INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.The sign or “target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the Him along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning"
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer
of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.

University-

Microfilms

International

300 N. ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106
18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WC1R 4EJ, ENGLAND

8106354

Bl a c k , Su sa n

A STUDY OF PROVISIONS FOR JOINT INSTRUCTIONAL COUNCILS IN
MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL MASTER AGREEMENTS

PH.D.

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M I 48106

1980

PLEASE NOTE:
In a ll cases th is material has been film ed 1n the best possible
way from the available copy. Problems encountered w ith th is
document have been Id e n tifie d here w ith a check mark v * .
1.

Glossy photographs _

_

2. Colored Illu s tra tio n s ________
3.

Photographs with dark background

_ _

4.

Illu s tra tio n s are poor copy _ _ _

5.

° r in t shows through as there 1s te x t on bothsides o f page _ _ _ ,

6. In d is tin c t, broken or small p r in t on severalpages
7.

T ig h tly bound copy w ith p r in t lo s t 1n spine _______

8.

Computer p rin to u t pages w ith in d is tin c t p rin t _ _ _

9.

Page(s)
lacking when material received, and not available
from school or author

10.

Page(s) _______ seem to be missing in numbering only as te x t
follows

11. Poor carbon copy ________
12. Not o rig in a l copy, several pages with blurred

type _

13. Appendix pages are poor copy _ _ _ _ _
14. O riginal copy w ith lig h t type ________
15. Curling and wrinkled pages ________
16.

O th e r____________________________________________________ __

University
Microfilms
International

A STUDY OF PROVISIONS FOR
JOINT INSTRUCTIONAL COUNCILS IN
MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL MASTER AGREEMENTS
By
Susan Black

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t o f the requirements
fo r the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum

1980

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF PROVISIONS FOR
JOINT INSTRUCTIONAL COUNCILS IN
MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL MASTER AGREEMENTS
By
Susan Black

The Problem
The purpose o f this research study was to analyze and evaluate con
tractual provisions fo r curriculum in Michigan public school master
agreements.
1.

Four research questions provided the focus of the study:

To what extent is shared decision making fo r curriculum
a contractual provision in Michigan public school master
agreements?

2.

To what extent do contractual provisions fo r jo in t in ­
structional councils in Michigan public school master
agreements approximate, re p lic a te , or depart from the
Michigan Education Association's model language for
curriculum?

3.

To what extent do contractual provisions fo r jo in t
instructional councils in Michigan public school mas­
te r agreements specify a stated purpose, responsi­
b i l i t y , au th o rity, method of selection, support, size,
composition, meeting schedule, and leadership, com­
ponents o f the c rite rio n model?

Susan Black
4.

To what extent do master agreements 1n Michigan public
school d is tric ts contain language which strengthens or
re s tric ts provisions fo r jo in t Instructional councils?
Design of the Study

Sample school d is tric ts judged to represent large, middle, and
small sized school d is tric ts were derived from a population o f 532 K-12
bargaining public school d is tric ts in Michigan.

The sample population

included Groups B and G and a random sample from Group M, descriptors
of size taken from the Michigan Department of Education.
Analysis o f data involved a systematic investigation o f master
agreements negotiated by the school d is tric ts in the sample.

Data were

tabulated according to the c r ite r ia in the model.
Findings
Findings from an analysis o f contractual provisions fo r curriculum

;

DEDICATION

To my son, J e ff, and rny daughter, Sandra

11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sincere appreciation 1s extended to the members o f my disserta­
tion committee:
Dr. Samuel C orl, Chairperson
Dr. Peggy R iethm lller, Dissertation Director
Dr. Jack Schwllle
Dr. Louis Romano
Dr. John Lopls

I am Indebted to the Marquette Public School D is tric t and to Dr.
Richard P. Klahn, Superintendent, who supported a leave o f absence to
pursue my doctoral program.

Gratitude 1s the memory o f the heart.
— J. B. Massleu, Letter to the Abbe Slcard
I wish to extend my gratitude to my parents, Ruth and Tony Poulos;
and to special friends, Barbara, Jenny, June, Lo rrle, Judy, and Carolyn,
who provided constant support and encouragement during my residency at
Michigan State University.

And to Dr. Elisha G r e ife r ...
Thou wert my guide, philosopher, and friend.
—Alexander Pope, Essay on Man, Epistle IV

111

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

L ist o f T a b le s ...............................................................................................
Chapter I:

vi

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

1

Purpose of the Study .......................................................................
Significance o f the Study ................................................................
General1zab1l1ty ...............................................................................
Limitations and Assumptions ............................................................
O v e rv ie w ...............................................................................................

1
2
8
9
11

Chapter I I :

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

13

Introduction .......................................................................................
Scope of B argainin g ...........................................................................
Federal and Statutory Scope o f Bargaining Provisions .
Early Interpretation o f Scope o f Bargaining ....................
Debate over Scope o f Bargaining Provisions ....................
Summary...........................................................................................
Shared Decision-Making Studies ....................................................
Shared Dec1s1on-Mak1ngin Education ......................................
Shared Dec1s1on-Makingo f Curriculum Issues ......................
Summary...........................................................................................
Michigan Studies ...............................................................................
Summary...........................................................................................

13
13
13
16
19
28
29
32
36
46
47
53

Chapter I I I :

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

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

55

P o p u la tio n ...........................................................................................
The S a m p le ...........................................................................................
Sources o f Data ...................................................................................
Description o f the Instruments .................................... . . . .

55
56
57
58

Chapter IV:

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

ANALYSIS OF D A T A ................................................................

59

Introduction .......................................................................................
Plan fo r the Analysis o f Data ........................................................
Table 1 ...................................................................................................
Table 2 ...................................................................................................
Summary...........................................................................................
Table 3 ...................................................................................................
Summary...........................................................................................
Table 4 ...................................................................................................
Summary...........................................................................................

59
60
62
66
67
71
74
81
83

1v

I

Table 5 ...................................................................................................
Group B ...............................
Group G ...........................................................................................
Group M ...........................................................................................
Summary...........................................................................................
Table 6 ...................................................................................................
Summary...........................................................................................
Table 7 ...................................................................................................
Summary...........................................................................................
Table 8 ...................................................................................................
Summary...........................................................................................
Table 9 ...................................................................................................
Summary...........................................................................................
Table 1 0 ...............................................................................................
Summary...........................................................................................
Summary...................................................................................................
Chapter V:

87
87
88
89
90
94
95
98
100
102
104
107
108
112
143
144

FINDINGS, EVALUATION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND REFLECTIONS....................................................................

145

Review
...............................................................................................
Research Questions ...........................................................................
F in d in g s ...............................................................................................
Research Question One ..............................................................
Research Question Two ..............................................................
Research Question Three ..........................................................
Research Question Four ...........................................................
Evaluation o f the Model ....................................................................
Summary...........................................................................................
Recommendations for Research ........................................................
Reflections on the Study ................................................................

145
146
147
147
147
148
151
152
158
158
161

Appendix...........................................................................................................

164

Bibliography ...................................................................................................

181

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. D is tric ts in which Master Agreements
Contain Provisions for Joint Instructional
C o u n c ils ...................................................................................................
63
Table 2. Purpose o f Joint Instructional Councils .............................
68
Table 3. Responsibilities o f Joint Instructional Councils . . .
75
Table 4. Size and Composition o f Joint Instructional
84
C o u n c ils ...................................................................................................
Table 5. Method o f Selection for Membership and
Frequency o f Membership Selection to Joint
Instructional Councils ......................................................................
91
Table 6. Leadership and Vote Rights o f Joint
Instructional Councils .......................................................................
95
Table 7. Meeting Schedules fo r Joint Instructional Councils . .
100
Table 8. Support Provisions fo r Joint Instructional
C o u n c ils .......................................................................................................
104
Table 9. Authority In Joint Instructional Councils .........................
107
Table 10. Contractual Language which Strengthens and/or
Restricts Joint Instructional Councils ...........................................
112

I

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
This research study is an investigation of the extent to which pro­
visions fo r shared curriculum decision-making through jo in t instruction­
al councils* have been negotiated into master agreements in Michigan
public school d is tr ic ts .

The study w ill evaluate existing contractual

provisions fo r curriculum councils according to Sec. 1.18 (Curriculum
and Instruction) o f the Michigan Education Association Negotiations
Notebook (see Appendix).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose o f the study is to analyze and evaluate contractual
provisions fo r curriculum in Michigan public school master agreements
negotiated by school management and professional teacher associations.
The study focuses on four concerns:
1.

To what extent is shared decision-making fo r curriculum
a contractual provision in Michigan public school mas­
te r agreements?

2.

To what extent do contractual provisions fo r jo in t in ­
structional councils in Michigan public school master
agreements approximate, re p lic a te , or depart from the
Michigan Education Association's model language fo r cur­
riculum designated as the c rite rio n fo r evaluation?

3.

To what extent do contractual provisions fo r jo in t in ­
structional councils in Michigan public school master

♦Synonymous terms fo r jo in t Instructional council include c u rri­
culum council, professional study committee, and curriculum policies
committee.
1

I

2

agreements specify a stated purpose, res p o n sib ility , au­
th o rity , method of selectio n, support, size , composition,
meeting schedule, and leadership components of the c r i­
terion model?
4.

To what extent do master agreements in Michigan public
school d is tric ts contain language which strengthens or re­
s tric ts provisions fo r jo in t instructional councils?
Significance o f the Study

Since the enactment o f the Michigan Public Employment Relations
Act (PERA) in 1965, teacher organizations and school boards have in ­
creasingly formalized th e ir working relationship through the bargaining
of master agreements.

Currently, there are 532 bargaining, K-12 public

school d is tric ts in Michigan with contracts of varying scope, power,
and complexity.
Research sponsored by the National In s titu te o f Education (McDonnel and Pascal, 1979) Indicates that teachers f i r s t bargain fo r welfare
items such as salary schedules, fringe benefits, hours, and security
systems; then they begin to bargain over educational policy.

Based

upon fifte e n years of powerful and pervasive bargaining in Michigan,
th is study analyzes the extent to which public school d is tric ts are
bargaining over educational policy in terms of formalizing contractual
curriculum provisions.
The Michigan Education Association (MEA), representative of 507
K-12 bargaining public school d is tr ic ts , regularly provides a Negotia­
tions Notebook, a sourcebook of model contract language fo r its local
a f f ilia t e s .

Prior to the current issue, contract language fo r curricu­

lum was included as a suggested optional item.

However, in the newest

e d itio n , the contents have been organized into four categories includ­
ing Section 1, "Contract proposals necessary to negotiate the adopted

I

3
Statewide Bargaining Goals and Minimum Contract Standards," and Section
2, "All other basic contract provisions," Section 1.18, Curriculum and
Instructional M aterials, has been adopted as a statewide bargaining
goal and is described as:
...c o n tra c tu a lly defined procedures fo r assuring teach­
er decision-making in curriculum design and related instruc­
tional areas as well as instructional management and report­
ing systems.
Of in terest is th is recent s h ift o f emphasis and newly defined
policy.

Since the state teacher organization plays an advocacy role

toward local a f f ilia t e s in terms of prescribing contract language, an
analysis of current "working" master agreements indicates the extent to
which contracts negotiated by local d is tric ts pattern or p ara lle l the
model provisions prescribed by the MEA.
A study sponsored by the National School Board Association (NSBA)
(Ziemer and Thompson, 1975) reveals that when interviewed, invariably
superintendents and school board members maintain that th e ir d is tric ts
"do not negotiate curriculum," despite the fact that contracts bar­
gained by the d is tric ts indisputably contain language fo r curriculum.
Ziemer and Thompson have found th at school d is tric ts have often bar­
gained away th e ir residual management rig h t to control curriculum
through co lle c tive negotiations.
A report which examines the extent to which curriculum is negoti­
ated 1n master agreements and analyzes the content of such provisions
may prove informative to parties which engage in the bargaining process.
In addition to describing an evolving phenomenon, th is study may pro­
vide school management and teachers with a system for comparing and
evaluating cu rricu lar provisions in th e ir master agreements.

I

4
As contracts Increase 1n scope and s ize , adjustment of disputes
raised concerning the content and interp retatio n of contract provisions
also increases 1n terms of frequency of use of the adjudicative mecha­
nism and the categories o f dispute topics.

Between 1965 and 1970 there

were fewer than one hundred a rb itra tio n awards issued in Michigan pub­
lic school d is tr ic ts .

Such awards dealt almost exclusively with eco­

nomic issues of salary, fringe benefits, security systems, and dismiss­
a l.

By 1979 there have been more than two thousand a rb itra tio n awards,

covering complaints over welfare items and also non-economic issues
such as professional growth, promotions, and curriculum and instruction.
Once a contract contains a provision, that item is subject to the
contractual adjudicative procedure, a grievance mechanism with binding
a rb itra tio n as the terminal step, unless other specific language con­
tro ls the process.

Consequently, with the advent and growth of c u rri­

cular provisions in Michigan public school master agreements, i t is
lik e ly th a t, to a greater extent, curricu lar disputes w ill be processed
through the grievance mechanism and eventually disposed of by a d is in ­
terested th ird party a rb itra to r.
A report on the extensiveness and content of curricu lar provisions
in master agreements in Michigan public school d is tric ts may provide
information fo r school management and teacher negotiators in terms of
implications fo r having disputes over curricu lar policies and proce­
dures resolved by a rb itrato rs trained outside the educational setting.
In Michigan, as in several other states (see appendix, "Summary of
Public Sector Labor Relations P o lic ie s "), c o lle c tive bargaining in edu­
cation is permissible fo r "wages, hours, and conditions of employment."
Debate has taken place recently regarding the interp retatio n o f th is

I

5

broad scope o f bargaining provision and hinges on the intent of "condi­
tions of employment" in terms of what issues are permissive topics un­
der such a provision.

In Michigan the professional teacher organiza­

tio n s, Michigan Education Association (MEA) and Michigan Federation of
Teachers (MFT), have advocated a broad scope of bargaining and have
adopted the position that policies and procedures are negotiable as a
condition of employment since they are part of the teacher's role as a
professional.

School boards, on the other hand, are advocates fo r a

narrow scope of bargaining in order to preserve p ris tin e management
rights to control policy making.
In several states with broad scope of bargaining provisions, state
legislators have conducted investigations into the implications of in ­
cluding broad scope of bargaining provisions in leg is la tio n allowing
c o lle c tive bargaining in the public sector.

A troublesome broad scope

of bargaining provision c h a ra c te ris tic a lly has been narrowed by le g is ­
la tiv e a c tiv ity by the addition of language to c la r ify the meaning and
intent of the provision (Minnesota) or incorporating a management
rights provision which excludes certain topics from the bargaining pro­
cess (Montana).
Courts and state boards, adm inistrative agencies fo r public em­
ployment le g is la tio n , generally attempt to determine the intent of the
legislature in regard to interp retatio n o f scope o f bargaining issues.
As Tyll van Geel (1976) points out, "...c o u rts in various states have
decided this question d iffe re n tly ."

van Geel cites the New York Court

of Appeals which supported an expansive d e fin itio n and the New Jersey
Supreme Court which found a narrower interp retatio n of the scope of
bargaining language appropriate.

van Geel states,
But regardless o f how the state courts have interpreted
th e ir state statutes, a t least with regard to the question
of whether the curriculum is a mandatory subject of negotia­
tio ns, a ll have said that i t is not, apparently because they
view the curriculum as a question o f policy without s ig n ifi­
cant implications fo r the working conditions of teachers (p.
129).
In the event that Michigan state legislators decide to analyze the
implications o f the existing broad scope of bargaining provision in the
Public Employments Relations Act, th is study may provide an awareness
of the extent to which curriculum has been interpreted as a permissive
subject of negotiations as a "condition of employment."
A s ig n ific a n t feature of th is study is a discussion of the ade­
quacy of the c rite rio n model which w ill be used to evaluate existing
provisions for curriculum in Michigan public school master agreements.
The model selected fo r the c rite rio n is Section 1.18 of "Statewide Bar­
gaining Goals and Minimum Contract Standards" from the MEA Negotiations
Notebook.
The model is comprised of nine components:

purpose, resp on sibili­

ty , au th o rity, method of selection, support, size, composition, meet­
ing schedule, and leadership.

For ease of comparison, the components

lis te d as size and composition are treated together.
A discussion of each of the nine components of the c rite rio n model
follows.

The discussion begins with a statement of the component as

extracted from the model.
Purpose. The purpose o f th is Council shall be to i n i ­
t ia te and establish policies affectin g the nature and
design of the Instructional program of the d is t r ic t .
2.

R esponsibilities.

a.

Develop c r ite r ia fo r the on-going evaluation of
a ll Instructional programs.

b.

Annually review and establish policies concerning
a ll testing programs and instructional management
systems.

c.

Review and make recommendations on a ll proposed
p ilo t, experimental and/or Innovative programs.

d.

Promulgate other policies relatin g to the d is tr ic t's
instructional programs and curriculum.

3.

Size and composition. The Council shall be comprised
of an equal number of teachers and administrators.

4.

Method of selection. The Council members shall be selected annually by th e ir respective representative
groups.

5.

Leadership and vote rig h ts . The Council shall have
co-chairpersons, one a teacher and one an administra­
to r who shall chair a lte rn a tiv e meetings. Each member
of the Council w ill have an equal vote.

6.

Meeting schedules. The Council shall meet on a regu­
la rly schedulecT basis.

7.

Support. Teachers serving on the Council shall be
given released time with classroom substitutes provided.

8.

Authority. Changes in existing instructional programs
and proposed new Instructional programs must be re­
viewed and a ffirm a tiv e ly recommended by the Council
prior to Board consideration, adoption, or Implementa­
tion.

In most Instances, the language in the model is c le a r, d e fin itiv e ,
and unambiguous; however, 1n some instances, the language in the model
may be open to a variety o f Interpretations.

Standards of construction

fo r ambiguity o f contract language are established by Impartial a rb itra ­
tors who find terms 1n master agreements ambiguous i f "plausible conten­
tions may be made for con flictin g Interpretations" thereof (Elkouri and
Elkourt, p. 296).

I

8
A rbitrators generally have found that loosely constructed contract
language may give ris e to disputes over meaning 1f the parties do not
have a clear understanding o f the terms 1n which th e ir provision 1s ex­
pressed.

Words such as "regularly scheduled basis" and "selected" may

be imprecise and ambiguous, resulting in a c o n flic t over interpretation.
Evaluation o f the model w ill be conducted according to the follow­
ing c r ite r ia :

(1) the degree of precision and s p e c ific ity o f pre­

scribed contractual language, and (2) the comprehensiveness of the com­
ponents which comprise the design o f the model.

Contractual provisions

from the designated sample w ill be analyzed according to whether they
approximate, re p lic a te , or depart from the model.

P articu lar atten­

tio n w ill be focused on language which approximates or departs from the
model in order to determine whether existing provisions suggest more
specific or comprehensive language which would be proposed as improve­
ments in the model.

A reading and comparison o f working contract lan­

guage fo r curriculum may suggest components which are not currently in ­
cluded in the model.
G e n eralizab ility
The Michigan Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) is sim ilar to
most other statutory provisions which define scope of bargaining as
"wages, hours, and conditions o f employment."

As indicated in "Sum­

mary of Public Sector Labor Relations Policies" (see Appendix), nearly
t h ir t y states contain scope o f bargaining provisions which are sim ilar
to the Michigan language.

The findings of this research study are

generalIzable to a degree (taking into consideration factors of legal
opinions and other statutory provisions which may narrow the scope of

9
permissive bargaining subjects) to states with broad scope provisions
sim ilar to those found 1n Michigan.
Master agreements analyzed fo r this study have been selected from
school d is tric ts lis te d 1n B u lletin 1011 (Analysis of Michigan Public
School Revenues and Expenditures) published by the Michigan Department
of Education.

Chart I I (Grouping of D is tric ts by Pupil Membership)

provides a l i s t o f a ll Michigan public school d is tric ts categorized by
student membership (see Appendix).

Probability samples have been de­

rived from Group B (20,000-49,000), Group G (3,500-3,999), and Group M
(500-999), groups determined to represent large, middle, and small
sized d is tric ts .

The model and the master agreements w ill be compared

w ithin each o f these categories of d is tric ts so that the e ffe c t of
d is t r ic t size can be considered.
Limitations and Assumptions
1.

Comparisons of provisions fo r Joint Instructional Councils are

lim ited by the fa ct that master agreements have d iffe re n t terms of
duration.

Contracts Included 1n the study may represent one, two, or

even three school years.

Therefore, a contract which 1s in e ffe c t for

the 1979-80 school year may have been negotiated one or two years
e a r lie r .
2.

The most current Information available regarding the number

and population status of Michigan public school d is tric ts 1s B ulletin
1011 published by the Michigan Department of Education in 1978.

A re­

cent check with the DOE reveals that some o f the school d is tric ts in
this study have experienced enrollment declines and w ill be reclassi­
fied In the future.

However, fo r the purposes of th is study, the

I

10

current designated categories o f Groups B, G, and M w ill be used as
a rb itra ry descriptors o f size.
3.

This study does not attempt to analyze or account fo r existing

and operational Joint Instructional Councils which are not mandated by
contractual provision.

I t is possible and lik e ly that some school d is­

t r ic ts have policies and provisions fo r such councils, but such systems
are not within the scope of th is study.
4.

The MEA model fo r curriculum contract language has been se­

lected as the c rite rio n fo r th is study.

Of the 532 bargaining K-12

public school d is tric ts 1n Michigan which comprise the population of
this report, 507 are MEA a f f ilia t e s , twenty are MFT a f f ilia t e s , and
fiv e are independent bargaining units.
MFT d is tric ts .

The sample contains only two

Therefore, the MEA model, as representative of the ma­

jo r it y of a f f ilia t e s studied, has been determined to be an appropriate
c rite rio n .
5.

Within the framework of this study, no attempt is made to

evaluate the re la tiv e success o f any Joint Instructional Council in
terms of e ith e r its procedural or substantive provisions.
6.

Comprehensive reading o f a ll contracts in the sample is re­

quired to ensure extracting a ll provisions related to curriculum coun­
c ils .

In some cases such provisions are housed within a rtic le s which

deal with broader concepts, as Working Conditions, Teacher Rights, and
Board Responsibilities.

Every attempt has been made to find a ll re fe r­

ences to c u rric u la r provisions per se and contract language which
strengthens or re s tric ts such provisions by conducting two separate
readings.

In addition, a check o f randomly selected contracts

been conducted by an Independent reader.

has

»

11

Overview
Chapter I presents an Introduction to the study, a description of
the four concerns which comprise the purpose of the study, the s ig n ifi­
cance of the research investigation, and a discussion of the proposal
to evaluate contract data in selected Michigan public school agreements
according to a designated c rite rio n .
rationale fo r evaluating the model.

The discussion concludes with a
The extent to which the findings

of th is study are generalIzable to larger populations 1s presented.
Chapter I I is a review of precedent lite ra tu re on the related top­
ics of scope of bargaining, shared decision-making, and a collection
of Michigan studies.
Chapter I I I is an explanation o f the design of the study.

This

chapter contains a description of the target population, the sample
from the population, including a ration ale fo r the selection of repre­
sentative groups, a description o f the source of data used to design
the study, and a description of the instrument used to e x tra c t, record,
and compare data in master agreements.
Chapter IV contains the analysis of the data.

One table shows the

number of d is tric ts 1n the sample which have contractual provisions for
jo in t instructional councils.
of the model.

Other tables correspond to the elements

A fin a l table records other contract language which

strengthens or re s tric ts curriculum provisions.

A te x t discussion

follows each of the tables.
Chapter V reports on the conclusions drawn from the analysis of
data presented in Chapter IV.

A special section reports on the

strengths and weaknesses o f the c rite rio n model and makes recommenda­
tions fo r improvement based upon comparisons with existing contractual

I

12

provisions.
research.

The fin a l chapter contains recommendations fo r further

)

CHAPTER I I
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
The review of related lite ra tu re fo r this study is organized ac­
cording to the following sections:

(1) scope of bargaining, (2) shared

decision-making, and (3) Michigan studies.

Each major division of pre­

cedent lite ra tu re is furth er divided into subsections fo r c la r ity of
discussion.

Summaries at the conclusion of each major division report

on the main findings.
Scope of Bargaining
This section of the review of related lite ra tu re w ill be comprised
of four subsections:

(1) federal and statutory leg isla tio n of scope of

bargaining provisions fo r teacher-school board negotiations, (2) early
interpretations o f scope o f bargaining provisions, (3) debate over
scope of bargaining provisions, and (4) current status of broad and
narrow scope o f bargaining provisions.
Federal and Statutory Scope of
Bargaining Provisions
The standard fo r scope of bargaining provisions in state statutes
fo r public employees has been derived from the National Labor Relations
Act (Wagner Act) enacted in 1935.

The NLRA as amended became known as

the T aft-H artley Act of 1947 and contains 1n Section 8(d) a description
of the scope of bargaining fo r the private sector:
13

14

For the purposes of th is section, to bargain c o lle c tiv e ­
ly 1s the performance of the mutual obligation of the em­
ployer and the representative o f the employees to meet at
reasonable times and confer in good fa ith with respect to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
(29 USC 141s June 23, 1947).
The extent to which language from the T a ft-H a rtle y Act has become
a model fo r public sector scope of bargaining provisions is apparent
when data extracted from "Summary of Public Sector Labor Relations P o li­
cies" (U. S. Department of Labor, May, 1979) is compared.

As described

in the Appendix, twenty-six state statutes have scope of bargaining pro­
visions which rep lic a te or closely approximate the language in the fed­
eral a ct.

Each of these twenty-six statutes contains a provision for

"wages, hours, and other terms and conditions o f employment" and, as
noted, in the display of data, although some provisions have s lig h t
variations or modifications of the language, they basically have the
same coverage.
Twelve state statutes d if f e r considerably from the national model:
eight contain more precise lim itatio n s on allowable bargaining topics,
and four contain less precise lim ita tio n s .

Thirteen states have no

statute fo r public employee or teacher bargaining.
In Michigan, Act 379, the PERA, enacted on July 23, 1965, and
signed into law by Governor George Romney, amends Act 336 of the Public
Acts of 1947.

Act 379 Is e n title d :

An Act to prohibit strikes by certain public employees,
to provide fo r the mediation of grievances and the holding
o f elections; to declare and protect the rights and p r iv i­
leges o f public employees; and to prescribe means of en­
forcement and penalties fo r the vio latio n o f the provisions
o f this Act.
Act 379 describes the scope o f bargaining allowable in public
sector negotiations in Michigan as "wages, hours, and other terms and

1

15

conditions of employment," a rep licatio n of the model language in the
federal law.
Michigan and other states with sim ilar language fo r scope o f bar­
gaining are considered to have a "broad" scope provision in that they
do not contain (1) language which defines the intent or meaning, or (2)
a residual management rights section which controls the interpretation
of the scope o f bargaining provision by re s tric tin g its context.
William F. Kay Cl973) has conducted a comparison and discussion
of the concept o f narrow scope o f bargaining provisions.

Kay states:

A number o f state legislatures have chosen a more
lim ited d e fin itio n . For example, the Minnesota Public
Employees Relations Act of 1971 (MSA, Ch. 33, 179.61) re­
duces the scope of bargaining fo r professional employees
by this additional lim itin g language: in the case of
professional employees, the terms mean the hours of em­
ployment, the compensation therefo re, and the economic
aspects re la tin g to employment, but does not mean edu­
cational policies o f the d is t r ic t (p. 157).
The Minnesota statute provides an example of a narrow scope of
bargaining by the addition of language which c la r ifie s the meaning and
intent o f the provision.
Another example of a state provision which incorporates a narrow
scope o f bargaining is the Montana Statute (HB 455 1971L).

In Montana

teachers and school boards may:
...discuss matters rela tin g d ire c tly to the employerteacher relatio n sh ip , such as salary, hours, and other terms
of employment, and to negotiate and bargain fo r agreement
on such matters.
However, the statute s p e c ific a lly excludes certain topics from
the bargaining process and makes them the o f fic ia l province of manager­
ia l discretion:
The negotiation and bargaining for agreement shall not
include matters o f curriculum, policy of operation,

I

16
selection o f teachers and other personnel, or physical
plant of schools or other school f a c ilit ie s .
The Montana statute provides an example of a narrow scope of bar­
gaining by incorporating a management rights provision fo r operational
and policy matters.
An example o f a compromise provision 1s found 1n
the Indiana scope of bargaining section o f the state teacher bargaining
law (IC 20, Sec. 1 1973).

In Indiana, the scope of bargaining is de­

fined as "salaries, wages, hours, and salary and wage-related fringe
benefits,"

The parties have a:

...d u ty to discuss curriculum development and revision;
textbook selection; teaching methods; selection, assignment,
or promotion of personnel; student d is c ip lin e , expulsion or
supervision o f students; pupil-teacher ra tio ; class size;
budget appropriations; and other conditions of employment.
According to Richard Pegnetter (1979), the duty to discuss does
not mean having to come to a consensus or an agreement.

There is no

obligation, implied or other, fo r one party to have to enter into a fo r­
mal, w ritten agreement as the resu lt of a mandate to discuss issues at
the bargaining table.
Early Interp retatio n of Scope of Bargaining
Since the advent of co lle c tive bargaining between teacher unions
and school boards in the mid-1960s, there has been discussion regarding
the d e fin itio n and interp retatio n of scope of bargaining.

Early in ­

quiries often attempted to determine an acceptable l i s t of bargaining
topics which were compatible with the law.
In a review of the legal basis fo r negotiating curriculum, Ken­
neth Noble (1971) found that when negotiations f i r s t took place be­
tween public school boards and teacher associations in Michigan, " . . .

\

17

one question emerged as cru cial:
for negotiation?"

what subjects were legitim ate issues

In contrast to states which provide a clear delinea­

tion of bargainable issues (Iowa, Nevada), the Michigan PERA, patterned
a fte r the National Labor Relations Act fo r the private sector, does
not suggest specific topics for c o llec tive negotiations.
During the early development of c o lle c tiv e bargaining in the pub­
lic sector, some school boards refused to accept the contention of
teacher unions that such items as fringe benefits and curriculum p o li­
cies were appropriate issues fo r the bargaining tab le; subsequently,
school boards turned to agencies which administered the PERA and the
courts to obtain judgments to c la r ify the intended statutory scope of
negotiations.
In 1966 the North Dearborn Heights School D is tric t challenged the
AFT teacher union contention that curriculum was a negotiable item.
U ltim ately, the union f ile d an un fair labor practice with the Michigan
Labor Mediation Board, charging that the topic of curriculum was a
"condition of employment" and, therefore, an issue which could be re ­
solved through the bargaining process.

Chief T ria l Examiner Robert

Pisarski ruled that teachers, under law, were e n title d to "...e v a lu a te
curriculum and class schedules, size of classes, selection of textbooks,
m aterials, and s u p p lie s ..." a ll of which were judged to be components
of the educational working condition.

This case which has never been

appealed continues to stand as a legal opinion that curriculum and
other matters are tie d to the concept of working conditions in Michigan.
In 1969 the issue o f bargaining fo r fringe benefits was raised by
the Mt. Morris Educational Association to the Genessee County C ircu it

18

Court.

Judge P h illip C. E llio t t cited the s im ila rity in language be­

tween the PERA and the NLRA to rule that the state act authorized a
school board,
. . . t o bargain with its teachers' representative about
any subject that would be a lawful objective of a union of
private employees unless agreement on such subject is pro­
h ib ite d , contrary to law, or an abuse of the public employ­
e r's authority or discretion (pp. B5-6).
Judge E llio t t 's decision upheld the NLRA as the standard fo r the Michi­
gan PERA even though the federal act deal with the private sector and
the PERA dealt with the public sector.
An early investigation into the issue of scope of bargaining was
presented by Shi 1s and W h ittier (1968) who raised the question of the
interpretation o f the term "working conditions" for employees in the
educational setting.

Within the te x t of th e ir discussion, the authors

signaled that:
. ..t h e tra d itio n a l view that a board retains complete
control over educational policies and programs on a uni­
la te ra l basis is now meeting a daily challenge from unions
and employee associations (p. 359).
Shi 1s and W h ittier id e n tifie d a contextual problem with scope of
bargaining provisions during the early and developmental stages of col­
le c tiv e bargaining in the public sector and concluded th at under a
broad interp retatio n o f statutory provisions fo r the scope of bargain­
ing issues, superintendents and school boards were, in e ffe c t, bargain­
ing away th e ir u n ila te ra l rights to determine educational policy.

The

authors predicted that " ...a s agreements accelerate in number, more
and more jo in t decision-making w ill result" (p. 389),
they forecast:

In addition,

I

19
As each state fin a lly evolves a law, boards w ill become
more accustomed to discussing educational p o lic ies, as well
as s a la rie s , wages, and working conditions, with employee
organizations. School administrators should begin to adjust
th e ir thinking early so as to develop greater understanding
and appreciation o f the problem--and the assets--derived
from formal bargaining relationships resulting from good
fa ith (p. 389).
Debate over Scope of Bargaining Provisions
The debate over whether scope of bargaining provsiions should be
interpreted according to broad or narrow lines has a corollary with
lines of a f f ilia t io n with labor (teacher organizations) and management
(school boards).
An examination of speeches, statements, p o licies, and a rtic le s in­
dicates that alignment with a teacher bargaining organization equates
with advocacy fo r a broad interp retatio n of scope of bargaining provi­
sions, whereas a f f ilia t io n with school management assumes advocacy fo r
a narrow interpretation of scope of bargaining language.
In 1968, the leadership of the large and powerful national teacher
organizations, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National
Education Association (NEA), each issued policy statements regarding
the interp retatio n of the term "conditions of employment."
Charles Cogen, President of AFT in 1968, stated, "There's no lim it
to how fa r w e 'll go.

We claim our ju ris d ic tio n is as extensive as the

to ta l area o f education" (p. 8 ).
Allan West, President of the NEA in 1968, commented:
We take the position th at everything that affects the
q u ality of education is negotiable. Teachers had always
had a say in instructional and cu rricu lar decision-making
in terms o f administration-picked committees; now teachers
want to select th e ir own (p. 8 ).

20
Livingston and Wollet (1967), labor attorneys fo r the NEA, stated
the case fo r a broad d e fin itio n of bargainable subject matter in these
terms:
Statutes governing negotiations (in the private sector)
r e s tr ic t the scope of mandatory bargaining to "wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions o f employment." However,
such a d e fin itio n applied to teacher negotiations makes mis­
ch ief. Teachers p artic ip a te in decision-making over educa­
tional programs and s ervices.. . i t is s o cially desirable fo r
teachers to p articip ate in decision-making in respect to edu­
cational programs and services. Their special knowledge and
competence as educational practitioners should, when blended
with the "lay" perspective of the school board, produce better
policy decisions.. .the best way to accommodate the basic d i f ­
ference between teacher negotitions and other types o f nego­
tia tio n s is to avoid p rio r restrain ts on the scope of bargain­
ing by tre a tin g teachers separately and adopting a broad def­
in itio n o f bargainable subject matter (p. E -l).
Samuel Lambert, former executive d ire cto r of the NEA, provided a
Report on Negotiations Legislation fo r the Advisory Commission on In te r­
governmental Relations (1971) in which he stated, "Many school boards
would lim it the obligation to negotiate to salaries and other economic
aspects o f employment" (p. 6).
Having discussed the ration ale fo r th is position, Lambert de­
scribes the problems of adopting a narrow viewpoint regarding scope of
bargaining:
Serious disputes have developed under th is type o f d e fi­
nitio n over the n e g o tia b ility o f teacher proposals regarding
educational programs and services. Whereas school boards
have resisted many o f these demands on the grounds of non­
n e g o tia b ility , teacher organizations generally have contended
that they do, in fa c t, come within the meaning of the phrase
"conditions of employment." While there has been some sug­
gestion that the inevitable confrontation might be avoided
i f there were a specific statutory enumeration of the nego­
tia b le subjects, th is would introduce an undesirable and
possibly unworkable in f le x ib ilit y (p. 6 ).

I

21
Lambert continues by describing the incongruity of applying p r i­
vate sector standards to the public sector and, sim ilar to Livingston
and W o llett, ascribes a special qu ality o f professionalism to teachers:
Teachers c h a ra c te ris tic a lly seek to p articip ate in de­
cision making in respect to teaching methods, curriculum
content, educational f a c i l i t i e s , and other matters designed
to change the nature or improve the q u ality of the educa­
tio nal service being given to the children, and they see
negotiation as the vehicle fo r such p a rtic ip atio n . Accord­
in g ly, we propose that a broad and somewhat open-ended d e fi­
n itio n o f scope o f negotiation be adopted—to w it, that a
school board be obligated to negotiate in regard to "the
terms and conditions of professional service and other mat­
ters o f concern" (p. 6 ).
Lambert bases his appeal fo r an "open-ended d e fin itio n " on the
special competencies of teachers to p articip ate in educational decision
making and the social d e s ira b ility of having better policy decisions as
a result of teacher particip atio n in th is managerial function.
Advocates of a narrower, more re s tric tiv e interpretation of
scope of bargaining provisions generally base th e ir positions on the
claim fo r residual managerial rights of a school board to retain ju r is ­
diction and governance over educational policy.
Robert Ackerly and W. Stanfield Johnson (1969) have developed a
position regarding the scope of bargaining.

As described in a pam­

phlet prepared fo r the National Association of Secondary School Prin­
cipals (NASSP), they maintain:
Issues not related to employee welfare but involving
school and educational policies are not proper subjects
fo r bargaining. Neither the public nor the principal
should permit educational policies (such as curriculum
textbook selection, assignment practices, d iscip lin e and
the lik e ) to be the subject of a power confrontation be­
tween the employer and the teachers' bargaining agent (p. 9).
The authors q u alify th e ir position by advocating the use of fo r­
mal councils as a structure through which teachers could exercise th e ir

22
professional judgment, but they stress,
...decision s should be made on the basis of professional
s k i l l , experience, and the results o f research, rather than
the bargaining le g is la tio n (p. 9 ).
Ackerly and Johnson predicted that "wages, hours, and conditions
of employment" w ill " ...in e v ita b ly be loosely interpreted by teachers'
organizations to include everything they wish to include" Ip. 9 ).
Wesley Wildman (1967) has concluded:
. . . t h a t boards engaging in bargaining may be well ad­
vised, in some cases at le a s t, to take the position that
there is a realm o f policy over which the board is charged
by the public to exercise continuing u n ila te ra l discretion,
and that such matters should not be subjected to the give
and take of the bargaining arena (p- 8 ).
Myron Lieberman (1972) supports the position of Wildman.

Lieber-

man states:
One would hardly expect or desire th a t curriculum, meth­
odology, or educational services be subjected to the pres­
sures that inevitably characterize negotiations over con­
ditions of employment (p. 8 ).
Benjamin Epstein (1969) elaborates on the fears and predictions
of Ackerly, Johnson, and Wildman when he states:
There are many subjects o f a purely professional nature,
o f equal in terest to teachers and adm inistrators, which are
not appropriately discussed in the atmospheric conditions
of the bargaining table (p. 20).
Epstein cites the NASSP policy statement (1965) which proposes
that such considerations of a professional nature take place away from
the bargaining ta b le.

He supports the arrangement of formal councils

made up of representatives chosen by teachers, princip als, and super­
visors as a mechanism fo r making educational decisions and po licies.
Such councils would have advisory authority only and managerial dis­
cretion to act would be retained by the school board.

23
Ashby, McGinniis, and Persing Cl972) discuss strategies and meth­
ods which school boards might employ in order to circumvent being com­
pelled to negotiate over educational policy, and s p e c ific a lly curricu­
la r items.

The authors maintain that any board or d is tr ic t which has

h is to ric a lly made u n ila te ra l policy decisions without employing consul­
ta tiv e mechanisms with the teacher body is , in e ffe c t, forcing a teach­
er union to obtain the power of shared decision-making through the
bargaining process.

On the other hand, boards which have in stitu ted

processes and structures for accommodating teacher interests in school
policy are in a more favorable position to keep such issues away from
the bargaining ta b le .
Concurring with Epstein, Wildman, Lieberman, and others who sup­
port a narrow scope o f bargaining, the authors state:
We believe that curriculum development work is better
accomplished when both administrators and teachers are wear­
ing the hat of s ta ff membership and not the hats of a lle ­
giance to adversary organization—e ith e r the teachers' o r­
ganization or the board (p. 49).
Ashby, et a h , propose that cu rricu lar decisions and policies
should be developed through non-mandated teacher and board jo in t coun­
c ils which would incorporate the following:
1.

Power to assess p rio ritie s and generally d ire ct the
work o f other groups, such as departmental organiza­
tions and grade-level conferences.

2.

The provision

o f funds fo r curriculum development work.

3.

The provision
released time

of time fo r curriculum work—e ith e r in
or fo r organized summer task force.

4.

The encouragement of a climate in which teachers are
given la titu d e and encouragement in experimental pro­
je c ts .

5.

Provisions fo r cross-representation on curriculum coun­
c ils and committees--teachers, adm inistrators, supervi­
sors, and, in some cases, students and parents (p. 47).

I

24
Some authors w riting on the subject of the scope o f negotiations
have explored the issue from a theoretical rather than a pragmatic po­
s itio n .

For example, Harry H. Wellington (1972) questions whether the

paradigms of the private sector can be translated to the public sector
in terms of negotiable issues.

Wellington d etails an economic analogy

to conclude:
Expanding on the scope of negotiations requires negotiating
on policy issues in which other groups have a legitim ate in ­
te re s t. For example, to permit teachers to negotiate c u rri­
culum change would be to exclude other groups, or at least
to give teachers a privileged role in the policy-making pro­
cess to the detriment of other groups. Since negotiations
on broad educational policy should not be lim ited to the
employee organizations, i t can be argued that teacher in s is­
tence upon such negotiations calls fo r a new look at exclu­
sive recognition (p. 8 ).
Myron Lieberman (1972) supports the viewpoint that educational
policy should not be negotiated under the pressures of bargaining and
advocates re s tra in t fo r the position that c itize n particip atio n at the
bargaining table would counteract the inherent problem.

As Lieberman

reasons:
Representatives of parents or citizen groups are ty p i­
c a lly volunteers who can walk away from the situation with
l i t t l e or no personal risk i f they do not act responsibly.
This is something to bear in mind before endorsing th ird
party forms of "participation" in the negotiating process
(p. 8 ).
Charles W. Cheng (1976) has discovered a relationship between scope
o f bargaining provisions in state laws and c itize n access to decision­
making in educational in s titu tio n s .

He concludes that the scope o f bar­

gaining between teachers' unions and school systems has expanded Into
various policy areas, giving unions Increased power in defining the pub­
l i c in te re s t and leaving "disenfranchised" community groups further away
from s u ffic ie n t participation in the educational policy-making process.

25

Cheng finds an apparent paradox in the Increase In the number of
educational policy Issues which are bargainable and the small number of
professionals (who are not necessarily accountable to the public) who
have the power to debate and resolve such Issues.
John Metzler (1973) proposes that there is a " ...re d is trib u tio n
of functions taking place and a change from u n ilatera l to b ila te ra l de­
cision making" in the co llec tive bargaining arena encompassing teachers
and school boards.
M etzler, having examined the problems inherent in applying the
private sector industrial model of bargaining to the public sector,
finds:
...t h e educational process w ill be better served i f the
scope of bargaining among boards of education and teachers'
organizations is lim ited . The basic question is whether in ­
terests of children are served by the active interaction of
co lle c tive bargaining in program development and educational
processes (p. 140).
Metzler concludes th at such interests are not best served through
the co lle c tive bargaining system.
Current Status and Debate
De facto analysis o f the impact of scope of bargaining on the
system of public sector teacher negotiations confirms early forecasts
that teachers' organizations would obtain decision-making power and
control through a broad interp retatio n of "conditions of employment."
An extensive report prepared by L. McDonnell and A. Pascal (1979)
indicates that teacher bargaining progresses through definable and pre­
dictable phases, the f i r s t being welfare (salary and fringe benefits),
the second working conditions and job security, and the th ird issues

i

26
of educational policy.

As the authors point out, master agreements,

over time, almost invariably become more advantageous to the teachers
as they gain more benefits and power by progressing through these
stages of bargaining.
Tom James (1975) delineates the emerging governance controversy
of c o lle c tiv e bargaining in education:
Hardly anyone disputes that teachers ought to p a r tic i­
pate, in some fashion, in school policy-making. The boun­
dary lie s in deciding to what extent, in what structure
(whether c o lle g ia l or adversarial) and with what relatio n
to the tra d itio n a lly democratic forms of public control
(p. 94).
The pervasiveness and persistence o f the unresolved scope o f bar­
gaining issue has resulted in le g is la tiv e debate at the state level over
proposals to modify existing broad scope of bargaining language.
Recently, Nevada, Indiana, Montana, and other states have enacted
omnibus b ills which l i s t

extensive management rig h ts , a procedural tac­

t ic to provide an addendum to re s tric t existing broad scope language in
teacher and public employee laws.
According to James:
The specification of
an important and related
are attempting to recast
public representatives a
ing table (p. 95).

management prerogatives indicates
trend. A few state legislatures
the bargaining process to give
stronger position at the bargain­

William F. Kay (1973) discusses current a c tiv ity in the courts
which has had a direct bearing on the scope o f bargaining issue.

In

the f i r s t major te s t on the scope o f bargaining (Pennsylvania Labor Re­
lations Board v. State College Area School D is tr ic t, October, 1971), the
Board ruled that the following issues were not negotiable:

planning

time, assignments, work space, class size, calendar, access to

27
personnel f ile s .

Pennsylvania teachers had charged th a t such issues

f e ll within the language permitting bargaining over "working condi­
tio ns."
In Kansas, which allows bargaining under a teacher statute for
"s a la rie s , wages, hours, and terms and conditions of professional ser­
vice," the language was tested in a d is tr ic t court (National Education
Association of Shawnee Mission, In c ., v. Board of Education of Shawnee
Mission Unified School Board, December, 1971).

The court decision de­

termined that res tric tio n s on bargaining issues were appropriate and
carried a rule th at bargaining was not permitted on "educational p o li­
cy."
A sim ilar court decision was rendered by the Nebraska Supreme
Court (School D is tric t of Seward Educational Association v. School Dis­
t r i c t of Seward, 1972) in which the ruling specified:
We would hold that conditions of employment can be in ­
terpreted to include only those matters d ire c tly affectin g
the teacher's welfare. Without attempting in any way to
be s p e c ific , or to lim it the foregoing, we would consider
the following to be exclusively within the management pre­
rogative: the rig h t to h ire ; to maintain order and e f f i ­
ciency; to schedule work; to control transfers and assign­
ments; to determine what extracurricu lar a c tiv itie s may be
supported or sponsored; and to determine the curriculum,
class size, and types of specialists to be employed.
Harry Edwards (1973) claims that a decision involving the West­
wood Community Schools could be used as a model fo r defining the scope
o f negotiations in other states experiencing pressure fo r c la r ity on
the issue,

Edwards found that the Michigan Employment Relations Com­

mission (MERC) used the following c r ite r ia to derive its award:

(1) Is

the subject of such v ita l concern to both labor and management th at i t

28
is lik e ly to lead to controversy and industrial conflict?

(2) Is col­

le c tiv e bargaining appropriate fo r resolving such issues?
Edwards finds th at application of these c r ite r ia w ill lead to a
broadening of scope, but that the questions are appropriate to apply to
the question of bargainable issues.
Summary
Most states with statutes fo r co llec tive bargaining in the public
sector pattern th e ir scope of bargaining provisions a fte r the national
standard in the NLRA which provides fo r negotiations over "wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment."

The Michigan Public Em­

ployment Relations Act replicates th is federal language.
Early predictions and forecasts that a broad interp retatio n of
scope of bargaining provisions would resu lt in teacher organizations'
bargaining over issues previously regarded as the s t r ic t province of
management, such as curriculum po licy, have been borne out over time.
Advocates of a broad scope o f bargaining interp retatio n tend to
have teacher a ffilia tio n s while advocates of a narrow scope of bargain­
ing interp retatio n tend to have school management a f f ilia tio n s .

Each

side has developed its own ration ale and ju s tific a tio n fo r its position.
Broad scope arguments allude to the professionalization of the teacher,
the incongruity of applying industrial private sector standards to pub­
li c sector, and the potential benefits fo r the system by allowing
teachers to have some managerial power in shaping educational policy.
Narrow scope arguments tend to re fle c t the theory o f residual
management rig h ts , the inappropriateness of having policy decided
through the adversary relationship inherent in the c o llective

29
bargaining process, and the e ffe c t of excluding interest groups (p a r ti­
cu larly parents and c itize n s ) from access to the decision-making proc­
ess.
Apparently, several state legislatures are examining the scope of
bargaining provisions in th e ir statutes fo r public employee negotia­
tions and are proposing res tric tio n s on prevailing language.

As teach­

er unions expand th e ir influence into the realm of educational policy,
there may be more a c tiv ity in the courts and legislatures to c la rify
ambiguous language in the statutes,w ith subsequent impact on the na­
ture and scope of co lle c tive bargaining in the educational setting.
Shared Decision-Making Studies
In the chronology of the development of adm inistrative theory,
the era o f s c ie n tific management (1910-1935) gradually evolved into the
era of human relations (1935-1950).

The human relations movement, an

outgrowth of the Western E le c tric studies o f the 1920s, emphasized hu­
man and interpersonal factors in the administration of an organization.
Supervisors stressed democratic procedures, motivational techniques,
and employee involvement to achieve the goal of higher worker morale
and subsequent higher productivity.
Behavioral scientists made s ig n ific a n t contributions to manage­
ment theory beginning in the 1940s.

Herbert A. Simon (1945) and Ches­

te r I . Barnard (1938) combined the classical concepts of organizational
structure with human relations concepts to produce the underpinnings
of a new adm inistrative theory.

The theory advocated by Simon proposed

the concept of v e rtic a l specialization which is , in e ffe c t, decision­
making behavior.

According to Simon,

30
With general policy making concentrated at the top,
policy specification carried out at the middle ranks,
and actual work performance carried out a t the lower
ranks (p. 9 ),
the organization becomes an e ffic ie n t mechanism for the making and im­
plementation o f decisions.
Modern adm inistrative theory places decision-making at the core o f
management and a ll other functions in a subordinate le v e l.

Although

some adm inistrative theorists equate management with decision-making,
most find that decision-making 1s the central a c tiv ity with a ll other
functions related in some way to that process.

L itc h fie ld (1968) views

administration as a cycle o f a c tiv itie s which begins and ends with
decision-making:

(1) decision-making, (2) programming, (3) communicat­

ing, (4) con tro llin g , (5) reappraising.

A new cycle o f adm inistrative

process begins when the reappraising a c tiv ity is completed.
Research fo r employee particip atio n in decision-making within an
organizational structure 1s mainly derived from studies conducted in
Industrial settings; however, as William M ille r and David Newbury
(1970) suggest, such studies "hold great significance for education"
(p. 172).
According to Robert 6. Owens (1970):
A great deal o f research on democratic leadership and
participation in decision-making was triggered by manage­
ment's feeling that employees were resisting change and
Improvement (p. 106).
The results o f studies which analyze the effects o f incorporating
shared decision-making systems in complex organizations invariably
showed that workers who were given the opportunity to particip ate in
managerial decisions were more content and more productive.

I

31

Of p articu lar note are studies by Rensls L ikert (1961) which In­
dicates the v ia b ilit y o f Involvement o f employees In declslon-making In
the Industrial s e ttin g .

L ik e rt, who d iffe re n tia te s between job-cen­

tered and employee-centered supervision, suggests a pattern o f overlappalng decision-making and communication groups, a model which 1s ap p li­
cable to educational organizations.
L. Coch and J. R. P. French (1948) conducted a series o f experi­
ments at the Harwood Manufacturing Plant which resulted In finding
that workers who participated In discussing proposed changes 1n work
schedules, plans, and price rates were superior in production, sa tis ­
factio n , and adjustment.
Further substantiation o f the benefits to the organization o f de­
signing a system for allowing employee particip atio n 1n decision-making
has been offered by Eugene Kaczka and Roy Kirk (1967) who supported
H k e rt's study when they determined that an employee-oriented rather
than a task-oriented managerial climate would y ie ld a higher level o f
organizational performance.

As reported in Trewatha and Newport (1976),

Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y paradigms delineate patterns
o f behavior that res u lt as a consequence o f Imposing authoritarian or
democratic management styles upon employees.

As McGregor discovered,

workers who were allowed to particip ate In management o f th e ir work
environment were more sa tisfie d and productive.
Robert Owens (1970) finds that industrial-based studies of shared
declsion-making have a p p lic a b ility to educational systems:

In both

factory and school organizations, employees are staffed according to
sim ilar methods and have sim ilar expectations fo r th e ir roles within
the organization.

Owens offers a dec1s1on-mak1ng dimension which

t

32
delineates degrees o f participation in decision-making 1n professional­
ly , semi professionally, and nonprofessionally staffed organizations.
He proposes that categorizing school systems by these three dimensions
depends upon the unique characteristics o f each d is t r ic t , but that
most school organizations f i t the semi professionally staffed model.
Apparently, the role o f employees 1n the decision-making process
o f an organization is related to the extent to which the workers are
perceived as members o f a professional s ta ff.

In public school systems

there Is ambivalence toward the status o f a teacher as an autonomous
professional e n tity and the inherent rig h t o f teachers to participate
in the central decision-making o f the school.
Shared Decision-Making in Education
Literature describing Investigations and research Into shared de­
cision-making in the educational setting find that the act o f decision­
making is the essential function o f the organization.

As Robert Owens

(1970) proposes, the school organization is a decision-making structure
and Its s ig n ifican t a c tiv ity is choosing from among educational a lte r ­
natives within its ju ris d ic tio n .
Educational administration o f the 1950s devoted considerable a t­
tention to the research studies conducted 1n the industrial setting
and re lie d on findings from such studies to prescribe behavioral
styles for superintendents, princip als, and other school managers.
R. Campbell, et al_. (1966), find that school administration is
comprised o f fiv e stages (s im ila r to those id e n tifie d by L itc h fie ld 1n
the industrial s e ttin g ):

(1) decision-making, (2) programming, (3)

stim ulating, (4) coordinating, and (5) appraising.

The authors propose

33
that there 1s a congruence o f adm inistrative function and style between
the Ind ustrial and school models.
As Owens (1970) discusses, "For many years school administrators
have been urged to be democratic leaders."

He draws together fiv e

generalizations from the research lite r a tu re on organizational decision
making to support his contention that a democratically run school Is
p ra c tic a l, workable, and desirable:
1.

E ffective particip atio n by teachers in meaningful or­
ganizational decisions does "pay o ff."

2.

Teacher do not want to be Involved in every decision,
nor do they expect to be.

3.

An Important task o f the principal is to distinguish
between the decisions in which teachers should be in ­
volved and those which should be handled in other ways.

4.

The roles and functions o f teachers in decision-making
can be varied according to the nature o f the problem.

5.

The points in the decision-making process at which
teachers are involved can be varied according to the
nature o f the problem (p. 106).

Emery Stoops and Max L. R afferty (1961) advocate a democratic sys­
tem for administering schools for both philosophic and practical rea­
sons.

The authors find advantages inherent in the democratic approach

to managing a public school system:
1.

Better employee morale. An administration which stresses
cooperative approaches to current problems w ill achieve
a high personnel morale as a by-product o f the democratic
technique.

2.

Increased e ffic ie n c y . An employee who 1s given an op­
portunity to p articip ate in planning and policy making
w ill usually be productive o f suggestions and criticism s
which can add much to school d is tr ic t operational e f­
fectiveness.

3.

Public re la tio n s . Employees who have a voice 1n the
drawing up of plans, ru les, and salary schedules are
going to be much more apt to speak enthusiastically

I

34
o f the school d is t r ic t which, 1n a very real sense,
they represent (pp. 538-539).
Owens (1970) cautions that even though research has shown that
participation by teachers 1n decision-making has In trin s ic rewards for
the organization and adm inistrative participants 1n the organization,
such participation can be overdone.

Edwin Bridges (1967) has found

that excessive Involvement o f teachers 1n decision-making results in
th e ir resentment and resistance.

Teachers prefer having an administra­

to r who can resolve problems and are impatient at having to become In ­
volved in committee work.

The "zone o f indifference" id e n tifie d by

Chester I . Barnard (1938) can be found 1n school systems as well as In
Industrial systems.

Barnard proposed that there is an area in which an

adm inistrator's decision w ill be accepted without question, and this
zone Includes decisions which teachers perceive as r ig h tfu lly the prov­
ince o f adm inistrators.

When an adm inistrator confronts teachers with

a problem which they feel is within th e ir zone o f Ind ifferen ce, they
respond with Ir r ita t io n and resentment.
C iting the results o f research studies which advocate shared de­
cision making in the educational organization, the American Association
o f School Administrators (AASA) has adopted a resolution which defines
the roles, re s p o n s ib ilitie s , and relationships o f the school board,
superintendent, and school s ta ff.

According to the resolution:

I f democracy, with its fundamental emphasis on the
worth, d ig n ity , and Importance o f each in d ivid u al, has
taught the people o f th is country anything, 1t 1s that
on the whole the capacities o f people are used more
f r u it f u lly , results are more rewarding, and the job Is
done better when the individuals who are d ire c tly Involved
1n any common endeavor p articip ate fre e ly in setting goals,
developing operational procedures, and establishing general
working conditions (1963, pp. 7 -8 ).

I

35
The AASA has compiled a code o f behaviors for school administra­
tors* teachers, and school boards which Includes the following compo­
nents:
1.

We believe that the superintendent has a responsibility
to see th at opportunities are provided for s ta ff mem­
bers—teachers, supervisors, prin cip als, and sp ecialists—
to play appropriate roles in developing personnel p o li­
cies and In maintaining professional working conditions.

2.

We believe that shared resp on sibility 1n policy develop­
ment 1s a professional concept. I t assumes a commonality
o f goals and Interests among teachers, school boards,
and administrators; and 1t assumes th at service to c h il­
dren 1s the paramount consideration and that welfare pro­
visions fo r teachers are means to that end.

3. We believe that no matter how generous and benevolent
a rb itra ry decisions may be, they have a d e b ilita tin g
e ffe c t. When people are involved, they not only assume
resp on sibility for making decisions work, but each per­
forms at a higher level o f productivity.
4. We believe that fa ilu re to find appropriate and accept­
able means o f involving s t a f f members—teachers, prin­
c ip als, and supervisors— in developing policy that d i­
re c tly affects them w ill lead to divisiveness, tension,
and c o n flic t that w ill impair the schools and adversely
a ffe c t the education o f children (pp. 12-13).
Some doctoral dissertations have dealt with the Implications of
shared decision-making for teachers within the educational organiza­
tio n .

Eldon Dwight Johnson (1967) urges a p p lic a b ility o f findings from

industrial-based studies on shared decision-making to the educational
s e ttin g .

Johnson finds th at the use o f In trin s ic motivators (achieve­

ment, recognition, res p o n s ib ility, and interpersonal relatio n s) result
In higher teacher morale; and he Indicates that i t is the responsibil­
ity o f administrators to provide an organizational climate which fa­
c ilita t e s communication and provides fo r f a ir execution o f p o licies.
Johnson makes a case fo r providing a satisfying work place 1n order to
reap the benefits o f productivity and harmony among teacher employees.

I

36
C liffo rd Allen Burket (1965) studied twenty-six school d is tric ts
In terms o f the relationship between administrative style and s ta ff
morale.

Burket concluded that a s ig n ific a n tly positive relationship

exists between s ta ff morale and the democratic school administration:
the more democratic the adm inistration, the higher the s t a f f morale.
Shared Decision-Making o f Curriculum Issues
Studies describing teacher Involvement in decision-making Indicate
th a t, over time, teachers have increased th e ir participation 1n th is
process.

To a greater extent, teachers today are making decisions about

curriculum, Instructional m aterials, school p o lic ie s, budget, selection
o f personnel, and factors which a ffe c t th e ir personal and professional
w elfare.
According to M ille r and Newbury (1970), " . . . a major area o f s ta ff
involvement 1s teacher participation 1n curriculum development."

The

Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards examined
trends and practices o f staff-involvement through Inservice education
and found th at school d is tric ts are Increasingly providing released
time during the school day for allowing teachers to share in policy
decisions.
Studies from the la te 1960s, a fte r c o lle ctive bargaining had been
Introduced in the public sector, lend support to the theory and prac­
tic e of having teachers particip ate in shared decision-making for cur­
riculum issues.

John H. Johansen (1967) studied the au th o ritative In ­

fluences operative 1n local curriculum decision-making and the subse­
quent Implementation o f curricu lar changes.

Johansen's analysis of

data reveals that Individual participation In curriculum development

t

37
a c tiv itie s In and o f I t s e l f Increases the likelihood o f curriculum im­
plementation.

In addition, Johansen discovered that the perception by

teachers that they had the power to Influence curriculum decision-mak­
ing Increases curriculum Implementation; hierarchical authority struc­
tures decrease curriculum Implementation.
Gary P e ltie r (1967) conducted an extensive Investigation Into the
process o f curriculum revision as conducted In the Denver schools from
1873 to 1967.

P e ltie r's research report suggests th at teacher Involve­

ment 1n curriculum revision 1s a sig n ific an t factor In the process o f
Improvement o f the Instructional program.

The author found that a pro­

gram allowing teacher participation in curriculum revision resulted 1n
a strong commitment to see the plans executed on paper translated into
actual practice.

In addition, P e ltie r cites the emergence o f teacher

leadership and In it ia t iv e as a resu lt o f having teachers particip ate
as groups In the decision-making process.
P e ltie r concludes:
Teacher particip atio n resulted in a teaching s ta ff In ­
creasingly a le rt to Its problems. The program o f curricu­
lum revision had stimulated and motivated professional
study and had been most e ffe c tiv e in creating the desire
for the assistance o f constructive supervision (p. 215).
The lite r a tu re regarding shared decision-making o f curricu lar is ­
sues 1s lim ited 1n terms o f quantity and has been prim arily reported on
during the entrenchment period (la te 1960s) o f c o lle ctive bargaining
in education.

Apparently, once educators realized that the process o f

negotiations had become In s titu tio n a liz e d , some Investigations, apart
from the scope o f bargaining Issue, were conducted 1n to the theory o f
shared decision-making for educational policy and practice.

I

38
Whereas lines o f d is tin c tio n are apparent in regard to the advocacy
of narrow and lim ited scope of bargaining, an examination of the w rit­
ings available on the topic of curriculum as a subject o f shared deci­
sion making does not reveal such s t r ic t labor-management ( teacher-boarcfl
alignment.
The Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
adopted a resolution at the 22nd Annual Conference in Dallas, Texas
(1967), which states:
In the present context o f professional negotiations,
i t 1s essential that welfare concerns and cu rricu lar con­
cerns be handled as separate e n titie s . ASCD believes that
program and c u rric u la r decisions per se must not be nego­
tia te d Items. A ll professional personnel should have the
rig h t to p artic ip a te in cu rric u la r policy making; the pro­
cedures to be followed are negotiable, but the result or
outcome of the process must not be subject to negotiations.
Rather, such decisions must resu lt from the application of
a variety o f professional expertise a fte r a thorough study
of a ll factors basic to a curriculum decision. Curriculum
making is a study process and not a confrontation Ip . 6 ).
Arthur Corey, former Executive Secretary of the C alifo rn ia Teach­
ers' Association (1968) finds the concept of bargaining fo r procedures
(not formal curriculum content) more acceptable than having teachers
usurp Board power to set curriculum policies through negotiations.

He

says:
Because the principles of professional negotiation recog­
nize the rig h t o f teachers' associations to p artic ip ate in
decisions regarding the educational program, i t does not f o l­
low that such decisions should be regularly made at the bar­
gaining table or through a process of formal negotiations
(p. 514).
Corey finds that curriculum policy is the province of the school
board and its delegates at the adm inistrative level of the school sys­
tem and that the only appropriate function of union personnel is to
make advisory recommendations o f a procedural nature:

I

39
The process of negotiations should become a court of
la s t resort rather than a regular a c tiv ity . I t is neither
possible nor desirable fo r our associations to do th at work
which ought to be done by the people employed fo r th at pur­
pose. Associations should not attempt to make curriculum
decisions (p. 514).
William F. Young (1969) states his opposition to mandated curricu­
lum decision-making through master contracts:
I t is unwise to negotiate specific curriculum develop­
ment a c tiv itie s and curriculum content. A c tiv itie s and
content should evolve as teachers and administrators work
together on a co-professional basis in an e ffo rt to improve
the Instructional program. Hopefully, continuing experi­
ence with curriculum negotiation w ill also resu lt in lim it ­
ing the process to consideration of organizational patterns
fo r curriculum work, teacher representation 1n curriculum
development a c tiv itie s , and structure fo r curriculum deci­
sion making (p. 323).
Young emphasizes that procedural aspects of curriculum are more
appropriate fo r the bargaining table than substantive or content issues.
John Bennion (1969) examines the power struggle inherent in deter­
mining curriculum control through the bargaining process and finds that
such negotiated issues may endanger the role and function of the cur­
riculum specialist:
A major task o f the curriculum adm inistrator should be
to head o ff the trend toward involving the curriculum in
negotiations by helping to structure a framework in which
teachers play the central role in curriculum development
(p. 349).
Bennion bases his argument on the model fo r curriculum described
by Richard Williams (1968) in which Williams argues that by s h iftin g
the responsibility fo r curriculum development to the teachers as a
change in organizational structure, there w ill be less pressure to ob­
ta in power through the c o lle c tive bargaining system.

Williams finds

this system more appealing in that i t would involve adm inistrators,

*

40
teachers, and curriculum specialists 1n cu rricu lar decision-making In an
atmosphere o f mutual tru s t.
Roberto Alfonso (1968) has been an outspoken c r it ic o f having
teachers enter into shared decision-making fo r c u rric u lar issues through
the bargaining process:
...although involving teachers in decisions about cur­
riculum and instruction Is a basic tenet of every respectable
te x t in curriculum, there is slippage between ideal and ac­
tual behavior and discrepancy between what is professed and
what is done (p. E-2).
I t is th is discrepancy, Alfonso believes, which has contributed to
the demands o f teacher organizations to have decision making authority
today.
Alfonso finds that the trend to have teachers share authority fo r
curricu lar decisions is unacceptable, an antithesis o f a ll accepted
principles of curriculum development, since real and honest development
must occur in an open, in te lle c tu a l, experimental environment.

This

environment, according to the author, is not possible a t the bargaining
table.

He finds that negotiated curriculum principles are characterized

by "frozen practices, legalized practices, and re s tric tio n on change,"
the result o f making decisions from a power base rather than a coopera­
tiv e base.
Some authors have announced th e ir support fo r the process of col­
le c tiv e bargaining as a mechanism fo r assuring teacher involvement in
cu rricu lar decision-making.

These w riters supply a rationale fo r ensur­

ing teacher rights of access to curriculum decision-making through the
bargaining system.
Girard Hottleman (1969) states his rationale fo r bargaining over
curriculum and instruction:

I

41
Curriculum 1s the primary substance by which the goal of
optimum education of each child is achieved. In view of
th is , curriculum and instruction are essential matters fo r
teacher concern, and, in negotiation language, make up the
bulk of the teachers' working conditions. The teachers' pur­
pose is to carry out the school board's essential objective
of educating children; they do th is through the process of
instruction via a curriculum. Responsibility fo r learning
rests with the classroom teacher; because of th is , he must
have considerable control over the terms of that responsi­
b i l i t y . His effectiveness depends on the qu ality o f his
relationship to his res p o n s ib ility. The host of considera­
tions re la tin g to information and resources to assist the
teacher define the parameters o f negotiable items fo r im­
provement o f curriculum and instruction (p. 55).
Wendell Hough (1969) agrees with the opinion expressed by Alfonso;
...ad m in istrato rs and curriculum workers have been
more a rtic u la te in w riting and speaking about democratic
curriculum development and involvement o f teachers than
has actually occurred 1n practice (p. 534).
Hough finds that the system of co llec tive bargaining may be an insurance
policy for assuring that teachers w ill have the opportunity to p a r tic i­
pate in cu rricu lar decisions.

He calls fo r strong leadership by both

teachers and administrators to develop workable models fo r curriculum
development and improvement.
Arthur Salz (1969) and John G. Sperling (1970) base th e ir beliefs
that teachers should engage in c o lle c tiv e bargaining fo r curriculum Is ­
sues on the premise th at the teacher is a professional and should have
the rights and privileges o f exerting control over programs and p o li­
cies.

Both w riters agree with Hough that promises on paper are not

re a lity , and that 1t takes a formal, contractual agreement to ensure
that teacher opinions and decisions w ill be seriously considered and
ultim ately implemented.
In an extensive report, Sperling proposes that worry on the part of
administrators about teacher power over curriculum is fo r the most part

I

42
unfounded and th a t, in a c tu a lity , such power w ill be minimal under colle c tiv e ly bargained contracts.

Sperling does not fin d the current

state of the a rt of curriculum development and implementation sophis­
ticated enough to warrant concern fo r teacher take-over.
Sperling details a proposal fo r the contractual establishment of
instructional committees which, he contends, should provide the follow

1. Funds to purchase materials to hire consultants
2. Released time fo r the teachers who p articip ate
3. Permanent headquarters fo r the committee
4. Teacher control over the committee
5. Reward system to encourage teacher particip atio n in such
committees
6.

Provisions fo r adm inistrator, student, and community mem­
bership on the committees (p. 5).

Hy Kornbluh (1373) raises t h e ...
...fundamental question in rela tio n to bargaining goals
of education and teachers—the question of teacher organiza­
tions and the teachers' role in educational policy making—
curriculum, instru ctio n , innovations, and changes in the
schools Ip. 22).
Kornbluh finds a pragmatic rationale fo r having teachers assume leader­
ship in setting policy:

since teachers are the f i r s t lin e to receive

critic is m fo r school shortcomings and fa ilu re s , they should have the
f i r s t opportunity to make decisions.

A fter pointing out the inherent

risks in such a system, Kornbluh states:
What is needed is the a b ilit y to bargain fo r adequate
alte rn a tiv e structures with enough decision-making power
or influence to guarantee an e ffe c tiv e voice in the fin a l
decision making process. One way to achieve th is is
through bargaining fo r a jo in t committee or jo in t council
th at has real power, specified 1n the contract. I f this
approach does not work, then the next round of bargaining

43
can focus on putting more power into negotiating these de­
cisions rig h t at the bargaining table. As a f i r s t prin­
c ip le , I think i t wise to attempt to get agreement on the
substance and d e ta ils o f curriculum and Instruction deci­
sions and other educational issues away from the heat of
the bargaining tab le. The process and structure fo r mak­
ing these kinds o f decisions, and the provisions fo r fund­
ing, too, can be bargained (p. 24).
Shirley Jackson (1971) anticipates pressure on school boards and
school administration to accommodate teacher demands for participation
in curriculum decision-making.

Consequently, Jackson proposes altern a­

tiv e methods for involving personnel in th is process.

She elaborates

on a "preferred model" fo r shared decision-making, schematically pre­
sented on the following page.
Jackson recommends the following guidelines fo r in s titu tin g the
curriculum council plan:
1.

The committee be comprised of an equal number o f teach­
ers, students, administrators (including department
chairpersons) and parents or community members

2.

The curriculum directo r be the chairperson of the group;
the business manager serve as an e x -o ffic io member

3.

The committee meet at set times with an agenda prepared
and submitted to a ll in advance of the meeting

4.

The committee receive a ll proposals in
rationale fo r the program proposed

5.

The committee establish a l i s t o f p rio ritie s a t the
beginning of each meeting

6.

Each person proposing an item to the committee be given
a reply within a two month period by the chair of the
commi ttee

7.

The committee establish guidelines during its f i r s t
meeting; guidelines w ill be used as an objective means
of reviewing various items presented; guidelines must
have as th e ir central theme "the welfare of students"

8.

The committee recognize that its recommendations can
be Implemented only i f tim e, money, s ta ff, and f a c i l i ­
tie s permit; the involvement of parents and students

w riting with a

DIAGRAM OF STRUCTURE OF A CURRICULUM COUNCIL
Board of^Education
Central Administration

I------------- ,-----------Parents

Students

Curriculum Committee
,--------------,--- 1-------------- ,---------------- ,—

Citizens

Committees

Administrators

Teachers

Subject Committee------------------:------------------------------ Other Committees
Ad Hoc

Ad Hoc

Ad Hoc

Ad Hoc

Specialists

45
should aid and assist in the securing of funds fo r
worthy projects
9.

The committee serve only as a cu rricu lar council and
not a negotiating team

10.

The committee be comprised o f people who are not serv­
ing as negotiators

11.

The committee be empowered to in v ite specialists to its
meetings when th e ir services are needed .

12.

Items which may considered include:
a.

To what extent is the curriculum meeting the needs
of students?

b.

What type of c u rric u lar offerings might have more
value and meaning fo r students?

c.

How are textbooks and equipment selected from the
many offerings?

d.

What type of change or innovation should be con­
sidered and/or planned for?

e.

How e ffe c tiv e is the in-service program?

f.

What additional community resources might be u tilize d ?

g.

Do the educational objectives o f the school need
changing? (p. 16)

Jackson recognizes the unique characteristics of school d is tric ts
and realizes the impropriety of imposing her preferred model on dis­
tr ic ts which may require adaptations or variations of th is system.
she states:
I f persons demanding access to the decision-making pro­
cess are invitod in by the school system, no one organiza­
tional pattern fo r curriculum decision making w ill f i t every
school or system. The pattern derived w ill vary depending
on the type and size of d is t r ic t , s t a f f , and community. Re­
gardless of how the curriculum planning or curriculum deci­
sion-making process functioned p rio r to community awareness
and professional negotiations, the advent of legalized pro­
fessional negotiations and community consultations in the
area of curriculum development w ill d e fin ite ly have an impact
upon the process. Consequently, the school d is t r ic t should
review the possible alternatives open to them and select

As

46
courses o f action and policies which w ill enhance the possi­
b i l i t y o f the desired future state of a ffa irs occurring (p.
21 ).

Summary
Research from the industrial setting indicates th at employees who
particip ate in shared decision-making are more s a tis fie d , adjusted, and
productive.

Studies conducted in the educational setting indicate that

maximizing teachers' opportunities to p articip ate in setting policy and
determining procedure results in higher teacher morale.
C ritic s of models of organizational structure with contractual pro­
visions fo r teacher-board shared decision-making argue th a t:

(1) cur­

riculum should not be derived or determined as the resu lt of power con­
frontations through co lle c tive negotiations; (2) only procedural, not
substantive, cu rricu lar issues are appropriate as bargaining issues; and
(3) teachers, through th e ir assocaitions, should have only advisory
authority to the Board which must retain fin a l authority over educa­
tional policy.
Advocates of having teachers share in cu rricu lar decision-making
through master agreement provisions include in th e ir ratio n ale:

(1)

the discrepancy between theory and practice in regard to professed op­
portunities fo r teacher input fo r educational policy—the b e lie f that
the co lle c tive bargaining system assures teachers of re a l, not imagined,
opportunities to p articip ate in the decision-making process; (2) the
teachers' professional status which makes i t imperative that the teacher
should particip ate in a c tiv itie s which have an impact on job perfor­
mance; and (3) support fo r the jo in t instructional council as part of

I

47
the organizational system as an acceptable means fo r formalizing the
shared decision-making process between teachers and school management.
Models of varying scope and complexity fo r jo in t instructional
councils have been developed by educational and negotiations leaders
during the 1970s.

The models r e fle c t d iffe re n t opinions about the com­

position, au th o rity, support, and membership o f the proposed councils.
Michigan Studies
Since the advent o f c o lle c tive bargaining fo r public employees in
1965, studies conducted w ithin the state of Michigan have examined,
described, and evaluated the implications of bargaining upon curricu lar
policy and procedures.
Karl Ohlendorf (1970) describes the evolving and developing a t t i ­
tudes and approaches toward curriculum involvement by the state union:
For several years in Michigan we have stressed the nego­
tia tio n of a structure and process designed to involve the
teacher in educational decision-making. Called by various
names, such as instructional council, curriculum council, or
professional study committee, these stuctures are designed
to give teachers and administrators an opportunity to d is­
cuss educational problems throughout the year in a coopera­
tiv e setting (pp. 30-31).
Ohlendorf has lis te d several factors which he claims favor greater
particip atio n o f teachers in Michigan in structured decision-making:
1.

Change in goal direction o f the professional association
and greater s p e c ific ity of goals and rational channeling
o f resources o f the EA to achieve those goals.

2.

EA has changed from an organization which larg ely promoted
improvements in the fie ld o f education to one which is
much concerned with the implementation of programs.

3.

Trained teacher negotiators and organized leadership have
turned th e ir attention to professional areas (pp. 33-36).

48
4.

C ollective bargaining works as a technique to improve
the q u a lity of education; the process does not prevent
teachers from being innovative.

5.

Change in power from the state to local level with sub­
sequent involvement of teachers.

6.

Outside pressures forcing teachers to involve themselves
in instructional decision-making; financial pressure on
school boards to obtain better service from the teachers.

Marilyn Steele (1969) has rank-ordered a l i s t of ten items which,
in her opinion, are the ones the state union should bargain fo r " i f
members want to retain a public image of a professional organization
rather than a labor union."

Steele recommends that the MEA expand bar­

gaining into the following areas:
1.

In-service education programs fo r teachers

2.

Teacher involvement in curriculum review

3.

Teacher involvement in textbook selection

4.

Teacher aides

5.

Special programs fo r the impaired

6.

Free planning periods

7.

Pupil progress reports

8.

Parent-teacher conferences

9.

Teacher evaluation

10.

School v is ita tio n (p. 37)

Several unpublished doctoral dissertations have dealt with the top­
ic of c o lle c tive
setting

bargaining and education in the Michiganpublic school

and have drawn conclusions regarding the impactof bargaining

on curriculum.
Lois Redmond (1969) found that of the teachers surveyed in her sam­
ple, most believed that curriculum councils should be provided in the

I

49
master agreements fo r th e ir d is tric ts and that teachers should have more
influence in curriculum development.

She also reported

that teachers from d is tric ts with councils provided fo r in the contracts
perceived that the council was more involved in a study of the to ta l
school curriculum than were d is tric ts without curriculum councils.
Marilyn Steele (1969) investigated the trend of negotiations by
examining th ir ty master agreements in e ffe c t in 1966-1968.

Her analysis

reported:
1. There were s ig n ific a n tly more instructional provisions
fo r instruction in Michigan master contracts in 1967
than in 1966-67.
2.

Large d is tric ts tended to include a greater number of
instructional provisions than small d is tr ic ts , but the
difference is not s ta tis tic a lly s ig n ific a n t.

3.

The MFT negotiated more instructional provisions than
the MEA in the f i r s t year o f teacher bargaining; the
MEA s ig n ific a n tly increased the number of instructional
provisions the second year.

4.

School d is tric ts having high per pupil expenditure in
1966-67 wrote s ig n ific a n tly more instructional provi­
sions in 1966-67 contracts.

5.

The instructional supply budget fo r a ll d is tr ic ts ,
large and small, MFT or MEA, declined s ig n ific a n tly dur­
ing the second year of c o lle c tiv e bargaining.

6.

Small school d is tric ts spent a greater percentage of
th e ir budgets fo r instructional supplies in 1966-67 than
large d is tric ts .

7.

There was l i t t l e difference in the instructional supply
budgets of MFT and MEA d is tric ts in the f i r s t year of
teacher bargaining. However, the second year MEA d is­
tr ic t s spent a greater percentage fo r instructional
supplies than MFT d is tric ts .

Michael Jon Homes (1971) found that his study would be enhanced by
further research to examine the impact that bargaining in Michigan has

I

50
had upon the process o f curriculum and Instruction In development and
improvement.
Kenneth Noble (1971) researched curriculum provisions 1n d is tric ts
which had provisions for jo in t instructional councils.

Noble discovered

great disp arity and d iv e rs ity among provisions fo r councils, but drew
together data to conclude:
1.

Most jo in t curriculum councils had between eight and
eighteen members; membership usually consisted of
teachers and adm inistrators, and rarely included par­
ents or students.

2.

Teachers selected some of the members of the council
and served as the major source of consultants and ad­
visors.

3.

Other consultants retained by the council included lo ­
cal school d is tr ic t personnel, intermediate school dis­
t r i c t personnel, college fa c u lty , and textbook publish­
ers.

4.

Councils ty p ic a lly met once per month and generally met
a fte r school; some d is tric ts granted released time for
meetings.

5.

Joint councils dealt with a wide variety of topics.
However, most of th e ir work focused on modifying e x is t­
ing courses and m aterials, adding new courses or mater­
ia ls , and developing in-service train in g fo r teachers.

6.

Products of the councils' e ffo rts included textbook
adoptions, curriculum guides, or in-service programs.

7.

Joint councils exerted great influence upon change in
educational programs.

8.

Perceptions of the councils' work included viewing them
as exerting some influence in shaping curriculum and
providing a s lig h tly positive influence on some factors
which contribute to curriculum development.

9.

Councils were reported as most successful in increasing
teacher particip atio n in curriculum decision-making and
broadening the scope o f the instructional program; they
were viewed as least successful in promoting respect,
harmony, s k ills , and accountability among the profes­
sional s ta ff.

I

51
Certain research reports and studies conducted by the Michigan Edu­
cation Association have d e a lt, in p a rt, with bargaining fo r curriculum
in public school d is tric ts .

An extensive survey conducted by a team of

researchers (Hecker, et a l . , 1968) reported the following:
A clear m ajority of teachers believed that teacher in ­
volvement in curriculum decisions should be negotiated.
Nearly sixty percent of teachers believed that there
should be a greater degree of teacher planning for curricu­
la r decisions negotiated in future agreements.
A m ajority believed that freedom of the classroom
teacher to determine methods of instru ctio n , with broad
goals, should be negotiated in future agreements.
Specific responses to negotiation questions are reported below.
For each of the following contract y e a rs --!969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72,
1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, and 1977-78-th e Michigan
Education Association has published Research Reports, the results of
tabulating specific items in selected master agreements representing
MEA a f f ilia t e s , MFT a f f ilia t e s , and independent bargaining units within
the state.
One of the items reported is referred to as Instructional Policies.
From 1970 through 1974, the tabulation fo r th is item consisted of three
questions:
1.

Is there a curriculum council established in the contract?

2.

Are bimonthly or oftener meetings established?

3.

Is secretarial assistance provided by the Board?

In 1974-75, a fourth question was added:
4.

Does the contract require the Board to act on a recom­
mendation?

In 1977-78, the format o f the investigation changed:
1.

Is there an in s tru ctio n al/p o lic ie s council?

2.

Does the council have regularly scheduled meetings?

Negotiation Questions
6.

In the negotiation of future agreements, should the local association plan to expand the scope of the negotiation
to Include other areas?
G.

Greater degree o f teacher planning fo r curricular decisions
EXPERIENCE IN YEARS
SYSTEMS TAUGHT
GRAND
SEX
'
GRADE LEVEL
6-15 16 OR MORE ONE TWO OR MORE
TOTAL
MALE
FEMALE ELEMENTARY SECONDARY 1-5

Already negotiated here
Should be negotiated
Should not be negotiated
No opinion
TOTAL PERCENT:
Total Number
Not Indicated
I.

17.3
65.5
4.2
13.0
100.0

20.7
56.7
7.9
14.7
100.0

20.2
58.6
7.5
13.7
100.0

19.9
61.0
5.5
13.5
99.9

19.0
58.8
3.9
18.4
100.1

20.6
61.5
8.0
9.8
99.9

18.4
58.9
9.5
13.2
100.0

21.3
55.2
5.2
18.4
100.1

18.6
62.4
7.6
11.4
100.0

815
46

284
7

531
39

401
29

362
13

337
12

286
21

190
12

310
15

500
31

Freedom of classroom teacher to determine methods o f instruction within broad goals

Already negotiated here
Should be negotiated
Should not be negotiated
No opinion
TOTAL PERCENT:
Total Number
Not Indicated
2.

19.5
59.8
6.6
14.1
100.0

18.6
52.1
13.4
15.8
99.9

19.5
54.4
11.5
14.6
100.0

18.2
50.9
14.4
16.5
100.0

18.2
54.7
12.6
14.5
100.0

821
40

287
4

534
36

406
24

362 13

18.6
55.0
7.7
18.6
99.9

17.7
52.6
15.0
14.7
100.0

19.7
46.8
20.7
12.8
100.0

16.3
55.0
8.6
20.1
100.0

20.3
50.5
16.3
12.9
100.0

. 338
11

293
14

188
14

313
12

503
28

What is your attitu d e toward your Involvement in the determination of your local association's negotiation goals?
FELT UN- NO KNOWLINVOLVED EDGE OR
FELT
SUFFI­
FELT
BUT WANT­ NOT A NE­
NOT IN­
TOTAL
CIENTLY
ED TO BE GOTIATED TOTAL
UNIN­
DICATED
NUMBER
PERCENT
INVOLVED VOLVED
INVOLVED ITEM
Teacher involvement 1n curriculum decisions

3.

19.6
50.3
13.3
16.9
100.1

40.2

16.5

23.5

20.1

264

100.0

9

What is your attitu d e toward your local association's negotiating the lis te d areas with the school board?
SHOULD NOT BE
SHOULD BE
NEGOTIATED
NO
NEGOTIATED
TOTAL NOT IN­
KNOWLTOTAL
AND BUT WAS
BUT AND WAS
EDGE
PERCENT NUMBER DICATED
WAS
NOT
WAS
NOT
Teacher Involvement 1n curriculum decisions

46.6

30.3

.4

1.9

20.8

100.0

264

53
3.

Is the council a jo in t (teacher-board) council?

4.

Is the board required to act on the council's recommen­
dation?

5.

Can the board adopt any instructional policy without
approval of the council?

Numerical, percentage, and s ta tis tic a l data accompanying the tabu­
lations indicate appreciable increases in the number of d is tric ts with
contractual provisions fo r curriculum councils since the e a rlie s t re ­
ports were prepared.

In addition, i t appears that curriculum provisions

have become increasingly more elaborate and specific over time.
Robert Howlett, noted a rb itra to r in both the industrial and educa­
tional settings (1969), described the status of bargaining by Michigan
teachers and forecast the trends that he f e l t were inevitable:
Our mediators have found l i t t l e in teres t by teachers in
policy questions. Teachers are interested prim arily in money,
both salaries and fringe benefits. We believe, however, that
th is a ttitu d e may change. Michigan teachers have received
substantial salary increases during the la s t three years,
placing Michigan th ird highest in the nation. Money w ill be
more d if f ic u lt to come by; hence, teachers may turn to develop­
ment o f b etter educated children (p. 30).
In the decade since Howlett's comment, research indicates that
teachers in Michigan have shown increased in te re s t in policy questions
and are demanding access to the decision-making system in order to par­
tic ip a te in procedural and substantive curriculum issues.
Summary
Since the advent o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining fo r teachers in Michigan
in 1965, there has been a persistent growth in the area of negotiating
fo r curriculum.

Several factors favor growth o f teacher decision making in educa­
tional policies through contractual provisions, including sanction, sup­
port, and strength o f the state unions.
Doctoral studies conducted under the auspices of state teacher
unions and Independently report that teachers desire more involvement
in c u rric u la r decisions through formal councils and feel that such
councils should be a feature o f th e ir master agreements.

Studies con­

ducted on selected samples of school d is tric ts within the state indicate
that curriculum provisions, once negotiated into contracts, become a
stable item and generally become more re s tric tiv e to management by be­
coming more specific over time.

CHAPTER I I I

DESIGN OF THE STUDY
This research study investigates the extent to which provisions
fo r shared curriculum decision-making through jo in t instructional coun­
c ils have been negotiated into master agreements in Michigan public
school d is tric ts .

The study evaluates contractual provisions fo r c u rri­

culum councils according to a c rite rio n model which is comprised of nine
components.
This chapter describes the target population of Michigan public
school d is tric ts ; the sample of large, medium, and small sized school
d is tric ts ; g e n e ra liza b ility factors; sources of data; and instruments
designed to extract and tabulate data.
Population
The population of th is research study is a ll K-12 public school
d is tric ts in Michigan which p articip ate in co llective bargaining.

The

Michigan Department of Education lis ts a to ta l of 579 public school
d is tric ts ; however, several of those lis te d are K-8 d is tric ts and are
not part of the designated population.
"Michigan Teacher Bargaining Units," a master l i s t compiled and
published by the Michigan Education Association (November, 1978), in d i­
cates that there are currently 532 K-12 bargaining public school dis­
tr ic ts in Michigan:

55

56
MEA a f f ilia t e s = 508
MFT a f f ilia t e s = 20
Independents
=
4
The population fo r th is study is the 532 K-12 bargaining public
school d is tric ts in Michigan.
The Sample
The sample fo r this study is Groups B, G, and M, drawn from the
532 K-12 bargaining public school d is tric ts which comprise the popula­
tio n .

The Michigan Department o f Education ( B ulletin 1011) has cate­

gorized a ll school d is tric ts in Michigan according to student enrollment
and has applied descriptors of A - N to designate d is tr ic t size.
Chart I :

"General Information by Type of School D is tric t" (see

appendix) provides the most current c la s s ific a tio n of school d is tric ts
based on state aid membership.

Chart I I :

"Grouping of D is tric ts by

Pupil Membership" (see appendix) lis ts the groups by le tte r descriptor
and corresponding size and provides an alphabetical l i s t of school dis­
tr ic ts fo r each group.
The sample fo r this study is Groups B, G, and M, selected as repre­
sentative of large, medium, and small sized school d is tric ts :
Group B = 20,000-49,000 student membership
Group G = 3,500- 3,999 student membership
Group M =
500999 student membership
A rationale

fo r selecting Groups B, G, and M follows:

1.

Only D etroit (233,049 student membership) forms Group A;
therefore, the next largest group was chosen. Group B
contains nine school d is tric ts : F lin t C ity, Grand Rapids
C ity , Lansing, Livonia, Pontiac C ity , Taylor, U tica, War­
ren Consolidated, and Wayne Westland Community.

2.

Total school membership (2,023,94^) was divided by the to ­
ta l number o f d is tric ts (579) to determine a middle sized
category. Group G most accurately matches that description
and contains twenty-three school d is tric ts : Allen Park,

57
Alma, Avondale, C ad illac, Chesaning Union, Clawson C ity ,
Crestwood, Dowagiac Union, Fruitport Community, Green­
v i l l e , Inkster C ity , Lakeshore, Madison, Mason, Mt. Morris
Consolidated, Northview, Northwest, Oxford Area Community,
Reeths Puffer, South Lake, St. Joseph, Tecumseh, and West­
wood Community.
3.

Group N, the smallest category of d is tric ts (fiv e hundred
or less student membership) also contains a large propor­
tion o f K-8 school d is tric ts which are inappropriate fo r
the purpose of this study; therefore, the next smallest
category, Group M with eighty school d is tric ts was selected.
The sample of twenty school d is tric ts from Group M contains:
AuGres Sims, Bark R iver-H arris, Bear Lake, Camden Frontier,
Central Lake, Dryden Community, Forest Park, Galien Town­
ship, Inland Lakes, Johannesburg-Lewiston, Kingsley Area,
Martin, Mesick Consolidated, North Central Area, North
Huron, Norway Vulcan Area, Onekama Consolidated, Pewamo
Westphalia, P ittsfo rd Area, P o tte rv ille .

A random sample of twenty d is tric ts has been selected from Group M
which comprises a to tal of eighty d is tric ts .

A Michigan map showing

the distrib u tio n o f the fifty -tw o d is tric ts in the sample is contained
in the appendix.
The sample fo r th is study is:
Group B = 9 d is tric ts
Group G = 23 d is tric ts
Group M = 20 d is tric ts
52
Sources o f Data
The following sources of data have been used to gather, synthesize,
and tabulate information relevant to this study:
1.

B ulletin 1011 (Analysis of Michigan Public School Revenues
and Expenditures, 1977-78). This pamphlet, published on a
lim ited basis by the Michigan Department of Education,
contains the most recent and complete l i s t of Michigan
public school d is tric ts .
Chart I (General Information by Type of School D is tric t
for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1978).
Chart I I (Grouping o f D is tric ts by Pupil Membership).

58
2.

Negotiations Notebook (Michigan Education Association,
19/9). The notebook contains Part I , Statewide Bargain­
ing Goals (Section 1.18 Curriculum and Instructional Ma­
t e r ia ls ) . This prescribed contract language w ill be the
model and c r ite r ia by which selected master agreement
provisions fo r curriculum councils w ill be evaluated.

3.

Research Reports (Michigan Education Association). The
reports are a collection of analyses of contract content
in selected bargaining school d is tric ts . From 1970 the
yearly analyses have reported, using a code system, on
provisions fo r jo in t instructional councils.

4.

Michigan State University Labor and Industrial Relations
Library and Michigan State University Archives Library.
These lib ra rie s are state repositories fo r a ll p u b lic s e c ­
to r labor agreements, including municipal workers, police
and f ir e fig h te rs , and teachers. The LIR Library contains
f ile s o f current contracts, those which are presently in
e ffe c t; the Archives Library contains f ile s of expired
documents.
Description of the Instruments

Two instruments fo r tabulating information relevant to the research
study have been constructed:
1.

Tabulation Form. A form records information extracted
from B u lletin 1011, Research Reports, and the master
agreement fo r the school d is t r ic t in the sample. The
tabulation form records: school d is t r ic t , location (by
county and region), population ( d is tr ic t size and corres­
ponding category B, G, or M), contract date, and details
from contract language fo r curriculum councils which
correspond to the nine components in the c rite rio n model.
The fin a l section of the form contains a description of
related contractual provisions which may strengthen or
re s tric t contract language fo r curriculum (see copy in
appendix).

2.

Charts. A set of charts corresponding to the nine estab­
lis h e d components of the c rite rio n model has been con­
structed to record data derived from master contracts.
The charts include (1) t i t l e , (2) description of c r ite r ia
from the model, (3) l i s t of fifty -tw o sample school dis­
tr ic ts alphabetically by group, and (4) record space.
The charts are worksheets which record data by categories.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introduction
Data obtained from the tabulation instrument used to record in fo r­
mation from master agreements is presented and analyzed
th is chapter.

in

Master agreements were available fo r fifty -o n e of the

fifty -tw o d is tric ts in the sample; only the Crestwood (Group G) contract
was not obtainable.*

Therefore, the study records Crestwood (on tables

and in te xt descriptions) as not availab le.
Contracts, the primary source of information, are available at the
Michigan State University Labor and Ind ustrial Relations Library and the
MSU Archives Library.

Accordingly, several readings were conducted on

s ite a t these locations.

Master contracts fo r the public sector are

available fo r public review but do not c ircu late from the lib ra ry .
A master l i s t of the d is tric ts in the sample was created, then or­
ganized alphabetically by Groups B, G, and M. Contracts were read syste­
m atic a lly, following the l i s t .

A fter a thorough review of the entire

contract, noting sections which would require a re-reading, the re­
searcher proceeded to record pertinent information correlated to the
components o f the model on the tabulation sheet.

♦Despite repeated e ffo rts to secure the Crestwood contract through
the MEA O ffice of Negotiations and the MSU Labor and Industrial Rela­
tions Library as well as personal investigations and requests, the con­
tra c t was not issued.
59

60
Worksheets corresponding to the components of the model were con­
structed.

Each worksheet was coded by number to the proposed table for

the fin a l study and contained a l i s t of the d is tric ts according to
group.

Slots on the worksheet were f il l e d in with information from the

tabulation sheets.

Subsequently, the worksheets, when revised, became

the tables included in the study.
Twenty contracts were selected a t random and given to an indepen­
dent reader to check fo r thoroughness and accuracy of the researcher’ s
notes.

In two instances the independent reader recorded information

which the researcher had not; in both cases the contract a r tic le noted
dealt with shared decision-making (budget, class size) fo r items other
than curriculum.
The independent reader and researcher agreed that accuracy of the
investigation depended on a thorough reading of the contracts.

The re­

searcher determined that references to curriculum, jo in t curriculum
councils, and related provisions often are housed in unlikely and mis­
leading sections o f the contract.

For example, specific references to

procedural aspects of curriculum were found under "Teaching Hours" (Cen­
tr a l Lake), "Teaching Goals" ( F lin t ) , "Reduction in Personnel" (C adil­
la c ), and "Miscellaneous Provisions" (Lakeshore).
Plan fo r the Analysis of Data
The model designated as th e ic rite rio n fo r th is investigation, Sec­
tion 1.18 Statewide Bargaining Goals and Minimum Contract Standards ( Ne­
gotiations Notebook, 1979-80), is comprised o f nine components:

pur­

pose, res p o n s ib ility , au th o rity, method of selection, support, s ize,
composition, meeting schedule, and leadership.

For purposes of

61
comparison, the components lis te d as size and composition are treated
together.
Analysis o f the contractual provisions fo r jo in t instructional
councils is conducted according to the sequence o f components lis te d
above.

In addition, a chart is given indicating each o f the school

d is tric ts in the sample, whether the d is tr ic t contract contains a pro­
vision fo r a curriculum council, and the t i t l e of the council.

F in a lly ,

a presentation is made showing related contractual provisions which add
to or subtract from the strength of curriculum councils mandated by
contract.
The presentation of the analysis of data follows this sequence:
1.

D is tric ts in which master agreements currently contain pro­
visions fo r jo in t instructional councils

2.

Purpose of jo in t instructional councils

3.

Responsibilities of jo in t instructional councils

4.

Size and composition of the jo in t instructional councils

5.

Method of selection fo r membership and frequency of mem­
bership selection to jo in t instructional councils

6.

Leadership and vote rights of jo in t instructional councils

7.

Meeting schedules fo r jo in t instructional councils

8.

Support provisions fo r jo in t instructional

9.

Authority of jo in t instructional councils

10.

councils

Contractual provisions which strengthen and/or r e s tric t
provisions fo r jo in t instructional councils

Data are presented in tables which contain the sample school dis­
t r ic t s lis te d alphabetically according to Groups B,
cussion describes sig n ifica n t findings.

G, and M. Text

dis­

62
Table 1
A comprehensive reading o f the sample contracts fo r this study was
conducted in order to determine i f the contracts contained provisions
fo r jo in t instructional councils.* As indicated in Table 1, d is tric ts
in which master agreements contain provisions fo r jo in t instructional
councils, a reading of a ll contracts revealed that provisions fo r cur­
riculum councils may be separate a rtic le s or components of the agreement
or may be incorporated in other a rtic le s .

For example, the 1979-81

Madison (Group G) contract contains A rtic le XXVI, Professional Study
Committee; the 1979-82 Alma (Group G) contract contains a provision fo r
the Coordinating Council under A rtic le XIX School Calendar and Miscel­
laneous.
The terminology used to describe jo in t councils is generally in d i­
cative of the purpose and resp onsibility with which the council is
charged.

A name such as Instructional Council (Grand Rapids), Curricu­

lum Council (Wayne Westland), Joint Curriculum Committee (Oxford) and
Curriculum Committee (Johannesburg-Lewiston) is an indicator that the
council has a more lim ited function, generally to study, review, dis­
cuss, and recommend instructional and cu rricu lar changes fo r the school
d is t r ic t .

A name such as Professional Study Committee ( F lin t , Mt.

M orris), or Coordinating Council (Pontiac, Alma) indicates more l a t i ­
tude in terms of educational concerns which the council may consider.
In F lin t, fo r example, the Professional Study Committee may discuss and
study "subjects mutually agreed upon relatin g to the school system";
♦Important to note that some master agreements may contain re fe r­
ence to shared curriculum decision making systems which are operational
under board policy and not master agreement. This study only considers
councils which are mandated by the p a rties ' co llec tive bargaining
agreements.

63
and 1n Alma, the Coordinating Council should "channel ideas, projects,
recommendations, and items of concern to a d e fin ite conclusion."
Of the nine school d is tric ts which comprise Group B, the group re­
presenting large school systems, eight (89%) master agreements contain
provisions fo r jo in t instructional councils.

Of twenty-two d is tric ts

in Group G, representing middle-sized school systems, twelve (55%) con­
tain provisions for jo in t instructional councils.

Of the twenty dis­

tr ic ts in Group M, representative o f small sized systems, six (30%)
contain provisions fo r jo in t instructional councils.
Neither Taylor (Group B) nor Inkster (Group G), the only two d is­
tr ic ts in the sample which are a f f ilia t e d with the Michigan Federation
of Teachers rather than the Michigan Education Association, have provi­
sions fo r jo in t instructional councils.
Table 1. D is tric ts in which Master Agreements
Contain Provisions fo r Joint Instructional Councils
Group B D is tric ts

Council Name

F lin t

Professional Study Committee

Grand Rapids

Instructional Council

Lansing

Instructional Council

Livonia

Curriculum Committee

Pontiac

Coordinating Council

Taylor
Utica

Central Curriculum Council

Warren

Steering Committee

Wayne Westland

Curriculum Council

64
Table 1, continued
Group G D is tric ts

Council Name

Allen Park

Instructional and Curriculum Council

Alma

Coordinating Council

Avondale
Cadi 1lac
Chesaning
Clawson

Curriculum Study Committee

Crestwood

(not available)

Dowagiac

Curricular Study and A rticu lation
Commi ttee

Fruitport
Greenville

Professional Study Committee

Inkster
Lakeshore
Madison

Professional Study Committee

Mason

Professional Development Committee

Mt. Morris

Professional Study Committee

Northview
Northwest

Professional Development Council

Oxford Area

Joint Curriculum Committee

Reeths Puffer
South Lake

Professional S ta ff Curriculum Council

St. Joseph
Tecumseh
Westwood

Professional Council

65

Table 1, continued
Group M D is tric ts

Council Name

Au Gres Sims
Bark River Harris
Bear Lake
Camden Frontier
Central Lake
Dryden Community
Forest Park
Glaien Township
Inland Lakes
Johannesburg-Lewi ston

Curriculum Committee

Kingsley Area
Martin
Mesick Consolidated
North Central Area
North Huron

Professional Study Committee

Norway Vulcan Area

Professional Study Committee

Onekama Consolidated
Pewamo Westphalia

Instructional Council

P ittsfo rd Area

Curriculum Council

P o tte rv ille

Curriculum Council

Tables 2-9 correspond to the components of the c rite rio n model,
Section 1.18 Statewide Bargaining Goals and Minimum Contract Standards
( Negotiating Notebook, 1979-80).

Each table contains a heading which

66
1s a statement of the c r ite r ia by which the contractual provision Is
evaluated.

Following the heading, the model c rite rio n 1s Included, a

rep licatio n o f the language contained in the MEA model.
The model proposes th at contractual provisions fo r curriculum con­
tain a stated purpose and suggests that the appropriate statement of
purpose is :

The purpose o f th is Council shall be to in it ia te and es­

tablish policies affecting the nature and design of the instructional
program o f the d is tr ic t.
Table 2 .
No contracts contain language which replicates the stated purpose
in the model; however, several contracts contain language which approxi­
mates the model c rite rio n .

In Group B, each of the eight d is tric ts

with jo in t instructional council provisions has contract language which
establishes the purpose o f the council.

Four d is tric ts (Lansing, Pon­

tia c , U tica, Grand Rapids) contain language fo r the purpose of curricu­
lum councils which indicates th at the reason fo r the council is to i n i ­
t ia te policies fo r the d is t r ic t .
The remainder of the d is tric ts with councils ( F lin t , Livonia, War­
ren, Wayne Westland) are to study and review recommendations.
In Group G, eleven o f the twelve contracts with provisions fo r
councils contain language stating a purpose.
west.

The exception is North­

Two d is tric ts of the eleven (Allen Park and Oxford Area) approxi­

mate the model language by giving councils authority to recommend in ­
structional policies fo r the d is t r ic t .
study, discuss, and recommend.

Other councils may review,

67

In Group M, fiv e of the six contracts with provisions fo r councils
include a stated purpose.

The exception is P o tte rv ille .

None of the

fiv e statements indicates the degree o f autonomy to in it ia t e and estab­
lis h policies suggested in the model; councils in Group M d is tric ts may
consult, a s s is t, study, discuss, suggest, and consider curriculum de­
velopment.
Summary
A greater proportion of contracts in Group B d is tric ts (four of
eight) contain language describing the purpose of instructional councils
which p a ra lle l the model c rite rio n .

In Group G, two of eleven con­

tracts contain language which approximates the model; and in Group M,
none of the stated purposes fo r councils approximates the model.

Dis­

t r ic t s with language which approximates the model fo r the purpose of the
council grant the council a degree of autonomy to in it ia t e and estab­
lis h instructional and c u rric u la r policies fo r the d is t r ic t .

D is tric ts

with provisions which do not approximate the model allow councils to re­
view, study, discuss, investigate, and suggest proposed change.
Stated purposes fo r Groups G and M indicate more diverse responsi­
b ilit ie s than Group B.

For example, in G reenville, the council may

"study matters of professional concern" and in Tecumseh the council
should "discuss and study subjects relatin g to the school system."
Group B d is tric ts tend to define the purpose of the council as " in itia te
and recommend policies which a ffe c t and determine the instructional
program" (Grand Rapids) and "to review a ll curriculum changes including
those not necessarily funded through th is committee" (Warren).

68
Table 2.
Model c rite rio n :

Purpose of Joint Instructional Councils.
the purpose of th is council shall be to in it ia t e and
establish policies affectin g the nature and design of
the instructional program of the d is t r ic t .

Group B

Stated Purpose

F lin t

To discuss and study subjects mutually
agreed upon rela tin g to the school system

Grand Rapids

To in it ia t e and recommend those policies
which a ffe c t and determine the instruc­
tional program

Lansing

To act as a decision making body to re­
commend to the superintendent regarding
curriculum development, instru ctio n, im­
provement, evaluation, and s ta ff develop­
ment fo r the d is t r ic t

Livonia

To study specific areas of the curriculum

Pontiac

To implement the to ta l school program,
not ju s t a specific grade or subject
area, to enable teachers to particip ate
in the process o f cooperative decision
making with building adm inistrative s ta ff

Tayl or

No jo in t instructional council provision

Utica

To assist in formulating policies and
programs in curriculum

Warren

To review a ll curriculum changes includ­
ing those not necessarily funded through
th is committee

Wayne Westland

To review, study, and research curriculum
programs and proposed changes and make
recommendations to the superintendent

Group G

Stated Purpose

Allen Park

To review and recommend policies a ffe c t­
ing the nature and design of the instruc­
tional program o f the d is tr ic t

Alma

To channel ideas, projects, recommenda­
tio n s, and items of concern to a d e fi­
n ite conclusion

69
Table 2, continued
Avondale

No jo in t instructional council provision

Cadillac

No jo in t instructional council provision

Chesaning

No jo in t instructional council provision

Clawson

When a curriculum study committee is ne­
cessary, n o tific a tio n shall be sent to
the EA president. The EA w ill volunteer
one teacher to be on the committee.

Crestwood

(not available)

Dowagiac

To review a ll pending cu rricu lar changes
p rio r to th e ir being presented to the
Board of Education

Fruitport

No jo in t instructional council provision

Greenville

To study matters of professional concern
presented by members of study committee

Inkster

No jo in t instructional council provision

Lakeshore

No jo in t instructional council provision

Madison

To review teaching techniques, courses of
study, textbooks, curriculum guides, pu­
p il testin g , student discip lin e policy,
guidance programs, programs fo r special
education, and any other professional
area

Mason

To investigate matters and policies in ­
volving curriculum, s ta ff u t iliz a tio n ,
school design and teaching equipment; to
maintain a free flow of ideas and sug­
gestions

Mt. Morris

To discuss subjects mutually agreed upon
rela tin g to the school system

Northview

No jo in t instructional council provision

Northwest

(not given)

Oxford Area

To recommend to the superintendent
changes in curriculum and textbooks,
K-12, and the committee shall establish
it s own procedures and meeting schedule

70
Table 2, continued
which w ill be reflected in the minutes
o f the f i r s t meeting
Reeths Puffer

No jo in t instructional council provision

South Lake

To study and improve the school instruc­
tio nal program and related matters

St. Joseph

No jo in t instructional council provision

Tecumseh

To discuss and study subjects relatin g
to the school system

Westwood

No jo in t instructional council provision

Group M

Stated Purpose

Au Gres Sims

No jo in t instructional council provision

Bark River Harris

No jo in t instructional council provision

Bear Lake

No jo in t instructional council provision

Camden Frontier

No jo in t instructional council provision

Central Lake

No jo in t instructional council provision

Dryden Community

No jo in t instructional council provision

Forest Park

No jo in t instructional council provision

Galien Township

No jo in t instructional council provision

Inland Lakes

No jo in t instructional council provision

Oohannesburg-Lewi ston

To review, discuss, suggest, and coordin­
ate the existing curriculum through the
d is t r ic t

Kingsley Area

No jo in t instructional council provision

Martin

No jo in t instructional council provision

Mesick Consolidated

No jo in t instructional council provision

North Central Area

No jo in t instructional council provision

North Huron

To provide e ffe c tiv e consultation with
and assistance to the Board to make
needed improvements in the school

71
Table 2, continued
instructional program which i t deter­
mines as feasible
Norway Vulcan Area

To study such matters as curriculum and
student d iscip lin e

Onekama Consolidated

No jo in t instructional council provision

Pewamo Westphalia
Community

To discuss and study curriculum develop­
ment and revision, student d is c ip lin e ,
special student problems, or any other
issues related to the education o f stu­
dents

P ittsfo rd Area

To consider recommendations from teacher
sub-committees and administration; a ll
matters pertaining to instructional pro­
gram

P o tte rv ille

(no purpose given)

Table 3
Table 3 compares contract provisions fo r curriculum with the model
c rite rio n :

as part of its re s p o n s ib ilitie s , the council shall (1) de­

velop c r ite r ia fo r the on-going evaluation of a ll instructional pro­
grams; (2) annually review and establish policies concerning a ll testing
programs and instructional management systems; (3) review and make re­
commendations on a ll proposed p ilo t , experimental, and/or innovative
programs; and (4) promulgate other policies rela tin g to the d is tr ic t's
instructional program.
Comparison of res p o n sib ilitie s of curriculum councils as defined
in master agreements with the model c rite rio n has been conducted on a
matching system of components of the c rite rio n rather than according to
the content of the e n tire paragraph.

72
In Group B, three school d is tric ts have w ritten descriptions of
council res p o n sib ilities which, in p art, rep lic ate components of the
model (Grand Rapids, U tica, Wayne Westland).

In Grand Rapids, the cur­

riculum council has the resp on sibility o f (1) developing recommendation
of policies which w ill lead to improvement of instruction , an approxi­
mation o f #4 in the model.

Also in Grand Rapids, the council should

(2) annually review testing programs in regard to the adequacy and ap­
propriateness of the tests given, an approximation of #2 in the model.
In U tica, the council should (1) review a ll major revisions, p ilo t
programs, and new programs, whether in itia te d by teachers or administra­
to rs , an approximation o f #3 in the model.

Also in U tica, the council

has the resp o n sib ility o f (2) c a llin g attention to the curricula mat­
ters considered important to the school d is t r ic t and providing continu­
ous evaluation o f on-going programs, an approximation of #1 in the model.
In Wayne Westland, the curriculum council must (1) review and re­
commend proposed p ilo t , experimental, and innovative programs which
involve new approaches to the teaching/learning process, an approxima­
tio n of #3 in the model.

Also, the council should (2) evaluate imple­

mented programs in w riting at designated periods, an approximation of
#1 in the model.
Of the eight d is tric ts in Group B which have contract language for
curriculum councils, fiv e emphasize curriculum in th e ir stated responsi­
b ilit ie s (Grand Rapids, Lansing, U tica, Warren, Wayne Westland).

The

other three ( F lin t , Livonia, and Pontiac) charge the councils with a
broader scope o f re s p o n s ib ilitie s .

For example, in F lin t a subject

which the council may study is the health and welfare of teachers; in
Livonia, the council may id e n tify and review problems and areas of

73
concern; in Pontiac, the council must implement a system-wide discip lin e
policy.
In Group G, one d is t r ic t , Northwest, contains a statement o f re­
spo nsib ility which approximates the model.

In Northwest the council

must (3) consider, study, and make recommendations to the Board o f Edu­
cation o f any proposals fo r major changes in curriculum, teaching meth­
ods, textbooks, educational f a c i l i t i e s , or other proposals which repre­
sent s ig n ific a n t changes in the educational process, an approximation
of #3 in the model.
Eleven of the twelve d is tric ts in Group G contain language which de­
fines the res p o n s ib ilitie s o f the curriculum council.
not l i s t resp o n sib ilities o f its council.

Allen Park does

Of the eleven d is tric ts with

such language, seven emphasize curriculum in th e ir stated resp on sibili­
tie s (Alma, Clawson, Dowagiac, Northwest, Oxford, South Lake, Tecumseh).
Four d is tric ts (G reenville, Madison, Mason, Mt. Morris) contain state­
ments of resp o n sib ilities which are not s t r ic tly lim ited to curriculum
in terests.

For example, the Madison curriculum council is given re­

sp o n sib ility to system atically review the student d isc ip lin e policy,
and the Mason council must develop a teacher evaluation form.
In Group M, two d is tric ts (North Huron, P itts fo rd ) contain state­
ments o f resp on sibility which approximate the model.

In North Huron

the council must (1) cooperate in an on-going study and assist the
Board whereby i t may bring about desirable changes..., an approximation
o f #1 in the model.

In P itts fo rd , the council should (3) cooperate in

an on-going study ot assist the Board in bringing about desirable
changes..., an approximation of #1 in the model.

74
Five o f the six d is tric ts In Group M contain language which de­
fines the resp o n sib ilities o f the council.
resp on sibilities o f the council.

P o tte rv llle does not 11st

Of the fiv e d is tric ts which contain

such language, three emphasize curriculum concerns (JohannesburgLewiston, North Huron, P itts fo rd ) and two require the councils to en­
gage 1n a c tiv itie s removed from the area o f curriculum (Norway-Vulcan,
Pewamo-Uestphalla).

In Norway-Vulcan, the council 1s required to re­

commend matters of student discip lin e to the Board, and In PewamoUestphalla, the council 1s given the resp on sibility to discuss and
study student discip lin e and special student problems.
Summary
Few d is tric ts in the e n tire sample contain statements of responsi­
b i l i t y which approximate the components of the model.

D is tric ts appear

to have delineated res p o n sib iliite s fo r instructional councils accord­
ing to narrow scope, emphasizing curriculum -instruction only, or accord­
ing to broad scope, allowing the council to deal with such matters as
student d is c ip lin e , teacher w elfare, and teacher evaluation.

More con­

tracts define the res p o n sib ilities o f the jo in t instructional council
according to a narrow scope.

4

Table 3.
Model C riterion:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Responsibilities of Joint Instructional Councils

as a part of its res p o n s ib ilitie s , the Council shall:

Develop c r ite r ia fo r the on-going evaluation of a ll instructional programs;
Annually review and establish policies concerning a ll testing programs and instructional management
systems;
Review and make recommendations on a ll proposed p ilo t, experimental, and/or innovative programs;
Promulgate other policies rela tin g to the d is t r ic t 's instructional programs and curriculum.

Group B

Responsibilities

F lin t

1.
2.

Review and recommend changes in the school code and curriculum
Study such subjects as attendance, compensatory education, development of cu rric ­
ulum, discip lin e policy, evaluation of teachers, health and welfare of teach­
ers, human relatio n s , in-service, school lib ra ry services, student rig h ts,
supplies and equipment, and student teachers

Grand Rapids

1.
2.

Develop recommendation o f policies which w ill lead to improvement of instruction
Be the only agency to speak in behalf o f the to ta l teaching s ta ff of the school
system on instructional matters
Annually review testing program in regard to the adequacy and appropriateness of
the tests given

3.
Lansing

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Function as an in itia tin g agency and clearing house fo r research and innovations
A recommending agency fo r policy change and philosophy renewal
An agency fo r curriculum realignment, to review and balance curricu lar emphasis
A promotional agency fo r accountability procedures
A consulting agency fo r citize n s ' groups; to bring ideas and concerns to teach­
ers, administrators and citizens into focus; to provide resource people, re ­
search, and background information on curriculum and instructional matters
An agency fo r reviewing Federal, State, and lo c a lly funded programs, especially
those affecting more than one building

Livonia

1.
2.
3.

Id e n tify and review problems and areas of concern
Set p rio ritie s
Determine methods fo r studying those areas

Pontiac

1.

Develop an individual school calendar, encompassing planning of in-service days,
conference days, report card marking time, student a c tiv itie s , and approval
of the second s ta ff meeting established by contract
2. Cooperatively implement a system-wide discipline policy and/or procedure and
resolution of disputes arising from that policy/procedure
3. Resolve any disputes over the implementation of the attendance procedure with
assistance of the Pupil Personnel Director
4. Discuss the resolution of school problems and procedures, including curriculum
development, school budget, and community relations

Taylor

No jo in t instructional council provision

Utica

1. Review a ll major revisions, p ilo t projects and new programs, whether in itia te d
by teachers or administrators
2. Call attention to the curricula matters considered important to the school dis­
t r i c t and provide continuous evaluation of on-going programs
3. Serve as a channel of communication among the school community to bring about
better understanding in directions about instructional matters
4. Communicate fu lly and fre e ly with those they represent

Warren

1. Establish teacher curriculum study groups (comprised of both teachers and admini stra to rs)
2. Allocate funds for teacher in itia te d projects of an innovative nature and pro­
jects of in-service
3. Submit reports, proposals, and recommendations to the Associate Superintendent
fo r Instruction and the Association President

Wayne Westland

1. Review and recommend proposed p ilo t , experimental, and innovative programs which
involve new approaches to the teaching/learning process
2. Evaluate implemented programs in w riting at designated periods; d istrib u te w rit­
ten evaluations to affected s ta ff members, members o f Curriculum Council, and
members o f the Board of Education

3.

Establish a Program Review Committee to provide a vehicle whereby a teacher may
have a program reviewed for possible alternation or termination

Group G

Responsibilities

Allen Park

No resp on sibilities lis te d

Alma

Recommend appropriate action on curriculum, research, study, experimentation, in service tra in in g , v is ita tio n , resource people, released time, conferences, ma­
t e r ia ls , workshops, and other items the council in its action finds necessary

Avondale

No jo in t instructional council provision

Cadillac

No jo in t instructional council provision

Chesaning

No jo in t instructional council provision

Clawson

Study

Crestwood

Contract not available

Dowagiac

Review a ll pending curricu lar changes, new textbook adoptions, and proposals fo r new
instructional programs and media prior to th e ir being presented to the Board
of Education fo r adoption

Fruitport

No jo in t instructional council provision

Greenville

To study matters of professional concern and, i f the Committee agrees on any one
policy change, such change shall be recommended to the Board fo r its consid­
eration as Board policy

Inkster

No jo in t instructional council provision

Lakeshore

No jo in t instructional council provision

and recommend to the Board any changes in the d is tr ic t's curriculum

Madison

Systematically review at regular meetings teaching techniques, courses of study,
textbooks, curriculum guides, pupil testin g , student discipline policy, gui­
dance programs, programs fo r Special Education, and any other professional
area which the committee may agree to consider

Mason

To develop a teacher evaluation form and other matters to be decided upon by the Com­
mittee

Mt. Morris

1. Appoint sub-committees comprised of teachers and administrators to study and re­
port upon Curriculum Review and any other mutually agreed upon subject
2. Investigate the p o s sib ility of establishing an in-service training program in
which a ll teachers would be required to participate

Northview

No jo in t instructional council provision

Northwest

1. Develop and implement in-service training fo r the Northwest Professional S ta ff;
determine the nature of the training and the dates and times fo r training
2. Make reconmendations to the respective parties concerning contractual provisions
in regard to In-Service Education fo r future agreements
3. Consider, study, and make recommendations to the Board of Education of any pro­
posals fo r major changes in curriculum, teaching methods, textbooks, educa­
tional f a c il it ie s , or other proposals which represent significant changes in
the educational process
4. To make available to members of the Board and Association summaries of discus­
sions and findings which result from the functioning of the Council

Oxford Area

Recommend changes in curriculum and textbook K-12

Reeths Puffer

No jo in t instructional council provision

South Lake

1.
2.
3.
4.

To select
To assess
Report to
Establish

Steering Committee and Advisory Committee
work being done by various ad hoc curriculum committees
the Board on current curriculum status and need
and maintain communication among Board, Administration, and S taff

St. Joseph

No j o i n t in s tru c tio n a l provision

Tecumseh

Appoint ad hoc committees comprised of teachers and administrators to study and sub­
mit w ritten reports

Westwood

No jo in t instructional council provision

Group M

Responsibilities

Au Gres Sims

No jo in t instructional council provision

Bark River Harris

No jo in t instructional council provision

Bear Lake

Ho jo in t instructional council provision

Camden Frontier

No jo in t instructional council provision

Central Lake

No jo in t instructional council provision

Dryden

No jo in t instructional council provision

Forest Park

No jo in t instructional council provision

Galien Township

No jo in t instructional council provision

Inland Lakes

No jo in t instructional council provision

JohannesburgLewiston

1. Discuss and coordinate the existing curriculum throughout the d is tr ic t
2. Take recommendations to appropriate departments fo r consideration
3. Submit an annual progress report to the Board of Education

Kingsley Area

No jo in t instructional council provision

Martin

No jo in t instructional council provision

Mesick Consolidated

No jo in t in s tru c tio n a l council provision

North Central

No jo in t instructional council provision

North Huron

1.
2.

Cooperate in an on-going study and assist the Board whereby i t may bring about
desirable changes and innovations in teaching methods and techniques, class
composition, curriculum, and any other phases of the instructional program
To establish additional ad hoc subcommittees as necessary

Norway Vulcan

To recommend matters of curriculum and student discipline to the Board of Education

Onekama

No jo in t instructional council provision

Pewamo Westphalia

To discuss and study curriculum development and revision, student discisp lin e, spe­
cial student problems, or any other issues related to the education of students

P ittsford

1. To consider a ll matters pertaining to the instructional program of the d is tr ic t
and its implementation, such as teaching techniques, courses of study, te x t­
books, curriculum, and educational tools
2. To establish ad hoc study committees whenever necessary
3. To cooperate in an on-going study to assist the Board in bringing about de­
sirable changes in teaching methods and techniques, class composition, cur­
riculum, and any other phases o f the instructional program

P o tte rv ille

Not given in contract

81

Table 4

Table 4, Size and Composition of Joint Instructional Councils, com­
pares contractual provisions with the model c rite rio n :

the Council

shall be comprised of an equal number of teachers and administrators.
The model proposes that the Council membership shall be teachers and ad­
m inistrators and th a t they shall be represented 1n equal numbers.
A review of the tabulated data reveals th at several school d is ­
tr ic ts have w ritten size and composition provisions which allow member­
ship of students, community, or other groups on the council; at the
same tim e, however, teachers and administrators are represented on the
Council in equal numbers.

In such cases, the researcher has considered

that such d is tric ts do not precisely f i t the model and more appropri­
a tely belong in a special category.
The reporting system fo r Table 4 has four categories:

(1) exact
<
re p lic a tio n —the language provides fo r only teacher and adm inistrative
»
membership on the Council in equal numbers; (2) special—the language
provides fo r groups other than teacher and adm inistrative membership on
the Council, but teachers and administrators are represented equally;
(3) d iffe re n t—the language departs from the model in terms of size
and/or composition o f membership; (4) not given—contract language does
not specify size and/or membership characteristics of the Council.
Group B
Exact rep licatio n :
Special:
D ifferen t:

F lin t, Grand Rapids, Warren
Lansing
Livonia, Pontiac, U tica, Wayne

There appears to be no correlation between size of the d is tr ic t
and membership on councils.

For example, the F lin t Council is

*

i

82

comprised of six members, Pontiac ten, and Wayne twenty-six.

Lansing

f i t s the special category, having a to ta l of twenty-four council members
including six teachers, six administrators, six students, and six par­
ents.

Of the four d is tric ts which have d iffe re n t size and composition

standards, each has more teachers than administrators.

The Pontiac

Council is unique in that i t is comprised of teachers only.

The average

size of Group B councils is 14.25 members.
Group G
Exact rep licatio n :
Special:
D iffe re n t:
Not given:

Clawson, Madison, Mason, Mt. Morris, South Lake
Oxford, Tecumseh
Alma, G reenville, Northv/est
Allen Park, Dowagiac

Of the twelve d is tric ts with provisions fo r councils, fiv e systems
rep lic a te the model c rite rio n and have equal numbers of teachers and
administrators as members.

Two d is tric ts have special systems, three

have d iffe re n t systems, and two do not specify membership.
In Group G, provisions fo r size and membership Indicate proportion­
al representation in some cases.

For example, in Northwest, the six

teachers permitted membership must represent the elementary and secon­
dary schools equally.

The fiv e administrators include the superinten­

dent or designee and two elementary and two secondary principals.
Other d is tric ts which specify representation fo r teachers and/or admin­
is tra to rs include Oxford, South Lake, and Tecumseh.
The average size of councils in Group G d is tric ts is 6.6.
Group M
Exact rep licatio n :
Special-:
D iffe re n t:
Not given:

Pewamo-Westphalia
P o tte rv ille
Johannesburg-Lewiston, P ittsford
North Huron, Norway-Vulcan

83

The P ittsfo rd Council is comprised of a to ta l of seven members,
three teachers, two adm inistrators, two students; elementary and secon­
dary principals may be used as resource persons, but do not have perma­
nent status as members of the council.
The P o tte rv ille Council, comprised of nine members, includes three
teachers (one from each b u ild in g ), three adm inistrators, and three par­
ents.

The parents do not have voting rig hts.
Norway Vulcan does not state the size or composition of its coun­

c i l , but does specify that the Superintendent is a member.

The average

size o f councils in Group M d is tric ts is 6.75.
Summary
Councils in Group B d is tric ts are ty p ic a lly larger (average 14.25)
than councils in Group G and Group M (average 7 ).

Group G contracts

more often specify teacher and administrator representation of build­
ings on the councils than contracts in other groups.
Three o f eight Group B contracts, fiv e of twelve Group G contracts,
and one of six Group M contracts rep lica te the model.

84

Table 4. Size and Composition of
Joint Instructional Councils
Model C riterio n :

Group B

the Council shall be comprised of an equal number of
teachers and administrators.
Total
Size

Teachers

Adminis­
tra to rs

6

3

3

Grand Rapids

14

7

7

Lansing

24

6

6

Livonia

6

5

Pontiac

10

10

14

8

6

8

6

F lin t

Students

6

Taylor
Utica
Central Comm:
Steering Comm.
Elementary
Secondary

1 each
high
school

10

Warren

14

7

Wayne Westland

26

14

12

8

6 princ.
1 cent,
o ff.
12

Group G
Allen Park
Alma
Avondale
Cadillac
Chesaning
Clawson
Crestwood

(no information availab le)

Community

Other

6 par­
ents

85

T o ta l
S ize

Teachers

Administr a t o r s

Students

Community

Other

Dowagiac
Fruitport

2
Others

Greenville
Inkster
Lakeshore
Madison

8

4

4

Mason

6

3

3

Mt. Morris

6

3

3

Northview

Northwest
Oxford Area

11

3 elem.
3 secon.

-

1 super.
or desig­
nee

-

2 elem.
2 secon.

-

9

4 each
elem .,
j.h .,
s .h .,
spec.

4

4

1 elem.
or m.s.,
1 s.h.

2

12

4 from
d iff.
ju r is d iction
of prin.

supt.,
curr.
d ir .,
1 s.h.
admin.,
2 elem.

-

-

1
1 asst
super,
exo fficio

Reeths Puffer
South Lake

St. Joseph
Tecumseh

Westwood

-

-

tea.
asst,
pres.,
EA
chpsn.

86

Group M

Total
Size

Teachers

Adminis­
tr a to r s

Students

Community

Other

-

E l. &
seed.
princ.
resource
persons

Au Gres S1ms
Bark River Harris
Bear Lake
Camden Frontier
Central Lake
Oryden Community
Forest Park
Galien Township
Inland Lakes
JohannesburgLewiston

5

3

2 p rin ­
cipals

Kingsley Area
Martin
Mesick Consolidated North Central Area

-

North Huron
Norway Vulcan Area

-

not
given

not
given

Onekama Con­
solidated
Pewamo Westphalia

6

3 by
EA

3 appt.
by Bd.

-

P ittsford Area

7

3 by
EA

2 selc.
by Bd.

2 selc.
by stud.
council

P o tte rv ille

9

3; 1
each
build.

3

-

3par­
ents;
nonvoting

87

Table 5

Table 5, Method of Selection fo r Membership and Frequency of Selec­
tio n , compares contractual provisions with the model c rite rio n :

the

Council members shall be selected annually by th e ir respective represen­
ta tiv e groups.

Comparisons with th is model language consist of an eval­

uation of the three parts to the c r ite r ia :

method of selection, annual

selection, and representative groups.
A reading of contractual provisions fo r curriculum councils reveals
that the term "selected" is widely used; however, other terms with more
specific implications such as "elected" and "appointed" are frequently
used to describe the method of selection.

Therefore, fo r purposes of

comparison, consideration w ill be given to the d iffe re n t terms employed
by the parties.
Group B
In Group B, seven of eight d is tric ts with provisions fo r curricu­
lum councils have established a method of selecting teachers fo r member­
ship.

The exception is Livonia which does not describe its method of

selecting members in the agreement.

Four of the seven d is tric ts de­

scribe teacher members as elected ( F lin t , Lansing, Pontiac, Warren),
two systems appoint teachers (Grand Rapids, U tic a ), and one system se­
lects teachers (Wayne Westland).
Only Pontiac includes a provision in its contract fo r the annual
selection of members.

No other d is t r ic t contract contains reference to

the frequency of selection of council members.
Representative groups fo r teachers in six of the seven d is tric ts
with provisions fo r councils re fe r s p e c ific a lly to the Education

88
Association; the exception 1s Pontiac which does not describe the repre­
sentative group.
Administrative membership on curriculum councils is described as
"selected" in a ll fiv e o f the contracts which contain such selection of
administrators.

Representative groups specify the School Board (F lin t)

and Superintendent (Grand Rapids, Lansing, U tic a ).

Wayne Westland does

not specify the school management level responsible fo r selecting ad­
m inistrators fo r council membership.
In Lansing, student members of the Council are appointed by the
Junior Board of Education and parent members of the Council are desig­
nated by the Parent Teacher Association.
Group G
In Group G of the twelve systems with council provisions, eight
specify a method of selection fo r teacher membership.

Three d is tric ts

provide fo r teacher appointment (Alma, Northwest, Oxford), and fiv e pro­
vide fo r teacher selection (G reenville, Madison, Mason, Mt. Morris,
Clawson).

Four of the twelve d is tric ts do not specify how teachers

w ill be chosen fo r membership (Allen Park, Dowagiac, South Lake, Tecum­
seh) .
Of the eight systems specifying a method of selection to the coun­
c i l , a ll designate the Educational Association as the representative
group fo r the teachers.
Of the twelve systems with council provision, seven specify a
method o f choosing adm inistrative membership.

Four d is tric ts describe

administrators as appointed (Alma, Mason, Mt. Morris, Oxford), two de­
scribe administrators as selected (G reenville, Madison), and fiv e do

89

not describe a method (South Lake, Tecumseh, Fllen Park, Clawson, North­
west).

Clawson and Northwest contain language which specifies selec­

tion o f teachers and not administrators.

The Oowagiac contract de­

scribes adm inistrative membership on the council as a job function;
th is system does not describe teacher selection.
Six of the twelve systems with council provisions describe the re­
presentative group of the adm inistrative selection.

Two describe the

Board as the authority to select administrators (Alma, Madison), two
describe the Superintendent (Mason, Oxford), and two use the term ad­
m inistration (G reenville, Mt. M orris).
No contracts in Group G specify frequency of membership selection
to curriculum councils.
Group M
In Group M d is tr ic ts , four of the six systems with council provi­
sions specify a method o f selecting teacher members.

Three d is tric ts

describe the teachers as selected (North Huron, Pewamo-Westphalia, and
P itts fo rd ), and one d is tr ic t describes teachers as chosen ( Johannes burgLewiston).
Each of the four d is tric ts containing method of selection proce­
dures refers to the Education Association as the representative group
for the teachers.
Of the six systems with council provisions, two d is tric ts contain
language which describes the method of selection o f administrators.
P itts fo rd , administrators are selected by the Board, and in PewamoWestphalia, administrators are appointed by the Board.

In

90

In P itts fo rd , student members are selected by the Student Council
and building principals are expected to serve as ad hoc resource per­
sonnel as part of th e ir job function.
No contracts in Group M contain language specifying the frequency
of membership selection to curriculum councils.
Summary
There does not appear to be any school d is tr ic t in the sample which
replicates the model.

The only d is t r ic t which describes frequency of

member selection to curriculum councils is Pontiac; however, that school
d is tr ic t does not specify the method o f selection fo r administrators,
and describes teacher selection as elected but does not describe the
representative group.
Whether teachers are appointed, elected, or selected by th e ir re­
presentative groups, th at group invariably is the Education Association
or union, and not building fa cu ltie s or other groups.
The d iffe re n tia tio n among selected, appointed, and elected probab­
ly does not hold such significance when applied to adm inistrative mem­
bership on councils as i t does fo r teachers.

Administrators in a ll

groups are selected by the school board or superintendent.

I t is pos­

s ib le , and lik e ly , that in many cases school boards delegate th e ir con­
tractual authority to select adm inistrative members to the superinten­
dent.

*

91

Table 5. Method of Selection fo r Membership and
frequency of Membership Selection to
Joint Instructional Councils
Model C riterion:

the council members shall be selected annually by
th e ir respective representative groups.

Group B

Teachers

Adminis­
tra to rs Students

F lin t

elected
by VFT

appt. by
Board

Grand
Rapids

appt.
by EA

appt. by
Super.

Lansing

voted
by EA

appt. by appt. by
Super. J r. Bd.
o f Ed.

Commu­
n ity

Other

Annual
Selection

par­
ents
desig.
by PTA

Livonia
Pontiac

elected

annual

Taylor
appt. by
Super.

Utica

appt.
by EA

Warren

selec.
by EA
(bldgs);
1 appt.
by EA
pres.

Wayne
Westland

selec.
by EA
policy
& pro­
cedure

appt.

appt.
by EA

appt. by
Board

Group G
Allen Park
Alma
Avondale

Other

92

Teachers

Administr a to r s Students

Commun ity

Other

Annual
Selection

Other

Cadillac
Chesaning
Clawson

1 tchr.
volunt.
by EA

Crestwood

(contract not availab le)

Dowagiac

a ll bldg.
p r in c .;
asst,
super.

a ll
dept.
and
grade
level
chairs

job
func­
tion

Fruitport
Greenville

selec.
by EA

selec.
by adminis.

selec.
by EA

selec.
by Bd.

1 elem.,
1 j.h .,
1 s .h .,
selec.
by EA

3 appt.
by super.

Inkster
Lakeshore
Madison
Mason

Mt. Morris

selec.
by EA

3 appt.
by admini s.

Northview
Northwest

appt,
by EA

Oxford
Area

appt.
by EA

Reeths
Puffer

appt.
by super.

selec.
by Bd.

93

Teachers
South
Lake

-

-

Group M
Au Gres
S1ms
Bark River
Harris
Bear Lake
Camden
Frontier
Central Lake

-

Dryden
Consolidated
Forest Park
Galien
Township
Inland Lakes

-

chosen
J>y EA

Kingsley
Martin
Mesick
Consolidated
North Central North
Huron

-

-

(data not given)

Westwood

JohannesburgLewiston

Commun ity

(data not given)

St. Joseph
Tecumseh

Administra to rs Students

selec.
by EA

-

-

-

Other

Annual
Selection

Other

94

Teachers
Norway
Vulcan

Administrato rs Students

Commun ity

Other

-

-

-

-

Onekama
Consolidated

-

-

-

Pewamo
selec.
Westphalia by EA

appt.
ty Bd.

-

P ittsfo rd
Area

selec.
by EA

selec.
by Bd.

selec.
by Std.
Counc.

P o tte rv ille

-

-

-

Annual
Selection

Other

princ.
ad hoc
re ­
source

Table 6
Table 6, Leadership and Vote Rights of Joint Instructional Councils
compares contract language with the model c rite rio n :

the Council shall

have co-chairpersons, one a teacher and one an administrator who shall
chair a lte rn a tiv e meetings.

Each member o f the Council w ill have an

equal vote.
In Group B, only Lansing and Pontiac have language which refers to
leadership of the curriculum council.

In Lansing, the contract speci­

fie s th at an administrator and teacher w ill altern ate as the chair of
the council; in Pontiac, the contract specifies that the council w ill
elect its chair and secretary, but does not state that the chair w ill
a ltern ate.
In Group B, there are no stated provisions fo r equal voting power
among members.
In Group G, there are three references to the chair and vote
rights:

in Dowagiac, the Assistant Superintendent is made the perma­

nent chair; in Northwest, the council membership elects the chair and

95

secretary; 1n Oxford, the Assistant Superintendent, an e x -o ffic io coun­
c il member, votes only in the event o f a t ie .
In Group G, there are no stated provisions fo r equal voting power
among members.
In Group M, only P ittsfo rd has language fo r leadership; the chair
w ill

be chosen at the f i r s t meeting to preside over council meetings.

Sub-committees appointed by the council are to have co-chairs, as de­
scribed in the contract.
In Group M, there are no stated provisions fo r equal voting power
among members.
Summary
No school d is tric ts in Groups B, G, or M rep lica te
proposed by the model.

the language

Only Lansing, of a ll systems having

of language for leadership, authorizes a co-chair method.

some form
No school

d is tric ts in the sample have contract language which describes or de­
fines the voting power o f the council membership.
Table 6. Leadership and Vote Rights of
Joint Instructional Councils
Model C rite ria :

Group B

the council shall have co-chairpersons, one a teacher
and one an adm inistrator, who shall chair altern ative
meetings. Each member o f the council w ill have an
equal vote.

Co-chairpersons

A lternative Chair

FI i nt
Grand Rapids
Lansing
Livonia

administrator and
teacher alternate

Equal Vote

Other

96

Co-chairpersons

A lte r n a tiv e C hair

Pontiac

Equal Vote

Other

e lect,
chai r
and
sect.

Taylor
Utica
Warren
Wayne Westland
Group G
Allen Park
Alma
Avondale
Cadillac
Chesaning
Clawson
Crestwood
Dowagiac

Fruitport
Greenville
Inkster
Lakeshore
Madison
Mason
Mt. Morris
Northview

(data not available)
asst.
super.
perm.
chair

97

Co-chairpersons

A lte r n a tiv e C hair

Equal Vote

e le c t.
chair

Northwest
asst. sup.
votes in
t i e only

Oxford Area

Reeths Puffer
South Lake
St. Joseph
Tecumseh
Westwood
Group M
Au Gres Sims
Bark River Harris
Bear Lake
Camden Frontier
Central Lake
Dryden Community
Forest Park
Galien Township
Inland Lakes
JohannesburgLewiston
Kingsley Area
Martin
Mesick Consolidated
North Central Area
North Huron

Other

-

asst,
exo ffic .

98

Co-chairpersons

Norway Vulcan Area

A lte r n a tiv e C hair

Equal Vote

-

-

-

Onekama Consolidated -

-

-

Pewamo Westphalia

-

-

P itts fo rd Area
P o tte rv ille

-

Other

(subcommittees have co-chairs; chairs chosen at
f i r s t meeting to preside over council meetings)
-

-

-

-

Table 7
Table 7, Meeting Schedules fo r Joint Instructional Councils, com­
pares contract language with the model c rite rio n :
meet on a regularly scheduled basis.

the Council shall

The researcher has interpreted

"regularly scheduled" to mean a meeting time at predetermined intervals.
In Group B, six of the eight contracts which contain provisions
for councils have language fo r a meeting schedule.

Five o f the eight

contracts specify that the council w ill meet on a regular basis ( F lin t ,
Lansing, Pontiac, U tica, Wayne).
Four o f the fiv e d is tric ts specifying regular meetings c all fo r
monthly meetings ( F lin t , Lansing, Pontiac, Wayne), and one d is tr ic t
(U tica) requires nine and one-half days per school year, September
through June.
Grand Rapids provides that meetings w ill be scheduled "as needed."
No meeting schedule is contained in the contracts from Livonia and War­
ren.
The Lansing provision is most s p e cific, c a llin g fo r monthly meet­
ings scheduled on the second Wednesday a t 1:00 pm; in addition, the
Lansing council may meet "as needed."

99

The Utica

council, in addition to meeting throughout the school

year, may schedule meetings from June to August on a "need basis."
In Group G, six of the twelve contracts which contain provisions
fo r councils have language fo r a meeting schedule.

Four of the six with

language fo r a meeting schedule specify a regular meeting basis (Madi­
son, Mt. Morris, Northwest, Tecumseh).

Each of these d is tric ts ca lls

fo r meetings to be held at least once each month.
Two d is tric ts specify th at the council may c a ll meetings "as
needed" (G reenville, Mason).
Six d is tric ts have contracts which do not specify any meeting
schedule (Allen Park, Alma, Clawson, Dowagiac, Oxford, South Lake).
In Group M, three of the six contracts which contain provisions
fo r councils have language fo r a meeting schedule.

Two o f the three

contracts specify a regular meeting basis (Johannesburg-Lewiston and
P itts fo rd ).

In Johannesburg-Lewiston, the council may meet "two and

one-half days per month during the f i r s t semester of the school year,"
and in P ittsfo rd the council may meet according to a "regular scheduled
basis as determined by the council at its f i r s t meeting."

Pewamo-

Westphalia ca lls fo r meeting schedule to be established at the f i r s t
meeting to be held p rio r to October 31 of the school year; the contract
does not specify, however, that the meetings must be scheduled through­
out the year on a regular basis.
Three contracts make no mention of a meeting schedule (North Huron,
Norway Vulcan, P o tte r v ille ).

100
Summary
School d is tric ts in Group B most often rep licate the model.

Five

of eight d is tric ts provide fo r regular meetings, compared with four of
twelve in Group G and two of six in Group M.
often translates as monthly in terva ls.

Regularly scheduled most

Four of the fiv e Group B d is­

tr ic ts meet on a monthly basis; four of six in Group G meet monthly.
Some d is tric ts retain f l e x ib ilit y over meeting schedules and meet as
needed.
Table 7. Meeting Schedules for
Joint Instructional Councils
Model C riterio n :

the Council shall meet on a regularly scheduled basis.

Group B

Meeting Schedule

F lin t

Monthly (a t least once each month)

Grand Rapids

As needed (determined by Council)

Lansing

Monthly; second Wednesday, 1:00 pm and as needed

Livonia

Not given

Pontiac

Monthly

Taylor

No council

Utica

Meet nine and one-half days per school year, Sep­
tember through June; schedule meetings June through
August, on a need basis

Warren

Not given

Wayne Westland

Meet a t least monthly during the school year

Group G
Allen Park

Not given

Alma

Not given

Avondale

No council

101
Cadillac

No council

Chesaning

No council

Clawson

Not given

Crestwood

Data not available

Dowagiac

Not given

Frill tpo rt

No council

Greenville

As needed

Inkster

No council

Lakeshore

No council

Madison

Regular, fixed meetings, not less than monthly

Mason

As needed

Mt. Morris

At least once each month

Northview

No council

Northwest

Afternoons, no more than once monthly

Oxford Area

Not given

Reeths Puffer

No council

South Lake

Not given

St. Joseph

No council

Tecumseh

At least once a month during the school year

Westwood

No council

Group M
Au Gres Sims

No council

Bark River Harris

No council

Bear Lake

No council

Camden Frontier

No council

Central Lake

No council

102

Dryden Community

No council

Forest Park

No council

Galien Township

No council

Inland Lakes

No council

JohannesburgLewiston

Two and one-half days per month during f i r s t se­
mester of school year

Kingsley

No council

Martin

No council

Mesick Consolidated

No council

North Central

No council

North Huron

Not given

Norway Vulcan

Not given

Onekana
Consolidated

No council

Pewamo Westphalia

F irs t meeting called by EA at a mutually accepted
date p rio r to October 31 of school year

P ittsfo rd Area

Regularly scheduled basis as determined by Council
at f i r s t meeting

P o tte rv ille

Not given

Table 8
Table 8, Support Provisions fo r Joint Instructional Councils, com­
pares contract language fo r curriculum committees with the model c r i­
terion:

teachers serving on the Council shall be given released time

with classroom substitutes provided.
In order to structure th is comparison, the researcher considered
the c r it e r ia to have two components:
s titu te s .

released time and classroom sub­

While i t may be that released time during the school day

implies the need fo r substitutes, unless the contract s p e c ific a lly

103

stated both parts ofthe provision as worded in the model, the contract
was not judged to rep licate the model.
In Group B, four of the eight contracts which contain provisions
fo r instructional councils contain language fo r support provisions.
Each of the four d is tric ts allows released time ( F lin t , Grand Rapids,
Warren, Wayne Westland).

The Warren contract contains language some­

what d iffe re n t from the other three:

"released time may be permitted

by the Associate Superintendent fo r Instruction to complete committee
business."

There is no reference to substitute teachers in any of

these four contracts.
Other support provisions besides those mentioned in the model ap­
pear in the contract language.

For example, c le ric a l support ( F lin t ) ,

expenses (Grand Rapids), conference funds (Lansing), budget (Warren),
and remuneration (Warren) are mentioned in contract language fo r coun­
c ils .
In Group G, two of the twelve systems with council provisions con­
ta in language fo r support provisions.

Both d is tric ts allow released

time fo r teacher participants (Mt. Morris, Northwest).

In addition,

Northwest, the only d is tr ic t in the sample which replicates the model,
states that substitutes w ill be provided once monthly fo r teachers to
attend curriculum council meetings.
Additional support is given to the Mt. Morris committee which re­
ceives c le ric a l help from the Board.
In Group M, two of the six systems with council provisions con­
tain language fo r support provisions.

Both d is tric ts allow released

time fo r teacher members (Johannesburg-Lewiston, North Huron).
contract mentions supplying substitute teachers.

Neither

In North Huron,

104

teachers who p articip ate in curriculum council meetings and a c tiv itie s
during vacations and/or during the summer w ill receive compensation.
Summary
In every case, i f a school d is tr ic t provides contractual support
fo r the curriculum council, i t provides released time fo r teacher mem­
bers.

Only one d is t r ic t , Northwest in Group G, has language which as­

sures released time and substitute teachers.

Support provisions not

included in the model but which appear in the contracts include c le r i­
c a l, budget, expenses, conference funds, and remuneration.
Table 8. Support Provisions fo r
Joint Instructional Councils
Model C rite rio n :

teachers serving on the Council shall be given re­
leased time with classroom substitutes provided.

Group B

Released Time

F lin t

Substitutes

C lerical

Budget

-

by Board

Other

neces.
expens.

Grand Rapids
Lansing

no mention

Livonia

no mention

Pontiac

no mention

Taylor

(no council)

Utica

no mention

Warren

may be per­
mitted by
assoc.; su­
per. for
in s t. to com­
plete Comm,
business

conf.
funds

$20,000/
sch. y r.
includ.
$5,000
in-serv.

pay at
wrkshp.
rate;
a llo cate
funds

105
Wayne Westland

tchrs. shall
be released
from th e ir
reg. tching.
respon. to
attend mtngs.

Group G
Allen Park

(not given)

Alma

(not given)

Avondale
Cadillac
Chesaning
Clawson

(not given)

Crestwood
Oowagiac

(not given)

Fruitport
Greenville

(not given)

Inkster
Lakeshore
Madi son

(not given)

Mason

(not given)

Mt. Morris

yes

Northview
Northwest
Oxford Area

yes
(not given)

Reeths Puffer
South Lake

(not given)

St. Joseph
Tecumseh

(not given)

once monthly

106

Westwood
Group M
Au Gres Sims
Bark River Harris
Bear Lake
Camden Frontier
Central Lake
Dryden Community
Forest Park
Galien Township
Inland Lakes
Johannesburg-Lewiston

yes

Kingsley Area
Martin
Mesick Consolidated
North Central Area
North Huron

yes
may meet
dur. sch.
hours

Norway Vulcan

(not given)

Onekama Consolidated
Pewamo Westphalia

(not given)

P ittsfo rd

(not given)

P o tte rv ille

(not given)

compen.
fo r sum.
vacat.

107
Table 9
Table 9, Authority in Joint Instructional Councils, compares con­
tra c t language fo r curriculum councils with the model c rite rio n :
changes in existing instructional programs and proposed new instruction­
al programs must be reviewed and a ffirm a tiv e ly recommended by the Coun­
c il p rio r to Board consideration, adoption, or implementation.

The

language in the model advocates th at the curriculum council be an advi­
sory body to the Board of Education.
The model, in e ffe c t, proposes th at the Council has authority in
policy-making procedures by "reviewing and a ffirm a tiv e ly recommending"
modifications

in programs p rio r to the Board's review.

In Group

B, seven of the eight contracts

with provisions fo r cur­

riculum committees have language related to the authority o f the coun­
c il.

Each o f the seven provisions make the council's authority advi­

sory to the Board ( F lin t , Grand Rapids, Lansing, Livonia, U tica, Warren,
Wayne Westland).

Pontiac does not describe the council authority.

In

F lin t, council recommendations must reach the Board by May 30 of the
school year.

In Warren, the Associate Superintendent fo r Instruction

"shall forward considerations back to the Steering Committee in a time­
ly manner before
In Group

making his recommendation to the School Board."

G, nine of the twelve contracts

with provisions fo r cur­

riculum committees have language describing the council's authority
(Alma, Clawson, Dowagiac, G reenville, Madison, Mt. Morris, Oxford,
South Lake, Northwest).

In each case, the curriculum council acts in

an advisory capacity to the Board or Superintendent.
In Group M, four of the six contracts with provisions fo r curricu­
lum councils have language describing the advisory capacity of the

108
committee (North Huron, Norway Vulcan, Pewamo-Westphalia, P itts ­
fo rd ).
Summary
In a ll cases where language describing the authority of the coun­
c il is included in the provisions fo r curriculum, the council is
granted advisory authority to make recommendations to the Board or
Superintendent.

In one instance ( F lin t ) , the Board is required to

respond to the Council's recommendation:

"Board must acknowledge and

respond upon receipt o f report."
In Group G, the Mt. Morris and Oxford Councils submit advisory re­
ports to the Superintendent who may make revisions and further recom­
mendations before submitting the report to the Board.
Contract language Indicates that several councils have authority
to delegate resp on sibility by creating subcommittees.

In Group B,

three d is tric ts ( F lin t , Grand Rapids, Lansing) permit such authority;
in Group G, Oxford may engage in th is a c tiv ity .
Table 9. Authority in
Joint Instructional Councils
Group B
F lin t

Grand Rapids

Final
Authority

Advi sory
rec. to
Bd. by
May 30

Board
Response
Bd. must
acknowl./
respond
upon re­
ceipt of
report

Other
appt.
subcom.

appt.
subcom.;
may con­
s u lt
commun­
ity ,

109

studs.,
subj.
special­
is ts
appt.
subcom.
(steer­
ing com.),
formal
vote

Lansing

Livonia
Pontiac
Taylor

(no jo in t instructional council provision)

Utica
assoc,
super,
fo r In s t,
shall
forward
consider­
ations to
steering
comm, in
a tim ely
manner;
assoc,
super,
makes reccommendations to
Board

Warren

Wayne Westland

to supt.
who shall
present
council's
recomm. +
his own
to Bd.

Group G
Allen Park

not given

Alma

not given

estab.
tchr.
curr.
study
groups:
2 admin.,
5 tchrs.
ra tio

110
Avondale
Cadillac
Chesaning
Clawson

recom.
to Bd.

Crestwood
Dowagiac

Bd. re­
tains
rights
to make
a ll f i ­
nal de­
cisions

Frultpo rt
Greenville

recom.
to Bd.

Inkster
Lakeshore
Madison
Mason
Mt. Morris

advis.
not given
a d v is .;
recom.
to super.

Northview
Northwest
Oxford Area

recom.
to super.

Reeths Puffer
South Lake
S t. Joseph
Tecumseh
Westwood

reports
to Bd.

Ill
Group M
Au Gres Sims
Bark River Harris
Bear Lake
Camden Frontier
Central Lake
Dryden Community
Forest Park
Galien Township
Inland Lakes
Johannesburg-Lewi ston

not given

Kingsley Area
Martin
Mesick Consolidated
North Central Area
North Huron

a d v is .,
consultative,
fac t-fin d in g
capacity

Norway Vulcan Area

recom.

Onekama Consolidated
Pewamo Westphalia

advis. only

P ittsfo rd Area

recommends

P o tte rv ille

not given

112
Table 10
Table 10, Contractual Language which Strengthens and/or Restricts
Joint Instructional Councils, describes contractual provisions apart
from a rtic le s s p e c ific a lly addressed to the organization and function
of jo in t instructional councils but which lend support to or lim it such
councils.
Contract language relatin g to curriculum councils may be housed in
a rtic le s and sections of a master agreement other than those which deal
exclusively with curriculum matters.

For example, in F lin t a rtic le s

which pertain to the Professional Study Committee created by contract
include Board Rights and R esponsibilities, Academic Freedom, Teaching
Conditions, and Teaching Goals.

In school d is tric ts without contrac­

tual provisions fo r curriculum councils, related language contained in
the contract may describe decision-making processes, school board in ­
tent to control curriculum, or building committees granted authority to
in it ia t e policies and procedures designed to improve the curriculum.
In Group B, eight of the nine d is tric ts which comprise th is group
contain language which strengthens or lim its existing curriculum coun­
c ils .

The exception is Livonia.

Taylor school d is t r ic t , a f filia te d

with the MFT, does not contain a contractual provision fo r a jo in t in ­
structional council, but does have language which describes meetings
between the administration and teaching s ta ff.
In Group B contracts, provisions which are related to curriculum
appear in the following contract a rtic le s :
1.

Board Rights: F lin t , Grand Rapids, Lansing, Pontiac,
Taylor, Utica

2.

Academic Freedom:

F lin t, Grand Rapids

113

3.

Teaching/Working Conditions:
Pontiac, Taylor, Utica

F lin t, Grand Rapids, Lansing,

4.

Innovative and Experimental Programs:

5.

Other
a.

Teaching Goals:

b.

Schedule:

c.

Building Committee:

Warren

d.

Association Rights:

Wayne

e.

S ta ff Advisory Committee:

Lansing, Pontiac

F lin t

Warren

Wayne

When curriculum is a topic in a Board Rights provision, i t is
e ith e r (1) made the province of the Board to control curriculum ( F lin t ,
Lansing, U tic a ), or (2) made the subject of shared decision-making
authorized by the Board (Grand Rapids, Pontiac, Taylor).
Contracts which discuss adademic freedom in re la tio n to curriculum
emphasize the teacher's rig h t to select subjects and methods within an
accepted and adopted curriculum ( F lin t , Grand Rapids).

The Teaching/

Working Conditions a r tic le may specify the requirement o f adequate sup­
plies and texts ( F lin t , Lansing, Pontiac, T ay lo r), provide fo r depart­
ment heads (Grand Rapids), or establish a d e fin itio n of working condi­
tion in the event o f school reorganization (U tic a).
A rtic le s which encourage teacher particip atio n in curricu lar de­
cisions, e ith e r on a building level or at the d is t r ic t le v e l, include
Teaching Goals ( F l i n t ) , Innovative and Experimental Programs (Lansing,
Pontiac), Board Rights (Taylor, U tic a ), and Building Policy Committee
(Warren).
Pay fo r p artic ip a tio n at curriculum meetings is described under
Teaching Conditions (Pontiac) and Schedule D (Warren).

Table 10.

Contractual Provisions which Strengthen and/or Restrict
Language fo r Joint Instructional Councils
GROUP B

Board Rights and
Reponsibilities

To establish grade levels and courses of instruction, including
special programs; to decide upon the means and methods of instruc­
tio n , the selection of textbooks and other teaching m aterials, and
use of teaching aids; to carry on an evaluation of program and to
evaluate the effectiveness of individual teacher performance.

Academic Freedom

Teachers recognize that academic freedom must be balanced against
th e ir f ir s t duty which is to teach accepted and adopted curriculum
and courses of study. Therefore, teachers w ill exercise respon­
sibly th e ir academic freedom within the scope of the courses of
study to which they are assigned, giving due consideration to the
maturity levels of th e ir students.

Teaching
Conditions

The Board declares its intentions to provide adequate supplies,
textbooks, and m aterials. No curriculum change shall be implemented
in a given program u n til s u ffic ie n t textbooks to in it ia te the pro­
gram are available or expected to be available by the fourth Friday
of each semester. The Board w ill use its best e ffo rts to coordinate
curriculum changes with the ordering of supplies and m aterials.

Teaching Goals

The Board and the UFT further agree to encourage the teaching and
acbninistrative s ta ff in each school or u n it, at the beginning of
the school year, to review major needs, id e n tify problems, and
establish action p rio ritie s fo r the school year. A prepared state­
ment of the proposed areas o f concentration ( i . e . , the school plan)
w i l l , upon completion, be made available to a ll s ta ff members, ap­
propriate d ire cto r, and to the Superintendent o f Conmunity Education.

Grand Rapids

Lansing

Board Rights and
Responsibilities

The Board and Administrative S ta ff w ill not in i t i a l l y implement in ­
structional policies without seeking the recommendation of the In ­
structional Council prior to implementation.

Teaching Conditions;
Departmental Chair­
persons

Supervisory functions of departmental chairpersons: (1) provide
leadership in departmental curriculum studies and experimentation,
(2) interpret the curriculum to building s ta ff and school community,
(3) acquaint the building s ta ff with current materials and methods.

Academic Freedom

Academic freedom fo r teacher and students is encouraged, except that
the teacher must be acting within accepted and/or adopted curriculum
and courses of study.

Board Rights and
Responsibilities

Determine the over-all goals and objectives as well as the policies
affecting the educational programs.

Innovative and
Experimental
Programs

Proposals fo r innovative programs to existing curricular areas may
be in itia te d by teachers and principals on a building basis.

Teaching Condi­
tions

There shall be a functioning, professionally staffed lib ra ry in
each school to supplement and complement the required curriculum.

Board Rights and
Responsibilities

The Board grants lim ited academic freedom: learning according to
the established curriculum, specific course content, maturity level
o f students, and needs and a b ilitie s of students. Within th is
framework, teacher judgment shall determine classroom presentation,
discussion, and u tiliz a tio n of instructional m aterials. Prior to
presentation, teachers should consult with th e ir immediate super­
visors on items they feel might be considered controversial.

Innovative and
Experimental
Programs

Teachers may engage in innovative and experimental practice provided
that they receive approval from the principal fo r in s titu tin g
changes in instructional organization or teaching practices that

Livonia
Pontiac

deviate from existing procedures already in practice in the in d i­
vidual building.
Pontiac

Teaching Conditions

The Board shall continue to seek and use textbooks and supplementary reading materials which contain the contribution of a ll groups
to the development of society. The teachers involved in the pro­
cess of selection should represent the groups considered.
The daily rate fo r teachers in the program of curriculum development
shall be $75.00.

Taylor

Board Rights

The Superintendent of Schools shall meet at least once a month with
representatives of the Union at the request of eith er party to dis­
cuss matters of educational policy and development.
The principal of a school shall meet at least once a month with the
Union Building Committee at the request of eith er party to discuss
school operations and questions relating to the implementation of
this agreemnt. The Union Building Committee shall consist of not
more than fiv e teachers. Proposed changes in existing policies and
procedures for that school shall be subjects fo r discussion at such
meetings.

Utica

Teaching Condi­
tions

All returning classroom teachers w ill provide the building p rin c i­
pal with book and instructional supply orders by April 1. The
principal w ill review orders.

Board Rights

The Board of Education agrees that individual teachers shall be
free to present the several sides of controversial issues. A ll mat­
te rs , m aterials, and methods of presentation shall be within Board
of Education policy and the a rtic le s of this agreement.

Working Conditions

The Association and the Board recognize the need fo r improved edu­
cational programs. In the event of new courses, programs, or or­
ganizational structure of an experimental nature, working condi­
tions as defined in the contract may be affected.

I

Warren

Wayne Westland

Schedule D:

Hourly remuneration for curriculum workshops:

Curriculum and
Materials (B)

The Board recognizes that appropriate texts, lib ra ry reference fa ­
c i l i t i e s , maps and globes, laboratory equipment, teaching supplies,
a th le tic equipment, current periodicals, standard tests and ques­
tionnaires, and sim ilar materials are the tools of the teaching pro­
fession. The Board agrees at a ll times to keep the school reason­
ably equipped and maintained. The parties w ill confer from time
to time fo r the purpose of improving selections, and use of such
educational tools.

Section D

The School Board, through its administration, w ill sincerely foster
the dedication expected of the teachers by planning constructively
to provide the best possible teacher f a c ilit ie s attainable within
the lim its of prudent expenditures, and to assist teachers in the
advancement of th e ir s k ills and techniques by providing meaningful
and useful seminars and programs. The Board w ill continually re­
view and analyze the needs of the School D is tric t so that a ll com­
mittees, programs, and projects w ill rela te d ire c tly to a quality
educational program wither by reason of seeking improvement in
teaching methods, too ls, techniques, and/or professional standards
of excellence or by reason of seeking improved efficien cy, economy
of operation, and/or consideration of ways and means to satisfy
the mandatory need fo r student improvement, greater student achieve­
ment and high level employee morale.

Building Policy
Committee

Principals w ill establish an on-going committee for the jo in t de­
velopment of solutions to building problems not covered by the
Master Contract. The Board agrees that teacher involvement w ill
be meaningful.

Association and
Teacher Rights

Within a reasonable time prior to Board consideration and adoption
and/or general publication o f major new or modified fis ca l budge­
tary or tax programs, construction programs, or major revisions of
educational policy, the Board shall inform the Association in
writing of such proposals and s o lic it the Association's opinion.

$6.00.

Administration shall forward a copy of the Association's opinion to
the Board prior to the meeting on the matter. When Board estab­
lished committees, commissions, task forces, and other groups formed
to study such major changes are to include teacher members, such
teacher members w ill be appointed by the WWEA.
S ta ff Advisory
Commi ttee

A s ta ff advisory committee shall be established in each school
building to assist in formulation and implementation of educational
policies and practices within the respective building. Membership
of such committees in secondary schools shall be comprised of the
building p rin cip a l, department heads, and a WWEA Building Represen­
ta tiv e . Membership of such committees in elementary schools shall
be comprised of the building prin cip al, a teacher elected from
each grade level u n it, and a WWEA Building Representative. Meetings
may be called by the building principal who w ill chair the s ta ff
advisory committee or by a majority of the members of the committee.
The building principal shall be present at a ll s ta ff advisory com­
mittees and shall have the fin a l responsibility fo r establishing
building policy.

119

In Group G, twenty-one o f the twenty-three d is tric ts in the sample
contain language describing curriculum apart from a rtic le s which de­
lin eate jo in t instructional councils.

One d is t r ic t , Alma, had no con­

tra c t language which supplemented the separate a r tic le fo r the coordina­
ting council.

The Crestwood contract was unavailable.

In Group G contracts, provisions which are related to curriculum
appear in the following contract a rtic le s :
1.

Board Rights: Avondale, Dowagiac, F ru itp o rt, G reenville,
Madison, Northview, Reeths P u ffer, St. Joseph, Tecumseh.

2.

Academic Freedom:

3.

Teaching/Working Conditions: Allen Park, Avondale, Clawson,
Dowagiac, G reenville, Lakeshore, Mt. M orris, Northwest,
South Lake, St. Joseph, Tecumseh, Westwood

4.

Teacher/Union Rights: Allen Park, F ru itp o rt, Madison, Mt.
Morris, Reeths Puffer, South Lake

5.

Teaching Hours:

6.

Professional Compensation:

7.

Other

Mason

Chesaning, Clawson
Allen Park, South Lake

a.

Reduction in Personnel:

C adillac, Westwood

b.

Review Comnittee:

c.

Curriculum Meetings:

d.

Fair Practices:

e.

Human Rights:

f.

Textbook and Course Reform:

g.

Joint C iv il Rights Committee:

h.

Appendix B:

i.

Miscellaneous:

j.

Department Chairperson:

k.

Informal Conferences:

Chesaning
Clawson

Inkster
Inkster
Inkster
Inkster

Inkster
Lakeshore, Mt. Morris
Madison, Mt. M orris, Oxford
St. Joseph

120
When curriculum is treated as a topic in a Board Rights provision,
the Board ty p ic a lly reserves fin a l authority (Avondale, Dowagiac, F ru it­
port, G reenville, Madison, Northview, Tecumseh).

In a few d is tr ic ts ,

the Board Rights a r tic le contains a commitment to confer with teachers
fo r recommendations on policy or procedures fo r the educational program
(Madison, Northwest, Reeths Puffer, St. Joseph).
A rticles designated as Teaching Conditions describe the necessity
of adequate supplies and materials (Avondale, Clawson, Mt. Morris,
South Lake).
Teacher Rights clauses provide fo r consultation between the school
administration and the teaching s ta ff and/or union in regard to pro­
posed changes in educational policy (Allen Park, Chesaning, Fruitpo rt,
Madison, Mt. Morris, Reeths P u ffer).
Inkster, the only school d is t r ic t in Group G which is an MFT a f­
f i l i a t e , and a d is tr ic t without a contractual jo in t instructional coun­
c il provision, delineates procedural and substantive curriculum com­
ponents in the master agreement.
Two d is tric ts (Allen Park, South Lake) contain specific langauge
fo r remuneration fo r teacher service on curriculum committees; in ad­
d itio n , teachers in the Inkster d is tr ic t receive compnesation fo r such
service.
In two d is tric ts (C ad illac, Westwood) contract language has been
w ritten to cover the p o s s ib ility of a reduction in s ta ff and the impact
such a factor may have on curriculum.

In both cases, management re­

tains the rig h t to make fin a l curriculum decisions in the lig h t of
changing economic conditions.

121
Separate a rtic le s fo r Departmental Chairpersons (Madison, Mt. Mor­
r is , Oxford) describe the role and function of th is position in terms
of curriculum development.

In each case the chairperson is described

as a liaison or coordinator between teachers at the secondary level and
the administration.

GROUP G

Allen Park

Union and Teacher
Rights

The Union shall he consulted by the Superintendent on any new or
modified fis c a l, budgetary, or tax programs, construction programs,
or major revisions of educational policy which are proposed or under
consideration; and the Union shall be given the opportunity to ad­
vise the Superintendent with respect ot said matters prior to th e ir
adoption and/or general publication. The Superintendent shall not
submit any proposal to the Board fo r additional operational or
building millage without prior consultation with the Union.

Teaching
Conditions

Experimental programs, including use of m ulti-texts and other in ­
novative instructional techniques shall be in itia te d and implemented
at the request of a majority of the teachers concerned in any given
building.

Professional
Compensation

All jo in t teacher-administrator committees shall meet on school time
or be voluntary or be compensated fo r a t the substitute teacher rate.

Management
Rights

The Board w ill continue to seek input from appropriate professional
s ta ff in curriculum matters, when exercising its rights and decision
making processes. However, i t is expressly understood by the Board
and Association that a ll fin a l decisions shall be the exclusive
right of the Board.

Alma
Avondale

The Board has the rig h t to establish grades and courses of instruc­
tio n , including special programs, to decide upon the means of supply­
ing and to approve the selection of textbooks and other teaching ma­
te ria ls and the use of teaching aids of every kind and nature.
Teaching
Conditions

The Board w ill supply texts and materials. The Association agrees
that teachers should employ the materials and equipment in the in ­
structional program.

ro
ro

Teaching Hours

Principals and other members o f the administrative s ta ff shall be
free to schedule reasonable a c tiv itie s such as curriculum meetings
following the dismissal of students,

Reduction in
Personnel

I t is sp e c ific ally recognized that i t is within the sole discretion
of the Board of Education to reduce the educational program and cur­
riculum when economic necessity dictates.

Teacher Rights

The Board agrees to n o tify the Association of a ll regular and spec­
ia l meetings of the Board by sending copies of the agenda to the
Secretary and the President of the Association, In the event the
Association wishes to confer with or discuss any item(s) on the
agenda prior to the announced meeting, the Board or its designated
representatives shall meet with the designated representative(s) of
the Association at a mutually agreeable time fo r this purpose.

Teaching Hours
and Loads

An Association Representative in each building may present problems
to the principal of that building for inclusion on the agenda fo r
the f ir s t or second subsequent building faculty meeting.

Review Committee

A review committee shall be established. I t w ill be made up of six
members of the Association as selected by the Association. They
w ill meet once a month during the school year with the representa­
tiv e of the Board and the superintendent or his representative;
they w ill meet to discuss any problems not the subject of a griev­
ance at the time.

Teaching
Conditions

The Board w ill supply m aterials. The parties shall continue to seek
and use textbooks and supplementary reading materials which contain
the contribution of minority groups.
The parties w ill confer from time to time for the purpose of improv­
ing the selection and use of educational tools, and the Board w ill
endeavor to implement a ll jo in t decisions made by its representa­
tives and the Association.

Teaching Hours

The Association recognizes that from time to time i t is necessary
to conduct meetings in the area of curriculum and faculty respon­
s ib ilit ie s , Accordingly, there shall be no more than two faculty
meetings per month, of up to one hour duration, and/or one curric­
ulum meeting per month of up to one hour duration.

Curriculum

Curriculum meetings which involve two or more buildings shall s tart
no la te r than twenty minutes a fte r the regularly scheduled student
dismissal time; senior high/junior high combination curriculum
meetings shall s tart no la te r than ten minutes a fte r the regularly
scheduled student dismissal time.

Crestwood

(no contract available)

Dowagiac

Teaching
Conditions

Departmental chairpersons shall recommend well-planned, innovative
programs to the school administration; recommend goals and materials
fo r improving instruction; be a member of the system-wide curricu­
la r study committee.

Board Rights

The Board retains the rig h t to make a ll fin a l decisions relating to
curriculum.

Teacher Rights

The Association is offered the opportunity to participate in curric­
ulum study and changes regarding the education of children.

Management
Rights

To establish grade levels and courses of instruction, including
special programs; to decide upon the means and methods of instruc­
tio n , the selection of textbooks and other teaching m aterials, and
the use of teaching aids of every kind and nature.

Board Rights

To establish educational policy.

Teaching
Conditions

The teaching s ta ff w ill serve on curriculum committees and meet with
the administration fo r the purpose of recommending improvements in
curriculum and m aterials, provided, however, that i f such curriculum

Fruitport

Greenville

committees f a il to function or to recommend improvements, the Board
shall have authority to proceed with the changes i t considers neces­
sary and to implement them.
Fair Practices

Teacher representation on any system-wide committee, agency, com­
mission or other such body established by the Board shall be nomi­
nated by the Federation and shall be fu lly compensated when working
on curriculum or related programs.
The Superintendent of Schools and principals of each school or th e ir
representatives shall meet with representatives of the Federation
at the request of the Federation at reasonable times with advanced
notice on matters of educational policy and development and on mat­
ters relating to the implementation of th is agreement.

Promotion of
Human Rights and
Effective
Integration

The Federation and the Board mutually recognize that the most sig­
n ific an t social movement occurring in America today is the c iv il
rights revolution. Furthermore, the Federation and the Board firm ly
believe that the educational leadership in this nation must become
actively involved in elminating a ll vestiges of racial segregation
in the schools and the community. The parties to this agreement
are in accord that in our in terra cial world, e ffe ctive education
must be integrated education. Recognizing that racial integration
and desegregation are v it a lly necessary in producing good educa­
tio n , the Federation and the Board shall cooperate in implementing
a c iv il rights program.

Textbook and
Course Study
Reform

The Board shall provide textbooks and show other curriculum mater­
ia l to each student in a ll American history classes which cover in
depth the contribution of Blacks and other minority groups in each
unit taught in such classes at the e a rlie s t possible time.
The Board shall provide supplemental reading materials dealing with
Black and other minority group contributions; i . e . , Jewish, Chinese,
Indian, American, at the e a rlie s t possible time.

Units shall be offered at a ll grade levels in Black, Latin American,
African, and Asian history. These units shall be incorporated into
the curriculum at the e a rlie s t possible time,
Joint C ivil
Rights School
Committee

A jo in t c iv il rights committee consisting of representatives of the
bargaining unit selected by the Federation and the Administration
shall be establsihed to implement the c iv il rights provisions o f
this agreement and to develop new programs dealing with c iv il rights
issues in education.

Appendix B

The Board of Education, the Administration, and the Federation
work together toward general curriculum improvement throughout
system in the interest of providing a quality education to a ll
dents without regard to race, creed, color, or social economic
ground.

Teaching
Conditions

Teachers shall attend curriculum and s ta ff meetings by buildings or
on a system-wide basis, unless excused by the principal specifically
for medical, dental, professional or legal appointments. Such
meetings may extend beyond the normal school day, i t being the in ­
tent of the administration to u t iliz e such time for meetings to
the best possible professional advantage.

Miscellaneous

A committee consisting of the Lakeshore Superintendent or Assistant
Superintendent plus any three administrators of his choosing, the
LEA President, Vice President, Ethics Committee Chairperson, and
the Chairperson of the LEA Negotiating Team shall be established
to investigate and discuss matters of concern pertaining to the
smooth operation of the Lakeshore School System. Items for discus­
sion shall be lim ited to those affecting the entire school system.
Findings, recommendations and/or conclusions may be reported to
the LEA and the Lakeshore Board of Education.

Association
Rights and

The Association w ill be advised by the Board of Education in re­
sponse to reasonable requests of any new or modified fis c a l,

shall
the
stu­
back­

Responsibilities

budgetary or tax programs, c<?nstruction programs, or major re v i­
sions of educational policy which are proposed. The Association
shall be given, whenever possible, reasonable opportunity to con­
sult with the Board with respect to said matters prior to th e ir
fin a l adoption and/or general publication.

Board Rights

To establish levels and courses of in tstru ctio n , including special
programs, and to provide fo r a th le tic , recreational and social
events for students, a ll as deemed necessary or advisable by the
Board; to decide upon the basic means and reasonable methods of
instruction, the selection of textbooks and other teaching mater­
ia ls , and the use of teaching aids of every kind and nature.
The parties w ill confer from time to time fo r the purpose of improv­
ing the selection and use of educational tools, and the Board w ill
undertake promptly to implement a ll jo in t decisions thereon made
by its representative and the Association.

Department
Chairperson

The department chairperson shall serve as liaison between the
teachers of the department and the school administration in coor­
dination of the 7-12 program.

Mason

Academic Freedom

All teachers of a given subject or a given grade level shall be
required to follow the curriculum guide or text fo r that subject
or grade level unless granted specific permission by the Adminis­
tra tio n to do otherwise.

Mt. Morris

Association
and Teacher
Rights

The Board agrees to furnish to the Association in response to rea­
sonable requests a ll available information concerning the financial
resources of the D is tric t, including, but not lim ited to: annual
financial reports and audits, register of c e rtific a te d personnel,
tentative budgetary requirements and allocations, agendas and
minutes of a ll Board meetings, treasurer's reports, census and
membership data, names and addresses of a ll teachers, salaries paid
thereto and educational background and such other information as w ill

rsa
•Nj

assist the Association in developing in te llig e n t, accurate, informed
and constructive programs on behalf of the teachers and th e ir stu­
dents, together with information which may be necessary fo r the
Association to process any grievance or complaint.
Teaching
Conditions

Efforts shall be continued to seek and use textbooks and supplemen­
tary reading materials which contain the contribution of minority
groups to the history, s c ie n tific and social development of the
United States.
Whenever changes are made in a course of study, the Board w ill
adopt such change when a ll the teaching materials required to im­
plement such change are available. No curriculum shall be imple­
mented in a given program u n til su ffic ien t textbooks and basic
needs have been plced on order from the supplier in ample time for
use of same and are in the school ready fo r use.
Reasonable supplementary aids should be supplied to aid the trans­
fe r of through and transition of work from the old to the new text
or course of study, and a ll teachers involved shall be required
to participate in an in-service training program before implement­
ing new materials.

Department
Heads for
Secondary

The department head shall exercise the coordination of programs and
materials and shall serve as instructional liaison between the
teachers of the department and administration.

Miscellaneous

Both the administration and the Mt. Morris Education Association
are working to ward North Central accreditation. A study committee
comprised of two representatives each from the MMEA and the adminis­
tratio n shall be formed to recommend d ire c tly to the Superintendent
necessary progress c rite ria for the attainment of North Central
accreditation. The goal of the committee is to recommend action
that w ill atta in accreditation and to continually maintain the
status of this accreditation throughout the system.

Northview

Board Rights

To establish
grades and courses of
instruction, includingspecial
programs; to
decide upon the meansand methods of instruction, the
selection of textbooks and other teaching m aterials, and the use
of teaching aids of every kind andnature.

Northwest

Board Rights

To establish
grades and courses of
instruction, including special
programs, the Board always being cognizant of the opinions and re­
commendations o f the professional s ta ff.
To decide upon the means and methods of instruction and the use of
teaching aids of every kind and nature.

Working
Conditions

Building principals shall meet with the NWEA Building Representa­
tiv e and/or a committee designated by him from time to time prior
to the major purchases of educational m aterials, fo r the purpose
o f improving the selection and use of the same. Careful considera
tion w ill be given by said principals to the opinions of the repre
sentatives of the Association in the placing of orders or expendi­
ture of funds fo r supplies.
A committee of teachers consisting of one from each building se­
lected by the NWEA Building Representative and meeting in January
w ill be authorized to purchase professional materials fo r estab­
lishing teachers' lib ra rie s in each of the schools.

Oxford Area

Department
Chairpersons

The department chairperson shall serve as an instructional liaison
between teachers of the department and the school administration.
The department chairperson shall work with the jo in t curriculum
committee, develop a well-planned curriculum, develop a budget,
develop clear and comprehensive department goals, and make provi­
sions for the continued growth of the curriculum.

Reeths Puffer

Teacher Rights

The Board may consult with the Association on any new or modified
fis c a l, budgetary or tax program, construction programs or major
revisions of educational policy, which are proposed or under

consideration and the Association may be given opportunity to advise
the Board with respect to said matters prior to th e ir adoption and/
or general publication.
Board Rights

To establish courses of instruction.

Teacher Rights

The Board shall enter into no contract which w ill result in instruc­
tio n 's being provided, supervised, or otherwise influenced by any
organization without formal consultation with the Association.

Professional
Compensation

Recognizing the importance of the professional development of teach­
ers as individuals and as a fa cu lty, and jo in tly aware of the coninuing need fo r renewing and expanding the curriculum of the
schools, the Board and the Association agree that professional
development and curriculum development programs may be offered to
teachers on a voluntary stipend basis outside of regular contract
times.

Teaching

The parties w ill confer from time to time fo r the purpose of im­
proving the selection and use of educational materials and equip­
ment, such as appropriate texts , lib ra ry reference f a c ilit ie s , maps
and globes, laboratory equipment, audio-visual equipment, a rt sup­
p lie s , a th le tic equipment, current periodicals, standard tests and
questionnaires.

Board Rights

While the Board, operating on its own behalf and through its ad­
m inistrative s ta ff, shall be lim ited in the use of its judgment
and discretion in exercising the board's rights and responsibili­
tie s only by the specific terms of this agreement and a ll applicable
laws, the Board and its administrative s ta ff w ill make a good
fa ith e ffo rt to foster reasonable channels of communication between
themselves and the teaching s ta ff, so as to draw upon the experi­
ence and knowledge available v/ithin the s t a f f , especially on mat­
ters relatin g to curriculum, general educational goals, and in tra ­
school system instructional policies to assist the Board and its
administrative s ta ff in exercising th e ir mutual resp on sibilities.

Teaching
Conditions

The Building Principal of each building shall designate one (1) day
of the week which may be used fo r meetings to consider problems
relatin g to the instructional program no la te r than the f ir s t fu ll
week of school. These meetings shall la s t no more than one (1)
hour a fte r student dismissal. Attendance at no more than one (1)
meeting per week may be required by any teacher.

Informal
Conferences

The Superintendent and such other Board representatives as the Board
or the Superintendent may designate w ill meet inform ally, upon re­
quest of eith er party to the other in w ritin g , on such days and
a t such times as may be mutually agreed upon with Representatives
of the Association for the purpose of discussing problems of mutual
concern.
These informal discussions shall simply involve mutual exchange of
suggestions and ideas and shall in no sense be considered negotia­
tions. The sole purpose of these conferences is to provide com­
munication between the Board and the Association to gain insights
and better understanding between the parties and to promote closer
cooperation in a ll relationships concerning this agreement.

Board Rights

To establish grades and courses of instruction, including special
programs, and to provide fo r a th le tic , recreational and social
events fo r students, a ll as deemed necessary or advisable by the
Board, and in agreement with a ll other provisions of this contract.
To decide upon the means and methods of instruction, the selection
of textbooks and other teaching m aterials, and the use of teaching
aids of every kind and nature.

Teaching
Conditions

Communications fo r s ta ff transfers and curricu lar change shall re­
quire a dialogue with the teachers, department chairpersons, prin­
cipals and other d ire c tly affected personnel. The decision making
process shall re fle c t accountability.

The parties w ill confer annually fo r the purpose of improving the
selection and use of educational tools, and the Board shall under^
take promptly to implement a ll jo in t decisions thereon made by
its representatives and the Association.
Westwood

Reduction
in S ta ff

In the event of a reduction in the number of s ta ff, the following
procedure shall be used: (1) the Administration shall establish
its curriculum and staffing requirements...

Teaching
Conditions

The s ta ff w ill confer from time to time for the purpose of improv­
ing the selection and use of such educational tools, and the Board
w ill undertake promptly (budget permitting) to implement a ll jo in t
decisions thereon made by its representative, administration, and
s ta ff.

132 a.

In Group M, nineteen of twenty school d is tric ts in the sample con­
tain language describing curriculum apart from a rtic le s which define
jo in t instructional councils.

One d is tr ic t (Galien Township) had no

contract language which described curriculum or policy-making.
In Group M contracts provisions which are related to curriculum
appear in the following contract a rtic le s :
1.

Board Rights: AuGres Sims, Bear Lake, Camden-Frontier, Forest
Park, Inland Lakes, Johannesburg-Lewiston, Kingsley, Mesick,
North Central, North Huron, Norway Vulcan, P itts fo rd , Pott e r v ille

2.

Academic Freedom:

3.

Teaching/Working Conditions: Camden-Frontier, Central Lake,
Forest Park, Johannesburg-Lewiston, Kingsley, North Central,
Onekama

4.

Teacher/Union Rights:
Lewiston, Kingsley

5.

Other

Bark River, Dryden, Pewamo-Westphalia

Dryden, Inland Lakes, Johannesburg-

a.

Hours:

Central Lake

b.

Professional Improvement:
P o tte rv ille

c.

Instructional M aterials:

d.

Released Time:

e.

Professional Service:

f.

Performance Contracting:

g.

Professional Growth:

Bark River, Forest Park,
Inland Lakes

Kingsley
Martin
North Central

Onekama

Board Rights provisions may contain a statement which gives
school management fin a l authority over educational policy and curricu­
lum (Bear Lake, Camden-Frontier, Inland Lakes, Johannesburg-Lewiston,
Kingsley, Mesick, North Central, North Huron, Norway Vulcan, P ittsfo rd
P o tte rv ille ).

In some Board Rights a rtic le s contract language

133

Indicates that the Board w ill enter into shared decision-making and ac­
cept recommendations from teacher groups (AuGres Sims, Forest Park,
Johannesburg-Lewiston, North Huron).
A rticles fo r Teaching/Working Conditions state that the Board w ill
provide adequate supplies and m aterials (Camden-Frontier, North Cen­
t r a l , Onekama).

In a ll contracts which contain Teaching/Working Condi­

tion a rtic le s with reference to curriculum, the contract language pro­
vides fo r some degree of shared decision-making.
The obligation of teachers to particip ate in curriculum meetings
is stated in some contracts (Kingsley, M artin, Onekama).
Financial support fo r curriculum is provided in two contracts
(Bark River H arris, P o tte r v ille ).

AuGres Sims

Board Rights

The Board of Education reserves the rig h t to jo in tly work with the
faculty in establishing curriculum and selecting textbooks.

Bark River
Harris

Professional
Improvement

The Board agrees to provide, with the Superintendent's approval,
necesssary funds fo r teachers who desire to attend select profes­
sional conferences and Michigan Department of Education Curriculum
Committee meetings.

Academic Freedom

In the event a gross difference of opinion arises between adminis­
tratio n and teacher, the topic w ill be subject to review by the
parties involved.

Miscellaneous
Provisions

The parties w ill confer from time to time fo r the purpose of im­
proving the selection and use of educational tools and the Board
undertakes promptly to implement a ll jo in t decisions thereon made
by its representatives and the Association.

Bear Lake

Board Rights

The right to introduce new or improved methods or f a c ilit ie s .

Camden Frontier

Board Rights

To establish grades and courses of instruction, the selection of
textbooks and other teaching m aterials, and the use of teaching
aids of every kind and nature.
To decide upon the means and methods of instruction, the duties,
responsibilities and assignments of teachers and other employees.

Teaching
Conditions

Board shall provide appropriate texts and m aterials; department
meetings can be called at the discretion of either party fo r the
purpose of studying and improving educational methods and tools.
The Board shall consider as promptly as possible a ll jo in t deci­
sions thereone made by its representative and the Association.

Class Size,
Teaching
Hours, and
Conditions

The parties w ill confer from time to time fo r the purpose of improv­
ing the selection and the use of such educational tools and the
Board undertakes to implement a ll jo in t decisions thereon made by
representatives and the Association as soon as practicable.

Association
and Teacher
Rights

The Board shall at its option consult with the Association on any
new or modified fis c a l, budgetary, or tax programs, construction
programs, or major revisions of educational policy, which are pro­
posed or under consideration and the Association shall be given
opportunity to advise the Board with respect to said matters prior
to th e ir adoption and/or general publication

Academic Freedom

Subjects and a c tiv itie s which are known to be of a c r itic a l nature
must be discussed with the superintendent or principal prior to
th e ir introduction to students.
Teaching methods, subject areas, and class a c tiv itie s which create
unrest in the community w ill be reviewed by the superintendent and
a committee on grievances.

Board Rights

The Board recognizes the valuable assistance to be gained in its
responsibility of determining school policies from effective com­
munication with the Association. With this in mind, the Board
extends an open invitatio n to the Association to meet at any mu­
tu a lly agreed time to discuss school policies.
The Board shall continue to review, study, and effectuate improved
teaching methods, plans, programs, projects, curriculum, and other
innovative means to improve schools and education and training of
students.

Teaching
Conditions

The parties w ill confer from time to time for the purpose of im­
proving the selection and use of such educational tools and the
Board undertakes promptly to implement a ll jo in t decisions thereon
made by its representatives and the Association.

Professional
Improvement

At the request of the Association, or on the Board’ s in it ia tiv e ,
arrangements shall be made for after-school courses, workshops,
conferences and programs designed to improve the quality of in­
struction

Instructional
Materials

The parties w ill confer from time to time for the purpose of improv­
ing the selection and use of educational tools and the Board w ill
undertake promptly to implement a ll jo in t decisions thereon made
by the representative and the Association.

Board Rights

To establish grades and courses of instruction including special
programs.

Association
Rights

The Board shall communicate with the Association on new or modi­
fied fis c a l, budgetary, or tax programs, construction programs,
or major revisions of educational policy, previously proposed. The
Association shall be given the opportunity to make recommendations
on such proposals to the Board, prior to th e ir adoption and/or
general publication.

Galien Township
Inland Lakes

The Board shall place on the agenda of each Board meeting fo r con­
sideration in the proper order, matters brought to the Board's a t­
tention as long as those matters are made known in w riting to the
Superintendent's o ffice prior to the regularly established dead­
lin e for agenda preparation.
JohannesburgLewiston

Teacher Rights

The Board agrees to furnish to the Association in response to
w ritten requests from time to time a ll available information con­
cerning the financial resources of the D is tric t, tentative budge­
tary requirements, and allocations and such other information as
w ill assist the Association in developing in te llig e n t, accurate,
informed and constructive programs on behalf of the teachers and
th e ir students, to gether with information which may be necessary
for the Association to process any grievance or complaint.

Board Rights

To establish grades and courses of instruction, including special
programs, and to provide for a th le tic , recreational and social
events for students, a ll as deemed necessary or advisable by the
3oard a fte r consultation with appropriate teaching and other pro­
fessional s ta ff members.
To decide upon the means and methods of instruction, the selection
of textbooks and other teaching m aterials, and the use of textbooks
and other teaching m aterials, and the use of teaching aids of every
kind and nature, a fte r consultation with appropriate teaching and
other professional s ta ff members.
To determine class schedules, the hours of instruction and the
duties, resp o n sib ilities, and assignments of teachers and other
employees with respect thereto, and with respect to administrative
and non-teaching a c tiv itie s , and the terms and conditions of employment.

Kingsley Area

Teaching
Conditions

The Board and the Association w ill confer from time to time fo r the
purpose o f improving the selection and use of such educational
tools and the Board undertakes to implement a ll jo in t decisions
thereon made by its representatives and the Association.

Association
Rights

The Board recognizes the rig ht of the Association to consult with
the Board or Administration on major revisions of educational policy
and any new or innovative programs, including contracted learning.

Teacher Rights

In order to insure continued improvement of the education process
in the Kingsley Area School, the Association and the teachers w ill
assist in the study, revision, updating, and amending of school
curriculum.
The Association and the teachers recognize th e ir obligations to
continue to lend th e ir s k ill and knowledge in the form of recom­
mendations fo r textbook selections, teaching m aterials, and plans
for new or renovated buildings.

U>

Released Time

One hour of released time shall be provided fo r the purpose of a
two hour in-service training program. The second hour shall be
given by the teachers. These meetings shall be held once during
each six-week marking period.
A committee of teachers and administrators shall plan and organize
the programs. I f no program is planned, then the in-service meet­
ing w ill be cancelled.

Board Rights

Kingsley Area

Martin

The Board retains the rights of management and control of school
property, f a c ilit ie s , grades and courses of instruction, athletics
and recreational programs, methods of instruction, materials used
fo r instruction, and the selection, assignment, direction, trans­
fe r , promotion, demotion, d iscip lin e, or dismissal of personnel
excepting where expressly and in specific terms lim ited by the
provisions of this agreement.

u>

CO

Teaching
Conditions

A teacher shall be expected to attend professional s ta ff meetings
when called by the principal. A teacher may place appropriate edu­
cationally related items on the agenda for the meeting. The agenda
for meetings should be presented to the teacher at least one day
in advance of the meeting.

Teaching
F a c ilitie s ,
Equipment,
Supplies

The parties w ill confer at least one time each semester fo r the
purpose of improving the selection and use of such educational
tools as texts, instructional aids, and supplies. The Board under­
takes promptly to act upon a ll jo in t recommendtions thereon made
by its representative and the Association.

Professional
Service

In addition to the foregoing professional duties, each teacher
s h a ll, to the extent required for the proper discharge of his
professional obligations, participate in fa cu lty, departmental,
and curriculum meetings, in-service training programs, student
a c tiv ity assignments, parent-teacher and student-teacher con­
ferences, and such other professional a c tiv itie s as may reasonably
be required.

Mesick

Board Rights

Establish trades and courses of instruction and provide fo r other
events; decide upon the means and methods of instruction and selec­
tion of textbooks, teaching m aterials, teaching aids and equipment.

North Central

Board Rights

Determine the services, supplies, and equipment necessary to con­
tinue its operations and to determine the methods, schedules, and
standards of operation, the means, methods, and processes of carry­
ing on the work including automation; determine the placement of
operations, production techniques to increase leaning capacity,
distribution of work and source of materials and supplies.

Teaching
Conditions

The Board recognizes that appropriate te xts, lib ra ry reference
f a c ilit ie s , maps and globes, laboratory equipment, audio-visual
equipment, a th le tic equipment, current periodicals and sim ilar
materials are the tools of the teaching profession. The parties
w ill confer from time to time fo r the purpose of improving the
selection and use of such tools.

Performance
Contracting

The Board shall continue to review, study, and effectuate improved
teaching methods, plans, programs, projects, curriculum, and other
innovative means to improve the education and training of the
students and schools. The Board shall continue to particip ate,
when and where feasible and practicable, with governmental units
and agencies—lo c a l, state, or federal—in such innovative means
as i t seems necessary to accomplish the improved q u alities of edu­
cation.
The parties recognize that increased salaries and costs, lower pu­
p il ra tio s , better f a c ilit ie s , and more classrooms do not always
improve the levels of education, nor improve the efficiency or pro­
du ctivity of the teaching process. Every reasonable e ffo rt should
be put forth by the Board, the Association, the Administration, and
the teacher to improve the levels, efficien cy, and productivity of
the educational and teaching processes.

«©

One innovative means is the so-called "performance contracting pro­
gram." In the event the Board agrees to participate in this pro­
gram, i t w ill give notice to the Association and establish a com­
mittee of fiv e members, including two teachers selected by the
Association, to assist in the staffing and in-service tra in in g ,
and to work with the organization.
The Board agrees to provide for Association involvement in any
other new or innovative programs from planning through evaluation
stages.
North Huron

Board Rights

The Board recognizes the valuable assistance to be gained in its
responsibility of determining school policies from effective com­
munication with the Assocition. Accordingly, i t is agreed that re­
presentatives of the Board and the Association shall meet at least
once each month to discuss school policies of legitim ate concern
to the Association and problems relating to the implementation of
the Agreement.
Norway Vulcan

Board Rights

To establish grades and courses of instruction, including special
programs, and to provide fo r a th le tic , recreational, and social
events fo r students, a ll as deemed necessary or advisable by the
Board. To decide upon the means and methods of instruction, se­
lection of textbooks and other teaching m aterials, and the use of
teaching aids of every kind and nature. To determine services,

140

To establish grades and courses of instruction, including special
programs, and to provide for a th le tic , recreational and social
events for students, a ll as deemed necessary or advisable by the
Board; to decide upon the means and methods of instruction, the
selection of textbooks and other teaching m ateraisl, and the use
of teaching aids of every kind and nature; to determine class
schedules, the hours of instruction, and the duties, responsi­
b ilit ie s and assignments of teachers and other employees with re­
spect thereto.

supplies, and equipment; to determine a ll methods and means of dis­
trib u tin g , disseminating, or selling its services, methods, schedul­
ing, and standards of operation; to determine the means, methods,
and processes of carrying on its services and duties; and to deter­
mine any changes in a ll of the prceding, including innovative pro­
grams and practices.
Onekama

Teaching
Conditions

Teachers w ill be involved in the selection of th e ir textbooks and
th e ir recommendations w ill be strongly considered in the selection
of supplies.
The Board and Association mutually recognize the importance of con­
tinuous use of adequate teaching reference material in maintaining
a high level of professional performance. In furtherance o f that
recognition, the Board shall provide a teachers' professional l i ­
brary in each school in the d is tric t and include therein a ll books
and publications which are reasonably requested by the teachers.

Professional
Growth

Teachers shall serve on professional committees concerned with
school problems during the school day, as deemed necessary by the
Administration.

Pewamo
Westphalia

Academic
Freedom

I t is recognized that democratic values can best be transmitted in
an atmosphere which is free from censorship and a r t if ic a l re­
straints upon free inquiry and learning, and in which academic
freedom for teacher and students is encouraged, except that: the
teacher must be acting within accepted and/or adopted curriculum
and courses of study.

Pittsford

Manaaement

To establish grades and courses of instruction, including special
programs, and to provide for a th le tic , recreational and social
events fo r students, a ll as deemed necessary to advisable by the
Board; to decide upon the means and methods of instruction, the
selection of textbooks and other teaching m aterials, and the use
of teaching aids of every kind and nature.

P o tte rv ille

Board Rights

Determine the services, supplies,
tinue its operations; adopt rules
od(s) of reporting pupil progress
selection of textbooks; determine

Professional
Improvement

The parties support the principle of continuing training for
teachers.

and equipment necessary to con­
and regulations; determine methto parents; determine the fin a l
the courses to be taught.

The Board agrees to provide $800.00 per year and the Association
$400.00 per year to be placed into a fund for teachers who desire
to attend professional conferences, workshops, and programs. This
fund of $1,200.00 w ill be administered by a jo in t committee of two
teachers and two administrators to be named each September.

143

Summary
Of the fifty -tw o school d is tric ts in the complete sample, only one
system (Galien Township, Group M) has no contractual provision fo r cur­
riculum, e ith e r in the form of a council or related language.

A ll

other d is tric ts in the sample have contracts which create curriculum
councils or contain a rtic le s which describe c u rric u lar provisions.
Contract language related to curriculum councils is found in te r ­
spersed throughout a rtic le s in master agreements. Such language is often
found in separate a rtic le s t it le d Board Rights, Teaching/Working Condi­
tio n s, Teacher/Union Rights, and Academic Freedom.
A Board Rights provision generally makes policy decisions, a re s i­
dual management rig h t.

The Board reserves fin a l authority to deter­

mine policy and procedure, although management may encourage and au­
thorize advisory opinions from teachers and councils.

Board Rights

provisions which claim fin a l authority are found most frequently in the
small sized school d is tric ts .
School d is tric ts without provisions fo r jo in t instructional coun­
c ils in master agreements may allow a degree of shared decision-making
on curriculum matters.

The Taylor system (Group B) describes regular

monthly meetings between the Superintendent and Union representatives
and the building principals and Union Building Committee fo r purposes
of discussing educational policy and other matters,

Avondale, Chesan-

ing, F ru itp o rt, Inkster, Lakeshore, Reeths P uffer, St. Joseph, and
Westwood (Group G) do not have provisions fo r jo in t instructional
councils; however, each contract contains language fo r some degree of
teacher particip atio n in curriculum decision-making.

144

In Group M, d is tric ts without curriculum council provisions in
master agreements which allow some shared decision making include Sark
River H arris, Camden Fron tier, Central Lake, Dryden, Forest Park, In ­
land Lakes, Kingsley, North Central, Onekama.

Most often, contract

language allows teacher groups to confer or consult with school manage­
ment regarding selection of or changes in methods or m aterials.
Summary
Data extracted from master agreements of the school d is tric ts in
the sample were presented in tables corresponding to the components of
the model, Section 1.18 Statewide Bargaining Goals and Minimum Contract
Standards ( Negotiations Notebook, 1979-80).

The investigations compared

contract language fo r purpose, res p o n s ib ilitie s , size and composition,
method of selection and frequency of selection, leadership and vote
rig h ts , meeting schedule, support provisions and autho rity, and author­
it y in curriculum councils in Groups B, G, and M, Michigan school dis­
tr ic t s .
For each of the ten separate investigations, data were presented
on tables and described in accompanying textual report form.

Data were

analyzed in terms of whether contract provisions rep licated , approxi­
mated, or departed from the model c r it e r ia .
Two additional investigations were conducted and reported in Chap­
te r IV:

a review of d is tric ts with contract provisions fo r jo in t in ­

structional councils (Table 1) and a review o f contract language which
strengthens and/or re s tric ts provisions fo r jo in t instructional coun­
c ils (Table 10).

CHAPTER V

FINDINGS, EVALUATION, RE­
COMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS
Chapter V reviews the problem and purpose of the research study,
states the order of the presentation of precedent lite r a tu r e , restates
the research questions introduced in Chapter I , and recapitulates the
findings from the analysis o f data conducted in Chapter IV.

A special

section evaluates the model c rite rio n . The chapter concludes with re­
commendations fo r furth er research.
Review
This research study has been an investigation of the extent to
which provisions fo r shared curriculum decision-making through jo in t
instructional councils have been negotiated into master agreements in
Michigan public school d is tric ts .

The study has included an evaluation

of contractual provisions fo r curriculum councils according to a model
c rite rio n , Section 1.18 Statewide Bargaining Goals and Minimum Contract
Standards (Negotiations Notebook, 1979-80).

Master agreements were

analyzed fo r a rtic le s which contained language which strengthened and/
or lim ited provisions fo r curriculum.
Literature presented in Chapter I I reviewed precedent studies of
the scope of bargaining, shared decision-making, and Michigan studies.
The lite ra tu re reviewed the concepts of broad and narrow scope of bar­
gaining and the interp retatio n o f the "conditions of employment"
145

146

language In the PERA and NLRA.

Studies describing the progressive fea­

tures o f c o llective bargaining between teacher unions and school boards
were cited.

Statements by advocates of broad scope provisions (teacher

a f f ilia t io n ) and narrow scope provisions (school management a f f i l i a ­
tio n ) were compared.
Shared decision-making theories and studies from the industrial
and educational settings were discussed, and implications fo r teacher
particip atio n in curriculum policy-making were presented.

Models and

recommendations fo r shared cu rricu lar decision-making were cited .
Studies conducted on the public sector bargaining process in Mich­
igan indicate that there has been persistent growth in the area of ne­
gotiating curriculum issues.

Research which id e n tifie d factors condu­

cive to negotiating curriculum and studies dealing with teacher per­
ceptions and attitudes toward negotiating curriculum were included in
the review of precedent lite r a tu re .
Research Questions
The research questions which provided the focus fo r this inquiry
and investigation are reviewed and findings related to each question
discussed in the following section.

The research questions are:

1.

To what extent is shared decision-making fo r curriculum
a contractual provision in Michigan public school mas­
te r agreements?

2.

To what extent do contractual provisions fo r jo in t in­
structional councils in Michigan public school master
agreements approximate, rep lic ate, or depart from the
Michigan Education Association model fo r curriculum?

3.

To what extent do contractual provisions fo r jo in t in ­
structional councils in Michigan public school master
agreements contain language which specifies a stated
purpose, res p o n s ib ility , autho rity, method of

147

selection, support, s ize , composition, meeting schedule,*
and leadership, components o f the model designated as
the criterion?
4.

To what extent do master agreements in Michigan public
school d is tric ts contain language which strengthens or
re s tric ts provisions fo r jo in t instructional councils?
Findings

Research Question One
This research study has dealt with a selected sample of master
agreements representing large, middle, and small sized public school
d is tric ts in Michigan.

A comprehensive reading of the fifty -tw o con­

tracts in the sample indicates that shared decision-making for curricu­
lum appears in contract language as part o f a formal provision fo r a
curriculum council in twenty-six contracts or as part o f a separate
a r t ic le , such as Board Rights or Teaching Conditions, in nineteen con­
tra c ts .

Five contracts contain no mention of shared decision-making

fo r curriculum.
As indicated in Table 1 (d is tric ts in which master agreements con­
ta in provisions fo r jo in t instructional councils), eighty-nine percent
of large d is tr ic ts , f if t y - f i v e percent of middle sized d is tr ic ts , and
th ir t y percent of small sized d is tric ts have contracts which contain
provisions fo r curriculum councils.

Master agreement provisions for

curriculum councils appear to be a function o f school d is tr ic t size.
Research Question Two
Contractual provisions fo r jo in t instructional councils in Michi­
gan public school master agreemments were evaluated according to Section

148

1.18 Statewide Bargaining Goals and Minimum Contract Standards ( Negotia­
tions Notebook, 1979-80), the model c rite rio n .
Of the twenty-six school d is tric ts with contractual provisions for
curriculum councils, no master agreement was found to contain a provi­
sion fo r a council which replicated the MEA prototype.

Large and mid­

dle sized school d is tric ts more often contain language which approxi­
mates the MEA model than small sized d is tric ts .
Large school d is tric ts more often exceed the proposed components
in the MEA model by including more elaborate and specific d e tail fo r
support, autho rity, and composition of membership.
Research Question Three
The MEA model is comprised o f the following components:

purpose,

re s p o n s ib ility , au th o rity, method of selection, support, s ize , composi­
tio n , meeting schedule, and leadership.

Each contractual provision for

curriculum was evaluated according to the proposed language fo r each of
the components lis te d above.
Table 2 indicates that a greater proportion of Group B contracts
p a ra lle l the stated purpose of curriculum councils supplied by the
model.

Councils in large d is tric ts have autonomy to in it ia t e and es­

tablish curriculum policies fo r the d is t r ic t .

Councils in middle and

small sized school d is tric ts have less autonomy and more frequently
are permitted to function in a review capacity.
The evaluation of council res p o n sib ilities reveals that few of
the twenty-six school systems with contractual curriculum councils con­
tain language which approximates the MEA model.

Of the twenty-four

contracts which define the resp o n sib ilities o f the council, fifte e n

149

imply a narrow scope of ju ris d ic tio n , allowing the council to consider
only matters of curriculum -instruction.

Nine d is tric ts assign a broad

scope o f resp onsibility to the council, permitting them to consider or
recommend educational policies and practices beyond the area of curric­
ulum and instruction.
The MEA model proposes that jo in t instructional councils be com­
prised of equal numbers o f teachers and administrators.

Nine of the

twenty-six d is tric ts with contractual curriculum councils replicate the
model.

Middle sized d is tric ts most often specify teacher and adminis­

tra tio n representation on councils, though not necessarily in equal
numbers.
Council membership appears to re fle c t the size of the school dis­
tr ic t.

Average size of Group B councils is 14.25; average size of

Group G and M d is tric ts is seven.

Several school d is tric ts accommodate

community, parent, and student interests by allowing e ith e r voting or
ad-hoc membership on councils.
The model requires th at council membership be selected annually
by respective representative groups.
plicates the model language.

No school d is tr ic t contract re­

Only one d is tr ic t describes the fr e ­

quency o f membership selection.

The representative group fo r teacher

members is the Education Association; the representative group fo r ad­
m inistrators is the School Board or Superintendent.

Teacher members

are generally elected, and adm inistrative members are usually appointed
to th e ir positions.

150

The MEA model proposes that the council have co-chairpersons, one
a teacher and one an adm inistrator, to chair a lte rn a tiv e * meetings.
According to the model, each council member should have an equal vote.
The findings indicate that no school d is tr ic t in the sample r e p li­
cates the model's component fo r leadership and vote rig h ts.
d is tr ic t uses a co-chair system.

Only one

No school d is tric ts describe vote

rights o f the council membership.
Large school d is tric ts most often rep licate the model proposal
to provide regularly scheduled meetings fo r curriculum councils.
of the large d is tr ic t councils meet on a monthly basis.

Most

Other dis­

t r ic t s , when specifying meeting arrangements, provide fle x ib le sched­
ules or allow conducting meetings "as needed."
Model language suggests that teacher members o f curriculum coun­
c ils should be assured released time and substitute teachers by con­
tra c t.

Only one d is tr ic t in the sample replicates this component.

However, in a ll cases where contracts contain support provisions for
curriculum councils, teachers are given released time fo r participation.
As noted in Chapter IV, released time may imply the use of substitute
teachers.
Certain school d is tric ts have negotiated c le r ic a l, budget, and
remuneration support provisions fo r curriculum councils.
The MEA model advocates that the curriculum council have advisory
authority to the board.

In a ll contracts which contain language de­

scribing council au th o rity, the council is vested with advisory

*The researcher finds that the language, to be accurate, should
replace "alternative" with the word "altern ate."

151

authority.

Some contracts contain provisions fo r response or reaction

by the Board.

In some contracts, councils have the authority to dele­

gate responsibility to subcommittees which they may establish.

Research Question Four
Nearly a ll contracts in the sample contain language which pertains
to curriculum apart from specific a rtic le s describing a jo in t instruc­
tional council.
Of the twenty-six d is tric ts with jo in t instructional council pro­
visions in master agreements, two do not contain additional language
which supports or lim its the role and function o f the council.

Of the

twenty-four d is tric ts with jo in t instructional council provisions and
additional controlling language fo r curriculum, fiv e r e s tric t curricu­
lum to a management prerogative and make no accommodation for teachers
or other groups to engage in decision-making.
In school systems which do not have contractual curriculum coun­
c ils , nineteen d is tric ts have agreements which contain a rtic le s which
support some degree o f shared decision-making, usually in the form of
conferences or consultations.

In these d is tr ic ts , the Board retains

fin a l autho rity, by contract, to determine a ll educational policies for
the d is tr ic t.
Contract language fo r curriculum may be found interspersed through­
out the master agreement.

Most often, references to curriculum are

housed in Board Rights, Academic Freedom, and Teaching Condition a r t i ­
cles.

152

Except fo r one master agreement, a ll provisions fo r jo in t instruc­
tional councils are procedural, not substantive in nature.

Such provi­

sions describe the role and function of the council but do not describe
specific course content, instructional methods, or other substantive
curriculum components.

Evaluation of the Model
The model selected fo r this evaluative research study is Section
1.18 Statewide Bargaining Goals and Minimum Contract Standards ( Negotia­
tions Notebook, 1979-80).
ponents:

The model is comprised of the following com­

purpose, resp o n sib ility, authority, method of selection, sup­

port, size, composition, meeting schedule, and leadership.

The Office

of Negotiations, a division o f the Michigan Education Association, pro­
vides the model fo r local a f f ilia t e s to pattern in th e ir in d iv id a lly
negotiated contracts (see Appendix).
Evaluation o f the model considers two factors:

(1) the c la r ity of

proposed contract language, and (2) the comprehensiveness of the compo­
nents which comprise the model.
Experienced negotiators and a rb itra to rs , advocates of clear and
unambiguous construction of contract language, c ite ambiguity as one of
the primary reasons fo r disputes between the parties to an agreement.
Lack o f precision or s p e c ific ity of language may result in lack of
agreement over the intent of a passage in a contract.

U ltim ately, the

dispute may be raised through the grievance procedure and disposed of
through binding a rb itra tio n by a neutral th ird party.

153

According to Elkouri and Elkouri (1973):
There is no need fo r interp retatio n unless the agree­
ment is ambiguous. I f the words are plain and c lear,
conveying a d is tin c t id e a ...th e clear meaning w ill ordin­
a r ily be applied by arb itra to rs (p. 296).
Elkouri and Elkouri also state:
An agreement is not ambiguous i f the a rb itra to r can
determine its meaning without any other guide than a knowl­
edge of the simple facts on which, from the nature of the
language in general, its meaning depends. But an agreement
is ambiguous i f "plausible contentions may be made fo r con­
f lic t in g interpretations" thereof (p. 296).
The authors find that "ambiguity is a matter of impression rather
than d e fin itio n " (p. 296).
When teacher associations and school boards negotiate th e ir own
contract language, th e ir agreement may contain terms judged by other ne­
gotiators and arb itra to rs to be ambiguous; however, the parties to the
contract may have a clear understanding of the intent of th e ir language
which may fo re s ta ll a dispute over meaning.

When the parties adopt

language proposed by a th ird party, in this case the state teacher as­
sociation, they may incorporate provisions into th e ir agreement without
having a clear understanding of the meaning of the borrowed language.
When the terms and conditions of the contract are enforced or made
operational, confusion and differences of opinion over the meaning of
ambiguous language may re s u lt.
In the MEA model, two sections of the proposed language contain
language which is ambiguous.

The model prescribes a "regularly sched­

uled" meeting time fo r jo in t instructional councils.

A rbitration cases

have shown that "regularly scheduled" is often interpreted to mean "ac­
cording to a fixed schedule; at predetermined in te rv a ls ."

This stan­

dard of construction was applied to the analysis of data in Table 7.

154

The MEA model prescribes that membership to jo in t instructional
councils be "selected" by respective representative groups.

The term

"selected"--open to a variety of interpretations--does not meet the
test of clear and unambiguous construction.
To te s t fo r ambiguity of the terms "regularly scheduled" and
"selected," the researcher interviewed a group of ten individuals com­
prised of professors, graduate students, and teachers.

Responses to

the inquiry, "What does 'reg u larly scheduled meeting' mean?" are lis te d
below according to frequency of reply received:
Monthly or weekly
Often, frequently
Throughout the year
At a planned time
On an aqenda or calendar

4
2
2
1
1
10

Most respondents attached a specific time frame to the concept of
a regularly scheduled meeting.Further inquiry a fte r the i n it ia l re­
sponse was recorded revealed that the respondents' past practice with
meeting schedules influenced th e ir answers. All respondents had d i f f i ­
culty phrasing an immediate response; three individuals said they
"guessed at the meaning."
The second question posed to the group members was, "What does
'selected' mean?"

The term was used in the context of selecting an in ­

dividual fo r o ffic e .
Chosen
Appointed
Elected

Responses are given below:
6
2
2
"TO”

Three of the respondents who indicated that "selected" meant
"chosen" stated that they f e l t the terms were synonymous but were un­
clear as to the process of making the selection or choice.

Both re-

155

spondents who indicated that "selected" meant "elected" phrased th e ir
response as a question:

"Does i t (the term 's ele cted ') mean elected?"

The MEA model is found to contain ambiguous contract language in
two sections.

Recommendations fo r improvement in the model include

replacing the terms "regularly scheduled" and "selected" with c le a r, un­
ambiguous terms.
The MEA model fo r this research study has been judged to be com­
prised of the following components:

purpose, res p o n sib ility , authority,

method of selection, support, size, composition, meeting schedules, and
leadership.
The analysis of data reported in Chapter IV compared components of
school d is t r ic t master agreements with provisions fo r jo in t instruc­
tional councils with the model c r ite r ia lis te d above.

A review of pro­

visions for contractually authorized curriculum councils indicates that
three components appear in contractual provisions which are not part of
the proposed model:
1.

Provisions fo r ad-hoc membership,

2.

Provisions fo r fin ancial and c le ric a l support, and

3.

Provisions fo r a required Board response to advisory
recommendations from the Council.

Table 4 (size and composition of jo in t instructional councils)
contains a display o f data which indicates that councils in certain
school d is tric ts have membership other than teachers and administrators.
For example, the Lansing system requires the twenty-four member council
to be comprised of equal numbers o f teachers, administrators, students,
and parents.

Greenville allows two council chairs to be f il le d by mem­

bers other than teachers and administrators. The seven member P ittsfo rd

156

council is comprised of teachers, adm inistrators, and students; elemen­
tary and secondary principals serve in an ad-hoc capacity as resource
personnel.

The P o tte rv ille council includes non-voting parent member­

ship.
The c rite rio n statement "equal numbers of teachers and administra­
tors" does not specify whether ad-hoc or other voting membership is re­
commended.

A provision which more accurately describes the composition

of council membership and the accompanying status of such membership
would strengthen th is component of the model.
Table 8 (support provisions fo r jo in t instructional councils) re­
fle c ts the model's proposal that teacher council members should re­
ceive released time with classroom substitutes provided.

Contracts

with support provisions fo r curriculum councils indicate that support
may be interpreted more broadly to include financial and cle rica l as­
sistance by the school board.
F lin t and Mt. Morris contracts contain language which c la rifie s
Board support fo r th e ir councils by supplying c le ric a l assistance.

The

Warren school d is t r ic t contract budgets $20,000 per school year, plus
$5,000 fo r in-service programs, fo r the curriculum steering committee.
Other support provisions include "necessary expenses paid by the Board"
(Grand Rapids), "pay fo r teacher members at the workshop rate" (Warren),
"conference funds" (Lansing), and "compensation fo r council meetings
during the summer and vacations" (North Huron).
To f u l f i l l the purposes and resp o n sib ilities assigned to jo in t in ­
structional councils, a commitment to financial support would appear
essential.

Contract language assuring a lin e item in the budget for

157

operational and c le ric a l assistance would strengthen the council by
giving i t s ta b ility and a greater likelihood of remaining operational
to f u l f i l l its goals and res p o n sib ilitie s.
Table 9 (authority in jo in t instructional councils) describes the
advisory capacity o f councils created by contract to recommend changes
and proposals to the School Board.

Provisions fo r authority in some

master agreements suggest that the School Board should be required to
respond to a Council recommendation.
Procedures fo r Board responses are described in the F lin t contract
("Board must acknowledge and/or respond upon receipt of the Council
report") and the Warren contract ("Associate Superintendent fo r Instruc­
tion shall forward considerations back to the Steering Committee in a
tim ely manner").
The disposition of an advisory opinion or a recommendation ren­
dered by a Council should be addressed in the model.

Revision of this

component should include language describing the processing of the
proposal forwarded by the Council and the timeliness of consideration
by the Board.
In certain contracts, Instructional Councils have authority to
delegate resp on sibility.

The Grand Rapids, Lansing, Warren, and Oxford

school systems authorize the curriculum council to create subcommittees
to take on special projects or studies.

The Grand Rapids Council has

authority to consult members of the community, students, and subjectmatter specialists when formulating a proposal fo r curriculum change.
The model provision fo r authority of the curriculum council should
be improved by defining the procedural function of processing a Council
recommendation.

The MEA should consider broadening the authority of

158

the council to include delegation of authority to subcommittees and
the rig h t to consult outside the school s ta ff on matters i t is studying.
Summary
The model selected as the c rite rio n fo r this study has been eval­
uated fo r c la r ity and comprehensiveness.

The model would be improved

by revising existing language which specifies a "regularly scheduled"
meeting time and membership "selected" by representative groups.

These

terms do not meet the standards of construction of contract language
and should be rew ritten fo r c la r ity .
The model would be improved by revising the components delineating
the size and composition of membership, support provisions, and author­
it y of jo in t instructional councils.

Language from master agreements

suggests provisioning fo r council membership to allow more groups
access to the decision-making process.

Council recommendations should

be processed by the Board with further assured communication with the
advisory committee.

Authority to delegate responsibility to ad hoc

or subcommittees should be established in the model.
Recommendations fo r Research
Recommendations fo r fu rth er research on the topic of curriculum
as a subject of bargaining in public school master agreements are cate­
gorized as (1) legal studies and (2) co lle ctive bargaining studies.
Studies designed to explore the legal implications of bargaining
over curriculum issues are described below.
1.

Public Employment Relations Acts which authorize co llective

bargaining between teacher associations and school boards d iffe r in
scope of bargaining provisions (see "Summary of Public Sector Labor

159

Relations Policies" in Appendix).

Legislative debate and a c tiv ity

regarding appropriate scope o f bargaining language has occurred in
several states, including Nevada, Indiana, and Montana.

When statutory

revision of existing scope o f bargaining provisions is enacted, the
statute ty p ic a lly is amended to include (1) a management rights pre­
rogative clause making certain policy areas the sole discretion of
school administration and/or (2) an enumeration of issues defined as
mandatory, permissive, and re s tric te d .
A study which examines le g is la tiv e a c tiv ity to broaden or narrow
the scope o f bargaining in public employment relations acts and the
implications for curriculum is suggested.
2.

The Michigan Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) has a

broad scope of bargaining provision, a rep licatio n of the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA) which allows bargaining fo r "wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment."

A study which explores

the concept of curriculum as a "condition o f employment" in Michigan
and other states with broad scope of bargaining provisions is recom­
mended.
3.
in

An investigation of the issue of subdelegation of authority

Michigan school

systems is suggested.

T yll van Geel (1976) finds

i t necessary to turn to statutory authority to determine whether a
school board has the legal rig h t to subdelegate power vested in i t by
the state le g is la tu re ,

van Geel finds that the question o f statutory

interpretation is not a problem in states which have c le ar, unambigu­
ous provisions (C a lifo rn ia , New York); however, statutes with s ile n t
or ambiguous language do not provide a clear guideline fo r subdelega­
tion o f authority,

van Geel states:

160
The recent trend of cases has been such that courts
have tended to uphold subdelegations of authority. They
seem to be adopting the advice o f commentators who have
advocated that subdelegation ought to be permitted when
i t contributes to the w orkability of a program (p. 119).
The issue of a school board's legal rig h t to delegate authority
to determine the procedural and substantive components of curriculum
could become the focus of a study.
Studies which would tre a t the topic of curriculum as a negotiated
item in public school master agreements include those lis te d below:
1.

Curriculum councils exist within the school organization as

formal, structured, and contractually mandated systems fo r teacher
participation in decision-making
board policy.

or as informal procedures allowed by

This research study has made no attempt to evaluate the

effectiveness of curriculum councils established in master agreements.
A study which compares the effectiveness of councils established by
contract and councils created by board policy is recommended.
2.

This research study has evaluated contract language fo r cur­

riculum which was developed by the Office of Negotiations, a division
of the Michigan Education Association, as a prototype fo r local a f f i l ­
iates.

A study which compares and contrasts policies and model con­

tra c t language developed by national and state teacher unions and
school board associations is suggested.
3.

The Michigan Education Association has 532 local a f f ilia t e s

in the state.

The MEA has organized the state into eighteen regions,

each administered by an area Uniserv director who works with local a f­
f ilia t e s in determining bargaining goals and strategies.

A study which

investigates the influence of the Uniserv directo r in negotiating cur­
riculum at the local level is suggested.

161

4.

This research study has concluded that most contract language

for curriculum is procedural in nature.

However, some master agree­

ments do contain prescrip tive, substantive components for curriculum.
For example, in Inkster, an a r tic le t it le d "Joint C iv il Rights School
Committee" specifies that the committee shall "...develop new programs
dealing with c iv il rights issues in education."

A study which in v e s ti­

gates the extent to which substantive components o f curriculum are ne­
gotiated into master agreements is recommended.
Reflections on the Study
As a consequence o f collecting and analyzing data and synthesizing
precedent lite ra tu re on the topic o f negotiating curriculum in public
school master agreements, the researcher has confronted some personal
and professional questions which have emerged during the course o f en­
gaging in this study.
While the researcher recognizes the move on the part o f teacher
associations to obtain real rather than mythical power by establishing
curriculum as a bargainable issue as a "condition o f employment," she
finds that educational policies should continue to be a residual man­
agement prerogative.

Legal implications aside, this researcher finds

that teachers should have only advisory authority to make recommenda­
tions to the Board which should retain fin a l ju ris d ic tio n over cu rric ­
ulum.
The investigator finds that a proposed model for curriculum pre­
pared by the state union for local a f filia te s eventually may undermine
the in d iv id u a lity o f lo c a lly negotiated contracts.

Although no con­

tracts in the sample fo r this study were found to contain language

162

which replicated the prototype offered by the Michigan Education Asso­
c ia tio n , the potential fo r uniformity (p a rtic u la rly with the advent of
coalition bargaining) exists.

This researcher finds that requirements

o f large, middle, and small sized school d is tric ts d iffe r considerably
and that one model 1s in s u ffic ie n t for a ll public school d is tric ts .
The researcher takes issue with lim itin g access o f community and
student groups to the School Board in regard to policy-making.

When

curriculum is negotiated between the parties to the contract, i t would
be appropriate to accommodate in te re st groups, not by d irect p a r tic i­
pation, but through steering committee functions or consulting mechani sms.
The author o f this study finds that i f curriculum is to be part of
a public school master agreement, the parties should bargain only pro­
cedural components, never substantive components.

She finds the pro­

cess o f negotiating specific courses and course content carries an in ­
herent risk to entrench programs, methods, and teaching positions
which may be inappropriate or undesirable in the future.

Bargaining

for procedural components only may help keep curriculum content fle x ­
ib le and responsive to assessed needs.
Throughout th is research study, the investigator has considered
the question of teacher autonomy and individual teacher responsibility
to changes recommended by a curriculum council.

The researcher has

concluded that despite bargaining for a mechanism to assure teacher
participation in the curriculum decision-making system, there is no
guarantee that an individual teacher w ill accept council recommenda­
tions and v o lu n tarily implement such recommendations in the classroom.
The power of teacher autonomy yet must be reckoned with.

163

In conclusion, the researcher retains an ambivalent attitu d e to ­
ward the concept o f bargaining for curriculum issues in master agree­
ments.

The te s t o f the value o f negotiating curriculum ultim ately lie s

in whether students w ill benefit from the process.

APPENDIX

MATERIALS USED AS
BASIS OF AND DESIGN FOR STUDY

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SECTOR LABOR RELATIONS POLICIES1
State

Coverage

Scope of Bargaining

Alabama

Teachers

Rules and regulations about the conduct and
management of the schools.

Alaska

Teachers

Matters pertaining to employment and f u l­
fillm en t of professional duties

Arizona

State officers

No CB statute fo r public employees (rig h t
to work law)

Arkansas

All state employees

No CT statute for public employees (rig h t
to work law)

California

State c iv il service
employees and
teachers

Wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment; exclusing mertis, necessity
or organization of any service provided by
law or Executive Order; other subjects not
under scope may be included in memorandum
by agreement of the parties

Colorado

No CB statute fo r public employees

Connecticut

Teachers

Salaries and other conditions of employment

Delaware

Teachers

Salaries, benefits, and working conditions

D is tric t of
Columbla

Public school
Employees

Terms and
nation of
dures fo r
Education
rights

Florida

All public employees

Wages, hours, and terms and conditions of
employment, exclusing pensions

Georgia

State employees

Wages, rates of pay, hours, working condi­
tions, and a ll other terms and conditions
of employment

Hawaii

All public employees

Wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment; excluding classificatio n and
reclassificatio n , health fund, retirement,
salary ranges and number of incremental and
longevity steps, matters inconsistent with
merit principle, or managerial discipline
and control; consultation on a ll matters
affecting employee relations

conditions of employment, determi­
appropriate techniques and proce­
negotiations, impact of Board of
decisions taken under management

1
As of May, 1979; L I.66:96/979 Documents, US Dept, of Labor, 1979.

164

165

Idaho

Teachers

Matters and conditions subject to negotiations
by agreement of the parties

Illin o is

State

Wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment subject to laws, appropriations
and expenditures, and personnel rules; ex­
cluding merit system and examinations, p o li­
cies, programs and functions, budget and struc­
ture, standards, scope and delivery of ser­
vices, u tiliz a tio n of technology, retirement,
and l i f e insurance programs

Indiana

Teachers

Salaries, wages, hours, and salary and wagerelated fringe benefits. Duty to discuss cur­
riculum development and revision; textbook
selection; teaching methods; selection, assign­
ment, or promotion of personnel; student dis­
c ip lin e , expulsion or supervision of students;
pupil-teacher ra tio ; class size; budget ap­
propriations and other conditions of employment

Iowa

All public employees

Kansas

Teachers

Wages, hours, vacations, insurance, holidays,
leave, s h ift d iffe re n tia l, overtime, supple• mental pay, seniority, transfer procedures,
job classifications, health and safety, eval­
uation, s ta ff reduction, in-service tra in in g ,
and other mutually agreed upon matters; ex­
cluding merit system and retirement
Salaries, wages, hours, and terms and condi­
tions of professional service; excluding mat­
ters fixed by statute or state constitution
Teachers cannot be granted negotiating right
by Executive Order and have no rig ht to strike

Kentucky

Local school boards have the authority to en­
te r into collective bargaining at th e ir own
discretion
No CB statute fo r public employees {rig h t to
work law). Lawful for teachers and other pub­
lic employees to engage in collective bargain­
ing with th e ir employers.

Louisiana

Maine

State employees

All matters relating to the relationship be­
tween employer and employees including wages,
work schedules, and general worki, g conditions.
Excluded are matters proscribed by law; regu­
lations governing application fo r state ser­
vice; merit system principles and personnel laws.

Maryland

Teachers

Wages, salaries, hours, and other working con­
ditions, excluding tenure

166

Massachusetts

All public employees

Wages, hours, standards of productivity and
performance and other terms and conditions
of employment

Michigan

Municipal and local
government employees

Wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment

Minnesota

All public employees

Grievance procedure, hours, fringe benefits
and terms and conditions of employment; ex­
cluding retirement, contributions or bene­
f it s and employer's personnel policies

*

Does not have a collective bargaining statute
fo r public employees (rig h t to work law)

Minnesota
Missouri

All public employees

Salaries and other conditions of employment

Montana

All public employees

Wages, hours, fringe benefits, and other con­
ditions of employment

Nebrasks

Teachers

Terms o f employment and labor-management re­
lations (pertinent case law: negotiation
subjects include salary schedules, profes­
sional leave, professional organization dues,
dress codes, school calendars and noon duty:
Steward Education Association—CIR 1971—1
CIR 39-1 affirm ed-Neb. S. C t.—1972).

Nevada

Local government

Salary or wage rates or other forms of direct
monetary compensation; sick leave; vacation
leave, holidays, other paid or unpaid leaves
of absence; insurance benefits; total hours
of work required of an employee on each work
day or work week; total number of days of work
required of an employee in a work year; dis­
charge and disciplinary procedure; recognition
clause; method used to classify employees in
the negotiating unit; deduction of dues for
the recognized employee organization; protec­
tion of employees in the negotiating unit from
discrimination due to participation in recog­
nized employee organizations consistent with
the provisions of this chapter; no strike pro­
visions consistent with the provisions of this
chapter; grievance and arbitration procedures
fo r resolution of disputes relating to in te r­
pretation or application of collective bargain­
ing agreements; general savings clauses; dura­
tion of collective bargaining agreements;
safety; teacher preparation time; procedures
fo r reduction of work force.
(Management rights: determine the content of
the work day, including without lim ita tio n ,

167

workload factors, except fo r safety considera­
tions; determine the quality and quantity of
services to be offered to the public; deter­
mine the means and methods of offering those
services.)
New Hampshire

A ll public employees

Wages, hours, and other conditions of employ­
ment; excluding merit system

New Jersey

A ll public employees

Grievance procedure and terms and conditions
of employment

New Mexico

State and local

Terms and conditions of employment (management
rights: determine methods, means, and per­
sonnel to perform operations; manage, make
decisions and act on a ll matters not covered
by regulations or cba)

New York
State

All public employees

Wages, hours, grievance procedure, and other
terms and conditions of employment

New York City

All c ity employees
except teachers

North Caro­
lin a

A ll public employees

All bargaining rights are prohibited by statute;
a ll contracts are ille g a l and void as against
public policy

North Dakota

Teachers

Salary, hours, and other terms and conditions
o f employment; employer-employee relations

Ohio

A ll public employees

Covered by Code; no cb statute

Oklahoma

Public school em­
ployees

Direct or indirect monetary benefits; hours,
vacations, sick leave; grievance procedure;
and other conditions of employment

Pennsylvania

A ll public employees

Wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment; impact of decisions make on
issues within management rights

Teachers

Hours, salaries, working conditions, and other
terms and conditions of professional employment

%

Rhode Island
South Caro­
lin a

No cb statute for employees (public); right
to work law

South Dakota

All public employees

Rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment

Tennessee

Teachers

Salaries or wages; grievance procedure; in­
surance; fringe benefits (excluding pensions
or retirem ent); working conditions; leave;

168

student discipoine procedure; payrocl deduc­
tions; cannot violate Federal or Std'fe'Tato
or municipal charter, employee rights or
Board of Education rights
Texas

All public employees

Utah

Does not have a cb statute fo r public em­
ployees

%

Vermont

Teachers

Virginia
Washington

Wyoming

Salaries, related economic conditions of em­
ployment; procedures for processing complaints
and grievances, and any mutually agreed upon
matters not in con flict with statutes and laws
of Vermont
Does not have a cb statute fo r public employees

Teachers

West Virginia
Wisconsin

Wages, hours, working conditions, and other
terms and conditions of employment

Wages, hours, and terms and conditions of
employment; units of supervisors and/or prin­
cipals and assistant principals lim ited to
compensation, hours, and number of days of
work per year
Does not have a cb statute fo r public employees

Municipal employees,
including teachers

Wages, hours, and working conditions
Right to work statute applicable to the pub­
l ic sector

169

michigan education association
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

s e c tio n _

l is

_

n o te b o o k

Suggested Contract Language
A.

The Board and the Association shall establish a council known as the

Instructional and Curriculum Council.

The purpose of this Council shall be

to in itia te and establish policies affecting the nature and design of the
Instructional program of the d is tric t.

As a part of its responsibilities, the

Council shall:
1.

Develop c rite ria fo r the ongoing evaluation of a ll instructional
programs;

2.

Annually review and establish policies concerning a ll testing
programs and instructional management systems;

3.

Review and make recommendations on a ll proposed p ilo t, experimental
and/or innovative programs; and,

n e g o tia tio n s

%

4.

Promulgate other policies relating to the d is tric t's instructional
programs and curriculum.

Changes in existing Instructional programs and proposed new instructional
programs must be reviewed and affirm atively recommended by the Council prior
to Board consideration, adoption, or Implementation.
B.

The Council shall be composed of an equal number of teachers, and

administrators who shall be selected annually by th e ir respective representative
groups.

Each member of the Council w ill have an equal vote.

The Council shall

have co-chairpersons, one a teacher and one an administrator, who shall chair
alternative meetings.
C.

The Council shall meet on a regularly scheduled basis as determined

by the Council membership.

Teachers serving on the Council shall be given

released time with classroom substitutes provided.
O ffice of Negotiations
Revised 5/78

170

CHART I
GENERAL INFORMATION BY TYPE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1978

Classification of School
Districts Based on
State Aid Membership

Number
of
Districts

r

Teaching
Positions

233,049

11,219

17.487

260.047

13,042

18,210 ,

278,790

17,906

16,777

400,828

2,183

16.426

48,031

23

4,337

17,211

97,384

23

3,810

16,127

85,988

32

4.756

15,301

105,512

34

4,125

15,363

93,352

9,429

20,000 to 49,999 ......................

9

10,000 to 19,999 ......................

21

(D)

5,000 to 9.999 ........................

59

(E)

4,500 to 4,999 .......................

10

(F)

4,000 to 4.499 .......................

(G)

3,500 to 3,999 ........................

(H)

3,000 to 3,499 ........................

(I)

2,500 to *2,999 ........................

50,000 and o v e r ......................

(B>
(C)

Audited
Pupil
Membership
as of 9-30-77

17,832

1

(A)

Average
Teacher's
Salary

(J)

2,000 to 2,499 ........................

59

5.879

14,806

130,525

<K>

1,500 to 1,999 .......................

72

5,657

14,566

124,782

<L)

1,000 to 1,499 ........................

70

4,087

13,613

87,683

(M)

500 to 9 9 9 ......................

80

3,050

12,930

62.144

(N)

Below 500 .............................

86

832

12,396

15.829

Total for all Districts ..................

579

90,312

16,445

2,023,944

171

CHART II
GROUPING OF DISTRICTS BY
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
GROUP A (50,000 and over) See Page 16
Detroit City School D istrict...................... 233,049
GROUP B (20,000 to 49,999) See Page 19
Flint City School D is tric t.........................
Grand Rapids City School D istrict
Lansing Public School District ............
Livonia Public S chools.............................
Pontiac City School D is tric t....................
Taylor School D is tric t................... •..........
* Utica Community S ch o o ls........................
Warren Consolidated S c h o o ls .................
Wayne Westland Community S chools. . .

38,086
37,407
30,675
29,075
22,337
20,240
28,273
31,155
22,799

GROUP C (10,000 to 19,999) See Page 20
Ann Arbor Public Schools........................
Bay City School D istrict...........................
Birmingham City School D istrict
Dearborn City School District ................
Farmington Public School D is tric t
Groise Pointe Public S chools................
Huron Valley S c h o o ls ...............................
Jackson Public S ch o o ls...........................
Kalamazoo City School D is tric t...............
Midland Public S c h o o ls ...........................
Plymouth-Canton Community Schools ..
Port Huron Area School D istrict
Portage Public S c h o o ls ...........................
Rochester Community School District ..
Roseville Community Schools
.............
Saginaw City School D is tric t..................
School District City ol Royal O a k
Southfield Public School D is tric t
Troy Public School D istrict...............
Walled Lake Consolidated School D is t..
Waterford School District ........................

17,958
15,676
11,770
16,334
13,931
10,199
10,338
11,384
14,477
11,319
15,256
15,606
10,279
10,404
10,708
18,788
12,327
11,931
11,514
11,435
17,158

GROUP O '(5,000 to 9,999) Sea Page 22
Adrian City School D is tric t......................
Alpena Public S c h o o ls .............................
Battle Creek Public S chools
.........
Bedford Public School D is tric t...............
Beecher Community School District . . . .
Benton Harbor Area S ch o o ls ..................
Berkley City School D is tric t....................
Bloomfield Hills School District .............
Brldgeport-Spaulding City School District
Brighton Area S c h o o ls.............................
Carman-Ainsworth Community Schools .
Chippewa Valley Schools.........................
Clarkston Community School D is tric t. . .
Clintondate Community S chools
Clio Area School D is tric t.........................
Oavison Community S c h o o ls ..................
East China Township School District . . .

5,695
8,349
9,406
6,761
5,589
9,961
6,186
8,373
5,064
5,398
7,838
5,293
7,007
5,420
5,527
5,854
5,145

East Detroit City School D istrict
Ferndale City School D is tric t..................
Flushing Community S c h o o ls ................
Forest Hills Public Schools......................
Fraser Public Schools..................... . . . .
Garden City School D is tric t
.........
Grand Blanc Community Schools .........
Grand Haven City School District .........
Grand Ledge Public S chools..................
Hazel Park City School D istrict..............
Highland Park City S ch o o ls....................
Holland City School D is tric t....................
Howell Public S c h o o ls.............................
Kentwood Public S ch o o ls.......................
L'Anse Creuse Public Schools................
Lake Orion Community School District .
Lakeshore Public S chools.......................
LakevieW Public S chools.........................
Lapeer Community S c h o o ls....................
Lincoln Park Public S c h o o ls ..................
Marquette City School D istrict................
Mona Shores School D is tric t..................
Monroe Public S c h o o ls ...........................
Mt. Clemens Community Schools
Muskegon City School D is tric t
—
Niles Community School D is tric t
Owosso Public School District ..............
Redford Union School D istrict................
Romeo Community S chools....................
Romulus Community S c h o o ls ................
Saginaw Twp. Community S ch o o ls
School District of Ypsilanti......................
Southgate Community School District ..
Swartz Creek Community S chools
Traverse City School D is tric t..................
Trenton Public S ch o o ls...........................
Van Buren Public S c h o o ls ......................
Van Dyke Public Schools ..............
Warren Woods Public S ch o o ls ...............
West Bloomfield School D is tric t
Wyandotte City School D is tric t...............
Wyoming Public S chools.........................

9,794
6,533
5,762
5,067
7,634
8,996
7,670
5,766
5.876
7,454
7,716
5,273
6,284
7,160
8,619
6,381
7,482
5,491
8,617
7,957
5,154
5,106
8,896
5,189
8,644
5,698
5,843
8,679
5.103
6,166
7,145
7,058
6,938
5,902
9,911
5,760
7,909
5,972
7,606
5,757
6,259
7,735

GROUP E (4,500 to 4,999) See Page 24
Anchor Bay School District ....................
Centerline Public S chools........................
East Lansing School D is tric t..................
Escanaba Area Public S ch o o ls...............
Holt Public S chools..................................
Jenison Public Schools ...........................
Kearsley Community S chools..................
Mt. Pleasant City School District . . . . . . .
Northville Public Schools.........................
Sault Ste. Marie Area Schools ...............

4,743
4,885
4,829
4,959
4,522
4,968
4,891
4,706
4,941
4.587

172

GROUP F (4,000 to 4,409) Soo Pago 20
Bangor Township School* ......................
Charlotte Public S chools.........................
Coldwater Community Schools
.........
Dearborn Heights Sch. Dlst. 7 ................
Fitzgerald Public S c h o o ls .......................
Gibraltar School D istrict...........................
Grandvilie Public S ch o o ls.......................
Hastings Area School District ................
Holly Area School D is tric t.......................
Huron School D is tric t..............................
Lakeview Consolidated School D istrict..
Lamphere Public S ch o o ls
...........
Melvindale Allen Park Schools ..............
Oak Park City School D is tric t................
Oscoda Area Schools
.......................
Rockford Public S chools.........................
South Lyon Community Schools
........
South Redford School D istrict................
St. Johns Public Schools ........................
Waverly S c h o o ls.......................................
West Ottawa Public School D istrict
Willow Run Community Schools
Woodhaven School D istrict......................

4,093
4,099
4,339
4,030
4,257
4,299
4,350
4,071
4,435
4,003
4,436
4,047
4,046
4,143
4,093
4,229
4,335
4,436
4,395
4,139
4.454
4,249
4.406

GROUP G (3,500 to 3,999) Sea Pag* 26
Allen Park Public Schools.................. .
Alma Public S chools................................
Avondale School D is tric t.........................
Cadillac Area Public Schools..................
Chesaning Union Schools.......................
Clawson City School D is tric t..................
Crestwood School D istrict....................
Dowagiac Union Schools.........................
Fruitport Community Schools ................
Greenville Public S ch o o ls.......................
Inkster City School D istrict......................
Lakeshore School D is tric t................ —
Madison Public Schools...........................
Mason Public S c h o o ls .............................
Mt. Morris Consolidated S ch o o ls
Northview Public School District ...........
Northwest School D is tric t........................
Oxford Area Community SchoolDistrict
Reeths Puffer Schools .............................
South Lake Schools ...............................
St. Joseph Public Schools ......................
Tecumseh Public S chools........................
Westwood Community S chools...............

3,981
3.560
3,551
3,926
3,733
3,508
3,667
3,845
3.801
3,691
3,964
3,938
3,897
3,503
3,612
3,588
3,960
3,504
3,999
3,767
3,713
3,644
3.636

GROUP H (3,000 to 3,499) See Paga 30
Airport Community School District .......
Albion Public Schools...............................
Algonac Community School D is tric t
Allegan Public Schools.............................
Caro Community S c h o o ls.......................
Cherry Hill School District .....................
City of Muskegon Heights SchoolDistrict
Coloma Community Schools ..................
Comstock Public S ch o o ls.......................

3,434
3,115
3,454
3,077
3,030
3.429
3,431
3,010
3.156

Durand Area Schools ..............................
Eaton Rapids Public Schools..................
Fenton Area Public S chools....................
Gwinn Area Community S c h o o ls
Harper Creek Community S chools
Hartland Consolidated S c h o o l................
Ionia Public S chools.................................
Kenowa Hills Public S chools
Lakeville Community School D istrict
Lakewood Public S chools.......................
Lowell Area School District ....................
Marshall Public Schools...........................
Novi Community Schools.........................
Okemos Public S chools...........................
Orchard View Schools .............................
Pinckney Community S ch o o ls................
...........
Pinconning Area Schools
River Rouge City S chools......................
Riverview Community School D is tric t..'.
Saline Area School D istrict......................
South Haven Public S ch o o ls..................
Sturgis City School District ....................
Three Rivers Community Schools . . . . . .

3,209
3,479
3,479
3,486
3,237
3,327
3,443
3,293
3,319
3,185
3,155
3,198
3,057
3,364
3,288
3,474
3,265
3,341
3,355
3,385
3,499
3,117
3,421

GROUP I (2,500 to 2,999) Sea Pag* 32
Belding Area School D is tric t..................
Birch Run Area School D istrict..............
Brandon School D istrict...........................
Breitung Township School D is tric t
Buena Vista School District ..................
Cedar Springs Public Schools................
Cheboygan Area Schools................. —
Chelsea School District ...........................
Chippewa Hills School D is tric t
Clarenceville School D istrict..............
Corunna Public School D istrict..............
Croswell Lexington Comm. School Dist.
East Grand Rapids Public S ch o o ls
Ecorse Public School District ................
Fremont Public School D is tric t..............
Gaylord Community Schools ..................
Gull Lake Community Schools ..............
Hillsdale Community Public Schools
Jefferson Schools-Monroe Co..................
Lincoln Consolidated School District . . .
Linden Community School D is tric t
Ludington Area School D istrict...............
Manistee Area Public S chools................
Marysville Public School District ...........
Menominee Area Public S c h o o l
1
Milan Area S c h o o ls..................................
Otsego Public S chools.............................
Plainwell Community S c h o o ls ................
Public Schools of Petoskey ....................
Sparta Area S ch o o ls ................................
Swan Valley School D is tric t
........
Vicksburg Community S c h o o ls ..............
West Branch Rose Ci’y Area Schools ..
Wayland Union S chools...............

2,607
2,683
2,964
2,512
2,712
2,549
2,807
2,663
2,745
2,860
2,975
2,729
2,753
2,799
2,722
2,695
2,905
2,645
2,774
2,987
2,724
2,930
2,536
2,510
2,790
2,873
2,816
2,778
2,736
2,654
2,606
2,946
2,763
2,604

173

GROUP J (2.000 to 2,499) Sea Pago 36
Bendle Public S ch o o ls.............................
2.056
Berrien Springs Public School D istrict..
2.294
Big Rapids Public S ch o o ls......................
2,370
Brandywine Public School D istrict
2,257
Buchanan Public School D is tric t
2,267
Bullock Creek School D is tric t................
2,280
Caledonia Community S c h o o ls .............. - 2,215
Cass City Public Schools .......................
2,138
Central Montcalm Public Schools .........
2,060
Colvmbia School D is tric t ......................
2.299
Coopersville Public School D is tric t
2,375
Crawford AuSable S ch o o ls......................
2,142
2,434
Delton Kellogg School District ...............
Oexter Community School D istrict
2,134
Edwards burg Public S ch o o ls..................
2,211
* Essexville Hampton School D is tric t
2,174
Fowlerville Community Schools...............
2,236
Gladstone Area S chools...........................
2,364
2,094
Gladwin Community S ch o o ls..................
Godwin Heights Public S c h o o ls
2,337
Grosse lie Township Schools..................
2,446
2,206
Hamtramck City S c h o o ls .........................
Harrison Community S chools..................
2,181
Haslett Public Schools
.........................
2,090
2,188
Hemlock Public School D istrict...............
Hudsonville Public School D istrict
2,452 ,
Ida Public School D is tric t
—
2,114
Imlay City Community S ch o o ls...............
2,344
Ironwood Area Schools ...........................
2,071
Kelloggsville Public S chools....................
2,187
Lake Fenton Schools ..............................
2,063
Lakeview Community S ch o o ls................
2,019
Mason Consolidated School D is tric t
2,132
Mattawan Consolidated School District .
2,069
Meridian Public Schools .........................
2,144
M illington Community S c h o o ls ..............
2,481
2,115
Montrose Community S chools. . .............
Negaunee Public S c h o o ls .......................
2,044
2,436
North Branch Area S c h o o ls .................
................
2,405
Ovid Elsie Area Schools
Parchment School D istrict.......................
2,151
Paw Paw Public School D is tric t
2,445
Pennfield School D is tric t.........................
2,094
Perry Public School D is tric t....................
2,048
Portland Public School D istrict..............
2,279
Public Schools of C alum et......................
2,024
Reed City Public S c h o o ls .......................
2,119
Richmond Community S chools...............
2,016
River Valley School District ....................
2,053
Shepherd Public School D istrict
2,001
Spring Lake Public School D is tric t
2,162
Standtsh Sterling Comm. Sch. Dist
2,343
Stockbridge Community S c h o o ls
2,170
Thornapple Kellogg School D istrict
2,077
Vassar Public Schools
.......................
2,356
Western School D is tric t...........................
2,380
Whitehall School D is tric t.........................
2,167
Yale Public Schools..................................
2,247
Zeeland Public S c h o o ls ...........................
2,469

GROUP K (1,500 to 1,999) See Page 36
Addison Community S chools..................
Almont Community S ch o o ls....................
Armada Area S ch o o ls
..................
Atherton Community School D is tric t
Bad Axe Public Schools
..............
Bangor Public S chools...........................
Beaverton Rural S ch o o ls
...................
Bently Community School D is tric t
Benzie County Central Schools..................
Blissfield Community S c h o o ls...................
Boyne City Public School D is tric t
Breckenridge Community S c h o o ls
Bronson Community School D is tric t
Byron Center Public S chools.....................
Capac Community School D is tric t
Carrollton School District .......................
Carson City Crystal Area School Dist. ..
Cassopolis Public Schools .........................
Charlevoix Public Schools..........................
Clare Public S chools
.....................
Comstock Park Public S chools..............
Constantine Public School District .......
DeWitt Public Schools ................................
Dundee Community Schools .....................
East Jackson Public S chools.....................
Elkton Pigeon Bayport School D istric t..
Farwell Area Schools ..................................
Fennville Public S c h o o ls .........................
Flat Rock Community S c h o o ls ..................
Frankenmuth School District ..................
Freeland Community School D istrict
Galesburg Augusta Community Schools
Gerrish Higgins School D istrict..................
Goodrich Area School D istrict................
Grant Public School D istrict.......................
Hamilton Community S c h o o ls ....................
Hart Public School D is tric t.........................
Hartford Public School D is tric t..................
Houghton Lake Community S chools
tshpeming Public School D is tric t
Ithaca Public S ch o o ls...............................
Kalkaska Public Schools ............................
Kent City Community S chools....................
Leslie Public S c h o o ls ..................................
Manistique Area S ch o o ls............................
Maple Valley School District ..................
Marlette Community S ch o o ls.....................
Mason County Central School D is tric t..
Mayville Community S c h o o ls .....................
Michigan Center School D is tric t...
Montabella Community School District .
Montague Area Public Schools...............
N I C E Community S ch o o ls.....................
Napoleon Community S chools....................
North Dearborn Heights School District
Oakridge Public S ch o o ls............................
Onsted Community S chools.......................
Quincy Community School D is tric t
Sandusky Community School D is tric t...

1,608
1,547
1,673
1,931
1,664
1,602
1,868
1,985
1,907
1,782
1,540
1.555
1,607
1,630
1,700
1,991
1,666
1,958
1,714
1,787
1,707
1,666
1.928
1,949
1.850
1.571
1,562
1,825
1,607
1,529
1,713
1,511
1,656
1,659
1,761
1,729
1,899
1,542
1,753
1,696
1,949
1.889
1,545
1.827
1,812
1,958
1.841
1,783
1,655
1,799
1,593
1,735
1,849
1.833
1.644
1,891
1.718
1,522
1,628

174

Shelby Public S c h o o ls .............................
SI. Charles Community Schools ...........
St. Louis Public S ch o o ls.........................
Tahquamenon Area Schools....................
Tawas Area Schools
.............................
Tri County Area S ch o o ls .........................
Union City Community School D istrict..
Watervliet School District .......................
West Iron County School D istrict
Westwood Heights School D is tric t
White Pigeon Community School Dist. .
Whittemore Prescott Area School District
Williamston Community Schools

1.559
1.756
1,866
1.792
1.882
1.668
1.554
1,552
1,827
1,866
1,537
1,540
1.884

GROUP L (1,000 to 1,499) See Page 30
Alcona Community Schools ....................
Athens Area S chools................................
Bath Community Schools .......................
Bellevue Community School D is tric t
Bloomingdale Public School D istrict—
Brown City Community School District .
Byron Area Schools — .........................
City of Harper Woods S c h o o ls..............
Clinton Community S ch o o ls....................
Coleman Community School D istrict—
Colon Community School D is tric t
Concord Community S c h o o ls ....
Dansville Agricultural S c h o o l..................
Decatur Public Schools ...........................
Deckerville Community School D istrict..
East Jordan Public School D is tric t
Eau Claire Public S c h o o ls
.............
Elk Rapids S c h o o ls ..................................
Evart Public S chools................................
Fulton Schools...........................................
Gobles Public School D is tric t................
Godfrey Lee Public School D is tric t
Hancock Public Schoojs .........................
Hanover Horton Schools .........................
Harbor Beach Community S c h o o ls
Hesperia Community School D istrict—
Holton Public Schools ........
Homer Community Schools ....................
Hopkins Public S chools...........................
Hudson Area S ch o o ls..............................
Iron Mountain City School District .......
Jonesville Community Schools ..............
L'Anse Township School D is tric t
Laingsburg Community School District .
■ Lake City Area School District ..............
Mancelona Public S c h o o ls .....................
Manchester Community School District .
Marcellus Community S chools................
Memphis Community S ch o o ls................
Merrill Community School D is tric t
Morenci Area Schools...............................
Morley Stanwood Community S chools..
Munising Public S chools.........................
New Buffalo Area School D istrict
New Haven Community S chools.............
New Lothrop Area Public School Dist. .

1,346
1,017
1,361
1.304
1,376
1,267
1,403
1,233
1,287
1,441
1,090
1,162
1,100
1,384
1,152
1,285
1,166
1,127
1.267
1,199
1,139
1,201
1,142
1,425
1,133
1,152
1,107
1.327
1,166
1.492
1,461
1,341
1,134
1,159
1,159
1,137
1.359
1,138
1.215
1.455
1,090
1.348
1.441
1.235
1.366
1,479

Newaygo Public School D is tric t
North Muskegon Public Schools ...........
Olivet Community Schools ......................
Onaway Area Community School D ist...
Ontonagon Area S chools.........................
Pine River Area S c h o o ls .........................
Portage Township School District . . . . . .
Ravenna Public Schools .........................
Reading Community S ch o o ls..................
Reese Public S ch o o ls...............................
Rogers City Area S ch o o ls........................
Rudyard Area Schools .............................
Saranac Community S chools..................
Springfield City School D is tric t...............
Springport Public Schools ......................
St. Ignace City School D is tric t...............
Stephenson Area Public S c h o o ls
Summerfield School D is tric t...................
Ubly Community S chools..................
Unionville Sebewaing Area School Dist.
Vandercook Lake Public School Dist. ..
White Cloud Public Schools....................
Whiteford Agricultural School District ..
Whitmore Lake Public School District ..

GROUP M (500 to 999) See Page 40
Adams Township School D is tric t
Akron Fairgrove Schools
..................
Allendale Public School D is tric t
Arenac Eastern School D istrict'
.....
Ashley Community S chools......................
Atlanta Community S c h o o ls ....................
Au Gres Sims School D is tric t................
Baldwin Community S c h o o ls..................
Baraga Township School O is tric t
Bark River Harris School D is tric t
Beal City S c h o o l........................................
Bear Lake School D is tric t
Bellaire Public School .............................
Bessemer City School D is tric t................
Big Bay De Noc School D is tric t
Bridgman Public School .........................
Britton Macon Area School D istrict
Camden Frontier School .........................
Carsonville Port Sanilac School District
Central Lake Public S c h o o ls ..................
Centreville Public Schools
.............
Climax Scotts Community S c h o o ls
Covert Public Schools ............
Deerfield Public S c h o o ls ................
Dryden Community S c h o o ls.................... •
Engadine Consolidated S c h o o ls
Ewen Trout Creek Con. Sch. Dist
Fairview Area School D is tric t..................
Forest Area Community School D istrict.
Forest Park School D istrict.....................
Fowler Public S c h o o ls .............................
Frankfort Area S chools.............................
Galien Township School D istrict.............
Genesee School D is tric t...........................

1.350
1,014
1,294
1,334
1,376
1,369
1,307
1,385
1,158
1,270
1,339
1,010
1,122
1,298
1.180
1,027
1,281
1,326
1,364
1,198
1,355
1,310
1,098,
1,148

596
971
812
636
592
628
594
974
829
825
722
522
605
564
563
888
604
790
844
5*99
973
819
745
526
837
533
722
509
629
892
815
850
840
845

175

GROUP N (Below 500) See Page 42
Alba Public School ...................................
Arvon Township School D is tric t
Autrain Township S chool................
Bangor Township School District 8 .......
Beaver Island Community Schools
Bergland Community School District . . .
Berlin Township School District 3 F
Berlin Township School District 5 F
Bessemer Township School District . . . .
Big Jackson School D is tric t....................
Bloomfield Township School District 4 .
Bloomfield Township School Dist. 7 F . . .
Bois Blanc Pines School District .......

215
78
136
23
54
240
49
11
215
64
17
25
6

Boyne Falls Public School District .......
255
Brimley Public Schools ........................
493
Buckley Community School District ___
305
Burr Oak Community School D is tric t. . .
411
Burt Township School .............................
141
Campbell Township School District 4 . . .
20
358
Carney Nadeau Public S chools........
Caseville Public S c h o o ls..................
306
Chassell Township School D istrict..........
377
Church S ch o o l.....................................
31
Colfax Township School District 1F —
29
Covington School D is tric t.................
141
Cross Village School D is tric t
39
Detour Area S ch o o ls..........................
441
Duck Creek School-Muskegon County ..
141
Easton Township School District 6 F ___
29
Ellsworth Community S chools..........
278
Elm River Township S c h o o l ................
50
Excelsior Township School District 1 . . .
56
Falmouth Elementary School District . . .
100
Ferry Community School D is tric t
194
Fredonia'Township School District 2 . . .
20
Freesoil Community School District ___
224
38
Ganges Township School District 4
Grant Township S c h o o ls ..................
27
Green Lake Township School Dist. 1F..
63
Hagar Township School District 6 ...
71
Ionia Township School District 2 F
73
Ionia Township School District 5 ....
38
Leland Public School District ................
321
Les Cheneaux Community School D is t..
463
Littlefield Public SchoolD is tric t
455
Mackinac Island Public S chools
136
Mackinaw City Public Schools ..............
256
Marenisco School D is tric t.................
148
Mar-Lee Consolidated Schools ................
310
244
Marquette Township School D is tric t___
154
Mathias Township School D is tric t..........
Moran Township SchoolD istrict
197
Northport Public SchoolD istrict
298
Nottawa Community S chools............
147
13
Oneida Township School District 3 .
Orleans Township School District 10. . .
28
Orleans Township School District 9
24
Osceola Township School D is tric t..........
425
Owendale Gagetown Area School District
468
Palo Community School D is tric t..............
169
Pentwater Public School District ...........
324
Pickford Public S chools....................
433
Pineview School District .........................
100
Port Austin Public Schools...............
328
Port Hope Community S chools........
209
Posen Consolidated School District ___
479
Powell Township School District ...........
128
Red S c h o o l..........................................
27
Republic Michigamme S chools........
486
Rock River Limestone School Oistrict 7
450
Roxand Township School Oistrict 12 . . .
24
Sheridan Township School District 5 . . .
28
Sigel Township School District 3 ....
31
Sigel Township School District 4 ....
35
_

797
975
810
886
713
912
747
777
765
865
736
831
935
794
864
836
928
917
696
735
906
775
561
892
978
767
857
639
666
953
751
685
866
970
833
939
737
989
742
923
757
660
929
720
585
852

_

Glen Lake Community School District ..
Grass Lake Community S chools
Hale Area S c h o o ls....................................
Harbor Springs School D is tric t...............
Hillman Community S chools....................
Inland Lakes School District ..................
Johannesburg-Lewiston S ch o o ls.............
Kaleva Norman-Dickson Schools
Kingsley Area School ...............................
Kingston Community School D istrict—
Lake Linden Hubbell School District . . .
Lawrence Public School D istrict
Lawton Community School D is tric t
Litchfield Community S ch o o ls................
Madison School District
. A ' . ........... Manton Consolidated S ch o o ls.................
Marion Public S ch o o ls.........................
Martin Public Schools...............................
Mason County Eastern School D istrict..
McBain Rural Agricultural School Dist. .
Mendon Community School District —
Mesick Consolidated School District —
Mid Peninsula School D is tric t................
Mio Au Sable S c h o o ls .............................
Morrice Area S ch o o ls................
North Adams Public S ch o o ls..................
North Central Area S c h o o ls ....................
North Dickinson County School District
North Huron School D istrict....................
Norway Vulcan Area S chools..................
Onekema Consolidated Schools — . . . .
Peck Community School District ...........
Petlston Public School D is tric t...............
Pewamo Westphalia Comm. Sch. D ist...
Pittsford Area Schools .............................
Potterville Public S c h o o ls ........................
Rapid River Public S c h o o ls ....................
Sand Creek Community Schools ...........
........
. Saugatuck Public S chools
Schoolcraft Community S chools
Suttons Bay Public School D is tric t
Tekonsha Community Schools.................
Vestaburg Community S c h o o ls...............
Wakefield Township School District . . . .
Waldron Area Schools .............................
Webberville Community S chools.............

176

Sigel Township School District 6 ...........
Sodus Township School District 5 .........
St. Ignace Township School D is tric t....
Stanton Township School O is tric t.........
Vanderbilt Area School.............................
Verona Township School District 1F___

32
65
129
165
412
45

Walkerville Rural Community Sch. Dist..
Watersmeet Township School District ..
Wells Township School District..............
White Pine School D is tric t.....................
Whitelish S chools.....................................
Wolverine Community School D is tric t...

443
227
65
467
113
426

177
MAP: Geographical Distribution o f
Sample School D is tric ts Groups B-G-M

MilQUlMI

lilll

MC»4u(

iH(

01(03*

KOtCOMMON o c r w ' *

>uuu«

OCIIM

■IQIAM

*N»L AC

3I1A1M

IMCHA»

ildlON

VAN •U*CN

IIIM N

Ctlt

II JOM*«

IOi.1

•INK

178
TABULATION FORM
DISTRICT:________________________________________

GROUP:_

LOCATI ON:__________________ ________________________ r .
(county)
(region)
POPULATION:_________ _____________ ________________________
(d is tr ic t size)
NOTES:

179

Support:

Leadership:

Budye t

Shared Chair
Alternate Chair

Clerical

Majority Chair

Supplies

Elected Chair

Other

’Authority:
Advisory
_Final authority
_Appoint subcommittees
_Formal action (vote)
Informal action (discussion)
Related Contract Provisions;
1.

Departmental Chairpersons
(Article, Section, Page)

-__________________
(Article, Section, Page)

2.

Innovative and Experimental Programs

3.

Board Rights and R esponsibilities_____________________
(Article, Section, Page)

DISTRICT:

>

Location:
Population:

(county)

(Univserv)

»___________ **
“^'district size)

______ ___________
(# teachers) ;

History oft Bargaining:

____________ __________________
(1st contract)
(# contracts)

_L
S

Salary Information:

_______________ (beginning)
_______________ (middle)
______________

(top)

• _______________ (average)

H
L

Joint Instructional Council Provisions:
______________ (first JIC provision)
______________ (# contract)
Description of provision:

Notes for Hypotheses:
1/

2/

3/

4/

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerly, R. L ., & Johnson, W. S. C ritic a l issues in negotiations leg is ­
la tio n . NASSP B u lle tin , 1969.
Alfonso, R. Collective negotiation in curriculum and instruction.
gotiation Research Digest, May, 1969.

Ne­

American Association of School Administrators. Roles, re s p o n s ib ilitie s ,
and relationships of the school board, superintendent, and s ta ff.
Washington, D. C.: 1963.
Ashby, L. W., McGinnis, J. E ., & Persing, T. E. What is negotiable?
Common sense in negotiations in public education. D anville, I l l i ­
nois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, In c ., 1972.
Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development. ASCD resolution.
22nd Annual Conference, Dallas, Texas, March 1967. In Bishop, L.J.
C ollective negotiation in curriculum and instruction: Questions
and concerns. Washington, D. C.: 967.
Barnard, C. I . The functions of the executive.
setts: Harvard University Press, 1938.

Cambridge, Massachu­

Bennion, J. W. Curriculum administrators and negotiations. Educational
Leadership, January 1969, 349.
Bridges, E. M. A model fo r shared decision making in the school p rin cipalship. Educational Administration Q uarterly, Winter 1967, I I I
1, 51.
B ulletin 1011. Analysis of Michigan public school revenues and expendi­
tures. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education, 1978.
Burket, C. A. The relationship between teacher morale and democratic
school administration. Unpublished doctoral dissertatio n , Univer­
s ity of Pittsburgh, 1965.
Campbell, R. F ., Corbally, J. E ., & Ramseyer, J. A. Introduction to
educational adm inistration, 3rd edition . Boston: Allyn & Bacon,
In c ., 1966.
Cheng, C. W. Altering co lle ctive bargaining.
lish ers, 1976.
Coch, L ., & French, J. R.
tio n s, 1948, X» 4.

New York:

Praeger Pub­

Overcoming resistance to change.
181

Human Rela­

182

Cogan, C. There is no l i m i t . . . In Epstein, B.
Washington, D. C.: NASSP, NEA, 1969.

What is negotiable?

Corey, A. F. Responsibility of the organized profession fo r improvement
of instruction. Pennsylvania School Journal, May 1968, 116, 514.
Edwards, H. The emerging duty to bargain in the public sector.
gan Law Review, A p ril, 1973, 71_.

Michi­

Elkouri, F ., & Elkouri, E. A. Standards fo r interpreting contract lan­
guage. How a rb itra tio n works, 3rd ed itio n . Washington, D. C.:
Bureau of National A ffa irs , 1973.
Epstein, B.

What is negotiable?

Washington, D. C.:

NASSP, NEA, 1969.

Hecker, S ., e t al_. Survey o f selected provisions from 480 teacher
school board agreements, 1968-69. Research Report MR-26, 1968-69.
East Lansing: Michigan Education Association, 1969.
Homes, M. J. The K-12 curriculum director in Michigan: his character­
is tic s and his self-perceptions of leader behavior with respect to
s ta ff development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1971.
Hottleman, G. D. Negotiations in curriculum and instruction: another
step up on the professional ladder. Negotiatinq fo r professionalizatio n . Washington, D. C.: National Commission on TeacherEduca­
tion and Professional Standards, NEA, 1970.
Hough, W. M. Better curriculum through negotiation?
dership, March 1969, 26, 534.

Educational Lea­

Howlett, R. G. Address to Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service,
A tlanta, Georgia, January 23, 1969. In Negotiating fo r profession­
a liz a tio n . Washington, D. C.: National Commission on Teacher Edu­
cation and Professional Standards, NEA, 1970.
Indiana Public Employee Relations Act (IC 20, Sec. 1, 1973).
Jackson, S. Shared curriculum decision making and professional negotia­
tions. NEA. Bethesda, Maryland: ERIC Document Reproduction Ser­
vice, ED 083 731, April 1974.
James, T. The states struggle to define scope of teacher bargaining.
Phi Delta Kappan, October 1975, 57, 2, 94-95.
Johansen, J. H. The relationship between teachers' perceptions of in ­
fluence in local curriculum decision-making and curriculum imple­
mentation. Journal of Educational Research, October 1967, 61, 2, 81.
Johnson, E. D. An analysis of factors related to teacher s atisfactio n dissatisfactio n. Unpublished doctoral dissertation , Auburn Univer­
s ity , 1967.

183
Kaczka, E ., & Kirk, R. Managerial clim ate, work groups, and organiza­
tional performance. Administrative Science Quarterly. Fall 1967.
Kay, W. F. The need fo r lim itatio ns upon the scope of negotiations in
public education. Journal of Law and Education. January 1973. 2,
1, 155-75.
Kornbluh, H. Bargaining the goals of education and teachers.
education (AFT), Fall 1973, 22-25.

Changing

Lambert, S. Report on negotiations le g is la tio n . In Readings in public
school c o llective bargaining. Washington, D. C.~. Educational
Service Bureau, Inc.
Lieberman, M. A new look at the scope o f negotiations.
ment, Dec. 12, 1972, 8.
L ik e rt, R.

New patters o f management.

New York:

School manage­

McGraw-Hill, 1961.

L itc h fie ld , E. H. Notes on a general theory of administration.
is tr a tiv e Science Q uarterly, June 1956, I_, 1, 3-29.

Admin­

Livingston, F. R ., & W o llett, D. H. NEA attorneys urge that New Jersey
commission recognize differences between public and private sectors.
Washington, D. C.: BNA, M ay'l, 1967, No. 190, GERR E -l.
McDonnel, L ., & Pascal, A. Organized teachers in American schools. Re­
port prepared fo r the National In s titu te of Education, R-2407-NIE.
Santa Monica, C alifo rn ia: Rand, February 1979.
McGregor, D. In Trewatha, R. L. & Newport, M. G. Management functions
and behavior. Dallas, Texas: Business Publications, In c ., 1976.
M etzler, J. The need fo r lim ita tio n upon the scope of negotiations in
public education, I . Journal o f Law and Education, January 1973,
2, 1, 139-140.
Michigan Public Employment Relations Act, Act 336 of the Public Acts of
1947 as amended: Sec. 11 (423.211) Exclusive Bargaining Represen­
ta tiv e s , Rights of Individual Employees; Sec. 15 (423.215) Collec­
tiv e Bargaining Duty of Employer, What Constitutes Bargaining.
Michigan teacher bargaining units.
Association, November 1978.

East Lansing:

Michigan Education

M ille r , W. C ., & Newbury, D. N. Teacher negotiations: a guide fo r bar­
gaining teams. West Nyack, New York: Parker Publishing Company,
In c ., 1970.
Minnesota Public Employees Relations Act of 1971 (MSA, Ch. 33, 179.61).
Montana Public Employment Relations Act (T it le 39, Ch. 31, Parts 1-4,
MCA 1973).

184
Mount Morris Education Association. Case No. 13414, April 22, 1969.
Reported in Government Employees1 Relations Report, No. 269, May
12, 1969, B5-6.
National Association of Shawnee Mission, Inc. v. Board o f Education of
Shawnee Mission Unified School Board, No. 512-48462; December 1971.
Negotiations Notebook.
1979-80.

East Lansing:

Michigan Education Association,

Noble, K. R. Perceived areas of influence of jo in t curriculum commit­
tees established in selected teacher contracts. Unpublished doc­
toral dissertatio n , Michigan State University, 1971.
North Dearborn Heights School D is tric t and Local 1439, North Dearborn
Heights Federation of Teachers, C66 E-46, 1965-66 Labor Opinions,
Michigan Labor Mediation Board, 445.
Ohlendorf, K. H. Negotiating fo r instruction in Michigan. Negotiating
fo r professionalization. Washington, D. C.: National Commission
on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, NEA, 1970.
Owens, R. G. Organizational behavior in schools.
New Jersey: P ren tice-H all, In c ., 1970.

Englewood C liff s ,

Pegnetter, R. Lecture. LIR 841, Collective Bargaining in Public Em­
ployment. East Lansing: Michigan State U niversity, Summer, 1979.
P e ltie r, G. L. Teacher particip atio n in curriculum revision: a his­
to ric a l case study. History of Education Quarterly, Summer 1967,
7, 215.
Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. State College Area School D is tric t
Case No. PERA-C-929-C, October 1971.
Redmond, L. A comparison of teachers’ perceptions of curriculum devel­
opment in selected d is tric ts with and without curriculum councils.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation , Michigan State University, 1969.
Salz, A. Policy making under decentralization: the role o f c o lle ctive
bargaining a t the local le v e l. The Urban Review, June 1969.
School D is tric t of Seward Education Association v. School D is tric t of
Seward, 199 N W2d, 752; 1972.
S hils, E. B ., & W h ittier, C. T. Teachers, administrators, and collec­
tiv e bargaining. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1968.
Simons, H. A. Administrative behavior: a study o f decision-making
processes in adm inistrative organization. New York: The Macm illan Company, 1945.

185
Sperling, J. G. C ollective bargaining and the teaching-learning process.
AFT Quest Paper on COl1ective Bargaining and the Teaching-Learning
Process, 1970.
Steele, M. H. Has c o lle c tive bargaining contributed to instructional
improvement in Michigan schools? Unpublished doctoral dissertation
Michigan State U niversity, 1969.
Steele, M. Recommendations fo r instructional provisions related d ire c t­
ly to research. Unpublished paper prepared fo r Michigan Education
Association, May 1969.
Stoops, E ., & R afferty, M. L. Practices and trends in school adminis­
tra tio n . Boston: Ginn and Co. , 1961.
T aft-H artley Act o f 1947 (Sec. 8—d) 29 USC 141; June 23, 1947.
U. S. Department of Labor. Labor-Management Services Administration.
Summary of public sector labor relations policies. 1979.
van Geel, T. Authority to control the school program. Lexington, Mas­
sachusetts: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath & Company, 1976.
Wellington, H. H. In Lieberman, M. A new look at the scope of negotia­
tions. School Management. December 12, 1972, 8.
West, A. We take the p o s itio n ... In Epstein, B.
Washington, D. C.: NASSP, NEA, 1969.
Wildman. W. A. What's negotiable?
vember 1967, 155, 7-10.

What is negotiable?

American School Board Journal, No­

W illiam s, R. C. An academic a lte rn a tiv e to c o lle c tiv e negotiations.
Phi Delta Kappan, June 1968, 49, 10, 571.
Young, W. F. Curriculum negotiations: present status; future trends.
Educational Leadership, January 1969, 26, 314-23.
Ziemer, R. H ., & Thompson, A. G. Impact of co llec tive bargaining on
curriculum -instruction. Report No. 1975-2. National School Boards
Association (NSBA), 1975.