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 bean 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
paga(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. Whan 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 causa a blurred image. You w ill find »
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. Whan 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 wirh reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Soma pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.

University Microfilms International
300 North Zm b Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA
St. John's Road, Tylers Green
High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 8HR

78-3470

BURTON, Gary Andrew, 1945ADMINISTRATIVE BARGAINING UNITS:
A
STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES OF SUPERINTENDENTS,
SECONDARY AND ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS
IN SELECTED MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
Michigan State University,
Ph.D., 1977
Education, administration

University Microfilms International, AnnArbor, Michiganwoe

@

1977

GARY ANDREW BURTON

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ADMINISTRATIVE BARGAINING UNITS: A STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES
OF SUPERINTENDENTS. SECONDARY AND ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS
IN SELECTED MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS
By
Gary A. Burton

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State U niversity
1n p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t o f the requirements
fo r the degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f Administration
and Higher Education
1977

ABSTRACT
ADMINISTRATIVE BARGAINING UNITS: A STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES
OF SUPERINTENDENTS, SECONDARY AND ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS
IN SELECTED MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS
By
Gary A. Burton

The primary purpose of this research was to compare the
attitudes of M1ch .,an public school superintendents, secondary and
elementary principals toward adm inistrative bargaining units (ABU's).
Three a ttltu d ln a l variables were considered 1n the study:

(1)

general a ttitu d e toward adm inistrative bargaining units; (2) b e lie f
concerning the potential Influence o f adm inistrative bargaining
units; and (3) a ttitu d e toward present s itu a tio n .

In addition to the

three a ttltu d ln a l dependent variables there were three Independent
variables:

(1) type o f adm inistrative organization; (2) size of

school d is t r ic t as determined by number of building principals
employed; and (3) present employment position.
Methodology
The data fo r th is study were obtained from 84 superintendents,
84 secondary p rin cip als, and 84 elementary p rin cip als.

H alf of the

individuals 1n each of the three preceding categories were employed
by school d is tric ts with ABU's; the remaining h a lf were employed
by school d is tric ts without ABU's.

A ll 252 administrators were asked

Gary A. Burton

to answer 74 Identical questions which constituted the Administrative
Bargaining Unit Preference Questionnaire, an Instrument developed
especially fo r this research pro ject.
were used to analyze the data:
analysis of variance.

Two s ta tis tic a l techniques

m ultipi e-group clu ster analysis and

Four sets o f hypotheses were formulated 1n

order to te s t whether s ig n ific a n t relationships existed between
school administrators and th e ir a ttitu d es toward adm inistrative
bargaining un its.

An alpha level of .005 was set fo r testing each of

the 17 Individual hypotheses In order to Insure an experiment-wise
alpha level o f .05.
Major Findings
The findings of this study are s ig n ific a n t both 1n what was
determined through s ta tis tic a l analysis o f the data and what was not
determined.
F ir s t, 1t was supported that administrators 1n school dis­
t r ic ts that have ABU's have attitu d es that are more positive toward
adm inistrative bargaining units than administrators 1n school dis­
tr ic ts without ABU's.
Second, 1t was supported that administrators 1n school dis­
t r ic ts that have ABU's have stronger b eliefs concerning the potential
Influence of adm inistrative bargaining units than administrators 1n
school d is tric ts without ABU's.
Third, superintendents appear to have more positive attitud es
toward adm inistrative bargaining units than building p rin cip als.
Superintendents appear to have more positive a ttitu d es since the data

Gary A. Burton

results were, in fa c t, s ig n ific a n t 1n the opposite d irectio n than
hypothesized.
Fourth, superintendents appear to have stronger b eliefs
concerning the potential Influence of adm inistrative bargaining units
than building p rin cip als.

Superintendents appear to have stronger

b eliefs since the data results were s ig n ific a n t 1n the opposite
d irection than hypothesized.
F ifth , superintendents in school d is tr ic ts with ABU's appear
to have a ttitu d es that are more positive toward th e ir present s itu a ­
tion than superintendents in school d is tric ts without ABU's.

Super­

intendents 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's appear to have more
positive attitud es since the data results were, 1n fa c t, s ig n ific a n t
In the opposite direction than hypothesized.
Sixth, building principals 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's
have attitud es which are more positive toward th e ir present situation
than building principals in school d is tric ts without ABU's.
In addition to the above findings which resulted from
hypotheses te s tin g , the following s ig n ific a n t results were obtained
from additional tests of the data collected.
1.

Administrators 1n both small and large-sized school d is tric ts
with ABU's appear to have stronger b eliefs concerning the poten­
t i a l Influence of adm inistrative bargaining units than admin­
is tra to rs In medium-sized school d is tric ts with ABU's.

2.

Elementary principals In school d is tr ic ts with ABU's appear to
have more positive attitu d es concerning the potential Influence
o f adm inistrative bargaining units than elementary principals
1n school d is tric ts without ABU's.

Gary A. Burton

F in a lly , of significance to the researcher was the In a b ility
to produce a t a s ig n ific a n t le v e l, data results which supported the
theory th a t building p rin c ip als, and elementary principals in par­
t ic u la r , hold a ttitu d es that are more positive towards adm inistrative
bargaining units than superintendents.

The lite r a tu r e had strongly

promoted th is theory which was not supported w ithin the present study.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The casual reader may find th is acknowledgment overly sen ti­
mental and possibly redundant.

Yet, now that the d issertation 1s

completed and approved, this acknowledgment 1s as neccesary, in the
opinion of the researcher, as the conclusions 1n Chapter Five.
While only one name appears on the cover of this disserta­
tio n , the support and encouragement o f many talented people have made
this research project possible.

I t Is only proper that they be

acknowledged and publicly thanked, though thanking them alone 1s 1n
no way an adequate payment for th e ir e ffo rts .
F ir s t, my love and appreciation to my w ife , Chris, without
whose constant understanding, encouragement, patience, and partner­
ship this study would not have been possible.
Dr. Richard Featherstone, as chairman and frie n d , has given
of himself fa r more than can ever be repaid by this researcher.
D1ck, I only hope that reflected 1n my lif e s t y le w ill be a w illin g ­
ness to do fo r others as you have so w illin g ly done fo r me.
Dr. Howard Hickey's encouragement and a b ilit y to understand
the t r ia ls and trib u la tio n s , the peaks and v alley s, of a graduate
program are without equal.

Howard, you have Influenced my thinking

and changed my l i f e fo r the b etter.
Drs. Brembeck, Groty and Gardner as committee members have
given more than time 1n making th is dissertation possible.

A ll three

gentlemen have raised questions and arguments during the l i f e of this
111

project* which while sometimes p a in fu l, needed to be addressed.
Because these points were raised and Issues reexamined, th is 1s a
b etter d is s e rta tio n .
Without the technical advice o f Dr. Marcia Carlyn, the
researcher fears th a t he would s t i l l be wandering the h a lls of the
Computer Center.

Dr. Carlyn's assistance 1n the s ta tis tic a l develop­

ment o f th is study was Invaluable.
Dr. Cas Heilman did not serve on the researcher's committee
or d ire c tly ass is t 1n his research, but his d a lly encouragement and
willingness to allow the graduate assistant certain lib e r tie s proved
to be as Important to the researcher as the advice and assistance
from others.
F in a lly , the researcher would lik e to acknowledge his
parents, Ethel and Harold Burton, who In s tille d 1n th e ir three sons
a desire fo r self-betterm ent and who a re , themselves, perfect
examples o f th is a ttitu d e .
To the above Individuals and numerous others, thank you
sincerely fo r Influencing th is research project and th is researcher.

1v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................. v11
Chapter
I.

II.

III.

THE PROBLEM..................................................................................

1

Introduction .........................................................................
Statement o f the Problem. . . . .
.................................
Purpose .....................................................................................
D e fin itio n of Terms .............................................................
Assumptions .............................................................................
Lim itations and D elim itations .........................................
Research Hypotheses .............................................................
O v e r v ie w .................................................................................

1
4
5
7
9
10
12
14

SELECTED REVIEW OF LITERATURE

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

17

Introduction .........................................................................
H isto rical Background o f C o llective Bargaining . .
In the Private S e c t o r .................................................
In the Public S e c to r .....................................................
Legal A c tiv itie s Leading to Adm inistrative
Unionization 1n Public Education .............................
Changing A ttitudes o f Public School Administrators
Toward Unionism .............................................................
The Impact of Adm inistrative Unions on Middle
Management/Superintendent Relationships . . . .
A lternatives to Adm inistrative Unionization . . . .
Summary.....................................................................................

17
18
18
24

41
46
53

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

61

Introduction .........................................................................
Sample Selection .................................................................
Instrumentation .....................................................................
The P ilo t S tu d y .....................................................................
Adm inistrative Bargaining Unit Preference
Questionnaire .................................................................
Summary.....................................................................................

61
63
67
67

v

27
32

69
74

Chapter
IV.

V.

Page
ANALYSIS OF DATA........................................................................

76

Introduction ........................................................................
Presentation of the D a t a ................................................
Additional Findings ............................................................
Summary
...................................

76
78
98
100

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................ 104
Summary of the S t u d y .............................................................104
Discussion of the Findings and Recommendations
fo r Future R e s e a rc h .........................................................109
Additional Recommendations ............................................ 117
Conclusions................................................................................ 120

APPENDIX.

ADMINISTRATIVE BARGAINING UNIT PREFERENCE
QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTER ................................

vi

124

LIS T OF TABLES

Table

Page

3.1

Variable M a t r i x ...........................................................................

62

3.2

ABUPQ Return Rate by S t r a t u m ...............................................

68

3.3

Results of Cluster Analysis with the A B U PQ ..................

71

3.4

Means and Standard Deviations o f ABUPQ

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

74

4.1

Cell Means of ABUPQ Cluster S c o r e s ..................................

77

4 .2

Results o f Analysis of Variance fo r Testing
Hypothesis 1 ..............................................................................

4 .3

80

Results o f Analysis o f Variance fo r Testing
Hypothesis 2 .........................................................................

84

Results o f Analysis o f Variance fo r Testing
Hypothesis 3 .........................................................................

88

Results of Analysis o f Variance fo r Testing
Hypothesis 4 .........................................................................

92

4.6

ABUPQ Demographic D a t a ..........................................................

99

4.7

Results o f Analysis of Variance fo r Further
Testing of Hypothesis 4 F .................................................

101

4.4
4 .5

v11

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Since the passage of Michigan's Public Act 379 (PERA) 1n 1965
and the 1968 decision o f the Michigan Labor Mediation Board granting
the H ills d a le Conmunlty school supervisory personnel the rig h t to
c o lle c tiv e ly bargain with th e ir school boards over hours, wages, and
working conditions, numerous adm inistrative unions and bargaining
units have been established throughout the s ta te .

These unions and

bargaining units represented p rim arily m iddle-level administrators
such as building p rin cip als, assistant p rin c ip a ls , and curriculum
coordinators.

Usually excluded from these bargaining u n its , e ith e r

by law or In te rp re ta tio n , were executive management personnel such as
the superintendent, the assistants fo r personnel and business, and
depending upon the size of the school d is t r ic t , other Innediate mem­
bers o f the central o ffic e s t a f f .

Reasons cited fo r the formation of

such organizations ranged from a desire fo r a b etter adm inistrative
wage and frin g e benefit package to a show of adm inistrators' so lid ar­
it y In response to the growing strength o f teacher unions a t the
negotiation table and the erosion o f adm inistrative prerogatives.^
By 1977, c o lle c tiv e bargaining by a group of Michigan school
administrators with an elected or appointed agent fo r u n it represen­
tation 1n an Individual d is t r ic t had been a legal p o s s ib ility fo r

seven years and was a r e a lity In a t least seventy school systems.

2

These adm inistrative bargaining units (ABU's) and unions ranged In
size from D e tro it's Organization of School Administrators and Super­
visors (OSAS) with over 1200 members and an annual budget of $150,000
to the twelve administrators v o lu n ta rily recognized by the Carrollton
School D is tr ic t Board of Education as a legal bargaining u n it fo r
purposes of contract negotiations.

The formation of such units had

grown from one 1n 1969, to twenty-two 1n 1971, to th irty -fo u r In
1973, to the seventy adm inistrative bargaining units which were
formally recognized a t the time of th is w ritin g .
As such, two d is tin c t types o f adm inistrative bargaining
organizations had emerged from w ithin public school systems through­
out the state of Michigan.

The f i r s t and most common was an Inde­

pendent adm inistrative bargaining unit which was v o lu n ta rily
recognized by the Individual school board fo r the primary purpose of
contract negotiation with the building principals and other secondlin e adm inistrators.

The second and more formal organization was an

adm inistrative union, which

a fte r holding an election supervised by

the Michigan Employment Relations

Commission was then c e rtifie d by

MERC as the o f f ic ia l bargaining unit fo r a ll second-11ne or middlelevel administrators within a p a rtic u la r d is t r ic t .

C e rtific a tio n as

a union most often occurred

a fte r a group o f administrators had been

unsuccessful 1n p etitio n in g

th e ir school board fo r v o lu n ta rily

recognized bargaining status.
Administrative bargaining units once v o lu n ta rily recognized
were afforded by law the same guarantees of good fa ith bargaining as

3

c e rtifie d adm inistrative unions.

Therefore the terms adm inistrative

bargaining u n it and adm inistrative union are Interchangeable.
In a state such as Michigan with It s tra d itio n a l support of
laborers and th e ir unions, the apparent Incongruity of a labor
organization fo r management personnel was settled in the courts.

The

1970 decisions rendered an In terp re tatio n o f the Michigan Public
Employment Relations Act (PA 379), which granted administrators 1n
supervisory or second-line positions the rig h t to c o lle c tiv e ly
bargain and were followed by two s ig n ific a n t a ttltu d ln a l changes.
F ir s t, spokesmen both favoring and opposing these decisions predicted
rapid growth of adm inistrative bargaining units unless administrators
could be made to feel part o f the to ta l management team.

In The

National Elementary P rin c ip a l. McNally warned 1n 1973 th a t unless
superintendents and boards of education Incorporated m iddle-level
administrators Into the decision-making process as well as became
more attuned to the special needs of these adm inistrators, there
would be a rapid increase In the number of adm inistrative bargaining
3
units and unions where law permitted throughout the country.
Less than three years la te r , Bridges and Cooper reported 1n
an a r tic le e n title d "C ollective Bargaining fo r School Adm inistrators,"
Administrator bargaining units have spread lik e a fo rest f i r e
1n a record breaking drought. P rio r to 1970 few such units
existed in th is country; almost seven years la te r approximately
1,275 units are s ittin g on the opposite side of the bargaining
table from boards o f education.4
The second s ig n ific a n t change was the open encouragement of
administrators to organize unions.

The most vocal and prominent

advocates were the spokesmen of statewide adm inistrative associations.

4

In a speech to a group of Michigan adm inistrators, D uvall, Executive
Director of the Michigan Congress of School Administrator Associa­
tions, stated,
I f we must organize on a local basis and force boards to
become professional 1n treatment o f administrators thenle t 's organize - - fru s tra tio n may force union movement.
In 1976, the Representative Assembly of the Michigan Association of
Elementary School Principals voted 1n support of the following new
statement regarding the management team.
We believe that the elementary principals have an Inherent
rig h t to have a voice 1n the determination o f th e ir pro­
fessional destiny. Within the Management Team concept, the
MAESP recommends the use o f formal bargaining procedures to
the degree necessary fo r elementary principals to achieve
and maintain a s ig n ific a n t role 1n matters v it a lly Important
to them, including determination o f wages, hours, and
working conditions.
With open encouragement to organize, there existed every
likelihood that the number of adm inistrative bargaining units would
Increase.

Since the vast m ajority of adm inistrative contracts

throughout the state were determined with no local adm inistrative
organization representation (e ith e r formal or v o lu n ta rily recog­
nized), by 1977 principals and superintendents were being forced to
examine c a re fu lly the consequences, both ben eficial and detrim ental,
o f adm inistrative unionization.
Statement o f the Problem
The problem was to determine attitudes of administrators 1n
selected Michigan school d is tric ts toward adm inistrative bargaining
units.

For the purpose of this study only, the term administrators

Is used to denote superintendents, secondary and elementary

5

p rin cip als, while the term building principals refers only to
secondary and elementary p rin cip als.

The following four research

questions address th is problem.
1. Do administrators 1n school systems with and without administra­
tiv e bargaining units have s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t a ttitu d es
toward adm inistrative bargaining units?
2.

Do administrators 1n school systems of varying sizes have
s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t a ttitu d es toward adm inistrative
bargaining units?

3.

Do superintendents, secondary p rin c ip als, and elementary
principals have s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t a ttitu d es toward
adm inistrative bargaining units?

4.

Do superintendents, secondary p rin c ip als, and elementary
principals In school systems with and without adm inistrative
bargaining units have s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t attitud es
toward adm inistrative bargaining units?
Purpose
The purpose o f th is study was to examine a set o f variables

with respect to th e ir a b ilit y to determine the a ttitu d es of Michigan
superintendents and building principals toward adm inistrative bar­
gaining units composed of building principals and other admin­
is tra to rs excluding the superintendent and his Immediate assistants.
To accomplish th is , 1t was Important to In vestig ate, with a re lia b le
survey Instrument, the underlying conditions which when present
within a school system tended to encourage administrators to e ith e r
p e titio n th e ir school board fo r voluntary bargaining status with
agent representation or to a c tiv e ly seek the legal protections of a
c e rtifie d union.
The study did not attempt to promote a d n ln lstrativ e unioniza­
tion or to evaluate the process o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining by school

6

o ff ic ia ls .

Rather, 1t acknowledged the continuing growth o f admin­

is tr a tiv e bargaining units Involving Michigan administrators as
deserving of systematic research.
This study was deemed professionally Important and tim ely
since adm inistrative unionization and It s a ltern atives were receiving
national review by increasing numbers of educators and non-educators.
This In te re s t (and 1n some cases, action) by a few hundred middlelevel adm inistrators, In forming tra d itio n a l labor organizations had
embarrassed, alarmed, angered, and/or encouraged thousands o f th e ir
counterparts 1n schools across the s ta te .

I t was hoped that an in -

depth study o f attitud es of administrators toward adm inistrative
bargaining units would do much to enlighten school administrators
and dispel many misconceptions concerning labor organizations.
f in a lly , th is study was considered s ig n ific a n t 1n th a t 1t
would promote a b etter understanding of the changing roles and
re sp o n sib ilitie s of building principals as m iddle-level administrators
1n the public schools.
I t is possible that the findings of th is study may have
Impact fa r beyond the lim its o f the study I t s e l f .

At th is w ritin g .

I t has not been established th a t adm inistrative unionization 1s
e ith e r In tr in s ic a lly harmful or helpful to public education as many
educator/authors on both sides o f the controversy have argued.

Hope­

f u lly th is study has brought about a more enlightened a ttitu d e con­
cerning adm inistrative bargaining units.

Second, since c o lle c tiv e

bargaining, which establishes an adversary relationship between the
bargaining p a rtie s , 1s a major component of unionization, th is study

7

w ill have done much to Id e n tify productive a ttitu d es fo r superin­
tendents and building principals when a labor/management relationship
results from the formation of an adm inistrative bargaining u n it.
School board members w ill find the results of this study o f
In terest since I t 1s th is group which 1s le g a lly responsible fo r
Issuing adm inistrative contracts.

F in a lly , p rin c ip als, superin­

tendents, and school board members w ill fin d the results of this
study beneficial when considering a ltern atives to adm inistrative
unions.
D efin itio n of Terms
The following terms have significance fo r educators concerned
with c o lle c tiv e negotiations and adm inistrative bargaining u n its.
Administrative Bargaining U n it, Administrative Union:
terms which have been used Interchangeably In the lit e r a tu r e .

Two
Basic­

a lly * a group of building level administrators within a single school
system which has e ith e r been c e rtifie d by the Michigan Employment
Relations Commission (MERC) or v o lu n tarily recognized by It s school
board as the o ff ic ia l bargaining unit representative fo r the purposes
of contract negotiations.
Administrators:

Individuals appointed to administer a school

building or school system.

For this study, superintendent, secondary

and elementary principals are considered adm inistrators.
Building P rin c ip a l:

Administrative head of a school building

or complex to which students 1n any or a ll grades, kindergarten
through twelve, are assigned.

For th is study, secondary and elemen­

tary principals are considered building p rin cip als.

8

Superintendent:

The chief executive in the school d is tr ic t

and professional leader of the teaching s ta ff.
Secondary School P rin c ip a l:

Adm inistrative head of a school

building or complex to which students 1n any or a ll grades seven
through twelve, exclusively, are assigned.

Known also as high school

p rin c ip a l.
Elementary School P rin c ip a l:

Administrative head of a school

building or complex to which students in any or a ll grades kinder­
garten through s ix , exclusively, are assigned.
Executive Management:

As defined by the Michigan Labor

Mediation Board 1969 Labor Opinion 187, "executive" personnel are
those managerial employees who may engage 1n concerted a c tiv itie s of
the type specified in the Public Employees Relations Act o f 1965
(absent consent of the public employer's le g is la tiv e body), and are
the primary creators of policy which affects the to ta l a c tiv itie s o f
an employer or of a major division or department thereof.

In Mich­

igan public schools, th is consists o f superintendents and assistant
superintendents.
Middle Management:

Administrative or supervisory personnel

excluding the superintendent and the assistant superintendent.
A ttitu d e :

A state of mind or fee lin g with regard to some

matter; disposition.
C ollective Bargaining, C ollective Negotiations, Professional
Negotiations:
the lite r a tu r e .

Three terms which have been used Interchangeably 1n
I t 1s a process whereby employees, as a group,

bargain in good fa ith with th e ir employers on the conditions of th e ir

9

employment relatio n sh ip , fo r the purpose o f reaching a mutually
acceptable agreement.7

I t is a continuous process of b ila te ra l

accommodation on the part of labor and management and is concerned
not only with the economic status of the employees but also with the
Q

protection and extension of th e ir rights and freedom.
Administrative Contract, Written Agreement:

A w ritten docu­

ment containing the matters agreed to , which is signed by the local
adm inistrative organization and the board o f education a t the con­
clusion o f negotiations.
Small-Sized School D is t r ic t :

A Michigan public school

d is tr ic t (K-12) employing zero to eight building p rin c ip als.
Medium-Sized School D is t r ic t :

A Michigan public school

d is tr ic t (K-12) employing nine to fourteen building p rin cip als.
Large-Sized School D is t r ic t :

A Michigan public school

d is tr ic t (K-12) employing fifte e n or more building p rin cip als.
Assumptions
I t has been suggested that the answers to the research
questions were greater in scope than the obvious examination of
possible organizational groupings by educational administrators
below the executive level o f the school superintendent and his cab­
in e t.

S p e c ific a lly , th is research has contributed to the overall

Improvement o f the learning environment fo r children who attend
Michigan public schools.

In order to accept the previous statement,

the following two assumptions were necessary as d ire c tly or
in d ire c tly linked to th is research project.

10

1.

Administrative a ttitu d es Influence adm inistrative deci­

sions, and the decisions made by administrators are capable of
a ffectin g a ll aspects o f education.

Therefore, i f the a ttitu d es of

administrators are known and understood, there 1s greater likelihood
o f understanding th e ir decisions and how they w ill Influence
education.
2.

The e ffe c tiv e and e ffic ie n t management of a school complex

Is highly correlated to student w elfare, teacher performance, and
q u a lity o f In stru ctio n .

That 1s to say, when schools are poorly

organized or poorly managed by adm inistrative s ta ffs , students and
teachers a lik e w ill s u ffer the consequences o f th a t environment.
Many research studies have shown that the building leadership or
the lack thereof, makes a difference as to a q u a lity educational
program or a poor one.9
In many studies across the nation, 1t has been pointed out that
a competent principal 1s the single most Important person 1n
the school system. Without a strong principal who stood up as
an advocate fo r the education of the students and a buffer
against those who aggressively pursued p o licies th a t g ra tifie d
th e ir own desires regardless of the boys and g ir ls , q u a lity
education would erode.
Therefore, the major assumption made 1n defense o f th is research was
that whatever affects administrators and th e ir roles and responsi­
b i l i t i e s , be I t school In teg ra tio n , teacher evaluation, or adminis­
tra tiv e bargaining u n its , affects to some degree the q u a lity of
education that children receive w ithin th e ir schools.
Lim itations and Delim itations
Limitations
A recognized lim ita tio n o f th is study was adm ittedly the con­
fidence which could be placed upon the attitu d es or opinions of those

11

adm inistrators responding to the questionnaire and the r e l i a b i l i t y of
the questionnaire i t s e l f .
Since the topic of adm inistrative bargaining units is
p o litic a l by nature, the adm inistrative responses were suspect 1n th a t
they may not have accurately recorded an In d iv id u a l's true feelings
on the topic o f adm inistrative unionization.

Likewise, there existed

the p o s s ib ility th a t the data c o llec tio n Instrument was Inaccurate,
misleading, biased, or simply poorly constructed.

While every e ff o r t

to control fo r these possible weaknesses was made, the findings and
conclusions are obviously not above question.
The study Included only those Items deemed to be w ithin the
general range o f a ttitu d e s o f superintendents, secondary p rin c ip a ls ,
and elementary prin cip als concerning adm in istrative bargaining units
as Id e n tifie d by the researcher in the Adm inistrative Bargaining Unit
Preference Questionnaire (ABUPQ).

The 11st o f a ttltu d ln a l p re fe r­

ences was not necessarily In clu sive.
A fu rth e r lim ita tio n was th a t th is study did not Include
adm inistrators Involved 1n the management o f schools, other than the
superintendent and secondary and elementary p rin c ip a ls , fo r reasons
o f tim e, energy, and monies a v a ila b le to the researcher.

F in a lly ,

the researcher attempted to be as ob jective and free from bias as
possible, but acknowledges th is condition as a lim ita tio n 1n pursuing
the research.
Delim itations
The researcher consciously delim ited th is study to 124
selected school systems throughout Michigan, s o lic itin g a to ta l o f

12

252 responses from 84 superintendents, secondary p rin c ip a ls , and
elementary principals resp ectively.

A ll respondents were randomly

selected.
Although th is study did not attempt to explain cause and
e ffe c t fo r the continuing growth of adm inistrative bargaining units
and unionization, i t did attempt to v e rify previously documented
reasons why adm inistrators form adm inistrative bargaining units and
to Id e n tify and define conditions under which additional studies
might be conducted.
Research Hypotheses
The follow ing hypotheses were drawn from the research
questions fo r th is study.

In each case a ttitu d e s of the superin­

tendents and building prin cip als were tested via the Adm inistrative
Bargaining Unit Preference Questionnaire (ABUPQ).

Based on review

of current lite r a tu r e concerning th is topic and prelim inary research,
the researcher selected the following d ire c tio n a l hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1 - - Type o f Organization
IA . Administrators 1n school d is tr ic ts with adm inistrative
bargaining units have more p o sitive a ttitu d e s toward adm inistrative
bargaining units than adm inistrators In school d is tr ic ts without
adm inistrative bargaining u n its .
IB . Administrators 1n school d is tr ic ts with adm inistrative
bargaining units have stronger b e lie fs concerning the p o ten tial
Influence o f adm inistrative bargaining units than adm inistrators
in school d is tr ic ts without adm inistrative bargaining u n its .
10. Administrators 1n school d is tr ic ts with adm inistrative
bargaining units have more p o sitive a ttitu d e s toward th e ir present
s itu a tio n than adm inistrators 1n school d is tr ic ts without admin­
is tr a tiv e bargaining u n its .

13

Hypothesis 2 — Size of School D is tric t
2A. Administrators 1n medium- and large-sized school d is tric ts
have more positive a ttitu d es toward adm inistrative bargaining units
than administrators 1n small-sized school d is tr ic ts .
2B. Administrators 1n medium- and large-sized school d is tric ts
have stronger b eliefs concerning the potential influence o f admin­
is tra tiv e bargaining units than administrators in small-sized school
d is tric ts .
2C. Administrators in large-sized school d is tric ts have more
positive attitu d es toward adm inistrative bargaining units than
administrators in medium-sized school d is tr ic ts .
2D. Administrators In large-sized school d is tric ts have stronger
b eliefs concerning the potential Influence of adm inistrative bargain­
ing units than administrators In medium-sized school d is tr ic ts .
Hypothesis 3 — Employment Position
3A. Building principals have more positive a ttitu d es toward
adm inistrative bargaining units than superintendents.
3B. Building principals have stronger b e lie fs concerning the
potential influence of adm inistrative bargaining units than super­
intendents.
3C. Elementary principals have more positive a ttitu d es toward
adm inistrative bargaining units than secondary p rin cip als.
3D. Elementary principals have stronger b e lie fs concerning the
potential Influence of adm inistrative bargaining units than secondary
principals.
Hypothesis 4 - - Type o f Organization and Employment Position
4A. Superintendents 1n school d is tr ic ts with adm inistrative
bargaining units have more positive a ttitu d es toward adm inistrative
bargaining units than superintendents in school d is tric ts without
adm inistrative bargaining units.
4B. Superintendents in school d is tric ts with adm inistrative
bargaining units have stronger b e lie fs concerning the potential
Influence of adm inistrative bargaining units than superintendents In
school d is tric ts without adm inistrative bargaining units.
4C. Superintendents 1n school d is tr ic ts without adm inistrative
bargaining units have more positive a ttitu d es toward th e ir present
situation than superintendents 1n school d is tr ic ts with adm inistrative
bargaining units.

14

4D. Building prin cip als In school d is tr ic ts with adm inistrative
bargaining units have more p o sitive a ttitu d e s toward adm inistrative
bargaining units than building principals 1n school d is tr ic ts without
adm inistrative bargaining u n its .
4E. Building p rin cip als 1n school d is tr ic ts with adm inistrative
bargaining units have stronger b e lie fs concerning the p o ten tial
Influence o f adm inistrative bargaining units than building prin cipals
in school d is tr ic ts without adm inistrative bargaining u n its .
4F. Building prin cip als in school d is tr ic ts with adm inistrative
bargaining units have more p o sitive a ttitu d e s toward th e ir present
situ a tio n than building prin cip als 1n school d is tr ic ts without
adm inistrative bargaining u n its.
The testing o f these hypotheses provided em pirical evidence fo r the
answers to the research questions concerning adm inistrative a ttitu d e s
toward adm inistrative bargaining u n its .
Overview
The organization of th is study Involves fiv e major chapters.
The f i r s t chapter serves as the basis fo r Id e n tific a tio n o f the
Problem, and a ra tio n a le fo r the purpose o f the study.
Chapter I I contains a selected review o f the lit e r a t u r e .
This review covers a number o f areas o f concern to the researcher
which lo g ic a lly develop the base from which th is study was conducted.
Adm inistrative bargaining units were r e la tiv e ly new to public sector
unionism, y et th e ir roots are traceable to the very o rig in o f the
American labor movement.

The researcher traced h is to r ic a lly s ig n if­

icant events, f i r s t 1n the p rivate sector, and more recently 1n the
public sector, which permitted and even encouraged unionization by
a group o f workers who, u n til then, had considered themselves, and
more s ig n ific a n tly had been viewed by the general p u b lic , as a
division o f management.

The review o f re la te d lite r a tu r e 1s

15

organized under fiv e areas of concern to the researcher.

Findings In

these areas provided the basis fo r the research questions and
hypotheses o f th is study.
The th ird chapter. Design o f the Study, Id e n tifie s the source
from which the data were co llected , the Instrumentation used by the
researcher, and f in a lly a description of the procedure used 1n an
analysis of the data obtained from the respondents.
Chapter IV , Analysis of the Data, describes the administra­
tion o f the Administrative Bargaining Unit Preference Questionnaire.
The researcher then makes a complete and d etailed presentation and
analysis of the data with regard to each of the hypotheses.

A

sunmary of the analysis o f data 1s Included.
The f i f t h and fin a l chapter is a presentation o f the
researcher's summary, conclusions, and recommendations fo r future
research.

Implications o f the study are presented here.

bibliography and appendices are attached.

A complete

Footnotes— Chapter I
Survey o f A d m in is tra tive Bargaining U nits In Michigan
Public Schools, feugene N. Spencer, chairman. Research Committee o f
the Michigan Congress o f School A dm inistrator Associations (September,
1971), p. 11.
2

This fig u r e was obtained a f t e r a manual search o f the f i l e s
a t the O ffic e s o f the Michigan Employment R elations Commission 1n
D e tro it, Michigan (February, 197 7), and a ta b u la tio n o f a survey
conducted by the Michigan Association o f School Boards, Lansing,
Michigan (December, 1976).
^Harold J. M cNally, "A M atter o f T ru s t. The A d m in istrative
Team," The National Elementary P r in c ip a l, 53, 1 (November-December,
1973) , 21
4
Edwin Bridges and Bruce S. Cooper, "C o lle c tiv e Bargaining
fo r School A d m in is tra to rs," Theory In to P ra c tic e , Volume XV, Number
4 (
) , 306.
5
Robert E. H a ll, "Why A dm inistrators Are Turning to C o llec­
tiv e B argaining," (Report presented a t MASE Conference, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, November 2 , 1976), p. 2.
^W illiam Mays, J r . , "Whether o r Not A dm inistrators Should
Organize," Kalamazoo Interm ediate School D i s t r i c t , Kalamazoo,
Michigan (Mimeographed sheet, February 9 , 1 9 7 7 ), p. 1.
^Perry Keith Gregg, "A Case Study o f the Public School C ol­
le c tiv e N egotiations Process Designed fo r the Use o f Adm1n1strators1n-Tra1n1ng," (Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e r ta tio n , Michigan S tate
U n iv e rs ity , 1969), p. 6.
®Wal t e r W. S c o tt, "A Study o f Preparation Programs 1n School
A dm inistration as A ffected by C o lle c tiv e N e g o tia tio n s ," (Unpublished
Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity , 1966), p. 17.
g
H a ll, "Why A dm inistrators Are Turning to C o lle c tiv e
Bargaining," p. 3.
10Ib 1 d ., 4.

16

CHAPTER I I

SELECTED REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
Five general areas of the lite ra tu re were related to the
present study.

The f i r s t d ealt with the h is to ric a l background of

collective bargaining, as i t originated in the private sector and
la te r developed among public employees.

The f i r s t area was reviewed

In order to establish the foundation fo r the development and analysis
of adm inistrative bargaining units and unionization as they occurred
In Michigan public schools.
The second area concerned the legal a c tiv itie s which affected
adm inistrative unionization 1n public education, prim arily 1n the
state o f Michigan.

I t also attempted to c la r ify areas of concern

which were related to adm inistrative bargaining but were often mis­
understood or misinterpreted by adm inistrators, th e ir school boards,
and the public 1n general.
The th ird area of lit e r a r y review was related to the changing
perceptions of public school administrators toward unionization and
the formation of th e ir own unions or bargaining units.

The th ird

section was aimed a t determining how adm inistrative bargaining u n its ,
both th e o re tic a lly and In p ractice, may have Influenced the actions
of building level principals and superintendents.

17

18

The fo u rth area Involved a search o f the lit e r a t u r e to d e te r­
mine the impact o f a d ta ln ls tra tiv e unions on p rin c ip a l/s u p e rin te n d e n t
re la tio n s h ip s .
The f i f t h and f in a l area covered in the present chapter was a
lim ite d review o f c u rren t a lte rn a tiv e s to a d m in is tra tiv e bargaining
u n its .

The f i f t h

section o f the review was aimed a t determining the

p o te n tia l in flu en ce o f un io n izatio n w hile Id e n tify in g some a lte rn a ­
tiv e s to bargaining u n its .

The management team concept, as the most

widely p racticed a lte r n a tiv e , was examined 1n g re ates t depth.
Chapter I I was concluded w ith a short summation.
H is to ric a l Background o f
C o lle c tiv e Bargaining
In the P riv a te Sector
The American labor movement had g re a tly Influenced the th in k ­
ing and a ttitu d e s o f public school adm in istrato rs toward u n io n izatio n
and c o lle c tiv e bargaining.

Much o f what occurred 1n the p ublic

sector during the s ix tie s and seventies had It s roots 1n the c o lo rfu l
and sometimes p ain fu l h is to ry o f the American lab o r movement o f the
p riv a te sec to r.

This acknowledgment was e ss en tia l since the more

recent fed eral and s ta te p ublic employment acts were estab lish ed only
a fte r a century and a h a lf o f bargaining between employers and
employees 1n p riv a te industry.
C o lle c tiv e bargaining and unionism, which are u su ally Insep­
a ra b le , evolved through a t le a s t fo u r d is tin c t phases and established
the s ta rtin g point from which public sector bargaining was g en e ra lly
acknowledged to have begun 1n 1962.

The fo u r periods o f the American

19

labor movement had corresponding public attitud es toward unions which
were generally recognized as:
1806-1842

Repression

1842-1935

Limited Toleration

1935-1947

Encouragement

1947-present

Control and R estraint1

Each of the four periods, excluding the most recent, began and/or
ended with a sig n ifica n t le g is la tiv e act o f the United States Congress
or a landmark decision of the courts In the area of private sector
unionization.

The corresponding acts or court decisions were:

1806 - The Conspiracy T ria ls
1842 - Hunt vs. Commonwealth
1935 - Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act)
1947 - T aft-H a rtley Act (Labor Management Relations Act)
The American labor movement 1s generally acknowledged to have
begun 1n the aftermath of the American Revolution with the rapid
growth of Industry 1n certain major c itie s .
Although guilds of craftsmen can be traced back to a much e a r lie r
period, trade unions 1n the United States did not begin to
develop u n til the end of the eighteenth century. Philadelphia
shoemakers organized 1n 1792; Boston carpenters 1n 1793; New
York printers 1n 1794.
The formation o f these f i r s t combinations (unions) did not occur
without public resistance, and by the beginning of the nineteenth
century, the existence and development of the early American labor
unions were threatened by an "111-defined" doctrine o f criminal
conspiracy.

Loosely defined, the conspiracy doctrine "made unlawful,

concerted action by workers In making demands upon merchant or

20

m anufacturer."

3

The conspiracy d o ctrin e was e f f e c t iv e ly used by

employers 1n the e a rly nineteenth century to prevent and fr u s tr a te
laborers 1n t h e ir attempts to organize.
Labor's e a rly attempts to organize to Improve working condi­
tions were blunted by ju d ic ia l reactio n which was h ighly unfavorable
to the la b o re r.

The most celebrated case was Commonwealth vs.

P u lH s , which 1n 1806 found the P h ilad elp h ia cordwalners (shoemakers)
g u ilty under the crim in al conspiracy d o ctrin e o f p ric e f ix in g and
other crim inal a c t iv it y .

In summary, these craftsmen were found

g u ilty o f organizing to b e n e fit those shoemakers who were members o f
the Cordwalners Society and thereby doing in ju ry to those In d iv id u al
craftsmen who did not belong to th is S o c ie ty .4
In 1894 Justice Harlam's m a jo rity opinion stated th a t acts
which are p riv ile g e d ( le g a l) 1 f done by In d iv id u a ls may be actio n ab le
( I l l e g a l ) 1 f done in combination.
An In te n t upon the p a rt o f a sin g le person to In ju re the rig h ts
o f others o r of the public 1s not In I t s e l f a wrong o f which
the law w ill take cognizance, unless some in ju rio u s a c t be done
1n execution o f the unlawful In te n t. But a combination o f two
o r more persons with such an In te n t, and under circumstances
th a t give them, when so combined, a power to do an In ju r y they
would not possess as In d iv id u a ls actin g s in g ly , has always been
recognized as 1n I t s e l f wrongful and i l l e g a l . 5
The "conspiracy" ra tio n a le p re va ile d throughout the nine­
teenth century, but beginning as e a rly as 1842 a number o f court
ru lin g s were rendered which brought about the d eclin e o f the crim inal
conspiracy d o c trin e .

C hief Justice Shaw, a c le a r ly outstanding

judge 1n e a rly American h is to ry , decided 1n the now famous Common­
wealth vs. Hunt case th a t unions In and o f themselves were not

21

I l l e g a l , but th a t I l l e g a l i t y would depend upon the means employed by
the union members.
The le g a lit y o f such an asso ciatio n w ill th e re fo re depend upon
the means to be used fo r It s accomplishment. I f 1 t Is to be
c a rrie d In to e ff e c t by f a i r or honorable and law ful means, 1 t
Is , to say the le a s t, Innocent; 1 f by falsehood or fo rc e , 1t
may be stamped w ith the character o f conspiracy.
The s h if t 1n leg al th in k in g from decisions regarding the very
r ig h t o f labor unions to e x is t , to ru lin g s concerning what law ful
means may be used by labor organizations 1n the economic stru g g le over
the p ric e o f labor and working con d itio n s, was considered to be the
f i r s t sign o f p u b lic toleran ce o f u n io n iz a tio n .

7

A 1909 ru lin g 1n

*

the National F1reproof1ng Company vs. Mason B u ild e r's Association
case held "laborers and b u ild ers may combine fo r mutual advantage,
and, so long as the motive Is not m alicio u s, the o b je c t not u n law fu l,
nor opresslve and the means n e ith e r d e c e itfu l nor fra u d u le n t, the
re s u lt 1s not a conspiracy, although 1t may n ecessarily work In ju ry
O

to o ther persons."
During the period Immediately fo llo w in g the C1v1l War,
public a ttitu d e s toward unions became more permissive as America
ra p id ly In d u s tr ia liz e d .

The passage o f the Clayton Act 1n 1914

re fle c te d the Increased p o lit ic a l In flu en ce o f organized la b o r as
well as the widespread acknowledgment o f the misuse o f the crim in al
conspiracy d o ctrin e 1n labor cases.

The Clayton Act declared "th a t

the labor o f a human being Is not a commodity or a r t i c l e o f commerce,
th a t the a n titr u s t laws were not to be construed to fo rb id the
q
existence and operation o f lab o r o rg a n iz a tio n ."

22

Within the next twenty-one years the Roosevelt administration
attempted to develop a national labor policy favorable to trade
unionism.

As a re s u lt, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA),

known also as the Wagner Act, was enacted during 1935.

The NLRA

declared i t to be "the policy of the United States" to encourage the
practice of c o lle c tiv e bargaining and permitted the worker to s e lforganlze.

The Wagner Act provided a ffirm a tiv e legal protection

against employers' attempts to fru s tra te the unionization of employees
for the purpose of c o lle c tiv e bargaining.

The employee's rig h t to

self-organlze was secured and c o lle c tiv e bargaining was made
compulsory.
In re la tiv e ly simple. I f e la s tic provisions the act in general
barred employer discrim ination on account o f, or interference
w ith, organizational a c tiv itie s and other concerted a c tiv itie s
by employees. I t also imposed on employers an enforceable duty
to bargain with unions chosen by a m ajority of employees In an
appropriate u n it, and 1t provided fo r machinery to determine
such units and to ascertain employee preferences.'®
The most s ig n ific a n t portion of the NLRA was embodied In Section 7
as:
Employees shall have the rig h t to form, jo in , or assist labor
organizations, to bargain c o lle c tiv e ly through representatives
of th e ir own choosing, and to engage 1n concerted a c tiv itie s
fo r the purpose.of c o lle c tiv e bargaining or other mutual aid
or p ro tectio n .11
A dditionally, the Wagner Act proscribed fiv e kinds of Ille g a l
employer conduct as u n fair labor practices.

With v ir tu a lly a ll

restraints by employers prohibited, unions and th e ir memberships
flourished.

The period of history Immediately following the passage

of the NLRA was one of much union a c tiv ity and frequent violence, as
the balance of power shifted from the employer to the employee.

23

I t Is necessary to note that although the United States
government endorsed private Industry unionization 1n 1935, such was
not the case fo r public sector employees.

In Its d e fin itio n of the

term "employee," the Wagner Act expressly excluded "the United
States, wholly owned government corporations, states and municipal
corporations."

12

Therefore, public employees had no organizational

rights under the 1935 Act.
During la te 1945 and early 1946, while the U. S. was s h iftin g
from a wartime econonjy to a peacetime econorny* numerous strikes
occurred In many v ita l Industries.

Congressional reaction, r e fle c t­

ing the fear that union power would cause serious post-war In fla tio n ,
took the form of the Labor Management Relations Act ( LMRA) .

Known

more commonly as the T a ft-H a rtley Act, the LMRA amended the NLRA,
protecting Individuals from unions and balancing management's un fair
labor practices with a set of union unfair labor practices.
By 1947 the public a ttitu d e and that of Congress toward unions
had changed considerably. There had developed a widespread
concern that the balance of power had swung too fa r 1n the
unions' favor. As a re su lt of this public concern, Congress
passed the T a ft-H a rtle y Act 1n June, 1947, which along with
other provisions lim itin g union Influence, guaranteed
employees the rig h t to re fra in from union p a rtic ip a tio n .
The T a ft-H a rtle y Act was designed to protect the Individual
employee and union member from certain union practices and
to s h ift the balance of power between union and employee to
a more equitable division of power.
Public opinion as reflected 1n federal acts and court
decisions concerning unionization had not traveled f u ll c ir c le since
the conspiracy t r ia ls of the early eighteen hundreds, but by 1974
had reached a position of control and re s tra in t of unionism 1n the.
private sector.

24

The "control and re s tra in t" position was reinforced 1n 1959
by the passage o f the Landrum-Gr1ff1n Act which amounted to govern­
ment Intervention 1n the Internal a ffa ir s of private labor organiza­
tions.

The Landrum-Grlffln Act re flec te d the growing concern by

union members and the general public that union o ff ic ia ls were often
g u ilty of criminal mismanagement of union organizations and th e ir
funds.
In the Public Sector
While public or governmental employee unionism could be
traced to the 1830's , unionization 1n this sector was more commonly
recognized as having developed in the early 196 0's .14

Two executive

orders Issued by Presidents Kennedy and Nixon, o f f ic ia lly guaranteed
the rig h t o f federal employees to jo in employee organizations fo r
the purpose of negotiating c o lle c tiv e agreements with federal
agencies.

While I t could be shown th a t public sector unionism had

already gained a foothold 1n selected locations and professions,15
Kennedy's Executive Order 10988 o f 1962 was generally acknowledged
as the beginning o f public employee unionism.

Updating and expansion

of 10988 occurred under President Nixon, when he Issued Executive
Order 11491 in 1969.

Executive Order 11491 required exclusive repre­

sentation and established the rig h t to negotiate c o lle c tiv e bargain­
ing agreements with agency management, thereby removing the stigma
of "co llective begging" by public employees.

16

The two executive orders le g a lly affected only federal
governmental employees, but before long most state and local

25

governments were following the example set by the federal government
by enacting c o llec tiv e bargaining laws to regulate negotiation pro­
cedures fo r th e ir public employees.

In Michigan the Public Employment

Relations Act (PERA) of 1965 amended the Hutchinson Act o f 1947 which
had prohibited public employees' u n io n s.^

The former, known as the

" L ittle Wagner Act" or as PA 379, permitted c o lle c tiv e bargaining 1n
the public sector with exclusive representation fo r wages, hours,
and conditions of employment.
I t 1s Important to note here that federal le g is la tio n
developed to govern the private sector served as a model fo r state
leg islatio n concerning public sector negotiations.

According to

Johnson, the modeling of federal le g is la tio n by most state govern­
ments fo r c o lle c tiv e negotiation 1n public employment was represented
In features such as:
1.

The rig h t of employees to negotiate c o lle c tiv e ly with
th e ir employers.

2.

The employer's legal obligation to negotiate with the
employees' representatives.

3.

The establishment of unit determination fo r categories
o f employees.

4.

The determination o f the scope of bargaining.

5.

Establishment of an agency to administer the
le g is la tio n .'8

At this w ritin g there 1s great Inconsistency 1n state level statutes
allowing yet often lim itin g c o lle c tiv e bargaining by public
employees.

By 1971, th 1rty-f1ve states had some labor relations

leg islatio n or procedures fo r dealing with th e ir public employees.
As of 1976 every state except Mississippi allowed certain public

19

26

employees to organize.

S ta tu to ry coverage and conditions ranged from

bare minimum In some states to near d u p lic a tio n o f the p riv a te sector
models 1n others.

20

In 1977, Michigan ordinances covered a l l public employees
under MCLA Sec. 423.201 e t seq. (1947) and p o lic e and f i r e fig h te rs
under the a u th o rity o f MCLA Sec. 231 e t seq. (1 9 6 9 ).21

While the

Michigan laws re fle c te d a lib e r a l lab o r a t t it u d e , as could be
expected 1n a h e a v ily in d u s tria liz e d s ta te , Michigan laws were some­
what a ty p ic a l when compared to the laws o f other s ta te s .
The nature o f these laws 1s as diverse as the states themselves.
Some s ta te s have placed complete p ro h ib itio n s upon c o lle c tiv e
bargaining . . . o th e r(s ) have enacted comprehensive s ta tu te s
which a ffo rd public employees rig h ts s im ila r to those guarateeed
to the p r iv a te sector by the National Labor R elations Act.
Between these extremes are the states which have chosen to enact
lesser forms o f b argaining, such as meet and confer le g is la t io n ,
or which have.chosen to enact separate laws fo r d lffe re n g groups
o f employees.
A lim ite d review o f c u rren t Michigan reg u latio n s was done, but 1t
must be noted th a t laws and court decisions may be enacted monthly,
and th e re fo re e x is tin g laws are subject to change by fed e ral and s ta te
c o n s titu tio n a l p ro visio n s, court d ecisions, as w ell as a d m in is tra tiv e
regulations and decisions.

23

In order to adm inister Public Act 379, the Michigan le g is ­
la tu re empowered the Michigan Employment R elations Commission (MERC),
known form erly as the Michigan Labor R elations Board (MLRB), to
adm inister s ta tu te s , determine bargaining u n its , conduct e lec tio n s
fo r c e r t if ic a t io n , provide mediation and fa c t-fin d in g fo r Impasses,
and hear u n fa ir labor p ra c tic e s .

School a d m in is tra to rs , who were

employees o f a p o lit ic a l subdivision o f the s ta te , were 1n theory

27

granted the same rights to c o lle c tiv e ly bargain as other public
employees under the provisions of PA 379.

In p ractice, the bargain­

ing rights fo r school administrators were not immediately acknowledged
or accepted by boards o f education.

In 1969, four years a fte r the

passage o f PA 379, a Michigan Court of Appeals decision was rendered
1n favor o f adm inistrative bargaining units.

Unionization among

school administrators was therefore re la tiv e ly new even to public
sector unionism, yet its beginnings were traceable to the very orig in
of the American labor movement.
In summary, the present section presented a history o f sig­
n ific a n t le g is la tio n affectin g unionization 1n f i r s t , the private
sector and more recen tly, the public sector.

Current statutes permit

and even encourage unionization by administrators who u n til recently
had considered themselves, and more s ig n ific a n tly been viewed by the
general public, as a division o f management.
That principals are generally thought of as part o f the
administration was demonstrated by the “Seventh Annual Gallup Poll of
Public Attitudes Toward Education," which was conducted 1n mld-1975.
The results concerning the question, “Should principals be considered
a part o f management?11 found eight o f every ten persons 1n the sample
OA
agreeing th a t principals should be considered a part o f management.
Why, then, have a s ig n ific a n t number of adm inistrators, par­
tic u la rly a t the building le v e l, decided to exercise th e ir rights as
laborers to bargain?

Moreover, what legal actions were necessary to

ensure that m iddle-level administrators would be recognized as an
o ffic ia l bargaining unit?

28

Legal A c tiv itie s Leading to A d m in is tra tive
U nionization 1 n P u d H c Education
The r ig h t and p r iv ile g e o f Michigan p ublic employees to
organize was established w ith the passage o f Public Act 379 1n 1965.
This Act amended the Hutchinson Act o f 1947 which had established the
g u id e lin e s , s ta tu te s , and machinery f o r c o lle c tiv e bargaining 1n the
p riv a te sector and public u t i l i t i e s .

PA 379 extended to a l l public

employees the r ig h t to organize fo r the purpose o f c o lle c tiv e nego­
t ia tio n s .

With passage, a mandate was given to public employers to

recognize employee bargaining groups and to e n te r In to c o lle c tiv e
25
negotiations a t the request o f a recognized u n it.
Though not
Immediately recognized, PA 379 Included the p o te n tia l f o r m lddleschool adm in istrato rs to org an ize.
PERA f o r the public sector was very s im ila r to the Labor
Relations and M ediation Act fo r the p riv a te secto r w ith one notable
d iffe re n c e .

PERA s p e c ific a lly perm itted coverage o f In d iv id u a ls

employed as supervisors.

The r ig h t o f supervisors to unionize was

established when the Michigan Labor Mediation Board (MLMB) concluded
th a t as a m atter o f s ta tu to ry construction and not o f p ublic p o lic y ,
supervisory personnel had the r ig h t to c o lle c t iv e ly bargain under
PERA (H ills d a le Community School: 1968 Labor Opinions 8 5 9 ).

In It s

decisio n, the Labor Mediation Board sanctioned the H ills d a le
P rin cip a ls and Supervisors Association U n it on the grounds th a t there
existed a s u f f ic ie n t community o f In te re s t between the s t a f f
s p e c ia lis ts and the p rin c ip a ls to form a bargaining u n it.

In the

1969 Labor Opinion (1 8 7 ), the MLMB decided th a t a d is tin c tio n existed
between supervisory and executive personnel and th a t the primary

29

purpose o f PERA would be defeated I f "executive" employees (those
employees who form ulate, determine, and e ffe c t management po licy)
were accorded c o lle c tiv e bargaining rig h ts .

Two .1970 cases which

went before the Michigan Court o f Appeals a t the requests o f boards
of education attempted to p ro h ib it supervisory personnel from c o l­
le c tiv e ly bargaining, but the Court upheld the Board's e a r lie r
decision.26
With the legal precedents established, adm inistrators were
free to form bargaining units w ithin th e ir Individual school d is ­
t r ic t s .

P o licies and regulations which governed public employees and

th e ir formal organizations were then applicable to those groups o f
public school adm inistrators who wished to organize formal bargaining
units.

The adm inistrative bargaining units which were formed repre­

sented p rim a rily "m iddle-level" adm inistrators o r, as they were
commonly referred to 1n the lit e r a t u r e , "middle management."
"Middle management" was a somewhat misleading label since I t
Implied top or executive level managers as well as low or bottom level
managers.
tra tio n .

Such was not the case 1n the hierarchy o f school adminis­
While there were executive level adm inistrators, such as

superintendents and th e ir cabinets, who were excluded from bargaining
units by law or In te rp re ta tio n , a l l other adm inistrators below the
rank o f assistant superintendent were commonly labeled m iddle-level
or second-11ne managers.

The corresponding counterpart In the

private sector would have been In d u s tria l foremen and supervisors.
The d is tin c tio n 1n education between top and middle management with
an absence of any lower management was s t i l l subject to examination

30

by the Michigan cou rts.

Laws, as has been noted, are subject to

review and change.
I t should be noted, however, th a t the d is tin c tio n between
"executive" and "supervisory" personnel estab lish ed in the
C ity o f D e tro it Decision has not as y e t been expressly
considered by the Courts. In a d d itio n , notwithstanding the
apparent s im p lic ity o f the legal ru le ("Supervisory" personnel
have rig h ts under PERA; executive personnel do n o t), It s
a p p lic a tio n w ill not be w ithout d i f f i c u l t y . As the Court 1n
H ills d a le s ta te d , " . . . the remedy lie s w ith in the le g is ­
la tu r e ." The le g is la tu re by the enactment o f PERA purportedly
has determined what the p o lic y o f Michigan 1s regarding c o l­
le c tiv e bargaining by p ublic employees. There a re , however,
m eritorious constructions o f PERA on both sides w ith respect
to the rig h ts o f "supervisory" and "executive" personnel. The
burden pro p erly rests w ith the le g is la tu r e to c le a c ly set
fo r th the "public p o licy" regarding th is c o n f lic t .
The above was tru e 1n September, 1971 and was s t i l l accurate a t th is
w ritin g .
In Michigan, two types o f middle management bargaining u n its
were possible.

One was the c e r t if ie d bargaining u n it which came

under the ju r is d ic tio n o f MERC and the reg u latio n s o f PERA.

Such

bargaining u n its could be a f f i l i a t e d w ith a n atio n al labor organiza­
tio n .

The second and more common bargaining u n it was one which was

v o lu n ta rily recognized by the In d iv id u a l school board.

The Inde­

pendent u n its u su ally follow ed many o f the g u id elin es o f c e r t if ie d
unions.

Both c e r t if ie d and v o lu n ta r ily recognized bargaining u n its

were guaranteed complete p ro tectio n under s ta te and fe d e ra l laws.
The normal, but by no means e s ta b lis h e d , procedure f o r a
group o f adm in istrato rs seeking rep resen tatio n s ta tu s , was to p e t i­
tio n t h e ir school board fo r v o lu n ta r ily recognized bargaining statu s.
I f voluntary recognition was denied, the a d m in istrato rs then had the
option o f requesting a MERC supervised c e r t if ic a t io n e le c tio n .

If

31

vo lu n tarily recognized, there was no need fo r a c e rtific a tio n elec­
tion unless a change of a ttitu d e by e ith e r party warranted an elec­
tion.

Withdrawal of voluntary bargaining status and d e -c e rtific a tio n

were both possible and had occurred among Michigan adm inistrators.
The number o f such actions was not great.

To date, the trend has

been fo r voluntary status with maintenance of the arrangement with
each successive adm inistrative contract.
During the la te s ix tie s , the formation o f adm inistrative
unions was not openly advocated by many, but a more recent review of
lite ra tu re found many natio n ally prominent educators warning that
adm inistrative bargaining units were not only le g a lly possible but
28

rapidly becoming r e a lity In school d is tric ts both large and small.

*

Unions, once forbidden In public employment, are now found
in many public school systems. School d is tr ic ts in hundreds
o f locations . . . now recognize associations o f school
middle managers. U nlikely as 1t sounds, school p rin c ip als,
vice p rin cip als, central o ffic e supervisors, and other mid­
rank administrators bargain c o lle c tiv e ly with th e ir boards
o f education fo r s a la rie s , b en e fits , and employment and
work conditions. . . . I t appears that some school adminis­
trato rs have realized that without the protection o f u n ity ,
a contract, and due process procedures, they are too vulner­
able to the edicts of top management and the w ill o f
"community" groups now organized to share In the h irin g ,
f ir in g , and evaluation o f school lead ers.31
At the present w ritin g approximately 70 bargaining units exist
In Michigan, while nat1on-w1de there are over 1,275 adm inistrative
32
unions.
In Michigan the breakdown o f adm inistrative bargaining
units by the number of building principals employed in a school
d is tr ic t was:

(1) zero to e ig h t, 30; (2) nine to fourteen, 20; and

(3) more than f ift e e n , 19.

I t was noteworthy that of the sixteen

largest school d is tric ts in Michigan, including the D etro it Public

20 30

•

32

Schools, eig ht recognized adm inistrative bargaining units and eight
did n o t.33
Changing A ttitudes o f Public School
Administrators Toward Unionism
In 1976 an Educators Negotiation Service (ENS) a r t ic le
Indicated th a t the a ttitu d e s o f adm inistrators toward th e ir own
organizations had 1n many Instances made a one hundred percent aboutface.

M iddle-level adm inistrators, the ENS study reported, wanted

to negotiate to protect th e ir In te re s ts .

Administrators were seeking

employment contracts with grievance procedures, salary schedules,
group health Insurance, and leave p o licies c le a rly spelled o u t.34
By the mid-seventies the apparent Incongruities o f a labor
organization fo r management personnel w ithin the public schools was
no longer a subject o f common agreement by school adm inistrators.
With Increasing frequency the topic was openly debated In numerous
workshops* a r tic le s , and conferences across the country.

That other­

wise "loyal" adn ln istrato rs were then permitted to consider unioniza­
tion was an Issue th a t received considerable review by boards of
education, th e ir superintendents, and professional educators in
general.

There was by no means a consensus among the w rite rs sur­

veyed as to the future o f adm inistrative unionization, other than an
Indication that adm inistrative labor re la tio n s In the seventies and
eighties would, lik e those o f other public employee groups, develop
on a t le a s t two le v e ls .

F ir s t, new le g is la tio n and sophisticated

procedures would be developed to protect the rig h t o f administrators
to represent th e ir In te re s ts .

Second, experimentation and

33

Implementation of a lte rn a tiv e s to adm inistrative labor organizations
would continue to be Introduced and promoted by superintendents and
boards of education.
The changes 1n a ttitu d e could generally be a ttrib u te d to at
least four s ig n ific a n t developments which, since the Issuance of
Executive Order 10988, had created and stimulated adm inistrative
In terest In the formation of bargaining units.
The f i r s t development occurred during the early s ix tie s when
both the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National
Education Association (NEA) underwent fundamental changes In th e ir
public attitud es toward c o lle c tiv e negotiations.

The period was one

of great a c tiv ity fo r both organizations; struggle and development
were the ru le , as the f i r s t generation of c o lle c tiv e ly bargained
contracts fo r teachers were determined.

P rio r to the f i r s t period

only a few Isolated groups of teachers had been able to negotiate
written agreements between boards of education and teacher organiza­
tions.

Norwalk, Connecticut and Philadelphia teachers were apparently

among the f i r s t to have w ritten master agreements.

36

Llberman and

Moskow, c itin g the 1960 New York Teacher S trik e , noted 1960 as the
beginning of c o lle c tiv e bargaining by teachers.

37

P rio r to the

New York Teacher S trik e , neither of the two national teacher organiza­
tions openly advocated c o lle c tiv e bargaining by local teacher
associations.

Kennedy's Order 10988 changed this a ttitu d e

d ra s tic a lly .
In 1965 with a struggle fo r membership taking place between
the AFT and NEA, the Federation announced It s position regarding
co llective bargaining.

34

We would place no lim it on the scope of negotiations . . . the
Items which are subject to the bargaining process. Anything on
which the two parties can agree should become a part o f the
agreement; anything on which they cannot agree w ill o f course
not appear. In fa c t anything having to do with the operation
of the school 1s a matter fo r profess1onal»concern and should
thus be subject to c o lle c tiv e bargaining.
The NEA, p rio r to 1966, had taken a much less vocal position
on teacher negotiations, stating that i t was unprofessional fo r
teachers to bargain fo r th e ir s ala rie s .

The NEA position was

reversed completely in 1968 with the following statement;
Negotiation agreements . . . "must" be established between
teachers and school boards. These agreements "shall provide"
fo r grievance procedures that include binding a rb itra tio n .
With the Issuance of the new positions concerning teacher
negotiation, both national teacher organizations were 1nvned1ately
Involved in a number of teacher s trik e s .

In his research, Munger

made the apparently true statement that as o f 1969 the passage of
public employee le g is la tio n was a stimulus to teacher m ilitancy
rather than a response to previous c o n flic t.

He fu rth e r Indicated

that as negotiation procedures matured between teachers and boards
of education, the number o f c o n flic ts decreased.^®

The actions of

both the NEA and AFT a t the national level were reflected 1n the
actions of Michigan teachers statewide.
The second s ig n ific a n t development, causing an a ttltu d ln a l
change 1n Michigan adm inistrators, occurred during the la te s ix tie s
with the dlsassoclatlon of both elementary and secondary principals
from the Michigan Education Association (MEA), an a f f i l i a t e o f the
NEA.

The AFT had never encouraged p rin cip als' memberships a t the

local level and had s p e c ific a lly prohibited membership of

35

superintendents by national con stitu tio n .

During the la te s ix tie s ,

the MEA trie d to maintain an a ll-in c lu s iv e organization in which
teachers and administrators could hold membership In a bargaining
unit even though only the teachers were involved in n eg o tiatio n s .^
A number o f policy statements were developed to ensure representation
for adnlnlstrators 1n teachers' organizations, but i t became apparent
that principals were being torn between lo y a ltie s to the administra­
tion and to the teachers.

Moskow described the "In between" position

In 1967 when he predicted, "as c o lle c tiv e negotiations become more
widespread, administrators w ill be pushed out o f any decision-making
position 1n the teacher organization unless they are completely
42
dedicated to the welfare of the teachers."
Kershen Issued a strong warning to New York State administra­
tors th a t l e f t l i t t l e doubt as to his b e lie f in where adm inistrative
allegiance must H e .
Principals are caught In a practical and Ideological dllenma
In feelin g a professional allegiance to th e ir s ta ff while
having to manage them, and while at the same time being
dependent upon the superintendent and board fo r authority
and rewards. But even believing 1t can be both fish and fowl;
to Ignore the obvious 1s to face oblivion! I f what 1s l e f t
o f your role 1s the position o f contract adm inistrator and
d is c ip lin a ria n , then a teacher-shop steward and a policeman
could do 1t as w e ll. Unless you--the principals and assistant
principals and supervisors—decide once and fo r a ll th a t you
are part o f management and become viable members of the
management team, you w ill perish—and deservedly soi
Michigan administrators made the decision of allegiance
between 1966 and 1968 when they f i r s t d is a ffilia te d themselves from
the Michigan Education Association and then reorganized a number of
statewide Independent adm inistrative associations.

The two largest

36

were the Michigan Association o f Elementary P rin c ip a ls (MAESP) and
the Michigan Association o f Secondary School P rin c ip a ls (MASSP).
While 1 t was debatable as to whether teachers 1n the MEA
forced the adm in istrato rs from th a t o rg an iza tio n o r ad m in istrato rs
found t h e ir in clu sion in the MEA untenable, the s ig n ific a n t occurrence
'was m id d le -le v e l a d m in is tra to rs 1 withdrawal from the MEA and adoption
of a new p o sitio n concerning c o lle c tiv e b argaining.

The adminis­

tr a to r s ' p o sitio n was b a s ic a lly one o f n e u t r a lit y between la b o r and
management.
The success o f teacher n eg o tiatio n s during the la t e s ix tie s
and e a rly seventies represented the th ir d s ig n ific a n t development
which was a ttrib u te d to changing a d m in is tra to rs ' a ttitu d e s toward
bargaining f o r master co n tra cts.

Local teacher associations with

assistance from both the NEA and AFT wasted l i t t l e

time 1n becoming

adept a t the n eg o tiatio n procedure fo r determ ining master agreements.
Ind ividu al school boards, on the other hand, were o fte n unprepared
to handle c o lle c tiv e bargaining w ith any degree o f s o p h is tic a tio n .
As e a rly as 1960, S e itz warned th a t w h ile teachers were organizing
fo r c o lle c tiv e b argain in g , boards o f education were refu sin g to
44
consider the m erits o f bargaining w ith teachers.
O fte n , during
the m1d-s1xties the In d iv id u a ls designated as n eg o tiato rs f o r the
school boards were u n s k ille d 1n the dynamics o f the c o lle c tiv e
45
bargaining process.
Unlike those lab o r re la tio n s men h ire d by p riv a te e n te rp ris e
to do t h e ir c o lle c tiv e b arg ain in g , the hapless members o f a
school board are by no means fre e to s i t a t the bargaining
ta b le a l l hours o f the day and n ig h t— n e ith e r can a board
use p ublic funds to match those a v a ila b le to p riv a te

37

corporations o r, fo r th a t m atter, to the teachers themselves,
fo r p u b lic ity and demonstration purposes. And worst of a l l ,
ra re ly has experience equipped a board's members fo r the
subtleties and "gamesmanship" o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining— i t
1s a f ie ld , says Dr. Wesley Weldman o f the University o |6
Chicago, in which "the curse o f amateurism is rampant."
Teachers' success a t the bargaining table was not necessarily
reflected simply in matters of wage Increases, but more often 1n the
area o f school policy determination, such as class sizes, teaching
loads, and teacher transfers.

P rin cip als, who were often d elib era tely

neutral a t the time, became alarmed since these decisions represented
a clear erosion of th e ir re s p o n s ib ilitie s as educational leaders and
school managers.

That adm inistrators' prerogatives were not being

usurped 1s somewhat hard to defend when considering master teacher
agreement clauses such as the following:
The Association reserves the rig h t to select up to f i f t y
percent of the teachers to serve on any committee, agency,
commission or other such body* At the building level the
Association's f i f t y percent w ill be selected by the building
representative.
Principals who spoke out against the " t e r r it o r ia l Invasion" by
teachers were frequently told by both teacher union representatives
and school board members a lik e that m iddle-level administrators had
lost no real power, per se, other than the power to be a rb itra ry .
I t was th is , the encroachment by teachers Into areas which
had been tra d itio n a lly w ithin the realm of adm inistrative preroga­
tiv e s , which constituted the fourth development encouraging
a(fan1n1strators' a ttitu d e s favorable to adm inistrative bargaining
units.

The change 1n a ttitu d e was supported by a number of w riters

who warned that unless middle-level administrators were Involved

38

a c tiv e ly 1n teacher n eg o tiatio n s on management's side o f the ta b le ,
th e ir very jobs w ith in the school house would be threatened.
B uilding le v e l ad m in istrato rs who had b r ie f ly enjoyed
n e u tr a lity between the school board and teachers' union could no
longer a ffo rd to m aintain a n eu tral p o sitio n regarding teacher
n eg o tiatio n s.
Provisions o f recent bargaining agreements between boards o f
education and teach ers' organizations In d ic a te th a t Increased
decision-making powers are being granted to teachers. One o f
the consequences o f th is realignm ent has been a decrease o f
power f o r middle a d m in is tra to rs .
The almost c e rta in realignm ent o f a d m in is tra tiv e a u th o rity due to
teacher n e g o tia tio n was r e fle c te d 1n the w ritin g o f many educators.
. . . f o r the sake o f educational exc ellen c e, the p rin c ip a l
must jump in to the c o lle c tiv e bargaining melee. But perhaps
o f more Importance to h im s e lf, 1 f he does n o t, I f he In s is ts
on n e u t r a lit y , he may fin d his job w h ittle d away as the
teachers asso ciatio n on one hand and the school committee on
the other take pieces o f his re s p o n s ib ility to themselves.
Such a process could 1n time leave the p rin c ip a l the c h ie f
c le rk o f the b u ild in g , responsible fo r non-education ro u tine
and record keeping o n ly.
Kershen, as an outspoken c r i t i c o f a d m in is tra to rs ' n e u tr a lity claim ed.
Whether you r e a liz e i t o r n ot, middle management 1s In danger
o f being phased out o f I t s job as the process o f c o lle c tiv e
bargaining 1n the public sector . . . changes the long-standing
p attern o f ro le s 1n education . . . Now the board and the
teachers make the p o lic ie s and pass them along to the adminis­
tr a to r s . As teacher n eg o tiatio n s progress and become more
s o p h is tic a te d , 1 t becomes c le a r th a t a l l the educational
decisions w ill be made a t the bargaining ta b le . And w ith th a t
there may develop the teacher-shop steward or tea ch e r-law ye r,
whose fun ction In every school wou1dQbe to adm inister the
co n tract th a t 1s to run the school.
Dempsey fu r th e r analyzed the p rin c ip a ls ' dilemma In an a r t i c l e fo r
the National A ssociation o f Secondary School P rin c ip a ls :
The ro le o f school p rin c ip a ls today 1s not only being tested
but i t 1s a c tu a lly being threatened because there are obvious

39

gaps between the ro le the p rin c ip a l a c tu a lly plays and the
ro le th a t he should p la y .
I t 1s being threatened by those
who say th a t the p rin c ip a l is no longer the educational
lead er o f the school and th a t he can be replaced by a business
manager. I t 1s being threatened because, fo r the most p a r t,
the p rin c ip a l has been l e f t out o f the n eg o tiatio n s process.
And 1 t 1s being threatened because p rin c ip a ls themselves have
had to be more concerned about budgets, grievances, and due
process than they have 1n d e fin in g the ro le and re s p o n s ib ility 5,
o f the p rin c ip a l 1n lig h t o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining le g is la t io n .
Arguing f o r a less emotional re a c tio n by p rin c ip a ls 1n the
Journal o f C o lle c tiv e N egotiations 1n the Public S ecto r, one author
presented a number o f reasons which had allowed school boards to
seemingly "fo rg et" t h e ir middle managers w h ile under the pressure o f
n egotiating a master teacher c o n tra c t.

The reasons included the

constant press o f tim e, the newness o f the n e g o tia tin g process, and
the lack o f formal s tru c tu re In which to Involve t h e ir a d m in is tra to rs .
Recognizing th a t the fo u r developments occurred w ith in a
ten-year p erio d , th a t much o f the lit e r a t u r e re fle c te d a " c a ll to
action" o f a d m in is tra to rs , and th a t the leg al precedents fo r adminis­
t r a t iv e bargaining had been e s ta b lis h e d , 1t became apparent th a t
a d m in istra tive a ttitu d e s had undergone a change from a p o s itio n o f
r e la tiv e d is in te r e s t 1n u n io n izatio n to one r e fle c tin g In te r e s t I f
not support fo r a u n io n izatio n movement.
In his 1969 study o f the a ttitu d e s o f Michigan p rin c ip a ls
toward organizing fo r n e g o tia tio n s , Munger found th a t 8 9 .8 percent
of the more than 250 p rin c ip a ls surveyed f e l t th a t p rin c ip a ls should
have the r ig h t to negotiate a master c o n tra c t.

Furthermore, Munger

found th a t 61.2 percent f e l t th a t t h e ir local p rin c ip a ls ' group
should n eg otiate a co n tract w ith t h e ir lo cal board o f education.

At

the time o f his study, Munger stated th a t there were almost no data

52

40

on variables a ffe c tin g the p rin c ip a l's a ttitu d e toward negotiations
and th a t the Information which did e x is t d ea lt only with teacher/
53
board negotiations.
Research conducted by Groty and Smith 1n 1970 a ttrib u te d the
formation o f adm inistrative bargaining units to a t le a s t four
possible reasons.

In summary they were:

(1 ) the behavior of execu­

tiv e management, (2) lack o f prin cip al Involvement 1n decision­
making, (3 ) teacher successes in negotiations, and (4) the p rin c ip a ls '
54
lack o f control of th e ir own professional d estin ies.
In 1971 a research committee o f the Michigan Congress o f
School Administrators Associations also studied m iddle-level adminis­
tra to rs ' changes In a ttitu d e .

In summary, the research committee

designated six problem areas which were p re c ip ita tin g the formation
o f adm inistrative bargaining units throughout the s ta te .

They were

1n descending rank:
1.

Teacher negotiations erode adm inistrative ro le

2.

Problem o f communication with school board

3.

Problem o f d e fin itio n o f

4.

Salary and frin g e benefits

5.

Problem o f conmunlcatlon with superintendent
55
Display o f power to the board o f education

6.

ro le and re s p o n s ib ility

Based on his 1975 research, Randles suggested th a t the move
to unionization was not that d i f f i c u l t fo r p rincipals to make since
they were usually former teachers who held a ttitu d e s which were
p rim arily lab or-o rien ted .

Boards o f education and superintendents,

on the other hand, had a ttitu d e s that tended to be management-

41

oriented.

Consequently, principals had l i t t l e d if f ic u lt y 1n adopting

teacher/labor techniques such as unionization and were somewhat
unenthuslastlc about the superintendent's e ffo rts to develop adminis­
tra tiv e unity as a p a rtia l solution to middle management's Insecur56
It le s .
Randles suggested that superintendents, through under­
u tiliz a tio n o f principals as managers, may have been encouraging the
formation of a d n ln lstrativ e bargaining u n its.

He concluded th a t,

"1f principals see that teachers have made Important fin an c ial and
power gains through bargaining, they may want to avail themselves o f
57
those same p o s s ib ilitie s ."
The same a ttitu d e was Illu s tr a te d , In
a question which was raised more and more frequently by promoters
o f adm inistrative unions, "Do the superintendent and school board do
as good a job fo r the principals as the teachers' union does fo r It s
members?"
The Impact of Adm inistrative Unions
on Middle Management/Superintendent
Relationships
With the legitimacy of adm inistrative bargaining units
established by 1969, middle management's r e la tiv e ly recent pro-labor
attitud es toward c o lle c tiv e bargaining raised numerous questions
regarding the Impact o f a<fcn1n1strat1ve unions on the working re la ­
tionship between superintendents and th e ir building adm inistrators.
Most questions stemmed from the apparent contradictory roles of
p rin cip als, who were seen as management during teacher negotiations
and then as labor during adm inistrative negotiations.

I t was

generally f e l t that principals were e ith e r one or the other.

The

re su lt o f the dual ro le , as suggested by Redfern, was often strained

42

relatio ns between top and m iddle-level management.

Superintendents

and school board members had frequently expressed th e ir displeasure
with th is " e ith e r/o r” arrangement, arguing th a t management should not
bargain against I t s e l f .

An Educators Negotiators Service a r tic le

recorded the sentiments of a school board member who, re fe rrin g to
a p rin c ip a l, said, "He has a legal and moral duty of allegiance to
the Board and to the adm inistration; 1n fa c t, he 1s a part o f
58

management.11

The lite r a tu r e was noticeably vague and Inconclusive 1n the
area o f m iddle-level management lo y a ltie s as conditions varied so
greatly from d is tr ic t to d is t r ic t and state to s ta te .

The general

consensus appeared to view the superintendent as the key Individual
In determining the extent to which the superintendent/principal
relationship would change with adm inistrative bargaining.
Unless superintendents and boards of education make remarkable
changes 1n th e ir relationships with middle management In the
schools . . . we shall see a rapid Increase 1n the number of
adm inistrative bargaining units (or unions, where law permits)
throughout the country.
Executive management had been accused o f excluding middle
management from meaningful p artic ip a tio n 1n teacher contract nego­
tia tio n s , the results o f which had been twofold.

F ir s t, a feelin g

of d is tru s t had developed between the superintendent and his adminis­
tra tiv e s ta ff .

Second, the superintendent or the board's negotiator,

lacking the Input o f the principals during teacher negotiations, had
often bargained away the authority o f the middle managers, causing
a s t i l l greater schism between the adm inistrative s ta ff and the
superintendent.

43

The lite r a tu r e recorded disagreement over the Impact of
teacher bargaining on adm inistrative re latio n sh ip s* but I t was c le a r
that Increasing numbers o f p rin cip als f e l t th a t they had lo s t many o f
th e ir rig h ts while absent from the teachers' bargaining table.®®
Randles disputed the p rin c ip a l's loss o f power, claiming th a t master
teacher contracts gave the p rin cip al more legitim acy In enforcing
contractual provisions than they had form erly enjoyed.®^

Nicholson

and Nasstrom cited research that showed "no Indisputable proof exists
that c o lle c tiv e negotiations have uniformly lessened the leadership
role o f the p rin cip al . . . negotiations per se have not necessarily
reduced a u th o rity , but Instead have required a re d e fin itio n o f the
parameters o f a u th o rity ."

62

Nevertheless, the lite r a tu r e suggested th a t p rin cip als were
often d e lib e ra te ly excluded from f u l l p a rtic ip a tio n 1n management
functions.

Their ro le 1n teacher negotiations was probably the best

example o f exclusion.

Superintendents re a lize d th a t the bargaining

strategies shared with p rincipals during teacher contract talk s were
often used against them when the adm inistrators sat down to negotiate
th e ir own contracts.

Likewise, p rin cip als had been excluded from

teacher negotiations since s k ills learned through p a rtic ip a tio n on
the board's negotiation team during teacher bargaining sessions were
e a s ily transferred to adm inistrator/board negotiations a t a la te r
date.

F in a lly , superintendents and p rin cip als needed only to look a t

the re latio n sh ip changes th a t had occurred between teachers and
principals since c o lle c tiv e bargaining began, to re a liz e th a t changes
1n relation ship s between the superintendent and p rin cip als were
extremely lik e ly to occur with adm inistrative bargaining.

44

The relationship between top and middle management was
fu rth er weakened 1n the opinion of Salmon, the Executive Secretary of
the American Association o f School Administrators (AASA), who stated
that adm inistrative bargaining, as a process s im ila r to a ll c o lle c tiv e
bargaining, is adversary in essence.

I t p its one party against

another 1n power struggles Involving proposals, counter-proposals,
and compromise.

The relationship then Isolates the superintendent

from the principals and requires both parties to function as adversarles a t the bargaining tab le .

63

Principals and other m iddle-level adm inistrators, while
lacking the strength of membership and the treasuries o f larg er
teacher unions, 1n many Instances had been encouraged to adapt the
successful techniques o f these unions In th e ir own struggle to pro­
tec t th e ir jobs while negotiating la rg er s a la rie s , detailed job
descriptions, and b e tte r frin g e benefits.
Cooper pointed out that adm inistrative unions had lim ited
powers to begin w ith; they couldn't s trik e and a walk-out would
hardly close down the schools.

He suggested that principals could

maximize th e ir power during negotiations by courting the more
In flu e n tia l teacher associations and by pu blicly embarrassing the
superintendent and board of education by disagreeing with them on
64
policy issues.
A potential power struggle between top and middle
management caused much concern among superintendents and resulted
In dissension among principals who were forced to take sides within
th e ir school d is tr ic ts .
Dudley argued that the fear o f adm inistrative unionization
may have been more damaging than actual unionization.

45

Less competent management personnel w ill view with alarm the
developing autonoiw and professional leadership o f principals
(ju s t as less competent principals view with alarm the devel­
oping power of teachers), but higher adm inistrators, who are
superior 1n professional leadership, w ill welcome these
developments as inherent In a maturing profession.65
At the present w ritin g the fear that middle-level adminis­
trators would adopt labor tactics resulting in the disruption of
adm inistrative services has proven unfounded.

In 1973, McConnell,

then a doctoral student a t Michigan State U n iversity, studied the
Impact o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining by school administrators on selected
management functions.

In his study McConnell examined four manage­

ment functions in fourteen Michigan school d is tric ts where the boards
of education had form ally recognized adm inistrative bargaining units.
The management functions were:

(1) decision making and Involvement,

(2) accoun tab ility, (3) communications, and (4) structure.

In his

conclusion, McConnell stated:
The data collected fo r this study reveal that there 1s no
s ig n ific a n t difference In the perceptions of elementary
p rin cip als, secondary principals and superintendents concern­
ing the effects of negotiations on the p rin cip als' decision­
making authority and involvement in adm inistrative decision,
his accountability fo r the Instructional program and general
management of his assigned building or his communication to
and from the superintendent. Further, the data support the
theory that there are no s ig n ific a n t differences in the per­
ceptions of the principals and superintendents concerning any
change 1n structure of the adm inistrative organization
resulting from management bargaining.66
Accepting McConnell's research, that there were no s ig n ific a n t per­
ceived changes 1n management functions related to adm inistrative
unions by e ith e r superintendents or building p rin c ip als, the "Report
of the Ethics and Management Relations Committee of the Michigan

46

Association of School Boards," delivered In 1970, took on even
greater Importance.
I t seems that the m ajority of p rin c ip als, or other adminis­
tra to rs , who have chosen to negotiate do so re lu c ta n tly .
They seem to accept with regret the adversary condition.
Some conclude that they have thereby fu rth e r removed them­
selves from the adm inistrative decision making process, a
position some feel they had reached anyway.67
The lite r a tu r e suggested th a t superintendents would be wise to
f i r s t accept the p o s s ib ility of an adm inistrative union within th e ir
d is tric ts and then work to achieve f u ll p a rtic ip a tio n by a ll adminis­
trato rs In the overall management of schools.

The lite ra tu re strongly

recommended that a t the present time, p artic ip a tio n was most lik e ly
to be achieved through a to ta l commitment to the management team con­
cept by school boards, superintendents, and p rin cip als.
A lternatives to Administrative
Unionization
During the la te s ix tie s and early seventies, the lite ra tu re
Indicated that a number of prominent educational w riters f e l t that
there existed viable a lte rn a tiv e s to adm inistrative bargaining units
which could be promoted and supported by both superintendents and
building principals a lik e .

The proposed adm inistrative arrangements

were Intended to maintain harmonious working relationships between
executive and middle management while ensuring adequate representa­
tion and protection o f second-line administrators during teacher
negotiations and adm inistrative contract ta lk s .

More Im portantly,

the proposals represented the means o f "establishing smooth lines of
organization and communication, common agreements and d e fin ite pat­
terns of m utuality among administrators and boards of education as

47

they unite to provide e ffe c tiv e educational programs fo r the convnun1ty.

68

To varying degrees the proposals were accepted and rejected

by administrators 1n school d is tric ts across the country.
The originators and promoters of the "plans of action" had
usually made known th e ir attitu d es toward adm inistrative bargaining
units or unions.
My purpose 1s not to advocate unionism among p rin cip als, but
rather to suggest ways by which boards of educatiopgcan prevent
th is unfortunate turn of events from taking place.6
In other words, p artic ip a tio n In the adm inistrative team would
negate the necessity fo r principals and other middle admin­
is tra to rs to form th e ir own bargaining units to represent
th e ir own special in te re s ts .70
From my experience I am convinced that 1n matters o f labor
relation s a supervlsor-manager or principal cannot be a
good member o f a union and a t the same time carry out his
duties as a management representative and Implement union
contracts of his subordinates.
The proposals usually called fo r some arrangement which would permit
Increased middle-level adm inistrative Involvement 1n the determina­
tion of school policy while attempting to down-play adm inistrative
unionization as necessary fo r building p rin cip als.
Williams, in a 1970 a r tic le on teachers' negotiations, cited
ten disadvantages 1n using a union model fo r bargaining; the dis­
advantages were transferable to adm inistrative organizations.

They

were:
1.

C o nflict o f In te re s t becomes a s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophecy
and 1s exaggerated.

2.

Union strldence; emotion replaces r a tio n a lity .

3.

Residue of hard feelings re s tric ts a move to problem
solving.

48

4.

Unions evolve from public In te re s t to conservative,
narrow, s e lf-in te r e s t.

5.

Written contracts reduce f l e x i b i l i t y .

6.

An outside organization Is brought Into the decision­
making process.

7.

C o n flict 1s In s titu tio n a liz e d .

8.

There 1s hesitancy of school boards to deal with parties
not elected.

9.

Compromise as a decision-making process is not always
ra tio n a l.
72
Negotiations are time consuming.

10.

Most o f the disadvantages formed, to a degree, the ratio n ale from
which other w riters have argued against unionization and fo r some
other form of management arrangement.
Epstein, 1n w ritin g fo r the NASSP, advocated much Increased
action and aggressive leadership w ithin national adm inistrative
organizations which would then ensure proper representation of admin73
Is tra to rs fo r the purposes of job security and salary arrangement.
Randles, addressing the dilemma th a t principals faced as they
debated whether they should form ally organize or not, wrote:
An equally obvious a lte rn a tiv e 1s to avoid bargaining status
fo r p rin cip als, substituting Informal organizational Influence
Instead. A p rin c ip a l's organization can have considerable
Impact on a board o f education . . . simply by v irtu e o f being
well organized, well d iscip lin ed , In te n tio n a lly persuasive,
and persistent. . . . Rather than contributing to an adversary
relatio n sh ip , th is course o f action Is more 1n keeping with
the management team concept.74
Dempsey, of the University of Connecticut, made seven recom­
mendations concerning principals and negotiations, of which the most
profound was a proposal to "develop with other adm inistrative organi­
zations a professional model of th e ir own design fo r negotiation with

49

boards o f education, a model th a t 1s d iffe re n t from the labor model
with Its severe re s tric tio n s on a profession such as ours."

75

Epstein supported Dempsey's recommendations 1n theory when he warned
that principals who were considering the formation o f a bargaining
u n it had to be conscious that such a move could be very negatively
viewed by the general public and school boards 1n p a rtic u la r, the
results being less than desirable working conditions fo r p rin cip als.
Regardless o f the p rin c ip a l's professional desire to provide educa­
tional leadership, a step toward unionization was often seen as
promoting lim ited self-servin g goals a t the expense of the community
and Its schools.7®
What then were the a lte rn a tiv e s fo r principals who saw th e ir
rights and re s p o n s ib ilitie s eroded, y et were aware of the negative
stigma of a management union?

The concept of the management team

as an a lte rn a tiv e to formal bargaining by second-11ne administrators
had fa r and away received the most popular review and support by
school administrators and w riters of adm inistrative theory.
Throughout the lite r a tu r e reviewed, the management team
concept enjoyed a somewhat nebulous d e fin itio n which most often
In ferred , "school board recognition through sala ry , status, au th o rity,
and re s p o n s ib ility , th a t administrators are part o f the management
team"77

Salmon, o f AASA, suggested that school boards and super­

intendents should use the team concept as a means of aligning p rln 78
clpals with management.
In order to accomplish the alignment,
superintendents and school boards had to be committed to sharing
decision making re s p o n s ib ilitie s and authority with th e ir middle

50

administrators.

Supporting Salmon's concept, McNally emphasized the

Importance of defining the re s p o n s ib ilitie s of team members In school
79
system policy in terp retatio n and operational matters.
Also 1n support of the management team concept, Groty and
Smith claimed that the foundation of an e ffe c tiv e management team 1s
tru s t and that "a rb itra ry decision making by top management without
the Involvement o f the re st of the management team is no longer
80
acceptable."
Heddlnger concurred with Groty and Smith and fu rth e r
claimed th a t, 1n lig h t o f the struggle fo r policy-making power
between teachers and school boards, executive management had to share
81
power with principals In order to control the schools.
Heddlnger
s p e c ific a lly wanted p rin c ip als, under the management team concept,
to be given:
1.

Greater discretion in decision making and selection of
altern atives 1n a clim ate of Increased resp o n sib ility
fo r fin an cial control.

2.

Greater discretion 1n determining how to achieve edu­
cational objectives 1n a climate of greater responsi­
b i l i t y fo r education leadership.

3.

Even greater re sp o n sib ility fo r ensuring th a t educa­
tional programs and services under control do not
become constrained by c o lle c tiv e bargaining procedures.

Redfern maintained that to make teams e ffe c tiv e , top level
administrators had to be consciously aware o f the "environment
fac to r"— the physical quarters In which the team works.

He prompted

superintendents to s triv e to generate job excitement among p rin c ip a ls ,
to make performance evaluation more e ffe c tiv e , and to seriously
83
consider the use of d is c ip lin e with reluctant team members.
Redfern's was an In teresting position to defend since a
study conducted by the Research Committee of the Michigan Congress o f

51

School Administrator Associations had found a year e a r lie r that over
f i f t y percent of the respondents, when questioned about the manage­
ment team, cited the superintendent fo r fa ilu r e to make the team
84
concept work.
Among p rin c ip als, the same a ttitu d e of d is s a tis fa c ­
tion was expressed six years la te r 1n 1977, when the NASSP conducted
a national survey regarding c o lle c tiv e bargaining by p rin cip als.

The

results of the NASSP survey Indicated that among those secondary
principals responding, a f u ll 50 percent favored c o lle c tiv e bargain­
ing fo r p rin cip als, while only 30 percent opposed and 20 percent were
85
recorded as undecided.
The NASSP findings were disturbing since the general view­
point reflected 1n the lite r a tu r e was that i f the management team
functioned properly, there would be no need fo r c o lle c tiv e bargaining
by adm inistrators.

Salmon, as spokesman fo r the largest administra­

tiv e organization (AASA), publicly stated 1n 1972 th a t, "the
adm inistrative team and c o lle c tiv e bargaining are unmlstakedly
Incompatible."®®

U ntil early 1977 th is viewpoint o f Incom patibility

had been generally accepted among school administrators throughout
the country.
In Michigan a supportive a ttitu d e of the team concept was
reflected by the spokesmen fo r both the MAESP and MASSP.

During the

la tte r part o f 1976, the s ta te 's elementary p rin c ip als' association
announced a new position concerning the management team and adminis­
tra tiv e bargaining units.

In summary, the MAESP position held that

the management team need not cease to function 1 f the principals
within a school d is tr ic t decided to form ally bargain.

The MAESP

52

voted 1n October 1976 to support the following new statement on the
management team:
. . . We fu rth e r believe that the extensive application of the
Management Team concept, as defined by MAESP, w ill re s u lt In
Increased effectiveness 1n educational adm inistration and
endorse the Management Team concept as a means of maintaining
the elementary p rin c ip als' voice In policy determination.
Adequate protection fo r p rin cip als, Including due process
procedures, 1s necessary and should be viewed as strengthen­
ing the Team Management concept and not weakening It .® ’
Whether other adm inistrative associations w ithin the state or through­
out the country would follow the lead o f the MAESP was s t i l l subject
to much debate a t this w ritin g .

That the management team was not,

In p ractice, liv in g up to the expectations of p rin c ip als, as sup­
ported by much o f the lite r a tu r e , was also debatable since further
study 1n the area was needed.
What was s ig n ific a n t a t th is time was that the action taken
by MAESP would probably be interpreted as a signal to other adminis­
trato rs that while the management team may be a viable concept fo r
providing managerial Input, i t was not necessarily Incompatible with
adm inistrative bargaining.

What ram ifications the MAESP position

would have throughout the state was not yet known, but boards of
education and superintendents would have been unwise to act In haste
and scrap the management team concept simply because the m iddle-level
administrators wanted formal bargaining unit representation.
Redfern promoted what was probably the most optim istic
a ttitu d e fo r superintendents and principals a lik e when he wrote:
There Is no reason to believe that middle management cannot or
w ill not perform th e ir regular duties and re s p o n s ib ilitie s with
f u ll f id e li t y and faith fu ln ess despite the strains that may be
generated during the negotiation period. Professional lo y alty
and dedication need not become casualties of the negotiation
process.®8

53

Summary
The present chapter has traced the r e la tiv e ly recent emergence
o f adm inistrative bargaining units from the e a r’y American labor
movements through four d is tin c t periods o f public opinion toward
unions 1n the private sector.

The periods are:

(1) 1806-1842,

Repression; (2) 1842-1935, Limited Toleration; (3) 1935-1947,
Encouragement; and (4) 1947 to the present, Control and R estraint.
P articular atten tio n was focused upon the s ig n ific a n t le g is la tiv e
acts o f the United States Congress and court decisions with regard
to private sector unionization.

Also examined were two presidential

orders (10988 and 11491), the f i r s t of which is generally acknowl­
edged to have signalled the beginning o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining by
public employees.

Specific Michigan laws such as Public Act 379

and court decisions which have d ire c tly influenced or encouraged
unionism among building principals within this state were
Investigated.
The w ritings o f others In the fie ld of educational adminis­
tra tio n and public sector negotiations were examined 1n order to
establish that the attitud es of m iddle-level administrators were
changing from positions o f ant1-un1on1sm to those generally more
supportive o f public employee unionization.

Beginning 1n the early

1960's, four developments had apparently had the most pronounced
Influence on the a ttitu d es o f principals toward unionization.

The

f i r s t Involved the m ilita n t positions developed by both the AFT and
the NEA concerning c o lle c tiv e negotiations fo r teachers.

The second

was the dlsassoclatlon of Michigan principals from the Michigan Edu­
cation Association, an a f f i l i a t e of the NEA.

The successes o f

54

teacher negotiations 1n the areas of wages* hours, and working condi­
tions represented the th ird development.

The fo u rth , and most

s ig n ific a n t, was teacher encroachment through negotiations Into areas
which had been tr a d itio n a lly considered the re sp o n sib ility o f middle
management.

Studies examining the problems were presented.

A section of the present chapter was devoted to the Impact
of adm inistrative unions on middle management/superintendent re la ­
tionships, Indicating a widening schism between top
administrators.

and m iddle-level

Research 1n the area, while Inconclusive, suggested

that adm inistrative unions were formed re lu c ta n tly fo r purposes o f
job security.
F in a lly , the lite r a tu r e reviewed was examined fo r a ltern atives
to adm inistrative bargaining.

At the present w ritin g , the management

team concept was most widely supported as a means of preventing
unionization among middle management, though the most recent l it e r a ­
ture examined Indicated a possible b e lie f by m iddle-level administra­
tors that both are compatible w ithin the same d is t r ic t .

Footnotes—Chapter I I
Benjamin Wolklnson, "Summary of the American Labor Movement/'
(unpublished notes, class lectu res, Michigan State U niversity, LIR 858
Industrial Relations, Winter Term, 1976).
^Bernard M eltzer, Labor Law, Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Company,
1970, p. 2.
3

Howard Meyers and David Twomey, Labor Law and L eg islatio n ,
South-Western Publishing Co., 1975, p. 11.
4
Russell Smith, LeRoy M e rrifie ld , and Theodore St. Antoine,
Labor Relations Law, Bobbs-Merrill Co., In c ., 1974, p. 7.
5Ib 1 d ., p.
6Ib 1 d ., p. 10.
^Marjorie S. Turner, The Early American Labor Conspiracy
Cases Their Place In Labor Law, San Diego: San Diego State College
Press, 1967, Social Science Monograph Series, Vol. I , No. 3, p. 59.
Q
Smith, M e rrifie ld and St. Antoine, loc. c l t .
9Ib1d.
^ M e ltz e r, op. c i t . , p. 28.
^Meyers and Twomey, op. c i t . , p. 98.
l 2 Ib 1d., p. 482.
^Lawrence F. McConnell, "A Study of the Influence of
C ollective Bargaining by School Administrators on the Management
Functions o f Selected Michigan School D is tr ic ts ," (unpublished
Ph.D. d is se rtatio n , Michigan State U niversity, 1973), p. 17.
^Donald H. W ollett and Joseph R. Grodln, C o llective Bargain­
ing In Public Employment, Unit Four: Labor Relations and SoclaT
Problems, Washington, D.C.: The Bureau o f National A ffa ir s , In c .,
1975, p. 1.
15T. M. S tin n e tt, Jack H. Klelumann, and Martha L. Ware,
Professional Negotiation 1n Public Education, New York, N.Y.: The
Macmillan Company, 1966, p. 7.
55

56

16Wollet and Grodln, op. c 1 t ., p. 11.
l7 M1ch1gan Congress o f School Administrators Associations,
Research Committee, Eugene N. Spencer, Chairman, A Survey of
Administrative Bargaining Units In Michigan Public Schools.
September, 1971, pT 111.
18
George M. Johnson, Education Law, East Lansing: Michigan
State University Press, 1969, p. 218.
19
U. S. Department o f Labor, Sunrnary o f Public Sector Labor
Relations P o lic ie s , Washington, D.C.: Labor-Management Services
Administration, 1976, p. 63.
20Ib id ., p. 64
21

Doris Ross, '76 Update: C ollective Bargaining 1n Education,
A L eg islato r's Guide Report #78, CB Update, Education Commission of
the States, January, 1976, p. 31.
22

U. S. Department of Labor, State P ro file s : Current Status
of Public Sector Labor R elations. Washington, D .C .: Labor-Management
Services Administration, 1971, p. 3.
23
Johnson, op. c 1 t., p. 5.
24

George H. Gallup, "Seventh Annual Gallup Poll of Public
Attitudes Toward Education," Phi Delta Kappan, December, 1975, p. 49.
25
McConnell, op. c1t.» p. 2G.
26

Michigan Congress of School Administrators Association,
op. c i t . , pp. 7-8.
27Ib1d., p. 8.
2ft

William Mays, J r . , "Why Administrators May Feel the Need to
Establish Formal Bargaining U nits," Michigan School Board Journal,
February, 1976.
29

Robert H. H a ll, "Why Administrators are Turning to C ollective
Bargaining," Reprint o f address given a t Michigan Association of
School Boards Conference, Grand Rapids, Michigan, November 2, 3, 4,
1976.
30

Benjamin Epstein, P rin cip als, An Organized Force fo r
Leadership, Washington, D.C.: The Nationai Association o f Secondary
School P rin cip als, 1974.
31

Bruce S. Cooper, "Middle Management Unionization 1n Educa­
tio n ," Administrator's Notebook, X X III, Chicago, Illin o is : The
University of Chicago, June, 1975, p. 1.

57

32

Edwin M. Bridges and Bruce S. Cooper, "C o llective Bargaining
fo r School A dm inistrators," Theory Into P ra c tic e . Vol. XV, No. 4,
Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State U n ive rs ity, p. 306.
33
Educators Negotiating Service, "Protection o f In terests S tirs
Bargaining by Adm inistrators, Washington, D.C.: The Educational
Service Bureau, In c ., August 1, 1976, p. 9.
34
Educators Negotiating Service. "ENS Special Report: Teacher
Labor Relations in the 1970's," Washington, D.C.: The Educational
Service Bureau, In c ., July, 1974, p. 13.
35
S tln n et, Klelumann and Ware, loc. c i t .
36
Myron Lieberman and Michael H. Moskow, C o lle c tiv e Negotiations
fo r Teachers, Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 196'6, p. 35.
37
Charles Cogen, "C o llective Bargaining: The A ft Way," speech
given a t National In s titu te on C o llective Negotiations 1n Public
Education, Rhode Island College, Providence, Rhode Island , Ju ly, 1975.
38

American School Board Journal, "The Tough New Teacher,"
Vol. 156, No. 5, November, 1968, p. 11.
39

Benson Scott Munger, "A Study o f the Relationship Between
Selected Variables and the A ttitudes o f Michigan P rincipals Toward
Organizing fo r Negotiations," Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Michigan
State U n iversity, 1969, p. 24.
40Ib 1 d ., p. 44.
41
Michael H. Moskow, "Teacher Organizations: An Analysis o f
the Issues," in Readings on C o lle ctiv e Negotiations 1n Public
Education, Elam, Lieberman and Moskow, ed s., Chicago: Rand McNally
and Co., 1967, p. 246.
42
Harry Kershen, "The Role o f the P rincipal 1n Middle Manage­
ment," The P rin c ip a l, O ffic ia l Publication o f the New York State
Association o f Secondary School Administrators and the New York State
Association o f Elementary P rin c ip a ls , Vol. I , No. 2, May, 1971, p. 7.
43

Reynolds C. S e itz , "School Boards and Teacher Unions,"
American School Board Journal. CXLI, August, 1960, p. 13.
44
Negotiation Management. Educational Services Bureau, June,
1968, p. I T
45

Robert Bendlner, The P o litic s o f Schools, A C ris is In S e lf
Government, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, 1969, p. 98.
46

Richard Dempsey, "Principals and N egotiations," NASSP
B u lle tin . National Association of Secondary School P rin c ip a ls ,
March, 1975, p. 61.

58

Charles KUne and William Thomas, "Middle Adm inistrator/
School Board Relationships 1n C ollective Negotiations," Journal of
fo lle c tiv e Negotiations in the Public Sector, Vol. 3, No. 1, Winter,
19/4, p. 50.
48
David Sargent, "The Man 1n Between," Massachusetts Elementary
School Principals Association Journal (rep rin te d , Michigan Elementary
School P rin c ip a l, XXXXIll, September-October, 1968, p. 14.
49
Kershen, op. c i t . , pp. 5-6.
50
Dempsey, op. c i t . , pp. 62-63.
5\ a r r y Mong, "Unionized Principals: Is Your D is tric t Next?",
Journal o f C ollective Negotiations in the Public Sector, V o l. 1,
No. 4, November, 1972, pT 295.
52
Munger, op. c 1 t ., p. 97.
53C. Keith Groty and David C. Smith, "A Report o f the Ethics
and Management Relations Committee of MASB," Michigan School Board
Journal, X V II, No. 7, September, 1970, p. 8.
54M1ch1gan Congress of School Administrators Associations,
op. c 1 t., p. 11.
55
Harry E. Randles, "The Principal and Negotiated Contracts,"
National Elementary P rin c ip a l, November/December, 1975, p. 58.
56Ib id ., p. 61.
57
Educators Negotiating Service. "Iowa Principal Negotiating
R ig h tfu lly Ousted by Board," Washington, D.C.: The Educational Service
Bureau, In c ., February, 1977, p. 112.
58

Harold J. McNally, "A Matter of Trust," National Elementary
P rin c ip a l. November/December, 1973, p. 23.
59
Dee Schofield, C ollective Negotiations and the P rin c ip a l,
NAESP School Leadership Digest, Secona Series. No. 9. 1976. p. 20.
®®Randles, loc. c i t .
^ S c h o fie ld , op. c i t . , p. 59.
62

Paul B. Salmon, "Are the Administrative Team and C ollective
Bargaining Compatible?", Compact. June, 1972, p. 3.
63Cooper, loc. c1t.

59

64

James Dudley, "The Elementary Principal--The Man 1n the
Middle," reprinted from the Pace S e tte r, the magazine of the Maryland
Department of Elementary School P rincipals, March, 1967, p. 38.
65
McConnell, op. c 1 t ., p. 78.
^®Groty and Smith, loc. c i t .
®^Mong, op. c1t. p. 296.
68ib id .
Educators negotiating Service. "ENS Special Report: C ollective
Negotiations and the P rin c ip a l," Washington, D.C.: The Educational
Service Bureau, In c ., September, 1976, p. 7.
^H iro sh i Yamashlta, "Unionized Principals: Is Your D is tric t
Next?", MASB Journal, February, 1973, p. 9.
^ R . C. Williams, "Teacher M ilitancy: Implications fo r the
Schools," P1ele, E ld e ll, and Smith, eds., 1n Social and Technological
Change, Center fo r the Advanced Study o f Educational Administration.
r m r p . 139.
72
Epstein, op. c 1 t ., pp. 18-19.
73
Randles, op. c 1 t ., p. 61.
74
Dempsey, op. c 1 t ., p. 63.
75
Epstein, op. c i t . , p. 38.
76
Michigan Congress of School Administrators Association,
op. c i t . , p. 13.
^7Schofield, op. c i t . , p. 22.
^M cN ally, op. c 1 t ., p. 21.
79
Groty and Smith, loc. c1t.
80
Fred M. Heddlnger, "The School Board Looks a t the Status of
the P rin c ip a l," re p rin t of speech given before Pennsylvania Associa­
tion of Secondary School Principals Annual Meeting, 38th, C a rlis le ,
Pennsylvania, October 14-16, 1973.
82

George Redfern, "School Management-Administrative Union or
Management Team," paper presented a t AASA Annual Convention, 104th,
A tlan tic C ity , N .J ., February 12-16, 1972.

60
83

Michigan Congress o f School Administrators Associations,
op. c 1 t ., p. 13.
84ENS, 1977, p. 111.
or

Salmon, loc. c1t.
88W illiam May, J r . , "Whether or Not Administrators Should
Organize," paper presented to Western Michigan U niversity a t
Kalamazoo Valley Intermediate School D is t r ic t , Kalamazoo, Michigan,
February 9, 1977.
87

Redfern, loc. c1t.

CHAPTER I I I

DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The primary purpose o f this research was to compare the a t t i ­
tudes o f Michigan superintendents and building principals toward
adm inistrative bargaining u n its.
considered 1n the study:

Three a ttltu d ln a l variables were

(1) general a ttitu d e toward adm inistrative

bargaining un its, (2) b e lie f concerning the potential Influence of
adm inistrative bargaining u n its , and (3) a ttitu d e toward present
s itu a tio n .

The variable matrix takes the form of a three-way f u lly

crossed design having an equal number of observations (fourteen) 1n
each c e ll.

In addition to the three a ttitu d in a l dependent variables

there were three Independent variables:

(1) type o f adm inistrative

organization, (2) size o f school d is tr ic t as determined by number o f
building principals employed, and (3) present employment position.
The variable matrix 1s shown 1n Table 3.1.
Multistage clu ster sampling was used to randomly select 14
superintendents, 14 secondary p rin cip als, and 14 elementary principals
fo r each o f the 18 c e lls within the variab le m atrix.
techniques were used to analyze the data:
analysis and analysis o f variance.

61

Two s ta tis tic a l

multipie-group clu ster

a.

-<<n a

m

X

<
d in
3

*o

<0

00

c

fo
r+

to
to

13

3
CL

o
3 *0 3
wQl
ta
V>

00
c
to fo
f+
*o
*o 1
■o
-5

n a.
_ 3
O
l (O
w>

in

« * 0 03 ■

* ^ * •0 DB tot

— *3 C 171 3 -s C
Ql -j. -4.

1 3 —* O

iQ n a . i
n>
3 3

0>(O o

—
*
V)

in
c

"5
fD

i
S. 3 —'• ^

-*•0 a.
C -*•

in

■a
■s

T5

Q» 3 —1
fil <0

fO
n-

in
TJ

0

—■ O

00
c

m

tJ
c+

OO
C

00 T3

*D

13

1

0

3

o»
to

O'
o
(/)

ft

in

in

c

r+ O fD
~i

3 *0 3
—
-Q>tO

00

ro

W 1 C I
3
o
c

0 00 00

*D

S13

to * a
- h —-1
t+ O
^ t( <
O
3 (D
3
r+

3

fD
VI
fD
3
r t-

crossed

SUBJECTS

Ol

ro

design with

General Attitude
Toward Administrative
Bargaining Units
o
(D
*o

14 subjects

Belief Concerning
Potential Influence
of Administrative
Bargaining Units

fD
3

Q.

fD
Ol

-s

—
t.

01
O'
fD
(/I
Attitude Toward
Present Situation

Matrix

1s a completely

01(0 o
—
1 "1

O
-*>

3
Cl

3 .1 —Variable

The matrix
per cel 1.

—' U CD tO| — "O03 O
—
*t C C
JI 3 1 C
i
</» ** C I
Ol -t.
3 -t. -I. OOl
3 —
‘ O 0 .3

a>

-f
*<
*D
fD

to

OB■

to o

_ * o
N
0* IQ
f+ Of
-* • 3
O 1
3

ADMINISTRATIVE
BARGAINING UNIT PRESENT
WITHIN SCHOOL DISTRICT

Table

Note:

NO ADMINISTRATIVE
BARGAINING UNIT PRESENT
WITHIN SCHOOL DISTRICT

63

Sample Selection
The population under investigation Included a ll administrators
in K-12 public school d is tric ts in the state of Michigan as of
September, 1976.

S p e c ific a lly excluded from the study were a ll In te r ­

mediate school d is tr ic ts as well as d is tric ts which did not have a t
least one secondary school (7-12) and one elementary school (K -6).
At the time this research problem was id e n tifie d , there were a to ta l
of 530 K-12 public school d is tr ic ts in the s ta te .

For purposes of

th is study, the population was comprised of only elementary and
secondary school p rin cip als, and the superintendents in the 530
Michigan school d is tr ic ts .
A complete lis tin g o f the population was obtained from the
Michigan Department of Education.

The l i s t contained a ll s tate-

required Information tabulated fo r the required 1976-77 fourth Friday
count.

The data were checked against the superintendents and p rin ­

cipals lis te d in the Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide
1976-77.^

The guide was used because 1t contained a f a ir ly accurate

lis tin g o f the names and addresses of a ll Michigan superintendents
and building p rincipals.

As fa r as could be determined, a lis tin g of

such Information was unobtainable from any other source.
The multistage cluster sampling procedure consisted of four
stages.

The f i r s t stage divided the 530 school d is tric ts Into two

groups— those with adm inistrative bargaining units and those without.
In order to determine this placement, a lis tin g o f Michigan
d is tric ts with adm inistrative bargaining units was constructed In the
following manner.

An extensive search of the records o f the Michigan

64

Employment Relations Commission in D e tro it, Michigan during February,
1977 resulted in Id en tifyin g 27 c e r tifie d adm inistrative unions.
Of these, 24 were determined as suitable fo r Inclusion In the study.
The D etro it Public Schools, because of atypical size in re la tio n to
other Michigan school d is tr ic ts , as well as the Wyandotte and F lin t
C ity School D is tric ts , which were 1n the process of conducting cer­
t ific a tio n elections, were consciously delim ited from the population.
The 24 unionized d is tric ts were combined with 41 d is tric ts
In which adm inistrative bargaining units were v o lu n ta rily recognized
by th e ir boards of education.

The names of 42 d is tric ts meeting

these c r ite r ia were obtained from the Michigan Association of School
Boards which conducted a survey to obtain th is and other related
information 1n December, 1976.

The Ferndale Public Schools were

deleted from this l i s t since the researcher p ilo t-te s te d the Adminis­
tra tiv e Bargaining Unit Preference Questionnaire with the Ferndale
adm inistrative s ta ff during February, 1977.
In summary, 65 Michigan school d is tric ts were id e n tifie d as
d is tric ts In which the second-line adm inistrator had unit representa­
tion fo r the purpose of c o lle c tiv e negotiations.

The remaining 461

school d is tric ts were then c la s s ifie d as having no formal adminis­
tra tiv e bargaining unit fo r building p rin cip als.
The second stage 1n constructing a sample was determined by
the number of building principals employed by a school d is t r ic t .
This variable was selected In order to divide d is tric ts Into three
subgroups, since preliminary review of the lite r a tu r e Indicated that
the larger the size of the school d is t r ic t , the more lik e ly I t was

65

that the building administrators employed would consider the forma*
t1on of adm inistrative bargaining units.
The d is tr ic t sizes were determined by rank-ordering the 65
school d is tric ts with adm inistrative bargaining units from the
greatest to the least number o f building principals and dividing them
Into three groups.

In order to use a ll 65 unionized d is tr ic ts , the

three groups were constructed In such a manner that a minimum o f 17
d is tric ts was contained within each group.
1n group d efin itio n s o f:

This procedure resulted

(1) zero to 8 building p rin c ip a ls , (2) 9 to

14 building p rin cip als, and (3) 15 or more building p rin cip als.
School d is tr ic ts fo r the remaining three groups, those systems with
no adm inistrative organizations, were randomly selected from the
461 school systems which were c la s s ifie d as having neither c e rtifie d
nor v o lu n ta rily recognized adm inistrative bargaining un its.

These

461 d is tric ts were rank-ordered f i r s t by number of building p rin ­
cipals employed (0 -8 , 9-14, 15 or more); a minimum o f 18 school
d is tric ts was randomly selected from each of the three l is t s .

The

researcher found only 18 school systems with no adm inistrative
bargaining unit and 15 or more building p rin cip als; therefore, the
e n tire 15 d is tric ts were selected fo r sampling.

The remaining two

groups provided adequate choice of d is tric ts fo r random selection.
In summary, 18 d is tric ts from each l i s t were randomly
selected along with alternates where possible.

This procedure

resulted 1n the selection of a to ta l of 59 d is tric ts without admin­
is tr a tiv e bargaining units fo r p articip atio n 1n th is study.

These

d is tric ts were representative of the remaining 402 Michigan school

66

d is tr ic ts which» while not having been selected, had had an equal
chance fo r Inclusion w ithin an assigned group.
At the th ird stage of the sampling a to ta l o f 124 d is tr ic t s ,
representing 23.6 percent o f the 526 usable school d is tr ic ts w ithin
the s ta te , had been id e n tifie d .

The fourth and fin a l stage was the

random selection o f superintendents, secondary and elementary p rin ­
cipals from each o f the six groups o f school d is tr ic ts .
Since there is only one superintendent per school d is t r i c t ,
a ll from each group were selected.
a lte rn a te s , 118 In d ivid u als.

This group to ta le d , not Including

Secondary and elementary p rin cip als were

randomly selected from each Individual d is t r ic t and respective to ta ls
o f 119 and 120 individuals were selected.

In a l l , a 11st o f 357

Individuals were selected to receive an Adm inistrative Bargaining U nit
Preference Questionnaire.
A ll 357 administrators were contacted by m all.

Each adminis­

tra to r received a packet containing a single copy o f the Administra­
tiv e Bargaining Unit Preference Questionnaire, a cover le t t e r
explaining the nature and purpose o f the study, a coded carbon sensi­
tiv e answer sheet, and a stamped envelope addressed to the researcher.
Individuals not wishing to p a rtic ip a te were asked to return the
questionnaire and answer sheet to allow selection o f a suitable
replacement I f th is was possible.

Twenty-seven replacements were

chosen a t random from the school d is tr ic ts selected 1n the second
stage o f the sampling procedure.

A fte r a period o f two weeks, the

researcher contacted a ll non-respondents by telephone to determine
I f there was a willingness to p a rtic ip a te 1n th is study.

I f so, a

67

second Administrative Bargaining Unit Preference Questionnaire with
answer sheet and return envelope was mailed.
requested a second questionnaire.

Eight administrators

A copy of the questionnaire and

cover le t t e r are Included 1n Appendix A.
From the to ta l sample of 357 adm inistrators, 288 responses
were returned, fo r a response rate o f 80.67%.

In order to obtain

equal c e ll sizes fo r s ta tis tic a l analyses, 14 respondents from each
of the 18 groups were randomly selected.

Thus, the fin a l sample

consisted o f 252 adm inistrators, as shown 1n Table 3 .2 .
The findings were generalIzable to superintendents, secondary,
and elementary principals In a ll but four K-12 Michigan school
d is tric ts .
Instrumentation
The Administrative Bargaining Unit Preference Questionnaire
(ABUPQ) used 1n the study was one developed by the researcher 1n the
absence o f any known a lte rn a tiv e .

I t consists of 74 Items, 66 of

which are 5-polnt L lkert Scale Items and 8 are demographic Items.
Each of the L lk ert Scale Items was designed to s o lic it a directional
response (" d e fin ite ly yes" to "d e fin ite ly no").

The questionnaire

was constructed to compare the attitu d es of Michigan superintendents
and building principals toward adm inistrative bargaining un its.
The P ilo t Study
The Items which were developed from the review of relevant
lite ra tu re with regard to adm inistrative unionization and c o lle c tiv e
bargaining were p ilo t-te s te d .

A preliminary form o f the ABUPQ was

£
t/t

NO ADMINISTRATIVE
BARGAINING UNIT
PRESENT WITHIN SCHOOL
DISTRICT

BARGAINING UNIT
PRESENT WITHIN SCHOOL
DISTRICT

Ot

Oi

«0

VO

^

go

—
«• c
•

•

{0

T3
3 Wr+

•

«

“I *J

—
it —
*•

m
iw
—
*. c
ffi
X3
3 W f+

oc co
• c

■a
co <-*■

•

-o TJ

U -u

-*• ^i O
_
o

—ito
W IN
ft O It
-»
C> O
*j»
O

m

t

r * oi to

o tn co

if
a.

n>

to

3 CO r+

-*• 0,-1
N
1»<
Oi ca -a

a d m in is t r a t iv e

1 -l

1 1

m
iw
—* . c
m T3
3 Wf+

m iw
3 w
r• •

v*
*a n>
o.-J(ft
r+,0 (D

-a -o

TO-"O
J

O 3 rt

i
-j
—I* —!•

rs 3

-h

•

u m

0

-o

3 -5

-*•*< 3

CO z
c
c
OO

cn

OO 00 oo

VO VO VO

ro ro ro
ro o O

~-o '-o -o

OO00 00

3 §*

ro ro ro

s.

70
a>

ro

00

<J1

oo

C7IOOT

"4 OV00

■pk

cn

5 Jf

cn

cn

3 -*

to

co
o
•

CT>

■
—I

o o o Wo
•

•

*

oo w

oo oo co

O
O00 "O
-Ck VOO
O
• • •
ro
vo
—1 o tn

'O 00 VO

~-J O o
• • •
ro o o
~o o o

OO 00 oo
ro ro oo
• » *
u>
co ro
cn cn -Ck

00 *vl 00

CO
*
CO
CO

''J
*
-x j
OO

CO
*
GO
CO

v l CO CTi

cn — •cn
« • •
CO -E * GO
ro oo oo

(■t0o3o3

3 rfrt

O to c
-t

n>
CO

a>

O

ro
cn
ro

It c

ro c r
co o
(O

<-r n- -j
c ro
a. a.

«<

89

Table 3.2—ABUPQ Return Rate by Stratum

o

69

completed and reviewed by the adm inistrative s ta ff of the Ferndale
Public Schools during February, 1977.

The purpose of this p ilo t tes t

was to gather the Individual reactions of the p a rtic ip a tin g adminis­
trato rs to the subject matter o f the questionnaire.

Of the 11

administrators who reviewed the questionnaire, 2 were c la s s ifie d as
executive level managers, 3 as secondary building p rin cip als, and 6
as elementary p rin cip als.

Each Item was scored and reviewed with

the assistance of a consultant from the MSU O ffice of Research
Consultation.

A ll Items which received 4 or more "no opinion" scores

on the 5-po1nt L lk e rt scale were reexamined fo r c la r ity and speci­
fic ity .

A to ta l o f 13 Items were rew ritten and 4 additional Items

added, based upon the suggestions of the Ferndale administrators and
the MSU consultant.
Administrative Bargaining Unit
Preference Questionnaire
The fin a l version of the Adm inistrative Bargaining Unit
Preference Questionnaire consisted of 74 Items, 66 of which were
L lk e rt scale Items, and Incorporated the revisions suggested by the
p ilo t study.

The revised questionnaire is presented 1n Appendix A

and Is assumed to have reasonable content v a lid ity .
A fte r the data were collected , a f i r s t approximation to
defining the clu ster structure o f the variables was obtained using
principal components factor analysis followed by varlmax ro tations.
The multipie-group method was then employed to evaluate the resu ltin g
clu ster o f variables.

The end re s u lt was a set o f three clu sters,

70

each one dealing with a d iffe re n t aspect o f a ttitu d es toward
adm inistrative bargaining un its.

The three clusters are lis te d

below.
1.

General a ttitu d e toward adm inistrative bargaining
units.

2.

B elief concerning the potential Influence of
adm inistrative bargaining units.

3.

A ttitu d e toward present s itu a tio n .

Descriptions of the Items comprising each o f the three clusters
are lis te d 1n Table 3 .3 .

The questionnaire Items which did not

appear to form clusters were disregarded.

The ABUPQ clusters

appear to be s a tis fa c to rily r e lia b le , with C o efficien t Alphas
ranging from .77 to .93, as shown in Table 3.3.

In Its present

form, the ABUPQ appears to be an adequate Instrument fo r measuring
an adm inistrator's a ttitu d e toward adm inistrative bargaining un its.
A fter the clusters were determined, each adm inistrator's
scores on the Individual Items comprising each clu ster were
to ta led .

Questionnaire answers were thus transformed Into three

composite clu ster scores.

The three composite scores varied 1n

range, depending on the number o f Items comprising each c lu s te r,
and provided data fo r testing the four hypotheses.

Mean scores

and standard deviations fo r each ABUPQ clu ster are shown 1n
Table 3 .4 .

Table 3.3—Results of Cluster Analysis with the Administrative Bargaining Unit
Preference Questionnaire,
N = 252
Coeff.
Alpha

Cluster Item
Loading Number

.89

Cluster !:
.62
.49
.47
.44

16.
*71.
*18.
*21.

.43

44.

.40
.35

*26.
*23.

.35
.31
.29

*61.
*60.
*59.

.27
.27
.26

34.
*35.
*19.

.19

*33.

.15

*39.

Questionnaire
Items
General Attitude Toward ABU's

My opinion of administrative bargaining units is positive.
Administrative bargaining units are usually detrimental to student welfare.
Administrative bargaining units are counter-productive for administrators.
Administrative bargaining units tend to hurt administrator/school board
relationships.
Administrative bargaining units best represent the collective needs of
administrators.
Administrative bargaining units antagonize the general public.
Administrative bargaining units tend to antagonize teacher/administrator
relationships.
Administrative bargaining units tend to produce administrator militancy.
Administrative bargaining units make teacher contract negotiations more d iffic u lt.
Administrative bargaining units are an expression of lack of loyalty to the
superintendent.
Administrative bargaining units improve the quality of education.
Administrative bargaining units generally promise more than they can deliver.
Adninistrators generally work fewer hours per week for the same salary
when represented by a bargaining unit.
Administrative bargaining units tend to produce complicated definitions of
administrative roles and responsibilities.
Administrative bargaining units can lead to administrative strikes.

♦Item was weighted negatively for cluster analysis.

Table 3.3—Continued
Coeff.
Alpha

Cluster Item
Loading Number

.89

Questionnaire
Items

Cluster 2:
.56

48.

.56
.54

66.
15.

.54
.52
.49

47.
14.
62.

.48

13.

.47

73.

.46

53.

.45

22.

.44

24.

.42

50.

.36
.36

29.
70.

.36
.33

54.
12.

.32

37.

.26

32.

Belief Concerning the Potential Influence of Administrative Bargaining Units

Administrative bargaining units encourage school boards to listen to the opinions
of the administrators.
Administrative bargaining units tend to improve communication with the schoolboard.
Administrative bargaining units guard against the erosion of the role and
responsibilities of administrators.
Administrative bargaining units are in the best interest of administrators.
Administrative bargaining units usually improve administrative working conditions.
The school board generally has more respect for administrators who are
represented by a bargaining unit.
Administrative bargaining units promote conmunication between the school board and
building level adninistrators.
Superintendents generally have more respect for administrators who are represented
by a bargaining unit.
Adninistrative bargaining units help ensure that administrators are considered as
an integral part of management.
Administrative bargaining units usually produce a more cohesive group of
administrators.
Administrative bargaining units promote communication between the school board
and building level administrators.
The role of administrators is more accurately defined through administrative
bargaining units.
Administrative bargaining units are generally a positive display of power.
Building principals have a greater role in determining what will be included
in administrators' contracts when they are members of a bargaining unit.
Administrative bargaining units eliminate inequities in administrative salaries.
Administrative bargaining units protect individual administrators from school
board/superintendent harassment.
Administrative bargaining units mean higher salaries and better fringe benefits
for building principals.
Administrative salaries are generally higher when the administrators are
represented by a bargaining unit.

Table 3 .3 - -Continued

Coeff. Cluster Item
Alpha Loading Number
.77

Questionnaire
Items

Cluster 3:
.65

10.

.65

*40.

Attitude Toward Present Situation

I am satisfied with the manner in which the principals' present contracts
were determined.
I would change to a significant degree, the manner in which administrative
contracts are determined in my d is tric t.

*Item was weighted negatively for cluster analysis.

74

TABLE 3.4--Means and standard deviations o f ABUPQ Cluster Scores
N = 252
ABUPQ Cluster

Mean

Cluster 1: General A ttitu d e Toward
ABU'S

25.996

Cluster 2: B e lie f Concerning Potential
Influence o f ABU's
32.151
Cluster 3: A ttitu d e Toward Present
Situ atio n

3.381

Standard Deviation

8.506
12.190
2.567

Summary
The major problem o f the present study was to compare the
a ttitu d e s of selected Michigan adm inistrators toward adm inistrative
bargaining u n its.

The sample, selection procedure, the development

of the questionnaire, and s ta tis tic a l analysis used 1n the study
were described In the present chapter.

A d eta ile d description of

the Adm inistrative Bargaining Unit Preference Questionnaire was
presented. Including resu lts from the p ilo t tes tin g and fin a l content
analysis.

Footnotes—Chapter I I I
. - 1Michigan Education D irectory and Buyer's Guide. Michigan
Educat1on^Hrectory, Lansing, Michigan 1976-1$77.

75

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introduction
The present study was designed to examine and compare the
attitu d es of Michigan superintendents, secondary and elementary prin­
cipals toward adm inistrative bargaining u n its.
posed of 252 administrators:

The sample was com­

84 superintendents, 84 secondary

p rin cip als, and 84 elementary p rin cip als.
The a ttitu d es of the administrators were measured by the
Administrative Bargaining Unit Preference Questionnaire (ABUPQ), a
s e lf-re p o rt instrument which yields three continuous a ttltu d in a l
scores and which also c la s s ifie s respondents with respect to the
three categories.
measured:

The following a ttltu d in a l preferences were

(1) general a ttitu d e toward adm inistrative bargaining

units, (2) b e lie f concerning the potential Influence of administra­
tiv e bargaining u n its , and (3) a ttitu d e toward present s itu a tio n .
The three c la s s ific a tio n categories were:

(1 ) type of adm inistrative

organization, (2) size of school d is t r ic t as determined by the number
of building principals employed, and (3) present employment position.
Cell means o f the ABUPQ clu ster scores are presented 1n Table 4 .1 .
Four sets of hypotheses were formulated In order to tes t
whether s ig n ifica n t relationships e xis t between school administrators
and th e ir a ttitu d es toward adm inistrative bargaining un its.
76

A ll

-*©_i

ADMINISTRATIVE
BARGAINING UNIT PRESENT
WITHIN SCHOOL DISTRICT

N 3 SC

01(0*0
f+o (II
O I O
3 -h

3

Q.

(D
<0

*o
3

O.

ro

m
ro
3
*

X
•
CO
•

TP
TP 3
3 j.
3
3 •
•

CO
c
3
ft
•

TODIO
3 3 C 1
^1
wJ
$
a. 3 -4-^
-••no.
c
3 -a 3
S—^ o» <a
v>
m
ro
3
■

X
*
</>
•

cn
c
3
c+
*

■o
*U 3
3
3
3 «
•

■o CD o
■o CD — 1
VI ■J C 1 mtU -» c cn
3 ■*-1.00 Of —I, tj.
» 3 —1
3 3 — *O
— * n cl
CO o a. -5
-jt —
i.
ro —It —It
— 'TP 3
— >3 3 3
oi (O
01(0 0
—1
3
t/l
I/I
ro
m

~i

ro
3
«

X
ft
C/I
ft

cn
c
■a
r*
«

*o
■o 3
3
—i. 3
3 ft
ft

m
n
3
.
TJ
3
3
ft

X
CO
ft
f
t

TP (JP VO
3 00 c
3 -I C 1 tn 3 C 1
-i.
o
3
ro
6. 3 — ' 4» 5 3 ^
« *n a
O CL
—it —i.
c —u -t .
3 *a 3
3

CO m
—ti
c
3
ro
f+ 3
ft *

•a
3
^Jft
3
ft

TP
3
—it
3
*

Ol tQ
t
(A

at to
—ti

i/t
X
«
CO
*

CO m
c
3
ro
r+ 3
*

TP
3
iJft
3
ft

X
*
CO
ft

l/>
c
u
r+

"O
~o

3

3
ft

^ft
3
ft

3

r+ o ro

<
0»

n

o*
o*

V> 3 * N

3 o
-h—
»o

-h

3

f l>

(/>
~o
<
/>*o n>
—I —1 v>
rt 0 01
O
01
3
c+
o w ?

SUBJECTS
ro
cn cn 00
• • •
cn VI cn
00 VI
CO cn

VI
ft
cn
O
o

00
ft
cn
4k
CO

ro
OI
•
ro
—i
4k

ro
00
•
Co
cn
VI

ro
vo
*
CO
cn
VI

CO
ro
•
Ol
4k

ro
4k
ft
CO
cn
CO VI

CO
o
4
4k
ro
vo

CO
cn
•
ro
00
cn

ro
VO
•
oo
cn
VI

CO CO
ro
• «
yi cn
o
o

General Attitude
Toward Administra­
tive Bargaining
Jnits

a
o>
"O
ro
3

ro
VO
*
o
VI

ro
•

ro
Oi
*
ro
OO
Oi

•

cn O
o
o
o o

CO
cn
•
cn
O
O

ro
VI o
• •
VI ro
00
4k Oi

CO
cn
•
to
4k

ro
VI
ft
•J
4k
CO

ro
CO
•
o
v|

CO
vl
ft
CO
cn
v|

4k
•
cn
O
O

ro ro U)
* • «
cn Q vl
VI O
00
cn
o

ft
VO
ro
vo

CO

ro
•
VO
ro
vo

CO

CO
ro
*
VI
00
cn

4k
ft
4k
VI ro
vo
*
o

CO
cn
•
cn
o
o

4k
CO
»
00
cn
VI

ro
4k
•
vl

CO
co
m
VI
oo
4k cn

to ro cn
ft
•
*
ro Cn
o
VI oo O
cn O

CO
co ro
o cn
o VJ
o

Co
cn
• •
yi ro
SJ oo
o>

4k
4k
ft
ft
ft
•
CO 00 CO o
cn cn cn o
VI VI VI o

ro
•
V|
4*

Belief Concerning
Potential Influence
of Administrative
Bargaining Units
Attitude Toward
Present Situation

O.

(D
Q»
3
ft^ft
Ot
O'
ro

CO

Scores

ro
OI (O VO
• ft •
ro ro 'si
00
4k OI

Means of ABUPQ Cluster

"onn
T c ui
f t -l —
3 3 — *O
(O o a. 3
ro _it —it
^ 3 3 3
v ia a
"I
(rt
ro

Table 4 .1 —Cell

NO ADMINISTRATIVE
BARGAINING UNIT PRESENT
WITHIN SCHOOL DISTRICT

78

hypotheses were tested with three-way analysis of variance* with the
three Independent variables being:

(1) type o f adm inistrative organ­

iz a tio n , (2) size o f school d is t r ic t as determined by the number o f
building p rin cip als enployed, and (3) present employment position.
An alpha level o f .005 was set fo r testin g each o f the 17 Individual
hypotheses 1n order to Insure an experiment-wise alpha level o f .05.
Presentation o f the Data
The study produced a number o f s ig n ific a n t fin d in g s.

The

hypotheses and the results o f the hypotheses tests are presented
below.
Hypothesis 1 — Type o f Organization
Hypothesis 1A: Administrators 1n school d is tr ic ts with ABU's
have more pos1tiv e a t t 1tudes toward adm inistrative bargaining units
than adm inistrators 1n school d is tr ic ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis 1A was based on findings presented In Chapter I I .
Most researchers of adm inistrative bargaining units have suggested
th a t building prin cip als once organized fo r c o lle c tiv e bargaining
purposes have a s ig n ific a n tly more p o sitive a ttitu d e toward ABU's
than building p rincipals who are not organized fo r c o lle c tiv e bargain­
ing.

Researchers have also suggested th a t superintendents o f school

d is tr ic ts with ABU's may have a s ig n ific a n tly more po sitive a ttitu d e
toward ABU's than superintendents of school d is tr ic ts without ABU's.
This theory 1s based* In p a rt, upon research which Indicates that
superintendents 1n school d is tr ic ts with ABU's have often found th a t
adm lnlstrative bargaining units are less threatening to the e ffic ie n t
management o f schools than they had o r ig in a lly believed.

79

Hypothesis 1A was tested by comparing the attitu d es o f admin­
is trato rs In school d is tric ts with ABU's toward adm inistrative
bargaining units with the attitu d es o f administrators In school
d is tric ts without ABU's.

A high score on Cluster 1 Indicated a posi­

tiv e a ttitu d e toward ABU's, while a low Cluster 1 score was regarded
as a negative a ttitu d e toward ABU's.

Cluster 1 was regarded as the

dependent variable In testing Hypothesis 1A.
Results of analysis of variance are shown In Table 4.2 and
Indicate that adm inistrators' a ttitu d es 1n school d is tric ts with
adm inistrative bargaining units are s ig n ific a n tly more positive than
a<frn1n1strators' attitud es In school d is tric ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis 1A was therefore supported.
Hypothesis IB : Administrators In school d is tric ts with
ABU's have stronger b eliefs concerning the potential Influence of
adm inistrative bargaining units than administrators 1n school
d is tric ts without ABU’ s.
Hypothesis IB , lik e 1A, was based on findings presented In
Chapter I I .

Researchers have suggested that administrators in school

d is tric ts with adm inistrative bargaining u n its , regardless o f th e ir
present employment positions, have stronger b e lie fs concerning the
potential Influence o f ABU's than administrators In school d is tric ts
without ABU's.
Hypothesis IB was tested by comparing the b eliefs of
administrators 1n school d is tric ts with ABU’s concerning the poten­
t ia l Influence of adm inistrative bargaining units with the b e lie fs o f
administrators In school d is tric ts without ABU's.

A high Cluster 2

score indicated a positive b e lie f concerning the potential Influence

Table 4.2—Results of Analysis of Variance for Testing Hypothesis 1
N = 252

1A. Administrators in school districts
with ABU's have more positive attitudes
toward administrative bargaining units
than administrators in school districts
without ABU's.
IB. Administrators in school districts
with ABU's have stronger beliefs concerning the potential influence of
administrative bargaining units than
administrators in school districts
without ABU's.

A1 > A2
(Cluster 1)

1

6696.036

92.556

.0001*

A1 > A2
(Cluster 2)

1

4425.143

29.778

.0001*

1

4.064

.617

1C. Adninistrators in school districts
with administrative bargaining units
A1 > A2
have more positive attitudes toward
(Cluster 3)
their present situations than administrators
in school districts without ABU's.
♦Significant at the .005 level.

.433

o f ABU's, while a low Cluster 2 score was Interpreted as a less
positive b e lie f.

Cluster 2 was regarded as the dependent variable

in testing Hypothesis IB.
Results o f analysis of variance fo r Hypothesis IB are shown
1n Table 4.2 and Indicate that adm inistrative scores fo r adm inistra­
tors 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's are higher than the adminis­
trato rs 1n school d is tric ts without ABU's.

Hypothesis IB was

therefore supported.
Hypothesis 1C: Administrators 1n school d is tric ts with
adm inistrative bargaining units have more positive a ttitu d e s toward
th e ir present situ ation than administrators 1n school d is tric ts
without ABU's.
Hypothesis 1C was based on research In Chapter I I , which
Indicated th a t elementary and secondary principals in school d is tric ts
with ABU's have more positive a ttitu d es toward th e ir present
situations than elementary and secondary principals 1n school
d is tric ts without ABU's.

Researchers have also suggested, however,

that superintendents in school d is tric ts with ABU's have less posi­
tiv e a ttitu d e s toward th e ir present situations than superintendents
1n school d is tric ts without ABU's.

Because Hypothesis 1C was based

on a sample consisting of one-th1rd superintendents and two-th1rds
building p rin c ip als, 1t was hypothesized that the m ajority of these
administrators 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's would have more
positive a ttitu d es toward th e ir present situations than adm inistra­
tors 1n school d is tric ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis 1C was tested by comparing the a ttitu d e s of
administrators 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's toward th e ir present

82

s itu ation with the a ttitu d e s o f administrators 1n school d is tric ts
without ABU's.

A high Cluster 3 score Indicated a positive a ttitu d e

toward present situ ation while a low Cluster 3 score was regarded as
a less positive or negative a ttitu d e .

Cluster 3 was regarded as the

dependent variable 1n testing Hypothesis 1C.
Results of analysis of variance are shown 1n Table 4.2 and
indicate no s ig n ific a n t difference 1n the Cluster 3 scores o f the
two groups of adm inistrators toward th e ir present situ atio n s.
Hypothesis 1C was therefore not supported.
Hypothesis 2 - - Size of School D is tric t
Hypothesis 2A: Administrators 1n medium- and large-sized
school d is tric ts have more positive a ttitu d es toward adm inistrative
bargaining units than administrators in sm all-sized school d is tr ic ts .
Findings in the lite r a tu r e reviewed 1n Chapter I I supported
the theory that the size of the school d is tr ic t 1s s ig n ific a n tly
correlated with the a ttitu d es of administrators toward ABU's.
Research Indicated th a t the larg er the school d is t r ic t , the more
positive the a ttitu d es of administrators toward ABU's.

Hypothesis 2A

was designed to te s t whether adm inistrators 1n school d is tric ts
employing nine or more building principals have more positive
attitu d es toward ABU's than administrators 1n smaller school
d is tr ic ts .
Hypothesis 2A was tested by comparing the a ttitu d e s of
administrators 1n medium- and large-sized school d is tric ts towards
ABU's with the a ttitu d es o f administrators In small-sized school
d is tr ic ts .

A high Cluster 1 score was regarded as a positive a ttitu d e

83

toward ABU's, while a low Cluster 1 score Indicated a negative a t t i ­
tude.

Cluster 1 was regarded as the dependent variable 1n testing

Hypothesis 2A.
Results are shown 1n Table 4.3 and Indicate no s ig n ific a n t
difference in the attitud es of the two groups o f administrators
toward ABU's.

Hypothesis 2A was therefore not supported.

Hypothesis 2B: Administrators 1n medium- and large-sized
school d is tr ic ts have stronger b eliefs concerning the potential
Influence o f ABU's than administrators In sm all-sized school
d is tric ts .
Hypothesis 2B was developed using the same ratio n ale upon
which Hypothesis 2A was constructed; th a t 1s, the administrators 1n
medium- and large-sized school d is tric ts have stronger b eliefs
concerning the potential Influence o f ABU's than administrators in
school d is tr ic ts with eight or fewer building p rin cip als.

Hypothesis

2B was developed to tes t th is premise.
Hypothesis 2B was tested by comparing the b e lie fs o f admin­
is tra to rs 1n medium- and large-sized school d is tr ic ts concerning the
potential influence of ABU's with the b e lie fs of administrators in
small-sized school d is tr ic ts .

A high Cluster 2 score was regarded

as a positive b e lie f concerning the potential Influence o f ABU's
while a low Cluster 2 score Indicated a negative b e lie f.

Cluster 2

was regarded as the dependent variable in testing Hypothesis 2B.
Analysis o f variance results are shown In Table 4.3 and
Indicate that there 1s no s ig n ific a n t difference 1n the b e lie fs o f
administrators from medium- and large-sized school d is tric ts concern­
ing the potential Influence of ABU's when compared with the b eliefs

Table 4.3—Results of Analysis of Variance for Testing Hypothesis 2
N = 252
Hypothesis
2A. Administrators in medium- and
large-sized school districts have more
positive attitudes toward ABU's than
administrators in small-sized school
districts
2B. Administrators in medium- and
large-sized school districts have
stronger beliefs concerning the poten­
tia l influence of ABU's than admin­
istrators in small-sized school
districts.
2C. Administrators in large-sized
school districts have more positive
attitudes toward ABU's than admin­
istrators in medium-sized school
districts
20. Adninistrators in large-sized
school districts have stronger beliefs
concerning the potential influence of
ABU's than administrators in medium­
sized school d istricts.

Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

MS

F

Probability

1

139.335

1.926

.167

1

229.365

1.543

.215

B3 > B2
(Cluster 1)

1

35.292

B3 > B2
(Cluster 2)

1

933.429

82 2 83 > Bl
(Cluster 1)

B2+_B3 > B]
(Cluster 2)

.4878

6.281

.486

.013

85

of administrators from small-sized school d is tr ic ts .

Hypothesis 2B

was therefore not supported.
Hypothesis 2C: Administrators 1n large-sized school
d is tric ts have more positive a ttitu d es toward ABU's than adminis­
trators In medium-sized school d is tr ic ts .
Hypothesis 2C was developed to examine the relationship
between size o f school d is tr ic t and attitud es o f administrators con­
cerning adm inistrative bargaining units.

The lite r a tu r e indicated

that m iddle-level administrators 1n large-sized school d is tric ts
organized ABU's before m iddle-level administrators 1n sm aller-sized
school d is tr ic ts .

Hypothesis 2C was designed to test whether

administrators 1n school d is tric ts employing more than 15 building
principals have more positive attitud es toward ABU's than adminis­
trators 1n school d is tric ts employing from 9 to 14 building
pr1nclpals.
Hypothesis 2C was tested by comparing the attitu d es of
administrators 1n large-sized school d is tric ts toward ABU's with the
attitudes o f administrators 1n medium-sized school d is tr ic ts .

A high

score on Cluster 1 Indicated a positive a ttitu d e toward ABU's, while
a low score was regarded as a negative a ttitu d e toward ABU's.
Cluster 1 was regarded as the dependent variable 1n testing
Hypothesis 2C.
Results of analysis of variance are shown in Table 4.3 and
Indicate that there 1s no s ig n ific a n t difference 1n the a ttitu d e s of
administrators from large- and medium-sized school d is tric ts towards
ABU's.

Hypothesis 2C was therefore not supported.

86

Hypothesis 2D: Administrators 1n large-sized school d is tric ts
have stronger b eliefs concerning the potential Influence o f ABU's than
administrators 1n medium-sized school d is tr ic ts .
Hypothesis 2D was developed to examine the relationship
between size of school d is tr ic t and b e lie fs o f administrators con­
cerning the potential Influence of adm inistrative bargaining units.
The lite ra tu r e suggested that administrators In large-sized school
d is tric ts have stronger b eliefs concerning the potential Influence o f
ABU's than administrators 1n smaller-sized school d is tr ic ts .
Hypothesis 2D was designed to te s t whether administrators In school
d is tric ts employing more than 15 building principals have stronger
b eliefs concerning the potential Influence of ABU's than administra­
tors 1n school d is tric ts employing from 9 to 14 building p rin c ip als.
Results of analysis of variance are shown In Table 4.3 and
Indicate th a t there 1s no s ig n ific a n t difference 1n the b e lie fs of
administrators from large- and medium-sized school d is tr ic ts con­
cerning the potential Influence o f ABU's.

Hypothesis 2D was there­

fore not supported.
Hypothesis 3 — Employment Position
Hypothesis 3A: Building principals have more positive
attitudes toward ABU' s than superintendents.
Hypothesis 3A was based on a general a ttitu d e widely sup­
ported In the lite r a tu r e that superintendents, representing
executive management, have less positive a ttitu d es toward ABU's than
building p rin cip als, who represent m iddle-level management.

Further­

more, building principals were considered to be more supportive o f
ABU's than superintendents.

87

Hypothesis 3A was tested by comparing the a ttitu d e s of the 168
building principals toward ABU's with the a ttitu d es of the 84
superintendents.

A high Cluster 1 score Indicated a positive a ttitu d e

toward ABU's, while a low Cluster 1 score was regarded as a negative
a ttitu d e .

Cluster 1 was regarded as the dependent variable in

testing Hypothesis 3A.
Analysis of variance results fo r Hypothesis 3A are presented
In Table 4.4 and Indicate th a t the superintendents' a ttitu d es toward
adm inistrative bargaining units were surprisingly more positive than
the a ttitud es o f the building p rin cip als.
fore not supported.

Hypothesis 3A was there­

The results were, In fa c t, s ig n ific a n t 1n the

opposite direction than hypothesized.
Hypothesis 3B: Building principals have stronger b eliefs
concerning the potential influence of ABU's than superintendents.
Hypothesis 3B was developed using the same ra tio n a le upon
which Hypothesis 3A was constructed; that 1s, superintendents repre­
senting executive management have less positive b e lie fs concerning
the potential Influence of adm inistrative bargaining units than
building principals who represent m iddle-level management.

Further­

more, building principals have stronger b e lie fs concerning the
potential Influence of ABU's than superintendents.

Hypothesis 3B was

developed to te s t th is premise.
Hypothesis 3B was tested by comparing the b e lie fs o f the 168
building principals concerning adm inistrative bargaining units with
the b e lie fs of the 84 superintendents.

A high Cluster 2 score

Indicated a positive b e lie f concerning the potential Influence of

Table 4.4--Results of Analysis of Variance for Testing Hypothesis 3
N = 252
Hypothesis
3A. Building principals have more
positive attitudes toward ABU's than
superintendents
3B. Building principals have stronger
beliefs concerning the potential
influence of administrative bargaining
units than superintendents.

Source of
Variation
—

> Cl

Degrees of
Freedom

MS

F

1

4068.698

56.240

.0001*

1

7506.002

50.510

.0001*

Probability

(Cluster 1)

— y -C- > Cl
(Cluster 2)

3C. Elementary principals have more
positive attitudes toward ABU's than
secondary principals.

C3 > C2
(Cluster 1)

1

228.667

3.161

.077

30. Elementary principals have
stronger beliefs concerning the
potential influence of administrative
bargaining units than secondary
principals.

C3 > C2
(Cluster 2)

1

154.292

1.038

.309

♦Although mean differences between groups were significant at the .005 level, results were not in
the expected direction.

89

ABU's, while a low Cluster 2 score was regarded as a negative b e lie f.
Cluster 2 was regarded as the dependent variable 1n testing
Hypothesis 3B.
Results o f analysis of variance are shown 1n Table 4.4 and
Indicate that the superintendents' b e lie fs concerning the potential
Influence o f adm inistrative bargaining units were surprisingly more
positive than the b eliefs o f the building p rin c ip als.
was therefore not supported.

Hypothesis 3B

The results were, 1n fa c t, s ig n ific a n t

1n the opposite direction than hypothesized.
Hypothesis 3C: Elementary principals have more positive
attitudes toward ABU's than secondary p rin c ip als.
Hypothesis 3C was developed from findings presented 1n
Chapter I I , that elementary principals were lik e ly to express a t t i ­
tudes more favorable to ABU's than secondary p rin cip als.

McConnell's

research 1n 1973 found elementary principals more Interested In ABU's
than secondary principals fo r numerous reasons, Including perceived
benefits 1n decis1on-mak1ng, role d e fin itio n , and salary Increases.^
Hypothesis 3C was tested by comparing the a ttitu d e s o f the
84 elementary principals toward adm inistrative bargaining units with
the a ttitu d es o f the 84 secondary p rin cip als.

A high Cluster 1

score was regarded as a positive a ttitu d e while a low Cluster 1
score indicated a negative a ttitu d e .

Cluster 1 was regarded as the

dependent variable 1n testing Hypothesis 3C.
Analysis of variance results are shown In Table 4.4 and
Indicate no s ig n ific a n t differences 1n the scores o f elementary and
secondary principals regarding a ttitu d es towards ABU's.
3C was therefore not supported.

Hypothesis

90

Hypothesis 3D: Elementary principals have stronger b eliefs
concerning the potential Influence of ABU's than secondary p rin cip als.
Hypothesis 3D, lik e Hypothesis 3C, was based on the research
of others.

McConnell's 1973 study suggested that elementary prin­

cipals expressed stronger b e lie fs concerning the potential Influence
of ABU's than did secondary p rin cip als.

2

Hypothesis 3D was tested by comparing the b e lie fs o f the 84
elementary principals concerning the potential influence of adminis­
tra tiv e bargaining units with the b eliefs o f the 84 secondary
p rincipals.

A high score on Cluster 2 indicated a positive b e lie f

concerning the potential Influence of ABU's, while a low Cluster 2
score was regarded as a negative b e lie f.

Cluster 2 was regarded as

the dependent variable In testing Hypothesis 3D.
Results of analysis of variance are shown 1n Table 4.4 and
Indicate that elementary p rin c ip als' b e lie fs are not s ig n ific a n tly
d iffe re n t than secondary p rin c ip als' b e lie fs regarding the potential
Influence of ABU's.

Hypothesis 3D was therefore not supported.

Hypothesis 4 - - Type o f Organization and Employment Position
Hypothesis 4A: Superintendents 1n school d is tr ic ts with
ABU's have more positive a ttitu d es concerning adm inistrative bargain­
ing units than superintendents in school d is tr ic ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis 4A was based p rim arily on findings presented In
Chapter I I .

Research by Munger 1n 1969“* and McConnell In 19734

suggested that there are differences 1n the perceptions o f superin­
tendents regarding the Influence of c o lle c tiv e bargaining by school
administrators on selected management functions.

Both researchers

acknowledged that superintendents more often expressed strong

91

opinions against the form ation o f ABU's.

The researchers fu rth e r

suggested th a t superintendents 1n school d is t r ic t s w ith ABU’ s have
more p o s itiv e b e lie fs about th is arrangement than superintendents 1n
d is t r ic t s w ithout ABU's.

This theory was based upon w ritin g s which

Indicated th a t superintendents 1n school d is t r ic t s w ith ABU's have
often found th a t a d m ln ls tra tiv e bargaining u n its are less threatening
to the e f f ic ie n t management o f schools than they had o r ig in a lly
believed .

Therefore 1t was hypothesized th a t superintendents 1n

d is t r ic t s w ith ABU's would express a ttitu d e s more p o s itiv e o f ABU's
since t h e ir m id d le -lev e l adm in istrato rs are organized compared w ith
superintendents 1n school d is t r ic t s w ithout ABU's.
Hypothesis 4A was tested by comparing the a ttitu d e s o f the
42 superintendents 1n school d is t r ic t s w ith ABU's toward a d m in istra­
tiv e bargaining u n its w ith the a ttitu d e s o f the 42 superintendents
In school d is t r ic t s w ithout ABU's.

A high score on C lu s te r 1

Indicated a p o s itiv e a ttitu d e toward ABU's, w h ile a low C lu ster 1
score was regarded as a negative a ttitu d e toward ABU's.

C lu s te r 1

was regarded as the dependent v a ria b le 1n te s tin g Hypothesis 4A.
Results o f analysis o f variance are shown 1n Table 4 .5 and
In d ic a te th a t th e re 1s no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e 1n the a ttitu d e s o f
the two groups o f superintendents toward ABU's.

Hypothesis 4A was

th e re fo re not supported.
Hypothesis 4B: Superintendents 1n school d is t r ic t s w ith
ABU's have stronger b e !le fs concerning the p o te n tia l In flu en c e o f
a d m in is tra tiv e bargaining u n its than superintendents 1n school
d is t r ic t s w ithout ABU's.
Hypothesis 4B was developed using the same argument and
findings c ite d fo r Hypothesis 4A; th a t Is , superintendents in school

Table 4.5—Results of Analysis of Variance for Testing Hypothesis 4
N = 252
Hypothesis
4A. Superintendents in school districts
with ABU's have more positive attitudes
toward ABU's than superintendents in
school districts without ABU's.
4B. Superintendents in school districts
with ABU's have stronger beliefs con­
cerning the potential influence of ABU's
than superintendents in school districts
without ABU's.
4C. Superintendents in school districts
without ABU's have more positive
attitudes toward their present situation
than superintendents in school districts
with ABU's.

Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

MS

F

probability
J

A1 > A2 for Cl
{Cluster 1)

1

350.000

4.838

.029

A1 > A2 for Cl
(Cluster 2)

1

15.018

.101

.751

A2 > A1 for Cl
(Cluster 3)

1

96.907

14.712

.0002*

♦Although mean differences between groups were significant at the .005 level, results were not in
the expected direction.

Table 4.5—Continued

« *> “

■

4D. Building principals in school
districts with ABU's have more positive
attitudes toward ABU's than building
principals in school districts without
ABU's.
4E. Building principals in school
districts with ABU's have stronger
beliefs concerning the potential
influence of ABU's than building
principals in school districts
without ABU's.
4F. Building principals in school
districts with ABU's have more positive
attitudes toward their present situation
than building principals in school
districts without ABU's.
♦Significant at the .005 level.

a

s

t s

. 1'

*

'

A1 > A2 for C2
and C3
(Cluster 1)

2

192.191

2.657

.072

A1 > A2 for C2
and C3
(Cluster 2)

2

242.512

1.632

.198

A1 > A2 for C2
and C3
(Cluster 3)

2

56.814

8.626

.0003^

94

d is tric ts with ABU's have stronger b e lie fs concerning the potential
Influence of adm inistrative bargaining units than superintendents
1n school d is tric ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis 4B was tested by comparing the b e lie fs of the 42
superintendents In school d is tric ts with ABU's concerning the poten­
t ia l Influence o f adm inistrative bargaining units with the b eliefs
of the 42 superintendents 1n school d is tr ic ts without ABU's.

A high

Cluster 2 score was regarded as a strong b e lie f while a low Cluster
2 score was regarded as a less strong b e lie f concerning the potential
Influence of ABU's.

Cluster 2 was regarded as the dependent variable

In testing Hypothesis 4B.
Results of analysis of variance are shown 1n Table 4.5 and
suggest that there 1s no s ig n ific a n t difference 1n the b e lie fs

of the

two groups of superintendents concerning the potential Influence of
ABU's.

Hypothesis 4B was therefore not supported.

Hypothesis 4C: Superintendents 1n school d is tric ts without
ABU's have more positive a ttitu d es toward th e ir present situ ation
than superintendents 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's.
Hypothesis 4C, lik e Hypotheses 4A and 4B, was based p rim arily
on previous research and findings presented 1n Chapter I I .

I t 1s

theorized th a t superintendents 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's are
more positive toward th e ir present adm inistrative arrangements than
superintendents 1n school d is tric ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis 4C was based upon findings 1n the lite ra tu re
which strongly suggested that superintendents would prefer not to
have th e ir m iddle-level administrators organize fo r purposes of
c o lle c tiv e bargaining.

The hypothesis 1s reversed when compared to

95

the others, in that superintendents 1n school d is tric ts without ABU's
are expected to have more positive a ttitu d e s toward th e ir present
situations than superintendents 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's.
Hypothesis 4C was tested by comparing the a ttitu d e s of the
42 superintendents 1n school d is tr ic ts with ABU's toward th e ir
present situations with the a ttitu d es of the 42 superintendents 1n
school d is tric ts without ABU's.

A high Cluster 3 score was regarded

as a positive a ttitu d e toward present situ atio n while a low Cluster 3
score was regarded as a negative a ttitu d e .

Cluster 3 was regarded

as the dependent variable 1n testing Hypothesis 4C.
Analysis of variance results fo r Hypothesis 4C are presented
1n Table 4.5 and Indicate that the attitu d es o f superintendents 1n
school d is tric ts with ABU's towards th e ir present situations were
surprisingly more positive than the a ttitu d es of the superintendents
In school d is tric ts without ABU’s.
supported.

Hypothesis 4C was therefore not

The results were, 1n fa c t, s ig n ific a n t 1n the opposite

direction than hypothesized.
Hypothesis 4D: Building principals In school d is tric ts with
ABU's have more positive attitud es towards adm inistrative bargaining
units than building principals 1n school d is tr ic ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis 4D was formulated based on findings presented 1n
Chapter I I .

Most researchers of adm inistrative bargaining units

have theorized that building principals once organized fo r c o lle c tiv e
bargaining hold a ttitu d es more positive toward ABU's than building
principals who are not members of an ABU.

I t Is assumed th a t b u ild ­

ing principals once organized support th e ir ABU's, while unorganized

96

building principals are somewhat fe a rfu l of possible negative ra m ifi­
cations from organizing fo r purposes o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining.
Hypothesis 4D was tested by comparing the attitud es o f the
84 building principals In school d is tric ts with ABU's toward admin­
is tra tiv e bargaining units with the a ttitu d es of the 84 building
principals 1n school d is tric ts without ABU's.

A high score on

Cluster 1 was regarded as a positive a ttitu d e toward ABU's, while
a low Cluster 1 score was an Indication o f negative a ttitu d e toward
ABU's.

Cluster 1 was regarded as the dependent variable In testing

Hypothesis 4D.
Results of analysis of variance are shown 1n Table 4.5 and
Indicate that building p rin c ip als' attitud es 1n school d is tric ts with
ABU's are not s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t than building p rin c ip als'
attitudes In school d is tric ts without ABU's.

Hypothesis 4D was

therefore not supported.
Hypothesis 4E: Building principals in school d is tric ts with
ABU's have stronger b eliefs concerning the potential Influence of
adm inistrative bargaining units than building principals 1n school
d is tric ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis 4E was developed 1n the same manner as Hypothesis
4D, and was based upon findings suggested 1n Chapter I I .

Hypothesis

4E tested the theory developed 1n e a r lie r research that building
principals 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's have d iffe re n t b eliefs
concerning the potential Influence of adm inistrative bargaining units
than building principals 1n school d is tric ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis 4E was tested by comparing the b e lie fs o f building
principals 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's concerning the potential

97

Influence of ABU's with the b eliefs o f the building principals in
school d is tric ts without ABU's.

A high Cluster 2 score was regarded

as a strong b e lie f, while a low Cluster 2 score was regarded as less
positive b e lie f.

Cluster 2 was regarded as the dependent variable in

testing Hypothesis 4E.
Results of analysis o f variance are shown 1n Table 4.5 and
indicate no s ig n ific a n t difference in the b e lie fs o f the two groups
of building p rincipals.

Hypothesis 4E was therefore not supported.

Hypothesis 4F: Building principals 1n school d is tric ts with
ABU's have more pos1t1ve a ttitu d e s toward th e ir present situ atio n
than building principals 1n school d is tric ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis 4F was based on findings suggested In Chapter I I .
Much o f the lite r a tu r e Indicated that building principals In school
d is tric ts with ABU's have more positive a ttitu d es toward th e ir
present situ ation than building principals 1n school d is tr ic ts with­
out ABU's.

The basis fo r th is theory was suggested by the increasing

number of ABU's that have been organized throughout Michigan 1n the
la s t fiv e years.

Hypothesis 4F attempted to tes t this theory.

Hypothesis 4F was tested by comparing the a ttitu d e s of bu ild­
ing principals 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's toward th e ir present
situ ation with the attitudes o f building principals In school
d is tric ts without ABU's.

A high score on Cluster 3 was regarded as

a positive a ttitu d e while a low Cluster 3 score was regarded as a
negative a ttitu d e .

Cluster 3 was regarded as the dependent variable

In testing Hypothesis 4F.
Results of analysis of variance are shown 1n Table 4.5 and
Indicate that the attitud es of building principals 1n school

98

d is tric ts with ABU's are more positive concerning th e ir present
situation than building principals In school d is tr ic ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis 4F was therefore supported.
Additional Findings
In addition to testing the four groups o f hypotheses,
exploratory analyses were conducted with the data.

The exploratory

analyses yielded some In teresting re su lts .
The f i r s t eight Items of the ABUPQ were demographic and are
presented In Table 4 .6 .

No predictions were formulated regarding

this Information, though Items #3 and #8 were used to v e rify the
coded answer sheets returned by the individual adm inistrators.
Regarding Hypothesis 2, s ta tis tic a l tests revealed no sig­
n ific a n t differences 1n the attitudes toward ABU's of administrators
1n small d is tric ts compared with administrators 1n medium- or large­
sized school d is tr ic ts .

Also, there were no s ig n ific a n t differences

1n the attitu d es of administrators 1n medium-sized d is tric ts compared
with administrators 1n large d is tr ic ts .

However, fu rth er examination

of the data revealed th a t administrators 1n small- and large-sized
school d is tric ts appeared to have surprisingly stronger b e lie fs 1n
the potential Influence of ABU's than do administrators 1n medium­
sized school d is tr ic ts .
Cluster 2:

The following mean scores were obtained fo r

33.50 fo r administrators in sm all-sized d is tr ic ts ,

29.12 fo r a<fan1n1strators in medium-sized d is tr ic t s , and 33.83 fo r
administrators In large-sized d is tr ic ts .
Regarding Hypothesis 4F, s ta tis tic a l tests revealed that
building principals In school d is tric ts with ABU's had more positive

Table 4.6—ABUPQ Demographic Data
N = 252
Number
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Item Statement

Sex
Male
93.7%

Female
6.3%

Age
21-29
0.0%

30-38
17.9%

48-55
36.9%

Over 56
6.5%

Omit
.4%

11-15
15.1%

Over 15
11.9%

Omit
.4%

Years Employed as Full-time School Administrator
11-15
0-3
4-6
7-10
5.2%
9.5%
22.2%
25.4%

Over 15
37.7%

Length of Present Personal Contract
Less than 1
One
Two
7.5%
28.6%
28.6%

Three
24.2%

More than 3
9.5%

Level of Educational Training
Bachelors
Bachelors
plus 15 credits
0 .0%
0.8%

Masters
Ph.D.
plus 30 cr.
50.4%
22.6%

Current Job T itle
Elem. Prin.
H. S. Prin.
33.3%
33.3%

39-47
38.1%
Superintendent
33.3%

Years Employed in Present Position
0-3
4-6
7-10
23.0%
25.4%
24.2%

Masters
26.2%

Type of Administrative Organization within School D istrict
Formal A8U
No ABO
50.0%
50.0%

Omit
1.6%

100

attitudes toward th e ir present situ atio n than building principals In
school d is tr ic ts without ABU's.

This re s u lt was consistent with the

current lite ra tu re concerning c o lle c tiv e bargaining by and fo r middlelevel adm inistrators.

In order to examine whether this finding was

also true fo r elementary principals as well as secondary p rin cip als,
separate analyses were conducted fo r elementary principals and
secondary principals using analysis of variance.

Results (see Table

4 .7 ) Indicated that elementary principals 1n school d is tric ts with
ABU's appeared to have more positive attitu d es toward th e ir present
situ ation than elementary principals 1n school d is tric ts without
ABU's.

However, there was no s ig n ific a n t difference between the

attitudes o f secondary principals in school d is tric ts with ABU's and
the a ttitud es of secondary principals 1n school d is tric ts without
ABU's.

Elementary principals 1n d is tric ts with ABU's apparently f e l t

so positive about th e ir present situation that th e ir scores, when
combined with the less positive secondary p rin c ip als' scores, pro­
duced s ig n ific a n t results for Hypothesis 4F.
Summary
In order to examine the a ttitu d e s o f Michigan superintendents
and secondary and elementary principals toward adm inistrative
bargaining u n its, three a ttltu d ln a l clu ster scores derived from
responses to the Administrative Bargaining Unit Preference Question­
naire of 252 administrators were examined and compared using three
c la s s ific a tio n categories.

The three c la s s ific a tio n categories

were: (1) type of adm inistrative organization, (2) size o f school
d is tr ic t as determined by the number of building principals employed,

Table 4.7—Results of Analysis of Variance for Further Testing of Hypothesis 4F
N - 252

Secondary principals
with ABU's have more
toward their present
secondary principals
without ABU's.

in school districts
positive attitudes
situations than
in school districts

Elementary principals in school
districts with ABU's have more positive
attitudes toward their present situations
than elementary principals in school
districts without ABU's.
♦Significant at the .005 level.

A1 > A2 for C2
(Cluster 3)

1

1.907

A1 > A2 for C3
(Cluster 3)

1

111.7202

.290

16.962

.591

.0001*

102

and (3) present employment position.
were:

The three a ttltu d ln a l clusters

(1) general a ttitu d e toward adm inistrative bargaining u n its,

(2) b eliefs concerning the potential Influence of adm inistrative
bargaining u n its , and (3) a ttitu d e toward present s itu a tio n .
Four sets of hypotheses, or a to ta l of 17 directio n al
hypotheses were tested, and the results were reported in the present
chapter.

An alpha level of .005 was set fo r testing each of the 17

hypotheses 1n order to Insure an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.
As a re su lt of these te s ts , three hypotheses were supported (1A, IB ,
and 4F), and fourteen hypotheses were not supported (1C, 2A, 2B, 2C,
2D, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E).

However, fo r three of

the nonsupported hypotheses (3A, 3B, and 4C), results were s ig n ific a n t
1n the opposite direction than hypothesized,

The results of

hypotheses 3A, 3B, and 4C were most in terestin g since they are not
believed to be consistent with current lite r a tu r e regarding admin­
is tr a tiv e bargaining units.

A f u ll discussion o f the findings is

Included 1n the following chapter.

Footnotes--Chapter IV
McConnell, Lawrence F ., “A Study of the Influence of
C ollective Bargaining by School Administrators on the Management
Functions of Selected Michigan School D is tric ts ," Unpublished
Ph.D. D issertation, Michigan State U n iversity, 1973.
2Ib1d.
3

Munger, Benson Scott, "A Study of the Relationship Between
Selected Variables and the Attitudes of Michigan Principals Toward
Organizing fo r Negotiations," Unpublished Ph.D. D issertation,
Michigan State U n iversity, 1971.
4
McConnell, op. c 1 t.

103

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The major problem o f the present study was to determine
attitudes of superintendents and building principals (secondary and
elementary) 1n selected Michigan school d is tr ic ts toward administra­
tiv e bargaining units (ABU's).
Summary of the Study
Attitudes of Michigan administrators toward adm inistrative
bargaining units were measured by the Adm inistrative Bargaining Unit
Preference Questionnaire (ABUPQ), an Instrument constructed fo r the
study.

The sample consisted of 252 adm inistrators:

84 superin­

tendents, 84 secondary p rin c ip als, and 84 elementary p rin cip als, a ll
employed 1n Michigan public school d is tric ts (K -12).
The Acfan1n1strative Bargaining Unit Preference Questionnaire
Is a s e lf-re p o rt Instrument designed by the researcher and based
upon opinions expressed In a review of the lite r a tu r e concerning
adm inistrative bargaining units 1n Michigan p rio r to February 1977.
The ABUPQ consists of 74 Items o f which 35 Items were used to measure
the following a ttltu d ln a l preferences:

(1) general a ttitu d e toward

ABU's, (2) b e lie fs concerning the potential Influence o f ABU's, and
(3) a ttitu d e toward present s itu a tio n .

Each adm inistrator's ques­

tionnaire responses were transformed into three composite cluster
104

105

scores.

The ABUPQ clusters appeared to be s a tis fa c to rily r e lia b le ,

with C o efficien t Alphas ranging from .77 to .93.
Administrators were c la s s ifie d according to three categories:
(1) type o f adm inistrative organization, (2) size of school d is tr ic t
as determined by number of building principals employed, and (3)
present employment position.

Four sets of hypotheses, or 17 In d i­

vidual directional hypotheses, were formulated 1n order to tes t
whether s ig n ific a n t relationships existed between the three c la s s i­
fic a tio n categories fo r each administrator and the a ttltu d ln a l
preferences of each adm inistrator as measured by the three clu ster
scores.

The hypotheses were tested with three-way analysis of

variance.

In a ll cases, the clu ster scores were regarded as the

dependent variables and were used to determine d ire c tio n a lity of
adm inistrative a ttitu d e s .

A high c lu ster score was regarded as a

positive a ttitu d e , while a low clu ster score was regarded as a
negative a ttitu d e .

An alpha level of .005 was set fo r testing each

of the 17 directio n al hypotheses in order to Insure an experimentwise alpha level of .05.

The following results were obtained:

Hypothesis 1 — Type of Organization
Hypothesis 1A:

Administrators 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's

have more positive attitu d es toward adm inistrative bargaining units
than administrators In school d is tric ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis IB :

Administrators 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's

have stronger b eliefs concerning the potential Influence o f adminis­
tra tiv e bargaining units than administrators 1n school d is tric ts
without ABU's.

106

Hypothesis 1C:

There are no s ig n ific a n t differences between

the a ttitu d e s of administrators 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's toward
th e ir present situ ation and the attitu d es o f administrators 1n school
d is tric ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis 2 — Size o f School D is tr ic t
Hypothesis 2A:

There are no s ig n ific a n t differences between

the a ttitud es of administrators in medium- and large-sized school
d is tric ts toward adm inistrative bargaining u n its , and the attitu d es
of administrators 1n small-sized school d is tr ic ts .
Hypothesis 2B:

There are no s ig n ific a n t differences between

the b eliefs of administrators in medium- and large-sized school
d is tric ts concerning the potential Influence o f adm inistrative
bargaining u n its, and the b eliefs of administrators 1n small-sized
school d is tr ic ts .
Hypothesis 2C:

There are no s ig n ific a n t differences between

the a ttitu d es of administrators 1n large-sized school d is tric ts
toward adm inistrative bargaining units and the attitud es o f admin­
is tra to rs 1n medium-sized school d is tr ic ts .
Hypothesis 2D:

There are no s ig n ific a n t differences between

the b e lie fs of administrators 1n large-sized school d is tr ic ts con­
cerning the potential Influence of adm inistrative bargaining u n its ,
and the b eliefs of administrators 1n medium-sized school d is tr ic ts .
Hypothesis 3 — Present Employment Position
Hypothesis 3A:

Superintendents appear to have more positive

attitudes toward adm inistrative bargaining units than building
principals.

107

Hypothesis 38:

Superintendents appear to have stronger

b e lie fs concerning the po ten tial influence o f adm inistrative bargain­
ing units than building p rin c ip a ls .
Hypothesis 3C:

There are no s ig n ific a n t differences between

the a ttitu d e s o f elementary principals toward adm inistrative bargain­
ing u n its , and the a ttitu d e s o f secondary p rin c ip a ls .
Hypothesis 3D:

There are no s ig n ific a n t differences between

the b e lie fs o f elementary p rincipals concerning the p otential In f lu ­
ence o f adm inistrative bargaining u n its , and the b e lie fs o f secondary
p rin cip als.
Hypothesis 4 — Type o f Organization and Employment Position
Hypothesis 4A:

There are no s ig n ific a n t differences between

the a ttitu d e s of superintendents in school d is tr ic ts with ABU's
toward adm inistrative bargaining units and the a ttitu d e s o f super­
intendents In school d is tr ic ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis 4B:

There are no s ig n ific a n t differences between

the b e lie fs of superintendents 1n school d is tr ic ts with ABU's con­
cerning the potential Influence o f adm inistrative bargaining u n its ,
and the b e lie fs o f superintendents 1n school d is tr ic ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis 4C:

Superintendents 1n school d is tr ic ts with

ABU's appear to have more positive a ttitu d e s toward th e ir present
s itu a tio n than superintendents In school d is tr ic ts without ABU's.
Hypothesis 4D:

There are no s ig n ific a n t differences between

the a ttitu d e s o f building principals 1n school d is tr ic ts with ABU's
toward adm inistrative bargaining u n its , and the a ttitu d e s o f b u ild ­
ing princip als In school d is tr ic ts without ABU's.

108

Hypothesis 4E:

There are no s ig n ific a n t differences between

the a ttitu d e s o f building prin cip als 1n school d is tr ic ts with ABU's
concerning the potential Influence o f adm inistrative bargaining u n its ,
and the b e lie fs o f building principals 1n school d is tr ic ts without
ABU's.
Hypothesis 4F:

Building prin cip als 1n school d is tr ic ts with

ABU's have more positive a ttitu d e s toward th e ir present situ ation s
than building p rincipals In school d is tr ic ts without ABU's.
In addition to testing the 17 hypotheses, exploratory
analyses were conducted with the d ata, re su ltin g in two In tere s tin g
findings.
Regarding Hypothesis 2, s ta tis tic a l tests revealed no sig ­
n ific a n t differences 1n the a ttitu d e s toward ABU’ s o f adm inistrators
1n small d is tr ic ts compared with adm inistrators in medium- or la rg e ­
sized school d is tr ic t s .

Also, there were no s ig n ific a n t differences

1n the a ttitu d e s o f adm inistrators in medium-sized d is tr ic ts compared
with the a ttitu d e s o f adm inistrators in large d is tr ic t s .

However,

fu rth e r examination o f the data revealed th a t adm inistrators 1n smalland large-sized school d is tr ic ts appear to have surprising ly stronger
b eliefs 1n the potential Influence o f ABU's than do adm inistrators
1n medium-sized school d is tr ic t s .
Regarding Hypothesis 4F, s ta tis tic a l tests revealed th a t
building prin cip als In school d is tr ic ts with ABU's had more p o sitive
a ttitu d e s toward th e ir present situ ation s than building p rin cip als 1n
school d is tr ic ts without ABU's.

This re s u lt was consistent with the

current lite r a tu r e concerning c o lle c tiv e bargaining by and fo r

109

middle-level adm inistrators.

In order to examine whether this fin d ­

ing was also true fo r elementary principals as well as secondary
p rin cip als, separate analyses were conducted fo r elementary principals
and secondary principals using analysis of variance.

Results were

tabulated and Indicated that elementary principals In school d is tric ts
with ABU's appear to have more positive a ttitu d es toward th e ir present
situation than elementary principals in school d is tric ts without
ABU's.

However, there was no s ig n ific a n t difference 1n the attitud es

of secondary principals 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's and the
attitudes o f secondary principals 1n school d is tric ts without ABU's.
Elementary principals In d is tric ts with ABU's apparently f e l t so
positive about th e ir present situ ation that th e ir scores, when com­
bined with the less positive secondary p rin cip als' scores, produced
s ig n ifica n t results fo r Hypothesis 4F.
Discussion of the Findings and
Recommendations fo r Future Research
The study produced a number of s ig n ific a n t re su lts .

A d is ­

cussion o f the findings and recommendations fo r future research are
presented below.
Hypothesis 1 — Type of Organization
The f i r s t set of hypotheses (1A, IB , and 1C) postulated that
administrators In school d is tric ts with ABU's have more positive
attitudes toward adm inistrative bargaining u n its , have stronger
b eliefs concerning the potential influence of adm inistrative bargain­
ing u n its , and have more positive attitud es toward th e ir present
s itu a tio n , than administrators 1n school d is tric ts without ABU's.

110

The s ta tis tic a l tests of the study revealed that administrators In
school d is tric ts with ABU's do have more positive attitudes toward
ABU's and stronger b eliefs concerning th e ir potential Influence.
However, there appeared to be no s ig n ific a n t differences 1n the
attitu d es of these two groups of administrators toward th e ir present
situations.
The results of Hypotheses 1A and IB were consistent with the
current lite r a tu r e .

Once a group of m iddle-level administrators

elect to organize fo r purposes of c o lle c tiv e bargaining, th e ir
general attitud es toward ABU's and th e ir b eliefs In the potential
Influence of ABU's are more positive than the attitud es o f adminis­
trato rs who, fo r whatever reasons, have not organized fo r the pur­
pose of c o lle c tiv e bargaining.

The lite r a tu r e reviewed Illu s tra te d

numerous reasons why groups o f middle-level administrators in grow­
ing numbers are seeking the protection of ABU's.
Relationships between superintendents and building principals
based upon a fear or lack of understanding of ABU's may well be more
detrimental to the e ffe c tiv e management of schools than actual union­
ization by middle-level adm inistrators.
Hypotheses 1A and IB were not unexpected.
Hypothesis 1C were surprising.

Thus, the results of
However, the results of

I t had been expected, because of the

constantly Increasing number of ABU’ s 1n Michigan public schools,
that administrators 1n school d is tric ts without ABU's would be less
positive about th e ir present s itu a tio n .

That th is expected finding

was not supported by the data 1s Interesting and worthy o f additional
study.

Ill
Perhaps one reason that administrators 1n school d is tric ts
without ABU's appear to be as s a tis fie d with th e ir present situ ation
as administrators In school d is tric ts with ABU's Is that administra­
tiv e hours, wages, and working conditions are somewhat standardized
by regions throughout the state regardless of the type of administra­
tiv e organization within an individual school d is t r ic t .
This possible explanation of the data results 1s supported
by a t least one superintendent In a school d is tr ic t with an admin­
is tra tiv e bargaining unit who Included the following comment with the
ABUPQ answer sheet.
Administrators and supervisors 1n this d is t r ic t have been
le g a lly organized fo r years but have not negotiated fo r the past
four years. We are operating a management team program. The
formal bargaining unit remains 1n name only.
Another possible reason suggested in the lite r a tu r e 1s that
ABU's are organized only a fte r a c ris is or series o f events occur
which are detrimental to middle-level adm inistrative morale such as
the release o f an administrator without due process or ju s t cause.
H istorical studies are needed to examine the relationships which
have existed between superintendents and middle-level administrators
before and a fte r the formation of an adm inistrative bargaining u n it.
An Interesting comment received from a high school principal
In a large-sized school d is tr ic t without an adm inistrative bargaining
unit tends to support the above statements regarding adm inistrative
morale and c ris is events.

According to the secondary principal 1t 1s

the superintendent within th is p a rtic u la r d is t r ic t who Is promoting
an adm inistrative bargaining u n it as protection fo r middle-level
administrators.

The high school p rin c ip a l's comment was:

112

We are now 1n the process o f organizing a local bargaining u nit
a fte r operating on the team concept fo r several years with two
superintendents. Our present superintendent thought the time
was rig h t (to organize) because board members who had attended
conventions were favorable to the Idea. Because of two high
school principals being discharged recen tly, no tenure fo r
adm inistrators, and a ttitu d es of the teacher union, I t appears
advisable fo r us to organize.
Hypothesis 2 - -S iz e of School D is tr ic t
The second set of hypotheses (2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D) postulated
that size of school d is t r ic t as determined by the number o f building
principals employed would cause s ig n ific a n t differences in adminis­
tra tiv e attitud es toward ABU's, and b eliefs concerning the potential
influence of adm inistrative bargaining u n its .

The lite r a tu r e here

supported the theory that the larg er the school d is tr ic t the more
lik e ly i t was that administrators at the building level would favor
adm inistrative bargaining units.

Reasons cited were many but p r i­

marily Indicated that increased size of school d is tric ts brought
communication problems fo r middle-level administrators and the school
board and superintendent.

Furthermore, the lite r a tu r e supported

additional reasons fo r adm inistrative In te re s t 1n ABU's, which were,
the lack o f meaningful Involvement by middle-level administrators 1n
large school d is tric ts 1n teacher negotiations and the lack of mean­
ingful Involvement in the determination of school p o lic ie s .
None of the four hypotheses were supported but fu rth e r
analyses revealed that'adm inistrators in both sm all- and large-sized
school d is tric ts with ABU's have more positive attitud es concerning
the potential Influence of ABU's than administrators In medium-sized
school d is tric ts with ABU's.

113

The non-support o f the four hypotheses 1s surprising as Is the
d is tin c tio n between medium-sized school d is tric ts and small- and
large-sized school d is tric ts with ABU's.

I t would appear that size

of d is t r ic t , contrary to the current lit e r a t u r e , 1s not a valid
predictor of adm inistrative in te re s t 1n ABU's.

Two possible explana­

tions, worthy of consideration in future studies, are:

(1 ) the

personalities o f the individual administrators employed in a school
d is tr ic t a t the time an adm inistrative bargaining u n it is organized
and (2) the specific conditions or events which have led to the
formation of adm inistrative bargaining units w ithin Individual school
d is tr ic ts .
Hypothesis 3 — Present Employment Position
The th ird set o f hypotheses (3A, 3B, 3C, and 30) postulated
that superintendents, secondary and elementary principals have
s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t attitud es toward ABU's, and b eliefs concern­
ing the potential influences of adm inistrative bargaining units.
Elementary principals were theorized as having the most positive
attitudes toward ABU's, with superintendents fee lin g le a s t positive
toward adm inistrative bargaining units.
Hypotheses 3A, 3B, 3C, and 30 were not supported.

The

rejection of these hypotheses Is especially surprising since related
research Indicated that elementary principals would display the most
In tere s t 1n ABU's, followed next by secondary principals and f in a lly
by superintendents.

Using th is Information, 1t was assumed that

elementary principals would compile the highest ABUPQ c lu ster scores

114

1n the present study.

Superintendents were expected to compile the

lowest c lu s te r scores fo r the three groups of adm inistrators.
While the complete opposite did not occur, superintendents In
school d is tr ic ts with ABU's and superintendents 1n school d is tr ic ts
without ABU's expressed more p o sitive a ttitu d e s toward adm inistrative
bargaining units than did a ll o f the building p rin c ip a ls , regardless
o f the type o f adm inistrative organization w ith in th e ir school
d is t r ic t .
Elementary and secondary p rincipals unexpectedly expressed
b asically the same a ttitu d e s as indicated In the te s t resu lts fo r
Hypotheses 3C and 30.
These resu lts are In te re s tin g and would In d icate a serious
contradiction of much o f the current lit e r a t u r e , e sp ecially those
a rtic le s which are authored by spokesmen o f s ta te and national
adm inistrative associations.

Future research should examine the

p o s s ib ility th a t there are s ig n ific a n t differences between super­
intendents and building prin cip als concerning perceptions o f ABU's,
using a d iffe re n t set o f dependent v ariab le s.

One possible explana­

tion fo r the present study results 1s th a t superintendents, unlike
most building p rin c ip a ls , must work d ire c tly w ith teacher contract
negotiations and therefore b e tte r understand and accept the adversary
conditions o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining by school employees.

Perhaps

the a ttitu d e s re fle c te d in the lit e r a t u r e produced by p rin c ip a ls '
associations are more a warning o f things to come than a re fle c tio n
of present conditions.

The resu lts o f these hypotheses do not

Indicate Increased In te re s t on the p art o f m iddle-level adm inistrators

115

In organizing ABU's as 1s strongly suggested by many w riters 1n the
area of adm inistrative bargaining u n its.
The results of testing Hypothesis 3 are reflected 1n the
comment o f one elementary principal who 1n returning the ABUPQ answer
sheet wrote, "Up to th is date in tim e, I , personally, have had an
extremely pleasant career without an adm inistrative bargaining u n it."
Hypothesis 4 — Type o f Organization and Employment Position
The fourth set of hypotheses (4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, and 4F)
postulated that superintendents and building p rin c ip als, independent
of each other, in school d is tric ts with ABU's have more positive
attitudes toward adm inistrative bargaining u n its , have stronger
b eliefs concerning the potential Influence of adm inistrative bargain­
ing u n its , and have more positive attitu d es toward th e ir present
s itu a tio n , than superintendents and building principals 1n school
d is tric ts without ABU's.
Individuals w ritin g about ABU's had Indicated that adminis­
trato rs who have experienced the process of a c e rtific a tio n election
fo r an adm inistrative bargaining unit or have experienced the pro­
cedure involved 1n seeking voluntary recognlzatlon status o f middlelevel administrations w ithin a school d is t r ic t could be expected to
express attitud es considerably more positive regarding ABU's than
superintendents and building principals 1n school d is tric ts without
adm inistrative bargaining units.
Hypotheses 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E were not supported while
4F was supported.

However, the testing of Hypothesis 4C Indicated

s ig n ific a n t results in the opposite d ire c tio n .

Therefore the testing

116

of the six hypotheses appear only to support that superintendents and
building principals 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's have more positive
attitudes towards th e ir present situ ation than administrators 1n
school d is tric ts without ABU's.
What is of in te re s t in the tes t results of Hypotheses 4A, 4B#
4D, and 4E 1s that no difference in the attitu d es of administrators
In school d is tric ts with ABU's was found from the a ttitu d es of
administrators In school d is tr ic ts without ABU's, regarding e ith e r
attitud es toward ABU's or b eliefs concerning the potential Influence
of ABU's.
The current lite r a tu r e appears to be as contradictory fo r
Hypotheses 4A, 4B, 4D, and 4E as i t was fo r Hypotheses 3C and 3D.
The research data fo r the present study support th a t administrators
once organized fo r c o lle c tiv e bargaining have more positive attitud es
towards ABU's than administrators in d is tric ts without ABU's.

How­

ever, th is does not necessarily mean that there 1s a prevailing proadm inistrative bargaining unit a ttitu d e among m iddle-level
administrators which 1s Influencing or causing building principals
1n school d is tric ts without ABU's to consider organizing fo r the
purpose of c o lle c tiv e bargaining.
The comments of one secondary principal 1n a small-sized
school d is t r ic t without an ABU lends support to the above statement:
I f there 1s true team management with a superintendent
dedicated to looking out fo r the best Interests of his
adm inistrators, there 1s no need fo r a bargaining u n it.
In fa c t, a u n it could be counter-productive 1 f 1t s tirs up
public resentment 1n small communities.

117

As was previously suggested there Is a need fo r a h isto rical
studies designed to examine and determine the actual events or e x is t­
ing conditions which have led to the organizing of approximately
seventy adm inistrative bargaining units 1n Michigan since 1969.
Additional Recommendations
This study was concerned p rim arily with determining the
attitudes of superintendents, secondary and elementary principals in
selected Michigan school d is tric ts toward adm inistrative bargaining
units.

I t was necessarily lim ited In scope.

Many other professional

educators and laymen are affected by ABU's and a sim ilar Investiga­
tion of th e ir a ttitu d es should prove p ro fita b le .

These would include

teachers, school board members, other adm inistrators, and parents.
In addition to the recommendations mentioned throughout this
chapter, a number o f suggestions are offered to future researchers
o f adm inistrative bargaining un its.
1.

The formation of adm inistrative bargaining units for

middle-level administrators is occurring nationwide.

Therefore,

sim ilar research based on the results of the present study should be
conducted In several other states 1n which ABU's have been organized.
2.

Future investigation o f the impact o f ABU's on selected

management functions such as, role and re s p o n sib ilitie s o f building
p rincip als, problems of communication with the school board and
superintendent, and adm inistrative salary and frin g e b en efits, could
be expanded upon beyond the abstract concept o f b eliefs concerning
the potential Influence of adm inistrative bargaining units to the

118

measurement of absolute changes resulting from the organization of
ABU's.
3.

Research should be undertaken to determine the degree of

com patibility between ABU's and the management team concept.

The

results of th is study suggest that perhaps a management team approach
and ABU's are not Incompatible.

The results of Hypothesis 4C Indicate

that superintendents in school d is tric ts with ABU's are more positive
1n th e ir a ttitu d e s toward th e ir present situ ation than superintendents
1n school d is tric ts without ABU's.

Accepting these re s u lts , which

are contrary to the current lite r a tu r e , there Is reason to believe
that research to determine the com patibility of ABU’ s and the manage­
ment team concept would be most beneficial to school administrators
a t a ll le ve ls .
4.

A study should be conducted to examine the degree of

representativeness of Michigan building principals by the s ta te 's
adm inistrative associations.

I t would be interesting to learn

whether the adm inistrative associations re fle c t the needs and
attitu d es o f th e ir members or whether the associations are actu ally
attempting to pre-determlne the needs and attitu d es of member
adm inistrators.

This d is tin c tio n requires c la r ific a tio n since the

results of the present study Indicate that the opinions expressed
concerning ABU's 1n much of the lite r a tu r e published by state admin­
is tr a tiv e associations, p a rtic u la rly fo r secondary and elementary
p rin cip als, 1s not re fle c tiv e of the attitu d es of the building p rin ­
cipals surveyed fo r this study.

The Inconsistency of representative­

ness raises numerous questions concerning the Influence o f these

119

associations on the growth of adm inistrative bargaining units 1n
Michigan.
5.

A longitudinal study over a period of at le a s t three

master teachers' contracts should be conducted to examine adminis­
tra tiv e relationships between executive managers (superintendents)
and m iddle-level managers (building prin cip als) 1n lig h t o f c o lle c tiv e
bargaining by teachers.

This would enable administrators to re a lize

the actual Influences of c o lle c tiv e bargaining by teachers on
adm inistrative In te re s t 1n adm inistrative bargaining u n its .
6.

A study of school d is tric ts with adm inistrative bargain­

ing units should be undertaken to Id e n tify those conditions or events
which have precipitated the formation of an adm inistrative bargaining
unit In those Individual d is tr ic ts .

Examination o f actual conditions

p rio r to organization should prove most p ro fita b le fo r school
administrators a t a ll le v e ls , 1f relationships between p rio r condi­
tions and the formation of an ABU are s ig n ific a n t.

This 1s necessary

since no s ig n ific a n t differences were found between the attitud es of
administrators 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's toward th e ir present
situation and the attitudes of administrators 1n school d is tr ic ts
without ABU's.

Therefore, i t 1s suspected, outside the scope of

th is study, that c ris is conditions or events occur w ithin a school
d is t r ic t which cause building principals to undergo sudden a ttltu d 1nal changes from personal and group positions of satisfactio n with
th e ir present situ ation to positions of d is sa tisfac tio n .
7.

I t has been suggested that the reason superintendents

appear to have more positive attitu d es toward ABU's than building

120

p rin cip als, and appear to have stronger b eliefs concerning the poten­
t ia l Influence o f ABU's than building principals is school d is tric ts
with ABU's practice of hiring superintendents with previous
experiences and positive a ttitu d es In dealing with adm inistrative
bargaining units.

That Is to say, a school d is t r ic t with an ABU w ill

select and h ire , as Its ch ief executive, an individual who displays
an a b ilit y to work with building principals and other m iddle-level
administrators who are organized fo r the purposes of c o lle c tiv e
bargaining.

This premise 1s outside the scope of the present study,

but future research should examine the p o s s ib ility th a t the super­
intendent's a ttitu d e toward ABU's 1s highly related to the In tere s t
building principals may have In adm inistrative bargaining u n its.
Furthermore, 1t would be in teresting to know to what extent super­
intendents with positive a ttitu d es toward ABU's w ill encourage
building principals to organize fo r c o lle c tiv e bargaining.

The data

results suggest that there Is a p o s s ib ility that superintendents
would prefer to have th e ir middle-level administrators organized fo r
purposes of adm inistrative e ffic ie n c y and s ta ff morale.
Conclusions
The findings o f th is study are s ig n ific a n t both 1n what was
determined through s ta tis tic a l analysis o f the data and what was not
determined.
F ir s t, 1t can be supported that administrators 1n school
d is tric ts that have ABU's have more positive attitu d es toward atfenln1strat1ve bargaining units than administrators 1n school d is tric ts
without ABU's.

121

Second, i t was supported that administrators In school
d is tric ts that have ABU's have stronger b e lie fs concerning the poten­
t ia l influence of adm inistrative bargaining units than administrators
in school d is tric ts without ABU's.
Third, superintendents appear to have more positive attitu d es
toward adm inistrative bargaining units than building p rin cip als.
Fourth, superintendents appear to have stronger b eliefs
concerning the potential Influence of adm inistrative bargaining units
than building p rincipals.
F ifth , superintendents 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's appear
to have more positive attitudes toward th e ir present situ atio n than
superintendents In school d is tric ts without ABU's.
S ixth, building principals 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's
have more positive attitu d es toward th e ir present situ ation than
building principals 1n school d is tric ts without ABU's.
In addition to the above findings which resulted from
hypotheses tes tin g , the following s ig n ific a n t results were obtained
from additional tests of the data collected.
1.

Administrators 1n both small- and large-sized school

d is tric ts with ABU's appear to have stronger b e lie fs concerning
the potential Influence of adm inistrative bargaining units than
administrators 1n medium-sized school d is tric ts with ABU's.
2.

Elementary principals 1n school d is tric ts with ABU's

appear to have more positive attitud es concerning the potential
Influence of adm inistrative bargaining units than elementary
principals 1n schogl d is tric ts without ABU's.

122

F in a lly , o f significance to the researcher was the In a b ility
to produce s ig n ific a n t data results which supported that building
p rin cip als, and elementary principals 1n p a rtic u la r, hold more
positive attitud es toward adm inistrative bargaining units than
superintendents.

The lite r a tu r e had strongly promoted th is theory

which was not supported w ithin the present study.

APPENDIX

ADMINISTRATIVE BARGAINING UNIT
PREFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
AND COVER LETTER

123

124

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
( O I L I C f O f EDUCATION

EAST LANSINC • MICHIGAN • 4M24

D E E A K IM fN T O f ADMINISTRATION AN D HIGHER EDUCATION
I HK K S O \ HALL

March 31, 1977

Dear Administrator:
For the purposes of completing a doctoral dissertation concerning administrative
bargaining units in Michigan public schools, we would appreciate your taking
the time necessary to assist in the research of this topic. We are Interested
in your attitudes toward administrative bargaining units for building level
administrators. You have been selected at random to participate in this study,
along with over 280 other Michigan school administrators.
Participation Involves only the completion of the enclosed questionnaire and
return of the answer sheet to Michigan State University. The information
gathered is strictly confidential and at no time will your nanw or the school
system's name appear in print. The results of this questionnaire will be
Incorporated into a doctoral dissertation and will be nude available through
Michigan State University.
Accompanying this letter is a seven-page questionnaire, an answer sheet, and
a stamped return envelope. We would appreciate your taking approximately
twenty minutes to complete and return the answer sheet within the next two
days. You may keep the actual questionnaire. Again, the purpose of this
research is to gather information on this topic and is in no way designed to
favor or encourage any particular type of adndnlstratlve contract negotiations*
If you should for any reason wish not to participate, please return the entire
packet of materials and another participant will be selected. Questions or
concerns should be directed to Mr. Burton at either the address or phone number
listed below. Your participation is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Sincerely,

Gary A. Burton

334 Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Tel: (517) 355-1833

Richard L. Featherstone
Professor
Administration and Higher Bducatlon

125

Administrative Bargaining Unit Preference Questionnaire

First, read each statement or question carefully.
pencil

Then mark with a carbon

(#2) how strongly you feel (1 to 5) about each of the following items,

using the answer sheet.

Please do not answer on this questionnaire.

Here is an example of how you might

Do you think you will
(1)
Definitely
yes

respond.

earn an M. A. degree w i t h i n the next
(2)
Piobably

o)
I have no
opin i o n

five years?

m

(5)

Probably
not

Definitely
not

Your answers will be Strictly Confidential, so please be completely honest
and candid.

A student number has been assigned to your answer sheet by the

researcher in order to determine a response percentage of the 280 administra­
tors asked at random to participate in this study.

Anonymity is guaranteed by

the researcher.

Upon completion, do not fold the answer sheet, but return it limned lately
via the enclosed mailer to the researcher within the next two days.

MANY THANKS FOR YOUR HELP.

If there is anything you would

like to say about

administrative bargaining units, please do so, by including your comments on a
separate sheet of paper and enclosing it with the answer sheet.

126
Questions one through eight are requests for demographic information,
mark the appropriate number on your answer sheet.
1.

2.

What is your sex?
<U
male

(2)
female

How old are you?

(2)
30-38

( 1)
21-29
3.

Please

(3)
39-47

(4)
48-55

(5)
Over 56

Your current job title is;

(2)

(1)
Elem. Principal

H.S.

Principal

(3)
Supe rintendent

4.

How many years have you been employed in your present position?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
0-3
4-6
7-10
11-15
Over 15

5.

How many years have you been employed as a full time school administrator?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
f5)
0-3
4-6
7-10
11-15
Over 15

6.

How many years of employment are stated in your present personal contract?
( 2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
( 1)
One
Two
Three
Less than
More than
one
three

7.

What is the level of your educational training?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Bachelors
Bachelors
Masters
Masters
plus 15
plus 30
credits
credits

8.

(5)
Ph.D.

Which of the following two arrangements best describes the manner in which
present building principals' contracts for your school district were
determined?

IMPORTANT:

(1)

Formal administrative bargaining unit
(an administrative
union which was legally certified by the Michigan Employment
Relations Commission or an administrative bargaining unit
which was voluntarily recognized by the school board.

(2)

No organized administrative bargaining unit was recognized
by the school board for the purpose of contract negotiation
for building principals as a group.

All of the following questions about administrative bargaining
units are referring to formal bargaining units either certified
by M E R C or voluntarily recognized by the school board.

-1 -

127

Marking Instructions
(1)
Definitely
yes

(2)
Probably

(3)
I have no
opinion

(4)
Probably
not

(5)
Definitely
not

9.

Administrative bargaining units tend to improve communication
with the superintendent...............................................1 2 3 4 5

10.

Are you satisfied with the manner in which the principals'
present contracts were d etermined?................................... 1 2 3 4 5

11.

Administrative bargaining units encourage greater teacher
association activities................................................. 1- 2 3 4 5

12.

Administrative bargaining units protect individual administra­
tors from school board/superintendent hara ssm en t ................... 1 2 3 4 5

13.

Administrative bargaining units promote communication between
the school board and buildirg level administrators........... ....1

2 3 4 5

14.

Administrative bargaining units usually improve administrative
working conditions..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

15.

Administrative bargaining units guard against the erosion of the
role and responsibilities of administrators.
1

2 3 4 5

45

16.

My opinion of administrative bargaining units is p osi ti ve.........1 2 3

17.

There are alternatives to administrative bargaining units in
small school dis tricts.

1

2 3 4 5

Administrative bargaining units are counter-productive for
administrators

i

2 3 4 5

18.

19.

Administrators generally work fewer hours per week for the same
salary when represented by a bargaining u n i t ........................ 1 2 3 4 5

- 2-

128

M a r k i n g Instructions
(1 )

Defin i t e l y
yes

20.

Do y o u beli e v e

(2 )

Pr o b a b l y

(3 )

I have no
opin i o n

(4 )

Pr o b a b l y
not

(5 )

Definitely
not

that the emplo y m e n t needs of b u i l d i n g

principals are properly understood by the school b o a r d ? ........... I 2 3 4 5

21.

Administrative bargaining units tend to hurt administrator/
school board relationships............................................ 1 2 3 4 5

22.

Administrative bargaining units usually produce a more cohesive
group of administrators................................................ 1 2 3 4 5

23.

Administrative bargaining units tend to antagonize teacher/
administrator relationships

1

Administrative bargaining units promote communication between
the school board and building level administrators

1 2 3 4 5

24.

2 3 4 5

25.

Elementary principals have much to gain from bargaining u n i t s . ...1 2 3 4 5

26.

Administrative bargaining units antagonize the general public....! 2 3 4 5

27.

Superintendents would prefer to have their administrators
represented by a bargaining u n i t ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5

28.

Administrative bargaining units protect the administrative role
during teacher contract negotiations.................................1 2 3 4 5

29.

Administrative bargaining units are generally a positive display
of p o w e r . .
1

2 3 4 5

Do you believe that the employment needs of building principals
are properly understood by the superintendent?
..1

2 3 45

30.

3

129

Marking Instructions
(1)
Definitely
yes

31.

(2)
Probably

(3)
I have no
opinion

(4)
Probably
not

(5)
Definitely
not

Administrative bargaining units increase the time required
for the school board to determine administrative employment
contracts.........

1 2 3 A 5

32.

Administrative salaries are generally higher when the adminis­
trators are represented by a bargaining u n i t ........................1 2 3 A 5

33.

Administrative bargaining units tend to produce complicated
definitions of administrative roles and responsibilities

34.

Administrative bargaining units improve the quality of
education

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 3

35.

Administrative bargaining units generally promise more than they
can d e l i ver
1 2 3 4

36.

Administrative bargaining units allov active involvement by
administrators in determining school pol ic ies

1 2 3 4 5

Administrative bargaining units mean higher salaries and better
fringe benefits for building principals....... *

1 2 3 4 5

37.

38.

When administrators are members of a bargaining unit, administra­
tive grievances are handled promptly and fairly by the school
board .. .
*
1 2 3 4 5

39.

Administrative bargaining units can lead to administrative
strikes
............I 2 3 4

40.

Would you change to any significant degree, the manner in which
administrative contracts are determined in your dist ric t? ......... 1 2 3 4 5

-

4-

130
M a r k i n g Instructions

(1)
Definitely

yes

(2)

(3)

Probably

I have no
opinion

(*>
P r o bably
not

(5)
Definitely
not

41.

The local teacher's association probably has more respect for
administrators who are represented by a bargaining u n i t ........... 1 2 3 4 5

42.

Superintendents usually seek alternatives to administrative
bargaining u n i t s ........................................................1- 2 3 4 5

43.

Of all eligible administrators, high school principals usually
benefit most from administrative bargaining u n i t s .................. 1 2 3 4 5

44.

Administrative bargaining units best represent the collective
needs of administrators

1 2 3 4 5

45.

Team management is opposed to administrative bargaining units....!

46.

Administrative bargaining units would protect the administrator
from unjust teacher association complaints

47.

Administrative bargaining units are in the best
1 administrators

2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

interest of
1 2 3 4 5

48.

Administrative bargaining units encourage school boards to listen
to the opinions of the administrators............................... 1 2 3 4 5

49.

Administrators tend to have greater job security when members of
a bargaining u n i t
*
1 2 3 4 5

50.

The role of administrators is more accurately defined through
administrative bargaining u n i t s .......................................1 2 3 4 5

51.

The general public would probably tolerate a strike by school
administrators.......................................................... 1

2 3 45

Superintendents have difficulty in working with administrative
bargaining u n i t s

2 3 45

52.

-

5-

1

131

Marking Instructions
<1)
Definitely
yes

<2>
Probably

(3)
I have no
opinion

(4)
Probably
not

(5)
Definitely
not

53.

Administrative bargaining units help ensure that administrators
are considered as an integral part of manag em ent ...................1 2 3 A S

54.

Administrative bargaining units eliminate inequities in adminis­
trative salaries....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

55.

Administrative bargaining units allow administrators to freely
criticize school board p o li cy ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5

56.

Teachers tend to support administrative bargaining u n i t s

57.

Most superintendents try to prevent administrators from organiz­
ing a bargaining u n i t ..................................................1 2 3 4 5

58.

Elementary principals should be the prime promoters of adminis­
trative bargaining u n i t s ...............................................X 2 3 4 5

59.

Administrative bargaining units are an expression of lack of
loyalty to the superintendent

..1

2 3 4 5

X 2 3 4

5

60.

Administrative bargaining units make teacher contract negotia­
tions more diff icu lt.................................................. J. 2 3 4 5

61.

Administrative bargaining units tend to produce administrator
milit anc y...............................................................4

2 3 4 5

The school board generally has more respect for administrators
who are represented by
abargaining u n i t

2 3 4 5

62.

63.

4

Administrative bargaining units make the principals accountable
for the instructional programs in their buildings.................. 1

-6

2 3 4 5

132
M a r k i n g I n s t ructions

( 1)
Definitely
yes

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

( 2)

(3 )

Pr o b a b l y

I have no
opin i o n

(4 )
P r o bably
not

( 5)
Definitely
not

Of all eligible administrators, elementary principals usually
benefit the most from administrative bargaining u n i t s

1 2 3 4 S

There are alternatives to administrative bargaining units in
large school districts

* 2 3 4 5

Administrative bargaining units tend to improve communication
with the school b o a r d

1- 2 3 4 5

Administrators generally have greater respect for themselves
when members of a bargaining u n i t

1- 2 3 4 5

Administrative bargaining units allow administrators to freely
criticize the superintendent

i 2 3 4 5

69.

There are alternatives to administrative bargaining units in
medium sized school districts......................................... 1 2 3 4 5

70.

Building principals have a greater role in determining what will
be included in administrators' contracts when they are members of
a bargaining u n i t ...................................................... .1 2 3 4 5

71.

Administrative bargaining units are usually detrimental to student
we l far e................................................................. . I 2 3 4 5

72.

High school principals should be the prime promoters of adminis­
trative bargaining u n i t s ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5

73.

Superintendents generally have more respect for administrators
who are represented by a bargaining u n i t ............................ ,1- 2 3 4 5

74.

Team management is a viable alternative to administrative bargain­
ing u n i t s .............................................................. 1

-7 -

2 3 4 5

BIBLIOGRAPHY

133

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
A lle n , Roy B. and Schmid, John. C o llective Negotiations and
Educational Administration-! College of Education, U niversity
o f Arkansas, 1966.
Babble, Earl R. Survey Research Methods.
Publishing Company, 1973.

C a lifo rn ia :

Wadsworth

Beard, Mary. A Short History o f the American Labor Movement.
York: Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1968.

New

Davey, Harold W. Contemporary C o lle ctiv e Bargaining (3rd E d .).
Englewood Cl 1f f s, N. J .: Prentfce HalT, Inc7, 1972.
Department o f Elementary School P rin cip a ls . Professional Negotiation
and the Principal ship. Washington, D .C .: NEA, 19697
Epstein, Benjamin. P rin cip a ls , An Organized Force fo r Leadership.
Washington, D.C.: The National Association o f Secondary
School P rin cip a ls , 1974.
________. The P rin c ip a l's Role in C o llective Negotiations Between
Teachers and School Boards. Washington, D.C.: National
Association o f Secondary School P rin cip a ls , 1965.
Grodln, Joseph R. and W o lle tt, Donald H. Labor Relations and Social
C o llective Bargaining in Public Employment. Washington, t).C .:
The Bureau o f National A ffa ir s , In c ., 1975.
Johnson, George. Education Law.
U niversity fYess, 1969.

East Lansing:

Michigan State

Lieberman, Myron and Moskow, Michael H. C o lle ctiv e Negotiations fo r
Teachers. Chicago, IL : Rand McNally and Co., 1966.
M eltzer, Bernard.
1970.

Labor Law.

Boston, MA:

L i t t l e , Brown and Co.,

Meyers, Howard and Twomey, David. Labor Law and Legislation
(5th E d .). South-Western Publishing C o ., 1975.

134

135

Moskow, Michael H. "Teacher Organizations: An Analysis o f the
Issues." In Readings on C o llective Negotiations 1n Public
Education. Elam, Lieberman and Moskow, Eds. Chicago:
Rand McNally and Company, 1967.
__________ . The C risis In Public Employee Relations in the Decade of
the Seventies, Public Employee Relations Center, Harbrldge
Rouse, I n c . , 1970.
Rayback, Joseph G. A History o f American Labor.
MacMillan Company, 1959.

New York:

The

Roberts, Harold. Roberts Dictionary o f Industrial Relations (Revised
E d itio n ). Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National A ffa irs ,
In c ., 1971, 1966.
Ross, Doris. 76 Update: C ollective Bargaining 1n Education. A
L eg islato r's Guide Report #78. Education Connrisslon of the
States, CB Update, January, 1976.
Shannon, Thomas A. Administrator's B ill of Rights. A rlington, VA:
American Association of School Administrators, 1975.
Smith, Russell; M e rr lfie ld , LeRoy; and S t. Antoine, Theodore. Labor
Relations Law (5th E d .). Bobbs-Merrill Co., In c ., 1974.
S tin n e tt, T. M .; Kleluman, Jack H.; and Ware, Martha L. Professional
Negotiation 1n Public Education. New York: The MacMillan
Company, 1966.
T a ft, P h illip . Organized Labor 1n American H isto ry.
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1964.

New York:

Turner, M arjorie S. The Early American Labor Conspiracy Cases Their
Place 1n Labor Law, social Science Monograph Series, Vol. 1,
No. 3. San Diego State College Press, 1967.
U. S. Department o f Labor. State P ro files: Current Status of Public
Sector Labor Relations'! Washington, b .C .: Labor-Management
Services Admlnlstration, 1971.
_______ . Summary of Public Sector Labor Relations P o lic ie s .
Washington, D .C .: Labor-Management Services Adm inistration,
1976.
Warwick, Donald P. and Llnnger, Charles A. The Sample Survey:
Theory and Practice. New York: McGraw-HI1l kook Company.

1575.

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

136

W illiam , R. C. "Teacher M ilitan cy: Implications fo r the Schools."
In Social and Technological Change. P ie le , E id e ll, and Smith,
EdsT Center fo r the Advanced Study of Educational Adminis­
tra tio n , 1970.
Wolfbe1n, Seymour ( Ed. ) . Emerging Sectors of C ollective Bargaining.
Morristown, NJ: A.D.hT Mark Publication of General Learning
Press, 1971.
Journals and Periodicals
Bridges, Edwin M. and Cooper, Bruce S. "C ollective Bargaining fo r
School Administrators." Theory Into Practice, Vol. XV, No.
4. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State UnTversity.
Butch, Thomas L. "School Labor Law." Michigan Public Employment
Relations Manual, Chapter 22, Michigan Public Employer Labor
Relations Association, Inc. (1976, Revised).
Cooper, Bruce S. "Middle Management Unionization 1n Education."
Administrator's Notebook, Vol. X X III, No. 6. Chicago, IL:
The University of Chicago. (June, 1975).
Dempsey, Richard. "Principals and Negotiations." NASSP B u lle tin *
National Association of Secondary School Principals ( March,
1975), pp. 60-63.
Dudley, James. "The Elementary P rin cip a l—The Man in the Middle."
Reprinted from the Pace S e tte r, the magazine of the Maryland
Department of Elementary School Principals (March, 1967).
Educators Negotiating Service. "ENS Special Report:
Relations 1n the 1970's." Washington, D.C.:
Service Bureau, Inc. (Ju ly , 1974).

Teacher Labor
The Educational

__________ . "ENS Special Report:
C ollective Negotiations and the
Principal" (September 1, 1976).
__________. "ENS Special Report:
Decisions Affecting Public Employ­
ment Relations." Washington, D.C. (October 1, 1976).
__________. "Iowa Principal Negotiating R ig h tfu lly Ousted by Board."
Eashlngton, D.C.: The Educational Service Bureau, Inc.
(February, 1972).
__________. "Protection of Interests S tirs Bargaining by Adminis­
tra to rs ." Washington, D.C.: The Educational Service Bureau,
Inc. (August 1, 1976).
Gallup, George H. "Seventh Annual Gallup Poll o f Public Attitudes
Toward Education." Phi Delta Kappan (December, 1975).

137

Groty, Keith C. and Smith, David C. "Approaches to a Management
Team—A Report o f the Ethics and Management Relations Com­
mittee of the MASB." Michigan School Board Journal. Vol.
X V II, No. 7 (September, 1970).
Heddlnger, Fred. "Federal C ollective Negotiations Law Could Emasculate
Representative Government." Phi Delta Kappan (A p r il, 1976).
Journal(s) of C ollective Negotiations in the Public Sector, Vol. 1
(1) through Vol. 5 ( 3 ) . Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
(1972-1976).
K e lle r, Ed. "C ollective Bargaining, A State Issue." National
Elementary Principal (September-October, 1976), pp. 68-69.
Kershen, Harry. "The Role of the Principal in Middle Management."
The P rin c ip a l, o f f ic ia l publication of the New York State
Association o f Secondary School Administrators and the New
York State Association of Elementary P rin cip als, Vol. I ,
No. 2 (May, 1971).
Mays, W illiam , J r. "Why Administrators May Feel the Need to
Establish Formal Bargaining U nits." Michigan School Board
Journal (February, 1976).
McNally, Harold J. "A Matter of Trust."
cipal (November/December, 1973).

National Elementary Prin­

Mong, Larry. "Unionized Principals: Is Your D is tr ic t Next?"
Journal of C ollective Negotiations in the Public Sector,
Vol. 1, No."? TNovember, 1972).---------------------------------------Nicholson, Everett W. and Nasstrom, Roy R. "The Impact of C ollective
Negotiations on P rin cip als." NASSP B u lle tin . 58, 384
(October, 1974), pp. 100-107.
"Principals Organize Their Own Bargaining U nits." Education USA.
Washington, D.C.: National School Public Relations Assoc1ation (February 1, 1971).
Randles, Harry E. "The Principal and Negotiated Contracts."
National Elementary Principal (November/December, 1975).
Salmon, Paul B. "Are the Administrative Team and C ollective Bargain­
ing Compatible?" Compact (June, 1972).
Sargent, David. "The Man 1n Between." Massachusetts Elementary
School Principals Association Journal (re p rin te d ). Michigan
Elementary School P rin c ip a l. yXXxiII ( September-October,
1968).

138

S e itz, Reynolds C. "School Boards and Teacher Unions."
School Board Journal, CXLI (August, 1960).

American

Schofield, Dee. "C ollective Negotiations and the P rin cip a l." NAESP
School Leadership Digest, Second Series, No. 9 (1976).
Schmidt, Charles T ., J r. "The Question o f the Recognition of
Principals and Other Supervisory Units 1n Public Education
C ollective Bargaining." Labor Law Journal (May, 1968).
Smith, David. "Professional Negotiations and the P rin cip al."
National Elementary Principal (January. 1973).
________. "Professional Negotiations and the P rin c ip a l."
Elementary Principal (November. 1972).
________. "Should Administrators Negotiate?"
Principal (February, 1973).

National

National Elementary

__________. "So You've Decided to Negotiate."
Principal (A p ril, 1973).

National Elementary

"The Tough New Teacher." American School Board Journal, Vol. 156,
No. 5 (November, 196ft)'.
Yamashlta, Hiroshi. "Unionized Principals:
MASB Journal (February, 1973).

Is Your D is tr ic t Next?"

Other Sources
Board o f Education. Master Agreement Between Lansing Association of
School Administrators and Lansing School D is tr ic t Board of
Education 1975-1978.
Cogen, Charles. "C ollective Bargaining: The AFT Way." Speech given
a t National In s titu te on C ollective Negotiations 1n Public
Education, Rhode Island College, Providence, Rhode Island,
July, 1975.
Flannery, Edward Thomas. "Administrative Bargaining Groups: Their
Perceived Effects Upon the Decision Making Role o f the
Elementary P rin c ip a l." Unpublished Ph.D. D issertation, The
U niversity of Michigan, 1974.
Gregg, Perry Keith. "A Case Study of the Public School C ollective
Negotiations Process Designed fo r the Use o f Administrators
1n Training." Unpublished Ph.D. D issertatio n , Michigan
State U niversity, 1969.

139

H a ll, Robert E. "Why Administrators are Turning to C ollective
Bargaining." Reprint of address given a t Michigan Associa­
tion of School Boards Conference, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
November 2, 3, 4, 1976.
Heddlnger, Fred. "The School Board Looks a t the Status of the
P rin cip al." Reprint of speech given before Pennsylvania
Association of Secondary School Principals Annual Meeting,
38th, C a rlis le , Pennsylvania, October 14-16, 1973.
May, W illiam , J r. "Whether or Not Administrators Should Organize."
Paper presented to Western Michigan University a t Kalamazoo
Valley Intermediate School D is tr ic t , Kalamazoo, Michigan,
February 9, 1977.
McConnell, Lawrence F. "A Study o f the Influence of C ollective
Bargaining by School Administrators on the Management
Functions of Selected Michigan School D is tric ts ." Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State U niversity, 1973.
M1ch1qan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide, Michiqan Education
Directory, Lansing, MichigaT., 1576-1577.
Munger, Benson Scott. "A Study of the Relationship Between Selected
Variables and the Attitudes of Michigan Principals Toward
Organizing fo r Negotiations." Unpublished Ph.D. D issertation,
Michigan State U niversity, 1971.
Murry, Adams. "A Study of the Perception of Elementary P rincipals,
Secondary Principals and Superintendents with Respect to the
Practice of the Management Team Concept." Unpublished Ph.D.
D issertation, University of Michigan, 1971.
Redfern, George. "School Management-Administrative Union or Manage­
ment Team." Paper presented a t AASA Annual Convention, 104th,
A tlan tic C ity , N .J ., February 12-16, 1972.
Richards, George Henry. "C ollective Negotiations Implications fo r the
Curriculum Decision Making Process." Unpublished Ph.D.
D issertation, Michigan State U niversity, 1971.
Scott, Walter W. "A Study o f Preparation Programs in School Admin­
is tra tio n as Affected by C ollective Negotiations." Unpub­
lished Ph.D. D issertation, Michigan State U niversity, 1966.
Shannon, Thomas. "Management Rights 1n Negotiations." Excerpted
from presentation a t the F ifth Annual AEN Convention 1n San
Francisco, C a lifo rn ia , April 4 , 1974.

140

Spencer, Eugene N ., Chairman. "A Survey o f Adm inistrative Bargaining
Units In Michigan Public Schools." Research Committee o f the
Michigan Congress of School Administrator Associations,
September, 1971.
"The H ills d a le Case."

Bargaining Units and Supervisory Personnel.

Wolklnson, Benjamin. "Summary o f the American Labor Movement."
Unpublished notes, class le c tu re s , Michigan State U n ive rs ity,
LIR 858 In d u strial R elations, Winter Term, 1976.