l and placement o f students.

I t is made up

o f m aterial from 24 d i s t r i c t s (35.4%).
A.

Items Concerning R eferral Procedures
Twenty-one d i s t r i c t s (30.4%) had c o n tra c t clauses which

r e la te d i r e c t l y to r e fe r r a l procedures f o r c h ild re n in special edu­
cation classes or those who are thought to need special services.
1. In t h i s c lu s t e r r e s p o n s ib i li t y f o r the s t a r t o f the
r e fe r r a l procedure re sts w ith the teacher. The c h ild re n
are f i r s t re fe rre d to t h e i r p r in c ip a l who in tu rn decides
what f u r t h e r r e f e r r a ls are a p p ro p ria te . (11 d i s t r i c t s - 13 items)

74
Example:
"Each classroom teacher w i l l co n su lt w ith the b u ild in g
a d m in is tra to r whenever special needs o f c h ild re n
assigned are recognized, and each classroom teacher
w i l l r e fe r s p e c ific c h ild re n f o r special s e r v ic e s ."
2.
Each o f these co n tra cts mentioned r e fe r r a ls by the
teacher may go to the Pupil Personnel or Special Education
Department w ith o u t s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioning the approval
o f a p r i n c i p a l . There was very wide d iv e r s it y in the
wording o f these p a r t ic u la r iterns. (4 d i s t r i c t s - - 4 iterns)
Examples:
a. " . . . teachers b e lie v in g th a t such students are
assigned to t h e i r classroom, s h a l1 request considera­
t io n o f such students through r e fe r r a l procedures f o r
review and d is p o s itio n by the department o f pupil
personnel s e r v ic e s ."
b. "Any teacher may request d ia g n o s tic services f o r
p u p ils he has reason to believe have le a rning problems
which warrant special education placement or service.
Such d ia g n o stic service sh a ll be provided. Trie teacher
w i l l receive a re p o rt o f the fin d in g s and recommendations
o f the d ia g n o s tic ia n ."
3. These d i s t r i c t s placed the r e s p o n s ib ili t y o f r e fe r r a l
procedures upon the board. (2 d i s t r i c t s - - 2 iterns)
Example:
" . . . whenever a classroom teacher suggests on a
w r it t e n form (a v a ila b le in a l 1 b u ild in g s ) th a t a student
needs special assistance, the Board sh a ll continue to
f o llo w prescribed r e fe r r a l procedures."
4.

Miscellaneous

(4 d i s t r i c t s - - 4 items)

a. "At the beginning o f each school ye a r, a l 1 special
education s t a f f w i l l receive in fo rm a tio n about r e fe r r a l
procedures, a d m in is tra tiv e jo b d e s c rip tio n s , reques­
t io n in g procedures, conference attendance in fo rm a tio n ,
and a d m in is tra tiv e expectations f o r year-end r e p o r t in g . "
b. "When a c h ild is designated by the Board's con­
s u lt in g p s y c h ia t r is t as needing special h o s p ita liz a tio n
o r special care and who, in his best judgment, cannot
b e n e fit from the re g u la r classroom, every e f f o r t w i l l
be made to f in d appropriate placement f o r such a c h ild .
The case w i l l be re fe rre d to the C r is is Committee."

75
c. "Special Education teachers w i l l continue to be
a l e r t to c h ild re n who appear to be able to re tu rn to
re gu la r grade o r appear in need o f a d if f e r e n t Special
Education teacher; such c h ild re n , regardless o f the
period o f time in the special program, s h a ll w ith in
one semester o f the recommendation be re-evaluated
and/or retested and categorized in terms o f emotional,
academic, and physical fa c to rs . Pursuant to such re evaluation and/or r e te s tin g , the pu p il w i l l then be
a p p ro p ria te ly placed."
d. " P r io r to such formal i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the teacher
must . . . . [A s p e c ific procedure appears in the
c o n t r a c t. ] . . . ."
Twenty-one (30.4%) d i s t r i c t s had made some p rovisio ns f o r
the r e fe r r a l o f c h ild re n in need o f special services in t h e i r con­
tra c ts .

Of in t e r e s t is the f a c t th a t only one d i s t r i c t in the study

had made contractual mention o f r e fe r r in g c h ild re n f o r placement out
o f special education.
B.

Items Concerning Placement Pol ic y
Nine d i s t r i c t s (13.2%) had co n tra ct clauses which r e la te to

some form o f placement.

Several o f the clauses in the above discussion

on r e fe r r a l contain phrases which a llude to placement procedures, how­
ever such procedures were not s p e c if ic a lly stated.
1. In t h is c lu s te r placement o f a handicapped c h ild in a
re g u la r classroom is made contingent upon the re ce iv in g
te a ch e r's approval. (3 d i s t r i c t s --3 iterns)
Examples:
a. "The teacher not having special education prepara­
t io n , w i l l not be given the r e s p o n s ib ilit y f o r the care
and in s tr u c tio n f o r a le g a lly c e r t i f i e d e m otionally
disturbed or m entally retarded c h ild . Exceptions may
be made when the c h i l d 's behavioral patterns have been
con tro l led and the services o f a co nsultant are a v a ila b le
and the mutual opinion o f the consultant and th a t o f the
c h i l d 's teacher and p r in c ip a l are th a t he can fu n c tio n
in a normal class s e t t i n g . "

76
b. "Special education students w i l l not be placed in
re g u la r academic classes w ith o u t p r i o r co n su lta tio n
w ith the academic classroom te a ch e r."
2. Help f o r teachers when a c h ild is placed in t h e i r room
while awaiting placement in a special education classroom
is o u tlin e d in these items. (2 d i s t r i c t s - - 2 items)
Example:
I f special education placement is recommended f o r a
pupil and such placement is delayed by reason o f the
u n a v a ila b ilit y o f space or the lack o f an appropriate
program, the teacher sh a ll receive re g u la r counsel!ina
and/or other assistance (which may include v i s i t a t i o n )
from the special education department to aid the
teacher in handling the p u p i l . Such p u p ils w i l l be
considered f o r a modified d a ily or weekly program.
3. Miscellaneous m aterial concerning placement.
t r i c t s —5 items)

(5 d is ­

Examples:
a. "Before a c h ild is removed from a special education
classroom, the p r i n c i p a l , co o rd in a to r or d ir e c t o r s h a ll
co n su lt w ith the teacher in v o lv e d ."
b. "Placement in or discharge o f students from special
education classes sh a l1 fo llo w the c u rre n t ru le s and
re g u la tio n s established by the State Department o f
Education."
Miscellaneous M a te ria l—Applicable to Referral & Placement
o f Special Students
1. These d i s t r i c t s guarantee th a t the psychological
reports o f special education students admitted to the
program s h a ll be r e a d ily a v a ila b le to the teacher.
(2 d i s t r i c t s —2 iterns)
2. "Before a c h ild is removed from a special education
classroom, the p r i n c i p a l , co o rd in a to r or d ir e c t o r s h a l1
consult w ith the teacher in v o lv e d ." (1 d i s t r i c t — 1 item)
3. "On o r before June 10 o f each y e a r, a l l Type A c la s s ­
room teachers sh a ll receive a t e n ta tiv e 1i s t o f students
in t h e i r class f o r the f i r s t semester o f the next school
y e a r." (1 d i s t r i c t - - ! item)

77
4. "Transfer students s h a ll be admitted upon the d ir e c tio n
and a u th o riz a tio n o f the D ire c to r o f Special Education."
(1 d i s t r i c t — 1 i tem)
5. "Teachers may request a case conference on a c h ild a t
which time r e - c e r t i f i c a t i o n may be requested." (1 d i s t r i c t —
1 item)

Category Summary
Not as many d i s t r i c t s are included here as one might expect.
However, i t is f e l t th a t t h is type o f p o lic y statement might very
well be included in documents o th e r than contracts in many school
d is tric ts .
I t is in te r e s tin g to note th a t only one d i s t r i c t guarantees
the teacher feedback concerning r e fe r r a ls she has i n i t i a t e d .
Two d i s t r i c t s in the population have co n tra ct clauses
r e fe r r in g to the re -e v a lu a tio n and/or te rm in a tio n o f services to
t h e ir handicapped students.

This appears somewhat out o f balance

when one considers the f a c t th a t 20 d i s t r i c t s have co n tra ct clauses
concerning the r e fe r r a l and placement o f students in to special pro­
grams .
Again i t can be mentioned th a t the Manditory Special Educa­
tio n law s p e c if ic a lly addresses i t s e l f to t h is to p ic by re q u irin g a
regular review o f both the students program placement and his
e l i g i b i l i t y f o r Special Education services.

V.

Time Commitments f o r Special
Education Personnel
Seventeen (25.0%) co n tra cts contained items which

mention time commitments o f special education personnel.

The

78
c o n tra c t wording in t h is category is diverse and occasionally
unique.
A.

Adjusted but commensurate teaching schedules (4 d i s t r i c t s —
4 items)
In t h is c lu s t e r special education personnel are guaranteed

adjusted but commensurate schedules w ith o th e r teachers in the
d is tr ic t.
Example:
"Special education teachers sh a ll have adjusted
schedules, conforming to special circumstances but
commensurate w ith normal schedules."
B.

Special s t a f f have the same schedule as others in the
b u ild in g (3 d i s t r i c t s — 3 items)
These d i s t r i c t s based the schedule o f the special education

s t a f f on a b u ild in g by b u ild in g s ta tu s.
Example:
"Special education s t a f f and oth e r special s t a f f
(counselors, e t c . ) w i l l fo llo w the same schedules as
o th e r teachers in the b u ild in g s in which they are
w o rk in g ."
C.

R e lie f and preparation time guaranteed to the same e xtent
as other teachers in the d i s t r i c t (3 d i s t r i c t s —3 items)
These d i s t r i c t s mentioned r e l i e f and preparation time but

the length o f the school day is l e f t open to question.
Example:
"Special education teachers s h a ll be provided w ith
r e l i e f and preparation time a t le a s t to the same
extent as other teachers in the d i s t r i c t . "

79

D.

Duty fre e lunch (4 d i s t r i c t s - - 4 items)
Each d i s t r i c t approaches t h is issue d i f f e r e n t l y .

Because

o f the extreme d i v e r s i t y o f these items each is quoted below.
1. "Special Education teachers are e n t i t le d to a d u ty ­
fre e unin te rru p ted lunch period o f not less than f i f t y
(50) m in u te s."
2. "P o s itiv e action s h a ll be taken by the A d m in is tra tio n
to provide Special Education teachers w ith a f u l l lunch
period fre e o f supervision o f c h ild re n as r a p id ly as
p o ssib le . In any school where lunch time r e l i e f has not
been provided, the A d m in istratio n sh a l1, on request o f
the Union, sta te the reason(s) in w r i t in g . "
3. " In those elementary b u ild in g s where special educa­
t io n classes are located and special education students
must stay during lunch hours, teacher-aids w i l l be hired
f o r both in s id e and outside s u p e rvis io n ."
4. "Where there are special pupil needs c le a r ly i d e n t i ­
f ie d , the B u ild in g A d m in istra to r may assign the classroom
teacher who works w ith the c h ild re n throughout the re g u la r
school day to have lunch w ith the s p e c ific c h ild re n i d e n t i f ie d . These special cases w i l l include some suspected
Aphasic c h ild re n assigned to special education c la s s e s ."
" I f the B u ild in g P rin c ip a l fin d s i t necessary to assign
one teacher to have lunch w ith special c h ild r e n , the
B u ild in g A d m in is tra to r sh a ll r e lie v e the s p e c if ic teachers
involved from other teacher-supervisory a c t i v i t i e s outside
the classroom not re la te d d i r e c t l y to the special c h ild re n
in v o lv e d ."
E.

Special Education teachers p ro h ib ite d from being used as
s u b s titu te s (2 d i s t r i c t s - - 2 items)
Special education teachers represented in t h is c lu s t e r are

p ro h ib ite d from being used as s u b s t it u t e s , w ith exceptions.
Example:
"Except in the case o f an emergency, these teachers
[s p e c ia l education] w i l l not be used as s u b s titu te s f o r
o th e r teachers i f i t means c a n c e lla tio n o f t h e i r re g u la r
d u t ie s . "

80
F.

Miscellaneous

(4 d i s t r i c t s —4 items)

1. " . . . personnel o f the Pupil Personnel Services
Department sh a ll be required to attend b u ild in g meetings
only i f t h e i r professional services are reasonable
re q u ir e d ."
2. Special Education teaching hours are s p e c if i c a lly
o u tlin e d by b u ild in g and program.
3. On c ity -w id e curriculum days in one d i s t r i c t "Elementary
Special Education classes w i l l not be held and teachers
s h a ll use t h is time f o r parent-teacher conferences."
4. "Speech c o rre c tio n teachers shall begin teaching not
e a r l i e r than two weeks a f t e r the opening o f school nor
continue beyond two weeks p r io r to the close o f school in
June. The time thus made a v a ila b le s h a ll be used f o r
recordkeeping, screening o f stu d e n ts, and s im ila r p ro fe s ­
sional a c t i v i t i e s . "

Category Summary
One-fourth o f the contracts in the population contained
iterns r e fe r r in g to the time commitments o f special education personnel.
The major observation in t h is category is t h a t special education
personnel were assigned time commitments c lo s e ly approximating those
o f the "re g u la r" teacher.
Clusters C and D above appear to guarantee the special
education teacher time commitments commensurate w ith those o f the
"re g u la r" teacher.
School law now standardizes the school day f o r special edu­
cation students.

The special education c h ild is e n t i t le d to the same

number o f class hours as the "re g u la r" c h ild in any given school
d is tr ic t.

This statement is modified by the f a c t th a t an in d iv id u a l

c h ild may be scheduled f o r less time in a school program i f deemed

81
appropriate by a duly c o n s titu te d Educational Planning and Placement
Committee.

The composition and d uties o f t h i s committee are presented

in the ru le s and re g u la tio n s which accompany Public Act 198 o f 1971.

VI.

Maintenance and Expansion o f
Special Education Programs
Ten d i s t r i c t s (14.7%) are included here.

The co n tra ct

provisions form f iv e c lu s te rs .
A.

Board agrees to "seek ways" to provide appropriate services
(4 d i s t r i c t s - - 4 iterns)
Example:
"The Board acknowledges th a t exceptional c h ild re n
re q u ire special education by s p e c i f ic a ll y c e r t i f i e d
teachers. Therefore, the Board agrees to continue to
seek ways, means, and personnel to f u r t h e r expand and
create appropriate programs to serve the needs o f such
c h ild r e n . "

B.

Agreements to increase psychological te s tin g services
(3 d i s t r i c t s —3 iterns)
Example:
"The Board w i l l attempt to increase the psychological
te s tin g program, to add school psychologists to the
d i s t r i c t , to employ v i s i t i n g teachers, and to c o rre la te
the a c t i v i t i e s o f these s p e c ia lis ts w ith the re gu la r
classroom a c t i v i t i e s o f the teachers so as b e tte r to
meet the needs o f the students in the community."

C.

Expansion o f services is subjected to several r e s t r ic t io n s
(2 d i s t r i c t s —2 iterns)
Example:
"The Board w i l l support and increase special education
programs w ith in budgetary 1im ita tio n s and a v a i l a b i l i t y
o f space and q u a lif ie d a p p lic a n ts , and a t the profe s­
sional d is c r e tio n o f the a d m in is tr a to r ."

82

D.

S p e c ific p rovisio n f o r e s ta b lis h in g rooms f o r the
e m otionally disturbed (1 d i s t r i c t - - ! item)
Example:
"S pecialized classrooms w i l l be established f o r the
teaching o f em otionally disturbed c h ild re n , and
a p p ro p ria te ly tra in e d personnel w i l l be sought to
teach such classes, w ith in the lim it a t io n s o f a v a i l ­
able personnel, f a c i l i t i e s , and funds. The Special
Services Department w i l l consult w ith the association
as to the establishment o f such a program."

Category Summary
About h a lf o f the c o n tra ct clauses mentioning the main­
tenance and expansion o f Special Education programs in t h e i r contracts
appear to be vague and/or somewhat r e s t r i c t i v e .

Others describe the

services a v a ila b le w ith o u t any e la b o ra tio n and one contains s p e c ific
provisions f o r e m otionally disturbed c h ild re n .
The p ro visio n o f adequate review f o r handicapped students
is now guaranteed by State Law (PA 198 o f 1971).

This law has the

e f f e c t o f removing the option o f the p ro v isio n o f services to handi­
capped c h ild re n from the area o f c o n tra c t n e g o tia tio n s.

V II.

Special Education S t a f f on
Committees
This category represents ten (14.7%) d i s t r i c t s and 13 items.

These co n tra c t items are assigned to s ix c lu s te rs .

Each c lu s te r

represents special education s t a f f p a r tic ip a t io n on a d if f e r e n t type
o f committee.

One co n tra c t item was chosen to serve as an example o f

the items which make up the grouping.

83
A.

Curriculum or In s tru c tio n a l Councils

(4 d i s t r i c t s —4 items)

Example:
The council sh a ll be composed o f: " . . . one teacher
from the department o f special services elected by
teachers o f th a t department."
B.

Special Education Committee

(2 d i s t r i c t s — 2 items)

Example:
"A Special Education committee composed o f two teachers
chosen by the LSEA and three coordinators s h a ll review
a l l requests f o r teacher aids submitted by Special
Education classroom teachers. The recommendation o f
t h is committee sh a ll be reviewed by the D ire c to r o f
Special Education f o r f i n a l d is p o s it io n . "
C.

C r is is Committees

(2 d i s t r i c t s — 2 items)

These committees are made up o f a group o f educators who
meet to make program plans f o r c h ild re n who pose severe behavior
problems.

The exact composition o f the committee varies w ith each

c h ild being considered.
Example:
"The committee is a group o f [name o f d i s t r i c t ]
educators who meet to make program plans f o r c h ild re n
who are posing severe behavior problems. . . . The
committee does not have a re g u la r lo c a tio n o r time
to meet but is conviened by the D ire c to r o f Special
Education when the need a r is e s ." [The need is o u t­
lin e d in e ig h t s te p s .]
D.

Professional Study Committees

(2 d i s t r i c t s —3 items)

These committees review needs f o r Special Education c h ild re n
and o th e r to p ic s which may wish to consider.

84
Example:
"This committee s h a ll . . . review . . . programs f o r
Special Education, and any o th e r professional areas
which the committee may agree to co n sid e r."
Note: There is no guarantee th a t special education
personnel w i l l be on these committees.
E.

Hours and Wages Committees

(2 d i s t r i c t s - - 2 iterns)

Example:
"A committee . . . w i l l be formed to conduct an in-depth
examination o f the fo llo w in g special p o s itio n s . This
examination sh a l1 co n sist o f the development o f work
d e s c rip tio n s , . . . and re la tio n s h ip s in the reimburse­
ment schedule." [P o s itio n s are li s t e d in the c o n t r a c t. ]
F.

Educational Planning Commi tte e

(1 d i s t r i c t - - ! item)

Example:
"The Educational Planning Commi tte e s h a ll be composed
o f the r e f e r r in g teacher, the re c e iv in g teacher, the
p r i n c i p a l , the d ia g n o s tic ia n , and the responsible
a d m in is tra to r . . . ."

Category Summary
Ten d i s t r i c t s are represented in t h is category.
d i s t r i c t s are represented more than once.
deviate c h ild is noted here.

Three

The emphasis on the s o c ia lly

Guarantees o f special education teachers1

p a r t ic ip a t io n on these committees are present in about o n e -th ird o f
the co n tra cts represented in t h i s category.

V III.

In te g ra tio n o f Special Education
Students in to Regular Classes
The co n tra c ts o f these s ix d i s t r i c t s (8.8%) express a wide

range o f p ro visio n s f o r the in te g ra tio n o f special education students

85
in to the re g u la r classrooms.

Due to the small size o f t h is category

and the diverse nature o f the items invo lve d , sub-categorization is
not necessary.

Each o f the d i s t r i c t s is represented by a p a r t ia l

quote d i r e c t l y from t h e i r c o n tra c t.
Examples:
1. "The c h ild re n in the class f o r the o rth o p e d ic a lly
handicapped s h a ll be granted by the Music Department
a t le a s t one (1) music period per week, i f p o s s ib le ."
2. "The elementary classes Type A sh a ll have a l l
special areas: a r t , music, e tc . a v a ila b le to them
as in the re g u la r classes. The secondary classes
s h a l1 have a l l areas o f non-academic classes a v a i l ­
able to them . . . and academic areas where the
in d iv id u a l student could su cc e ss fu lly p a r t i c i p a t e . "
3. "Students from special education classes sh a l1
be in te g ra te d in to re g u la r classrooms whenever t h is
would be e d u c a tio n a lly b e n e fic ia l f o r such students
and is in accordance w ith sound educational p ra c tic e s .
The te a c h e r1s class load w i l l be considered in placing
such s tu d e n ts ."
4. "Special education classes sh a ll continue to have
access to a l l equipment, supplies and funds a v a ila b le
to re g u la r classes in the b u ild in g . They s h a ll also
continue to p a r tic ip a te in a l l special classes appro­
p r ia te to the age le v e ls and ca p a c itie s o f the students
in v o lv e d ."
5. " . . . Special Education classes (excluding Type B)
s h a l1 receive one . . . period o f a r t in s tr u c tio n per
week. . . . Special Education classes (excluding Type B)
s h a ll receive one . . . period o f vocal music per week.
. . . Special Education classes (excluding Type B) s h a l1
receive one . . . period o f physical education in s t r u c ­
tio n per week."
6.

Same as example number 2 above.

Category Summary
About nine percent o f the d i s t r i c t s studied have c o n tra c t
provisions f o r the in te g ra tio n o f special education students in to

86
regular classes.

Of these s ix d i s t r i c t s , two make reference to the

educational needs and c a p a c itie s o f the students being placed.

Less

than three percent o f the d i s t r i c t s studied contain co n tra c t pro­
visions which appear to r e f l e c t c u rre n t th in k in g concerning the
r e - in te g ra tio n o f handicapped students back in to the re g u la r class.

IX.

Provision o f Space and M a terials
f o r Special Education Personnel
Six (8.8%) d i s t r i c t s had c o n tra c t provisions s p e c if ic a lly

relevant to the p ro vis io n o f space and m a te ria ls f o r special edu­
cation personnel.

Each is q u ite d if f e r e n t from the o th e r, th e re fo re ,

c lu s te rin g is unnecessary.
Examples:
1.

a. "The Board s h a l1 provide adequate p riv a te o f fic e s
in a cen tra l b u ild in g f o r a l l t r a v e lin g personnel.
Such o ffic e s s h a ll be a t ground le ve l or above and
provide adequate heat, v e n t ila t io n , 1ig h tin g and
telephones.11
b. "Each school b u ild in g sh a ll provide a p r iv a te ,
q u ie t room w ith f a c i l i t i e s f o r use w ith c h ild re n .
Proper 1ig h t in g , heating, and v e n t ila t io n s h a l1 be
p ro v id e d ."
c.

"Classrooms s h a ll be located according to :
1) The needs o f special c h ild re n .
2) The c o n tin u ity and need f o r p ro x im ity o f the
programs.
3) The adequacy o f the b u ild in g a d m in is tra to r to
cope w ith Special Education programs."

2. " . . . to provide adequate o f f i c e space, adequate
space f o r special s e rv ic e s , adequate s t a f f , and s u f f i c i e n t
s e c r e ta r ia l help, class size and class loads to meet State
Special Education standards . . . ."
3. " . . . adequate work space f o r special teachers . . . .
[ In s o fa r as p o ss ib le , the Board w i l l make t h is a v a ila b le . ]

87
4. "The Board agrees to continue to work toward providing
instrum ental music teachers, v i s i t i n g teachers, social
workers, speech c o r r e c t io n is ts and reading consultants
w ith in s t r u c t io n a l space in school b u ild in g s ."
5. "Each special service teacher or supplemental per­
sonnel s h a ll have a s p e c ifie d lockin g desk w ith c h a ir
and/or lo c kin g f i l e cabinet in his home school. Where
o r when fe a s ib le , he s h a ll also have o f f i c e space a v a i l ­
a b le ."
"Teaching m a te ria ls and workbooks sh a ll be made a v a ila b le
to teachers o f the homebound."
6. "The Board s h a ll make a v a ila b le the fo llo w in g pro­
v is io n s f o r special services (d ia g n o s tic ia n s , speech,
hearing and physical t h e r a p is t s , v i s i t i n g teacher, . . . ) :
1) rooms which may be sm aller than standard classroom
s iz e , e g . , to accommodate approximately ten students and
the teacher; and 2) equipment and m a te ria ls f o r such
special services c e n t r a lly located in each b u i ld i n g . "

Category Summary
Each item in t h is category r e f le c t s a request f o r working
conditions which appear to be minimal in nature.

Contract items are

often developed to a ll e v i a t e s itu a tio n s the teachers feel are
detrim ental to themselves or t h e i r students.

X.

Length o f School Day f o r
Special Education Students
Three d i s t r i c t s (4.4%) make d ir e c t mention o f the length o f

the school day f o r special students.

Two opposing views regarding

th is to p ic are mentioned.
Examples:
1. " . . . to provide a class day f o r students in special
education comparable in length to the class day o f re g u la r
s tu d e n ts ."

88
2. "The elementary Type A students re qu ire a sh o rte r
school day than the normal c h ild and sh a ll be granted
a sh o rte r school day."

Category Summary
These two views were c h a r a c t e r is t ic o f a debate which was
current during the year in which the data was being gathered.

In

September o f 1970, a memorandum was issued from the Department o f Edu­
c a tio n , o f the State o f Michigan (Beckman, 1970), which stated in
pa rt th a t " i t is our p o s itio n th a t the length o f the in s tr u c tio n a l
day should be the same f o r handicapped c h ild re n as f o r any other
c h ild in th a t school d i s t r i c t . "

This statement goes on to o u tlin e

the procedure to be used when a change in the above p o s itio n is
desired by a lo ca l school d i s t r i c t .
The ru le s and re g u la tio n s which accompany PA 198 o f 1971
enforce t h is p o s itio n and prescribe the procedure which must be
followed to modify the length o f the school day o f any in d iv id u a l
C h ild .

XI.

In -S e rvice Days f o r
Special Education S t a f f
Three d i s t r i c t s s p e c i f i c a l l y made mention o f in -s e rv ic e

t r a in in g days f o r special education personnel.

This represents 4.4%

o f the c o n tra c t population.
Example:
"Special Teachers s h a ll have a t le a s t one in -s e rv ic e
day, or the eq u iva le n t th e re o f, scheduled so th a t they
have the o p p o rtu n ity to meet in groups."

89

X II.

Special Education Programs
Included in Summer School
Two d i s t r i c t s (2.9%) make p a r t ic u la r mention o f summer

school provisions f o r some special services.
Example:
The school social work program and the psychological
t e s tin g program sh a ll be expanded in to the summer
school period.

X III.

Miscellaneous
There are nine d i s t r i c t s (13.2%) and 12 items in t h is

category.

Though i t has l i t t l e

o rg a n iz a tio n , i t contains some o f

the more unique items in the study.
Examples:
1. " N o t if ic a t io n o f a l l s ta te , regional and national
workshops, conferences and meetings concerning Special
Education sh a ll be d is t r ib u te d to a l l special education
te a c h e rs ."
2. "Class size . . . Elementary classes . . . the above
does not include d e fic ie n c y handicaps such as remedial
reading and i t does not include those students who have
been returned to the re g u la r classroom f o r Special Educa­
tio n classrooms, or who are re c e ivin g special education
services as p a rt o f the re g u la r classroom i n s t r u c t io n . "
3. "An I t in e r a n t Teacher is responsible to the b u ild in g
p r in c ip a l during the time he is on duty w ith in said
p r i n c ip a l 's b u ild in g . "
4. "Only counselors and special teachers w i l l be hired
who meet a t le a s t the minimum q u a lif ic a t io n s and re q u ire ­
ments o f the North Central Association and/or the State
o f Michigan."
5. " F ie ld Trips sh a ll be made a v a ila b le to elementary and
secondary special education cla ss e s."

90

6. "Copies o f psychological re po rts w r it t e n by the
Special Education Department concerning the re fe rre d
c h ild s h a ll be forwarded to the b u ild in g f o r f i l i n g in
the CA-60 and the teacher s h a ll be so n o t i f i e d . "
7. "Regular teachers o f the s u b je c t, in c lu d in g Special
Education teachers, s h a ll be given p r i o r i t y in the
s e le c tio n o f personnel f o r such workshops and meetings.
R e lie f and resource teachers may also a p p ly ."
8. "S u b s titu te teachers w ith t r a i n in g and/or experience
in Special Education w i l l be a v a ila b le as s u b s titu te s in
Special Education. P r io r to November 1, 1969, these
s u b s titu te s w i l l receive a ppropriate in -s e rv ic e tr a in in g
in a l l types o f [name o f school] Special Education class'
rooms."
9. " A ll tenure tea ch e rs, except special services per­
sonnel mentioned in D above, sh a ll receive a w r itte n
e valuation based on formal observations on separate days
in t h e i r areas o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n . Special Services per­
sonnel w i l l be evaluated by conference w ith the D ire c to r
o f Special S e rv ic e s ."
10. " A ll probationary teachers, except speech co rre c­
t io n is t s , school social workers, . . . and teachers o f
the e m otionally d is tu rb e d , before being placed on tenure
o r dismissed must have been observed a minimum o f fo u r
(4) class periods . . . ."
11. " A ll speech c o r r e c t io n is t s , school social workers,
. . . w i l l be evaluated by conference w ith the D ire c to r
o f Special Services . . . ."
12. Student-Teacher Ratio
" . . . the f o i l owing people are to be excluded in
determining student-teacher r a t i o : . . , Note:
Special Education students are to be included in
the student count a t the Senior High School le ve l
o n ly ."

Results o f the Survey
This p o rtio n o f the study contains data which
research questions two through fo u r.

Data f o r research question

number one are contained in the previous p o rtio n o f t h is chapter.

91
Questionnaires were sent to the 68 f u l l - t i m e local special
education d ir e c to r s in the State o f Michigan who were employed in the
1969-70 school year.

Forty-nine o f these d ir e c to r s responded to the

survey in a manner which allowed v a lid data to be c o lle c te d from
t h e ir questionnaires.
A ll data presented are based on these fo r ty - n in e usable
responses.

These responses represent 72% o f the t o ta l population

and are re fe rre d to as the "respondent p o p u la tio n ."

The word

"sample" is avoided as i t connotes a randomness which is not a p p li­
cable to t h is study.

A ll responses were made r e la ti v e to the c o n tra c t

under which the d ir e c to r s were operating a t the time o f the study.
A ll percentages r e fe r to a percentage o f the respondent population.
The fo llo w in g data are p e rtin e n t to research question #2
which reads:

What has been the extent o f involvement o f Special

Education personnel in the n e g o tia tio n process?

S t a f f Covered by Local Contract
Seventy-six percent (37 d ir e c to r s ) o f the respondent
population in d ica te d th a t t h e i r e n t ir e special education s t a f f was
included under t h e i r lo ca l c o n tra c t.

This high percentage appears

to p o in t toward the in c lu s io n o f the special education s t a f f w ith in
the "mainstream" o f education.

Diagnosticians (now known as School

Psychologists) made up the group o f professional s t a f f most fre q u e n tly
excluded from a lo ca l c o n tra c t.
one out o f ten school d i s t r i c t s .

This appeared to be tru e in about

92

Other than diag n o sticia n s v i r t u a l l y a l l other c e r t i f i e d
f u l l - t i m e s t a f f were included in the local contracts (see Table 5).

TABLE 5
S t a f f P ositions Not Included in Local Contracts

P ositio n

Number o f
D is t r ic t s

Diagnosticians
Social Workers
Part-tim e s t a f f
N o n -c e rtifie d s t a f f
Teacher counselors
Speech Therapists

5
2
2
2
1
1

Percent
10.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
2.0
2.0

D ir e c to r's Involvement w ith the
C o lle c tiv e Negotiation Process
Nearly h a lf o f the d ir e c to r s in the respondent population
were not involved w ith the c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n process in t h e i r
d i s t r i c t (see Table 6 ).

Another o n e -th ird acted only as co n su lta n t

to the board.
As can be noted in Table 6 several respondents engaged in
a c t i v i t i e s such as co n su lta n t to both board and teachers and devel­
oped proposals.

These a c t i v i t i e s seem to r e f l e c t a concern f o r people

on both sides o f the n e g o tia tio n ta b le and may imply a p a r t ic u la r
concern f o r the special education program.

93

TABLE 6
Involvement o f D ire cto rs in the C o lle c tiv e Negotiations Process

Type o f Involvement
Not Involved
Consultant to board (o nly)
Board Negotiator
Developer o f proposals
Consultant to teachers (o nly)
Consultant to board and teachers
Developer o f both proposals and
counter proposals
Developer o f counter proposals
Observer only
No response

Number o f
Di re cto rs

Percentage o f
Respondents

21
18
5
4
3
3

42.8
36.7
10.2
8.2
6.1
6.1

2
2
2
1

4.1
4.1
4.1
2.0

Special Education S t a f f Represented
on N egotiating Teams
In over 60% o f the d i s t r i c t s responding, the special educa­
tio n s t a f f was not represented on t h e i r lo ca l teachers' n e g o tia tin g
team.

I t is d i f f i c u l t to a cc u ra te ly assess the impact o f t h is lack

o f involvement.

Perhaps team members sympathetic to special education

adequately represented t h e i r causes.
Approximately o n e -fo u rth o f the d i s t r i c t s d id have a t le a s t
one member o f the special education s t a f f on the teacher n e g o tia tin g
team (see Table 7).
The fo llo w in g data are p e rtin e n t to research question #3
which reads:

What are the perceived e ffe c ts o f the c o lle c t iv e

n e g o tia tio n process on special education as reported by lo ca l
d ire c to rs o f special education?

94
TABLE 7
Special Education S t a f f Represented on Negotiating Teams

Number o f
D is t r ic t s

Number o f S t a f f
None
Yes (no number reported)
1 member
2 members
No response
Total

Percentage

32
4
11
1
1

65.4
8.2
22.4
2.0
2.0

49

100.0

Changes in S t a f f Working Conditions
As seen in Table 8, t h i r t y - n i n e (79.6%) o f the respondents
re p o rt changes in s t a f f working co n ditions due to the presence o f
professional n e g o tia tio n s .

Nine (18.4%) d i s t r i c t s re p o rt no change

and one did not respond.
The change most ofte n reported was an increase in salary
f o r teachers.

Although the vast m a jo rity o f the respondents saw the

increase in te a ch e rs' s a la rie s as a d e f i n i t e p o s itiv e change; i t is
in te r e s tin g to note th a t one f e l t th a t the increase in s a la rie s and
d i f f e r e n t i a l s was a 1i a b i l i t y to t h e i r program.
A decrease in a fte r-s c h o o l meetings was mentioned by e ig h t
(16.3%) o f the respondents.
were reported.

Mixed fe e lin g s concerning th is change

Some respondents pointed out the d i f f i c u l t y they

were having in communicating w ith t h e i r s t a f f and i n i t i a t i n g needed
changes.

Others pointed toward higher e f f ic ie n c y and less wasted

time as p o s itiv e aspects o f a decrease in the number o f a fte r-s ch o o l
meetings.

95
TABLE 8
Changes in S t a f f Working Conditions

Type o f Change
No change
S alaries:
More o v e ra ll (pos. re sp.)
More o v e ra ll (neg. r e s p .)
Increase d i f f e r e n t i a l (pos. re sp.)
Increase d i f f e r e n t i a l (neg. resp.)
Decrease d i f f e r e n t i a l (pos. r e s p .)
Decrease d i f f e r e n t i a l (neg. r e s p .)
Fewer a fte r-s c h o o l meetings
P o s itiv e response
Negative response
Neutral or mixed response
Communication w ith re g u la r education s t a f f
Less
More
B etter f a c i l i t i e s , s e rv ic e s , personnel
B etter working hours (in c lu d in g duty fre e
lunch)
Teacher tre a te d same as re g u la r (p o s .)
More teacher in p u t in to decision-making
More communication w ith in the s t a f f
Increased a lie n a tio n between a d m in is tra tio n
and teachers
Less f l e x i b i l i t y in scheduling
Class size sm aller
More e f f i c i e n t o rga n iza tio n
Guaranteed in -s e rv ic e t r a in in g time
S h if t o f emphasis from c h ild to teacher
No response

Number o f
D is t r ic t s

Percentage

9
29

18.36
59.2

18
1
5
0
1
4

36.8
2.0
10.2
0.0
2.0
8.2
8

1
4
3

16.3
2.0
8.2
6.1

6

12.3
4.1
8.2

2
4
5

10.2

5
5
3
2

10.2
10.2
6.1
4.1

2
2
1
1
1
1
1

4.1
4.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

There are mixed reports concerning the amount o f communica­
tio n d ir e c to r s have w ith t h e i r s t a f f since the advent o f professional
n e g o tia tio n (see Table 8 ).

Other changes varied from d i s t r i c t to

d is tr ic t.
In summary, i t can be said th a t many changes in s t a f f working
cond itio n s were perceived as having taken place.

T h e ir q u a lit y and

96

q u a n tity appear to be mixed w ith the exception o f a general p o s itiv e
response concerning an increase in teachers' s a la rie s .

Changes in the A d m in is tra to r's Job
A ttrib u te d to C o lle c tiv e Negotiations
S l ig h t ly more than o n e -th ird o f the respondents re p o rt
th a t professional ne g o tia tion s have made no change in t h e i r jobs
as an a d m in is tra to r.
Nine respondents (18.4%) reported a loss o f f l e x i b i l i t y in
programming and general a d m in is tra tiv e a c t i v i t i e s , i . e . , c a llin g
meetings, changing p r i o r i t i e s in programming, e tc .

There was almost

an even number o f respondents re p o rtin g more and less con tro l over
t h e ir program (see Table 9).

TABLE 9
Changes in the A d m in is tra to r's Job A ttr ib u te d to
C o lle c tiv e Negotiations

Types o f Changes

Number o f
D is t r ic t s

18
No change
9
Loss o f f l e x i b i l i t y
More co n tro l over program (g re a te r re s p o n s ib i1i t y ) 5
4
Less rapport and communication w ith s t a f f
4
Less d ir e c t r e s p o n s ib i! it y f o r program
3
Greater e f f ic ie n c y
5
No response

Percentage
36.7
18.4
10.2
8.2
8.2
6.1
10.2

The fa c t th a t over o n e -th ird o f the respondents reported no
change points toward a conjecture th a t professional n e g o tia tio n s

97

have not had a marked e f f e c t on many o f the special education
a d m inistra to rs in the population.

Changes in the Q u a lity o r Q uantity o f
the Overall Special Education Program
As seen in Table 10 about 40% o f the respondents reported
no change in the q u a lit y or q u a n tity o f t h e i r special education
program.

TABLE 10
Changes in the Overall Special Education Program

Type o f Change
No change
More q u a lif ie d teachers a v a ila b le
Teachers becoming more s e lf-c e n te re d and less
c h ild - o rie n te d
More supportive services
C u rta ile d expansion
Less services a v a ila b le f o r m ild ly handicapped
Screening improved
Teacher-pupil contact time lessened
Increased in te g ra tio n
Increase in r e f e r r a l s
Closer supervision
Less f l e x i b i l i t y in student placement
Greater understanding o f special education
No response

Number o f
D is t r ic t s

Percentage

21
8

42.8
16.3

4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7

8.2
8.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
14.3

Eight respondents (16.3%) reported th a t q u a lif ie d personnel
were e a sie r to f in d and th a t there had been an o v e ra ll increase in
t h e i r programs since the s t a r t o f professional n e g o tia tio n s.

98

Contract Items Having a D ire c t
E ffe c t on Special Education
Nearly tw o -th ird s o f the respondents reported th a t no par­
t i c u l a r item o r items in t h e i r co n tra c t had a notable e f f e c t on
t h e ir special education program (see Table 11).
The only items which were seen as having a p a r t ic u la r
e ff e c t by a prominent number o f respondents (9 respondents, 18.4%)
were those items r e f e r r in g to a sa la ry d i f f e r e n t i a l .

There appears

to be a notable inconsistency between the number o f reported changes
in s t a f f working co n d itio n s and the high frequency o f responses
re p o rtin g th a t no given item in the co n tra c t had a " s ig n i f ic a n t "
e ff e c t on t h e i r program.

I t may well be th a t a t le a s t two fa c to rs

would c o n trib u te to t h i s p a tte rn .

One might be a lack o f intim ate

knowledge o f the lo ca l c o n tra c t i t s e l f .

The other may w ell be th a t

a given change in working c o n d itio n s was seen as a r e s u lt o f several
fa c to rs and th a t more than one item in the co n tra c t may have con­
t r ib u te d to t h i s change.
The fo llo w in g data are p e rtin e n t to research question #3
which reads:

What changes i n , or a d d itio n s t o , cu rre n t contracts are

seen by lo c a l d ir e c to r s as being j u s t i f i a b l e f o r the improvement o f
special education in t h e i r d i s t r i c t s ?

S a tis fa c tio n w ith Current Contract
As can be seen in Table 12, more than tw o -th ird s o f those
responding to t h is p a rt o f the q uestionnaire were g e n e ra lly s a t is f ie d
w ith t h e i r lo ca l c o n tra c t.

U n fo rtu n a te ly some nine respondents did

not re act to t h is p o rtio n o f the q u estionnaire.

99

TABLE 11
Contract Items Reported as Having a D ire c t E ffe c t
on Special Education

Item Type
No p a r t ic u la r iterns had a s ig n if ic a n t
e f f e c t on the program
Items r e fe r r in g to a d i f f e r e n t i a l
(5 p o s it iv e , 4 negative)
Items r e fe r r in g to class size 1im ita tio n s
Items guaranteeing space (p o s itiv e
responses)
Items supporting removal o f exceptional
c h ild from re g u la r classroom w ith o u t
p ro v isio n o f o th e r services (1 p o s it iv e ,
1 negative)
Fewer a f t e r school meetings
Referral procedures c l a r i f i e d ( p o s itiv e
responses)
Recognition o f Special Education S t a f f
( p o s itiv e response f o r in c lu s io n )
Items p ro vid in g f o r expanded student e l i g i ­
b i l i t y f o r special services ( p o s itiv e
responses)
Items guaranteeing in te g ra tio n ( p o s itiv e
responses)
Extended year f o r given employees (negative
response)
Item encouraging expansion o f program
( p o s itiv e response)
Item r e fe r r in g to a d d itio n a l assistance to
re g u la r teachers ( p o s itiv e response)
Item a llo w in g "e m o tio n a lly distu rb e d "
c h ild re n to be excluded from services
(negative response)
Item 1imi t in g tea ch e rs1 d uties to in s t r u c ­
t io n on ly (negative response)
Planning time increased ( p o s itiv e response)
No response

Number o f
D is t r ic t s

Percentage

30

61.2

9
4

18.4
8.2

4

8.2

2
2

4.1
4.1

2

4.1

1

2.0

1

2.0

1

2.0

1

2.0

1

2.0

1

2.0

1

2.0

1
1
2

2.0
2.0
4.1

100

TABLE 1 2
S a tis fa c tio n With Local Contract

Number o f
Di s t r i cts

Percentage

33

67.3

Generally D is s a tis fie d

7

14.3

No Response

9

18.4

49

100.0

Generally S a tis fie d

Total

Tables 13 and 14 o u tlin e the reasons f o r s a tis fa c tio n or
d is s a tis fa c t io n as reported in the survey.

I t can be noted th a t less

than h a lf o f those who responded to the question concerning t h e ir
s a t is f a c t io n gave reasons f o r t h e i r statements.

TABLE 13
Reasons f o r S a tis fa c tio n With Local Contract

Reason
L im ita tio n o f class size
More a p a rt o f re g u la r education
(teacher involvement)
Insured fo llo w in g o f s ta te guide lin e s
Pay d i f f e r e n t i a l increased (seen as
h e lp fu l)
Pay d i f f e r e n t i a l dropped (seen as
h e lp fu l)
Increased f l e x i b i l i t y
Increased team approach
Kept c h ild re n in re g u la r class

Number o f
D is t r ic t s

Percentage

3

6.1

2
2

3.3
4.1

1

2.0

1
1
1
1

2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

101

TABLE 1 4
Reasons f o r D is s a tis fa c tio n With Local Contract

Reason
D if f e r e n t ia l e lim inated
L im its o f class size
Need a d d itio n a l f l e x i b i l i t y in s a la ry
schedule
Need a d d itio n a l funding f o r in s e rv ic e and
conferences
Need a d d itio n a l f a c i l i t i e s and programs f o r
handicapped c h ild re n
Need a d d itio n a l in c lu s io n o f special
education s t a f f in curricu lu m decisions

Number o f
D is t r ic t s

Percentage

3
1

6.1
2.0

1

2.0

1

2.0

1

2.0

1

2.0

Additions to Contracts
Mentioned by Respondents
Fourteen respondents made suggestions f o r a d d itio n s to t h e i r
local c o n tra c t.

Three respondents o ffe re d more than one suggestion.

The suggested a d d itio n s are found in Table 15.

Some o f

these a d d itio n s seem to represent a form o f backlash to c u rre n t con­
t r a c t w r it in g .

Examples o f t h is are:

a) increased mandatory

teacher-pupil c o n tra c t tim e , and b) p rovisio ns f o r an increase in
the time spent in screening p u p ils in and out o f special education
programs.

Suggested Deletions from Local
Contracts Recommended by Respondents
F ifte e n (30.5%) o f the respondents did not answer t h is
p o rtio n o f the q u e stio n n a ire .

Twenty-three (40.9%) o f the respondents

102

TABLE 1 5
Suggested Additions to Current Contracts

Suggested Additions

Number o f
D is t r ic t s

None
Increased in -s e rv ic e t r a in in g time
Increased conference time funding
Decrease d i f f e r e n t i a l
Increase manditory teacher-pupil contact
time
Eliminate time provisions f o r it i n e r a n t
personnel
Increased d i f f e r e n t i a l
Expanded p rovisio ns f o r it i n e r a n t teachers
Increased p rovisio ns f o r in te g ra tio n o f
special education students in to general
education classes
Change s tru c tu re o f evaluating non-teaching
personnel
Increased p rovisio ns f o r programs f o r the
em otionally disturbed students
Provisions f o r increasing use o f teacher
aides
Provisions f o r increased time in screening
A p ro v is io n which would a llow special educa­
tio n to operate during a s t r i k e
No response

Percentage

23
3
2
2

46.9
6.1
4.1
4.1

2

4.1

1
1
1

2.0
2.0
2.0

1

2.0

1

2.0

1

2.0

1
1

2.0
2.0

1
9

2.0
18.4

did not feel th a t any o f the items p re se n tly in t h e i r lo c a l co n tra ct
should be removed.

This is added evidence f o r the fe e lin g th a t the

c o n tra ct is not f e l t to be a s i g n i f i c a n t hinderance to the m a jo rity
o f the d ir e c to r s c u r r e n tly in charge o f lo c a l special education
programs.
Nine (18.4%) respondents made suggestions f o r the removal
o f some items from t h e i r contracts (see Table 16).

103
TABLE 1 6
Suggested Deletions from Local Contracts

Suggested Deletions
None
The d i f f e r e n t i a l
Statements concerning " d is r u p tiv e " students
Extra pay f o r e xtra duty
M aternity leave
L im ita tio n s on meeting time
Elementary teacher planning period
Teacher evaluation clause which requires
personal contact w ith the teacher
No response

Number o f
D is t r ic t s

Percentage

23
3
1
1
1
1
1

46.9
6.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2,0

1
15

2.0
30.6

Although several o f the above suggested d e le tio n s are not
o f s ig n ific a n c e n u m e ric a lly , t h is author fin d s them most in te r e s tin g
in t h e i r p o te n tia l impact.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, DISCUSSION,
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The purposes o f t h is study were to :

1) in v e s tig a te and

report m a te ria l found in teacher c o n tra c ts , which appears to have a
d ir e c t e f f e c t on special education and; 2) to in v e s tig a te and re p o rt
the perception o f special education d ir e c to r s as to the e ffe c ts o f
teacher co n tra cts on the f i e l d o f special education.

The study also

provides base l i n e data concerning the above mentioned m aterial
during a period o f time previous to the passage o f Michigan's Manda­
to ry Special Education Act (PA 198 o f 1971).
The review o f the 1it e r a t u r e concentrates on s p e c ific areas
in the f i e l d o f c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n s .
1.
2.
3.
4.

These areas are:

D efining c o lle c t i v e n e g o tia tion s
P rin c ip le s o f c o lle c t iv e ne g o tia tion s
Negotiable to p ics
E ffe c ts o f n e g o tia tio n s

The review produced evidence f o r the f a c t th a t the e ffe c ts
o f c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n s were as y e t not well defined.

Very l i t t l e

inform ation was a v a ila b le which in te g ra te d the c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n
process and special education.
The study addressed i t s e l f to fo u r research questions.
were:

104

They

105
1)

What are the number and content o f c o n tra c t items
p e rta in in g to special education in the selected
contracts?

2)

What has been the e xtent o f involvement o f special
education personnel in the n e g o tia tio n process?

3)

What are the perceived e ffe c ts o f the c o lle c t iv e
n e g o tia tio n process on special education programs
as reported by lo ca l d ir e c to r s o f special education?

4)

What changes in or a d d itio n s to c u rre n t con tra cts are
seen by lo c a l d ir e c to r s as being needed and j u s t i f i a b l e
f o r the improvement o f special education in t h e i r
d is tric ts ?

To answer these questions the study was divided in to two
p a rts.

Research question number one was answered v ia an a n a lysis o f

68 lo ca l teacher-board c o n tra c ts .

Three hundred tw e n ty -s ix (326)

iterns were id e n t i f ie d as being s p e c i f i c a ll y re la te d to special educa­
t io n .

These items were divid e d in to th ir te e n cate g o rie s.

These

categories were:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
V I.
V II.
V III.

Salary d i f f e r e n t i a l s f o r special education personnel
Handicapped students in re g u la r classrooms
Class size
R eferral and placement o f special
Time commitments f o r special education personnel
Maintenance and expansion o f special education programs
Special education s t a f f on committees
In te g ra tio n o f special education students in to re g u la r
programs
IX
Provision o f space and m a te ria ls f o r special education
personnel
X.
Length o f school day f o r special education students
X I.
In -s e rv ic e days f o r special education s t a f f
X II.
Special education programs included in summer school
X I I I . Miscellaneous

Ninety-seven percent o f the items were c la s s if ie d in 12 categories
w ith three percent being delegated to a "Miscellaneous" category.
Data concerning the o th e r three research questions were
gathered via a q u estionnaire sent to lo c a l d ir e c to r s o f special

106
education.

S ix ty - e ig h t questionnaires were sent out and 49 w ith

useable data were returned.

The responses to the questionnaire were

categorized and ta b u la te d .

Frequencies and content o f the responses

were recorded and used to answer the appropriate research questions.

Findings
The fin d in g s are presented in two d i s t i n c t p a rts ; the f i r s t
p e rta in in g to the a n a lysis o f contracts and the second p e rta in in g to
the re s u lts o f the survey.

Findings Related to the
Analysis o f Contracts
1.

At the time o f the study the m a jo rity o f d i s t r i c t s paid a f l a t
ra te s a la ry d i f f e r e n t i a l eq u a lly to a l l special education
personnel.

2.

A 1imi ted number (2) o f d i s t r i c t s projected the e lim in a tio n o f
s a la ry d i f f e r e n t i a l s paid to special education s t a f f .

3.

The m a jo rity o f con tra cts contained statements regarding the
re g u la r teachers r e s p o n s ib ili t y f o r students whom he/she f e l t
were in need o f special help f o r p h y s ic a l, mental or emotional
reasons.

4.

Many o f the d e s c rip tio n s o f c h ild re n labeled as needing special
help were worded so th a t they could be in te rp re te d to include
large p o rtio n s o f the school p o pulation.

5.

The s o c ia lly d eviant or d is r u p tiv e c h ild dominates the d e s crip ­
tio n s o f handicapped c h ild re n .

6.

Approximately o n e -th ird o f the con tra cts studied contained iterns
which re fe rre d to handicapped students in re g u la r classrooms in
a manner which tends to imply a negative a t t it u d e toward them
and/or t h e i r handicap.

7.

The majori ty o f c o n tra cts which contained statements concerning
the size o f special education classes met o r exceeded the stand­
ard recommended by the D iv is io n o f Special Education o f the
State Department o f Education.

107

8.

Approximately 11% o f the contracts in the study had clauses
which allowed la r g e r special education classes than recommended
by the s ta te .

9.

A ll but one c o n tra c t which mentioned the r e fe r r a l o f c h ild re n
suspected o f being handicapped mentioned only movement in to
special education classes. Only one d i s t r i c t described a
procedure f o r re tu rn in g students to re g u la r classes.

10.

Guarantee o f teacher involvement in the placement o f handi­
capped students was not present in any o f the contracts in
t h is study.

11.

One-fourth o f the contracts included statements guaranteeing
special education personnel class hours and other commitments
which were not g re a te r than teachers o f re g u la r cla sse s.

12.

The con tra cts provided few guarantees f o r special education
s t a f f involvement in a d m in is tra tiv e processes, and
committee planning processes r e la t in g to handicapped c h ild re n .

13.

A smal1 percentage (8.8%) o f the contracts provided f o r the
in t e g ra tio n o f special education students in to re g u la r c la s s ­
rooms .

14.

A small percentage (8.8%) o f the contracts guaranteed adequate
physical surroundings and s p e c ifie d time schedules f o r handi­
capped c h ild re n .

Findings Related to the
Results o f the Survey
1.

V i r t u a l l y a l l special education s t a f f other than school psycholo­
g is ts were included in the bargaining u n it . School Psychologists
were excluded in 10.2% o f the d i s t r i c t s surveyed.

2.

Approximately th re e -fo u rth s o f the D ire cto rs o f Special Education
were e it h e r not involved w ith n e g o tia tio n s or acted only as con­
s u lta n ts to the board.

3.

Nearly 80% o f the d ir e c to r s reported changes in s t a f f working
co n d itio n s d i r e c t l y associated w ith the n e g o tia tio n process.

4.

The most fre q u e n tly reported working co n d itio n change was an
increase in teacher s a la rie s .

5.

Over o n e -h a lf o f the d i s t r i c t s d id not have a special education
s t a f f member on the te a ch e rs' n e g o tia tio n team.

108

6.

Two-thirds o f the d ire c to rs surveyed ind ica te d they were gen­
e r a l ly s a t is f ie d w ith t h e i r cu rre n t c o n tra c t.

7.

Nine d i s t r i c t s responded to the survey w ith suggestions f o r
d ele tio n s in t h e i r lo ca l c o n tra c t. Three o f the d i s t r i c t s
suggested th a t the pay d i f f e r e n t i a l between special education
and re g u la r education s t a f f be discontinued.

8.

Somewhat more than o n e -th ird o f the respondents reported th a t
the professional n e g o tia tio n process had produced no change
in the q u a lit y o r q u a n tity o f special education programs in
th e ir d is tr ic ts .

Discussion
This study was based on data derived from excerpts from
local teacher-board contracts and the opinions o f lo ca l special
education d ir e c t o r s .

Due to the vagaries o f the English language,

many statements in the c o n tra cts and the wording o f responses to the
questionnaire were i n d i s t i n c t and vague.

I t was t h is very lack o f

d e f i n i t i o n , consistency, and sta n d a rd iza tio n which in tr ig u e d and
challenged t h is w r i t e r and may w ell be a major fa c t o r in the dearth
o f studies o f t h is type.

The vagaries o f the English language are

b la t a n tly obvious when one attempts to compare various p o rtio n s o f
teacher c o n tra c ts , or ta b u la te and describe responses to an openended questionnai re.
The f a c t th a t these contracts were developed w ith in a demo­
c r a ti c s o cie ty and re fle c te d the f e l t needs and c r e a t i v i t y o f groups
who have the freedom o f in d iv id u a l expression made t h is study most
challenging and d i f f i c u l t .
I t was noticed th a t many issues found in on* c o n tra c t were
not present in o th e rs.

I t is in c o r re c t to in t e r p r e t t h is to mean

th a t when a given issue was absent from a c o n tra c t th a t the school

109

d i s t r i c t represented by th a t c o n tra ct did not have p o lic y dealing
with th a t su b je ct.

Many school d i s t r i c t s have r u le s , re g u la tio n s ,

g u id e lin e s , and other documents which deal w ith issues not covered
in the c o n tra c t.
When reviewing the data the nature o f the contracts them­
selves must be considered.

The contracts found in education today

are out-growths o f in d u s tr ia l n e g o tia tio n s in which labor was nego­
t i a t i n g w ith management and the product o f concern to both p a rtie s
was t y p i c a l l y an inanimate o b je c t-- n o t so in education.

This f a c t ,

above a l 1 o th e rs , makes the study o f teacher contracts a unique and
in v o lv in g a c t i v i t y .

The fears and concerns expressed by Sosnowsky

and Coleman can only be echoed by t h is w r i t e r .

The concerns o f the

student or his parent are not t y p i c a l l y included in the n e g o tia tion
process.
This f a c t poses one o f the major questions ra is e d , but not
addressed by t h is study.

"To what e xtent are the d r a fte r s o f teacher-

board con tra cts responsible f o r the c h ild re n who w i l l be a ffected?"
At present i t appears th a t the student is not w ell-represented in
teacher-board n e g o tia tio n s and the special education student appears
to be even less w el1-represented.
The c u rre n t d e f in it io n s o f teacher-board n e g o tia tion s do
not include statements which place emphasis on student needs.

This

appears to be the case in s p ite o f the f a c t th a t both teachers and
boards profess concerns f o r the student and recognize t h e i r mutual
r e s p o n s ib i! ity f o r him.

no
A review o f the data tends to su b sta n tiate the fin d in g s o f
Sosnowsky and Coleman in th a t the primary a tte n tio n given to the
"Handicapped c h ild " predominately centers around the d is r u p tiv e c h ild .
This study p oints out th a t the d i s t r i c t s who mention any handicapped
c h ild mention the s o c ia lly maladaptive c h ild by one label or another.
I t is in te r e s tin g to note th a t in several cases any c h ild in need o f
any form o f special h e lp s even th a t o f a ph ysicia n , is grouped w ith
other handicapped c h ild re n and may be d e a lt w ith in an exclusionary
manner.
The passage o f the Mandatory Special Education Act has
d r a s t ic a ll y changed the v a l i d i t y o f such contractual procedures.
The rules and guide lin e s which accompany t h is law o u tlin e s p e c i f i c a lly the procedures necessary to r e f e r , diagnose, and place handicapped stu d e n ts.
Throughout the contracts which s p e c if ic a l ly mention the
handicapped c h ild in the re g u la r classroom, there appears to be a
mood o r tone which seems to r e f l e c t a fe a r or r e je c tio n o f the c h ild
who deviates s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the norm.
is subject to in t e r p r e t a t io n .

This apparent mood or tone

I t is the opinion o f t h is w r it e r th a t

such a tone or mood was present and has a p o t e n t ia lly detrim ental
e f f e c t on the educational planning and placement o f handicapped
c h ild re n .

This appears to be p a r t ic u la r l y tru e i f an in te g ra te d

program were being considered f o r a given c h ild .
The dearth o f items r e fe r r in g to special education and the
frequent occurrence o f wording which appears p o t e n ti a l ly harmful f o r

m
handicapped c h ild re n may be p a r t i a l l y caused by a lack o f involvement
o f special education s t a f f in the n e g o tia tio n process.
Two segments o f evidence which emphasize t h is lack o f
involvement are:
1.

Nearly o n e -h a lf o f the special education d ir e c to r s were
not involved in t h e i r lo ca l n e g o tia tio n a c t i v i t i e s .

2.

Over 60% o f the d ir e c to r s reported no special education
s t a f f were involved in t h e i r lo ca l n e g o tia tio n process.
Evidence f o r the lack o f items concerning special education

is present both in the review o f 1it e r a tu r e and in the data gathered
in t h is study.

The f a c t th a t a mean o f only 4.8 iterns per co n tra c t

concerning special education was obtained seems to agree w ith the
im p l i c i t evidence in the 1it e r a t u r e .
one item per d i s t r i c t .

Of in te r e s t also is a mode o f

This s p e c i f i c a ll y re fe rs to 11 d i s t r i c t s

w ith local special education d ir e c to r s who have only one item in
t h e i r c o n tra c t r e fe r r in g to special education.

In each o f these

d i s t r i c t s t h a t item was a s a la ry d i f f e r e n t i a l f o r special education
teachers.

There are many o th e r to p ics which most n e g o tia to rs would

agree are app ro p ria te f o r n e g o tia tio n which go beyond s a la rie s and
which could have a s p e c ific e f f e c t on special education teachers and
students.
Salary d i f f e r e n t i a l s f o r special education s t a f f were
mentioned by more d i s t r i c t s than any o th e r s in g le item.

This appears

to be q u ite lo g ic a l when one understands th a t the primary th r u s t o f
c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n s is o rie n te d toward the labor-management
model,

112

Salary d i f f e r e n t i a l s which ranged from $125 to $500 per
year were reported.

Two d i s t r i c t s had or were going to e lim in a te

the special education d i f f e r e n t i a l .

I n te r e s t in the e lim in a tio n o f

these d i f f e r e n t i a l s seems to be in cre asing .

The o r ig in a l purpose

f o r the d i f f e r e n t i a l appears to have been an in c e n tiv e to encourage
more teachers to e n te r the f i e l d o f special education.

I t appears

th a t t h is in c e n tiv e has l o s t importance in the l a s t few years.

Some

local teacher unions are also p o in tin g out th a t special education
teachers re q u ire no g re a te r t r a in in g and work no longer hours than
"re g u la r" teachers.

They use t h is reasoning plus the abundance o f

teachers to argue a gainst the d i f f e r e n t i a l .
The fu n c tio n o r e ffic a c y o f many co n tra c t p ortions included
in t h is study w i l l be g r e a tly a lte re d o r elim in a ted by Public Act 198
o f 1971 in the s ta te o f Michigan.

This Mandatory Special Education

Act and i t ' s accompanying ru le s and re g u la tio n s addresses i t s e l f to
such items as d e f i n i t i o n o f handicaps, length o f school days, minimum
s e rvice s, and o th e r subjects which have h e re to fo r been subjects o f
n e g o tia tio n .

Many o f the issues concerning the education o f handi­

capped c h ild re n fo rm e rly found in con tra cts may be included w ith in
the interm ediate school d i s t r i c t ' s plan as required in the law.
The new Mandatory Special Education Act raises a t le a s t
one issue which may well become a negotiable item.

The new law

requires the establishment o f review and planning procedures which
go beyond th a t now being done in most d i s t r i c t s .

These procedures

w i l l place a d d itio n a l demands on teachers in terms o f a fte r-sc h o o l
meetings and oth e r time-consuming a c t i v i t i e s .

I t is t h is w r i t e r 's

113

fe e lin g th a t special education teachers may soon demand a d d itio n a l
compensation f o r these e xtra demands and th a t t h is issue w i l l become
a negotiable item in both lo ca l and interm ediate school d i s t r i c t s .
There appeared to be considerably more concern in the
contracts reviewed f o r procedures f o r g e ttin g c h ild re n in to special
education classes than f o r g e ttin g them out o r dealing w ith them
based on the c h i ld 's need.

Here again the lack o f special education

representation in the n e g o tia tio n process appears to have had an
e ffe c t.

The educational s ig n ific a n c e o f many items regarding handi-

capped c h ild re n seems to have had low p r i o r i t y in the minds o f the
n e g o tia to rs.

The s p i r i t o f keeping handicapped c h ild re n out o f the

mainstream o f education appears to predominate the provisio ns found
in the co n tra cts reviewed.
The e ffe c ts o f c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tion s on special educa­
tio n appear to be fragmented and un ce rta in .

I t can be sa id , however,

th a t some patterns did appear in t h is study.

Several o f the patte rn s

found appear to be c o n s iste n t w ith the a v a ila b le l i t e r a t u r e .
I t appears th a t the f i r s t changes noticed were the formal
changes in the w r itte n jo b d e s crip tio n s o f teachers and a d m in is tra to rs .
These formal changes are r e fle c te d in r e - w r itt e n jo b d e s c r ip tio n s ,
o rg a n iz a tio n a l charts and o th e r to o ls o f a d m in is tra tio n .

The inform al

changes which are r e fle c te d in behavioral d iffe re n ce s w ith in the
personnel themselves were much slower to appear.

This observation is

co n sis te n t w ith m aterial presented in the l i t e r a t u r e by G. B. Redfern.
In g e neral, the p o s itiv e changes in special education
a t t r ib u t e d to the n e g o tia tio n process center around s a la rie s and

114

fa c ilitie s .

At t h is tim e, there is no em pirical evidence th a t b e tte r

s a la rie s and f a c i l i t i e s have a s a lu to ry e f f e c t on the q u a lit y o f
services rendered to handicapped c h ild re n .

However, several authors

sighted in the review o f 1it e r a t u r e seem to fe e l t h a t n e g o tia tio n s
have made i t c le a r to the p u b lic th a t q u a lit y education does cost
money and th a t c h ild re n do b e n e fit from t h is added community aware­
ness.

Several o f the respondents in t h is study concur w ith t h is

lin e o f reasoning and have also pointed out th a t r e c r u it in g o f
teachers f o r handicapped c h ild re n has been e a s ie r since higher
s a la rie s have been a v a ila b le .
At no place in the survey o r in reading o f the various
contracts were programs, curriculum development, e valuation o f pro­
grams, or program goals mentioned.
the scope o f a co n tra ct.

These issues may w ell be beyond

However, i t would appear c o n s is te n t w ith

cu rre n t th in k in g th a t the guarantee o f a pa tte rn or paradigm f o r
e ff e c t iv e development, execution and evaluation o f services to a l 1
students in c lu d in g the handicapped would be a ppropriate in a teacherboard c o n tra c t.
The mixed reports from the d ir e c to r s regarding ease o f
communication, e f f i c i e n t conduct o f the program, re la tio n s h ip s w ith
the s t a f f and f l e x i b i l i t y in t h e i r ro le as a d m in is tra to rs appear to
be based on several fa c to rs .

The newness o f the co n tra cts and the

personal in t e r p r e t a t io n o f various items by the s t a f f may well be
two o f the more im portant reasons f o r t h e i r d iv e r s it y o f op in io n .
The recent appearance o f co n tra cts in many school d i s t r i c t s may also

115
be a s ig n if i c a n t fa c t o r in the large number o f reported "no change"
reactions to the survey.
The questions in the survey asking f o r a c r i t i c a l analysis
o f each d ir e c t o r 's local c o n tra c t and i t s perceived e f f e c t on
special education appears to have received l i t t l e
by nearly o n e -h a lf o f the respondents.
th is s it u a tio n arose because:

or no a tte n tio n

I t may be hypothesized th a t

1) Many a d m in is tra to rs o f special

education may be somewhat u n fa m ilia r w ith t h e i r c o n tra c t, 2) I t
is d i f f i c u l t to speculate on a r e la tio n s h ip between a given s ta te ­
ment in a document and a s p e c ific change in a program, or 3) The
nature o f the questionnaire made i t d i f f i c u l t f o r some o f the
d ire c to rs to respond.

This is p a r t ic u l a r ly tru e when discussing

changes in areas other than s a la ry , fr in g e b e n e f it s , f a c i l i t i e s ,
and o th e r r e a d ily measurable issues.
Of the changes in the a d m in is tr a to r's ro le mentioned, the
loss o f f l e x i b i l i t y in the jo b was re fe rre d to most fre q u e n tly .
This, along w ith a loss o f rapport and communication w ith the s t a f f
seems to support the concept th a t the " g u l f " between teachers and
a d m inistra to rs has been widened by the presence o f the professional
n e g o tia tion process.

This p a tte rn tends to su b sta n tia te several

statements found in the 1it e r a t u r e , namely those made by H e rtlin g
(1970), Perry (1968), and Redfern (1968).
The responses to questions concerning the q u a lity and
q u a n tity o f program changes a t t r ib u t a b le to the professional nego­
t i a t i o n movement tend to f o llo w the p a tte rn discussed above.

"No

116

change" was reported most fre q u e n tly .

An increase in programs and

easier r e c r u it in g were mentioned next most fre q u e n tly .

These p o s i­

tiv e changes appear to be d ir e c t l y re la te d to the economic gains
teachers have made via the professional n e g o tia tio n process.
Again i t may be noted th a t since the advent o f the
Mandatory Special Education A ct, increases in programs and services
to the handicapped c h ild are removed from the arena o f n e g o tia tio n
and placed on the stage o f law and 1i t i g a t i o n .

Many other issues

heretofore included in contracts may be included in interm ediate
d i s t r i c t plans.

These plans may form a basis o f program evaluation

which t h is w r i t e r sees as a great b e n e fit to handicapped c h ild re n .

Conclusions
1.

The vast m a jo rity o f the special education s t a f f s were covered
by negotiated agreements.

2.

The special education s t a f f s were not adequately represented in
the c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n process.

3.

There was l i t t l e

support found in the contracts f o r an in te g ra tio n

o f special education and re g u la r students.
4.

A number o f c o n tra c t iterns had a p o t e n t ia l ly detrim ental e f f e c t
on the educational programs f o r handicapped c h ild re n .

5.

The increase in special education teachers' s a la rie s appears to
have a ttra c te d more people in to t h is f i e l d .

6.

Special education programs have not been notably a ffe c te d by the
c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n process.

117

7.

There was a lack o f involvement o f special education a d m in is tra to rs
c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n process.

8.

Several co n ditions o f work f o r special education teachers have
changed due to the c o lle c t iv e n e g o tia tio n process.

9.

Special education d ire c to rs did not appear concerned about t h e i r
lo ca l c o n tra c t p rovisio ns as they re la te d to t h e i r programs.

Recommendations
Recommendations f o r Special
Education S ta f f and A dm inistrators
The one important recommendation growing out o f t h is study
is th a t the special education s t a f f and a d m in is tra to r become more
involved w ith the n e g o tia tio n process.

I t is recommended th a t t h is

involvement concentrate on an inspection o f the c u rre n t lo c a l con­
t r a c t to determine which clauses may tend to reduce services to or
i n h i b i t programming f o r handicapped c h ild re n .
Once t h i s is accomplished, the special education s t a f f
must organize i t s e l f in to a p o l i t i c a l fo rce to in flu e n ce the in c lu s io n
o f proposals they see as b e n e fic ia l in to the c o n tra c t.

Recommendations f o r Further Research
The fo llo w in g are some o f the questions raised but not
answered by t h is study.
1)

Is there a demonstrable cause and e f f e c t r e la tio n s h ip
between higher s a la rie s and q u a lit y o f program f o r
handicapped children?

118
2)

How knowledgeable are special education d ire c to rs about
t h e ir lo c a l con tra ct?

3)

What are the prim ary reasons special education s t a f f
and a d m in is tra to rs have the low le v e l o f involvement
in the c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n process observed in th is
study?

4)

To what e xte n t and by whom should the c h ild be re p re ­
sented in the c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n process?

5)

What items s p e c ific a lly concerning special education
students are a p p ro p ria te fo r lo c a l teacher-board
contracts?

6)

What a ffe c t has P u blic Act 198 (1971) o f the State o f
Michigan had on the f i e l d o f Special Education?

APPENDICES

A PPE N D IX A
TABLE 17
CONTRACT ITEMS BY CATEGORY AND DISTRICT

TABLE 17
Contract Items By Category and D is t r ic t

Item Categories and Sub-categories
D is t r ic t Name
A lle n Park
Ann Arbor
Avondale
B a ttle Creek
Bay C ity
Berkley
Birmingham
Center Line
C la re n c e v ille
Clawson
Crestwood
Davison
Dearborn
D e tro it
East D e tro it
East Lansing
Farmington
Ferndale
F itz g e ra ld
F lin t
Forsyth #7
Fraser
Garden C ity
Grand Blank
Grand Haven

_A_
2
1

III

11

2
1
1

2
1
1

1
1
1

1

2
1

IV

V

VI

V II

V III

IX

XI

X II

1
2

1
1
1
1

2
1
1
1

2
1

2
1

1
1
1
2
2
1

1
2

1

2
1

X III

Total
10
10
2
1
4
3
5
1
2
2
9
4
2
8
7
5
3
4
1
1
4
1
4
1
3

TABLE 17 (continued)

Item Categories and Sub-categories
i

A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

1
3

1
1
1

n
B

m
C
2
3

A
1

1
1

1
2
1
1

1
1
1
1

2

1
2
1
2

1

2

1
1

2
1
1
1
2
1

2

1
1

1
1
3

1
2

1
1

1

1
1

1
1

2

1

1
1

2
2
2

v

1

2

2
2
2
1
2

iv
B C

2
1

1
2

1

1

2
1

1

1
1

1

1

1

1

1
1
1

1

vi

v ii

v m

ix

x

xl

xn

x iii
7
n
i
5
i
10
2
5
6
6
10
10
4
18
2
3
8
6
3
2
5
8
1
2
4
5

TABLE 17 (continued)

Item Categories and Sub-categories
I
A

D is t r ic t Name
Royal Oak
Saginaw Town­
ship
S o u th fie ld
South Redford
Taylor
Trenton
Utica
Van Dyke
Walled Lake
Warren Consol
Warren Woods
Waterford Townshi p
Wayne
Wayne C ity
( N o rth v ille )
Woodhaven
Wyoming
Y p s ila n ti
TOTAL NUMBER
OF ITEMS

1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

2
1
1

1

C
1

1
i

49

1

1

V

VI

V II

V III

IX

X

XI

X II

X III
Total

c

6

1
1

1
1
1

1
1
i

1

1

1

2
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

I

1

1
1

1
1

2
1
1

1
1

A

IV
B

III

1

1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

II
B

2

1

1
2
2

1
2
2

1
1
2

54

48

28

4
cD

1

1
i

cD
c
0
*/7
11

1
1

33

21

10

9

20

I
5
8
7
7
4
2
8
5
4

14

10

5

7

3

2

3

10

326

A PPEN D IX B
LETTERS TO LOCAL SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTORS

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING .M IC H IG A N 48823

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION • DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SPEC IA L EDUCATION •
ERICKSON HALL

Dear

Negotiated teacher co n tra cts have created concern among many
special educators regarding t h e ir impact on handicapped students.
Among o th e rs , th is concern has been expressed by professors a t three
o f M ichigan's major u n iv e r s itie s , namely, Wayne S ta te , U n iv e rs ity o f
Michigan and Michigan S ta te . I am engaged in a study designed to
provide some basic data concerning th is area.
Enclosed you w i l l fin d a survey designed to gather data about
your impressions o f the e ffe c ts o f the p rofe ssio na l n e g o tia tio n
process and the re s u lta n t teacher c o n tra c t on special education fo r
your d i s t r i c t .
Would you be kind enough to f i l l out the survey? As you and
your fe llo w lo c a l D ire c to rs o f Special Education form an e s s e n tia l
p a rt o f th is stu d y, your help is most im portant fo r i t s success.
Your answers w i l l be kept in s t r i c t confidence and your anonymity
m aintained. I w i l l be sending you a copy o f the r e s u lts .
Thank you f o r your help.
S in c e re ly ,

C arlton C. Corey
Ph.D. Candidate - Special
Education A d m in is tra tio n
CCC/psm

123

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LAN SIN G • M IC H IG AN 48823

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION • DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND S P E C IA L EDUCATION •
ERICKSON HALL

Dear

On February 25, 1971 I sent you an opin ion survey concerning
your fe e lin g s about the e ffe c t o f teacher co n tra cts on Special
Education. To date th is has not been re tu rn e d .
In case the survey has been lo s t o r misplaced please fin d
enclosed a d u p lic a te and a copy o f the o r ig in a l cover le t t e r which
explains i t more f u l l y . Enclosed also is a stamped s e lf addressed
envelope f o r your convenience. I f you w i l l please take the time to
f i l l out and re tu rn the survey i t w i l l be most deeply appreciated.
As you are one o f a very few people p a r tic ip a tin g in th is study
your thoughts are very im portant fo r the success o f th is p ro je c t.
I hope to hear from you soon.
S in c e re ly ,

C arlton C. Corey
Ph.D. Candidate - Special
Education A d m in is tra tio n
CCC/psm
P.S.

I f our le t t e r s have crossed in the mail please accept my
appologies f o r th is inconvenience.

APPENDIX C
THE OPINION SURVEY

Ident.#_^______
OPINION SURVEY

Please re tu rn to :
C arlton C. Corey
E-329 Owen Hall
East Lansing, Michigan
48823

As the leader o f special education in your school system you are
in the best p o s itio n to know the e ffe c ts o f c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tion s
on special education. The fo llo w in g questions are designed to gather
your fe e lin g s concerning these e ff e c ts .
Please add any comments you wish. The more in fo rm a tio n you can
share w ith us, the more v a lid th is study becomes.
D e scription o f your program:
Program
Type

Number o f
Classes

Program
Type

Number o f
Classes

EMR

B lin d

Number o f Social Workers

TMR

Learn.
Disab.

Number o f D iagnosticians
Number o f Teach. Counc.

ED
Deaf

Hospt.
Hombnd.

Ortho

O ther:

Number o f Type C
Number o f Speech
What?
Number o f OT

Other:
What?
I.

Number o f PT

Are any s t a f f associated w ith your special education program not
a p a rt o f your c u rre n t lo c a l co n tra ct? (eg. so cia l w orkers,
d ia g n o s tic ia n s )
No
Yes
I f yes please s p e c ify :_________________________

Use back o f page i f needed
II.

Were you p e rso n a lly involved e ith e r d ir e c tly o r in d ir e c tly in the
c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n process f o r your c u rre n t (1970-71) con­
tra c t?
No ___ Yes_____
I f Yes please check the nature o f your involvem ent.
than one i f a p p ro p ria te .

124

Check more

125

Board N e g o tia to r ____
Consultant to board n e g o tia to rs _
Consultant to teacher n e g o tia to rs
Developed c o n tra c t proposals ____
Developed counter proposals ____
Observer ____
Other: (please e x p la in )_________

Use back o f page i f needed
III.

Was a special education s t a f f member on the n e g o tia tin g team fo r
the teachers w h ile your c u rre n t (1970-71) c o n tra c t was being
developed?
Yes ______ No
How many? ____

IV.

How long have you been D ire c to r o f Special Education in your
present d is t r ic t ?
years

V.

In your opinion as an a d m in is tra to r, what have been the major
changes in special education (p o s itiv e and/or negative) which
you can a ttr ib u te to the c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n process?
A.

Changes regarding s t a f f working co n d itio n s (in c lu d in g
s a la r ie s ) . Please e x p la in :

Use back o f page i f needed
B.

Changes regarding your jo b as an a d m in is tra to r:
e x p la in :

Please

Use back o f page i f needed
C.

Changes regarding the q u a lity o f the special education pro­
gram f o r c h ild re n . Please e x p la in :

Use back o f page i f needed

126

VI.

Are there p a r tic u la r statements (clauses o r major ideas) in your
c u rre n t (1970-71) c o n tra c t which you fe e l have had a s ig n ific a n t
e ffe c t on any aspect o f your to ta l special education program?
Yes
No
r
I f Yes please complete the m a te ria l below:
A.

Statement I (clause o r idea)
I f convenient please s ta te ; A r t ic le #___ Section #___ Page _
1.

Quote o r describe the statem ent:

Use back o f page i f needed
2.

What has been the e ffe c t o f th is statement on your
special education program?

Use back o f page i f needed
B.

Statement I I (clause o r idea)
I f convenient please s ta te ; A r t ic le #___ Section #___ Page_
1.

Quote o r describe the statem ent:

Use back o f page i f needed

127

2.

What has been the e ffe c t o f th is statement on your
special educational program?

Use back o f page i f needed
V II.

Are you g e n e ra lly s a tis fie d w ith the p ro visio n s concerning
special education in your c u rre n t (1970-71) contract?
Yes ____ No ____ Please expand:

Use back o f page i f needed
V I I I . What s p e c ific p ro visio n s would you lik e to see included in your
c o n tra c t which are not there a t th is time? None____
Please s ta te the p ro v is io n (s ) o r problem(s) you would lik e to see
considered.

Use back o f page i f needed
IX.

What are the s p e c ific p ro visio n s o r statements you would lik e to
see excluded o r m odified in your c u rre n t contract? None _____
A.

Statement I
1. Quote o r describe the statem ent. I f convenient please
s ta te the A rt. #
Section #___ Page ____

128

2.

B.

Statement I I
1. Quote o r describe the statem ent.
s ta te the A rt. #
Section #

2.

X,

In what way would you lik e to see th is statement
changed?

I f convenient please
Page ____

In what way would you lik e to see th is statement
changed?

I f th is survey has not allowed you to express y o u rs e lf f u l l y
concerning your fe e lin g s about the c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n
process as i t re la te d to your special education programs,
please fe e l fre e to comment below.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES
A cke rly, R. L . , and Johnson, S. W. C r itic a l issues in n e g o tia tio n s
le g is la t io n . Washington D .C .: N ational A ssociation o f
Secondary School P rin c ip a ls , 1969.
American A ssociation o f School A d m in is tra to rs . The school adm inis­
t r a t o r and n e g o tia tio n . Washington D .C .: Author, 1968.
American A ssociation o f School A d m in is tra to rs . Roles, responsib i l i t i e s , re la tio n s h ip s , o f the school board, superintendent
and s t a f f . Washington D .C .: A uthor, 1963.
American A ssociation o f School A d m in is tra to rs . School adm inistr a to r s view p rofe ssio na l n e g o tia tio n . Washington D .C .:
Author, 1966.
Andree, I3. 6. C o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s .
Lexington Books, 1970.

Lexington, Mass.:

Heath

B a ird 5 R. N ., and Landon, J. H. The e ffe c ts o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining
on p u b lic school teachers' s a la rie s : a comment. A working
paper #21, Western Reserve U n iv e rs ity , Department o f
Economics, 1971. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC-Document Reproduction
Service ED-047-395.
Beekman, M. E. Length o f school day. A memorandum sent to super­
intendents and d ire c to rs o f special education, Lansing,
M ic h .: D iv is io n o f Special Education, Dept, o f Education,
September 4, 1970.
Bock, D. F., and Brown, G. The marvelous p o te n tia l o f profession al
n e g o tia tio n . N ational Education A ssociation Jo u rn a l,
1967, 56:8, 28-30.
C a rlto n , P. W. The a ttitu d e s o f c e r tific a te d in s tr u c tio n a l personnel
toward p rofe ssion al n e g o tia tio n s and "s a n c tio n s ". Eugene,
Oregon: U n iv e rs ity o f Oregon, 1967. U.S. Department o f
H ealth, Education & W elfare. Grant #0EG-4-7-008367-2007,
Report #G-8367. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC-Document Reproduction
Service ED-014-801.
Carl to n , P. W., and Goodwin, H. I . The c o lle c tiv e dilemma: n e go tia­
tio n s in education. W orthington, O hio: Charles A. Jones,
1969.
129

130
Cogen, C

Changing p a tte rn s o f employment r e la tio n s . In R. E.
Doherty, e t, a l . , The changing employment re la tio n s h ip s
f o r q u a lity education. I th ic a , New York: New York State
School o f In d u s tria l and Labor R e la tio n s, Cornell Univer­
s i t y , 1968. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC-Document Reproduction
Service ED-019-734.

Cogen, C

C o lle c tiv e bargaining: the AFT way. Paper presented
a t the National I n s t it u t e on C o lle c tiv e N egotiations in
P ublic Education, Rhode Isla n d C ollege, Providence, Rhode
Is la n d , J u ly 8, 1965.

C ronin, . . H. School boards and p rin c ip a ls before and a fte r negotia­
tio n s . Phi Delta Kappen, 1967, 49, 123-127.
Dember, I . N. The psychology o f p e rce p tio n .
R inehart & Winston, 1960.

New York:

H o lt,

Davies, I . R ., and K lin e , C. E. C o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s and teacher
s a tis fa c tio n in selected Indiana secondary schools. Paper
presented a t the American Educational Research A ssociation
annual meeting, New Orleans, February 1973.
Dempsey, R. A. N e g o tia tio n s: The road ahead. Paper presented a t
the National A ssociation o f Secondary School P rin c ip a ls
Annual Conference, D a lla s, Texas, February 1973.
Doherty, R. E. Employer-employee re la tio n s in the p u b lic schools.
I t h ic a , New York: New York State School o f In d u s tria l and
Labor R e la tio n s, Cornel 1 U n iv e rs ity , 1967a.
Doherty, R. E ., and Ober, W. E. Teachers, school boards and c o lle c ­
t iv e b a rg a in in g . Ith ic a , New York: New York State School
o f In d u s tria l & Labor R e la tio n s , Cornell U n iv e rs ity , 1967.
Dykes, A

R. The emergent ro le o f a d m in is tra to rs and the im p lic a ­
tio n s f o r te a c h e r-a d m in is tra to r re la tio n s h ip s . In
A lle n , R. B. and Schmid, J. (E d .) , C o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tion s
and educational a d m in is tra tio n . Col lege o f Education,
U n iv e rs ity o f Arkansas and the U n iv e rs ity Council fo r
Educational A d m in is tra tio n : 1966. Bethesda, Md.: ERICDocument Reproduction Service ED-011-700.

Edwards, C. H ., and B u rrn e tt, K. R. The p r in c ip a l's ro le in nego tia ­
tio n s . Contemporary Education, 1970, 41, 308-315.
Epstein, B. The p r in c ip a l1s ro le in c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s between
teachers and school boards. Washington D .C .: Tne National
A sso cia tio n o f Secondary School P rin c ip a ls , 1965.

131
Epstein, B. What is negotiable? Washington D .C .: The National
A ssociation o f Secondary School P rin c ip a ls , 1969.
Evens, S.
Foraus

S uperintendent's dilemma.
November 1967, 155, 10-12.

American School Boar d Journal,,

R. H. Perc e p tio n —the basic process in_cog n itiv e development.
*
New York: M cGraw-Hill, 1966.

Gibson, E. J. P rin c ip le s o f perceptual J e a rn in a and developmentNew York: A p p le to n -C e n tu ry-C ro fts, 1969.
Grade Teacher. Why, what and how to neg otia te w ith your school board.
Author, 8 5 :3 , 1967, 68-69.
Gregg, P. K. A case study o f the p u b lic school c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia ­
tio n s process designed f o r the use o f a d m im s tra to rs -in tr a in in g . Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e r ta tio n , Michigan State
U n iv e rs ity , East Lansing, M ichigan, 1969.
Hannan, C. J. P rofessional n e g o tia tio n fo r improving education.
National Education A ssociation J o u rn a l, December 1966, 55,
56-57.
H e rtlin g , J. E. N e g o tia tio n s , cure o r cause o f teacher s trik e s ?
School and Community, A p r i l , 1970, 5b, d.6.
Holtlem an, G. D. C o lle c tiv e bargaining and the emerging p ro fe ssio n .
Today1s Education, December, 1972, 61 , 49-50.
HuronV a lley Education A ssociatio n and the Huron V alley
Schools Board o f Education. Master C o n tra ct.
V a lle y , M ichigan: A uthors, 1968.
Kansas A ssociation o f School Boards.
A uthor, 1965.
Kasper

H

Guidelines,.

P ublic
Huron

Topeka, Kansas:

The e ffe c ts o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining on p u b lic school
teachers' s a la rie s . In d u s tria l and Labor R elations Review,
1969, 24, 57-72.

Kennedy, D. The te x t o f Dr. Kennedy's remarks to assembly.
Education Journal News, 1966, 43:20, 5.

M ichigan

K ilkenny, R. 0. Teacher p r io r it ie s fo r profe ssion al n e g o tia tio n . ^
(Ed.D. th e s is , Colorado State College) Ann A rbor, M ic h ..
U n iv e rs ity M ic ro film s , 1969. No. 69-15, 723.
King, J. C. New d ire c tio n s f o r c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s . The National,
Elementary P r in c ip a l, September 1967, 47, 45-49.

132
King, J. C. New d ire c tio n s fo r c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s . In National
Education A sso cia tio n , Professional n e g o tia tio n s and the
p rin c ip a l s h ip , Washington D .C ., The A sso cia tio n , 1969,
137-141.
Kuhn, J.

Scope o f n e g o tia tio n . In M u e lle r, V. D ., and Hooker, C. P.
T eacher-adm inistrator-school board re la tio n s h ip s .
M inneapolis, M in n.: Educational Research and Development
Council o f the Twin C itie s , 1967. Bethesda, Md.: ERICDocument Reproduction Service ED-018-007.

Labor R elations Reporter. State la b o r laws: fin d in g 1i s t s , ta ble s o f
laws; guide to laws. Washington D .C .: A uthor, 1975,
pp. SLL1:45-47.
Lambert, S. Samuel Lambert's re p o rt on n e g o tia tio n le g is la tio n .
Educators N egotiation S ervice, Special Report, Washington
D .C .: The S ervice, 1970, p. 4.
Liberman, M. N e g o tia tio n s ; p ast, present and fu tu re .
ment, 1973, 17:5, 14-19.

School Manage­

Liberman, M., and Moskow, M. H. C o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s fo r te a ch e rs-an approach to school a d m in is tra tio n . Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1966.
Love, T. M. The impact o f teacher n e g o tia tio n s on school system
decision-m aking. (Ph.D. d is s e r ta tio n , U n iv e rs ity o f
Wisconsin) Ann A rbor, Michigan: U n iv e rs ity M ic ro film s ,
1968. No. 68-5330.
Massachusetts Department o f Education. A guide to c o lle c tiv e
bargaining in the p u b lic schools o f Massachusetts. Boston
A uthor, 1969.
M etzler, J. What is negotiable? Educators N e go tiatin g S ervice—
Special Report, Washington D .C .: The S e rvice , August 1969.
Michigan A ssociation o f Interm ediate Special Education A d m in is tra to rs .
Minutes October 16, 1968, p. 2.
Michigan Education A sso cia tio n . A survey o f teacher a ttitu d e s con­
cerning n e g o tia tio n s — 1968. In Michigan Education Associa­
tio n U n its--A cooperative Michigan and National Education
A ssociation research p ro je c t, Lansing, Michigan: A uthor,
1969. Research re p o rt MR-1-1968-69.
Michigan Education A sso cia tio n . Michigan teacher bargaining u n it s .
East Lansing, Michigan: A u thors, 1971.

133
Michigan Education A sso cia tio n . N e g o tia tio n s. N egotiations hand­
book 1975-76. East Lansing, M ichigan: A uthor, 1975.
Michigan Education A sso cia tio n . Sample Michigan Education Associa­
tio n agreement 1969-70.
Michigan Federated Chapters o f the Council f o r Exceptional C hild re n.
Master c o n tra c t recommendation. In a le t t e r sent to members
January 20, 1968.
Michigan Federated Chapters o f
Recommended re v is io n
sample c o n tra c t. In
P atterson, T. March

the Council fo r Exceptional C hildren.
o f se ctio n VI o f the 1969-70 M.E.A.
a le t t e r from Mader, J. B. to
17, 1970.

Moskow, I I. H. Teachers and unions: The a p p lic a b ilit y o f c o lle c tiv e
bargaining to p u b lic ed ucatio n. P h ila d e lp h ia : Pennsylvania
U n iv e r s ity -- In d u s tr ia l Research U n it. 1966.
National Education A sso cia tio n . Addresses and proceedings.
ton D.C.: A uthor, 1962, p. 178.

Washing­

National Education A sso cia tio n . G uidelines fo r p rofe ssio n a l n e g otia­
t io n . Washington D .C .: A uthor, 1965a.
National Education A sso cia tio n .
D .C .: A uthor, 1973.

NEA handbook 1973-74.

Washington

National Education A sso cia tio n .
D .C .: Author, 1965.

NEA handbook 1965-66.

Washington

National Education A sso cia tio n . P rofessional n e g o tia tio n and the
p r in c ip a ls h ip . Washington D .C .: A uthor, 1969a.
National Education A sso cia tio n .
A uthor, 14:2, 1975.
Norman,

NEA re p o rte r.

Washington D .C .:

i. A. Memory, knowledge, and the answering o f q u e stio n s. In
Solso, R. L. (ED.) Contemporary issues in c o g n itiv e psy­
chology: The Loyola symposium. Washington D .C .: V. H.
Winston & Sons, 1973.

Olson, A

D. The p rin c ip a l and p ro fe ssio n a l n e g o tia tio n . The
N ational Elementary P r in c ip a l, 1967, 46 :5 , 31-33.

Park, G.

The educational dilemma.
1970, 3 :6 , 40-41.

Journal o f Learning D is a b ilit ie s ,

134

Pennsylvania S tate Department o f P ub lic In s tru c tio n . C o lle c tiv e
n e g o tia tio n s , a set o f te n ta tiv e g u id e lin e s . In Educators
N e g o tia tin g Service--ENS Complete T e xts, Washington D .C .:
The S e rvice , 1968, p. 2.
P erry, C. R ., and Wildman, W. A. The impact o f teacher bargaining on
the schools. In C o lle c tiv e a c tio n by p u b lic school tea che rs.
Chicago: Chicago In d u s tria l R elations Center-~Chicago
U n iv e rs ity , 1968. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC-Document Reproduction
Service ED-021 -790.
P erry, C. R. Achieving a meeting o f minds.
59:2, 34-35.

Todays Education, 1970,

Rasmussen, L. V. E ffe c ts o f n e g o tia tio n s . In M u e lle r, V. D ., and
Hooker, C. D. T ea cher-adm inistrator-school board r e la tio n ­
s h ip s . M inneapolis, M inn.: Educational Research and
Development Council o f the Twin C itie s , 1967. Bethesda,
Md.: ERIC-Document Reproduction Service ED-018-007.
Reason, P.

Concerns o f school a d m in is tra to rs about the m anifesta­
tio n s o f teacher a s p ira tio n s when they r e s u lt in some form
o f c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s . In Doherty, R. E. (E d .) ,
Employer-employee re la tio n s in the p u b lic schools. Ith ic a ,
N .Y .: New York State School o f In d u s tria l and Labor Rela­
tio n s , Cornel 1 U n iv e rs ity , 1967, p. 23.

Redfern, G. B. N e g o tia tio n changes p rin c ip a l-te a c h e r r e la tio n s h ip s .
The N ational Elementary P r in c ip a l, 47, 1968, 23-26.
Redfern, G. B. The a r t o f n e g o tia tio n . Paper presented a t the
annual meeting o f the American A ssociation o f School Adminis­
t r a t o r s , A tla n tic C ity , N. J. February 1968. Bethesda,
Md.: ERIC-Document Reproduction Service E0-021-332.
Rehmus, C. M ., and W iln e r, E. The economic re s u lts o f teacher bar­
g a in in g : M ichigan's f i r s t two y e a rs . Research paper No. 6,
May, 1968, U n iv e rs ity o f Michigan and Wayne State U n iv e rs ity ,
I n s t it u t e o f Labor and In d u s tria l R e lation s. Bethesda, Md.:
ERIC-Document Reproduction Service ED-025-026.
Rhodes, E. F . , and Long, R. P. The p r in c ip a l's ro le in c o lle c tiv e
n e g o tia tio n . A r lin g to n , V a .: Educational Service Bureau,
In c . 1967. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC-Document Reproduction
Service ED-017-069.
Riordan, M. E. Operation Bandwagon.
4 8 :1 , p. 15.

American Teacher Magazine, 1963,

135
Rudman, H. C. The d ir t y dozen. In N ational Education A ssocia tion .
P rofessional N eg otia tion and the P rin c ip a ls h ip . Washington
D .C .: The A s so cia tio n , 1969, 62-63.
Schmidt, C. T ., Parker, H ., and Repas, B. A guide t o c o l l e c t i ve
nego tia tio n s in education. East Lansing, M ichigan:
Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , School o f Labor and In d u s tria l
R e la ito n s , 1967.
Shanker, A. Problems o f the new school y e a r. The American Teacher.
Washington D .C .: American Federation o f Teachers, 59:1,
p. 4.
Shi Is , E. B ., and W h ittie r , T. C. Teachers, a d m in istra to rs ap j
c o lle c tiv e b a r g a i n i n g . New York: Thomas Crowel1, 1968.
Smith, A. W. Have c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s increased teachers
s a la rie s ? Phi Delta Kappan, 1972, 54, 268-270.
Smith, R. A ., and Fox, F. H. Expressed a ttitu d e o f teachers toward
n e g o tia tio n : a fa c to r a n a ly tic study. Paper presented a t
the Educational Research A sso ciatio n Annual Meeting, New
York, February 1971. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC-Document Repro­
duction Service ED-048-628.
Sosnowsky, W. P ., and Coleman, T. W. Special education in the
c o lle c t i ve bargaining process: An a n alysi s o f 71 t r i county Michigan master agreements. An unpublished paper.
Mount Clements, M ichigan: Macomb County Interm ediate
School D is t r ic t and Wayne State U n iv e rs ity , December 1969.
Sosnowsky, W. P ., and Coleman, T. W. Special education in the
c o lle c tiv e bargaining process, Phi Delta Kappan, 1971,
52, 610.
Special Education S ta ff o f East D e tro it P ublic Schools. Items fo r
n e g o tia tio n s on be h alf o f the special education s t a f f .
Unpublished paper presented to the East D e tro it P ublic
School Teachers N egotiation Team, East D e tr o it, M ichigan:
Author, February 1969, p. 1.
S teffensen, J. P. B o a rd -s ta ff n e g o tia tio n s .
47:1, p. 8.

School L if e , 1964,

S teffensen, J. P. Teachers n e g o tiate w ith t h e ir school boards.
Washington D .C .: U.S. Department o f H ealth, Education
and W elfare, 1964a. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC-Document Repro­
duction Service 0E-23036.
S tile s , L. J. In union there are weaknesses. The Journal o f Educatio n a l Research, 1968, 62:1, in s id e cover.

136
S tin e tt, T. M., Kleinmann, J. H ., and Ware, M. L. P rofessional
n e g o tia tio n s in pu blic e ducation. New York: Macmillan,
1966.
Thorton, R. J. C o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s and te a ch e rs1 s a l a r i e s : ^ .
survey o f the evidence. An unpublished monograph, 1972.
Bethesda, Md.: ERIC-Document Reproduction Service
ED-075-360.
T ra n k e ll, A. R e lia b ilit y o f Evidence.
1972.

Stockholm, Sweden:

Beckmans,

Trocke, J. K. School board member sees o p p o rtu n itie s in n e g o tia ­
tio n s . Michigan Education J o u rn a l, 1966, 44, p. 14.
U rich, T.

The ro le o f the school p rin c ip a l in c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia ­
tio n s . Paper presented a t the New England Education
Research O rganization Conference, Chestnut H il 1, Mass. ,
June 1971.

V irg in ia Education A ss o c ia tio n , V irg in ia A ssociation o f School
A d m in istra to rs and V irg in ia School Boards A sso cia tio n .
G uidelines f o r te a c h e r-a d m in istra to r-sch o o l board r e la tio n ­
ships in V irg in ia .
In Educators N eg otia tion S e rvice , ENS
Complete T e x ts , Washington D .C .: The S ervice, 1968, p. 1.
Wagoner, D. E. Do you know anything a t a ll about how w ell o r how
much your teachers teach? American School Board J o u rn a l,
1970, 158, p. 22.
Wildman, W. A. The impass and the s tr ik e .
P ig e s t, 1968, 31:1 , 47-48.
Wildman, W. A. What's Negotiable?
1967, 155:5, 7-8.

Cook County Education

American School Board J o u rn a l,

W o lle tt, D. H ., and Chanin, R. H. The law and p ra c tic e o f teacher ^
n e g o tia tio n s . Washington D .C .: Bureau o f National
A f f a ir s , 1970, p. 1:1.