INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming.
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify 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 film along with adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages
to assure complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an
indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure,
duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in
the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed,
a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. 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 illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic
means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.

University
Microfilms
International
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

8507485

C u s h m a n , J e r r y L.

A FORECAST O F FUTURE FRINGE BENEFITS AND RELATED
DEVELOPMENTS FOR MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Ph.D. 1984

A FORECAST OF FUTURE FRINGE BENEFITS AND RELATED
DEVELOPMENTS FOR MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS
By
J e r r y L. Cushman

A DISSERTATION
Subm itted t o
Michigan S t a t e U n iv e rs ity
1n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e re q u ire m e n ts
f o r t h e d e g re e of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f E d ucatio nal A d m in is tra tio n
1984

ABSTRACT
A FORECAST OF FUTURE FRINGE BENEFITS AND RELATED
DEVELOPMENTS FOR MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS
By
J e r r y L. Cushman

The pu rpose o f t h i s s tu d y was t o f o r e c a s t p o t e n t i a l changes 1n
s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r t e a c h e r s 1n M ichigan's K-12 p u b lic school
d i s t r i c t s and* second, r e l a t e d developm ents t h a t may have a p o s i t i v e o r
n e g a tiv e In f lu e n c e on f r i n g e b e n e f i t t r e n d s f o r M ichigan's p u b lic
s c h o o ls .

S p e c if ic a l ly * t h e s tu d y a tte m p te d t o d e te rm in e what f r i n g e

b e n e f i t s and r e l a t e d developm ents a r e l i k e l y t o occu r In t h e 1980s*
1990s* and beyond t h e y e a r 2000.
Two groups o f re s p o n d e n ts were used 1n t h e stu d y :

a nonrandom

p o p u la tio n o f e m p lo y e e -b e n e flt a d m i n i s t r a t o r s from Michigan school
d i s t r i c t s w ith 10*000 o r more s t u d e n t e n r o llm e n t and MEA u n ls e rv d i r e c ­
t o r s s e r v in g t e a c h e r un ion s s e l e c t e d from t h e g e o g ra p h ic a l a r e a s o f t h e
s e l e c t e d school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

The approach used t o e l i c i t resp o n ses

from t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s was a f o r e c a s t i n g pro cedu re known a s t h e Delphi
te c h n iq u e .
The r e s u l t s of d a ta a n a l y s i s le d t o t h e fo llo w in g f i n d i n g s :
The decade o f t h e 1980s w i l l s e e h e a l t h - r e l a t e d b e n e f i t s as t h e
m ajor b e n e f i t a r e a o f I n t e r e s t .

The 1990s w i l l change t o an emphasis

J e r r y L. Cushman
on economic b e n e f i t s w ith secondary I n t e r e s t focused on h e a l t h - r e l a t e d
and p r o f e s s i o n a l b e n e f i t s .

Beyond t h e y e a r 2000 and never* fa m ily -

r e l a t e d and person al b e n e f i t s may r e c e iv e a t t e n t i o n .
Local and re g io n a l developm ents w i l l r e c e iv e m ajor a t t e n t i o n 1n
t h e 1980s.

The 1990s w i l l g iv e equal a t t e n t i o n t o l o c a l / r e g i o n a l *

s ta te * and n a tio n a l developm ents.

Of t h e 30 developm ents o f I n t e r e s t

1n t h i s study* seven s t a t e and f i v e lo c a l o r r e g io n a l developm ents were
n o t f o r e c a s t e d t o o c cu r u n t i l beyond t h e y e a r 2000 o r n e v e r.
The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and union members were v ery p o la r iz e d on t h e
f u t u r e o c c u rre n c e o f t h r e e lo c a l and reg io n al* fo u r s ta t e * and t h r e e
n a tio n a l developm ents.
The r e l a t e d f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents w i l l f in d t h e g r e a t e s t
number o f c o n f l i c t s a t t h e lo c a l* re g io n a l* and s t a t e l e v e l s between
t h e Michigan Education A s s o c ia tio n and lo c a l bo ard s o f e d u c a tio n .
C o n f l i c t s f o r t h e n a tio n a l developm ents a r e e q u a lly d iv id e d between
lo c a l e d u c a tio n a s s o c i a t i o n s v e rs u s lo c a l boards o f education* t h e
Michigan Education A s s o c ia tio n v e rs u s lo c a l boards o f education* and
t h e N ational Education A s s o c ia tio n v e rs u s l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n .

P la n n in g f o r t h e F u tu re
. . .

I s t h e F u tu re l
Unknown

T h is s tu d y I s d e d ic a te d t o my wife* Joy.

Because o f h e r love*

s a c r i f i c e * and encouragement* t h i s work was co n tin u e d and com pleted.
To my c h ild re n * Kerry* Derek* Karen* and Brenda* I e x p re s s my
g r a t i t u d e and a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r t h e i r p a tie n c e and s a c r i f i c e s endured
th ro u g h o u t t h e many y e a r s o f my g ra d u a te stu dy .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish t o th an k t h e many peo p le who have c o n t r i b u t e d so much t o
t h e advancement of my e d u c a tio n over t h e y e a r s .
My p aren ts* who gave me t h e o p p o r tu n i ty t o go t o c o l l e g e many
y e a r s ago.

T h e ir s a c r i f i c e s w i l l always be remembered.

Donald Johnson* who was a f r i e n d and high school p r i n c i p a l and
t o l d me* "You should go I n t o t e a c h i n g . "
S in c e re a p p r e c i a t i o n 1s extended t o t h e G r e e n v i lle School
D i s t r i c t f o r t h e s u p p o r t and encouragem ent t o c o n tin u e my g r a d u a te
p u rsu its.
The members o f my committee* Drs. S ta n le y Hecker* Glen Cooper*
and R obert Poland* who had t h e p a tie n c e t o g u id e me th ro u g h t h i s
p ro je c t.
F in a lly * my d e e p e s t g r a t i t u d e and a p p r e c i a t i o n t o Dr. Fred
Ignatovich* who se rv e d a s t h e c h a ir p e r s o n o f my d o c to ra l com m itte e .
1s only th ro u g h h i s encouragem ent and guid an ce t h a t t h i s s tu d y was
com pleted.

It

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................

v iii

LIST OF F IG U R E S ....................................................................................................

x

LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................................

xi

C hapter
I.

II.

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

1

I n tr o d u c ti o n ........................................................................................
Im portance o f t h e S t u d y ..............................................................
Purpose o f t h e S t u d y .......................................................................
Research Q u e stio n s
.......................................................................
P ro ce d u ra l S te p s and Methods .....................................................
D e f i n i t i o n o f Im p o rta n t Terms .................................................
L i m ita tio n s o f t h e S t u d y ..............................................................
Overview o f t h e D i s s e r t a t i o n .....................................................

1
4
5
5
7
9
14
16

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE........................................................

18

I n t r o d u c t i o n ........................................................................................
F rin g e B e n e f i t Trends ..................................................................
F rin g e B e n e f i t s and Employee A t t i t u d e s ...............................
Major F rin g e B e n e f i t s ..................................................................
H ealth M aintenance O rg a n iz a tio n s ........................................
S1ck L e a v e ........................................................................................
Dental I n s u ra n c e ...........................................................................
Teacher I n - S e r v i c e ( P r o f e s s io n a l Development) . . .
Michigan P u b lic S c h o o ls ' F rin g e B e n e f i t s ...........................
S u m m a r y .............................................................................................
F rin g e B e n e f i t Developments .....................................................
C o l l e c t i v e B arg ain in g ..............................................................
S t a t e and Fed eral L e g i s l a t i o n .............................................
S e l f - I n s u r a n c e ...............................................................................
F l e x i b l e ( C a f e t e r l a - S t y l e ) In s u ra n c e ...............................
R e t r ie v a l B a rg a in in g ..................................................................
Sources o f F u n d i n g ...........................................................................
S u m m a r y .................................................................................................

18
18
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
36
37
40
42
44
46

v

Page

III.

IV.

V.

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

53

I n tr o d u c ti o n ........................................................................................
Overview o f Methodology ..............................................................
P o p u la tio n and Sample ..................................................................
Development o f t h e Q u e s tio n n a ir e s ........................................
Data C o l l e c t i o n ...............................................................................
Treatm ent o f t h e D a t a ..................................................................
F rin g e B e n e f i t s and Developments ........................................
D e s i r a b i l i t y .................. . .............................................................
O rg a n iz a tio n a l F a c to rs ..............................................................
S u m m a r y .....................................................................

53
54
56
59
60
62
62
65
66
67

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

69

F rin g e B e n e f i t s ...............................................................................
Topical Groupings o f F rin g e B e n e f i t s ...............................
Summary o f F o re c a ste d Med1an-T1me-Interval Changes .
Summary o f S e m i - I n t e r q u a r t i l e Changes ..........................
Summary o f Median T e s t . . . . .....................
R elated F rin g e B e n e f i t Developments ....................................
T opical Groupings o f F rin g e B e n e f i t Developments . .
Summary o f Med1an-T1me-Interval Changes ......................
Summary o f S e m 1 -I n te r q u a r t1 le Changes ..........................
Summary o f Median T e s t ..................................
D e s i r a b i l i t y o f F rin g e B e n e f it Developments ..................
O rg a n iz a tio n s Opposing o r S up po rting F rin ge B e n e f it
Developments ....................................................................................
S u m m a r y .................................................................................................

70
71
79
81
83
84
85
93
94
96
98

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

108
Ill

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS..................................................................

112

General Comments ...............................................................................
Summary o f Trends f o r t h e 1980s
H e a lth - R e la te d B e n e f i t s ..........................................................
Economic B e n e f i t s .......................................................................
F am ily-R elated and P erso nal B e n e f i t s ...............................
P r o f e s s io n a l B e n e f i t s ..............................................................
Summary o f F rin g e B e n e f it Developments In t h e 1980s .
Local and Regional D e v e l o p m e n t s ........................................
S t a t e D e v e lo p m e n ts .......................................................................
N ational Developments ..............................................................
Summary o f t h e 1 9 8 0 s .......................................................................
Summary o f F u tu re Trends f o r t h e 1 9 9 0 s ...............................
H e a lth - R e la te d B e n e f i t s ..........................................................
Economic B e n e f i t s .......................................................................
F a m ily -R elated and P erso nal B e n e f i t s ...............................
P r o f e s s io n a l B e n e f i t s ..............................................................

114
115
115
116
117
117
118
118
119
120
120
121
121
122
123
124

vi

Page

Summary o f F rin g e B e n e f it Developments 1n t h e 1990s .
Local and Regional D e v e l o p m e n t s ........................................
S t a t e D e v e lo p m e n ts ......................................................................
N atio nal Developments ..............................................................
Summary o f t h e 1 9 9 0 s ......................................................................
Summary o f F u tu r e Trends f o r Beyond t h e Year 2000
and N e v e r ........................................................................................
H e a lth -R e la te d B e n e f i t s .........................................................
Economic B e n e f i t s ......................................................................
F a m ily -R elated and P ersonal B e n e f it s ...............................
P r o f e s s io n a l Developments .....................................................
Summary o f F rin g e B e n e f it Developments f o r Beyond
t h e Year 2000 and N e v e r .........................................................
Local and Regional D e v e l o p m e n t s ........................................
S t a t e D e v e lo p m e n ts ......................................................................
N ation al Developments ..............................................................
Summary o f Beyond t h e Year 2000 and Never ......................
Im p lic a tio n s ........................................................................................
S u g g e stio n s f o r F u tu re Research ...................... . . . . .

133
133
135
137
138
139
144

APPENDICES..................................................................................................................

146

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................

2kB

vi i

125
125
127
129
131
132
132
132
132
133

LIST OF TABLES
T a b le

1.

Page

Summary of F rin g e B e n e f i t s Provided by Michigan School
D i s t r i c t s and I n te r m e d ia te School D i s t r i c t s ............................

29

2.

Comparison o f F e d e r a l , S t a t e , and Local K-12 Revenues . .

3.

Number o f I n d i v i d u a l s C ontacted and Actual P a rt1 c 1 p a tl o n ...........................................................................................................

62

4.

F rin g e B e n e f its 1n t h e 1 9 8 0 s ................................................................

72

5.

F rin ge B e n e f it s 1n t h e 1 9 9 0 s ................................................................

73

6.

F rin g e B e n e f it s 1n t h e Years 2000+ and Never

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

75

7.

Occurrence o f F rin g e B e n e f it s by T opical Grouping and
Decade o f O ccurrence ............................................................................

76

Consensus o f F rin g e B e n e f it s by Median Time I n te r v a l
o f A c c e p t a n c e ..............................................................................................

78

8.
9.
10.

45

Summary o f F rin g e B e n e f i t s : Med1an-T1me-Interval Changes
Between Rounds 1 and 3 .................................................

80

Summary o f F rin g e B e n e f i t s : S e m 1 -In terq u art1 1 e Range
Changes Between Rounds 1 and 3 ......................................................

82

11.

Summary o f Med1 an T e s t f o r t h e 44 F r i n g e B e n e f i t s . . . .

12.

F rin g e B e n e f it Developments 1n t h e 1980s

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

86

13.

F rin ge B e n e f it Developments 1n t h e 1 9 9 0 s ......................................

87

14.

F rin g e B e n e f it Developments Beyond t h e 2000 and Never . .

15.

Topical Grouping o f R e la te d F rin g e B e n e f it Developments
by Expected Time I n t e r v a l o f O ccurrence .....................................

89

Consensus o f F rin g e B e n e f i t Developments by Median
Time I n t e r v a l s o f A c c e p t a n c e ...........................................................

91

16.

viIi

83

88

Page

17.
18.

19.
20.
21 .
22 .

D .l.
E .l.
F .l.
G .l.

Summary o f F rin g e B e n e f i t Developments: Med1an-T1meI n te r v a l Changes Between Rounds 1 and 3 ...............................

93

Summary o f F rin g e B e n e f i t Developments: Sem1I n t e r q u a r t H e Time I n te r v a l Changes Between
Rounds 1 and 3 ....................................................................................

95

Summary o f Median T e s t P o p u la tio n Comparisons f o r
F rin g e B e n e f i t Developments .........................................................

97

F rin g e B e n e f it Developments: D e s i r a b i l i t y and
O rg a n iz a tio n a l F a c to r s ..................................................................

99

D e s i r a b i l i t y Comparison by T otal Responses o f Adminis­
t r a t o r and Union P a n e l i s t s .........................................................

106

P a n e l i s t s ' P r o j e c t i o n s o f O rg a n iz a tio n s Favoring o r
Opposing F rin g e B e n e f i t Developments* by Total
Number o f R e s p o n s e s ..................................

109

F rin g e B e n e f i t s : Summary o f S i g n i f i c a n c e Level*
Three R o u n d s ........................................................................................

197

F rin g e B e n e f it Developments: Summary o f S ig n i f ic a n c e
Level* Three Rounds ...........................................................................

202

F rin g e B e n e f i t s : Summary o f Three Rounds f o r Median*
Range* and C o n s e n s u s ......................................................................

208

F rin g e B e n e f it Developments: Summary o f Three Rounds
f o r Median* Range* and Consensus ............................................

212

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
F ig u r e

Page

1.

S te p s o f t h e Delphi Technique ..........................................................

55

2.

R e l a tio n s h ip Between R e l i a b i l i t y and Group S iz e ....................

58

3.

SPSS C ro s s -T a b u la tio n Program ..........................................................

65

x

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

Page

A.

THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE..............................................................

1^7

B.

PROFILE OF DELPHI PANELISTS

C.

LETTERS, FEEDBACK, AND DELPHI QUESTIONNAIRE (FIRST
ROUND)..........................................................................................................

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

156

D.

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS:FRINGE BENEFITS

E.

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS: RELATED FRINGE
BENEFIT DEVELOPMENTS ...........................................................................

201

SUMMARY OF FRINGE BENEFITS: MEDIAN, RANGE, AND
CONSENSUS.................................................................................................

207

SUMMARY OF FRINGE BENEFIT DEVELOPMENTS: MEDIAN,
RANGE, AND CONSENSUS...........................................................................

211

F.
G.
H.

SUMMARY OF FRINGE BENEFIT DEVELOPMENTS:COMPOSITE

xi

. . . .

152

. . .

196

215

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM
I n tr o d u c ti o n
Michigan 1s e x p e r ie n c in g s e r i o u s problems as a r e s u l t o f a
d e p re ss e d economy.

The f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s t o fund v a rio u s s t a t e

s e r v i c e s have n o t I n c re a s e d d u rin g t h e p a s t few y e a rs .

F req u e n tly

c i t e d re a s o n s f o r nonexpansion a r e n o t o n ly t h e d e p re ssed economy but
a l s o ta x p a y e r r e s i s t a n c e t o In c re a s e d ta x e s .

During a p e rio d of

s ta g n a n t o r d e c li n in g reso urces* c o m p e titio n f o r a v a i l a b l e re s o u rc e s
I n c r e a s e s among s t a t e a g e n c ie s and programs.
In s im p le d o l l a r terms* one o f t h e most conspicuous l o s e r s 1n
t h e c o m p e titio n f o r s t a t e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s has been th e K-12 school
a id fund.

D ram atic changes In r e c e n t s t a t e budget spending p a t t e r n s

were d is c u s s e d by Dr. John G ross o f t h e U n iv e r s ity o f Michigan.^
A ccording t o him* s e v e ra l m ajor s h i f t s have r e c e n t l y o c c u rre d 1n
M ichigan's s t a t e budget.

S o c ia l S e rv ic e s In c re a s e d I t s s h a r e o f th e

s t a t e budget from 18.235 1n f i s c a l y e a r (FY) 1971 t o 27.635 In FY 1981.
S t a t e e x p e n d it u r e s f o r c o r r e c t i o n s In c re a s e d from 1.435 t o 3.135 o ver t h e
same p e rio d .

During t h i s time* s t a t e e x p e n d itu r e s f o r school a id

(K-12) f e l l from 40.4% t o 29.2% o f t h e t o t a l b udget.
A r e p o r t from t h e N ational C en ter f o r Education S t a t i s t i c s
showed t h a t 1n t h e 1980-81 school y e a r Michigan paid a b o ut 30.2% o f t h e

1

2

c o s t o f p u b lic e lem en ta ry and secondary e d u c a tio n ; more th a n 64% came
from lo c a l aid* m ost through p ro p e rty t a x e s . 2

The p a s t seven y e a r s

have shown a drop 1n t h e s t a t e ' s s h a r e o f f i n a n c i a l s u p p o rt t o K-12
p u b lic e d u c a tio n and an I n c r e a s e 1n lo c a l a id t o t h e p o i n t where
Michigan has dropped t o f o r t y - f o u r t h p la c e among s t a t e s 1n t h e
p e rc e n ta g e o f s t a t e school a id .
T h is s h i f t 1n f i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p u b lic e d u c a tio n t o
heavy r e l i a n c e on t h e lo c a l t a x base has m a g n ifie d t h e problem o f
I n e q u a l i t y o f e d u c a tio n a l o p p o rtu n ity .

A b u l l e t i n from t h e Michigan

S t a t e Board o f E ducation pro vid ed f i n a n c i a l d a ta t o show t h e d i s p a r i ­
t i e s 1n e x p e n d itu re s among M ichigan's school d i s t r i c t s .

The c o s t o f

e d u c a tio n per p u p il by d i s t r i c t ranged from a low o f $1*480 t o a high
o f $3*646* w ith an average o f

$ 2 *2 1 7 .3

These f i n a n c i a l d i s p a r i t i e s have been coupled w ith c u r r e n t
p r e s s u r e s f o r t a x reform* such a s T1sch I and I I and Proposal A.

At

t h e same time* t h e s t a t e and f e d e r a l governm ents have added s i g n i f i ­
c a n t l y t o t h e 1 1 s t of mandated programs s c h o o ls must Implement w ith
l i t t l e o r no f i s c a l s u p p o rt.

A d d itio n a l f a c t o r s such as t e a c h e r union

power v i a c o l l e c t i v e bargaining* I n c re a s e d s o c i e t a l demand f o r Improve­
ment In t h e q u a l i t y o f K-12 education* d i f f i c u l t y 1n p a ss in g m illa g e s*
d e c l i n i n g s t u d e n t e n ro llm e n ts* and t h e la c k o f s t a b i l i t y 1n M ichigan's
economy have In c re a s e d t h e f i n a n c i a l p r e s s u r e s on M ichigan's K-12
publ1c s c h o o l s.
Of s p e c ia l I n t e r e s t among t h e s e s h i f t i n g t r e n d s have been t h e
r a p i d l y r i s i n g c o s t s f o r employee f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .

F ig u re s p u b lis h e d

3

In a r e c e n t l y r e le a s e d Chamber o f Commerce stu d y showed t h a t f o r
companies s u b m ittin g d a ta s i n c e 1961, f r i n g e b e n e f i t payments In c re a s e d
fro m 25.555 o f p a y r o l l 1n 1961 t o 32.156 1n 1971 and 41.2% In 1981. 4
N ationw ide, a p p ro x im a te ly 25 y e a r s ago 1n t h e m id dle t o l a t e 1950s,
f r i n g e b e n e f i t s c o s t a b o u t 15% o f p a y r o ll.

The Chamber of Commerce

study I n d ic a te d t h a t , as d o l l a r s per y e a r per employee, f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s In c re a s e d n e a r ly 400% from t h e l a t e 1950s t o t h e l a t e 1970s.
The Chamber o f Commerce r e p o r t a l s o I n d ic a te d t h a t Michigan
1s l o c a t e d 1n t h e E a s t North C e n tra l group o f s t a t e s , where t h e h i g h e s t
employee b e n e f i t s w ere paid.®

i t I s t h i s w r i t e r ' s c o n te n tio n t h a t t h e

high payments f o r employee b e n e f i t s 1n t h e I n d u s t r i a l s e c t o r w i l l have
a d i r e c t In f lu e n c e on f r i n g e b e n e f i t s 1n M ichigan's p u b lic sch o o ls.
Because Michigan I s h e a v ily I n d u s t r i a l i z e d and u n io n iz e d , I t can be
e x pected t h a t t h e p u b lic s c h o o ls w i l l be s u b j e c t t o t h i s re g io n a l
f a c t o r and t h a t t e a c h e r s w i l l e x p e c t s i m i l a r In c re a s e d f r i n g e b e n e f i t
payments.

Given t h e s e t r e n d s f o r f r i n g e b e n e f i t s o v e r r e c e n t decades

and t h e c o m p e titio n f o r t h e l i m i t e d d o l l a r s a v a i l a b l e t o s c h o o ls , t h e
c o s t o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r M ichigan's p u b lic school te a c h e r s has
become an Im p o r ta n t t o p i c t h a t r e q u i r e s g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n by school
p e r s o n n e l.
I f p r e s e n t t r e n d s c o n tin u e , I t can be assumed t h a t f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s may r e q u i r e an even g r e a t e r p ro p o r tio n of school d i s t r i c t s '
o p e r a tin g c o s t s .
t o grow.

Both d o l l a r amounts and b e n e f i t a r e a s have c o n tin u e d

W111 t h i s t r e n d c o n tin u e ?

In a d d i t i o n , w hat v a r i e t i e s and

ty p e s o f b e n e f i t s a r e l i k e l y t o be Im p o rta n t 1n t h e 1980s, 1990s, and

4

beyond?

These q u e s t i o n s a r e e x p lo re d 1n t h e p r e s e n t I n v e s t i g a t i o n by

I d e n t i f y i n g t r e n d s and developm ents p e rc e iv e d by t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s
and p u b lic school employee b e n e f i t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Im portance o f t h e Study
Recent t r e n d s I n d i c a t e t h a t f r i n g e b e n e f i t s may c o n tin u e t o
expand r a p i d l y a s th e y have 1n t h e p a s t t h r e e decades.

These tr e n d s

w i l l be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e I n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t problem o f
s a t i s f y i n g th e need f o r f r i n g e b e n e f i t Improvements a s p e rc e iv e d by
M ichigan's p u b lic school t e a c h e r s and t h e a t t e m p t s o f boards o f
e d u c a tio n t o c o n ta in c o s t s w i t h i n t h e i r lo c a l school d i s t r i c t s '
b u dg ets.
F rin g e b e n e f i t s have been a m a jo r b a rg a in in g o b j e c t i v e o f
M ichigan's c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g p ro c e s s s i n c e t h e mid-1960s.

The

n e g o t i a t i o n o f h e a lt h In s u ra n c e packages* group te rm l i f e * and o th e r
r e l a t e d b e n e f i t s appeared a t t h e I n i t i a l b a rg a in in g t a b l e s .

S ince t h a t

time* t e a c h e r unions have c o n tin u e d t o make f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a p r i o r i t y
Item .

T h is 1s evidenced by t h e number and v a r i e t y o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s

t h a t can be found In a lo c a l d i s t r i c t ' s m a ste r agreem ent.
Although d o l l a r f i g u r e s a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e a c tu a l c o s t s
o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s 1n M ichigan's p u b lic schools*

1 t 1s e v id e n t t h a t

such b e n e f i t s c o n s t i t u t e a s i z a b l e p o r t i o n o f a lo c a l d i s t r i c t ' s
o p e r a t i n g budget and w i l l r e q u i r e an even g r e a t e r p r o p o r tio n o f a school
d i s t r i c t ' s o p e r a t i n g c o s t s I f p r e s e n t t r e n d s c o n tin u e .

Thus* 1 t 1s

v i t a l l y Im p o rta n t f o r both t e a c h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s and school d i s t r i c t s
t o study t h e f u t u r e o f t e a c h e r s ' f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a s a m a jo r f a c t o r 1n

5

t h e economic s a l a r y package o f Michigan p u b lic s c h o o ls and t o p la n f o r
them.
Purpose o f t h e Study
T h is I n v e s t i g a t o r was concerned w ith f o r e c a s t i n g p o t e n t i a l
changes in (1) s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r t e a c h e r s 1n M ichigan’s
K-12 p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s and (2) developm ents t h a t may have a
p o s i t i v e o r n e g a tiv e I n f lu e n c e on t r e n d s o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s 1n
M ichigan's p u b lic s c h o o ls .

S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e w r i t e r a tte m p te d t o

d e te rm in e what f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a r e H k e l y t o become a p a r t o f t h e
t e a c h e r 's b e n e f i t package 1n t h e 1980s, 1990s, and beyond.

In

a d d i t i o n , t h e I n v e s t i g a t o r a tte m p te d t o I d e n t i f y developm ents t h a t may
I n f lu e n c e f r i n g e b e n e f i t t r e n d s 1n t h e s e same decades o f I n t e r e s t .
These f o r e c a s t s w ere s o l i c i t e d from p a r t i c i p a n t s from two m ajor
I n t e r e s t e d groups:

M ichigan E ducation A s s o c ia tio n (MEA) u n ls e r v

d i r e c t o r s and e m p lo y e e -b e n e f1 t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s from s e l e c t e d Michigan
school d i s t r i c t s .
R esearch Q u estion s
The f o ll o w i n g q u e s t i o n s r e p r e s e n t t h e m a jo r a r e a s o f I n t e r e s t
1n t h i s s tu d y :
1.

What f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a r e exp ected t o o ccu r 1n t h e f u tu r e ?

That I s , 1n what e s t i m a t e d tim e I n t e r v a l s w i l l s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t s
be l i k e l y t o occur as p a r t o f t h e economic package o f M ichigan's K-12
p u b lic school te a c h e r s ?

Of a d d i t i o n a l I n t e r e s t was d e te rm in in g w heth er

t h e two groups o f p a n e l i s t s w ere from p o p u la tio n s w ith t h e same median.

6

2.

What lo c a l* s ta t e * and n a tio n a l f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents

a r e e x pected t o o c cu r In t h e f u t u r e ?

S p e c if ic a l ly * 1n what e s t i m a t e d

t im e I n t e r v a l s a r e s p e c i f i c developm ents l i k e l y t o occu r?

Again*

d e te rm in in g w hether t h e two groups o f p a n e l i s t s could be c o n sid e re d as
p o p u la tio n s w ith t h e same median was o f I n t e r e s t .
3.

Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s e l e c t e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

and u n ls e rv d i r e c t o r s w ith re g a rd t o t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e f r i n g e
b e n e f i t developm ents o c c u r rin g ?

T h a t 1s* does one group p e rc e iv e t h e

developm ent as more d e s i r a b l e o r l e s s d e s i r a b l e th a n does t h e o th e r
group?
4.

What o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s a r e most l i k e l y t o oppose o r

s u p p o r t t h e o c c u rre n c e o f s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents?

That

1s* w hat a s s o c ia tio n s * go vern ing boards* a d m i n i s t r a t i v e groups* o r
l e g i s l a t i v e b o d ie s does t h e c o m p o site panel o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and
u n ls e rv d i r e c t o r s p e r c e iv e as t h e most l i k e l y o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s t o
s u p p o r t o r oppose s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t developments?
The f o r e c a s t i n g p ro c e d u re used t o answ er t h e s e q u e s t i o n s was
t h e Delphi te c h n iq u e .

(An e x p la n a tio n o f t h e Delphi te c h n iq u e 1s

c o n ta in e d In Appendix A.)

T h is technique*

developed by t h e Rand Corpo­

ra tio n * in v o lv e s c o n t r o l l e d o p ln lo n -fe e d b a c k p ro c e d u re s In which a
panel o f e x p e r ts exchanges reasoned o p in io n s anonymously.

The Delphi

te c h n iq u e has two m ajor ad v an ta g e s t h a t a r e Im p o r ta n t t o t h e framework
o f t h i s stu d y :
1.
con sen sus.

The feedback p ro c e s s te n d s t o produce a c o nv ergin g group

7

2.

The Delphi te c h n iq u e does n o t r e q u i r e d i r e c t c o n f r o n ta tio n

of t h e p a n e l i s t s and c o n se q u e n tly e l i m i n a t e s t h e I n f lu e n c e o f s tro n g
p e r s o n a l i t i e s who o f te n dom inate m eetin gs.

Second* t h e d a ta can be

g e n e ra te d w ith o u t t h e re s p o n d e n ts r e a l i z i n g t h a t two n o rm ally opposing
p a n e l i s t groups a r e p a r t i c i p a t i n g (1n t h i s study* u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s and
school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ) .
P ro ce d u ra l S teps and Methods
The prim ary p urpo se of t h i s r e s e a r c h e r was t o g a th e r Inform a­
t i o n about tr e n d s o f s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and r e l a t e d developm ents
f o r Michigan’s K-12 p u b l i c school t e a c h e r s .

Although many groups such

as boards o f education* s u p e rin te n d e n ts * and c i t i z e n s have an I n t e r e s t
1n t h i s Issue* t h e w r i t e r assumed t h a t two groups 1n p a r t i c u l a r have a
v i t a l concern and a r e under c o n s t a n t p r e s s u r e t o deal w ith f r i n g e
b e n e f i t I s s u e s 1n n e g o tia te d m a s te r c o n t r a c t ag reem ents.

These two

groups a r e s p e c i a l i z e d employee b e n e f i t a d m in is tr a to r s * found only 1n
M ichigan’s l a r g e school d i s t r i c t s * and MEA u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s r e p r e s e n t ­
ing lo c a l t e a c h e r unions.
The Delphi te c h n iq u e was used t o e l i c i t re sp o n se s from t h e
p a rtic ip a n ts.

T his te c h n iq u e was s e l e c t e d f o r I t s a b i l i t y t o be used

1n lo n g -ra n g e te c h n i c a l f o r e c a s t i n g w ith o u t d i r e c t I n t e r a c t i o n o f o r
c o n f r o n t a t i o n s among t h e s e l e c t e d p a n e l i s t s .
The I n i t i a l s te p In co n d u ctin g t h e stu dy was t o I d e n t i f y t h e
school d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who would p a r t i c i p a t e 1n t h e r e s e a rc h .
Using t h e Michigan Education D ir e c to r y (1980), 28 school d i s t r i c t s were
I d e n t i f i e d t h a t had e n r o llm e n ts o f 10*000 o r more s tu d e n t s .

Further*

8

1 t was d e term in e d t h a t each o f t h e s e d i s t r i c t s employed an employee
b e n e fit ad m in istra to r.

Dr. S ta n le y Hecker o f Michigan S t a t e U n iv e rs ity

a s s i s t e d In t h e s e l e c t i o n o f s p e c i f i c a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

Then* w ith t h e

a s s i s t a n c e of Fred Comer* MEA A s s o c ia te D irector* a 1 1 s t o f 28 u n ls e r v
d i r e c t o r s was com piled.
d ire c to rs:

He used two m ajor c r i t e r i a 1n s e l e c t i n g t h e

(1) t h e i r e x p e r ie n c e w ith and knowledge o f t e a c h e r f r i n g e

b e n e f i t s f o r Michigan’s p u b lic school t e a c h e r s and (2) t h e i r employment
1n t h e g e o g ra p h ica l a r e a s o f t h e s e l e c t e d school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Next* t h e I n v e s t i g a t o r com piled l i s t s o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and
developm ents.

He p re p a red t h e s e l i s t s on t h e b a s i s o f h is p r o f e s s io n a l

e x p e r ie n c e and from exam ining t h e r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e on t h i s to p ic .
These l i s t s w ere review ed f o r c l a r i t y and c o n te n t by t h e r e s e a r c h e r 's
d o c to ra l c o m m itte e and th e n s e n t t o t h e 56 p o t e n t i a l p a n e l i s t s f o r any
a d d itio n s * d e le tio n s * o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n s .

T h is f i e l d t e s t i n g o f t h e

In s tru m e n t 1n t h e I n i t i a l p i l o t round r e s u l t e d 1n t h e c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f
s i x Ite m s and t h e a d d i t i o n o f 14 new f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and f o u r new
f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents.
From t h e s e I n i t i a l p ro c e d u re s and w ith t h e a s s i s t a n c e of
Dr. F re d e ric k Ig n a to v ic h o f t h e Departm ent o f A d m in is tr a tio n and
Curriculum* Michigan S t a t e U n iv ersity* a q u e s t i o n n a i r e was developed
t h a t c o n ta in e d 30 f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents and 44 s p e c i f i c f r i n g e
b e n efits.

Using t h e Delphi technique* t h e I n s tru m e n t was s u b m itte d t o

p a n e l i s t s t h r e e tim e s ; th e y provided feedback 1n t h e second and t h i r d
rounds.

9

The two groups o f p a n e l i s t s were asked (1) t o respond t o t h e
Delphi I n s tru m e n t 1n I t s p r e s e n t form and (2) t o p ro v id e a d d itio n a l
comments o r feedback t h a t would be conveyed t o o t h e r p a n e l i s t s In
su cc e ed in g rounds.

All re s p o n se s were anonymous.
Definition of Important Terms

The f o llo w in g te r m s a r e d e fin e d t o c l a r i f y t h e i r usage 1n t h i s
stu d y.

I t should be noted t h a t re s p o n d e n ts w ere n o t prov ided w ith

o p e r a tio n a l d e f i n i t i o n s because o f t h e c o m p lic a tio n s t h i s m ig h t have
c r e a te d .

For example* h e a lt h In su ra n c e packages can c o n ta in a v a r i e t y

o f b e n e f i t s and o p tio n s ( n e g o tia b le Ite m s) t h a t a r e so numerous 1 t
would be I m p r a c tic a l t o d e f in e them a l l .

P ro v id in g a d e t a i l e d o p e ra ­

t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n o f h e a l t h In s u ra n c e packages would have focused t h e
re s p o n d e n ts ' a t t e n t i o n on s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s o f t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t and
n o t on t h e g e n e ra l ty p e o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t .

Given t h a t t h e re s p o n d e n ts

w ere a l l e x p e r t s 1n t h e a r e a o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s (types* costs* and
s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l Im p lic a tio n s )* th e y s h a re d a common d e f i n i t i o n o f
f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and f a c t o r s I n f lu e n c in g t h e i r o ccu rren ce.
A d m in is tr a to r s

The l o c a l - l e v e l employee who 1s r e s p o n s i b l e

f o r a d m in is te r in g t h e f i n a n c i a l a s p e c t s o f t e a c h e r f r i n g e b e n e f i t
packages.
C ancer I n s u ra n c e s

A group In s u ra n c e program t h a t t y p i c a l l y

pays b e n e f i t s f o r medical s e r v i c e s and c o s t s due t o I l l n e s s e s caused by
c an cer.

Cancer p la n s a r e designed t o p ro v id e a d d itio n a l d o l l a r s

because o f t h e high c o s t s r e l a t e d t o c an c e r t r e a t m e n t s t h a t can exceed
normal h e a lth In su ra n ce cov erag e.

10

Consumer p r i c e Index (CPI):

A monthly s t a t i s t i c a l measure o f

th e average change 1n p r i c e s In a f i x e d m a rk e t b a s k e t o f goods and
serv ice s.
C o o rdin ated b a r g a in in g ;

An o r g a n i z a t i o n o f many lo c a l

a s s o c i a t i o n s 1n a lo o s e c o n fe d e ra tio n * 1n which t h e lo c a l a s s o c i a t i o n
amends I t s c o n s t i t u t i o n t o re c o g n iz e t h e re g io n a l c o o rd in a te d b a rg a in ­
ing com m ittee.

Then* t h e lo c a l a s s o c i a t i o n g iv e s t h e re g io n a l c o o r d i­

n ated b a rg a in in g c o m m itte e a u t h o r i t y t o approve o r r e j e c t n e g o tia te d
wages and o t h e r c o n d itio n s o f employment a r r i v e d a t 1n t h e lo c a l d i s ­
tric t.
C ost o f l i v i n g a d ju s tm e n t (COLA):

An j u s t m e n t 1n com pensation

1n re sp o n se t o I n f l a t i o n .
D elphi te c h n i q u e :

A s e t o f p ro c e d u re s o r methodology design ed

t o e l i c i t and r e f i n e o p in io n s t o a r r i v e a t consensus on t h e p r o b a b i l i t y
o f a f u t u r e e v e n t.
D ental I n s u ra n c e :

A group In su ra n ce program t h a t t y p i c a l l y

pays f o r some p o r ti o n o f d e n ta l s e r v i c e s f o r an employee and h i s / h e r
fa m ily .
Dependent l i f e In s u ra n c e :

A group In s u ra n c e program t h a t

t y p i c a l l y pays a s p e c i f i e d amount upon t h e death o f an em ployee's
spouse a n d /o r dependent c h i l d r e n .
D i s a b i l i t y In s u ra n c e :

In s u ra n c e design ed t o compensate

In d iv i d u a ls who l o s e wages because o f I l l n e s s o r In ju r y .

P la n s s p e c if y

t h e number o f days ( s h o r t term o r long term ) b e n e f i t s w i l l be p aid and

11

p a r t i c u l a r c o n d itio n s ( s ic k days and I n i t i a l w a i t i n g p e rio d ) t h e
employee must meet.
ERISA:

The Employee R e tire m e n t Income S e c u r ity Act o f 1974*

which 1s o f d i r e c t b e n e f i t t o employees because 1 t (a) p r o h i b i t s pen­
s io n e l i g i b i l i t y ru les* (b) e s t a b l i s h e s minimum v e s t i n g stan d a rd s* and
(c) e s t a b l i s h e s an In s u ra n c e plan t o p r o t e c t pension funds.
F rin g e b e n e f i t :

A payment re c e iv e d by a Michigan p u b lic school

t e a c h e r In a d d i t i o n t o wages* t h e c o s t o f which 1s p aid p a r t i a l l y o r
t o t a l l y by t h e school d i s t r i c t .

Excluded from t h i s s tu d y a r e mandated

f r i n g e b e n e f i t s such a s S o c ia l S ecurity * w o rk e r's compensation* unem­
ploym ent Insurance* and t e a c h e r r e t i r e m e n t .

T opical gro up ing s o f bene­

f i t s * a s used 1n t h i s study* a r e (1) h e a l t h - r e l a t e d * (2) economic*
(3) f a m i l y - r e l a t e d o r personal* and (4) p r o f e s s i o n a l f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .
F r ln g e - b e n e f lt- d e v e lo p m e n ts :

I d e n t i f i e d f a c t o r s t h a t may o r

may n o t a f f e c t f r i n g e b e n e f i t s now o r In t h e fu tu re* such as In d iv id u ­
a l l y t a i l o r e d c a f e t e r l a - s t y l e plans* s e l f - 1 n s u r a n c e o f b e n e f i t s by
lo c a l d i s t r i c t s *

and so on.

For t h e purposes o f t h i s study* t h e d e v el­

opments o f I n t e r e s t were c a t e g o r iz e d I n to t h r e e t o p i c a l g ro u p in g s:
(1) lo c a l and reg io n al* (2) s ta t e *
H e alth I n s u ra n c e :
c o s t s due t o I l l n e s s .

and (3) n a tio n a l developm ents.

G e n e ra lly a p p lie d t o m edical s e r v i c e s and

B e n e f it s and p la n s a r e u s u a ll y n e g o tia te d

through r e g u l a r In s u ra n c e companies.
H e a lth m aintenance o r g a n iz a ti o n (HMO):

An o r g a n i z a t i o n o f

h e a lt h c a r e personnel and f a c i l i t i e s t h a t d e l i v e r s a com prehensive

12

range o f h e a lt h s e r v i c e s t o members who e n r o l l v o l u n t a r i l y and pay a
f i x e d , p re p a id f e e .
Hearing c a r e In s u ra n c e :

In s u ra n c e t h a t g e n e r a l l y c o v e rs

medical s e r v i c e s and c o s t s r e l a t e d t o h e a r in g d i s o r d e r s .

Such

In s u ra n c e t y p i c a l l y pays f o r some p o r ti o n o f s e r v i c e s and h e a r in g a i d s
f o r an employee and h i s fa m ily .
Home In s u ra n c e :

A group p la n 1n which t h e school d i s t r i c t

would pay a n e g o tia te d amount t o co v er p ro p e rty damage and l i a b i l i t y on
t h e em p lo yee's p erso n al p r o p e r ty .
Home-mortgage In s u ra n c e :

A n e g o tia te d p la n t h a t would pay t h e

rem aining amount owed on a home I f t h e employee d ie d .
Legal p la n In s u ra n c e :
counsel on l e g a l m a t t e r s .

In s u ra n c e t h a t p ro v id e s a d v ice and

In a d d i t i o n t o g iv in g em ployees le g a l pro­

t e c t i o n w h ile a t work. I t p ro v id e s f o r counsel on p r i v a t e m a t t e r s w ith
a n e g o tia te d plan d e s ig n a tin g a llo w a b l e tim e and d is c o u n te d c o s t s .
Longevity pav:
se n io rity .

Wage a d ju s tm e n ts based on le n g th o f s e r v i c e o r

C o n tr a c ts o r pay p la n s f r e q u e n t l y s t a t e s p e c i f i c tim e

p e rio d s t o q u a l i f y f o r such upward wage a d ju s tm e n ts .
O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s :

S p e c ific p ro fessional or p o litic a l

groups t h a t may s u p p o rt o r oppose s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents.
Examples a r e boards o f e d u c a tio n , a s s o c i a t i o n s , and l e g i s l a t i v e b o d ie s.
Reg io n a l b a r g a in in g ;

The te rm used t o d e s c r ib e t h e MEA's

e f f o r t s t o I n c r e a s e and Improve I t s b a rg a in in g power by c o l l e c t i v e l y
In v o lv in g more th a n one lo c a l employee u n i t In la b o r r e l a t i o n s .
lo c a l a s s o c i a t i o n r e q u e s ts d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e fo rm e r lo c a l

The

13

a s s o c i a t i o n and r e - c e r t 1 f 1 c a t i o n o f a new re g io n a l a s s o c i a t i o n f o r
b a rg a in in g p u rp o se s.
S a b b a tic a l l e a v e ;

U su a lly le n g th y p a id le a v e f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l *

I n t e l l e c t u a l * o r em otional r e fu rb is h m e n t.
S e lf-In su ran c e ;

Assumption by a school d i s t r i c t of I t s own

r i s k I n s te a d o f I n s u r in g th rou g h a g e n eral In s u ra n c e c a r r i e r o r
company.
S1ck l e a v e :

Time o f f from work a llo w ed t o an employee because

o f I l l n e s s * a c c id e n t* o r o t h e r I n c a p a c ity .
T a x -sh e lte r a n n u ity ;

An a n n u ity whose employee c o n t r i b u t i o n s

a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o t a x e s a t t h e tim e t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s a r e made.

Con­

t r i b u t i o n s a r e l a t e r ta x e d a s th e y a r e paid o u t a f t e r re tire m e n t* when
t h e a n n u i t a n t I s presumably In a low er t a x b r a c k e t.
Term l i f e I n s u r a n c e :

Temporary In su ra n c e t h a t o f f e r s

p r o t e c t i o n f o r an employee d u rin g t h e c o u rs e o f h i s / h e r employment and
has no cash v alu e.

I t may In c lu d e an a c c id e n ta l d eath and dismember­

ment provision* which would p ro v id e a d d itio n a l amounts f o r a c c id e n ta l
l o s s o f l i f e o r s p e c i f i e d amounts f o r t h e l o s s o f a Umb o r an organ.
S u rv iv o r Income I n s u r a n c e ;

S u rv iv o r b e n e f i t s paid t o widows o r

o t h e r s u r v iv o r s 1n c a s e o f d eath r e s u l t i n g from s p e c i f i e d c a u s e s .
Travel a c c id e n t I n s u r a n c e ;

Pays b e n e f i t s f o r a c c id e n ta l d eath

o r dismemberment In c u rre d w h ile t r a v e l i n g 1n a p r i v a t e o r commercial
c a r r i e r * w ith s p e c i f i e d e x c lu s io n s .

14

U n 1 s e rv -d 1 re c to rs s

The employee group o f t h e Michigan

Education A s s o c ia tio n r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g a t t h e
lo c a l a n d /o r re g io n a l l e v e l .
V isio n In s u ra n c e :

B e n e f i t s t y p i c a l l y c o v e rin g a range o f

s e r v ic e s * such a s eye exam inations* c o r r e c t i v e lenses* and fram es.
L im ita tio n s o f t h e Study
The p o p u la tio n o f t h e stu d y was l i m i t e d t o t h e g e o grap hic a r e a s
o f Michigan t h a t c o n ta in e d school d i s t r i c t s w ith p o p u la tio n s o f 10*000
o r more s t u d e n t s .

I t was assumed t h a t t h e s e school d i s t r i c t s employ

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who work w ith f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and employee r e l a t i o n s on
a f u l l - t i m e b a s i s and have e x p e r t i s e not g e n e r a lly found 1n s m a l l e r
d i s t r i c t s * where a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have more d iv e r s e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .
The MEA a s s i s t e d In s e l e c t i n g u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s lo c a t e d 1n t h e same
g e o g raph ic a r e a a s t h e s e l e c t e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and who l i k e w i s e had
e x p e r t i s e 1n f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and employee r e l a t i o n s .
I f t h e s e l e c t i v e l y chosen re s p o n d e n ts a r e c o n sid e re d as tr e n d
s e t t e r s f o r f r i n g e b e n e f its * t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e stu d y may be
g e n e r a liz e d t o a l l p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s In Michigan.

The o p in io n s

o f t h i s s e l e c t group o f e x p e r t s should* th e r e f o r e * r e f l e c t v a l i d
f o r e c a s t s o f f u t u r e f r i n g e b e n e f i t t r e n d s and r e l a t e d developm ents 1n
Michigan.

I t should be noted t h a t t h i s I n v e s t i g a t o r d id n o t s o l i c i t

e x p e r t o p in io n from members o f o th e r know ledgeable b o d ie s w ith in t h e
s ta te * such a s boards o f education* c e n t r a l o f f i c e and b u ild in g
a d m in is tr a to r s * te a c h e rs * and p r i v a t e In su ra n c e a g e n ts .

15

A p i l o t round was used t o e l i c i t re sp o n se s from p o t e n t i a l
re s p o n d e n ts b e fo re t h e s tu d y .

Based on comments made d u rin g t h e p i l o t

round* new Item s were In c o rp o ra te d I n t o t h e Delphi survey In s tru m e n t
f o r su b se q u e n t rounds.

Responses t o each su cceed in g round were b u i l t

on answ ers from t h e p re c e d in g round.
p e r m it v a r io u s I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .

T his method u ses opinions* which

Because o f t h e le n g th o f t h e survey

I n s tru m e n t and t h e v a r i e t y o f Items* 1 t 1s n o t known w h eth er respond­
e n t s were s t a t i n g reason ed v a lu e jud gm ents o r sim p ly p ro v id in g p o o rly
c o n sid e re d p o s i t i o n s o r b i a s e s .

The l a t t e r p o s s i b i l i t y was m inim ized

by r e q u e s tin g and p ro v id in g o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r t h e re s p o n d e n ts t o make
comments t o p ro v id e a s u p p o r tin g r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e i r re sp o n se s t o
s p e c i f i c su rvey Item s.

These comments were provided a s feedback t o

o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s In su cc e ed in g rounds.
The Ite m s used 1n t h e survey In s tru m e n t were developed by
In v o lv in g t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s 1n t h e I n i t i a l s ta g e s .

O ther Item s were

developed th ro u g h an e x t e n s i v e review o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e .

Because of

t h e r a p i d l y changing n a t u r e o f M ichigan's economy* p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y *
and o t h e r changing c o n d itio n s * t h e f ix e d a s p e c t o f t h e su rv ey I n s t r u ­
ment d id n o t a llo w t h e f l e x i b i l i t y o f adding Ite m s In t h i s Delphi stu dy .
However* feedback d id a llo w t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s t o a l t e r t h e i r re sp o n se s as
t h e s tu d y p ro g resse d .

I t was assumed t h a t such feedback would make

p a r t i c i p a n t s aware o f f a c t o r s t h a t m ig h t I n f lu e n c e an Item o f I n t e r e s t *
th u s e n a b lin g them t o f o r e c a s t a p a r t i c u l a r f u t u r e more a c c u r a te ly .
A nother l i m i t a t i o n o f t h e s tu d y was t h e c o n tr iv e d c o l l e c t i v e
b a rg a in in g s i t u a t i o n b u i l t I n to t h e s tu d y .

The Delphi te c h n iq u e does

16

n o t a llow f a c e - t o - f a c e com m unications, as one would n orm ally f in d a t
th e n eg o tiatio n ta b le .

A lso, t h e two groups o f p a r t i c i p a n t s w ere n o t

aw are t h a t th e y were r e c e i v i n g in f o r m a tio n e l i c i t e d from two subpopulatlo n s.

Whether t h e f o r e c a s t s and re s p o n se s would have been c o n s i s t e n t

under a d i f f e r e n t c o n tr iv e d s e t t i n g 1s open t o c o n je c tu r e .
Overview o f t h e D i s s e r t a t i o n
In C hapter I , t h e background f o r t h e stud y was provided.

The

Im p ortance and purpose o f t h e stu d y were d is c u s s e d , and t h e r e s e a r c h
q u e s t i o n s o f I n t e r e s t w ere p re s e n te d .

F i n a l l y , t h e p ro c e d u ral s t e p s ,

d e f i n i t i o n s o f te r m s , and l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e r e s e a r c h w ere e x p la in e d .
C h ap ter I I c o n ta i n s a review of t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e l e v a n t t o t h e study.
The methodology used 1n t h i s r e s e a r c h 1s d e s c rib e d 1n C h apter I I I .
C h apter IV c o n ta i n s t h e a n a l y s i s o f d a ta as 1 t r e l a t e s t o t h e re s e a rc h
q u e s ti o n s .

A summary o f t h e s tu d y , c o n c lu s io n s based on r e s u l t s o f

t h e d a ta a n a l y s i s , I m p l i c a t i o n s , and s u g g e s tio n s f o r f u t u r e re s e a rc h
may be found 1n C h apter V.

17

Fo otn otes--C hapter_ I

Ijo h n G* Gross# "Michigan S t a t e E x p e n d itu re s and t h e P r o v is io n
o f P u b lic S e rv ic e s# " c o n ta in e d In a l e t t e r t o ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s from
Dr. James Phelps# Michigan S t a t e D epartm ent o f Education# A pril 15#
1982.
^"N ation al C en ter f o r Education S t a t i s t i c s Report#" 1n
S ta te w id e Communication and D is se m in a tio n System S ta te w id e N e w s le tte r
(Lansing# Mich: S ta te w id e Communication and D is se m in a tio n System#
December 1982).
3 M.lchlgan K-12 P u b lic .Sch<?Q.l D i s t r i c t s Ranked h y .S elected
F in a n c ia l Data: 1980-81# B u l l e t i n 1014 (L ansing: Michigan S t a t e Board
o f Education# 1981).
^Employee B e n e f it s 1981 (W ashington, D.C.:
o f t h e U n ited S t a t e s o f America# 1981).
®Ib1d.» summary s ta te m e n t.

Chamber o f Commerce

CHAPTER I I

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
I n tr o d u c ti o n
The review o f r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e 1s o rg a n iz e d under tw o m ajo r
headings.

The f i r s t s e c t i o n o f t h e review 1s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f s e v e ra l

s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t s t h a t a r e r e c e i v i n g I n c re a s e d a t t e n t i o n 1n both
t h e p r i v a t e and p u b lic s e c t o r s .

A summary o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r

r e c e n t l y s e t t l e d t e a c h e r c o n t r a c t s 1n M ichigan's p u b lic school d i s ­
t r i c t s 1s a l s o p re sen te d .
The second s e c t i o n c o n t a i n s a d i s c u s s io n o f c u r r e n t and
p o t e n t i a l developm ents t h a t may a f f e c t t h e v a r i e t y and scope o f f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s f o r M ichigan's K-12 p u b lic school te a c h e r s .

Examined a r e

f r i n g e b e n e f i t t r e n d s . I n f lu e n c e s o f c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g , f e d e r a l and
s t a t e l e g i s l a t i o n , f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a s a h y g ie n ic f a c t o r , r e t r i e v a l
b a rg a in in g , and r e c e n t t r e n d s 1n fu n d in g M ichigan's K-12 p u b lic
school s .
F rin g e B e n e f it Trends
A r e c e n t Chamber o f Commerce r e p o r t e s t i m a t e d t h a t U nited
S t a t e s o r g a n i z a t i o n s spend an amount equal t o 373% o f t h e i r p a y r o l l s
on employees' f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .

T h is f a c t a t t e s t s t o t h e Im po rtan ce o f

f r i n g e b e n e f i t packages t o o r g a n iz a ti o n s .

18

A d d itio n a l Item s o f I n t e r e s t

19

1n t h i s Chamber o f Commerce study Includ ed t h e fo llo w in g p o i n t s f o r t h e
994 companies su rvey ed :
— B e n e f it payments ranged from 18% t o 65% o f p a y r o l l .
— Company payments averaged $3.21 p er p a y ro ll hour and $6,627 p er
employee per y e a r .
— B e n e f it payments In c re a s e d from 25.2% 1n 1961 t o 32.1% 1n 1971
and 41.2% In 1981 f o r th o s e 175 companies t h a t have s u b m itte d
d a ta every y e a r from 1961.
— H ig h e st b e n e f i t payments were made 1n t h e E a st North C en tral
sta te s.
— L arger firm s te n d ed t o pay h ig h e r b e n e f i t s th a n s m a lle r f i r m s . 1
The I n c r e a s e 1n b e n e f i t s over t h e 20 y e a r s o f t h e Chamber
stu d y , M ichigan's l o c a t i o n In t h e E a st North C e n tra l s t a t e s ,

and t h e

a d d i t i o n a l f a c t t h a t l a r g e r f i r m s te n d t o pay h ig h e r b e n e f i t s were key
f a c t o r s In f lu e n c in g t h e methodology used In t h i s stu dy .

A d m in is tr a to r s

1n school d i s t r i c t s w ith s t u d e n t e n r o llm e n ts o f 10,000 o r more were
s e l e c t e d a s p a r t o f t h e sample.
S i m i l a r s t a t i s t i c a l d a ta a r e no t a v a i l a b l e f o r f r i n g e b e n e f i t
c o s t s In M ichigan's p u b lic sc h o o ls .

However, 1 t 1s l i k e l y t h a t c o s t

t r e n d s have In c re a s e d 1n a f a s h io n s i m i l a r t o th o s e o f t h e companies In
t h e Chamber study.

Romano, F e a th e r s to n e , Georglady, and W otlska

re c o g n iz e d t h e Im portance o f t h e s e r e c e n t c o s t I n c r e a s e s In f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s when th ey s t a t e d :
O ften overlooked 1n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f s a l a r i e s I s t h e p re sen c e of
s o - c a l l e d " f r i n g e b e n e f i t s . " These have grown t o t h e p o i n t t h a t
th e y r e p r e s e n t a s i g n i f i c a n t f i n a n c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e
d e se rv e a t t e n t i o n as p a r t of t h e s a l a r y s t r u c t u r e .
Because o f trem endous f i n a n c i a l In c r e a s e s 1n employee b e n e f i t s ,
Gordon and LeBleu I n v e s t i g a t e d t h e lo n g -te rm p r o s p e c ts f o r employee

20

b e n e f i t programs.

T h e ir stu d y f o r e c a s t e d b e n e f i t t r e n d s 1n t h e

I n d u s t r i a l s e c t o r f o r a p e rio d o f 15 years* from 1970 t o 1985.

They

concluded:
The employee b e n e f i t p i c t u r e 1s an e x tre m e ly dynamic one. The
b e n e f i t s we know to d a y a r e going t o become l a r g e r and more diverse*
many new forms a r e going t o be added— and t h e c o s t s o f b e n e f i t s t o
th e company w ill i n c r e a s e g r e a t l y .
Thus* t h e ongoing Chamber o f Commerce r e p o r t s and t h e work o f
Gordon and LeBleu have se rv e d t o e s t a b l i s h f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a s an a re a
worthy o f I n v e s t i g a t i o n .

However* s t u d i e s app ear t o be la c k in g 1n t h e

a r e a o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t t r e n d s 1n t h e p u b lic s e c t o r .

In p a r t i c u l a r * t h e

r o l e o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s 1n M ichigan's p u b lic s c h o o ls 1s an a r e a 1n need
of In v e stig atio n .

E s tim a te s I n d i c a t e t h a t American o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e

spending more th a n o n e -th 1 rd o f t h e i r cash com pensation on employee
b e n e f i t s ; hence t h e f i s c a l Im po rtance o f t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t package t o
o r g a n i z a t i o n s In c lu d in g Michigan s c h o o ls .
F rin g e B e n e f i t s and Employee A t t i t u d e s
Dunham and Formlsano I d e n t i f i e d an a d d i t i o n a l a re a In which
f r i n g e b e n e f i t s have a g r e a t e f f e c t on o r g a n iz a ti o n s .

They s t a t e d t h a t

o f even g r e a t e r Im po rtan ce (I.e.* th a n c o s t s ) I s t h e In f lu e n c e o f
b e n e f i t s on em ployees' a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v io rs.

The a u th o r s contended

t h a t b e n e f i t system s have n o t been design ed t o m eet em ployees' needs t o
Improve o r g a n iz a ti o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . ^
The r o l e t h a t f r i n g e b e n e f i t s assume f o r I n d i v i d u a l s and
o r g a n i z a t i o n s 1s a m ajor d e te r m in a n t o f f u t u r e tr e n d s .

H erzberg found

t h a t p ro v id in g f o r sala ry * which he term ed a h y g ie n ic fa c to r* may

21

p re v e n t d e c r e a s e s 1n perform ance but w i l l n o t In c re a s e perform ance.
According t o Herzberg* t h e m o tiv a tio n t o work beyond minimum r e q u i r e ­
ments comes from s a t l s f l e r f a c t o r s — achievement* r e s p o n s i b i l i t y #
r e c o g n i t i o n — a s w ell a s from what he term ed m o tiv a tio n a l f a c t o r s .
However# s a l a r y (and f r i n g e b e n e f i t s ) 1s a f a c t o r t h a t must be provided
1f employee d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n 1s t o be p r e v e n te d .5
In a stu dy by Serg1ovann1 on f a c t o r s t h a t a f f e c t s a t i s f a c t i o n
and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n 1n teaching* t e a c h e r s r a r e l y mentioned s a l a r y or
f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a s a c o n t r i b u t o r t o jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n . ^

Further*

Serg1ovann1 and C arver p o in te d o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between people
( t e a c h e r s ) and money:
Two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ab o u t people and money a r e c l e a r : (1) people
alw ays f e e l e n t i t l e d t o more money* and (2) r e g a r d l e s s o f what 1s
paid* s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith wages 1s s h o rt-1 1 v e d and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n
w a i t s around t h e c o rn e r. . . . Thus# t e a c h e r s a s I n d i v i d u a l s and a s
groups c o n t i n u a l l y compare t h e i r e a rn in g s w ith o th e r s 1n t h e same
d i s t r i c t * 1n o t h e r school d i s t r i c t s and 1n o t h e r o c c u p a tio n s .
F in a n c ia l g a in s made 1n o c c u p a tio n s o t h e r th a n e d u c a tio n c ause
t e a c h e r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e f a c t t h a t such g a in s a r e
beyond t h e s c h o o l 's c o n t r o l . 7
I t 1s l i k e l y t h a t f r i n g e b e n e f i t s c o in c id e w ith t h i s d is c u s s io n
o f s a l a r y a s a Job s a t l s f l e r o r d 1 s s a t1 s f1 e r.

T h is r e s e a r c h e r 's

e x p e r ie n c e has I n d ic a te d t h a t when f r i n g e b e n e f i t s such as h e a lt h
I n s u ra n c e o r d e n ta l In s u ra n c e become commonplace 1n o t h e r school
d i s t r i c t s o r even 1n o c c u p a tio n s o th e r th a n education* a g r e a t deal of
d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n 1s e x p re sse d by t e a c h e r s who do n o t have t h e s e b e n e f i t s
1n t h e i r com pensation package.

T his d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n 1s e v id e n t In

n e g o t i a t i o n s between a school d i s t r i c t and I t s lo c a l e d u c a tio n
a sso c iatio n .

U ntil some le v e l o f e q u 1 ta b H 1 ty 1s a t t a i n e d re g a rd in g

22

what t e a c h e r s c o n s id e r t o be a f a i r s a l a r y and f r i n g e b e n e f i t package,
1 t can be ex p ec te d t h a t th e y w i l l be d i s s a t i s f i e d and push f o r
In c re a s e d emphasis on t h e s e Item s.
Assuming t h a t a school d i s t r i c t ’s prim ary goal 1s t o Induce I t s
t e a c h e r s t o e x h i b i t t h e h i g h e s t le v e l o f perform ance p o s s i b l e , t h e
p r e s e n t p r a c t i c e o f n e g o t i a t i n g group f r i n g e b e n e f i t packages may have
Im p o r ta n t r a m i f i c a t i o n s .

A dilemma 1s c r e a t e d f o r school d i s t r i c t

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who n e g o t i a t e and a d m i n i s t e r t h e school d i s t r i c t ’s
f r i n g e b e n e f i t package— t h e dilemma o f c o n s t a n t l y I n c r e a s in g c o s t s and
v a r i e t y o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w ith o u t a r e q u i s i t e I n c r e a s e 1n t e a c h e r
p r o d u c t i v i t y o r m o tiv a tio n .
B u sh ard t and Fow ler d is c u s s e d t h i s dilemma between system and
In d iv id u a l re w ard s as th e y r e l a t e t o m o tiv a tio n .

T h e ir m a jo r

c o n te n t io n was t h a t system rew ards o r th o s e rew ard s t h a t a r e g iven t o
a l l members o f an o r g a n iz a ti o n do n o t m o tiv a te In d iv id u a l perform ance
above t h e minimum le v e l n e c e s sa ry t o In s u r e c o n tin u e d membership.
However, In d iv id u a l re w ard s a r e th o s e based on t h e em ployee's le v e l o f
perform ance.

I f t h e employee v a lu e s t h e rew ard, h e /s h e 1s m o tiv a te d t o

a c h ie v e t h e perform ance d e s ir e d by t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . ^
T h is view o f m eeting human needs 1s co n g ru e n t w ith t h e needs
h ie r a r c h y s e t f o r t h by Maslow.

According t o Maslow’s h ie r a r c h y , once

t h e b a s ic p h y s io lo g ic a l and s a f e t y needs o f p eo p le have been s a t i s f i e d ,
needs 1n such a r e a s a s lo v e , este e m , and s e l f - a c t u a l 1 z a t 1 o n a r i s e and
req u ire s a tis f a c tio n .9

In a d d i t i o n , human needs f o r s t a t u s ,

c r e a t i v i t y , a p p r e c i a t i o n , and personal I d e n t i t y emerge w ith in people 1n

23

o r g a n iz a ti o n s .

To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e s e human needs a r e s a t i s f i e d *

c o n f l i c t and t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r s e r i o u s c o n f r o n t a t i o n w ith in t h e
o r g a n iz a ti o n a r e reduced.
M eeting human needs 1s a c r i t i c a l f a c t o r 1n t h e b a rg a in in g
p ro c e ss.

Warner and Hennessey a s s e r t e d t h a t "su c c e s s o r f a i l u r e of

p u b lic management a t t h e b a rg a in in g t a b l e may w ell depend upon a t t i ­
tu d e s." ^

Deutsch s t a t e d h i s view s on t h e c o n d itio n s f o r peace and th e

Im po rtan ce o f harmonious unlon-management r e l a t i o n s :
I t 1s r e l e v a n t t o ask* f o r example* under what c o n d itio n s t h e
I n s t i t u t i o n s and p ro c e d u res o f c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g between union
and management r e s u l t 1n I n d u s t r i a l peace r a t h e r th a n I n d u s t r i a l
w a r f a r e . ■■
I t 1s a p p a re n t t h a t both c o s t s and a t t i t u d e s a s th e y r e l a t e t o
f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w i l l have an Im p o rta n t e f f e c t on f u t u r e tr e n d s .
F u rth erm o re , 1 t 1s s a f e t o assume t h a t t h e o r g a n iz a ti o n a l h e a l t h o f a
school d i s t r i c t may w ell be determ ined th ro u g h c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g .

Mfl.tQr__F-r_lflg.9 .Etens f-tts
What v a r i e t i e s and ty p e s o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a r e l i k e l y t o be
I m p o r ta n t 1n t h e 1980s* 1990s* and beyond f o r M ichigan's p u b lic school
teach ers?

As d is c u s s e d e a r l i e r * p r e s e n t t r e n d s I n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e I s

an e v e r - I n c r e a s i n g I n t e r e s t 1n f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and t h a t , o v e ra ll* t h e
c o s t s o f t e a c h e r s ' b e n e f i t s w ill c o n tin u e t o r i s e .
Although th e m agnitude and scope o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a r e open t o
s p e c u la tio n * s e v e r a l m a jo r f r i n g e b e n e f i t a r e a s may s u b s t a n t i a l l y
In f lu e n c e school d i s t r i c t fin a n c e s .

This s e c t i o n o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e

review fo c u s e s on f o u r f r i n g e b e n e f i t a r e a s t h a t have been r e c e i v i n g

24

In c re a s e d a t t e n t i o n .

Also p re s e n te d 1s a summary o f t h e most common

f r i n g e b e n e f i t s p r e s e n t l y found 1n M ichigan’ s t e a c h e r c o n t r a c t s .
H ealth M aintenance O rg a n iz a tio n s
A new form o f h e a l t h In su ra n ce has r e c e n t l y been developed:
h e a l t h m ainten an ce o r g a n i z a t i o n s (HMOs).

With c la im s o f broadened

consumer coverage and f r e e a c c e s s t o r o u t i n e medical care* HMOs have
been used by m i l l i o n s o f Americans.

A r e c e n t K lp H n g e r Washington

N e w s le tte r s t a t e d t h a t HMOs* c l i e n t e l e 1s l i k e l y t o double 1n a decade:
20 m i l l i o n e n r o l l e d f o r m e d 1 c a l-d e n ta l-p s y c h 1 a tr 1 c checkups and
tr e a tm e n ts v i a p re p a id f e e s . ^
Bendlx su p p o rte d t h i s grow th o f HMOs* s t a t i n g t h a t e n r o llm e n t
In such o r g a n i z a t i o n s was e x p ected t o r i s e 1256 1n 1982.1^

HMO

e n r o llm e n t ro s e 1356 t o 1 0 3 m i l l i o n 1n t h e f i s c a l y e a r t h a t ended June
30* 1981* compared w ith a 10.6% I n c r e a s e 1n FY 1980 and a 12% I n c r e a s e
1n FY 1979.
Although HMOs a r e new t o most peo ple 1n Michigan* th e y have
been e s t a b l i s h e d 1n t h e s t a t e and th ro u g h o u t th e n a tio n .

R o elo fs

r e p o r te d on tw o new o rg a n iz a tio n s * Grand V alley H ealth Plan and West
Michigan H ealth Care Network* t h a t a r e I n i t i a t i n g programs 1n W estern
M ichigan.14

A p rim ary f e a t u r e o f HMOs 1s t h a t members may v i s i t a

d o c to r a s many tim e s a s th e y want and e i t h e r pay n o th in g o r j u s t a
sm a ll co-paym ent fe e .

The th e o ry 1s t h a t people w i l l be more l i k e l y t o

see t h e i r d o c to rs when th e y have I n d i c a t i o n s o f an I l l n e s s .

More

f r e q u e n t v i s i t a t i o n sho uld e n a b le d o c to r s t o focus on p r e v e n tiv e

25

m edicine.

HMOs f u r t h e r c la im th ey can pro v id e b ro ad er cov erag e w ith

lo w e r monthly premiums.
C r i t i c s o f HMOs c i t e as m ajor problem s t h e la c k o f c h o ic e 1n
d o c to rs and la c k o f s u f f i c i e n t p h y s ic ia n s t o p ro v id e t im e ly s e r v i c e . ^
They f u r t h e r s t a t e t h a t HMOs a r e a f i r s t s t e p tow ard s o c i a l i z e d medi­
c in e .

HMOs w i l l be of s p e c i a l I n t e r e s t t o Michigan school d i s t r i c t s 1n

t h e n e x t decade.

C laim s o f lo w e r c o s t s w ith In c re a s e d h e a l t h c a r e

b e n e f i t s w i l l make HMOs an a l t e r n a t i v e f o r c o n s id e r a tio n 1n a new
h e a lt h In s u ra n c e approach.
S1ck Leave
S1ck le a v e 1s a m ajor c o s t t o a school d i s t r i c t .

In a r e c e n t

f r i n g e b e n e f i t study* t h e E ducational Research S e rv ic e (ERS) I n d ic a te d
t h a t 84% o f a l l responding school system s provided te a c h e r s w ith 10 t o
15 days o f s i c k le a v e p e r y e a r .

U n lim ite d a cc u m u la tio n o f s i c k le a v e

was a llo w ed 1n 453% o f t h e school systems* and 35.9% a llo w ed unused
s i c k le a v e t o be c re d ite d * a t l e a s t 1n part* to w a rd r e t i r e m e n t
serv ice .
The ERS r e p o r te d t h a t t h e average c o s t t o school d i s t r i c t s f o r
t e a c h e r ab se n c es 1s $924 a y e a r p er te a c h e r .

Another I m p o r ta n t p o in t

1n t h e stu d y was t h a t t h e h1gher-pa1d t e a c h e r s — th o s e making more th a n
$17,000 a y e a r— were a b s e n t ab o u t two days more p e r y e a r th a n t e a c h e r s
making l e s s th a n $13*000 a n n u a lly .

Also* te a c h e r s who c a l l e d 1n t o an

a n sw erin g s e r v i c e averaged more th a n nin e days' absence per year*
whereas th o s e who had t o speak t o a s p e c i f i c person w ere o u t 7.6 days.

26

F in a lly # te a c h e r s who ba rg a in ed t h e i r c o n t r a c t s w ere a b s e n t an average
of one day more th a n th o s e who d id not b a r g a i n . 17
Yet alth o u g h t e a c h e r ab se n te eism 1s a c o s t l y problem# l e s s than
8% o f t h e n a t i o n 's school d i s t r i c t s have programs t o re c o g n iz e te a c h e r s
w ith o u ts ta n d in g a tte n d a n c e r e c o r d s .1® School d i s t r i c t s may have t o
pay In c re a s e d a t t e n t i o n t o t h e m ajor c o s t o f t e a c h e r a b se n te eism .
Dental In s u ra n c e
Dental In su ra n ce I s a r e l a t i v e l y In ex p en siv e f r i n g e b e n e f i t
t h a t 1s becoming more and more common In Michigan school d i s t r i c t s .
One o f t h e adv antages o f d e n ta l In su ra n ce as compared t o o t h e r b e n e f i t s
such as health# v isio n # and l i f e In s u ra n c e 1s t h e frequent# r e g u l a r use
o f d e n ta l In su ra n ce by t e a c h e r s and o t h e r Insured employees.
In a 1979 s tu d y by t h e Departm ent o f Health# Education and
Welfare# 1 t was p r o je c te d t h a t t h e number o f w orkers covered by d e n tal
In s u ra n c e th rou gh employment In t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r would I n c r e a s e from
9 m i l l i o n 1n 1975 t o some 68.6 m i l l i o n 1n 1990.19

"A pproxim ately one-

t h i r d o f t h e p o p u la tio n 1s now covered and I e x p e c t t o s e e more th a n
60% e n r o l l e d by t h e end o f t h e decade#” s a i d Joseph Walton# d i r e c t o r o f
m arketing# group In s u ra n c e o p e ra tio n s# f o r C o n n e c tic u t General L i f e
In s u ra n c e Company.20
Su p p o rtin g t h i s trend# t h e MEA has placed p r o v is io n o f D elta
Dental In s u ra n c e a s a m a jo r goal 1n t h e n e g o t i a t i o n o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t
packages f o r Michigan school te a c h e r s .

I f t h e p r o j e c t i o n s mentioned

f o r w orkers 1n t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r apply t o p o t e n t i a l I n c r e a s e s 1n t h e
p u b lic sec to r# d e n ta l In su ra n c e should rem ain a r a p i d l y In c re a s in g

27

b e n e f i t f o r Michigan’s p u b lic school te a c h e r s d u rin g t h e next decade
and beyond.
T eacher I n - S e r v ic e (P r o f e s s io n a l
P-fi.YAlQP.mgnt,).
The s t a t e a id package f o r K-12 e d u c a tio n 1n 1980-81 budgeted
$3.2 m i l l i o n f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l development.
reduced t o $2.2 m illio n *

The 1981-82 budget was

and t h e G overnor's package f o r 1982-83 f u r t h e r

reduced p r o f e s s i o n a l developm ent t o $1.84 m illi o n .

R e g a rd le ss o f s t a t e

funding* though* p r o f e s s i o n a l developm ent has become an a re a o f v i t a l
I n t e r e s t t o both school d i s t r i c t s and e d u c a tio n a s s o c i a t i o n s .

The

f o ll o w i n g s t a t e m e n t by t h e MEA em phasized t h e Im portance o f p r o f e s ­
s io n a l developm ent:
The Michigan E ducation A s s o c ia tio n c o n tin u e s I t s commitment t o
im proving t h e q u a l i t y o f I n s t r u c t i o n t o Michigan s tu d e n t s .
I n c r e a s in g s t u d e n t achievement* however* r e q u i r e s c o n t i n u a l l y
enhancing t h e s k i l l s o f te a c h e r s . The problem o f t e a c h e r
o v e rsu pp ly means t h a t I n s t r u c t i o n a l Improvements w ill* In t h e near
fu tu re* be more dependent upon Improving t h e s k i l l s o f t e a c h e r s
c u r r e n t l y 1n t h e classro o m r a t h e r th a n lo o k in g t o b e t t e r t r a i n e d
new t e a c h e r s . We a s p r o f e s s i o n a l s must assume some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
f o r our own p r o f e s s i o n a l g ro w th .21
Local boards o f e d u c a tio n made commitments t o p r o f e s s i o n a l
developm ent on a lo c a l b a s i s o r by form ing c o n so rtiu m s w ith o t h e r
d i s t r i c t s as a r e s u l t o f s t a t e funding d u rin g t h e 1980 through 1982
school y e a r s .

W ill a commitment t o p r o f e s s i o n a l developm ent c o n tin u e

w ith o u t s t a t e funding?

W ill t e a c h e r unions n e g o t i a t e s p e c i f i c d o l l a r

amounts I n t o m a s te r a g reem en ts f o r t e a c h e r s ' p r o f e s s i o n a l developm ent?
W ill school d i s t r i c t s develop a formal f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t system t o
a s s i s t t e a c h e r s 1n p r o f e s s i o n a l developm ent?

With t h e p re s e n t

28

f i n a n c i a l problem s f a c in g Michigan school d i s t r i c t s * 1 t w i l l be I n t e r ­
e s t i n g t o s e e t h e d i r e c t i o n s p r o f e s s i o n a l developm ent w i l l t a k e 1n t h e
n e x t decade.
I t 1s assumed t h a t d e c l i n i n g e n r o llm e n ts In Michigan s c h o o ls
w i l l c au se lo c a l school d i s t r i c t s t o have fe w e r t u r n o v e r s In t e a c h in g
sta ff.

Thus* as te a c h in g s t a f f s g a in more s e n i o r i t y * a s new educa­

t i o n a l te c h n o l o g ie s develop* and a s a d e m o n stra te d need e x i s t s f o r t h e
co n tin u e d p r o f e s s i o n a l grow th o f te a c h e rs * g r e a t e r concern may be shown
f o r p r o f e s s lo n a l- d e v e lo p m e n t e x p e r ie n c e s .

Language 1n f u t u r e m a s te r

ag reem en ts may a d d re s s t h i s Is s u e .

Michigan .Pub1.te.JSfi.ho,nlaL Jjlnas- .Benefits
The Michigan A s s o c ia tio n o f School Boards (MASB) c o m p ile s a
y e a r ly summary o f t e a c h e r s ' c o n t r a c t s e t t l e m e n t s f o r M ichigan's p u b lic
s c h o o ls .

From re s p o n s e s t o a new s e c t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s e n t t o

Michigan school d i s t r i c t s *

1 t was d e term in e d t h a t c e r t a i n b o a rd -p a id

b e n e f i t s ( f u l l o r p a r t i a l ) a r e common t o many t e a c h e r c o n t r a c t s :
—289 d i s t r i c t s o r 5356 p ro v id e added com pensation f o r e x t r a c o u rs e
work such a s c r e d i t s beyond t h e b a c h e l o r 's d e g re e .
—241

o r 44% com pensate employees

fo r years o f se rv ic e .

— 174 o r 32% pay o u t t o employees t h e cash
v a lu e o f accum ulated
s i c k le a v e days* u s u a l l y upon s e p a r a t i o n from t h e d i s t r i c t .
— 156

o r 28% p ro v id e s e v e ra n c e o r

te rm in a l

pay.

—81 o r 15% p ro v id e e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t I n c e n t i v e s .
—81 o r 15% make a v a i l a b l e t a x - s h e l t e r e d a n n u i t i e s .
—22 o r 4% allow employees t o t a k e o u t l i f e In s u ra n c e on t h e i r
d ep en d en ts.

29

—Not so p o p u la r b u t a s I n t e r e s t i n g a r e such added b e n e f i t s a s
I n c e n t i v e le a v e -p a y f o r "no s i c k " days* a u to Insurance* and
le g a l I n s u r a n c e .22
A d d itio n a l In f o rm a tio n c o n ta in e d 1n t h e MASB-MASA r e p o r t has
been compiled In T ab le 1.

T able 1 .— Summary o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s provided by Michigan school
d i s t r i c t s and I n te r m e d ia te school d i s t r i c t s * 1981-82
( t o t a l r e p o r t i n g d i s t r i c t s = 5 6 1 ).
F rin g e B e n e f it
H ealth
COLA
Dental
V isio n
LTD (lo n g -te rm d i s a b i l i t y )
Group l i f e
S1ck day accum ulation
( u n lim ite d )
Source:

Yes
561
111
506
169
257
248
140

(%)

(100.0%)
( 19.8%)
( 90.2%)
( 30.1%)
( 45.8%)
( 44.4%)
( 25.0%)

No
0
450
55
392
304
313
421

(%)
( 0.0%)
(80.2%)
( 9.8%)
(69.9%)
(54.2%)
(55.6%)
(75.0%)

MASB-MASA C o n tr a c t S e ttle m e n t Report* 1981-82.

S p e c i f i c d e t a i l s on a c tu a l f r i n g e b e n e f i t c o v erag e s w ere not
a v a i l a b l e from t h e 1981-82 MASB-MASA C o n tr a c t S e tt l e m e n t Report.
However* from t h e d a ta 1 t I s e v i d e n t t h a t h e a l t h In s u ra n c e 1s t h e most
f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r te d f r i n g e b e n e f i t ; a l l r e p o r t i n g d i s t r i c t s provided
such coverage.

Dental In s u ra n c e 1s t h e n e x t most f r e q u e n t l y provided

b e n e f i t (90.2%)* fo llo w e d by lo n g -te rm d i s a b i l i t y In s u ra n c e (45.8%) and
group l i f e (44.4%).
The d a ta 1n t h e MASB-MASA R epo rt have I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e
p r e s e n t stu dy .

Some d a ta from t h e r e p o r t were compared w ith t h e

30

f o r e c a s t s made by t h e panel o f e x p e r t s s e l e c t e d f o r t h i s f r i n g e b e n e f i t
s tu d y .

R e s u lts of th e com parisons a r e r e p o r te d 1n C hapter IV.

Summary
Employee f r i n g e b e n e f i t c o s t s have e s c a l a t e d o ver t h e l a s t
t h r e e decades.

F rin g e b e n e f i t c o s t s a r e approaching 4035 o f t o t a l

p a y ro ll f o r U nited S t a t e s o r g a n iz a ti o n s .

S tu d ie s a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r

f r i n g e b e n e f i t c o s t s o f M ichigan’s p u b lic s c h o o ls , b u t 1 t 1s l i k e l y
t h a t they a r e I n c r e a s in g s i m i l a r l y .
Many f a c t o r s may I n f lu e n c e t h e f u t u r e growth o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s
f o r M ichigan's p u b lic school t e a c h e r s .

Teacher a t t i t u d e s and needs and

e s c a l a t i n g c o s t s o f o p e r a tin g school d i s t r i c t s w i l l have an Im p o rta n t
e f f e c t on f u t u r e t r e n d s .
The v a r i e t i e s and ty p e s o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s t h a t w i l l be
provided 1n t h e 1980s, 1990s, and beyond t h e y e a r 2000 a r e open t o much
s p e c u la tio n .

P ervading t h e r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e a r e s e v e ra l b e n e f i t

a r e a s t h a t may have a m a jo r I n f lu e n c e on f u t u r e b e n e f i t packages.
H ealth m ain ten ance o r g a n i z a t i o n s , d e n ta l In su ra n c e , and t e a c h e r In s e r v i c e a r e j u s t t h r e e o f t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s r e c e iv in g r e c e n t
a tte n tio n .
T h is w r i t e r placed m ajo r em phasis on d e s c r ib in g p r e s e n t f r i n g e
b e n e f i t t r e n d s and on f o r e c a s t i n g f u t u r e ones.

The f o llo w in g s e c t i o n

rev iew s some r e l a t e d developm ents t h a t may a f f e c t f u t u r e f r i n g e b e n e f i t
developments f o r M ich ig an 's p u b lic school t e a c h e r s .

31
F rin g e B e n e f it Developments
I t 1s n o t easy t o u n d e rsta n d t h e p e r s p e c t i v e s o f em ployers and
employees re g a rd in g f r i n g e b e n e f i t s o r t h e re a so n s f o r t h e ra p id growth
o f such b e n e f i t s 1n t h e p a s t t h r e e decades.

Many f a c t o r s such a s

funding t r e n d s , unionism , jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n , and o t h e r r e l a t e d c o n c e p ts
have played an Im p o rta n t p a r t 1n t h i s In c re a s e .

Of I n t e r e s t t o t h e

p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h 1s t h e e f f e c t t h a t c e r t a i n developm ents may have on
th e co n tin u e d growth o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r M ichigan's p u b lic school
teach ers.

T rying t o f o r e c a s t f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and t o d is c o v e r new

t r e n d s 1s a prim ary goal o f t h i s s tu d y , t o make I t p o s s i b l e f o r school
d i s t r i c t s t o a n a ly z e and p r o j e c t c o s t s more a c c u r a t e l y .
Although 1 t may ap p ea r t h a t some o f t h e developm ents may n o t have
a d i r e c t b e a r in g on f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s f o r p ro v id in g f r i n g e b e n e f i t s
(I .e ., c l a s s s i z e ,

p r o f e s s i o n a l developm ent, le n g th o f t e a c h e r 's

p ro b a tio n a ry p e rio d , and so on), school d i s t r i c t s have r a t h e r s p e c i f i c
amounts o f money t h a t can be a l l o c a t e d f o r bud getary purposes.

These

d o l l a r s a r e used w ith in t h e c o n s t r a i n t s o f lo c a l p o l i c i e s , s t a t e and
f e d e r a l la w s, and o t h e r r e l a t e d f a c t o r s .

W111 t e a c h e r s make t r a d e - o f f s

between nonwage b e n e f i t s such as c l a s s s i z e , s h o r t e r work y e a r s , hours,
e t c . , and d i r e c t wages o r c o s t l y f r i n g e b e n e f i t s ?

The degree t o which

such t r a d e - o f f s may occur I s an Is s u e t h a t r e q u i r e s a d is c u s s io n o f
some m ajor developm ents t h a t may I n f lu e n c e f r i n g e b e n e f i t t r e n d s f o r
M ich ig an 's p u b lic school t e a c h e r s .

32

C o l l e c t i v e B argain ing
T his stu d y was based on t h e p re m ise t h a t c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g
1n Michigan has been and w i l l c o n tin u e t o be a p ro c e ss by which
t e a c h e r s ' p e rc e iv e d need f o r f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w i l l be balanced by t h e
s ta n c e o f a lo c a l d i s t r i c t and I t s n e g o t i a t o r s .

In t h i s sec tio n * t h e

e v o lv in g n a t u r e o f c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g 1n M ichigan's p u b lic s c h o o ls
1s d is c u s s e d .

C o l l e c t i v e bargaining* 1n a d d i t i o n t o being t h e c u r r e n t

p ro c e ss o f d e te rm in in g f r i n g e b e n e f i t s 1n M ichigan's p u b lic schools*
has a ls o been used a s t h e u n d e rly in g methodology o f f o r e c a s t i n g f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s 1n t h i s s tu d y .
S ince t h e mid-1960s* a m ajor phenomenon has been t h e emergence
o f t e a c h e r unions.

These u n io n s have I n c re a s e d t h e power o f t e a c h e r

groups* and n e g o tia te d a g re em e n ts between t e a c h e r s and boards o f
e d u c a tio n have become commonplace.

With each su cc e ed in g c o n t r a c t

n e g o tia tio n * f r i n g e b e n e f i t s have re c e iv e d I n c r e a s in g a t t e n t l o n . ^ 3
To f u r t h e r I n c r e a s e t e a c h e r s ' power In n e g o t i a t i o n s (and t o
I n c r e a s e t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f o b ta in in g Improved t e a c h e r f r i n g e b e n e f i t
packages* among o t h e r b e n e f its ) * t h e MEA h as r e c e n t l y emphasized I t s
e f f o r t s t o g a in c o n tro l o f lo c a l b a rg a in in g u n i t s .
In v o lv e two r e l a t i v e l y new c o n c e p ts :

These e f f o r t s

re g io n a l and c o o rd in a te d b a rg a in ­

ing.
Reg io n a l b a r g a in in g .— Regional b a rg a in in g 1s t h e term used t o
d e s c r ib e t h e MEA's e f f o r t s t o Improve and I n c r e a s e I t s b a rg a in in g power
by c o l l e c t i v e l y In v o lv in g more th a n one employee u n i t s 1n la b o r
re la tio n s.

The plan o f a c t i o n 1s t o d e c e r t i f y t h e lo c a l e d u c a tio n

33

a s s o c i a t i o n a s t h e b a rg a in in g a g en t.

Then a l l of t h e t e a c h e r s from

s e v e ra l school d i s t r i c t s 1n a g e o g ra p h ica l a r e a a r e combined I n t o one
re g io n a l b a rg a in in g agent.

Thus t h e re g io n a l b a rg a in in g u n i t becomes

t h e l e g a l l y a u th o riz e d b a rg a in in g a g e n t f o r t h e t e a c h e r s 1n a lo c a l
school d i s t r i c t .

A review co m m itte e o f t h e r e g io n a l b a rg a in in g u n i t

approves o r d is a p p ro v e s any t e n t a t i v e ag re em e n ts made by a lo c a l
e d u c a tio n u n i t .
M ichigan's Upper P e n in s u la a lre a d y 1s a p p roachin g re g io n a l
b a rg a in in g — t h e MEA's u l t i m a t e g o a l.

Connie Math, who heads t h e MEA's

Region 7 (Oakland County) C o o rd in ated B a rg a in in g Committee* commented*
" I can s e e t h e w h o le s t a t e h a v i n g o n e m a s s i v e c o n t r a c t . . . . I t ' s t h e
only way te a c h e r s a r e going t o com bat t h e Im balance o f power.
C o ord inated b a rg a in in g .— C oo rdin ated b a rg a in in g 1s an o rg a n iz e d
a c t i o n o f many lo c a l d i s t r i c t s t h a t do n o t d e c e r t i f y th ro ug h t h e le g a l
p ro c e ss w ith t h e Michigan Employment R e l a tio n s Commission.

The l o c a l

a s s o c i a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h a c o o rd in a te d b a rg a in in g c o m m itte e and g iv e 1 t
t h e a u t h o r i t y t o approve o r r e j e c t t e n t a t i v e a g reem en ts a r r i v e d a t 1n
t h e lo c a l d i s t r i c t .
The Michigan N e g o tia t o r 's A s s o c ia tio n r e p o r te d t h a t t e a c h e r s In
many Michigan p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s have r e o rg a n iz e d I n to l a r g e r
u n i t s t h a t span an e n t i r e county o r s i m i l a r c o n tig u o u s g e o g ra p h ica l
a re a .

A pproxim ately 46*000 t e a c h e r s 1n 330 Michigan school d i s t r i c t s

have voted t o r e p la c e t h e i r lo c a l b a rg a in in g a g e n ts w ith one o f t h e 35
u n i f i e d county o r re g io n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s . 25

These u n i f i e d a s s o c i a t i o n s

d e te rm in e m ajo r b a rg a in in g g o a ls f o r th e d i s t r i c t s 1n t h e i r u n i t .

As

34

an example* a m a jo r ity o f Oakland County's MEA-aff111ated unions have
agreed on f i v e g o a ls f o r c o n t r a c t s being b a rg a in e d .

They a r e :

— A c o s t - o f - H v 1 n g and Improvement f a c t o r f o r every t e a c h e r .
— A b e n e f i t package t h a t In c lu d e s MESSA Super-Med I I ( t e a c h e r ' s
1n-house h e a lt h In s u ra n c e and t h e Auto P lu s Dental P l a n ) .
— Lower c l a s s s i z e and s t e p s t o e n f o r c e 1 t .
— P r e f e r e n t i a l h i r i n g f o r l a 1 d - o f f Oakland County t e a c h e r s when
o p en ing s occu r 1n o t h e r county d i s t r i c t s .
— A common e x p i r a t i o n d a te f o r a l l t e a c h e r c o n t r a c t s . 26
The f o ll o w i n g plan o f a c t i o n adopted by t h e MEA Board 1n
November 1977 s t a t e s t h e i r I n t e n t i o n t o u n ify lo c a l school d i s t r i c t s :
Five-Y ear Long-Range B a rg a in in g S tr a t e g y
1.

February 1* 1977. every u n i t p a r t o f a c o o rd in a te d b a rg a in in g
u n it.

2.

May 1. 1979* every c o n t r a c t w i l l have b a s i c minimum pro­
v isio n s.

3.

Mav 1* 1979* t h e b a rg a in in g u n i t s h a l l be t h e C oordinated
B a rg a in in g U n it.

4.

Mav 1. 1979* t h e c o o rd in a te d u n i t s h a l l approve t h e document
b e f o r e r a t i f i c a t i o n v o te .

5.

By 1979* l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n must be passed which a s s u r e s
r e s o l u t i o n and p ro v id e s f o r m u lt1 -u n 1 t c o n t r a c t s .

6.

By 1981* MEA becomes t h e b a rg a in in g u n i t and lo c a l i s s u e s
w ill be b a rgain ed by t h e C oordinated B a rg a in in g U n it.

Although 1 t a p p e a rs t h a t t h e MEA has n o t c o m p le te ly met I t s t i m e l i n e s
and t h a t school boards and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have r e j e c t e d t h e approach*
p ro g re s s toward t h e b a rg a in in g p la n has been made.
On t h e n a tio n a l le v e l* John Dunlap* t h e N atio n al E ducation
A s s o c ia tio n 's (NEA) t r a i n e r o f n e g o tia to rs * and t h e NEA s e e u n i f i e d

35

b a rg a in in g a s t h e wave o f t h e f u t u r e 1n e d u c a tio n .

Dunlap s ta te d *

"U nified b a r g a in in g I s changing* I t I s p r o g r e s s in g and my f e e l i n g 1s
t h a t 1 t w i l l c o n tin u e t o grow.
e v o lu tio n a r y p ro c e ss."

We te n d t o look a t 1 t a s an

Thomas Shannon* e x e c u tiv e d i r e c t o r o f t h e

N ational School Boards A s s o c ia tio n (NSBA)* c a l l e d t h e NEA's push an
e x t r a - l e g a l a tte m p t t o f o r c e school d i s t r i c t s t o c o n so lid a te * and he
f e l t 1 t was doomed t o f a i l u r e .

The American F e d e ra tio n o f T eachers

a g re e s w ith t h i s p o s i t i o n . 28
Regional b a rg a in in g has many I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r both t e a c h e r
groups and lo c a l boards o f e d u c a tio n .

For one thing* r e g io n a l b a rg a in ­

ing may r e s u l t In uniform wage sca le s* In c lu d in g f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .

As

an example* t h e Region Seven p r e s i d e n t s o f l o c a l a s s o c i a t i o n s 1n
Oakland County d r a f t e d a pap er In December 1974 e n t i t l e d "A C oordinated
B arg aining Proposal f o r Region Seven."

P a r t i a l g o a ls th e y e s t a b l i s h e d

f o r 1975-76 n e g o t i a t i o n s In c lu d e d :
—Three o r f o u r o f t h e fo llo w in g f r i n g e b e n e f i t s : Dental care*
v i s i o n care* common s i c k le a v e bank* a n d /o r lo ng term d i s a b i l i t y :
MESSA o p tio n s as a p a id t r u e group b e n e f i t o r 1n H e u o r h o s p i­
t a l i z a t i o n In s u ra n c e ; MESSA Super Med II* o r Blue C ross MVF2*
Dependent L if e In s u ra n c e .
— S a la ry t o be c o n s id e re d a s a com bination o f a p e r c e n t I n c r e a s e
o f schedule* COLA and p a id r e t i r e m e n t . The com bination o f th o s e
t h r e e Item s was n o t t o be below 16% In any t e n t a t i v e agreem ent
u n t i l t h e Region Seven "Regional A s s is ta n c e Program" c o u n cil
a u th o r iz e d o t h e r w i s e .29
Although t h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n c e s o f o p in io n re g a rd in g t h e
d e s i r a b i l i t y o f r e g i o n a l i z e d b a rg a in in g by school boards* lo c a l
e d u c a tio n a s s o c ia tio n s * and o t h e r s t a t e o r n a tio n a l a s s o c ia tio n s * t h e
number o f m u l t i - u n i t b a rg a in in g groups In c re a s e d from none 1n 1972 t o

36

33 1n 1979.

The MEA m a in ta in s t h a t lo c a l d i s t r i c t s belo ng ing t o

re g io n a l b a rg a in in g groups have In c re ase d t h e i r s a l a r y and f r i n g e
b e n e f i t g a i n s . 30
At t h e n a tio n a l le v el* t h e NEA has c l e a r l y s t a t e d t h e i r
p r o f e s s io n a l s a l a r y and f r i n g e b e n e f i t g o a ls (Appendix I).

P a r t of

t h e i r s ta n c e 1s 1n o p p o s itio n t o I n s t r u c t i o n a l perform ance pay sched­
ules* such a s m e r i t pay and perform ance o f e x t r a d u t i e s w ith o u t a d d i­
t i o n a l pay.

The NEA a l s o b e l i e v e s t h a t lo c a l d i s t r i c t s can b e s t

promote t h e economic w e l f a r e o f a l l t e a c h e r s by f o ll o w i n g s a l a r y and
f r i n g e b e n e f i t s ta n d a r d s developed a t t h e s t a t e and n a tio n a l le v e ls.3 1
S t a t e and Federal L e g i s l a t i o n
Whereas M ichigan's t e a c h e r s a r e form in g r e g i o n a l i z e d b a rg a in in g
u n its* M ichigan's p ub llc-em p lo y m en t s t a t e b a rg a in in g law s do n o t allow
school d i s t r i c t s t o form a m u lti- e m p lo y e r b a rg a in in g u n i t .

Present

l e g i s l a t i o n does n o t p e r m it a lo c a l school d i s t r i c t t o r e l i n q u i s h I t s
dec1s1on-mak1ng powers t o any o t h e r Independent body.

Should m u l t i -

em ployer b a rg a in in g u n i t s become le g al* 1 t may be assumed t h a t l o c a l
autonomy would be l o s t and le a d t o more r e g i o n a l i z e d o r s t a t e c o n t r o l .
The q u e s ti o n th e n becomes one o f w hether I t would be e a s i e r f o r a union
t o b a rg a in c o l l e c t i v e l y w ith a l a r g e r em ployer u n i t as opposed t o a
lo c a l d i s t r i c t .
O ther s t a t e and f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n may a l s o a f f e c t f r i n g e
b e n e fit tre n d s.

S t a t e and f e d e r a l law s r e q u i r e school d i s t r i c t s t o

p ro v id e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s 1n t h e form o f Social S e curity* unemployment
In s u ra n c e tax* w orkers compensation* and pension p la n s.

Although th e

37

p r e s e n t study does n o t fo c u s on t h e s e mandated b e n e f its * c u r r e n t
l e g i s l a t i o n s t i l l has had a d i r e c t In f lu e n c e on t h e I n c r e a s e 1n f r i n g e
b e n efits.

P r e s e n t f e d e r a l Income t a x law s allow employees c e r t a i n t a x

a d v an tag es when th e y r e c e iv e com pensation 1n t h e form o f f r in g e
b e n efits.
visio n*

B e n e f i t s f o r a v a r i e t y o f In s u ra n c e s (health* dental* H f e ,

e tc .) a r e n o t now s u b j e c t t o t a x a t i o n .

French c i t e d t h i s t a x

a d vantage a s a f a c t o r 1n many em ployees' p r e f e r e n c e f o r r e c e iv in g a
r e l a t i v e l y high p r o p o r tio n o f t h e i r com pensation package 1n t h e form o f
frin g e b e n e fits
However* a K Ip H n ger Washington N e w s le tte r I n d ic a te d t h a t some
b e n e f i t s were e x pected t o be ta x e d beginning 1n 1984.

T h is t a x may be

c a l c u l a t e d u s in g a fo rm u la based on a d ju s t e d g ro s s Income and a p ro r a ­
t i o n o f b e n e f i t amounts over a s e t fig u re * such as $25*000.

O ther t a x

law s may r e g u l a t e c o n t r o l s o v e r b e n e f i t s such as th o s e o f f e r e d In
f l e x i b l e " c a f e t e r i a ” p la n s.

An e a r l i e r K Ip H n g er Washington N e w s le tte r

p r o je c te d t h a t t h e IRS may soon r u l e on how f a r em ployers can go 1n
o f f e r i n g groups o f employees f l e x i b l e b e n e f i t s . ^
S elf-In su ran ce
The d e f i n i t i o n o f " s e l f - I n s u r e d " 1s n o t c l e a r .

The Tax Reform

Act o f 1978 s t a t e d t h a t s e l f - 1 n s u r a n c e 1s a plan " f o r which re im b u rs e ­
ment 1s n o t provided under a p o lic y o f a c c id e n ta l and h e a l t h In s u r­
ance."^4

Because o f t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s w ith I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f s e l f -

in s u ra n c e and a c o n c e rte d e f f o r t by t h e MEA, no group o f Michigan

38
te ac h e rs# t o t h i s r e s e a r c h e r 's knowledge# has a b e n e f i t program funded
under t h i s concept.
N evertheless# t h e s u b j e c t o f s e l f - f u n d i n g In su ra n c e 1s an
expanding a re a o f I n t e r e s t f o r p erso n s concerned w ith employee
b e n efits.

An I n c r e a s in g number o f school d i s t r i c t s o u t s i d e o f Michigan

a r e f i n d i n g th e y can save money by p ro v id in g t h e i r own employee
In su rance.

Education USA r e p o r te d t h a t t h e V a lley View Community U nit

School D i s t r i c t 365 o f Romeovllle# I l l i n o i s # c u t a lm o st $1 m i l l i o n o f
I t s medical In su ra n ce c o s t s 1n t h r e e y e a rs .

The d i s t r i c t s e t up I t s

own In su ra n c e p la n 1n 1977 w ith t h e goal o f p ro v id in g t h e same o r b e t t e r
coverage than I t s fo rm er Blue C ro ss/B lu e S h ie ld plan.

The program has

been so w ell re c e iv e d t h a t t h e I l l i n o i s A s s o c ia tio n o f School Boards
has adopted a s i m i l a r plan.35

Copeland r e p o r te d t h a t t h e DeKalb

County# Georgia# school In s u ra n c e plan saved more th a n $1 m i l l i o n 1n
w orkers com pensation s in c e 1971.36
Louis Del sol# s u p e r in te n d e n t o f C a l i f o r n i a 's Mendocino County
Schools# found t h a t t h e Stay-W ell H ealth Plan Implemented by h i s school
d i s t r i c t has had an overw helm ing p o s i t i v e respo nse.
plan b re a k s t h e medical premium I n to two p a r t s .

The b a s ic b e n e f i t

A sum o f $500 1s s e t

a s id e f o r each employee and I s p la ce d I n t o an I n t e r e s t - b e a r i n g account.
The re m a in d er 1s used t o p u rc h a se m ajo r medical cov erag e from Blue
S h ie ld f o r c la im s on an In d iv id u a l employee from $500 t o $1.3 m i l l i o n .
At y e a r 's end# amounts employees did not u se from t h e $500 s i d e fund
a r e c r e d i t e d t o t h e em ployees' perso n al a c c o u n ts f o r w ith draw al when
they le a v e t h e school system .^7

39

The T e a c h e r s Voice* a p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e MEA, has devoted
s e v e ra l I s s u e s t o some o f t h e p i t f a l l s o f s e l f - i n s u r a n c e programs.
Seven m ajor p o i n t s c o n ce rn in g why s e l f - I n s u r a n c e p la n s hold no
ad v an ta g e s f o r p u b lic school employees have been d is c u s s e d a t l e n g t h :
1. The employee l o s e s a c c e s s t o t h e S t a t e In su ra n c e Department
f o r h e lp In r e s o l v i n g c o m p la in ts.
2.

There 1s no consumer p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h e employee s in c e laws
mandating a c e r t a i n le v e l o f b e n e f its * co n v ersio n p r iv i le g e s *
and p riv a c y o f In fo rm a tio n do n o t co v er s e l f - I n s u r a n c e p la n s .

3.

S e lf - 1 n s u r a n c e p la n s a r e n o t covered by ERISA* t h e Employees
R e tire m e n t Income S e c u r ity Act o f 1974* le a v in g t h e employee
o n ly t h e c o u r t s a s a means o f s e t t l i n g d i s p u t e s w ith t h e
employer.

4.

The employee l o s e s t h e s a fe g u a rd t h a t a l l c la im s w i l l be
p a id 1n f u l l 1f t h e employee t e r m i n a t e s t h e c o n t r a c t f o r
any re a so n .

5.

Employers can p u rch ase s e p a r a t e In s u ra n c e t o co v er l o s s e s
1n e x c e s s o f t h e i r " s t o p - l o s s " le v e l* b u t th o s e p o l i c i e s
g e n e r a l l y only c o v e r l o s s e s In e x c e s s o f 125 p e r c e n t of
a n t i c i p a t e d c la im s .

6.

Employers have a c c e s s t o a l l c la im s records* je o p a r d i z i n g t h e
employees* In d iv id u a l p riv a c y r i g h t s .

7.

Large employers develop n1n-house" In s u ra n c e e x p e r tis e * d u p l i ­
c a t i n g s e r v i c e s pro v ided by r e g u l a r In s u ra n c e c a r r i e r s * b u t
1 t 1s d o u b tfu l a school d i s t r i c t can a f f o r d t o develop o r
g e t t h a t deeply I n t o t h e In s u ra n c e b u s i n e s s . 6
An e a r l i e r e d i t i o n o f The Teacher*s Voice review ed t h e c o ncerns

of t h e f a c u l t y a t Muskegon Community C o lleg e.

Prim ary drawbacks o f t h e

s e l f - I n s u r a n c e program w ere a lle g e d t o be l a c k o f c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and
d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith amounts p a id f o r medical c h a r g e s . ^ 9
The a r e a o f s e l f - I n s u r a n c e I s l i k e l y t o become a m ajo r I s s u e a t
th e b a rg a in in g t a b l e 1n t h e next d e c a d a

I f programs a r e developed

t h a t p ro v id e f o r adeq u a te h e a l t h c a r e f o r employees and t h e i r f a m i l i e s

40

and a l s o show prom ise o f producing s a v in g s f o r t h e taxpayer* th e y w ill
r e c e i v e I n c r e a s e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n In Michigan school d i s t r i c t s .
F l e x i b l e ( C a f e t e r l a - S t v l e ) In s u ra n c e
F l e x i b l e ( c a f e t e r l a - s t y l e ) In su ra n c e a llo w s em ployees t o choose
how t o a l l o c a t e a s p e c i f i e d amount o f money t o p u rc h a se v a r io u s kinds
of frin g e b e n e fits.

These e m p lo y e r - c o n tr ib u te d d o l l a r s may a llow t h e

employee t o p u rc h a se n o n ta x a b le f r i n g e b e n e f i t s such a s l i f e In s u ra n c e
( p r e s e n t l y under $50*000)* d ls a b ll1 ty -1 n c o m e Insurance* medical
Insurance* d e n ta l and v i s i o n Insurance* a u to m o b ile Insurance* and homep ro p e rty In s u ra n c e .
The p rim ary adv antage o f c a f e t e r i a p la n s f o r t h e employee 1s
t h e o p p o r tu n i ty t o choose t h e ty p e s and amounts o f b e n e f i t s t h a t meet
I n d iv id u a l needs.

The c h o ic e may vary w ith t h e age o f t h e employee*

m a r ita l s t a t u s * and Income l e v e l .
In 1974* t h e I n t e r n a l Revenue S e rv ic e was c o n s id e r in g a p p ly in g
t h e c o n s t r u c t i v e r e c e i p t d o c t r i n e t o c a f e t e r i a plans* t a x i n g employees
t o t h e e x t e n t th e y co u ld have e l e c t e d t a x a b l e b e n e f i t s . 4® As a re s u lt*
ERISA p la c e d a f r e e z e on c a f e t e r i a p la n s u n t i l Congress passed t h e
Revenue Act o f 1978.

T h is a c t s t a t e s t h a t c a f e t e r i a p la n s a r e n o t

s u b j e c t t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i v e r e c e i p t d o c trin e * p ro v id e d :
1.

T h e re 1s no d i s c r i m i n a t i o n 1n e l i g i b i l i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e .

2.

T here 1s no d i s c r i m i n a t i o n 1n c o n t r i b u t i o n s o r b e n e f i t s w ith
respect to to ta l b e n e fits.

3.

T here 1s no d i s c r i m i n a t i o n 1n c o n t r i b u t i o n s o r b e n e f i t s w ith
r e s p e c t t o n o n ta x a b le b e n e f i t s . 1

41

The la c k o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e g a rd in g t h e n o n ta x ab le s t a t u s of
c a f e t e r i a p la n s has undoubtedly been a f a c t o r In t h e slow Im plem enta­
t i o n o f such p la n s 1n school d i s t r i c t s .

However* Michigan school

d i s t r i c t s may be I n c r e a s in g t h e i r I n t e r e s t 1n t h i s approach.

A le tte r

s e n t t o Michigan school d i s t r i c t s by t h e D epartm ent o f Management and
Budget on February 22* 1982* r e f e r r e d t o t h e s u b j e c t of MPol1cy Change
1n S t a t u s o f Employees 1n t h e Form o f F rin g e B e n e f i t C a f e t e r i a P la n s."
The l e t t e r In c lu d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e I n t e r n a l
Revenue Code:
S e c tio n 125 o f t h e I n t e r n a l Revenue Code (IRC) p ro v id e s t h a t a
c a f e t e r i a plan payment I s n o t I n c lu d a b le 1n g r o s s Income s o l e l y
because t h e p la n p a r t i c i p a n t may choose among tw o o r more b e n e f i t s .
I n c lu s io n o f a cash o p tio n does n o t r e s u l t 1n t a x a b l e Income 1f t h e
p a r t i c i p a n t chooses a l l n o n ta x ab le o p tio n s . SSA has now decided
t h a t t h e I n c lu s io n o f a cash o p tio n I s Im m a te ria l 1n d e te r m in in g
t h e s t a t u s o f a c a f e t e r i a p l a n p a y m e n t. . . . P l e a s e ke ep 1n mind
t h a t t h e r e a r e u n re so lv e d a r e a s t h a t may be In c lu d e d 1n c a f e t e r i a
p l a n s . 42
Although t h e c a f e t e r i a plan p ro v id e s f o r v a r i a t i o n s 1n
In d iv id u a l needs* c e r t a i n f a c t o r s need t o be c o n sid e re d b e fo re a school
d i s t r i c t a d o p ts t h i s f l e x i b l e approach.

The In c re a s e d c o m p le x ity o f

a d m i n i s t e r i n g a c a f e t e r i a p la n I s a m a jo r c o n s id e r a tio n .

P a y ro ll

deductions* o b ta in in g com p arable In s u ra n c e q u o ta tio n s * employee
communications* costs* and d e te r m in a tio n o f t h e b e n e f i t s t o be
In clu d ed 1n t h e p la n a r e some o f t h e m ajor t o p i c s t h a t need t o be
c o n s id e re d .

The K Ip H n g er Washington N e w s le tte r s t a t e d :

You h e a r t a l k about " C a f e t e r i a P la n s " f o r f r i n g e b e n e f i t s . . . and
I t ' s s t i l l m o stly t a l k . Only a few b ig s have I n s t a l l e d such p lan s.
. . . T h e y 'l l becom e m o re common b e f o r e l o n g . . . and s p r e a d t o
sm alls* depending on how easy IRS makes I t s new r u l e s . We w i l l
w a tc h f o r th e m . U n t i l t h e n . . . o u r a d v i c e I s t o go s lo w on
c a f e t e r i a p la n s . T h e y 'r e p r e t t y complex. 3

42

R e t r ie v a l B argaining
A r e c e n t developm ent 1n t h e a re a of f r i n g e b e n e f i t s has been
r e t r i e v a l b a rg a in in g .

B a s ic a lly * M ichigan’s p u b lic sch oo ls* fa c in g a

l o s s o f revenue* a r e a tte m p tin g t o c o n tro l and even w ithdraw ex pensiv e
frin g e b e n e fit c o sts.
In a r e c e n t Wall S t r e e t Jo u rn a l a r t i c l e , G reenb erg er r e p o r te d
t h e re a so n em ployers a r e c o n s id e r in g r e t r i e v a l b a rg a in in g :

The

b a lan c e o f power between p u b lic employee unions and t h e i r b o sse s has
tip p e d 1n fa v o r o f management."44

According t o Greenberger* th e

d e te rm in in g f a c to rs * based on a survey o f em ployers and l a b o r r e l a t i o n s
e x p e r ts a c r o s s t h e country* a r e a s fo llo w s :
1.

The e x p lo s iv e growth o f p u b lic s e c t o r unions has peaked.

2.

P u b lic o f f i c i a l s a t th e s t a t e and lo c a l l e v e l s a r e

overcoming t h e " In e x p e rie n c e and t i m i d i t y 1n d e a lin g w ith la b o r I s s u e s
[ t h a t ] gave unions t h e upper h a n d ."
3.

The f i r i n g o f a 1 r - t r a f f 1 c c o n t r o l l e r s and m ajor c u t s 1n

f e d e r a l employment have provoked union f e a r t h a t t h e same could happen
a t t h e s t a t e and lo c a l l e v e l s .
4.

Growing p u b l i c re s e n tm e n t has prompted some unions t o draw

In t h e i r h o rn s.
5.

A r b itr a to r s * aw are o f t h e economic c lim a te* a r e g iv in g more

c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e a b i l i t y o f lo c a l and s t a t e governments t o pay f o r
wage I n c r e a s e s .

43

G reenberger a l s o noted a tr e n d 1n p u b l1 c - s e c to r la b o r r e l a t i o n s
o f I n c re a s e d w i l l i n g n e s s t o cooperate* p a r t i a l l y because o f t h e need t o
p r o t e c t mutual I n t e r e s t s .
General Motors C o rp o ra tio n 's g en eral manager o f w orldw ide
employee b e n e fits * Kenneth O lthoff* s t a t e d t h a t General Motors w ants t o
c u t I t s b e n e f i t c o s t s and g e t more o u t o f t h e money I t spends.

He

s t a t e d t h a t G.M. 1s paying an averag e o f $10*000 a y e a r 1n b e n e f i t s
f o r each employee.

Some o f t h e c o s t- c o n ta ln m e n t m easures and changes

being c o n sid e re d by G.M. a r e :
— phasing 1n o f b e n e f i t s based on s e n i o r i t y .
— h e a l t h and l i f e In s u ra n c e geared t o I n d iv id u a l needs and some
b e in g co-funded by t h e employee.
— Changes 1n t h e 30 and o u t e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t program . . .
de-emphas1ze t h a t . 45
At t h e Michigan N e g o tia to r s A s s o c ia tio n 's 1982 s p r in g c o n f e r ­
ence* Dr. K eith Groty* Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity V ic e - P r e s i d e n t and
a r b i t r a t o r * gave t h e f o ll o w i n g exam ples o f a r e a s 1n which school man­
agement could s t a r t r e t r i e v a l b a rg a in in g :
— Paid tim e o f f (n o n p ro d u c tiv e tim e ) I s expensive* such as t h e
number o f paid h o lid a y s and " p erso n a l le a v e t i m e . " Groty
asked "why n o t unpaid h o lid a y s ? "
— The prime e x c e s s iv e u n p ro d u c tiv e tim e 1s s i c k le a v e banks . . .
p lu s p a id tim e t o union o f f i c i a l s .
— O ther examples o f " g iv e aways" t o unions* t h a t can be r e tr ie v e d *
are:
1. U n c o n tr o lla b le b e n e f i t programs such a s h e a lt h and d ental
I n s u ra n c e s .
2 . Long-term d i s a b i l i t y p la n s .
3 . Full b e n e f i t s f o r p a r t - t i m e p e o p le.
4 . Wage I n c r e a s e s n o t r e l a t e d t o perform ance.
5 . COLA which has no r e l a t i o n s h i p t o performance o r t o
a n y th in g .

44

6.
7.
8.
9.

R e s t r i c t i v e language such as c l a s s s i z e l i m i t s .
R e s t r i c t i v e jo b d e s c r i p t i o n s .
L im its on e v a l u a t i o n .
A s t r a i g h t s e n i o r i t y sy ste m .46

Groty d i r e c t e d o t h e r recom m endations a t school management t o
n e g o t i a t e t h e r i g h t t o have s h o r t - t e r m l a y o f f s f o r a l l employees* as
w ell a s t h e r i g h t t o s u b c o n tr a c t.

He a l s o recommended t h a t management

n e g o t i a t e co-pay on b e n e f its * d e d u c ti b le ti m e off* b id d in g In su ra n c e
p o lic ie s * and d e la y in g t h e tim e f o r In s u ra n c e b e n e f i t s t o beg in .
R e t r ie v a l b a rg a in in g and c o n c e s s io n s could be a prim e f a c t o r 1n
n e g o t i a t i o n s d u rin g t h e 1980s.

With Michigan f a c in g d i f f i c u l t economic

tim es* In c re a s e d e f f o r t s by school d i s t r i c t s t o c o n ta in c o sts* and
t e a c h e r s s t r i v i n g t o r e t a i n b e n e f i t s gained and t o Improve p r e s e n t
b e n e f i t packages* r e t r i e v a l b a rg a in in g e f f o r t s may be a le a d in g c au se
o f t e a c h e r s t r i k e s and c o n f l i c t s 1n t h e f u t u r e .
Sources o f Funding
Funding f o r K-12 p u b l i c e d u c a tio n 1n Michigan has undergone
some marked changes 1n t h e l a s t decade.

Dr. John Gross o f t h e Univer­

s i t y o f Michigan r e p o r te d t h a t s t a t e e x p e n d itu r e s f o r sch o ol a id (K-12)
f e l l from 40.4% o f t h e t o t a l s t a t e b ud get 1n FY 1971 t o 29.2% 1n FY
1981.47

During t h i s same period* f e d e r a l rev enu es r o s e from 4.0% o f

t o t a l school revenues i n 1967-68 t o a p p ro x im a te ly 6.2% 1n 1980-81.
Gross I n d ic a te d th a t* o v e ra ll* f e d e r a l a id t o Michigan has I n c re a s e d a t
a r a t e o f 17% p er y e a r o v e r t h e l a s t decade.

The d e c l i n e 1n p e rc e n ta g e

o f s t a t e and f e d e r a l s u p p o r t f o r M ichigan's K-12 p u b lic e d u c a tio n 1s
I l l u s t r a t e d 1n T a b le 2.

45

Table 2 . — Comparison o f f e d e ra l* s t a t e * and lo c a l K-12 revenu es (1n
p e rc e n t).

Source:

Year

S ta te

F ederal

Local

1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80
1980-81
1981-82

42.1%
4 1 .4
4 2 .9
4 0 .4
3 5 .6
3 1 .8

5.6%
6 .2
6 .0
6.1
6.1
5.1

52.3%
52 .4
51.1
53 .5
58 .3
63.1

1982-83 ( e s t . )

3 1 .4

4 .8

6 3 .8

Equal P a r t n e r s f o r Education* Michigan PTA* "Comparison o f
S ta te /L o c a l K-12 Revenue" ( t a b l e p rep ared by House Demo­
c r a t i c E ducation O ffic e )* 1983.

A d d itio n a l c o n ce rn s a r e a l s o c r e a t i n g problem s 1n funding
school d i s t r i c t s 1n Michigan.

S tu d e n t e n r o llm e n t f i g u r e s p r o je c te d by

Hecker and Ig n a to v ic h I n d ic a te d t h a t by 1983-84 t h e r e would be a t o t a l
K-12 d e c re a s e o f 262*324 s t u d e n t s o r a 12.6% d e c re a s e from 1978.
According t o t h e s e authors* 1n t h e 14 y e a r s between 1979 and 1993*
t h e r e w ill be a 32% d e c l i n e In high school e n r o l l m e n t s . 48
These p r o j e c t i o n s o f d e c l i n i n g e n r o llm e n ts have s e r io u s
I m p l i c a t i o n s because o f t h e manner In which Michigan re d u c e s revenue t o
l o c a l d i s t r i c t s a s e n r o llm e n ts d e c lin e .

Pagen p o in te d o u t t h e In e q u i­

t i e s between 1 n -fo rm u la and o u t- o f - f o r m u la school d i s t r i c t s .
fo rm u la d i s t r i c t *

In an In ­

when a s t u d e n t 1s l o s t t h e s t a t e fo rm u la s u p p o r t 1s

reduced by t h e g ro s s allowance* n o t by t h e s t a t e s h a r e t h e d i s t r i c t
would have re c e iv e d f o r t h e s tu d e n t.

In an o u t - o f - f o r m u l a d i s t r i c t *

when a s t u d e n t I s l o s t t h e d i s t r i c t does n o t l o s e any o f I t s Income*

46

o t h e r th a n 1n c a t e g o r i c a l s.

T his p ro c e d u re red u ces s t a t e s u p p o r t t o

In - fo rm u la d i s t r i c t s b u t has no e f f e c t on o u t - o f - f o r m u l a d i s t r i c t s . 49
Another m ajor problem t h a t a f f e c t s I n - fo rm u la d i s t r i c t s 1s t h e
ta x p a y e r s ' co n fu sio n on p ro p e rty ta x e s .

Many Michigan ta x p a y e r s f in d

1 t d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e rstan d th a t* even though lo c a l a s s e s s m e n ts and
t a x e s ris e * lo c a l d i s t r i c t s * Income I n c r e a s e s s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s of
t h e g r o s s a llo w an c e 1n t h e S t a t e Aid Act.

Thus* an I n c r e a s i n g l y

n e g a tiv e a t t i t u d e has been developing to w a rd t h e p ro p e rty ta x .

This

a t t i t u d e * along w ith t h e d e p re sse d economy* has made 1 t I n c r e a s i n g l y
d i f f i c u l t t o I n c r e a s e school d i s t r i c t re v e n u es th ro u g h m l l l a g e
e le c tio n s.
The e f f e c t s o f d e c l i n i n g e n ro llm e n ts* a d e p re ss e d economy*
e f f o r t s t o p ro v id e p ro p e rly t a x r e l i e f , and t h e d e c l i n e 1n s t a t e
spending 1n t h e p a s t decade a r e some o f t h e f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g d o l l a r s
a v a i l a b l e f o r K-12 school d i s t r i c t s .
1n t u r n ,

The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f d o l l a r s w i l l ,

a f f e c t f u t u r e t r e n d s 1n f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r M ichigan's p u b lic

school t e a c h e r s .
Summary
Over th e p a s t t h r e e decades* p e rc e n ta g e c o s t s o f f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s have been I n c r e a s in g s u b s t a n t i a l l y f a s t e r th a n b a s i c wages.
Many f a c t o r s have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h i s c o s t l y ty p e o f com pensation.
B rie fly * f a c t o r s t h a t have In flu e n c e d t h e I n c r e a s e o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s
1n t h e p u b lic school s e c t o r a r e (1) I n c r e a s e s In c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g
and t e a c h e r union power* (2) fe d e ra l and s t a t e l e g i s l a t i o n *

(3) t e a c h e r

47

a t t i t u d e s r e l a t i n g t o h y g ie n ic f a c t o r s and j o b s e c u rity *

(4) I n c r e a s e s

In f r i n g e b e n e f i t com pensation 1n t h e p r i v a t e and governm ental s e c to rs *
and (5) o t h e r en viro nm ental f a c t o r s .
The v a r i e t i e s and ty p e s o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s t h a t a r e l i k e l y t o
be o f Im p ortan ce 1n t h e 1980s* 1990s* and beyond t h e y e a r 2000 a r e
u n lim it e d .

New approaches t h a t may be o f v a lu e t o Michigan p u b lic

school t e a c h e r s a n d /o r boards o f e d u c a tio n In c lu d e f l e x i b l e b e n e f i t
packages* HMOs* and s e l f - i n s u r a n c e .
F rin g e b e n e f i t com pensation has become an a r e a t h a t r e q u ir e s
g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n by school p e rso n n el.

I t 1s v i t a l l y Im p o r ta n t f o r

both t e a c h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s and school d i s t r i c t s t o examine t h e f u t u r e
o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a s a m a jo r f a c t o r 1n t h e economic s a l a r y package o f
M ic h ig a n 's p u b lic school t e a c h e r s .
Compensation p r a c t i c e s 1n t h e p u b lic school s e c t o r sho uld be
o r i e n t e d to w a rd p la n n in g and c o n t r o l l i n g wages and f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .
I f p r e s e n t t r e n d s continue* f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w i l l assume an even g r e a t e r
p r o p o r tio n o f school d i s t r i c t s ' o p e r a tin g c o s ts .

Consequently* a

g r e a t e r u n d e rs ta n d in g o f p o t e n t i a l changes and developm ents r e l a t i n g t o
f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w i l l p ro v id e d i r e c t i o n t o t e a c h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s and
school d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

Through such d ire c tio n * some o f t h e

problem s t h a t have a r i s e n a t t h e b a rg a in in g t a b l e and a l s o w i t h i n lo c a l
school d i s t r i c t budgets may be a l l e v i a t e d o r b ro ug ht t o l i g h t so t h a t
a d eq u a te p la n n in g may o c c u r .
S ince 1947* Chamber o f Commerce s t u d i e s have p ro vid ed t h e m ajor
s o u rc e of p e r t i n e n t f r i n g e b e n e f i t In f o rm a tio n p u b lis h e d on a

48

s y s te m a tic b a s is 1n t h e U nited S t a t e s .

These Chamber s t u d i e s were used

1n t h e I n i t i a l f o r m a tio n o f t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t l i s t s used 1n t h e
p r e s e n t study.

A d d itio n a l Item s r e l a t i n g t o f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and r e l a t e d

f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents were I d e n t i f i e d from a review o f a r t i c l e s
found In a v a r i e t y o f p e r i o d i c a l s .
For purp o ses o f t h i s study* f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w ere c a te g o r iz e d
I n to f o u r m ajo r a r e a s :

(1) h e a l t h - r e l a t e d * (2) economic* (3) f a m ily -

r e l a t e d a n d /o r personal* and (4) p r o f e s s i o n a l .

The r e l a t e d f r i n g e

b e n e f i t developm ents were o rg a n iz e d I n t o t h r e e t o p i c a l groups* based on
t h e le v e l th e y may f i r s t a f f e c t :
and (3) n a t i o n a l .

(1) lo c a l and reg io n al* (2) s ta te *

The f o ll o w i n g c h a p te r d e t a i l s t h e methodology

designed t o f o r e c a s t t h e f u t u r e t r e n d s 1n f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r
M ich ig an 's p u b lic school t e a c h e r s .

49

F o o tn o te s— C hapter I I
^Chamber o f Commerce of t h e U nited S t a t e s o f America, "Employee
B e n e f it s — 1981" (W ashington, D.C.: Chamber o f Commerce o f t h e USA,
1981).
2 Lou1s Romano, R ichard L. F e a th e r s to n e , N ich olas P. Georglady,
and S i s t e r D o rlta W otlska, Jha Management sd E du cation al P e rs o n n e l,
r e v . ed. (Wheeling, 1 1 1 .: W hitehall C o ., P u b li s h e r s , 1977).
^T. J . Gordon and R. E. LeBleu, "Employee B e n e f i t s ,
Harvard B u siness Review (J a n u a ry -F e b ru a ry 1970).

1970-1985,"

^R andall B. Dunham and Roger A. Formlsano, "Designing and
E v a lu a tin g Employee B e n e f i t System s." Perso nn el A d m in is tr a to r (April
1982): 29-35.
^ F r e d e r ic k H erzberg, B arbara Mausner, and B arb ara Snyderman,
The M o tiv a tio n t o Work (New York: John W iley, 1959).
®Thomas J . Serg1ovann1, " F a c to rs Which A f f e c t S a t i s f a c t i o n and
D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n 1n T eaching," J o u rn a l s d E d u catio n al A d m in is tr a tio n 5
(May 1967): 66-82.
^Thomas J. Serg1ovann1 and Fred D. C arver, The New School
E x e c u tiv e : A Theory a £ A d m in is tra tio n (New York: Dodd, Mead and Co.,
1973), pp. 7 8 -7 9 .
^Stephen C. B ushardt and Aubry R. Fow ler, 'C om pensation and
B e n e f i t s : Today's Dilemma In M o tiv a tio n ," Personnel A d m in is tr a to r 27
(A pril 1982): 23-26.
®A. H. Maslow, "A Dynamic Theory o f Human M o tiv a tio n ," 1n
U nderstanding Human M o tiv a tio n , ed. Chalm ers L. Stacey and M. F.
deM artln (New York: World P u b lis h in g C o ., 1965), pp. 84-109.
^ K e n n e th C. Warner and Mary L. Hennessey, P u b lic Management a t
t h e B argain in g Table (Chicago: P u b lic Personnel A s s o c ia tio n , 1967),
pp. 306-308.
11 Morton Deutsch, l b s R e s o lu tio n £ f C o n f l i c t : C o n s tr u c t iv e a n d
D e s tr u c tiv e P ro c e s se s (New Haven: Yale U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , 1973),
pp. 380-81.
12The K Ip H n g er Washington E d i t o r s , The K Ip H n g e r Washington
N e w s le tte r, J u l y 2 , 1981.

50

13J e f f Bendlx, "HMO E n ro llm e n t W ill I n c r e a s e 12* 1n '8 2 ,"
Modern H e a lth c a re 12 (J a n u ary 1982): 50.
14R o elo fs, Grand Rapids (Michigan) P r e s s , February 2 3 , 1982.
15R o e lo fs, Grand Rapids .(Michigan) P r e s s , February 23, 1983.
^ " F r i n g e B e n e f i t s f o r Teachers 1n P u b lic S c h o o ls," P a r t 3 of
N ational Survey of F rin g e B e n e f it s 1n P u b lic Schools (A rlin g to n , Va.:
E ducational Research S e r v ic e , I n c . , 1981).
17I b 1 d ., summary f i n d i n g s .
^ E d u c a t i o n USA (N ational School P u b lic R e l a tio n s A s s o c ia tio n ) ,
September 2 8, 1981.
^ " D e n ta l Plan Study F o r e c a s ts Growth Through 1990," a study by
t h e Departm ent o f H e a lth , E ducation and W elfare, Employee B e n e f i t Plan
Review (O ctober 1979): 88-89.
20"Dental In s u ra n c e I s F a s t e s t Growing B e n e f i t ," Employee
B e n e f it Plan Review (November 1981): 88.
2 ^The Advocate (P ro fe s s io n a l Development and Human R ig h ts
D iv is io n , Michigan E ducation A s s o c ia tio n ) 15 (September 1981).
22Harry W. Bishop, "1981-82 T e a ch e r's C o n tra c t S e ttle m e n t
R eport" (L ansing: Michigan A s s o c ia tio n o f School Boards, J u l y 14,
1982).
23"A N ation al Survey o f P r i n c i p a l s ' S a l a r i e s and B e n e f i t s ,"
N ation al Elementary P r i n c i p a l 56 (M arch/April 1977): 21.
24Conn1e Math, 1n E du cators N e g o tia tin g S e rv ic e (Robbins
A s s o c ia te s Management S e r v i c e ) , August 1, 1979.
25"R eg1onal/C oordinated B a rg a in in g : T o t a l1 s t1 c P e r s p e c t i v e ,"
Michigan N e g o tia to r s A s s o c ia tio n p o s i t i o n p a p e r, 1981.
26Math, l o c . c 1 t .
27"Coord1nated B arg a in in g U n its", Michigan N e g o tia to r s A ssocia­
t i o n p o s i t i o n paper, 1977.
2 8Ch1ef Spokesman (M ichigan N e g o tia to r s A s s o c ia tio n ) , October
1981.
2 ®"A C oordinated B a rg a in in g Proposal f o r Region Seven," a
d r a f t e d p a p er, Region Seven, 1974.

51
3 0T eachers Voice (MEA p u b l i c a t i o n ) (Jan u ary 1976).
31" P ro f e s s io n a l S a la ry and F rin g e B e n e f it G o als." NEA R e p o rte r
(September 1981).
3 2 Wendell L. French. Ihfi Personnel Management P ro c e s s (Bostons
Houghton-M1ffl1n C o .. 1978). p. 430.
33The K Ip H n g e r Washington E d i t o r s . The K Ip H n g e r Washington
N e w s le tte r . February 18# 1983.
34" S e lf-I n s u r a n c e # " Employee B e n e f i t Plan Review (March 1980):
3 0 -3 2 .

3 5 Educat1on USA (N atio n al School P u b lic R e l a tio n s A s s o c ia tio n ) .
November 10# 1980.
3 6J. Paul Copeland# "Safety# P r o t e c t i o n and Savings D o lla r s ,"
The School A d m in is tra to r (O ctober 1981): 16-17.
3 7 Lou1s G. Del s o l ,

"Stay-W ell# Two Years L a t e r ." The School

Adm.1.n1Str.atQ.r. (O ctober 1981): 16.
38"Beware t h e P i t f a l l s o f S e l f - I n s u r a n c e , " T e a c h e r's Voice (MEA
P u b li c a tio n ) # O cto ber 26# 1981# pp. 6 - 7 .
39"D 1 sa s te r a t Muskegon Community C o lle g e ." T e a c h e r's Voice
(MEA P u b l i c a t i o n ) (September 1981).
48Donald S. Grubbs# Jr.# "The Revenue Act o f 1978— How Does I t
A f f e c t Employee B e n e f i t P la n s ? " Pension World 15 (May 1979): 46-47.
4 l Ib1d.
42"Pol1cy Change 1n S t a t u s o f Employees 1n t h e Form o f F rin g e
B e n e f i t ( C a f e t e r i a ) Plans#" l e t t e r by M arilyn Hammond# S o c ia l S e c u r ity
Advisor# D epartm ent o f Management and Budget# S t a t e o f Michigan#
Lansing.
43The K lp lln g e r W ashington E d ito rs# The K Ip H n g e r Washington
N e w s le tte r , March 27, 1981.
44R obert G reenberger# e x c e r p t from a Wall S t r e e t J o u rn a l
a r t i c l e r e p o r te d In MASB-MASA T a b le T a lk , Jan u a ry 19# 1982.
43Kenneth O lthoff# quoted 1n C h ie f Spokesman (M ichigan
N e g o tia to r s A s s o c ia tio n ) (December 1981).
46Ke1th Groty# " R e tr ie v a l B argaining#" C h ie f Spokesman
(Michigan N e g o tia to r s A s s o c ia tio n ) (O ctober 1981).

52

47B arze r and Larsen* eds.» M1ch1gan»s F is c a l and Economic
S t r u c t u r e (Ann A rbor: U n iv e r s ity o f Michigan Press# 1982)* c h a p te r 12.
48»'Project1 ons Show D e c lin in g Secondary E n ro ll ments*" C o lle g e
o f E ducation: Educators* R eport (Michigan S t a t e U n iv e rs ity ) 7 (W inter
1980).
49John Pagen* Michigan School Board J o u rn a l 29 (Jun e 1982).

CHAPTER I I I

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
I n tr o d u c ti o n
T h is s tu d y c e n t e r s on fo u r b a s ic q u e s ti o n s w ith re g a rd t o
f o r e c a s t i n g f u t u r e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r M ichigan’s p u b lic school
teach ers.

These q u e s ti o n s a r e :

(1) What f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a r e e xp ected

t o occu r 1n t h e fu tu re* and a r e t h e tw o groups o f p a n e l i s t s from
p o p u la tio n s w ith t h e same median?

(2) What lo c al* s ta t e * and f e d e r a l

f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents a r e expected t o occur 1n t h e fu tu re* and
a r e t h e two groups o f p a n e l i s t s from p o p u la tio n s w ith t h e same median?
(3) Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s e l e c t e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and
u n ls e rv d i r e c t o r s w ith re g a rd t o t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t
developm ents o c c u r rin g ? and (4) What o r g a n iz a ti o n a l u n i t s a r e most
l i k e l y t o oppose o r s u p p o r t t h e o c c u rre n c e o f s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t
developments?
Q u e stio n s 3 and 4 were In c lu d e d 1n t h e s tu d y because th e y may
have a d i r e c t I n f lu e n c e on t h e o c c u rre n c e o f t h e r e l a t e d developm ents.
In a d d itio n * th e y should p ro v id e I n s i g h t I n to a r e a s 1n which agreem ent
o r c o n f l i c t may a r i s e In f u t u r e f r i n g e b e n e f i t n e g o t i a t i o n s .
T his c h a p te r d e s c r i b e s t h e methodology used t o gather* process*
and a n a ly z e t h e d a ta t h a t pro v id e t h e answ ers t o t h e f o u r r e s e a r c h
q u e s tio n s .

The m ajor d i v i s i o n s o f t h e c h a p te r a r e overview o f

53

54

methodology* p o p u la tio n and sample* q u e stio n n a ire * d a ta c o lle c tio n * and
t r e a t m e n t o f t h e d a ta .
Overview o f Methodology
The Delphi te c h n iq u e (see Appendix A) used 1n t h i s s tu d y has
been used p re d o m in a n tly 1n lo n g -ra n g e te c h n o lo g ic a l f o r e c a s t i n g .
a method o f e l i c i t i n g and r e f i n i n g group judgm ents.

I t 1s

Delphi pro cedu res

have t h r e e Im p o r ta n t f e a t u r e s :
1.

Anonymous re sp o n se — o p in io n s o f panel members a r e o b ta in e d
by form al q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .

2.

I t e r a t i o n and c o n t r o l l e d feedback— I n t e r a c t i o n 1s e f f e c t e d
by a s y s t e m a t i c e x e r c i s e conducted over s e v e r a l rounds*
w ith c o n t r o l l e d feedback between rounds.

3.

S t a t i s t i c a l group re s p o n se —t h e group o p in io n 1s d e fin e d as
an a p p r o p r i a t e a g g re g a te o f In d iv id u a l o p in io n s on t h e
f i n a l ro u n d .

These f e a t u r e s a r e d e sig ned t o m in im ize t h e b i a s i n g e f f e c t s o f dominant
In d iv id u a ls * o f I r r e l e v a n t communications* and o f group p r e s s u r e tow ard
c o n fo rm ity .
The I n i t i a l s t e p was t o develop a t w o - p a r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e
c o n ta i n in g f r i n g e b e n e f i t and r e l a t e d developm ent Item s.

These Ite m s

were p re s e n te d t o a s e l e c t e d panel o f e x p e r t s t o e l i c i t t h e i r
Ind ependent ju dg m ents.

From an a n a l y s i s o f t h i s p i l o t q u e s tio n n a ire *

t h e f i r s t form al q u e s t i o n n a i r e was designed.

Through t h r e e succeeding

rounds* p a n e l i s t s w ere re q u e s te d t o respond t o 44 f r i n g e b e n e f i t Item s
and 30 r e l a t e d f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents.

A f te r t h e f i r s t two

55

rounds* p a n e l i s t s ' re s p o n se s w ere summarized and re s p o n d e n ts were
given a c o n c is e summary o f r e s u l t s .

In t h e t h i r d and f i n a l round* t h e

re s p o n se s were compiled I n t o s t a t i s t i c a l f i n d i n g s .
The s t e p s o f t h e Delphi te c h n iq u e as used 1n t h i s stud y can be
diagrammed a s shown 1n F ig u re 1.

Development o f Q u e s tio n n a ir e

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f E x p e rts
(Sample s i z e = 56)

P i l o t — D i s t r i b u t e Q u e s tio n n a ir e

Revise* Prepare* and D i s t r i b u t e
Round I Q u e s tio n n a ir e

Analyze* T a b u la te Responses* and
D i s t r i b u t e Round I I Q u e s tio n n a ire

Analyze* T a b u la te Responses* and
D i s t r i b u t e Round I I I Q u e s tio n n a ire

Compile and D issem in ate
F in a l R e s u lts

F ig u re 1 . — S te p s o f t h e Delphi te c h n iq u e .

56

The f in d i n g s o b ta in e d th rou gh t h e use o f t h e Delphi procedure
provided t h e In f o rm a tio n o r d a ta base o f t h e study.

In t h e rem ainder

o f t h i s chapter# t h e methodology o f t h i s re s e a rc h 1s d e s c rib e d 1n
d e tail.
P o p u la tio n and Sample
The p o p u la tio n f o r t h i s s tu d y was d e riv e d from two d i f f e r e n t
groups o f e x p e r ts .

The f i r s t group was a s e l e c t e d group o f Michigan

p u b lic school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who had been I d e n t i f i e d a s being th e
I n d i v i d u a l s In t h e i r school d i s t r i c t s who w ere p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s ib le
f o r employee com pensation and f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .

These s e l e c t e d e x p e r ts

w ere f u r t h e r l i m i t e d t o b e in g from school d i s t r i c t s t h a t had s tu d e n t
e n r o llm e n ts o f 10*000 o r more a s I d e n t i f i e d 1n t h e Michigan Education
D 1rectory (1980).

Given t h e s e r e s t r i c t i o n s * t h e p o p u la tio n o f

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s s tu d y c o n s i s t e d o f 28 p o t e n t i a l
p a rtic ip a n ts.
Names o f t h e second group o f e x p e r t s were o b ta in e d from t h e
MEA’s 1 1 s t o f u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s .

With t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f Fred Comer*

MEA A s s o c ia te D ire c to r* a 1 1 s t was com piled o f 28 u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s who
w ere employed In t h e same g e o g ra p h ic a l a r e a s a s t h e s e l e c t e d school
a d m in istra to rs.

A d d itio n a l c r i t e r i a used In s e l e c t i n g t h e u n ls e r v

d i r e c t o r s w ere t h e i r e x p e r ie n c e and knowledge of com pensation and
f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r Michigan p u b lic school t e a c h e r s .
The e x p e r ie n c e and jo b s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s o f t h e s e l e c t e d
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s were m ajor c r i t e r i a used 1n
s e le c tin g th e p a n e lists.

The s e l e c t i o n p roced ure and c r i t e r i a employed

57

f o r each group w ere de sig n e d t o produce r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous groups
w ith e x p e r t i s e 1n t h e a r e a o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .
C o n s id e ra tio n s o f homogeneity In flu e n c e d t h e s i z e o f th e sam ple
needed 1n t h i s Delphi s tu d y .

C ypert and Gant r e p o r te d t h a t 1f a group

1s r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous* between 10 and 15 re s p o n d e n ts a r e s u f f i ­
c ie n t.^

In a n o th e r stu d y by Brown* Cochran and Dal key* a s r e p o r te d by

Uhl* 1 t was su g g e ste d t h a t n o th in g m eaningful 1s l o s t 1n a Delphi study
by I n c lu d in g le s s -k n o w le d g e a b le p e rso n s a s long a s some p a r t i c i p a n t s
a r e know ledgeable.2

The a c tu a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f 19 p a n e l i s t s

th ro u g h o u t t h e e n t i r e s tu d y I n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e sam ple s i z e o f p a n e l i s t s
was s u f f i c i e n t t o g e n e r a te meaningful r e s u l t s .
Judd s t u d i e d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e l i a b i l i t y and group
size .

F ig u re 2 was c o n s tr u c te d by randomly s e l e c t i n g v a r1 o u s-s1 z e d

groups o f re s p o n d e n ts and c o r r e l a t i n g t h e median re s p o n s e s o f t h e
p a i r s on 20 q u e s tio n s .

The o r d i n a t e I s t h e a v erag e o f t h e s e c o r r e l a ­

tio n s .^
I t 1s c l e a r from F ig u re 2 t h a t t h e r e 1s a d e f i n i t e I n c r e a s e 1n
t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e group re s p o n s e s w ith I n c r e a s in g group s iz e .
From t h e s e s t u d i e s on homogeneity and group size* 1 t a p p e a rs t h a t t h e
s e l e c t e d p o p u la tio n and sam ple s i z e o f t h i s stu d y were s u f f i c i e n t f o r
s u c c e s s fu l Im plem entation o f t h e Delphi te c h n iq u e .
A d d itio n a l f a c t o r s t o be c o n s id e re d In s e l e c t i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s
were d is c u s s e d by Weatherman and Swenson.

They r e p o r te d t h a t a number

o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e c r i t i c a l t o t h e v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y o f a
Delphi s tu d y :

58

Mean

(a) R e p r e s e n ta tiv e n e s s o f p an el. A s u f f i c i e n t number o f panel
members have been Included 1n a given stu d y t o I n s u r e t h a t t h e
outcome a c c u r a te ly r e p r e s e n t s th in k in g 1n a f i e l d .
(b> Approp­
r i a t e n e s s and competence of panel. Each panel member has been
a p p r o p r ia te ly chosen and 1s com petent t o re n d e r t h e judgm ent
r e q u ir e d , (c) Commitment o f panel. Panel members w i l l g iv e c a r e ­
f u l l y co n sid e re d judgm ents t o re p e ate d q u e s t i o n n a i r e Item s.
(d) C l a r i t y o f q u e s ti o n n a ir e . Respondents w i l l u n d e rstan d t h e
q u e s ti o n n a ir e Item s, (e) Independence o f re sp o n se s. Responses
w ill not be a f f e c t e d by s t a t i s t i c a l r e p o r t i n g o f o t h e r re sp o n se s a s
they would by p r e s s u r e s of a convened group, (f) P e r s o n a l i t y
d i f f e r e n c e s o f panel. In d iv id u a l d i s p o s i t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s w i l l
n o t a f f e c t response p a t t e r n s , (g) Nonrespondents. There 1s no
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between re s p o n d e n ts and th o s e who f a l l t o
com plete and r e tu r n t h e survey In s tru m e n t.4

Number 1n Group
F ig u re 2 . — R e la tio n s h ip between r e l i a b i l i t y and group s i z e .

59

A Chamber o f Commerce study I n d ic a te d t h a t l a r g e r companies
te n d t o pay h ig h e r b e n e f i t s th a n s m a l l e r onesJ*

Consequently# l a r g e r

school d i s t r i c t s may fo llo w t h e same p a t t e r n and be tr e n d s e t t e r s f o r
Michigan p u b lic school t e a c h e r s ' f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .

Second# l a r g e

d i s t r i c t s employ p eo p le who a r e p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s ib le f o r employee
b e n e f i t s and who t h e r e f o r e become more s p e c i a l i z e d 1n t h e i r jo b
assign m en ts
The

th a n do

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s In s m a lle r d i s t r i c t s .

u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s were s e l e c t e d on t h e b a s i s o f lo n g e v ity

1n t h e i r p o s i t i o n s and a l s o by t h e i r geo g rap h ical p ro x im ity t o t h e
l a r g e school d i s t r i c t s .

Thus# t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s

provided t h e e x p e r t i s e needed t o f o r e c a s t t h e f u t u r e o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s
f o r M ichigan's p u b lic school te a c h e r s .
Development o f t h e Q u e s tio n n a ire s
The
of

I n i t i a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e Ite m s were d e riv e d th ro ug h a se a rc h

re le v an t l i t e r a t u r e .

Recommendations o f a d d itio n a l Item s were

o b ta in e d from d is c u s s io n s w ith personnel from companies Involved w ith
school d i s t r i c t In su ra n c e programs.
F 1 fty -s 1 x p i l o t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w ere m ailed t o s e l e c t e d a d m in is ­
t r a t o r s and u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s .
m ajor purposes.
o b ta in e d .

T his I n i t i a l p i l o t round serv ed t h r e e

F ir s t# a commitment t o p a r t i c i p a t e 1n t h e stud y was

T h i r ty I n d i v i d u a l s I n d ic a te d a w i l l i n g n e s s t o p a r t i c i p a t e In

t h e Delphi stu dy .

This I n i t i a l group com prised 12 a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and

18 u n ls e rv d i r e c t o r s .

Second# t h e c l a r i t y o f 30 f r i n g e b e n e f i t Item s

and 26 developm ent Item s was a s s e s s e d .
c l a r i f y t h e w ording.

Six Item s w ere changed t o

F in a lly # t h e p o t e n t i a l p a n e l i s t s w ere re q u e s te d

60

t o add any a d d itio n a l f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and developm ents t h a t should be
Included 1n t h e study.

From t h i s Input* r e v i s i o n s were made.

Fourteen

new f r i n g e b e n e f i t s were added* making t h e f i n a l number 44 Item s.

Four

new f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents were added* b r in g in g t h e t o t a l number
t o 30.
Data C o lle c ti o n
In general* t h i s Delphi stu dy r e q u e s te d re s p o n d e n ts t o s e l e c t a
tim e I n te r v a l f o r t h e e x p ected o c c u rre n c e o f an ev en t.

F irst-ro u n d

re sp o n se s w ere summarized* and t h e median and sem 1 -1 n te rq u a rt1 1 e ranges
o f re sp o n se s w ere computed and fe d back t o t h e re sp o n d en ts w ith a
re q u e s t t o r e v i s e t h e i r f i r s t - r o u n d e s tim a te s * where a p p r o p r ia te .
Respondents w ere asked t o p ro v id e w r i t t e n comments 1f th e y wished t o do
so.
On t h e second and t h i r d rounds* p a r t i c i p a n t s w ere g iv en t h e i r
re sp o n se s t o t h e p re v io u s round* w r i t t e n comments made by t h e
respondents* a new median* and a new s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le range.

The

p a r t i c i p a n t s w ere th e n given a n o th e r o p p o r tu n ity t o r e c o n s id e r and
r e v i s e e a r l i e r o p in io n s o r e s t i m a t e s .
t h e t h i r d round.

T h is p ro c e s s c o n tin u e d through

Those I n d i v i d u a l s whose o p in io n s d e v ia te d g r e a t l y

from t h e m a jo r ity ( o u ts id e t h e s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le range) were re q u e ste d
on t h e second and t h i r d rounds t o g iv e t h e re a so n s f o r t h e i r extrem e
o p in io n s .
This p ro c e ss prov id ed f o r (1) anonymity* (2) c o n t r o l l e d fe e d ­
back* and (3) s t a t i s t i c a l group respo nse.

Anonymity* provided by th e

61

use o f m a ile d q u e s tio n n a ir e s * reduced t h e e f f e c t o f dom inant I n d i ­
v id u a ls .

The study re sp o n d en ts were n o t aw are t h a t both a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

and u n ls e rv d i r e c t o r s w ere p a r t i c i p a n t s .

C o n tro lle d feedback was

o b ta in e d by co n d u ctin g t h e e x e r c i s e In a sequence o f rounds* between
which a summary o f t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e p re v io u s round was given t o th e
p a rtic ip a n ts.

This pro vid ed each o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s (and groups) w ith

t h e r a t i o n a l e s u p p o r tin g t h e s e l e c t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r re sp o n se .

The

purpose o f p ro v id in g I n f o rm a tio n feedback was t o e l i c i t more p r e c i s e
p r e d i c t i o n s and t o encourage o p in io n convergence.

F in a lly * a s t a t i s t i ­

cal a n a l y s i s o f t h e group re s p o n se s was perform ed t o In s u r e t h a t th e
o p in io n o f every member o f each group was r e p r e s e n te d 1n t h e f i n a l
re su lts.

I n d iv id u a l and group e s t i m a t i o n s were exp ected t o move c l o s e r

t o t h e s t a t i s t i c a l summary o f group re s p o n s e s 1n each su cc e ed in g round.
However* th o s e Item s t h a t showed a div e rg e n ce between t h e groups o f
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and u n ls e rv d i r e c t o r s were o f s p e c i a l I n t e r e s t .

These

Ite m s could I n d i c a t e p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s a t t h e b a rg a in in g t a b l e .
A summary o f t h e number of I n d i v i d u a l s c o n ta c te d f o r each round
and a c tu a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n 1s shown 1n T a b le 3.
e n t s was made a f t e r each round.

Follow -up o f nonrespond­

The f i n a l 1 1 s t o f 19 p a n e l i s t s who

p a r t i c i p a t e d In t h e c o m p le te stu dy com prised n in e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and
t e n u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s .
1n Appendix B.

A p r o f i l e o f t h e s e p a r t i c i p a n t s 1s p re s e n te d

62

Table 3 . — Number o f I n d i v i d u a l s c o n ta c te d and a c tu a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
In d iv id u als
C ontacted

Round
Round
Round
Round
Round

0
I
II
III

Actual
P a rtic ip a tio n

P e r c e n t (56)
P a rticip a tio n
53.556
100.0
80.0
7 9 .0

30
30
24
19

56
30
30
24

T reatm en t o f t h e Data
F rin g e B e n e f i t s and Developments
T h is r e s e a r c h e r was p r i m a r i l y concerned w ith f o r e c a s t i n g t h e
o c c u rre n c e o f f u t u r e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and developm ents I n f lu e n c in g t h e i r
oc cu rren c e .

S p e c if ic a l ly * t h e stu dy was In te n d e d t o d e te rm in e when

s e l e c t e d f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a r e l i k e l y t o e x i s t f o r 5056 o r more o f M ichi­
gan 's p u b lic school t e a c h e r s and when p o t e n t i a l developm ents w i l l have
an I n f lu e n c e on changes 1n f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .
The f r i n g e b e n e f i t and developm ent d a ta c o l l e c t e d 1n t h e f i r s t
tw o rounds o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e were used t o p ro v id e feedback t o t h e
re s p o n d e n ts .

A f te r each round* t h e d a ta w ere summarized and r e tu r n e d

w ith t h e f o r e c a s t e d median d a te o f o c c u rre n c e as a measure o f c e n t r a l
tendency and t h e s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le range provided a s a measure o f
d is p e rsio n * In c lu d in g any rem ark s made by t h e re sp o n d en ts.

The summar­

iz e d d a ta Inclu ded feedback from both groups o f re sp o n d en ts.

The

median d a te s o f o c c u rre n c e from t h e t h i r d and f i n a l round pro vid ed
e s t i m a t e s o f when f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and r e l a t e d developm ents would occur.

63

To d e te rm in e 1f t h e two resp o n d en t groups w ere from t h e same
p o p u la tio n w ith r e s p e c t t o f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and developments* t h e median
t e s t was used.

A 2 x K c o n tin g e n cy t a b l e was s e t up* e n t e r i n g t h e

number o f s c o r e s above t h e median and t h e number a t o r below t h e median
f o r each o f t h e two groups f o r each f r i n g e b e n e f i t and developm ent Item
f o r each round.

Using t h e s e data* a c h i - s q u a r e v a lu e was computed*

t e s t i n g t h e h y p o th e se s :
HQ:

The two sam ples a r e from t h e same p o p u la tio n w ith
t h e same median.

H-|:

The two sam ples a r e from p o p u la tio n s w ith unequal
medians ( t w o - t a 1 l e d ) .

In I n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s c h 1 -s q u a re a n a ly s is *

d f = (2-1) (k-1) was

used* which re d u c e s t o k-1* o r one l e s s th a n t h e number o f sam ples.

If

t h e computed ch1 s q u a re exceeded t h e t a b l e d c h 1 -s q u a re v a lu e f o r df =
k-1 a t t h e 556 le v el* t h e n u ll h y p o th e s is — t h a t t h e sam ples came from a
p o p u la tio n w ith t h e same median— was re je c te d * and t h e a l t e r n a t e — t h a t
th e samples were from p o p u la tio n s w ith unequal medians— was a c c e p te d .
The median t e s t c o n tin g e n cy t a b l e quas1-exper1 mental design was
s e t up a s f o llo w s :
A d m in is tra to rs
X

Union
Y

Total

Above median

a

b

k

Not above median

c

d

1

m

n

N

T otal

64

The t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (.05 l e v e l ) u s in g ch1 s q u a re was as
f o l 1ows:
„2

N

X

(ad - be) - N/22
Ik)
(m)

m

(n)

Data from each o f t h e t h r e e rounds o f th e Delphi q u e s t i o n n a i r e w ere
a n aly zed f o r s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between groups by
u sin g t h e SPSS median t e s t program a t t h e Michigan S t a t e U n iv e rs ity
Computer C enter.

Because o f t h e c o n tr iv e d c o l l e c t i v e - b a r g a i n i n g s i t u a ­

t i o n b u i l t I n to t h e design# 1 t was o f I n t e r e s t t o compare d a ta from
each o f t h e t h r e e rounds f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s .
I f t h e median t e s t on t h e t h i r d round I n d ic a te d s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i ­
c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e groups# a fo llo w - u p a n a l y s i s was conducted
t o d e te rm in e t h e n a tu r e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s .

T his In f o rm a tio n was

o b ta in e d by u s in g a c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s e t up t o e x h i b i t s t a t i s t i c a l
a s s o c i a t i o n between group and p r e d ic te d t i m e I n t e r v a l o f o ccu rren ce.
(S ee F i g u r e 3 .)
In a d d itio n # d a ta from t h e c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s w ere used t o
d e te rm in e t h e p e rc e n ta g e o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s who
were above o r below t h e median.

These d a ta w ere a l s o used t o compute

t h e s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le ra n g e f o r each of t h e 44 f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and 30
developm ents.

65

B efore
1980

Group

19801984

19851989

19901994

19951999

Beyond
2000

Never

Row
T o tal

Adm1n1stra to rs
Union
Column
Total

100
F ig u re 3 . — SPSS c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n program.

D e sirab ility
In Round 2 , each re sp o n d en t was re q u e s te d t o check t h e d e s i r a ­
b i l i t y o f s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents o c c u r rin g .

The

re s p o n se s w ere t a b u l a t e d f o r each of t h e re sp o n d e n t groups (a d m in is­
t r a t o r s and u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s ) f o r com parison purposes* and a d e s i r a ­
b i l i t y s c o r e was o b ta in e d .

The s c o r e was a r r i v e d a t by a s s ig n in g each

re sp o n se a v a lu e r e p r e s e n t i n g I t s d e s i r a b i l i t y :
D e sira b ility
Highly D e s ir a b le
Medium D e s ir a b le
Low D es1rable
Neutral
Low U n d e sira b le
Medium U n d e sira b le
Highly U n d e s ira b le

S c a le F a c to r
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

66

An av erage s c o r e f o r each resp o n d en t group and f o r t h e
co m p osite group was c a l c u l a t e d by summing d e s i r a b i l i t y s c o r e s f o r a
f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ent and d iv id in g by t h e number o f resp on ses.
F in ally # t h e a v erag e s c o r e s were a s s ig n e d a d e s i r a b i l i t y le v e l u sing t h e
c u t p o i n t s shown 1n t h e fo llo w in g diagram:
6
Med1urn
Des1 r a b le

7
Highly
Desl r a b le
6 .5

5 .5

3
Low
U n d e slra b le

4

5
Low
Des1 li­
a b le

N eutral

4 .5

3 .5

2
Medium
Undesl r a b le
2 .5

1
Highly
U n d e slra b le
1.5

0 .5

A d e s c r i p t i v e com parison was th e n made o f t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y le v e l f o r
each group and t h e com posite group.

■flnflflnteaiJ-Qnal .Factors
In Round 3# p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o I d e n t i f y t h e o rg a n iz a ­
t i o n s t h a t would be (1) m ost s u p p o r tiv e o f t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t develop­
ment In q u e s t i o n and (2) most opposed t o t h e o c c u rre n c e o f t h e f r i n g e
b e n e f i t developm ent.

The o r g a n i z a t i o n s o f I n t e r e s t were:

— lo c a l boards o f e d u c a tio n
— s t a t e board o f e d u c a tio n
— lo c a l e d u c a tio n a s s o c i a t i o n s
— MEA (Michigan E ducation A s s o c ia tio n )
— NEA (N ational E ducation A s s o c ia tio n )
— a d m l n l s t r a t o r a s s o c la t1 o n s
— l e g is la ti v e a ctio n ( s ta te o r fe d e ra l)

67

A c o m p o site t o t a l o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' and u n ls e rv d i r e c t o r s '
re s p o n se s f o r each developm ent was ta b u l a t e d .

The o r g a n iz a ti o n t h a t

re c e iv e d t h e m ost p lu s e s (+) was I d e n t i f i e d a s t h e group "most 1n fa v o r
o f" t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ent o c c u rrin g .

The o r g a n iz a ti o n r e c e i v ­

in g t h e most m inuses (-) was I d e n t i f i e d as t h e group "most opposed to "
t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t development.

T his was done by c o n s t r u c t i n g a con­

f l i c t m a tr ix o f groups most s u p p o r tiv e o f and most opposed t o t h e
developm ents.
Summary
The purpose of t h e Delphi methodology used 1n t h i s stud y was t o
g a th e r d a ta t o f o r e c a s t f r i n g e b e n e f i t t r e n d s and r e l a t e d f r i n g e bene­
f i t developm ents f o r M ichigan's K-12 p u b lic school te a c h e r s and t o
d e te rm in e 1f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s f o r e c a s t e d t h e same
ti m e I n t e r v a l o f t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s ' o c cu rren c e .

Of a d d itio n a l

I n t e r e s t was t h e re s p o n d e n ts ' p e r c e p tio n s o f t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f
r e l a t e d f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents and* f i n a l l y * what p r o f e s s i o n a l o r
p o l i t i c a l group(s) would s u p p o r t o r oppose t h e i r oc cu rren c e .

R e s u lts

o f t h e d a ta a n a l y s i s f o r each re s e a rc h q u e s ti o n a r e r e p o rte d In C hapter
IV.

68

F o o tn o te s — C h apter I I I
^ F re d e ric k R. C y p ert and W a lte r L. Gant* "The Delphi
T echnique: A Case Study*w Ph1 D e lta Kappan (J a n u ary 1971): 272-73.
2 N. P. Uhl* Encouraging Convergence jaf Opinion* Th rough i h e JJse
S i ±hfi Delphi Technique I n ± h s P ro c e ss S ii I d e n t i f y i n g a n I n s t i t u t i o n1?
Goals (Durham* N.C.: E d u c a tio n a l T e s tin g Service* S o u th e a s te rn O ffice*
1971).
^ R o b e rt C. Judd* "Delphi Method: C om puterized 'O ra c le '
A c c e le r a te s Consensus F o rm a tio n ," C o lle g e and U n iv e r s ity B u siness
(September 1970): 3 0 -3 4 .
^R ich ard Weatherman and Karen Swenson* "Delphi Technique*" 1n
F u tu rism I n Education M eth o do lo gies, ed. Stephen P. Hencley and
James R. Y ates (Berkeley* C a l i f : McCutcheon P u b lis h in g Corp.* 1974)*
pp. 9 7 -1 1 4 .
5 Employee B e n e f i t s — 1977 (Washington* D.C.:
Commerce o f t h e U nited S t a t e s o f America, 1977).

Chamber o f

6J a n e t T. Spence* John W. Cotton* Benton J . Underwood* and
Carl P. Duncan* E lem entary S t a t i s t i c s * 3 rd ed. (Englewood C H f f s , N.J.:
P r e n tl c e - H a ll* 1976), p. 234.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

T h is c h a p te r p r e s e n t s t h e f in d i n g s as th e y r e l a t e t o t h e
re s e a rc h q u e s ti o n s upon which t h e stu d y 1s based.
s t a t i s t i c a l and n o n s t a t l s t l c a l e le m e n ts .
f o u r m ajo r s e c t i o n s :

The d a ta have both

The c h a p t e r 1s d iv id e d I n to

t h e f i r s t s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s s t a t i s t i c a l Inform a­

t i o n r e l a t i n g t o s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t s , t h e second t o r e l a t e d f r i n g e
b e n e f i t developm ents, t h e t h i r d t o d e s i r a b i l i t y o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t
developm ents, and t h e f o u r t h t o o r g a n iz a ti o n a l u n i t s opposing o r sup­
p o r ti n g f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents.
N o n s t a t l s t l c a l d a ta c o m p rise s u g g e s tio n s and r a t i o n a l e s from
t h e s e l e c t e d groups o f p a n e l i s t s .

These comments w ere grouped f o r each

Item and grouped f u r t h e r t o r e f l e c t p a t t e r n s o f r a t i o n a l e s .
Because t h e s tu d y d id n o t have a randomly s e l e c t e d p o p u la tio n ,
I n f e r e n t i a l s t a t i s t i c s w ere c o n s id e re d I n a p p r o p r i a te .

T h e re fo re ,

a n a ly s e s were based on d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s such a s median s c o r e s ,
s e m 1 -1 n te rq u a rt1 1 e rang es, and w e ig h tin g f a c t o r s .
I t should be r e c a l l e d t h a t a m a jo r purpose o f t h e s tu d y was t o
f o r e c a s t (1) what s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a r e e x pected t o become a
p a r t o f M ichigan's t e a c h e r b e n e f i t packages 1n t h e f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e
and (2) what f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents w i l l have a m ajo r I n f lu e n c e on

69

70

te a c h e rs' frin g e b e n e fits.

A second m ajor purpose was t o a n a ly z e t h e

re s p o n se s o f t h e two groups o f p a n e li s ts * a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and u n ls e r v
d ir e c to r s * t o I d e n t i f y a r e a s 1n which they agreed o r d is a g r e e d 1n t h e i r
fo re c a sts.
The f in d i n g s a r e o rg a n iz e d I n to fo u r s e c tio n s * 1n which t h e
fo llo w in g r e s e a r c h q u e s ti o n s a r e answered:
Research Q uestion 1: What f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a r e expected t o o ccu r 1n
t h e f u t u r e ? T hat 1s, 1n what e s ti m a te d tim e I n t e r v a l s w i l l spe­
c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t s be l i k e l y t o occur as p a r t o f t h e economic
package o f M ichigan's K-12 p u b lic school te a c h e r s ? Of a d d i t i o n a l
I n t e r e s t was d e te rm in in g w hether t h e tw o groups o f p a n e l i s t s were
from p o p u la tio n s w ith t h e same median.
Research Q uestion 2 : What lo c al* s ta t e * and n a tio n a l f r i n g e
b e n e f i t developm ents a r e ex pected t o occu r 1n t h e f u t u r e ? Spe­
c i f i c a l l y , 1n what e s t i m a t e d tim e I n t e r v a l s a r e s p e c i f i c develop­
ments l i k e l y t o occur? Again* d e te rm in in g w hether t h e two groups
o f p a n e l i s t s could be c o n s id e re d a s p o p u la tio n s w ith t h e same
median was o f I n t e r e s t .
R esearch Q u estion 3 : Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s e l e c t e d
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and MEA u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s w ith re g a rd t o t h e d e s i r a ­
b i l i t y o f t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents o c c u rrin g ?
Research Q uestion 4 : What o r g a n iz a ti o n a l u n i t s a r e m ost l i k e l y t o
oppose o r s u p p o r t t h e o c c u rre n c e o f s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t d e v e l­
opments?
F r in g e B e n e f it s
Research Q uestion 1: What f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a r e e xp ected t o o c cu r 1n
t h e fu tu re * and a r e t h e tw o groups o f p a n e l i s t s from p o p u la tio n s
w ith t h e same median?
F o r ty - f o u r f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w ere I d e n t i f i e d through a review of
l i t e r a t u r e , In c lu d in g c u r r e n t school d i s t r i c t m a s te r agreements* and
from p e r c e p tio n s o f t h e s e l e c t e d p a n e l i s t s .

These f r i n g e b e n e f i t s were

p e rc e iv e d as t h e most l i k e l y ones t o ap p ea r 1n t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t
packages o f M ichigan's p u b l i c school te a c h e r s .

Using t r a d i t i o n a l

71

Delphi procedures* t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w ere f o r e c a s t e d I n to a tim e
I n te r v a l when re sp o n d en ts th o u g h t th e y were most l i k e l y t o occur.

Data

from t h e t h i r d round w ere used t o make t h e f o r e c a s t s .
Topical Groupings o f F rin g e B e n e f it s
An I n i t i a l s te p 1n t h i s stu d y was t o o rg a n iz e t h e f o r e c a s t s o f
t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s I n t o t h e decades o f t h e 1980s* 1990s* beyond t h e
y e a r 2000* and n e v er.
A m ajor problem 1n d e a lin g w ith la r g e q u a n t i t i e s o f data* such
as t h i s stu dy employed* 1s o rg a n iz in g t h e f in d i n g s 1n an e f f i c i e n t and
meaningful manner.

To a s s i s t 1n t h i s o rg a n iz a tio n * t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s

were re o rg a n iz e d I n t o f o u r t o p i c a l g rou ps:
1.

H e a lth - R e la te d F rin g e B e n e f i t s —B e n e f i t s t h a t a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y
r e l a t e d t o t h e h e a l t h and well being o f t h e t e a c h e r and members
o f h i s / h e r Immediate fa m ily .

2.

Economic F rin g e B e n e f i t s — B e n e f it s t h a t r e s u l t In a d d itio n a l
com pensation and a r e n o t h e a l t h r e l a t e d .

3.

F a m ily -R e la te d a n d /o r P e rso n a l F rin g e B e n e f i t s — B e n e f it s t h a t
may p ro v id e a d d i t i o n a l com pensation f o r members o f t h e t e a c h ­
e r ' s f a m ily o r b e n e f i t s t h a t a f f e c t t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e
t e a c h e r ' s nonwork en viron m en t.

4.

P r o f e s s io n a l B e n e f i t s —B e n e f i t s t h a t may p ro v id e o p p o rtu n i­
t i e s f o r a t e a c h e r ' s p r o f e s s i o n a l growth o r personal needs.

C l a s s i f y i n g t h e 44 f r i n g e b e n e f i t s I n t o t h e s e t o p i c a l groupings pro­
v ided a manageable s e t o f c a t e g o r i e s I n to which t o summarize f in d i n g s .
T a b le s 4* 5* and 6 sum m arize t h e p a n e l i s t s ' f o r e c a s t s of f r i n g e
b e n efits.

The d a ta a r e p re s e n te d f o r each Item u s in g t h e median tim e

I n te r v a l o f I t s o c cu rren c e f o r 50% o f t h e school t e a c h e r s 1n Michigan.
F inally * f o r each b e n e f i t p resented* t h e tim e I n t e r v a l exp ected and

72

Tab le k . — F r i n g e b e n e f i t s in t h e 1980s.

B e n e fit Area

1tem
No.

Fringe B e n e fit

Median Time In te rv a l
o f Acceptance
1980-84

H e a lth -R e la te d
Benefi t s

k

Dental in su ra n ce

5

V isio n in su ra n ce

9

H e alth in su ra n ce w ith
p re sc rip tio n rid e r

12
17
18

Economic
B e n e fits
Fam ily-R elated
and Personal
B e n e fits

Key:

C
C
C

U nlim ited s ic k leave
accum ulation

N

S h o rt-te rm d i s a b i l i t y
i nsurance

C

Long-term d i s a b i l i t y
i nsu rance

C

20

Travel a c c id e n t in su ran ce

N

k2

Sick leav e bank

N

2k

R etirem ent in c e n t iv e o f
one y e a r ' s s a l a r y

N

1

Term l i f e in su ran ce

N

2

A c cid e n ta l d e a th and d i s ­
memberment ( ad&d)

C

Dependent l i f e in su ran ce
o f $1,000 minimum

C

16

S h o r t-te rm paid leaves

C

23

Two p e rso n al h o lid a y s
per year

N

29

Paid p erso n al le av e days
w ith o u t reason given

N

28
P r o fe s s io n a l
Benefi t s

1985-89

C = consensus
N » no consensus

73

T a b l e 5«— F r i n g e b e n e f i t s

B e n e fit Area

1tern
No.

in t h e 1990s.

Frin ge B e n e fit

Median Time In te r v a l
. o f Acceptance
1990-94

H e alth -R e la te d
Benefi t s

6
14

19

22

Economic
B e n e fits

3

11

1995-99

Paid h e arin g c a r e

N

C o n tin u a tio n o f f r i n g e
b e n e f i t coverage f o r
r e t i re e s

N

School-d i s t r i c t - f i nanced
p h y sica l exam every two
y e a rs

N

A d d itio n a l medical o p tio n s
to co v er i n - h o s p i t a l
b e n efits, e tc .

N

Paid o v ertim e f o r hours
beyond c o n tr a c te d
school day
C o s t - o f - l i v i n g a llo w ­
ances

N

N

13

Full pay f o r unused s i c k
le av e a t r e tir e m e n t

N

25

R etirem ent in c e n t iv e plan

N

30

Longevity pay o f 1% per
y e a r beyond B.A. to p s t e p

N

T a x - s h e lte r e d a n n u ity
plan

N

32
41
43

Option to r e c e iv e money in
lie u of frin g e b e n efit

C

R etirem ent pay o f a m in i­
mum o f $100 p e r y e a r o f
serv ice

N

74

Table 5 . ” -Continued.

B e n e fit Area

1tem
No.

F ring e B e n e fit

Median Time In te rv a l
o f Acceptance
1990-94

Fam ily-R elated
and Personal
B e n e fits

10
26

P r o fe s s io n a l
B e n e fits

7
34
35

40
44

Key:

C = consensus
N ■ no consensus

S u rv iv o r income i n s u r ­
ance
P rep a id le g a l plan

N
N

Full t u i t i o n re im b u rse ­
ment
Person al l i a b i l i t y
in s u ra n c e
G uaranteed p r o f e s s i o n a l
le a v e w ith expenses
p aid
Paid c o u n se lin g s e r v i c e s
f o r la i d - o f f te a c h e r s
Board pays f o r p ro p e rty
damage when on 1eg i t i mate b u s in e s s

1995-99

N
N
N

N
N

75

T a b l e 6 . — F r i n g e b e n e f i t s in t h e y e a r s 2000+ and n e v e r .

B e n e fit Area

H e alth -R e la te d
B e n e fits
Economic
B e n e fits
F am ily-R elated
and Personal
B e n e fits

P r o f e s s io n a l
B e n e fits

Key:

1tem
No.

27

8

21

F rin g e B e n e fit

Median Time In te rv a l
o f Acceptance
2000+

Never

Cancer in su ra n c e

C

Teacher e f f e c t i v e n e s s
(m e rit) pay

C

V acation time du rin g
school y e ar

C

33

Auto in su ra n ce

N

37

F ring e b e n e f i t and
s a l a r y c o n tin u a tio n

N

38

Home in su ran ce

C

39

Home mortgage in s u r ­
ance

C

S a b b a tic a l le a v e w ith
f u l l pay e v ery seven
y e a rs

N

31

Membership fe e s o f $100
p er y e a r f o r nonunion
e d u c a tio n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s

N

36

Lease c a r s f o r te a c h e r
t r a v e l between b u ild in g s

15

C = consensus
N = no consensus

C

76

w hether o r n o t t h e p a n e l i s t s reached consensus on t h e Item o f I n t e r e s t
1s I n d ic a te d w ith a C f o r consensus o r an N f o r no consensus.

Consen­

su s means t h a t 50% o r more o f t h e p a n e l i s t s agreed on t h e tim e I n te r v a l
o f o c c u rre n c e f o r a s p e c i f i c Item.
T a b le s 4* 5* and 6 showed t h e f o r e c a s t s o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s
w ith in t h e decades o f t h e i r p ro b a b le o c cu rren c e .

A n a ly sis o f t h e s e

f o r e c a s t s p ro v id e s I n s i g h t I n t o t h e m ajor b e n e f i t a r e a s f o r t h e decades
of In te re st.

T a b le 7 shows t h e breakdown o f b e n e f i t s by t o p i c a l

g ro u pin gs and t h e decade o f t h e i r occu rren ce.
T a b le 7 . — O ccurrence o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s by t o p i c a l grouping and decade
o f o c c u rre n c e (N = 4 4 ) .

B e n e f i t Area
H e alth r e l a t e d
Economic
Family r e l a t e d / p e r s o n a l
P r o f e s s io n a l
T otal

1980s

1990s

Beyond 2000
and Never

8
1
3
3

4
8
2
5

1
1
5
3

15

19

10

As shown 1n T a b le 7* h e a l t h - r e l a t e d b e n e f i t s a r e expected t o
r e c e i v e t h e most a t t e n t i o n 1n t h e 1980s.

T ab le 4 showed t h a t t h e s e

b e n e f i t s a r e d e n ta l and v i s i o n Insurance* h e a lt h In s u ra n c e w ith a
p r e s c r i p t i o n rid e r* s h o r t - and lo n g -te rm d i s a b i l i t y * and t r a v e l a c c i ­
d e n t In s u ra n c e .

Also* u n l i m i t e d s i c k le a v e a c c u m u la tio n and s ic k le a v e

banks a r e h e a l t h - r e l a t e d f r i n g e b e n e f i t s t h a t re s p o n d e n ts e x p e c t In t h e
1980s.

77

According t o t h e panel 1 s t s , t h e 1990s w i l l s e e a s h i f t t o
economic b e n e f i t s .

Table 7 I n d ic a te d t h a t 8 o f t h e 19 b e n e f i t s f o r e ­

c a s te d f o r t h i s decade a r e economic b e n e f i t s .

C ost-of-11v1ng a llo w ­

ances* t h e o p tio n t o r e c e i v e money 1n H e u o f f r i n g e b e n e f its * and
r e t i r e m e n t o r se v e ra n c e pay o f a minimum o f $100 p e r y e a r o f s e r v i c e
a r e ex pected d u rin g t h e f i r s t h a l f o f t h i s decade (see Table 5).

The

second h a l f o f t h e 1990s w i l l s e e f i v e a d d itio n a l economic b e n e f i t s
o ccur 1n Michigan t e a c h e r s ' f r i n g e b e n e f i t packages (Table 5).

These

a r e paid overtime* f u l l pay f o r unused s i c k le a v e a t re tire m e n t* e a r l y
r e t i r e m e n t p la n s , lo n g e v ity pay o f "\% per y e a r beyond t h e to p s a l a r y
s te p , and t a x - s h e l t e r e d a n n u ity p la n s.
Table 7 a l s o showed t h a t re sp o n d en ts th o u g h t f a m i l y - r e l a t e d /
p erso n al and p r o f e s s i o n a l b e n e f i t s m igh t r e c e i v e a t t e n t i o n beyond t h e
y e a r 2000 and never.

From T ab le 6 1 t can be seen t h a t a u to Insurance*

f r i n g e b e n e f i t and s a l a r y c o n t i n u a t i o n a f t e r t h e d eath o f a t e a c h e r ,
s a b b a t i c a l le a v e w ith f u l l pay* and p aid membership f e e s a r e p o s s i b i l i ­
t i e s o f such b e n e f i t s .
t o appear.

Four re m a in in g b e n e f i t s were f o r e c a s te d n ever

These f a m l l y - r e l a t e d / p e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l b e n e f i t s

were v a c a tio n tim e d urin g school year* home and home m ortgage I n s u r ­
ance* and l e a s e c a r s f o r t e a c h e r s ' t r a v e l between b u ild in g s .
O verall* one may conclu d e t h a t th o s e b e n e f i t s f o r e c a s t e d t o
o ccu r 1n t h e n e a r f u t u r e may have a h ig h e r p r i o r i t y th a n th o s e
f o r e c a s te d t o o c cu r a t l a t e r tim e I n t e r v a l s .

T his I n d i c a t e s t h a t

h e a l t h - r e l a t e d b e n e f i t s may be p e rc e iv e d a s t h e a r e a o f most Im m ediate

78

I n t e r e s t # fo llo w e d by economic b e n e f its # p r o f e s s i o n a l frin g e s # and
f i n a l l y fa m lly -relate d /p e rso n al b e n e f its .
In a d d itio n # from T ab les 4# 5# and 6# some I n s i g h t I n to t h e
tim e I n te r v a l o f o c cu rren c e may be gained from an a n a l y s i s o f t h e
p a t t e r n s o f consensus.

I f 50% o r more o f t h e p a n e l i s t s agreed on t h e

tim e I n te r v a l o f o c c u rre n c e f o r a b e n e f i t Item# co nsen su s was deemed t o
have oc cu rred .

From t h e s e t a b l e s a summary o f consensus can be made.

T able 8 shows t h e breakdown o f consensus by t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t median
tim e I n t e r v a l s o f a c c e p ta n c e .

Tab le 8 . — Consensus o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s by median tim e I n te r v a l o f
a c c e p ta n c e (N = 4 4 ) .
Median Time In te rv a l
1980-84

1985-89

1990-94

1995-99

2000+

Never

Consensus I / T o t a l

3/3

5/12

1/10

0 /9

0/4

6/6

P e r c e n t Consensus

100%

42%

10%

0%

0%

100%

As seen 1n T ab le 8# consensus was reached on 15 (34%) o f t h e 44
frin g e b e n efits.

F u r th e r a n a l y s i s shows t h a t t h e p a n e l i s t s reached

consensus on 100% o f t h e b e n e f i t s expected t o oc cu r d u rin g t h e 1980-84
ti m e I n t e r v a l and 42% f o r t h e 1985-89 I n t e r v a l .

O verall# t h e p a n e l i s t s

reached consensus on 8 o f 15 b e n e f i t s f o r e c a s te d f o r t h e decade o f t h e
1980s.

These b e n e f i t s were den tal# v ision * health * s h o rt-te rm * and

lo n g -te rm d i s a b i l i t y Insurance* a c c id e n ta l d eath and dismemberment
Insurance* and s h o r t- te r m p a id le a v e s .

79

For t h e decade o f t h e 1990s and beyond t h e y e a r 2000* consensus
was reached on only 1 o u t o f 23 b e n e f i t s .

T h is b e n e f i t was t h e o p tio n

t o r e c e i v e money 1n H e u o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .
F i n a l l y , s i x b e n e f i t s w ere f o r e c a s t e d 1n t h e tim e I n t e r v a l o f
"never."

The p a n e l i s t s reached c on sen su s on a l l s i x Item s.

The

b e n e f i t s t h a t were exp ec te d n e v er t o o ccu r 1n t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t
packages o f M ichigan's p u b l i c school te a c h e r s w ere c a n c e r In su ra n ce ,
t e a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s ( m e r it ) pay, p a id v a c a tio n tim e d u rin g t h e school
y e a r , home In s u ra n c e , home m ortgage In s u ra n c e , and l e a s e c a r s f o r
t e a c h e r t r a v e l between b u ild in g s (see T ab le 6).

I t 1s I n t e r e s t i n g t h a t

alth o u g h t h e p a n e l i s t s co n cu rred t h a t t e a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s o r m e r i t
pay 1s n o t l i k e l y t o o c cu r, s e v e ra l n a tio n a l s t u d i e s have r e c e n t l y been
a d v o c a tin g m e r i t pay.
O v e r a l l, t h e f in d i n g s I n d ic a te d t h a t con sensu s 1s most p ro b a b le
f o r th o s e b e n e f i t s t h a t a r e H k e l y t o occur 1n t h e Im m ediate f u t u r e
and, a t t h e o t h e r end o f t h e ti m e sp ec tru m , 1n t h e "never" I n t e r v a l .
T h is c o n c lu s io n may le a d t o t h e assu m p tio n t h a t t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s
f o r e c a s t e d f o r t h e 1980s have t h e h i g h e s t p r o b a b i l i t y o f o c c u r rin g 1n
t e a c h e r s ' b e n e f i t packages, t h o s e 1n t h e 1990s a l e s s e r p r o b a b i l i t y ,
and th o s e f o r e c a s te d f o r beyond t h e y e a r 2000 and never t h e l e a s t
l i k e l i h o o d o f o c c u r re n c e .
Summary o f F o re c a ste d
Med1an-T1m e -In te rv a l Changes
The f o r e c a s t e d f r i n g e b e n e f i t median tim e I n t e r v a l s a r e
r e p o r te d In Appendix F.

Using t h e d a ta from Appendix F, t h e f r i n g e

80

b e n e f i t s w ere grouped a c c o rd in g t o t h e number o f f o r e c a s t e d m edlant1 m e -1 n te rv a l changes t h a t o c c u rre d between Round 1 and Round 3 o f t h i s
study.

Using consensus where 50% o r more o f t h e p a n e l i s t s were w ith in

one tim e In te rv a l* t h e median ti m e I n t e r v a l o f t h e t h i r d round was
analyzed t o d e te rm in e 1 f c o n sen su s had been reached between t h e
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and u n ls e rv d i r e c t o r p a n e l i s t s .

T h is consensus o r

convergence o f o p in io n s 1s a common o c c u rre n c e 1n a Delphi s tu d y .

It

sh o u ld be emphasized t h a t even I f con sensu s does n o t occur* t h e Delphi
te c h n iq u e s e r v e s t h e p urp o se o f c r y s t a l l i z i n g t h e re a so n in g p ro c e ss
t h a t le a d s t o t h e p o s i t i o n s t h a t w ere ta k e n and th u s h e lp s t o c l a r i f y
t h e I s s u e s even 1n t h e absence o f group consensus.

T ab le 9 shows a

summary o f t h e m ed1 an-t1 m e-Interv al changes between Rounds 1 and 3 .

Tab le 9 . — Summary o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s :
between Rounds 1 and 3 .

m ed1an-t1m e-1nterval changes

Median Time I n t e r v a l

Item Number

Decreased one

*
cn

" I n d i c a t e s co n sen su s.

*

1, 3 , 6 , 7 , 10, 11, 3 3 , 3 4 , 43,
44
CM

I n c re a s e d one

*

2* , 4 " , 5 " , 8 " , 9 " , 12, 15, 16*,
17*, 18*, 19, 21*, 2 2 , 2 3 , 25 ,
2 6 , 27 * , 2 8 * , 2 9 , 3 0 , 3 1 , 3 2 ,
3 5 , 36*, 3 7 , 38*, 39*, 4 0 , 41*,
42

O
CM

No change

81
As shown 1n T ab le 9, 30 f r i n g e b e n e f i t s o r ap p ro x im a te ly 68% of
th e f o r e c a s t e d median tim e I n t e r v a l s did n o t change between Rounds 1
and 3 o f t h e Delphi s tu d y .

Ten (23%) o f t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w ere

f o r e c a s t e d t o o ccu r a t a l a t e r tim e I n t e r v a l th a n I n i t i a l l y f o r e c a s t e d
1n Round 1.

The re m a in in g f o u r (9%) f r i n g e b e n e f i t s were f o r e c a s t e d t o

o ccu r a t an e a r l i e r tim e I n t e r v a l th a n I n i t i a l l y f o r e c a s t e d 1n Round 1.
These f o u r were:

(1) f u l l pay f o r unused s i c k le a v e a t r e t i r e m e n t ,

(2) c o n t i n u a t i o n o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t coverage f o r r e t i r e e s ,

(3) t r a v e l

a c c id e n t In su ra n c e p ro vid ed f o r j o b - r e l a t e d t r a v e l , and (4) r e t i r e m e n t
I n c e n tiv e p la n s f o r e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t .

Three o f t h e f o u r Ite m s whose

f o r e c a s t e d ti m e I n t e r v a l s d e crea se d o ver t h e t h r e e rounds w ere r e l a t e d
to r e t i r e e b e n e fits.

T h is f i n d i n g may I n d i c a t e In c re a s e d a t t e n t i o n t o

r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s 1n t h e n e a r f u t u r e .
The p a n e l i s t s re a ch e d consensus on 15 o f t h e 30 f r i n g e b e n e f i t s
whose tim e I n t e r v a l s d id n o t change between Rounds 1 and 3.

In te re st­

in g ly , o f t h e 14 f r i n g e b e n e f i t s whose median tim e I n t e r v a l s In c re a s e d
o r d e c re a se d , none reached consensus.

I t a p p e a rs t h a t t h e p a n e l i s t s

were n o t as l i k e l y t o a g re e on a f o r e c a s te d ti m e I n t e r v a l when 1 t
s h i f t e d o v e r t h e c o u rs e o f t h e Delphi stud y.
Summary o f S e m 1 -I n te r q u a r t1 le Changes
Again u sin g t h e d a ta from Appendix F, t h e s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le
range changes between Rounds 1 and 3 were d eterm in ed .
a r e summarized 1n T a b le 10.

These changes

82

T able 10.— Summary o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s : s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le range
changes between Rounds 1 and 3 .
S e m 1 -I n te r q u a r t1 le Range
Time I n t e r v a l s

Item Number

No change

1, 2*, 5 * , 8*, 9*, 11, 18*, 22,
23, 2 4, 26, 27*, 2 9 , 3 2 , 36*,
38*, 39*, 4 0 , 43 , 44

Narrowed one
tim e I n te r v a l

3 , 6 , 7 , 10, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20
21*, 25, 28*, 30, 31, 33, 34,
3 5 , 3 7 , 42

Narrowed two
tim e I n t e r v a l s

16*, 17*

In c re a s e d one
tim e I n te r v a l

4*

S h if te d range

15, 41*

* In d 1 c a te s co n sen su s.

The s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le range f o r 20 (45%) o f t h e 44 f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s rem ained unchanged th ro u g h o u t t h e t h r e e rounds.

N ineteen

(43%) de crea se d t h e i r s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le range one tim e In te rv a l* and
two (5%) de crea se d t h e i r ra n g e s two tim e I n t e r v a l s .
h a l f o f t h e b e n e f i t s d e c re a se d t h e i r ti m e I n t e r v a l s .

Thus* a lm o s t oneT h is I s a common

p a t t e r n 1n a Delphi stu d y and I n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p a n e l i s t s w ere l e s s
p o la r iz e d as t h e stu d y p ro g re s s e d through t h e t h r e e rounds.

The two

b e n e f i t s t h a t narrowed t h e i r range by two tim e I n t e r v a l s were paid
le a v e s o f s h o r t e r d u r a tio n th a n s a b b a t i c a l le a v e s and s h o r t - t e r m
d i s a b i l i t y In su ra n ce .
consensus.

On both o f t h e s e Items* p a n e l i s t s reached

83

Of t h e t h r e e rem ain in g b e n e fits* one In c re a s e d I t s tim e
I n t e r v a l range by one, w hereas two Item s s h i f t e d t h e i r range t o a
l a t e r tim e span.

Dental In su ra n c e s h i f t e d from a range o f 1980-89 1n

Round 1 t o 1980-94 1n Round 3.

S a b b a tic a l le a v e s w ith f u l l pay went

from 1985-2000+ t o 1990-never, and t h e o p tio n t o r e c e iv e money In l i e u
o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s s h i f t e d from 1985-94 t o 1990-99.

For t h e s e t h r e e

Item s, con sen sus was reached on a l l b u t s a b b a tic a l le a v e s .
Summary o f Median T e s t
An a d d itio n a l p o i n t o f I n t e r e s t 1n f o r e c a s t i n g f r i n g e b e n e f i t s
was t o d e te rm in e 1f t h e two groups o f p a n e l i s t s were from p o p u la tio n s
w ith th e same median.

The median t e s t , using a t w o - t a i l e d c h 1 -s q u a re

v a lu e w ith .05 a s t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l , was used t o d e te rm in e 1f
t h e r e w ere s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two sub p o p u la tio n s .

Complete d a ta f o r t h e median t e s t s f o r t h e t h r e e rounds

a r e p re s e n te d In Appendix D.

A summary o f t h e median t e s t f o r t h e 44

f r i n g e b e n e f i t s o f I n t e r e s t 1n t h i s stu dy 1s shown 1n Table 11.
T a b le 1 1 .— Summary o f median t e s t f o r t h e 44 f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .
P o p u la tio n
Comparisons

Round 1

Round 2

No. o f b e n e f i t s
D 1 fferen ces

2 ( 4.5%)

0 (

No. o f b e n e f i t s
No d 1 ffe re n c e

42 (95.556)

Note:

056)

44 (10056)

R efer t o Appendix D f o r com plete d a ta .

Round 3

0 (

056)

44 (10056)

84

In T able 11, t h e tw o p o p u la tio n s o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r and u n ls e rv
d i r e c t o r p a n e l i s t s a r e compared over t h e t h r e e Delphi rounds.

On 2 o f

t h e 44 f r i n g e b e n e f i t s 1n Round 1, t h e r e was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i ­
c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two groups o f p a n e l i s t s .

These b e n e f i t s

were (1) lo n g e v ity pay o f a t l e a s t 1% o f B.A. base f o r each y e a r beyond
t h e to p s t e p o f a n e g o tia te d s a l a r y sc h e d u le and (2) an e a r l y r e t i r e ­
ment In c e n tiv e plan whereby a t e a c h e r may be compensated a minimum o f
one y e a r 's s a l a r y f o r e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t a t age 55.

However, on a l l 44

f r i n g e b e n e f i t s In Rounds 2 and 3, t h e p a n e l i s t s w ere from p o p u la tio n s
w ith t h e same median.

Thus, although t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and u n ls e rv

d i r e c t o r s had d i f f e r e n t f o r e c a s t e d median t i m e I n t e r v a l s on tw o Item s
d u rin g t h e f i r s t round, 1n t h e second and t h i r d rounds t h e r e were no
s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e tw o groups.
R e la te d F r i n ge B en e fit Developments
Research Q uestion 2 : What l o c a l , s t a t e , and f e d e r a l f r i n g e b e n e f i t
developm ents a r e e x p ec te d t o occur 1n t h e f u t u r e , and a r e t h e two
groups o f p a n e l i s t s from p o p u la tio n s w ith t h e same median?
A ttem pting t o f o r e c a s t f u t u r e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s r e q u i r e s an
u n d e rs ta n d in g o f some f a c t o r s t h a t may I n f lu e n c e t h e i r occu rren ce.
Although 1 t may be Im p o s s ib le t o c o n s id e r every p o t e n t i a l developm ent,
30 Im p o rta n t r e l a t e d f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents w ere I d e n t i f i e d
th ro u g h a review o f r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e and from t h e p e r c e p tio n s o f t h e
sele c ted p a n e lists .

These f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents w ere analyzed by

u sin g t r a d i t i o n a l Delphi s t a t i s t i c s f o r feedback.

These developm ents

a r e p e rc e iv e d a s t r e n d s t h a t may have an Im p o r ta n t I n f lu e n c e on

85

Michigan t e a c h e r s ' f r i n g e b e n e f i t packages 1n t h e 1980s# 1990s# and
beyond t h e y e a r 2000.
Topical Groupings o f
F rin g e B e n e f it Developments
The 30 f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents were o rg a n iz ed I n t o t h r e e
g e n e ra l t o p i c a l groupings# based on t h e le v e l a t which t h e developm ent
may I n i t i a l l y occur.

These groupings w ere (1) lo c a l a n d /o r reg ion al#

(2) s t a t e # and (3) n a tio n a l developm ents.
c la im t h a t t h i s 1 1 s t 1s e x h a u s tiv e .

The r e s e a r c h e r does n o t

Undoubtedly# new developm ents w i l l

o c cu r t h a t may have a m ajor e f f e c t on f u t u r e f r i n g e b e n e f i t t r e n d s .
T ab les 12# 13# and 14 summarize t h e p a n e l i s t s ' f o r e c a s t s o f t h e
30 developm ents I n t o t h e i r e x p ec te d median tim e I n t e r v a l s of o ccu r­
ren ce.

Each developm ent 1s p re s e n te d 1n I t s r e s p e c t i v e tim e In te rv a l#

along w ith w hether o r n o t p a n e l i s t s reached consensus (50% o r more o f
t h e p a n e l i s t s e s t i m a t i n g t h e same tim e I n t e r v a l ) on t h a t Item.
T ab les 12# 13# and 14 show t h e f o r e c a s t s o f t h e 30 r e l a t e d
developm ents I n t o t h e i r p ro b a b le decades o f oc cu rren c e .

A n a ly sis o f

t h e s e f o r e c a s t s p ro v id e s a breakdown o f t h e developm ents I n t o t o p i c a l
g ro u p in g s by t h e i r ex p ec te d t i m e I n t e r v a l o f oc cu rren c e .
shows t h i s summary.

T able 15

86

T a b l e 1 2 . — F r i n g e b e n e f i t dev el o pm en ts in t h e 1980s.

Development
Area

1tern
No.

F ring e B e n e fit
Development

Median Time In te rv a l
o f Acceptance
1980-84

Local and
Regional
Developments

k
11

23

25

S ta te
Developments

26

N ational
Developments
Key:

C - consensus
N = no consensus

Local E.A .s j o i n re g io n a l
b a rg a in in g u n i t s

N

Local d i s t r i c t pays 100%
o f F.B. c o s t s —no con­
t r i b u t o r y c o s t s by
employees
In c re a s e in i n - s e r v i c e
o f com puters, T .V ., and
new te a c h in g te c h n o lo ­
g ie s

1985-89

N

N

Boards in a reg io n u n i t e
to review n e g o tia te d
lo c a l agreem ents

N

T e a c h e rs ' re tir e m e n t s y s ­
tem w i l l have a b u i l t - i n
c o s t-o f-liv in g fa c to r

N

None

87
T a b l e 1 3- — F r i n g e b e n e f i t d ev el o pm en ts in t h e 1990s.

Development
Area

1tern
No.

F ring e B e n e fit
Development

Median Time In te rv a l
o f Acceptance
1990-9**

Local and
Reg i o n a 1
Developments

8

9

12

30

S ta te
Developments

1
5

13

2k
Nat ional
Developments

School d i s t r i c t s s e l f in s u re some f r i n g e
b en efits

N

N

School d i s t r i c t s w ill p e r ­
mit te a c h e r s t o tr a d e
f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r cash

N

H ealth m aintenance o rg a n ­
i z a t i o n s r e p la c e p r e s e n t
h e a l t h in su ra n c e p la n s

N

T e a c h e rs ' f r i n g e b e n e f i t s
w ill av erag e 50% o f payrol 1

N

Local boards o f e d u c a tio n
u n i t e in to a m u l t i p l e d i s t r i c t b a rg a in in g u n i t

N

Teachers r e t i r e a f t e r 30
y e a r s w ith f u l l f r i n g e
b e n e f i t coverage
School personnel a d m in is ­
t r a t o r s w ill in c r e a s e by 50%

N

N

2

Median fa m ily income w i l l
double

C

3

Median t e a c h e r s ' s a l a r y
doubles

C

22

27

Key:

I n d iv i d u a lly t a i l o r e d
(c a fe te ria - s ty le ) frin g e
b e n e f i t packages f o r
te a c h e r s

C = consensus
N - no consensus

1995-99

Federal funding w ill
in c r e a s e to 15% o f t o t a l
ta x d o l l a r s re c e iv e d by
lo c a l d i s t r i c t s
IRS w ill ta x f r i n g e bene­
fits

N

C

88

Ta b l e 1 4 . — F r i n g e b e n e f i t de vel opm ent s beyond t h e y e a r 2000 and n e v e r .

Development
Area

1tern
No.

F ring e B e n e fit
Development

Median Time In te rv a l
o f Acceptance
2000+

Local and
Regional
Developments

10

18

19
20
21

S ta te
Developments

6
14
15

16

17

28

29
Nat ional
Developments
Key:

7

C = consensus
N = no consensus

Local school d i s t r i c t s
u n i t e to in s u re some
frin g e b e n efits

N

T e a c h e rs ' s a l a r i e s and
c o s t s f o r f r i n g e bene­
f i t s t i e d to CPI

C

Performance c o n t r a c t i n g
w ith te a c h e rs
Average c l a s s s i z e le s s
than 20 s tu d e n ts

C
C

School d i s t r i c t s w ill
pay bonuses t o h i r e
te a c h e r c a n d id a te s
Teachers form a s t a t e ­
wide b a rg a in in g u n i t

C

N

Schools w i l l o p e r a te le s s
than 180 days
Michigan sch o o ls o p e r a te on
a fo u r -d a y week and main­
t a i n a 180-day school y e a r

Never

C
N

Teachers work only when
they have s p e c i f i c te a c h ­
ing assig nm en ts

C

T e a c h e rs ' p ro b a tio n a ry
p e rio d sh o rte n e d t o one
y e ar

C

P u b lic sch o o ls leave Social
S e c u r ity system and i n s t i ­
t u t e an a l t e r n a t e program

C

Michigan goes to a y e a r round school

C

Teachers form a fe d e ra l
b a rg a in in g u n i t

C

89

Table 1 5 .- - T o p ic a l grouping o f r e l a t e d f r i n g e b e n e f i t developments by
e x p ected tim e I n t e r v a l of o c c u rre n c e (N = 3 0 ) .

Development Area
Local a n d /o r re g io n a l
developments
S t a t e developments
N atio n al developments
T o t a ls

1980s

1990 s

Beyond 2000
and Never

4
1
0

4
4
4

5
7
1

5

12

13

T able 15 I n d i c a t e s t h a t f i v e developm ents w ere f o r e c a s t e d f o r
t h e decade o f t h e 1980s.

Again* 1 f th o s e developm ents f o r e c a s t e d t o

o c cu r 1n t h e n e a r f u t u r e have a h ig h e r p r i o r i t y * 1 t may be assumed t h a t
lo c a l and re g io n a l developm ents w i l l r e c e iv e t h e most a t t e n t i o n 1n t h i s
decade.

The e x p ec te d developm ents a r e t h a t lo c a l e d u c a tio n a s s o c i a ­

t i o n s w i l l j o i n re g io n a l b a rg a in in g u n its * t h a t 100% o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t
c o s t s w i l l be paid* t h a t t h e r e w i l l be an I n c r e a s e 1n I n - s e r v i c e o r
p r o f e s s i o n a l development* and t h a t boards o f e d u c a tio n w i l l u n i t e t o
review n e g o tia te d lo c a l a g reem en ts (se e T a b le 12).
Only one s t a t e developm ent and no n a tio n a l developm ent was
f o r e c a s t e d f o r t h e 1980s.

T h is s t a t e developm ent w i l l be a b u i l t - i n

c o s t- o f - l1 v 1 n g f a c t o r f o r t h e t e a c h e r s ' r e t i r e m e n t system .

According

t o t h e respondents* t h e 1990s (se e Table 13) w i l l w itn e s s t h e o ccu r­
re n c e o f 12 f r i n g e b e n e f i t developments* which a r e evenly d iv id e d among
t h e t h r e e l e v e l s 1n which th e y a r e e x pected t o occur.

T h is r e s e a r c h e r

c o n s id e r s some of t h e s e developm ents t o be very Im p o rtan t.

At t h e

90

lo c a l and re g io n a l l e v e l s a r e c a f e t e r l a - s t y l e f r i n g e b e n e f i t packages,
s e l f - 1 n s u r a n c e , and t h e grow th o f h e a lt h m aintenance o r g a n iz a ti o n s .

At

t h e s t a t e l e v e l , t e a c h e r s ’ f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a r e expected t o a v erag e 50%
of p ay ro ll.

N atio n al developm ents f o r e c a s t e d f o r t h i s decade In c lu d e

d oublin g median t e a c h e r s ' s a l a r i e s (1n 1980 d o l l a r s ) and IRS t a x a t i o n
of frin g e b e n efits.
Developments f o r e c a s t e d f o r beyond t h e y e a r 2000 and nev er (s e e
T ab le 14) may be c o n s id e re d very u n lik e ly 1n t h e n e a r f u t u r e .

Note­

w orthy among t h e s e developm ents a t t h e lo c a l and re g io n a l l e v e l s a r e
t h e rem ote p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f t e a c h e r s a l a r i e s and f r i n g e b e n e f i t c o s ts
t i e d t o a consumer p r i c e Index and o f p erform ance c o n t r a c t i n g .

A

s t a t e w i d e t e a c h e r s ' b a rg a in in g u n i t , s c h o o ls o p e r a tin g l e s s th a n 180
days a y e a r , and a y e a r-ro u n d school s c h e d u le w ere I d e n t i f i e d s t a t e
developm ents.

At t h e n a tio n a l l e v e l , t e a c h e r s , t e a c h e r s form ing a

f e d e r a l b a rg a in in g u n i t was f o r e c a s t e d a s n ev er o c c u rrin g .
T a b le s 12, 13, and 14 p ro v id e a p a t t e r n o f consensus f o r t h e 30
f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents.

T ab le 16 shows t h e breakdown o f consen­

s u s by t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents' median tim e I n t e r v a l s of
a c c e p ta n c e .
As shown 1n T a b le 16, t h e Delphi p a n e l i s t s did n o t reach
consensus on any o f t h e f i v e developm ents f o r e c a s t e d f o r t h e decade o f
t h e 1980s.

T h is was a d e v i a t i o n from t h e i r f o r e c a s t s f o r t h e f r in g e

b e n e f i t s ex p ec te d t o o c cu r 1n t h e 1980s, where th e y reached consensus
on 15 (53%) b e n e f i t s .

I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h e p a n e l i s t s did n o t reach

consensus on t h e c u r r e n t t r e n d s o f lo c a l e d u c a tio n a s s o c i a t i o n s j o i n i n g

91

re g io n a l b a rg a in in g u n i t s and o f lo c a l d i s t r i c t s paying 100% o f f r i n g e
b e n e f i t c o s t s w ith no c o n t r i b u t o r y c o s t s by t e a c h e r s .

T able 1 6 .— Consensus o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents by median tim e
I n t e r v a l s o f a c c e p ta n c e (N = 3 0 ) .
Median Time In te rv a l

Consensus # /T o ta l

1980-84

1985-89

1990-94

1995-99

2000+

Never

0/0

0/5

3 /7

0/5

2 /5

8/8

40%

100%

P e r c e n t Consensus

0%

0%

42.8%

0%

P a n e l i s t s e x p ec te d t h e decade o f t h e 1990s t o s e e t h e
o c c u rre n c e o f 12 f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents.

Consensus was n o t

reached on any o f t h e l o c a l / r e g i o n a l o r s t a t e developm ents.

C a fe te rla -

s t y l e f r i n g e b e n e f i t packages came t h e c l o s e s t t o consensus w ith 43.8%
o f t h e p a n e l i s t s s u p p o r tin g t h e 1990-94 e x pected tim e I n t e r v a l o f
o c c u rre n c e (s e e Appendix 6 ) .
Four n a tio n a l developm ents w ere f o r e c a s t e d f o r t h e 1990s.

The

p a n e l i s t s reached co nsensus on a l l t h r e e (100%) developm ents f o r e c a s t e d
f o r t h e 1990-94 median ti m e I n t e r v a l .

The t h r e e developm ents exp ected

t o o ccu r 1n 1990-94 w ere t h a t median f a m ily Income w ill double (In 1980
d o lla rs )* t h a t median t e a c h e r s a l a r i e s w i l l double* and t h a t t h e IRS
w ill ta x frin g e b e n e fits.

The o t h e r n a tio n a l developm ent f o r e c a s te d

f o r 1995-99—t h a t f e d e r a l fun din g w i l l reach 15% o f t o t a l t a x d o l l a r s
f o r lo c a l d i s t r i c t s — d id n o t o b ta in co n sen su s.

92

G r e a te r consensus o c c u rre d on t h e developm ents f o r e c a s t e d f o r
beyond t h e y e a r 2000 and never.

Two (40%) o f t h e f i v e developm ents

f o r e c a s t e d f o r beyond t h e y e a r 2000 reached consensus.

These develop­

ments w ere t h a t t e a c h e r s ' s a l a r i e s and c o s t s f o r f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w i l l
be t i e d t o a consumer p r i c e Index and t h a t an av erag e c l a s s s i z e w i l l
be l e s s th a n 20 s t u d e n t s ; both were c a te g o r iz e d a s lo c a l o r re g io n a l
developm ents.

No s t a t e developm ents f o r e c a s t e d f o r beyond t h e y e a r

2000 reached consensus (se e T ab le 14).
F in a lly *

a l l e i g h t developm ents (100%) f o r e c a s te d nev er t o

o c cu r reached consensus.

The tw o lo c a l o r r e g io n a l developm ents 1n t h e

"never" I n t e r v a l w ere perfo rm an ce c o n t r a c t i n g and school d i s t r i c t s
paying bonuses t o h i r e c e r t a i n t e a c h e r c a n d id a te s .

F iv e s t a t e develop­

ments re a c h in g con sen sus 1n t h e "never" I n t e r v a l o f a c c e p ta n c e were
s c h o o ls o p e r a tin g l e s s th a n 180 days* t e a c h e r s working o n ly when th e y
have s p e c i f i c te a c h in g assignm ents* t e a c h e r s ' p ro b a tio n a ry p e rio d
s h o rte n e d t o one year* p u b lic s c h o o ls le a v i n g t h e p r e s e n t S o d a !
S e c u r ity system* and y e a r-ro u n d sc h o o ls .

T eachers' p ro b a tio n a ry p e rio d

s h o rte n e d t o one y e a r was t h e s t a t e developm ent w ith t h e h i g h e s t con­
s e n s u s (68%) t h a t 1 t would n e v er occur.

The s i n g l e n a tio n a l develop­

ment f o r e c a s t e d f o r t h e "never" i n t e r v a l was t e a c h e r s fo rm in g a f e d e r a l
b a rg a in in g u n i t .

S tro n g co nsensu s was reached on t h i s Item* w ith 75%

o f t h e p a n e l i s t s s e l e c t i n g t h e "never" I n t e r v a l (see Appendix G).

93

Summary o f Med1an-T1meI n t e r v a l Changes
The 30 f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents 1n Rounds 1, 2 , and 3 were
a n alyzed t o d e te rm in e changes 1n t h e p r o je c te d median tim e I n t e r v a l s of
o c cu rren c e .

The median ti m e I n te r v a l of t h e t h i r d round was used t o

d e te rm in e 1f consensus e x i s t e d .

I f 50% o f t h e re s p o n d e n ts w ere w ith in

one tim e I n t e r v a l In Round 3, consensus was achieved.
t h e s e d a ta 1s p re s e n te d 1n Appendix G.

A summary of

The median tim e I n t e r v a l s f o r

t h e Ite m s were grouped a c c o rd in g t o t h e number o f t1 m e -1 n te rv a l changes
t h a t o c cu rred between Rounds 1 and 3.

T able 17 c o n ta in s a summary of

t h e s e changes.

T a b le 1 7 .— Summary o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents: med1an-t1meI n t e r v a l changes between Rounds 1 and 3 .
Median Time I n t e r v a l

Item Number

No change

2 *, 3 " , 5 , 7 " , 9 , 11, 14, 15,
17", 18", 19", 2 0 " , 2 1 " , 24,
2 6, 2 7 ", 2 8 " , 29"

In c re a s e d one

1, 4 , 6 , 8 , 10, 12, 13, 16",
2 2 , 2 3 , 25 , 30

" I n d i c a t e s c o n se n su s.

As shown 1n T able 17, t h e median tim e I n t e r v a l s o f 18 (60%) o f
t h e 30 f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents did n o t change th ro u g h o u t t h e t h r e e
rounds o f t h e Delphi stud y.

Twelve (40%) o f t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t

developm ents were f o r e c a s t e d t o occur a t a l a t e r tim e I n t e r v a l th a n

94

I n i t i a l l y f o r e c a s te d 1n Round 1.

The p a n e l i s t s reached consensus on 11

o f t h e 18 Item s t h a t showed no change.

F inally » consensus was reached

on only 1 o f t h e 12 developm ents t h a t In c re a s e d by one ti m e I n t e r v a l .
Michigan t e a c h e r s having a sh o rte n e d workday# p e r m i t t i n g them t o work
only when they have s p e c i f i c te a c h in g assignm ents# changed from beyond
t h e y e a r 2000 1n Round 1 t o never 1n Rounds 2 and 3.

The f i n d i n g s

I n d i c a t e t h a t consensus was more l i k e l y f o r th o s e Item s whose median
tim e I n t e r v a l s did n o t change (6156)# a s opposed t o th o s e whose tim e
I n t e r v a l s did change (86).
Summary o f SemiI n t e r q u a r t i l e Changes
In a d d i t i o n t o changes 1n t h e median ti m e I n t e r v a l o v e r t h e
t h r e e rounds o f t h i s Delphi study# changes 1n t h e s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le
ran ges o f t h e 30 f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents w ere a l s o examined.

This

s t a t i s t i c p ro v id e s a m easure o f t h e a c tu a l tim e p a ra m e te rs o f t h e
m id d le 50* o f t h e p a n e l i s t s ' f o r e c a s t s f o r t h e tim e I n t e r v a l s o f
In te re st.

A summary o f t h e s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le changes f o r t h e 30

f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents 1s shown 1n T ab le 18.
By exam ining t h e d a ta 1n T ab le 18 and Appendix G# 1 t can be
seen t h a t t h e s e m i - I n t e r q u a r t i l e range f o r 18 (60%) o f t h e 30 f r i n g e
b e n e f i t developm ents rem ained unchanged th ro u g h o u t t h e t h r e e rounds o f
t h e stud y.

The s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le ran ges o f f i v e (17%) Ite m s d ecreased

two I n t e r v a l s .

Median f a m ily Income (1n 1980 d o l l a r s ) d o u b ling by

1990-94# school d i s t r i c t s paying a l l o f t h e t e a c h e r s ' c o n t r i b u t o r y
costs# school d i s t r i c t s o p e r a tin g l e s s th a n 180 school days# f e d e r a l

95

funding re a c h in g 15% o f t h e t o t a l t a x d o l l a r s f o r Michigan schools* and
h e a l t h m aintenance o r g a n i z a t i o n s r e p la c in g p r e s e n t m edical and h o s p i­
t a l i z a t i o n p la n s w ere t h e f i v e Item s In cluded 1n t h i s group.
reach ed consensus on tw o o f t h e s e f i v e developm ents.

P a n e lists

The re sp o n d en ts

f o r e c a s t e d t h a t t h e median fa m ily Income would double by 1990-94 and
t h a t Michigan s c h o o ls would never o p e r a te l e s s th a n 180 days.
l a t t e r developm ent had a range from 1995-never.

The

F in a lly * none o f t h e

30 developm ents widened I t s range th ro u g h o u t t h e c o u rse o f t h e t h r e e
rounds.

T his I s c o n s i s t e n t w ith o t h e r Delphi s t u d i e s because t h e

te c h n iq u e 1s desig ned t o seek consensus o r a convergence o f o p in io n s o r
judgm ents.

T a b le 1 8 .— Summary o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents: s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le
tim e I n t e r v a l changes between Rounds 1 and 3 .
S e m l-In te rq u artH e
Time I n t e r v a l s

Item Number

No change

4 , 5 , 8* 9 , 10* 12, 13, 17*,
19*, 20*, 21*, 2 3 , 2 4 , 2 5 , 26,
27*, 28*, 29*

Decreased rang e
one tim e I n te r v a l

1, 3 *, 6 , 7*, 15, 16*, 18

D ecreased range
two tim e I n t e r v a l s

2 *, 11, 14*, 2 2, 30

* In d 1 c a te s c o n se n su s.

Consensus among t h e p a n e l i s t s was more l i k e l y on th o s e
developm ents whose range de crea se d one tim e I n t e r v a l (57%).

For th o s e

96

Item s w ith no change* 23% reached consensus.

For t h e f i v e developm ents

d e c r e a s in g two tim e I n t e r v a l s * two (40%) reached co nsensus.
F u r th e r a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a ta 1n Appendix G shows t h a t f o r th e
12 developm ents whose s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le rang es decreased* 10 changed
t h e i r expected tim e I n t e r v a l s o f o c cu rren c e t o a l a t e r ti m e span.
w ere f o r e c a s t e d t o o ccu r In an e a r l i e r tim e span.

Two

These were d i s t r i c t s

paying f u l l f r i n g e b e n e f i t c o s t s and f r i n g e b e n e f i t c o s t s t i e d t o a
consumer p r i c e Index.

Thus* f o r th o s e developm ents whose s em l-

1 n t e r q u a r t 1 l e ranges decreased* I t appears more l i k e l y t h a t t h e Delphi
re s p o n d e n ts would f o r e c a s t them t o occur a t a l a t e r d a te.

Summary.-Q.f Median. J e s t
The median tim e I n te r v a l and co m p o site s e m i - I n t e r q u a r t i l e range
were used t o r e p o r t s t a t i s t i c s t o t h e p a n e l i s t s and t o sum m arize t h e i r
d a ta from each o f t h e t h r e e rounds o f t h i s study.

In a d d itio n * t o

m easure t h e degree o f convergence o r v a r ia n c e o f re s p o n se s between t h e
tw o groups o f respondents* t h e median t e s t was used w ith a t w o - t a i l e d
ch 1 -s q u a re v a lu e w ith .05 a s t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l .

Complete d a ta f o r

t h e median t e s t s f o r t h e t h r e e rounds a r e In cluded 1n Appendix E.
Using t h e d a ta from Appendix E* a summary o f t h e median t e s t
p o p u la tio n com parisons f o r t h e 30 f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents o f
I n t e r e s t 1n t h i s stu d y was fo rm u la te d .
Table 19.

T his summary 1s shown 1n

97

T able 19.— Summary o f median t e s t p o p u la tio n com parisons f o r f r i n g e
b e n e f i t developm ents (N = 3 0 ) .
P o p u la tio n
Comparisons
No. o f developments
D iff e re n c e s
No. o f developments
No d i f f e r e n c e
N ote:

Round 1

Round 2

0 (

0%)

1 ( 3.3%)

30 (100%)

29 (96.7%)

Round 3

0 (

0%)

30 (100%)

R efer t o Appendix E f o r com plete d a ta .

In Table 19* t h e tw o p o p u la tio n s o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and u n ls e r v
d i r e c t o r s a r e compared f o r t h e t h r e e rounds o f t h e Delphi stud y.

Using

a t w o - t a i l e d c h 1 -s q u a re v a lu e w ith .05 a s t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e le v el* t h e r e
was no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two p o p u la tio n s
o f p a n e l i s t s d u rin g Round 1.

In Round 2* t h e two p o p u la tio n s d i f f e r e d

s i g n i f i c a n t l y on one developm ent.
te a c h e rs ' sa la rie s*

T h is developm ent was a f o r e c a s t of

In c lu d in g c o s t s f o r f r i n g e b e n e fits *

being t i e d

t o a v a l i d Index o f economic growth such a s a consumer p r i c e Index.

In

Round 3 t h e r e were no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e
tw o p o p u la tio n s o f p a n e l i s t s f o r any o f t h e 30 developm ents.

Thus*

a lth ou gh t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s e s t i m a t e d d i f f e r e n t
median tim e I n t e r v a l s f o r one developm ent 1n Round 2* 1n t h e f i r s t and
t h i r d rounds t h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two
groups.

98
D e s i r a b i l i t y o f F r i n g e B e n e f i t Developments

R esearch Q uestion 3 ; Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s e l e c t e d
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s w ith re g a rd t o t h e d e s i r a b i l ­
i t y o f t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents o c c u rrin g ?
Data from Round 2 o f t h i s Delphi s tu d y were used t o d e te rm in e
t h e p a n e l i s t s ' p e r c e p tio n s o f t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e 30 f r i n g e b e n e f i t
developm ents.

The union and a d m i n i s t r a t o r p a n e l i s t s responded t o each

o f t h e 30 Ite m s u s in g a s e v e n - p o in t H k e r t s c a l e t h a t ranged from
h ig h ly u n d e s ir a b le t o h ig h ly d e s i r a b l e .

An av erage s c o r e was computed

f o r each o f t h e groups by m u ltip l y in g t h e t o t a l o f each re sp o n se
c a te g o ry by t h e s c a l e f a c t o r (1-7) and d iv id in g by t h e number o f
re s p o n se s.

T h is q u o t i e n t e s t a b l i s h e d a d e s i r a b i l i t y le v e l f o r each o f

t h e tw o groups.

The same method o f c a l c u l a t i o n was used t o d e te rm in e

a c o m p o site response* u s in g t h e t o t a l re s p o n se s f o r a l l p a n e l i s t s .
T ab le 20 shows a summary o f t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y re sp o n se s f o r t h e 30
f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents.
Using t h e d a ta In T able 20* a d e s i r a b i l i t y com parison was made.
F ig u re 5 shows how t h e tw o groups were compared* u sin g t h e d i f f e r e n c e s
1n t h e i r a v erag e re s p o n se on t h e s e v e n - p o in t H k e r t s c a l e .

L l k e r t S c a le I n t e r v a l s
(D if f e r e n c e )
0
1-2
3 -4
5 -6

Comparison
No D isagreem ent
Minor D isagreem ent
G re a t D1sagreement
Very G re at D isagreem ent

F ig u re 5 . — D e s i r a b i l i t y comparison ( a d m i n i s t r a t o r s v e rs u s union
members).

Table 2 0 . — Fringe b e n e f i t developments:

d e s i r a b i l i t y and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s .

D e s ir a b ili ty-Undesi r a b i 1i ty
Fringe B en efit Development

1.

2.

3.

The U.S. Chamber o f Commerce
re p o rts th a t fr in g e b e n e f its
fo r a l l employees reached 36.7%
o f payroll in 1977* In your
op inio n, in what time in te rv a l
w ill f r in g e b e n e f its f o r Michi­
gan p u b lic school te ac h e rs
average 50% o f p a y ro l1?

>* •
•—L.
jC—
ui in
— 0)
xo

•
E •
3 L.
■—•—
•—
“o <n
0) 0) o a>
S O

-JO

<D
u
in
4-1
a>
3 2 -0
a> O c
z J 3

C
U

In what y ear w ill th e median
family income (in 1980 d o lla r s )
reach tw ice i t s p re sen t amount?
When w ill th e median te a c h e rs '
s a la ry reach tw ice i t s p re sen t
amount?

4.

By what year w ill 50% o r more
o f th e local E.A.s belong to
a regional bargaining u n it?

5.

By what y ear w ill 50% o r more
o f th e Michigan p u b lic school
d i s t r i c t s ' boards o f education
u n ite in to a m u l t i p l e - d i s t r i c t
bargaining u n it?

X 3

>—
in
X 0)
oro
—c
xo

in
—“O
ro u
U (0
OO
—
100

a) *o
4-» L.
flj (0 <
+■> O UJ

l/} CD

•

<

_J

llJ
X

+

+

+

+

A

C

C

E—
3 in
— a)
“O"O
a> c

O rganizational Factors

A

A

<
UJ
z

•

c o
—0

E u>
"T3 I/)

<<

•C
i/i o

•— •—
014-1

a) u

Tab le 2 0 . —Continued.

Des i rab i 1i ty-Undes i rab i 1i ty
Fringe B en efit Development

>* •
■— L.
£ —
O) CO
— 0)
X O

6. By what year w ill te a c h e rs belong
to one sta te w id e bargaining u n it
th a t w ill determine statew id e
te a c h e r s ' s a l a r i e s and f r in g e bene­
f i t s (with p o s s ib le c o s t - o f - l i v i n g
indexes fo r d i f f e r e n t a re a s o f th e
sta te )?

E '
3 U
•—•—
~o 10
<D 0)
x o

•
•—
2 <o
O 0)
_J o

U

flj
-W
3
0)
z

u
••
in
_ 0)
2*0
O c
—1 3

C

7. In what year w ill te a c h e rs have
t h e i r s a l a r i e s and f r in g e b e n e f its
n e g o tia ted by a fe d e ral bargaining
u n it (with a c o s t - o f - l i v i n g index
fo r d i f f e r e n t a re a s o f th e United
S ta te s)7
8. By what time in te rv a l w ill te ac h e rs
be a b le to s e l e c t an in d iv id u a lly
t a i l o r e d ( c a f e t e r i a - s t y l e ) fr in g e
b e n e f it package from a designated
number o f d o l l a r s in t h e i r school
d istric t?
9. In what year w ill 50% o r more o f
the school d i s t r i c t s s e l f - i n s u r e
some f r in g e b e n e f its such as long­
term d i s a b i l i t y o r l i f e insurance?

i.
E —
3 CO
— a>
T JT J
0) c
X 3

A
U
C

U

A
C

A

C U

> -•— in
JC 0)
OTO
— c
X 3

O rganizational Factors
(O

—“O

(0 1O (0
O O
—ICQ

•

a) “o
4-1 L.
ro <0

4-> o

«/> co

•

c u

<

UJ
—1

<
Hi
X

<

UJ

—
o
E to
*D <0
<C<

•

in

c

o

O) 4-*
a> o
- 1 <c

Tab le 2 0 . —Continued.

10. In what year w ill 50% o r more
o f the Michigan school d i s t r i c t s
u n ite to g e th e r to s e l f - i n s u r e
some fr in g e b e n e f its such as
long-term d i s a b i l i t y o r l i f e
insurance?
11. In what y ear w ill 50% o r more
o f th e Michigan school d i s t r i c t s
pay a l l o f th e t e a c h e r 's f r in g e
b e n e f it c o s ts w ith no c o n trib u ­
to ry c o s ts made by te ac h e rs?

U

u

C

C

A

A

+

A

+

+

+

Leg i s .
A ction

Admin.
Assoc.

NEA

MEA

LEA

S ta te
Boards

Local
Boards

O rganizational Factors

+

C

U

Highly
Undes i r.

Med i um
Undes i r .

Low
Undes i r.

A
U
C

12. By what year w ill 50% o r more of
th e Michigan school d i s t r i c t s
perm it te ac h e rs to tra d e f r in g e
b e n e f its f o r cash in hand i f
they d e s ir e ?
13. In what time in te rv a l w ill
Michigan p u b lic school te ac h e rs
have o p tio n a l re tire m e n t a f t e r
30 years o f s e r v ic e w ith f u l l
f r in g e b e n e f its t h a t a re o ffe re d
by th e local school d i s t r i c t ?

N eutral

Low
D e s ir .

Med i um
Desi r .

H ighly
D e sir.

O*
T3
3
m
3
rt

<
fl>

to
3
to
-h
—.
pt
o
(D

UJ

“n
-t
3
(Q
to

Des i r a b i 1 i ty-llndes i rab H 1ty

Tab le 2 0 . —Continued.

Des i rab i 1i ty-Undesi rab i 1i ty
Fringe B en efit Development
-

>- •
u

_c—

o > tn
— 0)
3 :0

E

o) a>

x o

•

•

3 U
•— •—
“u in

•—
5 in

o a>

J O

<0
L.
3

0)

z

14. In what time in te rv a l w ill
Michigan school o p e ra te le s s
than 180 in s tru c tio n a l days?
15. In what time in te rv a l w ill
Michigan schools o p e ra te on
a four-day week and s t i l l
m aintain a minimum 180-day
school year?
16. By what time in te rv a l w ill
Michigan te ac h e rs have a s h o r t ­
ened workday p e rm ittin g te a c h ­
e r s to work only when they have
s p e c i f i c teachin g assignments?
17. In what time in te rv a l w ill th e
nontenure t e a c h e r s 1 proba­
tio n a ry p eriod be reduced to
one year?
18. In what time in te rv a l w ill
te a c h e r s ' s a l a r i e s , including
c o s ts f o r f r in g e b e n e f i t s , be
ti e d to a v a lid index o f
economic growth such as a
consumer p r ic e index (CPI)?

•—
in

<
d

3 “o

Oc

J O

O rganizational Factors

•
L.
E—
3 in
<u
-o -o

> ->— in
-C a)
c n -o

in
—
10 u
O (0

4J U
<0 (0

Z3J

z 3

J

(/) CO

Vc

•

•- c

O0

CO

o) t j

-MO

<

UJ
—1

<

UJ
2!

<
UJ
z

• •
c O
•_ O
F in
T3 in

< <

• c

in 0
•_ •_
CT) 4J

0) O

-1

<

C
U
A
U
A
C
o

ro

Tabl e 2 0 . —Continued.

Des i rab i 1i ty-Undes i rab i 1i ty
Fringe B enefit Development

>• • E •
t- 3 U
-C»- •—|M
D)(A TJ (A
— o> 0 0
x o
XO

•
L.
5 (A
O 0
JO

•
u

0
u
4-»
3
0
Z

L.
E—
(A 3 (A
0 — Q)
2 * 0 -o -o
0 c
0 C
JO
x=o

•mm

L.
•—
l/l
0)
3*0
O C
-1 3

O rganizational Factors
in
— XI
<0 1O (D
o o
—I CO

4>-0
•W L.
(D ID
4J O
</l CD

<
UJ
—1

<•
UJ
£

<

UJ

CO
o

E (A
“O

(A

< <

(AO
•“ •“

O)*-1
0 )0

-i <

19. By what time in te rv a l w ill
performance c o n tra c tin g w ith
te a c h e rs become an a cc e p tab le
method f o r re c eiv in g a d d i­
tio n a l compensation?
20. By what time in te rv a l w ill
th e average c la s s s i z e be
le s s than 20 s tu d e n ts?
21. In what time in te rv a l w ill i t
become commonplace f o r school
d i s t r i c t s to o f f e r bonuses to
h i r e o u tsta n d in g te ac h e r
c and id ates?
22. By what time in te rv a l w ill
fe d e ra l funds reach a 15%
p ro p o rtio n o f th e t o t a l ta x
d o l l a r s received by Michigan
school d i s t r i c t s (p resen t
level is approxim ately 7%)?

o

A
C

D e s ir a b iI 1 t y - U n d e s i rabi 1 i t y
F rin g e B e n e f i t Development

>* •
e—U
-C—

— 0)
x o

23. By what time in te rv a l w ill ins e r v ic e tr a i n i n g o f te ac h e rs
become a n e c e s s ity because o f
computers, T.V ., and new
teaching techn olo gies?
2k. By what time in te rv a l w ill th e re
be a 50% in c re ase in personnel
a d m in is tra to rs whose primary
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w ill be to work
w ith employee b e n e f its and o th e r
re la te d personnel fu n c tio n s in
th e p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s o f
Michigan?
25. By what time in te rv a l w ill
boards o f education in a
region o r a re a u n ite to g e th e r
to review n e g o tia te d local
agreements f o r a c c e p ta b il ity ?
26. By what time in te rv a l
Michigan Publ ic School
Ret i rement System have
c o s t - o f - l i v i n g f a c to r
r e t i rement a 11owance?

w ill the
Employees'
a bui 11- i n
in the

•
L.
•—

E •
D L.

•—

“O (S)
0 a)

x o

2
0

in
a>

_1 0

pM
(0
u

•u

u

•—
in
U

3

0)
z

A
C
U

A
C

A
U
C

u

E—

3 in

— 0)
“0 * 0

O c
J O

0) c

X O

O r g a n iz a ti o n a l F a c t o rs
L.
in
i— 0 )
x a>

DTD
—c
x o

—"O
(Q u
U (0
0 0
J CO

0 )0

4-> L.

05 (0

■MO
</) CO

<£
llJ
J

<

UJ
X

UJ

z

• •
c 0
—0

•—•—

< <

-I «

E <A
•0 ISI

• c
(A 0

CT) 4J

0) u

Table 2 0 . —Continued.

+ = Group most in favor
- = Group most opposed

Leg i s .
Assoc.

Admin.
Assoc.

NEA

MEA

S ta te
Boa rd

LEA

Local
Boards

Highly
Undes i r.

N eutral
Low
Undes ir .

Low
D e s ir.

Med i um
Desi r .

Highly
D e s ir.

Med i um
Undes i r.
U

+

A
C

+

A = A d m in istrato r response
U = Union response
C = Composite response

A
U
C

1

Key:

U

+

30. By what time in te rv a l w ill
h e a lth maintenance o rg a n iz a tio n s
re p la c e th e p re s e n t medical and
h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n plans?

C

1

29. By what time in te rv a l w ill
Michigan go to a year-round
school w ith te a c h e rs working
on a staggered b a sis ?

A

U
C

1

28. By what time in te rv a l w ill
Michigan p u b lic school employ­
e r s and employees g e t o u t o f th e
Social S e c u rity (FICA) program
and i n s t i t u t e an a l t e r n a t e program?

A

+

27. By what time in te rv a l w ill the
IRS ta x f r in g e b e n e f its received
by te a c h e rs as ta x a b le income?

O rganizational Factors

1

0
1
fl>
3
rt

O
m
<

rt

(0
3
<T>
-h

03

T1
n
3
<D

Des i rab i 1i ty-Undes i rab i 1 i ty

106

Using t h e L l k e r t - s c a l e I n t e r v a l s ( d if fe re n c e )* a d e s i r a b i l i t y
com parison summary o f t h e 30 f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents was made.
T able 21 shows a breakdown o f t h e developm ents a c c o rd in g t o t h e
d 1 ffe re n c e-o f-o p 1 n 1 o n c a t e g o r i e s between union and a d m i n i s t r a t o r
p a n el1 sts.

T a b le 2 1 . — D e s i r a b i l i t y comparison by t o t a l re sp o n se s o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r
and union p a n e l i s t s (N = 3 0 ) .
D if f e r e n c e o f
Opinion
No d isag ree m e n t
Minor d isag ree m e n t
G re a t d isag reem en t
Very g r e a t d isagreem ent
T o t a ls

Local and
Regional

S ta te

N atlonal

4
6
1
2

3
5
3
1

1
1
3
0

13

12

5

Tab le 21 shows t h e number o f developm ents a t t h e l o c a l /
re g io n a l* s t a t e * and n a tio n a l l e v e l s on which g r e a t o r very g r e a t
d is a g re e m e n t o c cu rred .

Three lo c a l o r re g io n a l developm ents on which

g r e a t o r very g r e a t d is a g re e m e n t e x i s t e d between t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r and
union p a n e l i s t s a r e (1) lo c a l e d u c a tio n a s s o c i a t i o n s belo ng in g t o a
re g io n a l b a rg a in in g u nit* (2) Michigan school d i s t r i c t s paying a l l o f
t h e teach ers* f r i n g e b e n e f i t c o s t s w ith no c o n tr ib u to r y payments made
by te a c h e rs * and (3) t e a c h e r s ' s a l a r i e s and c o s t s f o r f r i n g e b e n e f i t s
t i e d t o a v a l i d Index o f economic growth such a s a consumer p r i c e
Index (se e Table 20).

For t h e s e t h r e e developments* t h e g r e a t e s t

107
d is a g re e m e n t e x i s t e d f o r no c o n tr ib u to r y payments made by t e a c h e r s t o
t h e i r f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and t e a c h e r s a l a r i e s and f r i n g e b e n e f i t c o s t s
t i e d t o a consumer p r i c e Index.

The union p a n e l i s t s s tr o n g l y favored

t h e s e two developments* w hereas t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r p a n e l i s t s s t r o n g l y
opposed t h e i r o c cu rren c e .
Four s t a t e developm ents re c e iv e d s tr o n g d i f f e r e n c e s o f o p in io n
between t h e union and a d m i n i s t r a t o r p a n e l i s t s .

These In c lu d e

(1) Michigan p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s ' boards o f e d u c a tio n u n i t i n g I n to
m u lti p i e - d 1 s t r i c t b a rg a in in g u n its* (2) o p tio n a l r e t i r e m e n t a f t e r 30
y e a r s w ith f u l l f r i n g e b e n e f i t coverage* (3) a s t a t e w i d e b a rg a in in g
u nit* and (4) a s h o rte n e d work day* p e r m i t t i n g te a c h e r s t o work only
when th ey have s p e c i f i c te a c h in g a ss ig n m e n ts .

The developm ent 1n t h i s

group w ith t h e g r e a t e s t d is a g re e m e n t between re sp o n d e n t groups was
o p tio n a l r e t i r e m e n t a f t e r 30 y e a rs w ith f u l l f r i n g e b e n e f i t coverage.
The union p a n e l i s t s fav o red a l l f o u r o f t h e a fo re m e n tio n ed
developments* In c lu d in g boards o f e d u c a tio n form ing m u l t 1 p l e - d 1 s t r 1 c t
b a rg a in in g u n i t s .

I n d i c a t i o n s a r e t h a t t h e union members p e rc e iv e d

t h i s developm ent a s c o rre sp o n d in g t o t h e i r d e s i r e f o r r e g io n a liz e d and
even s t a t e b a rg a in in g u n i t s f o r te a c h e r s .

On t h e o t h e r hand* ad m in is­

t r a t o r s may have viewed t h i s p o t e n t i a l happening a s fo resh ad o w ing a
l o s s o f lo c a l c o n tr o l.
On t h r e e o f t h e f i v e p o t e n t i a l n a tio n a l developments* t h e r e was
g r e a t d is a g re e m e n t between t h e union and a d m i n i s t r a t o r p a n e l i s t s .

The

d o u blin g o f median fa m ily Income (1n 1980 d o l l a r s ) and median t e a c h e r s '
s a l a r y re a c h in g tw ic e I t s p r e s e n t amount were in t h i s group.

The t h i r d

108

developm ent was f e d e r a l funds re a c h in g a 15% p ro p o r tio n o f t o t a l t a x
d o l l a r s re c e iv e d by Michigan school d i s t r i c t s .

Again* t h e union p a n el­

i s t s fav o red t h e o c c u rre n c e o f t h e s e t h r e e developments* w hereas oppo­
s i t i o n came from t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
O rg a n iz a tio n s Opposing o r S u pp ortin g
F rin g e B e n e f it Developments
R esearch Q uestion 4 : What o r g a n iz a ti o n a l u n i t s a r e most l i k e l y t o
oppose o r s u p p o rt t h e o c c u rre n c e o f s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t d ev el­
opments?
This r e s e a r c h e r I d e n t i f i e d seven o r g a n i z a t i o n s as being
p o t e n t i a l groups t h a t m ig h t In f lu e n c e t h e t r e n d s o f t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t
developm ents o f I n t e r e s t 1n t h i s stu dy .

In Round 3* t h e re s p o n d e n ts

were r e q u e s te d t o I d e n t i f y t h e o r g a n iz a ti o n a l u n i t t h a t would be most
l i k e l y t o fa v o r and t h e one most l i k e l y t o oppose t h e o c c u rre n c e o f
each development.
In t h i s p a r t o f t h e a n a ly s is * t h e p a n e l i s t s ' Round 3 re sp o n se s
a r e e x p re ss e d a s a c o m p o site s c o re .

The co m p o site s c o r e s were c a lc u ­

l a t e d by t o t a l i n g t h e most f r e q u e n t re sp o n se s f o r (1) t h e o r g a n iz a ti o n
most In fa v o r o f t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t o c c u r rin g and (2) t h e o r g a n iz a ti o n
most opposed t o I t s o c c u rrin g .

These d a ta w ere In clu d ed 1n t h e summary

o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents 1n T able 20.
Table 22 1s a summary o f t h e p a n e l i s t s ' p r o j e c t i o n s o f where
o r g a n iz a ti o n a l c o n f l i c t s m ig h t occur f o r t h e 30 I d e n t i f i e d f r i n g e
b e n e f i t developm ents.

109

T a b le 2 2 .— P a n e l i s t s ' p r o j e c t i o n s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s f a v o r in g o r
opposing f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents, by t o t a l number
of responses.
Group Most
1n Favor

Local boards
S t a t e board
LEA
MEA
NEA
Admin, a ss o c .
L e g ls . b o dies
Total s
N ote:

Local
Boards

S ta te
Board

1
1
10*
9*
1
1
0

1
0
2
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

6*
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
1

23

3

0

7

1

L eg ls.
Bodies

T o ta ls

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
1
0
1

8
1
12
10
2
1
3

0

3

37

Admin.
LEA MEA NEA Assoc.

Seven developm ents had two o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t e q u a ll y favo red
o r opposed t h a t developm ent.
"Major c o n f l i c t a r e a s .

As can be seen from T able 22, t h r e e p o t e n t i a l m ajo r c o n f l i c t s
may be e x p ec te d between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s .

These c o n f l i c t s a r e

between (1) lo c a l boards o f e d u c a tio n and t h e MEA, (2) lo c a l e d u c a tio n
a s s o c i a t i o n s (LEAs) and l o c a l boards o f e d u c a tio n , and (3) t h e MEA
and lo c a l boards o f e d u c a tio n .
Examining t h e s e c o n f l i c t a r e a s more c l o s e l y re v e a le d t h a t
p a n e l i s t s e x pected s i x developm ents t o be fa v o re d by lo c a l bo ard s of
e d u c a tio n w ith m ajor o p p o s itio n e x p ected from t h e MEA.

These

developm ents a r e (1) school d i s t r i c t s s e lf - 1 n s u r 1 n g f r i n g e b e n e f i t s ,
(2) school d i s t r i c t s u n i t i n g t o s e l f - 1 n s u r e t e a c h e r s ' f r i n g e b e n e f i t s ,
(3)

c o n t r a c t i n g , (4) b o ard s o f f e r i n g bonuses t o h i r e o u ts ta n d in g

110

te a c h e r c an d id a te s* (5) boards o f e d u c a tio n u n i t i n g t o review nego­
t i a t e d lo c a l agreements* and (6) HMOs r e p la c in g p r e s e n t medical and
h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n p la n s (se e T able 20).
Local e d u c a tio n a s s o c i a t i o n s were e x pected t o f a v o r te n
developm ents t h a t would l i k e l y f a c e m ajor o p p o s itio n from lo c a l boards
o f e d u c a tio n .

These d evelopm ents a r e (1) te a c h e rs * f r i n g e b e n e f i t

c o s t s a v e ra g in g 50% o f p a y ro ll* (2) median fa m ily Income O n 1980
d o l l a r s ) doubling*
doubling*

(3) median t e a c h e r s ' s a l a r y (1n 1980 d o l l a r s )

(4) I n d i v i d u a l l y t a i l o r e d ( c a f e t e r l a - s t y l e ) f r i n g e b e n e f i t

packages* (5) lo c a l d i s t r i c t s paying 100% o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t costs*
(6) school d i s t r i c t s a llo w in g t e a c h e r s t o t r a d e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r
cash* (7) t e a c h e r s bein g a llo w ed t o r e t i r e a f t e r 30 y e a rs w ith f u l l
f r i n g e b e n e f i t coverage* (8) s c h o o ls o p e r a tin g l e s s th a n 180 days per
school year* (9) t e a c h e r s w orking only when th e y have s p e c i f i c te a c h in g
assignm ents* and (10) a v erag e c l a s s s i z e being l e s s th a n 20 s tu d e n t s .
The MEA and lo c a l boards o f e d u c a tio n w ere t h e t h i r d combina­
t i o n from which a l a r g e number o f c o n f l i c t s was ex p ec te d .

As shown 1n

T a b le 22* n in e developm ents were f o r e c a s t e d t o r e c e iv e MEA support*
w ith t h e m a jo r o r g a n i z a t i o n opposing t h e i r o c c u rre n c e b eing lo c a l
bo ard s o f e d u c a tio n .

These n in e developm ents a r e (1) LEAs b e lo ng ing t o

r e g io n a l b a rg a in in g u n its * (2) boards o f e d u c a tio n u n i t i n g 1n m u l t l p l e d 1 s t r i c t b a rg a in in g u n its*

(3) a s t a t e w i d e t e a c h e r b a rg a in in g unit*

(4) a f e d e r a l t e a c h e r b a rg a in in g unit*

(5) o p tio n a l r e t i r e m e n t a f t e r 30

y e a r s w ith f u l l f r i n g e b e n e f i t co verage, (6) t e a c h e r p ro b a tio n a ry
p e rio d o f one year* (7) c o s t s f o r t e a c h e r s a l a r i e s and f r i n g e b e n e f i t

Ill
c o s t s av erag in g 50% of p a y ro ll* and (9) median fa m ily Income (1 n 1980
d o l l a r s ) re a c h in g t w i c e I t s p r e s e n t amount.
A ltogether* Table 22 I n d i c a t e s t h a t p a n e l i s t s e x p ec te d lo c a l
boards o f e d u c a tio n t o oppose 23 f r i n g e b e n e f i t developments* whereas
t h e MEA was e x p ec te d t o oppose seven.

Support f o r t h e o c c u rre n c e o f 12

developm ents was e x pected t o come from lo c a l e d u c a tio n a s s o c ia tio n s *
and t h e MEA was e x p ec te d t o fa v o r t e n o th e r s .

A c o m plete summary o f

a l l d a ta f o r each o f t h e 30 f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents may be found In
Appendix H.
Summary
T his c h a p t e r c o n ta in e d a d is c u s s io n o f t h e d a ta r e l a t e d t o
f o r e c a s t i n g t h e f u t u r e o c c u rre n c e o f 44 f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and 30 r e l a t e d
f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents.

Also I n d ic a te d was w h eth er t h e p a n e l i s t s

reached co nsensu s on each item .
A d d itio n a l d a ta w ere examined t o d e te rm in e t h e p a n e l i s t s '
p e r c e p tio n s o f t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f a p a r t i c u l a r f r i n g e b e n e f i t
developm ent o c c u r rin g .

P e r c e p tio n s o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r and union

p a n e l i s t s were compared.

Also In c lu d e d were t h e p a n e l i s t s ' co m p o site

re s p o n se s re g a rd in g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s o r groups t h a t a r e m ost l i k e l y t o
s u p p o r t o r oppose t h e o c c u rre n c e o f each r e l a t e d developm ent and th e
groups t h a t a r e l i k e l y t o be In c o n f l i c t over each developm ent.
A summary o f t h i s s tu d y 1s p re s e n te d 1n C h apter V.

The d is c u s ­

s io n o f f in d i n g s 1s o rg a n iz e d a c c o rd in g t o t h e tim e I n t e r v a l s In which
t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and r e l a t e d developm ents were f o r e c a s t e d t o occur.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

C h ap ter V c o n ta i n s a summary and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e f in d i n g s
o f t h i s study* which e x p lo re d f u t u r e f r i n g e b e n e f i t t r e n d s f o r
M ichigan's p u b lic school t e a c h e r s .

The f o r e c a s t s were made by a panel

o f a u t h o r i t i e s composed o f (1) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s whose prim ary f u n c tio n 1s
t o a d m i n i s t e r p u b lic school em ployees' f r i n g e b e n e f i t p la n s and
(2) u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s who n e g o t i a t e Michigan p u b lic school t e a c h e r s '
f r i n g e b e n e f i t packages.
Of t h e many f o r e c a s t i n g pro c e d u res t h a t m ig h t have been used*
t h e Delphi te c h n iq u e was s e l e c t e d as t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e one f o r t h i s
s tu d y .

This te c h n iq u e Involved a c o n tro lle d -o p 1 n 1 o n feedback 1n which

t h e panel o f e x p e r t s exchanged reason ed o p in io n s anonymously th rough
t h r e e rounds o f q u e s tio n n a ir e s * o f which t h e l a s t two were b u i l t on t h e
r e s u l t s o f t h e p re c ed in g one.
The f i r s t m ajor a r e a I n v e s t i g a t e d was t h e tim e I n t e r v a l s 1n
which t h e p a n e l i s t s e s ti m a te d s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a r e most
l i k e l y t o occu r as p a r t o f t h e economic package o f 50% o r more o f
M ichigan's p u b lic school t e a c h e r s .

These e s t i m a t e s were based on t h e

re sp o n se s o f t h e two groups Includ ed In t h i s study* a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and
MEA u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s .

112

113
In t h i s re s e a rc h * 44 s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w ere s tu d ie d .

The m ajor purpose was t o f o r e c a s t t h e most l i k e l y tim e I n t e r v a l when
50% o r more o f M ichigan's p u b lic school te a c h e r s would have t h e
b e n e f i t a s p a r t o f t h e i r d i s t r i c t ' s f r i n g e b e n e f i t package.

For t h e

purpose o f t h i s study* t h e 44 f r i n g e b e n e f i t Item s were c a te g o r iz e d
I n t o t h e fo llo w in g fo u r a r e a s :
1.

H e a l t h - r e l a t e d f r i n g e b e n e f i t s — B e n e f it s t h a t a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y
r e l a t e d t o t h e h e a l t h and w ell being o f t h e t e a c h e r and* 1n
some cases* may b e n e f i t members o f t h e t e a c h e r ' s fa m ily .

2.

Economic f r i n g e b e n e f i t s — B e n e f it s t h a t r e s u l t 1n a d d itio n a l
com pensation and a r e n o t h e a lt h r e l a t e d .

3.

F a m ily - r e la te d a n d /o r p e rso n al f r i n g e b e n e f i t s —B e n e f it s t h a t
may p ro v id e a d d itio n a l com pensation f o r members o f t h e
t e a c h e r ' s fam ily o r b e n e f i t s t h a t a f f e c t t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e
t e a c h e r ' s nonwork environm ent.

4.

P r o f e s s io n a l b e n e f i t s —B e n e f it s t h a t may p ro v id e o p p o rtu n i­
t i e s f o r a t e a c h e r ' s p r o f e s s io n a l growth o r perso nal needs.
A second m ajor purpose o f t h i s s tu d y was t o e x p lo re 30

p o t e n t i a l developm ents t h a t may In f lu e n c e f r i n g e b e n e f i t tr e n d s .

The

s p e c i f i c t o p i c s I n v e s t i g a t e d were (1) e s ti m a te d tim e I n t e r v a l s when
s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents a r e l i k e l y t o occur* (2) t h e
d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents as p e rc eiv e d
by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and u n ls e r v d ir e c to r s * and (3) o r g a n iz a ti o n a l f a c t o r s
t h a t may I n f lu e n c e s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t developments* as p e rc e iv e d
by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s .
The f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents were a rra n g e d I n to t o p i c a l
groupings* based on t h e le v e l a t which t h e developm ent would I n i t i a l l y
occur.

The r e s e a r c h e r I d e n t i f i e d t h e s e grou p ing s a s (1) lo c a l and

regio nal*

(2) s ta t e *

and (3) n a tio n a l developm ents.

114

What a r e t h e v a r i e t i e s and ty p e s o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s t h a t a r e
l i k e l y t o be I m p o r ta n t 1n t h e 1980s, 1990s, and beyond t h e y e a r 2000?
As I n d ic a te d by t h e re s p o n d e n ts ' f o r e c a s t s r e g a rd in g t h e 44 f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s o f I n t e r e s t 1n t h i s s tu d y , t h e r e a p p e a rs t o be an I n f i n i t e
v a r i e t y o f c o m b in a tio n s o r c o n f i g u r a t i o n s o f b e n e f i t s .

The m ajor p o i n t

t h a t should be made 1s t h a t t h e number and v a r i e t y o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s
have been In c r e a s in g .

T h is p o i n t was s u b s t a n t i a t e d by t h e l i t e r a t u r e

review and by t h e r e l a t i v e l y le n g th y 1 1 s t o f 44 f r i n g e b e n e f i t s o f
I n t e r e s t 1n t h i s s tu d y .
Some t r e n d s were I n d ic a te d 1n t h i s r e s e a r c h , 1 f one can assume
t h a t th o s e b e n e f i t s t h a t w ere f o r e c a s t e d t o a p p ea r 1n t h e 1980s a r e o f
g r e a t e r p r i o r i t y and w i l l r e c e iv e t h e most a t t e n t i o n a t t h e n e g o t i a t i n g
t a b l e s In t h e n e a r f u t u r e .

T h e re fo re , t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r e c a s t e d

f o r t h e 1990s and beyond may be o f l e s s concern 1n t h e im m ediate
fu tu re.
I t was f u r t h e r assumed t h a t t e a c h e r unions w i l l c o n tin u e t o
make f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a m a jo r b a rg a in in g o b j e c t i v e .

O bviously, t h e

demands f o r f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w i l l vary from school d i s t r i c t t o school
d i s t r i c t and from one a r e a o f t h e s t a t e t o a n o th e r.

Such demands w i l l

be o f f s e t by lo c a l boards o f e d u c a tio n , which a r e and w i l l c o n tin u e t o
be fa c e d w ith t h e i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t problem o f f in a n c in g s c h o o ls
under t h e p r e s e n t system o r even w ith a l t e r n a t i v e methods o f f in a n c in g .
Recent developm ents such a s r e t r i e v a l b a rg a in in g have appeared
s i n c e t h e I n i t i a t i o n o f t h i s stu d y .

The e f f e c t o f t h e s e new

115

developm ents 1s s t i l l unknown.

However, an a ssum ptio n t h a t can be made

from t h i s r e s e a r c h , one t h a t 1s su p p o rte d by h i s t o r y . 1s t h a t p u b lic
school t e a c h e r s w i l l want and e x p e c t more f r i n g e b e n e f i t s 1n t h e 1980s,
1990s, and beyond.
I f t h e f o r e c a s t s In C hap ter IV a r e c o r r e c t , some Im p o rta n t
changes 1n f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and r e l a t e d developm ents may be ex p ec te d by
t h e 1980s, 1990s, and beyond t h e y e a r 2000.

The tw o p o p u la tio n s o f

e x p e r t s used In t h i s stu d y may be c o n sid e re d a s one when c o n s id e rin g
t h e i r e s t i m a t e d tim e I n t e r v a l s o f o c c u rre n c e o f s p e c i f i c f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s and developm ents.

At t h e 0.05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , t h e

computed ch1 s q u a r e s u p p o rte d t h e h y p o th e s is t h a t t h e two groups were
from p o p u la tio n s w ith t h e same median.
developm ents and t h e 44 f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .

T h is h e ld t r u e f o r both t h e 30
Hence t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r and

union p a n e l i s t s may be c o n s id e re d a s one s t a t i s t i c a l p o p u la tio n f o r
t h i s s tu d y .
In t h e f o llo w in g d i s c u s s i o n , t h e f o r e c a s t s o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s
and r e l a t e d developm ents a r e summarized a c c o rd in g t o t h e tim e fram e 1n
which th e y were f o r e c a s t e d t o a p p e a r.
Summary o f T re nds f o r t h e 1980s
H e a lth - R e la te d B e n e f its
T h ree h e a l t h - r e l a t e d f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w ere f o r e c a s te d t o r e c e iv e
a t t e n t i o n d u rin g t h e f i r s t h a l f o f t h i s decade (1980-84).

These

b e n e f i t s a r e d e n ta l In s u ra n c e , h e a l t h In su ra n ce w ith a p r e s c r i p t i o n

116
r i d e r , and lo n g -te rm d i s a b i l i t y In su ra n ce .

The p a n e l i s t s reached

consensus on a l l t h r e e b e n e f i t s .
The f o r e c a s t s co n cu rred w ith t h e 1980-81 MASB-MASA C o n tra c t
S e ttle m e n t R eport ( c i t e d 1n C hapter I I ) f o r t h e h e a l t h and d e n ta l
b e n efits.

The r e p o r t s t a t e d t h a t 100% o f M ichigan's school d i s t r i c t s

prov ided h e a l t h Insurance* and 90.2% had d e n ta l In su ra n c e .

LTD was

provided by n e a r ly 46% o f t h e d i s t r i c t s * and more th a n 50% o f t h e
p u b lic school t e a c h e r s were employed 1n t h e s e d i s t r i c t s .
According t o t h e p a n e li s ts * t h e second h a l f o f t h e 1980s w i l l
s e e f o u r a d d i t i o n a l h e a lt h b e n e f i t s become common 1n t e a c h e r s ' b e n e f i t
packages.

They a r e v is io n Insurance* u n lim it e d s i c k le a v e accumula­

t i o n , s h o r t - t e r m d i s a b i l i t y * and t r a v e l a c c i d e n t In su ra n c e .

Of t h e s e

f o u r b e n e f i t s f o r e c a s t e d f o r 1985-89* t h e e x p e r t s reached co nsensu s on
v i s i o n In s u ra n c e and s h o r t - t e r m d i s a b i l i t y In su ra n c e .

U n lim ite d s ic k

le a v e a c c u m u la tio n and t r a v e l a c c i d e n t In s u ra n c e w ere n o t su p p o rte d as
w e l l ; 36.8% o f t h e p a n e l i s t s f o r e c a s t e d u n l i m i t e d s i c k le a v e accumula­
t i o n would a p p ea r 1n t h i s ti m e I n te r v a l* and 31.6% f o r e c a s te d t r a v e l
a c c id e n t I n s u r a n c e .
Economic B e n e f i t s
Only one economic b e n e f i t was f o r e c a s t e d f o r t h e 1980s.

A

r e t i r e m e n t I n c e n t i v e o f one y e a r 's s a l a r y f o r e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t a t age
55 was ex p ec te d t o o ccu r In 1985-89.

O verall* t h e p a n e l i s t s did n o t

f e e l economic b e n e f i t s would be a p r i o r i t y b e n e f i t a re a In t h e 1980s*
even though t e n economic b e n e f i t s were In cluded In t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

117
F a m ily -R e la te d and P e rs o n a l B e n e f i ts

Three f r i n g e b e n e f i t s 1n t h i s c a te g o ry w ere r e l a t e d t o l i f e
In su ra n c e .

Term l i f e In s u ra n c e up t o f u l l amount o f s a l a r y o r h ig h e r

came c l o s e t o re a ch in g consensus* w ith 47.4% o f t h e p a n e l i s t s f o r e ­
c a s t i n g 1985-89 as t h e ex p ec te d tim e I n te r v a l o f o ccu rren ce.

Acciden­

t a l d eath and dismemberment (AD&D) In su ra n ce up t o f u l l amount o f
s a l a r y o r h ig h e r and dependent l i f e In su ra n c e w ith a minimum of $1*000
p e r dependent both reached consensus*
respondents* r e s p e c t i v e l y .

w ith 57.9% and 63.2% o f t h e

I t should be c l a r i f i e d t h a t an AD&D r i d e r

1s n o rm ally a t ta c h e d t o te rm l i f e Insurance* paying a b e n e f i t t h a t 1s
t w i c e t h e amount o f te rm l i f e .

The Round 3 I n t e r q u a r t i l e rang e f o r

te rm l i f e was 1980-89# and t h e range f o r AD&D was only one ti m e I n t e r ­
v a l:

1985-89.

Three o f t h e f i v e b e n e f i t s 1n t h i s t o p i c a l grouping

were e x pected t o o ccur 1n t h e l a t e 1980s.
Professional Benefits

The p a n e l i s t s f o r e c a s t e d t h a t M ichigan's p u b lic school te a c h e r s
w i l l r e c e i v e t h r e e p r o f e s s i o n a l f r i n g e b e n e f i t s d u rin g t h e tim e
I n t e r v a l o f 1985-89.

Paid le a v e s o f s h o r t e r d u r a tio n th a n s a b b a t i c a l

le a v e s r e c e iv e d consensus by t h e p a n e l i s t s .

A minimum o f tw o perso nal

h o lid a y s t o be used d u rin g t h e school y e a r and a minimum o f two
personal p a id le a v e days p e r y e a r t h a t can be used w ith o u t any reaso n
g iven did n o t r e c e iv e consensus.

Only 3 o f t h e 11 c a te g o r iz e d p r o f e s ­

s io n a l b e n e f i t s w ere e x p ec te d 1n t h i s decade.

118
Summary o f F rin g e B e n e f i t Develo p m en ts 1n t h e 1980s
Local and R eg io n al Develo p m e n ts

The panel o f e x p e r ts f o r e c a s t e d fo u r lo c a l o r re g io n a l
developm ents t o appear 1n t h e decade o f t h e 1980s.

All o f them w ere

e x pected t o occur 1n t h e l a t t e r h a l f o f t h e decade— in t h e 1985-89
tim e I n t e r v a l .
According t o t h e p a n e l 1 s t s , lo c a l e d u c a tio n a s s o c i a t i o n s w i l l
j o i n re g io n a l b a rg a in in g u n i t s 1n t h i s decade.

The union p a n e l i s t s

viewed t h i s developm ent a s m o d e ra tely d e s ira b le * In c o n t r a s t w ith t h e
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1 p e rc e p tio n o f t h i s e v e n t a s one o f medium u n d e s i r a b i l ­
ity .

The p a n e l i s t s did n o t reach consensus on t h i s Item ; o n ly 37.5%

ag re ed on t h e e x p ected tim e I n t e r v a l o f I t s o c c u rren c e .
1 n t e r q u a r t 1 l e range was from 1980-89.

The s e m l-

Local boards o f e d u c a tio n w ere

t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t p a n e l i s t s e xp ected t o be m ost l i k e l y t o oppose
t h i s development* whereas t h e MEA was I d e n t i f i e d a s t h e group most In
fa v o r o f I t s o c c u rre n c e .
Another developm ent ex p ec te d 1n t h e 1985-89 I n te r v a l I s t h a t
Michigan school d i s t r i c t s w i l l pay a l l of t h e c o s t s f o r t e a c h e r s ' f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s w ith o u t any e m p lo y e e -c o n trib u te d funds.

T h is e v e n t was

c o n sid e re d h ig h ly d e s i r a b l e by t h e union members and m o d erately
u n d e s ir a b le by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

P a n e l i s t s e x pected lo c a l boards t o

be most opposed t o t h i s development* w h ile th ey p e rc e iv e d t h a t lo c a l
e d u c a tio n a s s o c i a t i o n s would view 1 t most fa v o ra b ly .
n o t reach consensus on t h i s development.

The p a n e l i s t s did

119

According t o study p a r t i c 1 p a n t s , a t h i r d developm ent 1n t h e
1980s w i l l be an In c re a s e d em phasis on I n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g o r p r o f e s ­
s io n a l developm ent.

The range was 1n t h e tim e I n t e r v a l o f 1980-89.

Both union and a d m i n i s t r a t o r p a n e l i s t s c o n sid e re d t h i s developm ent t o
be o f medium d e s i r a b i l i t y .

The o r g a n iz a ti o n t h a t p a n e l i s t s f e l t would

most fa v o r and m ost oppose t h i s developm ent was lo c a l boards o f educa­
tio n .

The r e s e a r c h e r assumes t h i s means t h a t a lth o u g h lo c a l boards

fa v o r more p r o f e s s i o n a l development* th e y a l s o would p e rc e iv e 1 t as a
c o s t Item 1n t h e i r d i s t r i c t ' s budget.
A f i n a l lo c a l o r r e g io n a l developm ent f o r e c a s t e d f o r 1985-89 1s
t h a t boards o f e d u c a tio n 1n a p a r t i c u l a r re g io n o r a re a w i l l u n i t e t o
review n e g o tia te d lo c a l a g re em e n ts f o r a c c e p t a b i l i t y .

T his developm ent

d id n o t reach consensus a s o n ly 37$ o f t h e p a n e l i s t s agreed w ith t h i s
t im e I n t e r v a l .

The range had a l a r g e d is p e rsio n * which covered t h r e e

tim e I n te r v a ls * In c lu d in g t h e y e a r s 1980-94.

A d m in is tr a to r s and union

p a n e l i s t s w ere n e u tr a l on t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h i s development.

Local

boards w ere p r o j e c t e d t o be t h e group most 1n f a v o r o f I t s occurrence*
whereas t h e MEA would be most opposed.
S t a t e Developments
Only one o f t h e 12 c a t e g o r i z e d s t a t e developm ents was e x pected
t o occur In t h e 1980s.

The Michigan P u b li c School R e tire m e n t System

was ex p ec te d t o have a b u i l t - i n c o s t - o f - H v 1 n g f a c t o r 1n I t s r e t i r e m e n t
allo w ance by 1985-89.
Item.

The p a n e l i s t s did n o t reach consensus on t h i s

The union p e rc e iv e d t h i s developm ent a s h ig h ly d e s ira b le *

whereas a d m i n i s t r a t o r s saw I t a s having low d e s i r a b i l i t y ; f o r t h e

120

co m p osite group* t h e Item had medium d e s i r a b i l i t y .

P a n e l i s t s viewed

t h e MEA as being t h e group m ost 1n fa v o r o f t h i s event* whereas they
f e l t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e would be most opposed t o I t s o c c u rre n c e .
N ational Developments
The p a n e l i s t s did n o t f o r e c a s t any o f t h e f i v e c a te g o r iz e d
n a tio n a l developments t o o c c u r 1n t h e 1980s.
Summary o f t h e 1980s
Based on t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study* t h e 1980s w i l l s e e a m ajo r
em phasis on h e a l t h - r e l a t e d f r i n g e b e n e f i t s ; f a m i l y - r e l a t e d o r p erso n al
b e n e f i t s and p r o f e s s i o n a l b e n e f i t s w i l l a l s o r e c e i v e a t t e n t i o n .

A low -

p r l o r l t y a r e a w i l l be economic b e n e f i t s o r th o s e t h a t r e s u l t 1n a d d i­
t i o n a l com pensation.

T h is f i n d i n g I s co n g ru e n t w ith t h e f i s c a l prob­

lems t h a t school d i s t r i c t s and t h e s t a t e a r e f a c in g 1n t h i s decade.
Local and re g io n a l developm ents w i l l be p r i o r i t y a r e a s In t h e
1980s.

Regional bargaining* p r o f e s s i o n a l development* and In c re a s e d

c o o p e ra tio n w ith school boards a r e developm ents t h a t have re c e iv e d
In c re a s e d a t t e n t i o n and a r e e xp ected t o be r e a l i z e d by 1985-89.

With

t h e ad v en t o f r e t r i e v a l b argaining* no c o n tr ib u to r y c o s t s by t e a c h e r s
as a developm ent w i l l be o f I n t e r e s t .

Whether lo c a l boards a r e a b le t o

p re v e n t t h i s developm ent from o c c u r r in g rem ains t o be seen.

The s i n g l e

s t a t e developm ent r e l a t i n g t o a c o s t - o f - H v 1 n g f a c t o r f o r r e t i r e d
t e a c h e r s e x p r e s s e s t h e concern ab o u t I n f l a t i o n a r y c o s t s In r e c e n t
y e a rs .

O verall* s t a t e and n a tio n a l developm ents w i l l n o t r e c e i v e t h e

121

a t t e n t i o n t h a t lo c a l and r e g io n a l developm ents w i l l e x p e rie n c e 1n t h e
1980s.
Summary o f F u tu re T re nds f o r t h e 1990s
H e a lth -R e la te d B e n e f it s
According t o t h e p a n e l i s t s 1n t h i s Delphi s tu d y , M ichigan's
p u b lic school t e a c h e r s can e x p e c t two h e a l t h - r e l a t e d b e n e f i t s t o app ear
du ring t h e f i r s t h a l f o f t h e 1990s (1990-94).

A sc h o o l-d istric t-

fin a n c e d p h y s ic a l e x a m in a tio n a t a minimum o f every two y e a r s was
f o r e c a s te d f o r t h i s tim e I n t e r v a l .

In itia lly ,

1n t h e f i r s t round, t h e

p a n e l i s t s s e l e c t e d 1985-99 a s t h e s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le range f o r t h i s
b e n e f i t and f i n a l l y narrow ed t h e range t o 1990-99 In t h e t h i r d round.
However, consensus was n o t a c h ie v e d ; 42.1% s e l e c t e d t h i s tim e I n t e r v a l .
The second b e n e f i t f o r e c a s t e d t o o ccu r d u rin g t h e 1990-94 I n t e r v a l was
a d d itio n a l o p tio n s t o c o v e r 1n-hosp1ta1 b e n e f i t s , weekly In d e m n ity , and
so on.

T h is b e n e f i t had an even w id e r range o f a cc e p tan c e w ith a tim e

span o f 1985-99.

Again, t h e p a n e l i s t s d id n o t reach consensus on t h i s

Item (36.8%).
During t h e l a t t e r h a l f o f t h e 1990s, tw o o t h e r h e a l t h - r e l a t e d
b e n e f i t s w ere f o r e c a s t e d t o occur.

These a r e p aid h e a rin g c a r e and

c o n t i n u a t i o n o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t c o verag e f o r r e t i r e e s .
reached consensus.

N e ith e r b e n e f i t

The sent 1-1 n t e r q u a r t l l e range f o r h e a r in g c a r e was

1990-99, w hereas t h e range f o r f r i n g e b e n e f i t cov erag e f o r r e t i r e e s was
from 1990 t o beyond t h e y e a r 2000.

Some p a n e l i s t s I n d ic a te d t h a t paid

h e arin g c a r e 1s p a r t i a l l y c ov ered by p r e s e n t group h e a lt h In s u ra n c e and
t h a t any new b e n e f i t s would be In c o rp o ra te d I n t o new ty p e s o f h e a lt h

122

p la n s.

For r e t i r e e s ’ f r i n g e b e n e f i t plans* e x i s t i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s on

lo c a l school d i s t r i c t s and o t h e r p u b lic b o d ies p re v e n t c o n t i n u a t i o n o f
b e n e f i t s f o r employees who a r e no lo n g e r employed by t h e school
d istric t.

Thus* a ltho u gh some p a n e l i s t s f e l t t h i s was a d e s i r a b l e

b e n e f it* th e y r e a l i z e d t h e s e r e s t r i c t i o n s would r e q u i r e m ajor changes.
Economic B e n e f it s
According t o t h e p a n e li s ts * economic b e n e f i t s w i l l r e c e iv e m ajor
a t t e n t i o n 1n t h e 1990s.

E ig h t economic b e n e f i t s w ere f o r e c a s t e d f o r

t h i s decade.
During t h e 1990-94 tim e I n te r v a l* t h r e e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a r e
e x p ec te d t o occur.

C o s t-o f-l1 v 1 n g a llo w a n c e s (COLA) had a s e m l-

I n t e r q u a r t H e range o f 1985-99.

Only 15.8% o f t h e p a n e l i s t s su p p orted

t h e 1990-94 tim e I n t e r v a l o f o c cu rren c e .

The o p tio n t o r e c e iv e money

1n H e u o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s 1n t h e e v e n t o f double coverage w ith a
spo use employed by t h e school d i s t r i c t reached con sen sus w ith 63.2%
s u p p o r tin g t h e median tim e I n t e r v a l o f 1990-94.

The range s h i f t e d from

1985-94 In t h e I n i t i a l round t o 1990-99 In t h e f i n a l round.

Some

re s p o n d e n ts e x p re ss e d concern f o r p r e s e n t t a x law s p r e v e n tin g employees
t h e o p tio n o f r e c e iv in g cash 1n H e u o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .

Should changes

o c cu r In t h e s e laws* t h e r e s e a r c h e r f e e l s t h i s b e n e f i t could become a
r e a l i t y f o r both sp o u ses and o t h e r t e a c h e r s who m ig h t d e s i r e cash
I n s te a d o f s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .

The f i n a l b e n e f i t f o r e c a s t e d t o

o c c u r 1n t h e f i r s t h a l f o f t h e 1990s 1s r e t i r e m e n t pay o f $100 f o r each
y e a r of s e r v i c e 1n t h e school d i s t r i c t .

T his ti m e I n t e r v a l was

123
s u p p o rte d by o nly 26.3% o f t h e p a n e l i s t s .

The t h r e e rounds had a

c o n s i s t e n t range o f 1985-99.
The second h a l f o f t h i s decade w i l l s e e f i v e a d d itio n a l eco­
nomic b e n e f i t s .
a t re tire m e n t#

They a r e p aid overtim e# f u l l pay f o r unused s ic k le a v e
lo n g e v ity pay o f 1% p e r y e a r beyond t h e B.A. to p step# a

r e t i r e m e n t I n c e n tiv e plan# and a t a x - s h e l t e r e d a n n u ity plan p aid by t h e
school d i s t r i c t .

The e x p e r t s d id no t reach consensus on t h e 1995-99

median tim e I n t e r v a l f o r any o f t h e s e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .

Using t h e se m l-

I n t e r q u a r t H e range# f u l l pay f o r unused s i c k (1985-99) and paid
o v e rtim e (1990-99) appear t o have t h e g r e a t e s t l i k e l i h o o d o f o c c u r rin g
1n t h i s decade.

A r e t i r e m e n t In c e n tiv e plan# lo n g e v ity pay o f 1%# and

a p a id t a x - s h e l t e r e d a n n u ity plan w ere f o r e c a s t e d 1n t h e tim e range of
1990 t o beyond t h e y e a r 2000.
F am ily -R elated and Perso nal B e n e fits
Two f a m i l y - r e l a t e d and person al f r i n g e b e n e f i t s were f o r e c a s te d
f o r t h e 1990s.

They a r e a p re p a id le g a l plan and s u r v iv o r Income

In s u ra n c e .
P re p a id le g a l p la n s were f o r e c a s t e d f o r 1990-94.
1985-94.

The range was

The p a n e l i s t s w ere c l o s e t o consensus# w ith 47.4% s e l e c t i n g

t h e 1990-94 ti m e I n t e r v a l .

The r e s e a r c h e r 1s f a m i l i a r w ith lo c a l

school d i s t r i c t s t h a t have r e c e iv e d t e a c h e r n e g o t i a t i o n p ro p o s a ls
c o n ta i n in g s u g g e s tio n s f o r p re p a id le g a l p la n s.

These p ro p o s a ls may be

exp ected t o become even more common 1n t h e n e a r f u t u r e .
S u rv iv o r Income In s u ra n c e w ith a minimum o f $200 a m onth/spouse
and $100 a m o n th /c h ild was f o r e c a s t e d t o o ccu r 1n t h e 1995-99 I n t e r v a l .

124

The range was 1990-99* and t h e p a n e l i s t s d id n o t reach consensus on
t h i s b e n efit.
P r o f e s s io n a l B e n e f it s
Four p r o f e s s i o n a l b e n e f i t s w ere f o r e c a s te d f o r t h e f i r s t h a l f
o f t h i s decade* d u rin g t h e 1990-94 tim e I n t e r v a l .

One b e n e f i t was

f o r e c a s t e d f o r t h e l a t t e r h a l f o f t h e 1990s.
P erso n al l i a b i l i t y Insurance* paid g u a ra n tee d p r o f e s s i o n a l
leave* paid c o u n se lin g s e r v i c e s f o r l a 1 d - o f f te a c h e rs * and b o a rd -p a id
p ro p e rty damage f o r t e a c h e r s w h ile on school b u s in e s s w ere f o r e c a s t e d
f o r t h e 1990-94 tim e I n t e r v a l .
consensus by t h e p a n e l i s t s .

None o f t h e s e b e n e f i t s re c e iv e d

The rang e f o r p a id p r o f e s s i o n a l le a v e was

1990-99* w hereas t h e o t h e r t h r e e p r o f e s s i o n a l b e n e f i t s had a range of
1985-94.
The rem ainin g p r o f e s s i o n a l b e n e f i t f o r e c a s t e d f o r t h i s decade
was f u l l t u i t i o n reimbursement* which was f o r e c a s t e d t o occur 1n t h e
1995-99 I n t e r v a l .

Consensus was n o t reached on t h i s b e n e f i t as only

26.3% o f t h e p a n e l i s t s s e l e c t e d t h i s median tim e I n t e r v a l .
was from 1990 t o beyond t h e y e a r 2000.

The range

Some p a n e l i s t s e x p re sse d t h e

o p in io n t h a t t e a c h e r s a r e rew arded f o r a d d i t i o n a l c o u rs e work by being
p la ce d on a h ig h e r s a l a r y sch e d u le .

Thus* t h e h ig h e r s a l a r y p lu s p aid

t u i t i o n was c o n sid e re d t o be d o u b le -d ip p in g .

O verall* p a n e l i s t s

ex p ec te d 5 o f t h e 11 c a t e g o r iz e d p r o f e s s i o n a l b e n e f i t s t o occur 1n t h e
1990s.

125
Summary o f F r in g e B e n e f i t D evelopm ents 1n t h e 1990s
Local and R eg io n al Development s

The panel o f e x p e r t s f o r e c a s t e d fo u r lo c a l and re g io n a l
developm ents t o occu r 1n t h e 1990s.

Consensus was n o t reached on any

o f t h e s e developm ents.
C a f e t e r l a - s t y l e f r i n g e b e n e f i t packages w i l l g a in a cc e p ta n c e
d u rin g t h e f i r s t h a l f o f t h e 1990s.

The p a n e l i s t s were c l o s e t o

consensus* w ith 43.8% a g re e in g on t h e 1990-94 tim e I n t e r v a l .

The range

was 1985-94* and some p a n e l i s t s saw t h i s developm ent o c c u r r in g even
e a rlie r.

Both union and a d m i n i s t r a t o r p a n e l i s t s w ere n e u tr a l on t h e

d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h i s b e n e f i t o c c u rrin g .

Local e d u c a tio n a s s o c i a t i o n s

w ere p e rc e iv e d as t h e group most 1n favor* w hereas o p p o s itio n was
exp ec te d from lo c a l boards o f e d u c a tio n .

Should t h i s developm ent

occur* I t w i l l have a trem endous e f f e c t on b e n e f i t packages f o r
te ac h e rs.

Most e x p e r t s agreed t h a t a ltho ug h 1 t may be d e s i r a b l e t o

b ase b e n e f i t s on need* t h i s m ig h t a c c e l e r a t e t r e n d s t o t a x f r i n g e
b e n efits.

The o t h e r problem would be t h e need f o r In c re a s e d

bookkeeping and f o r p ro v id in g employees w ith thorough In su ra n ce
c o u n s e lin g .
A second developm ent p r o je c te d t o occur In t h e f i r s t h a l f of
t h e 1990s 1s school d i s t r i c t s e n t e r i n g t h e s e lf - 1 n s u r a n c e aren a.
range was from 1985-99.

The

The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s c o n sid e re d s e lf - 1 n s u r a n c e

t o be o f low d e s i r a b i l i t y * w hereas t h e union members c o n sid e re d t h i s
developm ent t o be o f low u n d e s i r a b i l i t y .

I t was o f I n t e r e s t t o t h i s

r e s e a r c h e r t h a t t h e union d id n o t c o n s id e r t h e developm ent t o be h ig h ly

126
u n d e s ir a b le .

The MEA and I t s In s u ra n c e a f f i l i a t e have opposed t h i s

approach t o p ro v id in g te ac h e rs* f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .

F in a lly # p a n e l i s t s

e x p ec te d lo c a l boards t o be m ost 1n fa v o r o f t h i s development# w hereas
th e y f e l t t h e MEA would p ro v id e t h e most o p p o s itio n .
The o p p o rtu n ity f o r t e a c h e r s t o t r a d e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r cash
1n hand was p r o je c te d f o r 1995-99.

The range was 1990-2000+.

The

union p a n e l i s t s w ere n e u tr a l a b o ut t h i s development# whereas t h e
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s c o n sid e re d I t o f medium u n d e s i r a b i l i t y .

Local e d u c a tio n

a s s o c i a t i o n s w ere ex p ec te d t o be most s u p p o r tiv e o f t h i s development#
and o p p o s itio n was expected from lo c a l boards.

Major re a so n s f o r t h i s

r e l a t i v e l y l a t e tim e I n t e r v a l w ere t h a t only s i c k peo ple would t a k e t h e
Insurance# t h e IRS t a x a b i l i t y r u l e s would c au se both t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t
and cash 1n hand t o be taxed# and t h a t cash would d e s tr o y t h e t r u e Idea
o f In s u ra n c e .
The f i n a l lo c a l and re g io n a l developm ent 1s h e a l t h m aintenance
o r g a n i z a t i o n s r e p l a c i n g p r e s e n t h e a l t h In s u ra n c e p la n s.
from 1990 t o beyond t h e y e a r 2000.

The range was

A d m in is tr a to r s w ere n e u tr a l on t h i s

developm ent’s d e s i r a b i l i t y # w hereas t h e union members c o n sid e re d 1 t t o
be o f medium u n d e s i r a b i l i t y .

P a n e l i s t s e xp ected t h a t lo c a l boards

would fa v o r t h i s developm ent and t h a t t h e MEA would p ro v id e t h e
g r e a t e s t o p p o s itio n .

S in ce t h i s stud y was I n i t i a t e d #

fo r m a tio n o f HMOs 1n Michigan has In c re a s e d g r e a t l y .

I n t e r e s t 1n t h e
In fa c t# employ­

e e s now may s e l e c t an HMO I n s te a d o f a t r a d i t i o n a l c a r r i e r f o r t h e i r
h e a l t h In su ra n ce .

T h is r e s e a r c h e r b e lie v e s t h a t HMOs w i l l become a

v i a b l e o p tio n e a r l i e r th a n t h e p a n e l i s t s f o r e c a s te d .

127

S t a t e D evelopm ents

Four s t a t e developm ents were f o r e c a s t e d t o occur 1n t h e 1990s.
Two a r e e x pected d u rin g t h e 1990-94 I n t e r v a l and t h e o t h e r two du rin g
1995-99.
According t o t h e p a n e l 1 s t s , Michigan school d i s t r i c t s ’ boards
o f e d u c a tio n w i l l u n i t e I n t o m u lti p i e - d 1 s t r i c t b a rg a in in g u n i t s In 50%
o r more o f t h e d i s t r i c t s by t h e end o f t h e f i r s t h a l f o f t h e 1990s.
The rang e was 1990-99.

The union p a n e l i s t s p e rc e iv e d t h i s developm ent

t o be o f medium d e s i r a b i l i t y ; a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r a te d 1 t a s having low
u n d e sirab ility .
tim e In te rv a l.

Consensus was n o t reach ed ; 37.5% s e l e c t e d t h e 1990-94
The MEA was ex p ec te d t o be t h e group m ost 1n f a v o r o f

t h i s development* w hereas l o c a l board s w ere exp ec te d t o be most
opposed.

The r e s e a r c h e r b e l i e v e s t h e MEA s e e s t h i s as a f a v o r a b le

development* which would f u r t h e r t h e i r a t t e m p t s t o expand r e g i o n a l i z e d
b a rg a in in g .

In o pp o sitio n * a d m i n i s t r a t o r s view m u lti p i e - d l s t r i c t

b a rg a in in g a s a t h r e a t t o l o c a l c o n t r o l .

The p a n e l i s t s as a c o m p o site

group c o n sid e re d t h e development t o be of low d e s i r a b i l i t y .
The second developm ent e x p ec te d t o o c cu r 1n 1990-94 1s a 50%
In c r e a s e 1n person nel a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who would work w ith employee
b e n e f i t s and o t h e r r e l a t e d p erso nn el f u n c tio n s .

The range was 1990-99.

Consensus was n o t reached* w ith 37.5% o f t h e p a n e l i s t s s e l e c t i n g t h e
1990-94 median tim e I n t e r v a l .

A d m in is tr a to r s and t h e c o m p o site group

c o n s id e re d t h i s e v e n t o f low d e s i r a b i l i t y ; t h e union p a n e l i s t s took a
n e u tr a l p o s i t i o n .

A d m in is tr a to r s w ere I d e n t i f i e d a s t h e group most 1n

fa v o r o f t h i s developm ent; lo c a l boards w ere exp ected t o be most

128

opposed t o I t .

Feedback I n d ic a te d t h a t lo c a l boards may p e r c e iv e t h i s

developm ent a s c o s t l y 1n te r m s o f adding a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

Thus* budget

problem s 1n lo c a l d i s t r i c t s may c au se lo c a l boards t o delay o r p re v e n t
t h e o c c u rre n c e o f t h i s development.
P a n e l i s t s exp ec te d f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r M ichigan's p u b lic school
t e a c h e r s t o a v erag e 50% o f p a y ro ll by 1995-99.

The co m p osite group o f

p a n e l i s t s and union e x p e r t s was n e u tr a l on t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h i s
developm ent.

Consensus was n o t reached* and t h e range was from 1990 t o

beyond t h e y e a r 2000.
t h e development* and

The MEA and LEAs w ere ex pected t o be 1n fa v o r o f
lo c a l b oards w ere ex p ec te d t o oppose I t .

The

p a n e l i s t s v a r ie d 1n t h e i r re a s o n s f o r t h i s developm ent's p r e s e n t tr e n d ,
such as t h e q u e s ti o n o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f s a l a r i e s r i s i n g f a s t e r th a n
b e n e f i t s a f t e r a c e r t a i n p o i n t 1s reached, t h e IRS ta x in g f r i n g e bene­
fits*

and I n f l a t i o n .
The f i n a l s t a t e developm ent ex p ec te d 1n t h e 1990s 1s t h e o p tio n

f o r t e a c h e r s t o r e t i r e a f t e r 30 y e a r s of s e r v i c e w ith f u l l f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s p aid by t h e

lo c a l d i s t r i c t .

The p ro b a b le d a te o f acc e p tan c e

was 1995-99* and t h e

rang e was from 1990 t o beyond

t h e y e a r 2000.

T here was g r e a t d is a g re e m e n t between t h e tw o groups o f p a n e l i s t s on
t h i s b e n efit.

The union p a n e l i s t s c o n sid e re d I t a s h ig h ly d e s ira b le *

and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s c a te g o r iz e d 1 t as being o f low u n d e s i r a b i l i t y .
The MEA and LEA would be m ost In f a v o r o f t h e development* w h ile
o p p o s itio n was e x pected t o come from lo c a l boards o f e d u c a tio n .

Costs*

e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t plans* l e g i s l a t i o n * and so on* w i l l be I n f lu e n c in g
fa c to r s * acc o rd in g t o p a n e l i s t s ' feedback.

129

N a tio n a l D evelopm ents
F our n a tio n a l d e v e lo p m e n ts w e re f o r e c a s t e d f o r t h e 1990s.

Three w ere e x pected t o o ccu r d u rin g t h e f i r s t h a l f o f t h e decade# and
t h e p a n e l i s t s reached consensus on a l l t h r e e o f them.
e x p ected t o o c cu r In t h e 1995-99 tim e I n t e r v a l .

The f o u r th was

Consensus was not

reached on t h i s Item .
Median fa m ily Income (1n 1980 d o l l a r s ) was expected t o reach
t w i c e I t s p r e s e n t amount by 1990-94.

More th a n h a l f o f t h e e x p e r ts

(56.3%) agreed on t h i s t i m e I n t e r v a l .

The union and a d m i n i s t r a t o r

p a n e l i s t s evidenced g r e a t d is a g re e m e n t on t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h i s
development.

The union p a n e l i s t s p e rc e iv e d 1 t t o be o f low d e s i r a ­

b i l i t y # w hereas a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r a t e d 1 t o f medium u n d e s i r a b i l i t y .
P a n e l i s t s th o u g h t both t h e MEA and t h e LEA would fa v o r I t s o ccu rren ce.
O p p o sitio n would come from lo c a l boards.

The I n f l a t i o n ra te # Michi­

gan’s economy# and o t h e r f a c t o r s w i l l a f f e c t t h i s development# accord­
ing t o t h e p a n e l i s t s .
The second n a tio n a l developm ent f o r e c a s te d f o r 1990-94 1s t h a t
median t e a c h e r s ' s a l a r i e s w i l l reach t w i c e t h e i r p r e s e n t amount.
Almost 70% o f t h e e x p e r t s f o r e c a s t e d t h i s median ti m e I n t e r v a l .
narrow s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le ran ge was a l s o 1990-94.

The

G re a t d isag ree m e n t

e x i s t e d between t h e two p a n e l i s t gro up s; t h e union members c o n sid e re d
t h i s developm ent a s having medium d e s i r a b i l i t y # and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s saw
1 t a s having low u n d e s i r a b i l i t y .

LEAs would be most 1n fa v o r of t h i s

development# w ith o p p o s itio n coming from lo c a l boards.

Key f a c t o r s

mentioned by t h e p a n e l i s t s were fe w e r and fe w er young t e a c h e r s and th u s

130

a h ig h e r median sala ry * I n f l a t i o n a r y fa c to rs * M ichigan’s economy* and
p a s t s a l a r y re c o rd s .
P a n e l i s t s e x p ec te d t h e IRS t o c o n s id e r t e a c h e r s ' f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s a s t a x a b l e Income by 1990-94.
was 1985-94.
fo recast.

The s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le range

F i f t y p e r c e n t o f t h e p a n e l i s t s agreed on t h i s 1990-94

A d m in is tr a to r p a n e l i s t s c o n sid e re d t h i s developm ent t o be

medium u n d esirable* w hereas t h e union members and t h e c o m p o site group
c o n sid e re d 1 t h ig h ly u n d e s ir a b le .

P a n e l i s t s th o u g h t l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n

would p ro v id e t h e m ost s u p p o r t f o r t h i s developm ent's occurrence*
w hereas t h e NEA would p ro v id e t h e most o p p o s itio n .

Although many

p a n e l i s t s f e l t t h e r e would be a g r e a t deal o f o p p o s itio n by v a rio u s
groups t o t h i s development* th e y s t i l l b e lie v e d 1 t would o ccu r 1n th e
1990-94 I n t e r v a l .
One n a tio n a l developm ent was f o r e c a s t e d f o r 1995-99.

Federal

fun ds re a c h in g 15% o f t h e t o t a l t a x d o l l a r s re c e iv e d by Michigan school
d i s t r i c t s did n o t r e c e iv e consensus.

The range was 1990-99.

G re at

d is a g re e m e n t e x i s t e d between th e tw o groups* w ith t h e union members
c o n s id e r in g t h i s developm ent t o be o f medium d e s i r a b i l i t y and t h e
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s c o n s id e r in g 1 t t o be o f low u n d e s i r a b i l i t y .

LEAs would

be most 1n fa v o r o f t h i s development* and o p p o s itio n would come from
l o c a l boards.

S t r i n g s a tta c h e d t o f e d e r a l funds* a s w ell as p re s id e n ­

t i a l and f e d e r a l p r i o r i t i e s * were seen as f a c t o r s I n f lu e n c in g In c r e a s e s
1n f e d e r a l funding t o s c h o o ls .

131
Summary o f t h e 1990s

According t o t h e f in d i n g s o f t h i s study* f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w i l l
s h i f t from an emphasis on h e a l t h - r e l a t e d b e n e f i t s 1n t h e 1980s t o an
em phasis on economic b e n e f i t s 1n t h e 1990s.

P r o f e s s io n a l b e n e f i t s w i l l

a l s o r e c e iv e m ajo r a t t e n t i o n 1n t h i s decade.

H e alth -re late d b e n efits

w i l l c o n tin u e t o grow 1n numbers* and f a m i l y - r e l a t e d and personal
b e n e f i t s w ill be given low p r i o r i t y .
I t 1s e v id e n t t h a t a f t e r M ichigan's p u b lic school t e a c h e r s have
o b ta in e d m a jo r h e a l t h - r e l a t e d n e c e s s i t i e s * t h e i r fo c u s w i l l t u r n t o
economic and p r o f e s s i o n a l b e n e f i t s 1n t h e 1990s.

The In c re a s e d

a t t e n t i o n t o t h e s e two t o p i c a l a r e a s o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o ll o w s t h e
s e r i o u s f i s c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s school d i s t r i c t s have fa c ed d u rin g t h e
1980s.

A ltogether* o f t h e te n economic b e n e f i t s f o r e c a s t e d 1n t h i s

study* e i g h t a r e e xp ected t o occu r 1n t h e 1990s.

Five o f t h e 11

p r o f e s s i o n a l b e n e f i t s a r e a l s o exp ec te d t o occur* making t h i s t h e
second c a te g o ry o f Im portance.

Of m ajor Im po rtan ce In t h e a re a o f

economic b e n e f i t s a r e ex p ec te d c o s t-o f-1 1 v 1 n g a llo w a n c e s (COLA) and t h e
o p tio n f o r t e a c h e r s t o r e c e i v e money 1n l i e u o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .
In te rm s o f r e l a t e d f r i n g e b e n e f i t developments* s e v e ra l
Im p o rta n t o c c u rre n c e s w ere f o r e c a s te d .

C a fe te rla -s ty le frin g e b e n e fit

packages* s e lf-1 n s u ra n c e * t h e doublin g o f 1980 median f a m ily Income and
median t e a c h e r s ' s a l a r i e s * and t h e IRS ta x in g f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w ere a l l
ex p ec te d 1n t h e f i r s t h a l f o f t h e 1990s.

H ealth m a intenan ce o rg a n iz a ­

t i o n s (HMOs) were e xp ected t o become a re p la c e m e n t f o r t r a d i t i o n a l
h e a lt h In s u ra n c e by t h e l a t t e r p a r t o f t h e 1990s.

The r e s e a r c h e r f e e l s

132
t h i s f o r e c a s t may o ccur sooner th a n t h e p a n e l i s t s e x p ected.

During t h e

tim e t h i s stu d y was being conducted, HMOs became commonplace, e sp e ­
c i a l l y 1n l a r g e urban a re a s .

Recent changes 1n l e g i s l a t i o n a llo w HMOs

a s an o p tio n 1n p la c e o f h e a l t h In su ra n ce .

I t 1s t h e r e f o r e re a s o n a b le

t o assume t h a t t h e number o f Michigan te a c h e r s covered by HMOs w i l l
In c re a s e .

O v e ra ll, some o f t h e most notew orthy developm ents I n v e s t i ­

g a te d 1n t h i s stu dy w ere f o r e c a s te d f o r t h e 1990s.
Summary o f F u tu re Trends f o r
Bevond t h e Year 2000 and Never
H e a lth - R e la te d B e n e f it s
Cancer In s u ra n c e was t h e one re m ainin g h e a l t h - r e l a t e d b e n e f i t
In c lu d e d In t h e stu d y .

The e x p e r t s reach ed s tr o n g consensus on t h i s

Item ; 84.2% f o r e c a s t e d t h a t c a n c e r In s u ra n c e would n e v er become a
f r i n g e b e n e f i t f o r M ichigan’s p u b lic school t e a c h e r s .
Economic B e n e f it s
T eacher e f f e c t i v e n e s s (m e rit) pay was f o r e c a s t e d nev er t o
o ccu r.

The p a n e l i s t s reached consensus on t h i s f o r e c a s t , w ith 63.2%

s e l e c t i n g t h e " n e v e r" tim e I n t e r v a l .
F am ily -R elated and Person al B e n e f it s
O v e ra ll, t h i s group o f b e n e f i t s was n o t e x p e c te d t o r e c e iv e
much a t t e n t i o n 1n t h e d i s t a n t f u t u r e .

The only b e n e f i t w ith any

l i k e l i h o o d o f o c c u r rin g 1s f r i n g e b e n e f i t and s a l a r y c o n t i n u a t i o n f o r a
n e g o tia te d p e rio d o f tim e a f t e r t h e death o f an employee.

The p a n el­

i s t s did n o t reach con sen sus on t h i s b e n e f i t ; o nly 263% s e l e c t e d t h e

133
2000+ I n t e r v a l a s t h e e x p ec te d tim e o f occu rrence.

Vacat1on-t1me

a l l o t m e n t s based on y e a r s o f s e r v i c e , t o be ta k e n d u rin g t h e r e g u la r
school y e a r ; home In s u ra n c e ; and home m ortgage In s u ra n c e w ere f o r e ­
c a s t e d n ever t o appear.

The p a n e l i s t s reached co nsensus on t h e s e

b e n e f i t s (68.4%, 68.3%, and 73.7%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .
P r o f e s s io n a l B e n e f i t s
P a n e l i s t s ex p ec te d tw o p r o f e s s i o n a l b e n e f i t s t o have a remote
chance o f o c c u r r in g beyond t h e y e a r 2000.

S a b b a tic a l le a v e w ith f u l l

pay every seven y e a r s d id n o t r e c e iv e a consensus v o te o f t h e e x p e r ts ,
w ith only 31.6% a g r e e in g on t h i s tim e I n t e r v a l .

A minimum o f $100/year

f o r membership 1n nonunion e d u c a tio n a s s o c i a t i o n s p a id f o r by t h e
school d i s t r i c t was n o t s t r o n g l y s u p p o rte d , w ith o n ly 36.8% o f t h e
p a n e l i s t s f o r e c a s t i n g t h e 2000+ tim e c a te g o ry .

F i n a l l y , t h e r e was

s t r o n g consensus (73.7%) t h a t t e a c h e r s would never have a v a i l a b l e l e a s e
c a r s f o r t r a v e l between b u i l d i n g s .
Summary o f F rin g e B e n e f i t Developments f o r
Beyond t h e Year 2000 and Never
Local and Regional Developments
The panel o f e x p e r t s f o r e c a s t e d t h r e e lo c a l o r re g io n a l
d evelopm ents a s having a rem ote p o s s i b i l i t y o f o c c u r rin g beyond t h e
y e a r 2000.

Two d evelopm ents w ere ex p ec te d never t o occur.

Local

school d i s t r i c t s u n i t i n g t o s e l f - 1 n s u r e some f r i n g e b e n e f i t s did n o t
have consensus on a ti m e I n t e r v a l ; only 25% o f t h e p a n e l i s t s s e l e c t e d
t h e median tim e o f 2000+.

Both a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and union members were

n e u tr a l on t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h i s developm ent o c c u r rin g .

Local

134

bo ard s o f e d u c a tio n w ere t h e groups m ost 1n fa v o r o f t h i s development*
and t h e MEA was m ost l i k e l y t o oppose t h e development.

The second

developm ent w ith a p o s s i b i l i t y o f o c c u r rin g beyond th e y e a r 2000 1s
te a c h e rs ’ sala rie s*

In c lu d in g c o s t s f o r f r i n g e b e n e fits*

being t i e d t o

a v a l i d Index o f economic growth such as a consumer p r i c e Index.

There

was g r e a t p o l a r i z a t i o n on t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of t h i s b e n e fit* w ith t h e
union members c o n s id e r in g 1 t h ig h ly d e s i r a b l e and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
s e e in g 1 t a s h ig h ly u n d e s ir a b le .

Local boards w ere I d e n t i f i e d as being

t h e groups most opposed t o t h e developm ent and t h e MEA m ost 1n fa v o r o f
It.

Average c l a s s s i z e o f l e s s th a n 20 s t u d e n t s was t h e f i n a l lo c a l o r

re g io n a l developm ent w ith a p o s s i b i l i t y o f o c c u r rin g beyond t h e y e a r
2000.

The p a n e l i s t s b a re ly reached co nsensu s; 50% s e l e c t e d t h e 2000+

ti m e I n t e r v a l .

The union and a d m i n i s t r a t o r p a n e l i s t s a s a co m p osite

group p e rc e iv e d t h i s b e n e f i t t o be o f medium d e s i r a b i l i t y ; t h e union
members c o n sid e re d 1 t t o be h ig h ly d e s i r a b l e .

This r e s e a r c h e r assumed

t h a t although t h e p a n e l i s t s c o n s id e re d sm all c l a s s s i z e t o be d e s i r ­
able* th e y a l s o r e a l i z e d t h i s would be very c o s t l y ; th e re fo re * t h e r e
would be v ery l i t t l e o p p o r tu n ity f o r t h i s developm ent t o o ccu r 1n t h e
near fu tu re.

Local boards would be t h e group m ost opposed t o t h i s

development* and lo c a l e d u c a tio n a s s o c i a t i o n s would be most In fa v o r o f
t h i s ev en t.
Two lo c a l and re g io n a l developm ents w ere f o r e c a s te d never t o
o ccur.

They a r e (1) perform ance c o n t r a c t i n g w ith t e a c h e r s a s an

a c c e p ta b le method f o r r e c e iv in g a d d i t i o n a l com pensation and (2) school
d i s t r i c t s o f f e r i n g bonuses t o h i r e o u ts ta n d in g t e a c h e r c a n d id a te s .

The

135

p a n e l i s t s reached consensus on both o f t h e s e developments* w ith 62.5%
and 56.3%* re s p e c tiv e ly *

a g re e in g on t h e "nev er” I n t e r v a l .

Adminis­

t r a t o r s were n e u tr a l on t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f perform ance c o n t r a c t i n g ;
t h e union members p e rc e iv e d 1 t t o be o f medium u n d e s i r a b i l i t y .

Accord­

in g t o t h e p a n e li s ts * lo c a l boards would be t h e groups m ost In fa v o r o f
t h i s development* w hereas t h e MEA would p ro v id e t h e most o p p o s itio n .
Both a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and union members c o n sid e re d o f f e r i n g bonuses t o
h i r e o u ts ta n d in g t e a c h e r c a n d id a te s u n d e s ir a b le .

Again* p a n e l i s t s

exp ec te d lo c a l boards would be m ost 1n fa v o r o f t h i s o c c u rre n c e and t h e
MEA would be t h e m ost opposed.

T h is a p p ea rs t o be c o n s i s t e n t w ith t h e

MEA's (and t h e NEA's) r e c e n t vocal o p p o s itio n t o t h e co n ce p t o f m e r i t
pay.

I t 1s a l s o a p p a r e n t t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a s a group did n o t per­

c e i v e p erform ance c o n t r a c t i n g a s a d e s i r a b l e development.
S t a t e Developments
Seven f r l n g e - b e n e f 1 t - r e l a t e d developm ents w ere f o r e c a s t e d f o r
t h e 2000-*- and n ev er median tim e I n t e r v a l s .

The e x i s t e n c e o f one

s t a t e w i d e b a rg a in in g u n i t t o d e te rm in e t e a c h e r s ' s a l a r i e s and f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s (w ith p o s s i b l e c o s t-o f-1 1 v 1 n g Indexes f o r d i f f e r e n t a r e a s o f
t h e s t a t e ) was n o t f o r e c a s t e d t o occu r u n t i l a f t e r t h e y e a r 2000.

This

developm ent d id n o t reach consensus because a number o f p a n e l i s t s f e l t
t h i s e v e n t m ig ht occur a t an e a r l i e r d a te .
range was 1995-2000+.

The s e m i - I n t e r q u a r t i l e

There was g r e a t d is a g re e m e n t between t h e two

p a n e l i s t groups about t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h i s development.

The union

members p e rc e iv e d 1 t t o be o f medium d e s i r a b i l i t y * w hereas t h e a d m ln ls -

136

t r a t o r s f e l t 1 t was o f medium u n d e s i r a b i l i t y .

The MEA would be t h e

group most 1n f a v o r o f t h e development* whereas lo c a l boards would be
most opposed.
The second developm ent t h a t has a chance o f o c c u r rin g 1n t h e
2000+ tim e fram e 1s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f Michigan’s s c h o o ls o p e r a tin g on
a fo u r-d a y week and s t i l l m a in ta in in g a minimum 180-day school year.
Consensus was n o t reached on t h i s Item .

Possibly* a v a r i e t y o f p la n s

have been advocated f o r t h e school y e a r and n o t enough s u p p o r t e x i s t e d
f o r t h e p a n e l i s t s t o a g re e on t h i s development.

In a d d itio n * many o f

t h e r e c e n t r e p o r t s c o n ce rn in g e x c e lle n c e 1n t h e n a t i o n 's s c h o o ls have
advocated le n g th e n in g t h e school y e ar.

Both a d m i n i s t r a t o r and union

p a n e l i s t s were n e u tr a l on t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h i s Item .

P a n e lists

f e l t lo c a l boards and lo c a l e d u c a tio n a s s o c i a t i o n s would be most In
fa v o r o f t h i s development* b u t t h a t t h e s t a t e board o f e d u c a tio n would
oppose 1 t.
The re m a in in g f i v e s t a t e developm ents w ere f o r e c a s t e d never t o
occur* and t h e p a n e l i s t s reached consensus on t h i s tim e I n t e r v a l .

Of

t h e s e developments* t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f Michigan s c h o o ls o p e r a tin g fe w er
th a n 180 I n s t r u c t i o n a l days a p p ea rs t o have t h e m ost l i k e l i h o o d o f
o c c u rrin g .

The s e m 1 - 1 n te r q u a r t1 le range was 1995-never.

The union and

a d m i n i s t r a t o r p a n e l i s t s were In agreem en t t h a t 1 t was o f low u n d e s ir a ­
b i l i t y t o have t h e school y e a r sh o rte n e d t o fe w e r th a n 180 days.
N everth eless* I t was f e l t t h a t lo c a l e d u c a tio n a s s o c i a t i o n s would be
t h e groups t o fa v o r t h i s happening* w hereas lo c a l boards and t h e S t a t e
Board o f E ducation would be e q u a lly opposed t o 1 t.

137
A llow ing t e a c h e r s t o have a sh o rte n e d workday* p e r m i t t i n g them
t o work only when th e y have s p e c i f i c te a c h in g assignm ents* was an a re a
o f g r e a t d is a g re e m e n t between t h e union members and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
The union p a n e l i s t s c o n sid e re d t h i s developm ent t o be o f low d e s i r a ­
b i l i t y ; t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s c a te g o r iz e d 1 t a s being o f medium u n d e s ir a ­
b ility .

P a n e l i s t s s a id lo c a l e d u c a tio n a s s o c i a t i o n s would be m ost 1n

fa v o r o f t h e s h o rte n e d workday* w h ile o p p o s itio n would come from lo c a l
b o a rd s.
Reducing nontenured t e a c h e r s ' p ro b a tio n a ry p e rio d t o one y e a r
does n o t a p p ea r l i k e l y t o occur.

The union members were n e u tr a l a b o ut

t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h i s developm ent; t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s f e l t I t was o f
medium u n d e s i r a b i l i t y .

The co m p o site group c o n sid e re d t h i s developm ent

t o be o f low u n d e s i r a b i l i t y .

P a n e l i s t s exp ec te d t h e MEA t o be t h e

o r g a n iz a ti o n m ost In fa v o r o f th e development* and lo c a l boards were
ex p ec te d t o oppose t h i s change.
Based on t h e stud y fin d in g s* I t does n o t ap p ea r l i k e l y t h a t
M ichigan's p u b lic school em ployers and employees w i l l le a v e t h e p r e s e n t
S o c ia l S e c u r ity program and I n s t i t u t e an a l t e r n a t i v e program.

■Na.t3.ona1-D.eyfilppjnan±s
The re m a in in g n a tio n a l developm ent 1s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of
t e a c h e r s form ing a f e d e r a l b a rg a in in g u n i t .

The p a n e l i s t s reached a

s tr o n g consensus t h a t t h i s Item would n ever occur.

The 7556 consensus

was t h e h i g h e s t reached f o r any o f t h e 30 developm ents In c lu d e d 1n
t h i s stud y.

The union and a d m i n i s t r a t o r p a n e l i s t s both f e l t t h i s

developm ent was o f medium u n d e s i r a b i l i t y .

Local boards o f e d u c a tio n

138

would be t h e group most opposed t o f e d e r a l bargaining* w hereas t h e MEA
would be m ost 1n fa v o r o f I t .

P a n e l i s t s commented th a t* a t t h e f e d e r a l

le v el* t h e r e a r e a lr e a d y t o o many problem s w ith f e d e r a l employees.
Also* a s h i f t t o more f e d e r a l money f o r s c h o o ls would have t o occu r
b e f o r e f e d e r a l b a rg a in in g c o u ld be u n d ertak en .
Summary o f Beyond t h e Year 2000 and Never
H e a l t h - r e l a t e d f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w ere em phasized In t h e 1980s*
and economic and p r o f e s s i o n a l b e n e f i t s were exp ec te d t o r e c e iv e a t t e n ­
t i o n 1n t h e 1990s.

For t h e ti m e I n t e r v a l beyond t h e y e a r 2000* no

m a jo r t r e n d was I n d ic a te d .

I t 1s I n t e r e s t i n g t h a t a l l o f t h e h e a l t h -

r e l a t e d b e n e f i t s w ere ex p ec te d t o o ccur by t h e y e a r 2000.
Ten o f t h e 44 f r i n g e b e n e f i t s Inc lu d e d In t h i s s tu d y were
f o r e c a s t e d f o r beyond t h e y e a r 2000 and never.

E ig h t w ere I d e n t i f i e d

In t h e t o p i c a l a r e a s o f (1) f a m i l y - r e l a t e d and perso nal b e n e f i t s and
(2) p r o f e s s i o n a l b e n e f i t s .

An I m p o r ta n t b e n e f i t f o r e c a s t e d In t h e

"n ev er" tim e I n t e r v a l was t e a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s o r m e r i t pay.

R ecent

r e p o r t s r e f e r r i n g t o e x c e lle n c e 1n e d u c a tio n have advocated m e r i t pay
a s a means o f I n f l u e n c in g t e a c h e r s ' perform ance.

These r e p o r t s have

appeared s i n c e t h e d a ta w ere c o l l e c t e d f o r t h i s stu dy .

I t re m a in s t o

be seen 1f m e r i t pay o r any form o f t e a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s pay can
overcome t h e a p p a r e n t o p p o s itio n o f t h e p a n e l i s t s and p o s s ib ly occur a t
some tim e 1n t h e n e a r f u t u r e .
Of t h e 30 r e l a t e d developm ents o f I n t e r e s t 1n t h i s study* 13
w ere f o r e c a s t e d t o occu r beyond t h e y e a r 2000 and never.

Hence a l a r g e

139
number o f developm ents d id n o t r e c e i v e much s u p p o r t f o r o c c u rre n c e 1n
t h e n ear f u t u r e .
P o t e n t i a l l y Im p o r ta n t r e l a t e d developm ents t h a t may occur
beyond t h e y e a r 2000 a r e lo c a l school d i s t r i c t s u n i t i n g t o I n s u re some
f r i n g e b e n e f i t s , t e a c h e r s a l a r i e s and c o s t s f o r f r i n g e b e n e f i t s being
t i e d t o a consumer p r i c e Index, a v erag e c l a s s s i z e s l e s s th a n 20
s t u d e n t s , s t a t e w i d e t e a c h e r b a rg a in in g u n i t s , and a sh o rte n e d school
week.
E ig h t o f t h e 13 developm ents f o r e c a s t e d f o r th e s e tim e I n t e r ­
v a l s were ex p ec te d nev er t o occu r.

Im p o r ta n t developm ents among t h e s e

e i g h t a r e perform ance c o n t r a c t i n g , bonuses t o h i r e t e a c h e r c a n d id a te s ,
s c h o o ls o p e r a t i n g l e s s th a n 180 days a y e a r , y e a r-ro u n d s c h o o ls , and
t e a c h e r s form in g a f e d e r a l b a rg a in in g u n it.
Many f a c t o r s may have In f lu e n c e d t h e e x p e r t s t o c a t e g o r i z e a
s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t o r a r e l a t e d developm ent a s l i k e l y t o occur
beyond t h e y e a r 2000 o r nev er.

N e v e r th e le s s , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f th e s e

Ite m s a c t u a l l y o c c u r r in g o r I n f lu e n c in g Michigan p u b lic school te a c h ­
ers* b e n e f i t packages a p p e a rs t o be very rem ote.

Implications
The m ajor pu rpose o f t h i s s tu d y was t o a n t i c i p a t e t h e f u t u r e o f
f r i n g e b e n e f i t t r e n d s In M ichigan.

Some i n d i v i d u a l s may fe e l t h a t t h e

p r o j e c t i o n s made 1n t h i s s tu d y a r e h ig h ly f a l l i b l e e s t i m a t e s o f an
u n c e r ta in f u t u r e .

However, t o f a l l t o a n t i c i p a t e and p lan I s t o fa c e

t h e u n c e r ta in f u t u r e w ith no p r e p a r a t io n . In a d e q u a te a t t e n t i o n t o
a l t e r n a t i v e s , and very H t t l e e f f o r t t o c o n tr o l o r d e te rm in e t h e c o u rse

140

o f e v e n ts .

From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e r e s e a r c h e r made some b a s ic

a ssu m p tio n s t h a t may a s s i s t e d u c a tio n a l p la n n e r s who a r e Involved 1n
d e te rm in in g f u t u r e Michigan t e a c h e r f r i n g e b e n e f i t packages.
There 1s no reason t o b e lie v e t h a t Michigan t e a c h e r s ' f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s have reached t h e i r c e l l i n g .

As s t a t e d e a r l i e r #

frin g e b e n e fit

c o s t s have been I n c r e a s in g f a s t e r th a n wages# when c o n sid e re d a s a
t o t a l p e rc e n ta g e o f p a y r o ll.

Although t h i s p e rc e n ta g e may n o t I n c r e a s e

a s r a p i d l y as some f o r e c a s t e r s have suggested# t h e v a r i e t i e s and c o s t s
o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w i l l c o n tin u e t o grow.

The v a r i e t i e s and ty p e s o f

f r i n g e b e n e f i t s t h a t a r e l i k e l y t o be Im p o r ta n t 1n t h e 1980s# 1990s#
and beyond w ere r e p o r te d 1n t h i s stud y .

Undoubtedly# new b e n e f i t s and

d i f f e r e n t v e r s io n s o f p r e s e n t b e n e f i t s w i l l appear 1n t h e f u tu r e .

The

p o s s i b i l i t i e s a r e u n lim ite d .
S in c e t h e a d v e n t o f c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g 1n t h e m1d-!960s»
when t e a c h e r s w ere r e l a t i v e l y d e p riv e d 1n r e l a t i o n t o t h e b e n e f i t s th e y
r e c e i v e today# t e a c h e r s have been a t t a c h i n g much v a lu e t o In c re a s e d
s i c k le a v e days# p e rso n al leave# Insurances# s h o rte n e d work days and
c o n t r a c t year# and a v a r i e t y o f o t h e r f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .

S ince t h a t

time# t e a c h e r un io n s have c o n s id e re d f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a s a means o f
p ro v id in g a g en uin e s e r v i c e t o t h e i r memberships.

Moreover# f r i n g e

b e n e f i t s a r e t a n g i b l e a s p e c t s o f a d i s t r i c t ' s m a s te r agreem ent and make
good b a rg a in in g I s s u e s .

S ince unions a r e p o l i t i c a l o rg a n iz a tio n s#

t h e i r numerous f r i n g e b e n e f i t demands can be e x p ec te d t o c o n tin u e .
S in c e t h e m1d-1960s# a m ajor fo c u s o f t e a c h e r s ' unions h as been
h e a lth -re la te d frin g e b e n efits.

S ince then# s u b s t a n t i a l I n c r e a s e s have

141

been made 1n health * dental* v isio n * l i f e * and s i m i l a r ty p e s o f In s u r ­
ance.

I t may be a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t a f t e r t e a c h e r s f e e l th e y have

o b ta in e d t h e b a s ic h e a lt h and p erso n al In s u ra n c e needed f o r th e m s e lv e s
and t h e i r f a m ilie s * th e y w i l l e x p ec t o th e r b e n e f i t s .

Based on t h e

f in d i n g s o f t h i s study* t h e n e x t em phasis w i l l be on economic b e n e f i t s
(o v e rtim e pay* pay f o r unused s i c k leave* t a x - s h e l t e r e d a n n u itie s * and
so on).

Because o f t h e r i s i n g c o s t s o f p r e s e n t In s u ra n c e s and t h e

union demand f o r new b e n e f its * a c o n tin u e d s t r u g g l e between t e a c h e r
unions and boards o f e d u c a tio n should be a n t i c i p a t e d .

Boards o f educa­

t i o n can be e x p ected t o c o u n te r union demands by pro p osin g t h a t te a c h ­
e r s assume a p o r ti o n o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t c o s t s o r a c c e p t p la n s w ith
d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f coverage.
Compounding t h e problem s o f lo c a l boards o f e d u c a tio n In r e c e n t
y e a r s have been t h e f i s c a l problem s fa c ed by t h e s t a t e o f Michigan.
With t h e reduced fu nding a v a i l a b l e from t h e s ta t e * many boards of
e d u c a tio n have had t o b a rg a in s a l a r y f r e e z e s and c o n c e s sio n s 1n f r i n g e
b e n e f i t packages.

Although 1 t 1s n o t l i k e l y t h a t t h i s tr e n d w i l l

c o n tin u e I n d e f i n i t e l y * t h e r e w i l l be f i e r c e c o m p e titio n a t t h e b a rg a in ­
in g t a b l e f o r a v a i l a b l e d o l l a r s .

Thus* t h e c o n f l i c t between unions and

boards o f education* e x a c e rb a te d by I n f l a t i o n and r i s i n g costs* may be
ex p ec te d t o c o n tin u e f o r s e v e ra l y e a rs.
Although t h i s stu d y did n o t deal s p e c i f i c a l l y w ith t h e changing
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f M ichigan's te a c h e rs * 1 t may s a f e l y be s t a t e d t h a t
t h e s e te a c h e r s have a g r e a t e r v a r i e t y o f f a m ily and b eh avio r p a t t e r n s
th a n ever b e fo re .

For example* t e a c h e r unions and boards o f e d u c a tio n

142

w i l l need t o c o n s id e r t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t needs o f t w o - c a r e e r fa m ilie s #
c h i l d r e n l i v i n g w ith t h e fo rm er spouse# a I1ve-1n p a rtn e r# a h ig h e r
p e rc e n ta g e o f aging s t a f f # and so on.

Unions w i l l seek a g r e a t e r

v a r i e t y o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t c h o ic e s f o r I n d iv id u a l te a c h e r s .

D iffere n t

b e n e f i t packages keyed t o d i v e r s e needs o r l i f e s t y l e s w i l l b rin g about
changes 1n f u t u r e b e n e f i t p la n s.

C h ief among p r o je c te d b e n e f i t p la n s

1s t h e f l e x i b l e o r s o - c a l l e d Mc a f e t e r 1 a " - s t y l e plan.

As an example#

young o r s i n g l e t e a c h e r s may d e s i r e a d i f f e r e n t b e n e f i t plan th a n would
tw o - c a r e e r f a m i l i e s n e a r in g r e t i r e m e n t .

T his change t o f l e x i b l e bene­

f i t p la n s w i l l n o t occur ra p id ly # b u t t h i s r e s e a r c h e r b e lie v e s 1 t w i l l
o c c u r.
Another m ajor developm ent e xp ected t o o c cu r by t h e e a r l y 1990s
1s school d i s t r i c t s s e l f - 1 n s u rln g some of t h e t e a c h e r s ' f r i n g e
b e n efits.

S e lf- fu n d e d programs w i l l r e p la c e t h e m ost c o stly # f u l l y

funded In s u ra n c e programs so common 1n Michigan school d i s t r i c t s .

T his

developm ent w i l l c ause m a jo r c o n f l i c t s a t t h e n e g o t i a t i n g t a b l e between
te a c h e r unions and boards o f e d u c a tio n .

The c o n f l i c t may be long and

d i f f i c u l t # b u t boards o f e d u c a tio n w i l l be p e r s i s t e n t because o f t h e
p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t s a v in g s th e y may r e a l i z e .
In r e c e n t years* f r i n g e b e n e f i t s have f i n a l l y re c e iv e d
I n c re a s e d a t t e n t i o n .
t i v e l y unknown.

However* many f a c e t s o f such b e n e f i t s a r e r e l a ­

For example* I t 1s n o t easy t o c h a r a c t e r i z e te a c h e r

a t t i t u d e s to w a rd f r i n g e b e n e f i t s because so many dimensions# such as
age* m a r ita l s ta t u s # and s e n io r ity * a r e Involved.
t i o n between wage com pensation and b e n e f i t s ?

What I s t h e I n t e r a c ­

Does t h e union a t t h e

143

s t a t e le v e l e s t a b l i s h f r i n g e b e n e f i t and b a rg a in in g goals# o r do t h e
b e n e f i t s n e g o tia te d a t t h e lo c a l le v e l t r u l y r e p r e s e n t t h e needs o f t h e
lo c a l te a c h e r s ?

O ther f a c t o r s such a s t h e e f f e c t o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t s on

need f u l f i l l m e n t # management a t t i t u d e s about and p e r c e p tio n s o f f r i n g e
b e n e fits # and t h e e f f e c t o f b e n e f i t s 1n h e lp in g t o a t t r a c t and r e t a i n
t e a c h e r s 1n a school d i s t r i c t a r e a r e a s 1n which f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h 1s
needed.
Two a d d i t i o n a l developm ents w i l l g r e a t l y a f f e c t t h e grow th of
f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r M ichigan's p u b lic school te a c h e r s .

F ir s t#

th e

fe d e r a l government w i l l be l e s s generous In I t s t r e a t m e n t o f f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s a s n o n ta x a b le com pensation.

The government could o b ta in

m i l l i o n s o f d o l l a r s by t a x i n g f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .
probably be I n i t i a t e d by d e g re es.

Such t a x a t i o n w i l l

An example I s t h e t a x a t i o n as Income

o f t h e premium t o p u rchase group te rm l i f e In su ra n c e over $50#000.
T h is ty p e o f In crem en tal t a x a t i o n w ill be phased 1n very soon.
Second# r e c e n t s t u d i e s ad v o ca tin g a r e t u r n t o e x c e lle n c e 1n t h e
n a t i o n 's p u b l i c s c h o o ls may have Im p o r ta n t I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t e a c h e r s '
frin g e b e n efits.

S ince t h e o n s e t o f t e a c h e r s ' c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g In

t h e 1960s# t h e unions have r e p e a te d ly n e g o tia te d b e n e f i t s t h a t have
reduced t e a c h e r c o n t a c t ti m e w ith s tu d e n t s .

In c re a s e d amounts o f s i c k

leave# p e rso n al le a v e days# f a m l l y - c a r e days# s h o r t e r work day and
c o n t r a c t year# and so on* have eroded c o n t a c t tim e and m ust be
c o n s id e re d a m a jo r re a so n f o r t h e a lle g e d d e c l i n e 1n e x c e lle n c e .
t h i n g 1s c e r t a i n :
achievem ent.

One

t h e p u b lic w i l l I n s i s t on Improvements 1n s t u d e n t

T h is mandate w i l l r e q u i r e both t e a c h e r un ion s and b oards

144

o f e d u c a tio n t o deal w ith t h e I m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s sweeping movement a t
th e n e g o tia tin g ta b le .
Sug g e s t i o n s f o r F u tu re Research
During t h e c o u rs e o f t h i s study* s e v e r a l a r e a s w ere re v e a le d
t h a t would b e n e f i t from a d d i t i o n a l stud y.

The f o llo w in g q u e s t i o n s a r e

s u g g e s te d f o r f u r t h e r I n v e s t i g a t i o n :
1.

What a r e t h e f o r e c a s t s and o p in io n s o f school board

members* o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s * c i t i z e n s * a n d /o r t e a c h e r s on f u t u r e
t e a c h e r f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and r e l a t e d developm ents?

How do th o s e

f o r e c a s t s and o p in io n s compare w ith t h e ones e x p re s s e d 1n t h e p r e s e n t
s tu dy ?
2.

Do t h e f o r e c a s t s and o p in io n s o f t h e p a n e l i s t s 1n t h i s

stu dy a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t th o s e o f employee b e n e f i t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and
u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s a s a t o t a l p o p u la tio n ?
3.

How do t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s o f t e a c h e r s 1n M ichigan’s

p r i v a t e and p a ro c h ia l s c h o o ls compare w ith th o s e o f M ichigan’s p u b lic
school t e a c h e r s ?
4.

What t e a c h e r f r i n g e b e n e f its * In c lu d in g a co m p le te c o s t

a n a ly s is * a r e p ro vid ed by d 1 f f e r e n t - s 1 z e d school d i s t r i c t s and r e g io n s
o f Michigan?
5.

What f r i n g e b e n e f i t t r e n d s and r e l a t e d developm ents can be

f o r e c a s t e d f o r M ic h ig a n 's p u b l i c school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ?

145

6.

How does t h e Delphi te c h n iq u e as a f o r e c a s t i n g methodology

compare w ith t h e nominal group te c h n iq u e o r o th e r p ro c e d u res f o r
f o r e c a s t i n g f u t u r e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and r e l a t e d developments?
7.

What 1s t h e o p in io n o f t e a c h e r s co n cern in g t h e e f f e c t o f

c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g on t h e m agnitude o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t and wage
e x p e c ta tio n s ?
8.

What r o l e do f r i n g e b e n e f i t s p lay 1n a t t r a c t i n g te ac h e rs*

r e t a i n i n g them* a n d /o r p ro v id in g jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n o r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ?

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE

Ht8
THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE
The f o r e c a s t i n g te c h n iq u e s e l e c t e d f o r t h i s study I s t h e Delphi
te c h n iq u e .

I t 1s a te c h n iq u e t h a t has m e r i t f o r t h i s ty p e o f stud y as

I n d ic a te d by t h e fo llo w in g d is c u s s io n .
There 1s an a g e -o ld adage t h a t says* "Two heads a r e b e t t e r th a n
one."

T his adage could apply t o any s i t u a t i o n o r c irc u m s ta n c e 1n which

t h e e x a c t knowledge 1s n o t known o r a v a i l a b l e .

Also» 1f two heads a r e

b e t t e r th a n one* 1 t can be f u r t h e r assumed t h a t t h r e e heads a r e b e t t e r
th a n one o r th a t* sim p ly s ta te d * n heads a r e b e t t e r than one.

T his has

been very e v id e n t h i s t o r i c a l l y * when one c o n s id e r s t h e p o o lin g o f minds
t h a t has e x i s t e d 1n s o c i e t i e s th ro u g h o u t t h e ages.

L e g i s l a t i v e bodies*

J u r ie s * boards o f education* councils* commissions* and o t h e r s a r e
examples o f group Judgments.
On t h e o t h e r hand* grouping may c r e a t e t h e problem o f "po o lin g
Ig no rance."

In o t h e r words* t h e r e 1s a t l e a s t a s much m is in fo r m a tio n

In n heads as t h e r e 1s 1n one.

Thus* t h e problem becomes one of

p u t t i n g n heads t o g e t h e r and o b ta in in g a r e l i a b l e o p in io n .
Grouping I n d i v i d u a l s t o g e t h e r may c au se a number o f h in d e rin g
s id e e ffe c ts .

Delbecq and Van (1975) noted t h a t em ergent l e a d e r s

(h 1 g h -sta tu s* exp re ssiv e * o r s tr o n g I n d iv i d u a ls ) te n d t o dom inate
a c t i v i t i e s e i t h e r because o f t h e i r knowledge o r because o f In form al
In f lu e n c e .

P e r s o n a l i t i e s and o r g a n iz a ti o n a l s t a t u s a f f e c t d e c is io n s

because c r e d i b i l i t y 1s In f lu e n c e d by p e r c e p tio n s o f t h e person o f f e r i n g
an Idea o r by h i s p o s i t i o n .

G enerally* compromise d e c is io n s a r e

obtained* a s opposed t o a consensus d e c is io n .

T e r s ln e and Riggs (1976)

149

s t a t e d t h a t group p ro c e s s e s o f te n le a v e p a r t i c i p a n t s exhausted*
discouraged* and f r u s t r a t e d because o f e n d le s s meanderlngs and a la c k
of re so lu tio n .
In an e f f o r t t o e l i m i n a t e t h e s e n e g a tiv e s i d e e f f e c t s * t h e
Rand C o rp o ra tio n developed a te c h n iq u e c a l l e d Delphi* t o be used 1n
lo n g -ra n g e t e c h n i c a l f o r e c a s t i n g 1n which a group o f e x p e r ts from
d i v e r s e backgrounds 1s c a l l e d upon t o make d e c is io n s .

Dal key and

Helmer (1963) and t h e i r c o lle a g u e s developed t h e Delphi as a s y s te m a tic
method t o s o l i c i t * c o lle c t* ev aluate* and t a b u l a t e Independent o p in io n s
w ith o u t group d is c u s s io n .
The b a s ic p ro c e d u re e l i m i n a t e s any d i r e c t c o n f r o n t a t i o n o f t h e
p a r t i c i p a n t s and y e t a llo w s t h e i r p r o j e c t i o n s t o reach co nsen sus based
on I n c r e a s i n g l y r e l e v a n t In fo rm a tio n .

A s e r i e s o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s may

be used* o r I n te r v ie w s may be conducted w ith each p a r t i c i p a n t .

Follow ­

in g t h e t a b u l a t i o n o f re s p o n se s f o r each q u e s t i o n n a i r e o r round* th e
p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e given t h e I n f o rm a tio n t h a t o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s have
c o n trib u ted .

The p ro c e s s I s c o n tin u e d thro u gh s u c c e s s iv e rounds u n t i l

s u f f i c i e n t convergence o f o p in io n occu rs.
Delphi Proc e d u re
The s t e p s o f t h e Delphi te c h n iq u e can vary somewhat* based on
t h e In te n d e d a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e r e s u l t s .

A b a s ic diagram o f t h e model

used 1n t h i s re s e a rc h can be found 1n t h e Design s e c t i o n o f t h i s s tu d y .
Several a ssu m p tio n s should be d is c u s s e d t h a t a r e r e l e v a n t t o
t h e p ro c e d u re o r use o f t h e Delphi te c h n iq u e .
be s t a t e d 1n t h e fo llo w in g te rm s :

These a ssu m p tio n s may

150

Assumption 1:

The p ro c e s s o f making s u c c e s s iv e ju d g m en ts w ith

feedback produces convergence 1n p e r c e p tio n s among t h e members o f a
Delphi p an el.

This assu m p tio n 1s perhaps t h e most b a s ic o f a l l t o t h e

Delphi te c h n iq u e and has been w idely rec o g n ize d by Dalkey (1970), Uhl
(1971), and o t h e r s .
Assumption 2:

Convergence on t h e second round o f judgm ents

(th e f i r s t round w ith feedback) 1s g r e a t e r th a n on su b se q u e n t rounds.
T his o b s e r v a tio n was r e p o r te d by Uhl (1971) and C ypert and Gant (19 71 ).
Assumption 3:

I t 1s n e c e s sa ry t o c o nd uct t h r e e o r more rounds

o f a Delphi pro c e d u re t o produce r e l i a b l e , c o n v e rg e n t r e s u l t s .

S in ce

t h e Delphi te c h n iq u e 1s based on I n t e n t i o n , t h e q u e s tio n o f how many
rounds a r e n e c e s sa ry t o a c h ie v e co nsen su s I s p e r t i n e n t .

C y p ert and

Gant (1971) found t h a t v i r t u a l l y a l l (99%) o f re s p o n d e n ts ' changes 1n
o p in io n s o c c u rre d by t h e t h i r d q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
Helmer (1967) commented on t h i s I m p o r ta n t a s p e c t o f conver­
gence:
T h is convergence o f o p in io n s has been observed 1n t h e m a jo r ity o f
c a s e s where t h e Delphi approach has been used. In a few o f t h e
c a s e s where no convergence tow ard a r e l a t i v e l y narrow I n t e r v a l o f
v a lu e s to o k p la c e , o p in io n s began t o p o l a r i z e around two d i s t i n c t
v a lu e s , so t h a t two s c h o o ls o f th o u g h t re g a rd in g a p a r t i c u l a r Is s u e
seemed t o emerge. T h is may have been an I n d i c a t i o n t h a t o p in io n s
w ere based on d i f f e r e n t s e t s o f d a ta , o r on d i f f e r e n t I n t e r p r e t a ­
t i o n s o f t h e same d a ta . In such c a s e s , 1 t 1s c o n c e iv a b le t h a t a
c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e D elphi p ro c e s s , th rou gh s e v e ra l more rounds o f
anonymous d e b a te -b y -q u e s t1 o n n a 1 re , e v e n t u a l l y m igh t have tr a c k e d
down and e l i m i n a t e d t h e b a s ic c ause o f d is a g re e m e n t and th u s led
t o a t r u e consensus. B ut even 1f t h i s d id n o t happen, o r 1f t h e
p ro c e s s w ere t e r m in a te d b e fo re 1 t had a chance t o happen, t h e
Delphi Technique would have se rv e d t h e purpose o f c r y s t a l l i z i n g t h e
re a so n in g p ro c e ss t h a t le d t o t h e p o s i t i o n s which were ta k e n and
th u s would have h e lp ed t o c l a r i f y t h e I s s u e s even In t h e ab sence o f
a group consensus.

151

T his convergence f a c t o r was a very Im p o rta n t a s p e c t of t h e
p r e s e n t stu dy .

Can t h e groups r e p r e s e n t i n g both s i d e s o f t h e b a rg a in ­

ing t a b l e have a convergence of o p in io n s a s th e y r e l a t e t o t h e f o r e ­
c a stin g o f frin g e b e n efits?
q u e s ti o n .

The Delphi te c h n iq u e was used t o t e s t t h i s

APPENDIX B
PROFILE OF DELPHI PANELISTS

152

153

PROFILE OF DELPHI PANELISTS
N ineteen p a n e l i s t s p a r t i c i p a t e d 1n t h i s Delphi f o r e c a s t o f
f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents.

Nine o f t h e p a n e l i s t s

were a d m i n i s t r a t o r s s e l e c t e d from Michigan p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s t h a t
had e n r o llm e n ts o f 10*000 o r more s tu d e n t s .

Dr. S ta n le y Hecker o f

Michigan S t a t e U n iv e rs ity a s s i s t e d 1n I d e n t i f y i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Fred Comer* A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r o f t h e Michigan Education A s s o c ia tio n ,
a s s i s t e d 1n I d e n t i f y i n g u n ls e r v d i r e c t o r s from t h e g e o g ra p h ica l a r e a s
o f t h e I d e n t i f i e d school d i s t r i c t s .

Ten u n ls e rv d i r e c t o r s p a r t i c i p a t e d

1n t h e s tu d y .
Study p a r t i c i p a n t s were g iven t h e o p p o rtu n ity t o remain
anonymous o r t o v o lu n te e r p a r t i c i p a n t In fo rm a tio n .

Of 19 p a r t i c i p a n t s

1n t h e t h r e e c o m p le te rounds o f t h i s study* 16 v o lu n te e re d In f o rm a tio n
re g a rd in g t h e i r background.
The fo llo w in g 1s a 1 1 s t o f m ajor p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o
which t h e s tu d y p a r t i c i p a n t s belonged.

Local and county a s s o c i a t i o n s

were d e le t e d from t h e 1 1 s t.
P ro fe ss 1 o n a l Organ1z a t l o n s — Adm1n1s t r a t o r s
Ph1 D e lta Kappa
American A s s o c ia tio n o f School A d m in is tra to rs
Michigan A s s o c ia tio n o f School A d m in is tra to rs
Michigan N e g o t i a t o r s 1 A s s o c ia tio n
American A s s o c ia tio n o f School Personnel A d m in is tra to rs
Michigan A s s o c ia tio n o f School Personnel A d m in is tra to rs
N atio n al A s s o c ia tio n o f E d ucation al N e g o tia to rs

15**

P r o f e s s i o n a l O r g a n iz a tio n s — U n lse rv D ir e c t o r s

N atio n al Education A s s o c ia tio n
Michigan Education A s s o c ia tio n
Michigan E x ecutive D i r e c t o r s A ss o c ia tio n
Michigan Bar
Federal Bar
N ational S t a f f O rg a n iz a tio n
N atio nal O rg a n iz a tio n on Legal Problems o f Education
E xp erience 1n Education
a n d /o r Rel a t e d F ie ld s
The 16 Delphi p a n e l i s t s w ere re q u e ste d t o s p e c if y t h e i r
(1) t o t a l y e a r s 1n e d u c a tio n o r a r e l a t e d f i e l d and (2) t o t a l y e a r s 1n
t h e i r p r e s e n t p o s itio n .

The re s p o n se s fo llo w :
T o tal Years 1n Education
o r R elate d F ie ld
(A vg.)

T otal Years 1n
P r e s e n t P o s itio n
(A vg.)

18.0
7 .9

17.0
8 .4

A d m in is tra to rs
U nlserv d i r e c t o r s

The Delphi p a n e l i s t s ' e x p e r ie n c e 1n e d u c a tio n o r a r e l a t e d
f i e l d and t o t a l y e a r s 1n t h e i r p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n w ere very s i m i l a r when
compared f o r t h e group a s a whole.

DELPHI PANELISTS
(A dm inistrators and Uniserv D ire c to rs)
Delphi P a n e lis ts

Employer

O f f ic ia l Job T i t l e

Bruce J . Ambs

D ire c to r o f Labor R elations

Jackson Public Schools

Wi 11iam Browne

Executive D ire c to r

Utica Education A ssociation

Howard Chenoweth

A sso ciate S u p erin ten d en t, Personnel
Employee R elations

Warren C onsolidated Schools

Harlow M. C leggett

D ire c to r, Employee R elations

Lansing School D i s t r i c t

Gerald A. Co)1 ins

A s s is ta n t Superintendent fo r
Personnel

Huron Valley Schools

Joseph Cushmano

Uniserv D ire c to r

Michigan Education A ssociation

Tom E v e r it t

D ire c to r, Employee R elatio ns

Pontiac P ublic Schools

Errol Goodman

D ire c to r, Employee R elations

Ann Arbor P ublic Schools

Gerald E. Haymond

Uniserv D ire c to r

South Oakland MEA/NEA

Richard L. Higginbotham

D ire c to r o f Personnel and Employee
R elations

Waterford Schools

Jim Matteson

Uniserv Executive D ire c to r

Waterford Education A ssociation
MEA/NEA

Samuel B. LaMonica

D ire c to r o f Employee R elatio ns

Livonia P ublic Schools

Robert G. Nicholson

Uniserv D irecto r

MEA

Edwin N. Shimabukuro

Executive D ire c to r

Bay City Education A ssociation

Robert Sikkenga

Uniserv D irecto r

MEA

Larry Westley

Personnel Manager

Rochester Community Schools

APPENDIX C

LETTERS, FEEDBACK, AND DELPHI QUESTIONNAIRE
(FIRST ROUND)

156

157

Dear
The a t ta c h e d Item s w i l l form a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t w i l l stud y f r i n g e
b e n e f i t t r e n d s f o r t e a c h e r s 1n M ichigan's p u b lic sc h o o ls . P rim a rily *
t h i s stu d y 1s concerned w ith (1) developm ents t h a t may In f lu e n c e f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s and (2) s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t s t h a t may now# o r 1n t h e
fu tu re # become a p a r t o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t packages f o r Michigan p u b lic
school t e a c h e r s .
T his s tu d y w i l l u t i l i z e s e l e c t e d p a r t i c i p a n t s 1n a s e r i e s o f Delphi
p r o j e c t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t o c a r e f u l l y f o r m u la t e f o r e c a s t s o f t r e n d s
r e l a t i n g t o f r i n g e b e n e f i t s 1n t h e Michigan p u b lic sch o o ls. This
Delphi te c h n iq u e was r e c e n t l y developed by t h e Rand Corporation# and
p a r t i c i p a n t s 1n s i m i l a r s t u d i e s have found 1 t t o be an I n t e r e s t i n g and
rew arding e x p e r ie n c e .
Mr. Fred Comer has a s s i s t e d me 1n your s e l e c t i o n as a p a r t i c i p a n t
because o f your background and knowledge a s a UnlServ D ir e c to r . B asi­
c a lly # 1 t would In v olv e y our p a r t i c i p a t i o n 1n t h r e e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t h a t
w i l l t a k e an av erag e o f tw e n ty m in u te s each t o co m plete f o r a t o t a l of
a p p ro x im a te ly s i x t y m in u te s over t h e c o m p le te stu d y . Furthermore# I
want t o a s s u r e you t h a t re s p o n se s w i l l only be r e p o rte d a s a t o t a l
group# and In d iv id u a l re s p o n se s w i l l n o t be I d e n t i f i e d .
T his d o c to ra l stu d y 1s b e in g conducted under t h e guidance o f t h e
fo llo w in g Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity p r o f e s s o r s :
Dr. F r e d e ric k I g n a to v ic h - School o f A d m in is tra tio n and H igher
Education
Dr. S ta n le y Hecker
- School o f A d m in is tra tio n and H igher
Education
Dr. Glen Cooper
- C o lle g e o f Education
Dr. John Wanous
- Department o f Management
I t would be a p p r e c ia te d 1f you could co m p le te t h e a tta c h e d s h e e t by
March 21 and r e t u r n 1 t 1n t h e stamped# s e l f - a d d r e s s e d envelo pe
e n c lo s e d . When I r e c e i v e y o u r acceptance# I w i l l send t h e f i r s t round
o f t h e Delphi q u e s t i o n n a i r e and a b r i e f t i m e t a b l e f o r t h e re m a in d er o f
t h e s tu d y . Also# I would be very p le a s e d t o send you a summary o f t h e
r e s u l t s 1 f you d e s i r e .
Won't you p le a s e J o i n tw e n ty -s e v e n o t h e r s e l e c t e d Un1-Serv D i r e c t o r s
1n t h i s stu dy ? I know yo u r tim e 1s very valu able# b u t t h e r e s u l t s we
o b ta in sho uld p ro v id e us w ith some v a lu a b l e I n s i g h t I n to f r i n g e b e n e f i t
t r e n d s and your c o n t r i b u t i o n w ill be v ery much a p p r e c ia te d .
S in c e r e ly yours*

Study approved by

J e r r y L. Cushman
G r e e n v ille P u b lic Schools

Fred Comer
A s s o c ia te D ire c to r

158

Dear
The a tta c h e d Ite m s w i l l form a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t w i l l study f r i n g e
b e n e f i t t r e n d s f o r t e a c h e r s 1n M ichigan's p u b lic sc h o o ls . T h is study
1s concerned w ith (1) developm ents t h a t may In f lu e n c e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s
and (2) s p e c i f i c f r i n g e b e n e f i t s t h a t may now# o r 1n t h e fu tu re# become
a p a r t o f f r i n g e b e n e f i t packages f o r Michigan p u b lic school t e a c h e r s .
T h is d o c to ra l stud y 1s bein g conducted under t h e guidance o f t h e
fo llo w in g Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity p r o f e s s o r s :
Dr. F r e d e ric k Ig n a to v ic h - School o f A d m in is tra tio n and H igher
Education
Dr. S ta n le y Hecker
- School o f A d m in is tra tio n and Higher
Education
Dr. Glen Cooper
- C o lle g e o f Education
Dr. John Wanous
- Department o f Management
T his stu d y w i l l u t i l i z e s e l e c t e d p a r t i c i p a n t s in a s e r i e s o f Delphi
p r o j e c t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t o c a r e f u l l y f o r m u la te f o r e c a s t s o f tr e n d s
r e l a t i n g t o f r i n g e b e n e f i t s 1n t h e Michigan p u b lic s c h o o ls . T his
Delphi te c h n iq u e was r e c e n t l y developed by t h e Rand Corporation# and
p a r t i c i p a n t s 1n s i m i l a r s t u d i e s have found 1 t t o be an I n t e r e s t i n g and
rew arding e x p e r ie n c e .
Because o f your background and knowledge a s a c e n t r a l o f f i c e a dm in is­
t r a t o r you a r e being r e q u e s te d t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s stu dy . B asi­
c a lly # 1 t would In v o lv e your p a r t i c i p a t i o n 1n t h r e e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t h a t
w i l l t a k e an av erag e o f tw e n ty m in u te s each t o c o m plete f o r a t o t a l o f
a p p ro x im a te ly s i x t y m in u te s over t h e c o m p le te stu d y. Furthermore# I
want t o a s s u r e you t h a t re s p o n s e s w i l l only be r e p o r te d a s a t o t a l
group and I n d iv id u a l re s p o n se s w i l l nfll be I d e n t i f i e d .
I t would be a p p r e c ia te d 1f you could co m p le te t h e a tta c h e d s h e e t by
March 21 and r e t u r n 1 t 1n t h e stamped# s e l f - a d d r e s s e d envelope
e n c lo se d . When I r e c e i v e y o ur acceptance# I w i l l send t h e f i r s t round
o f t h e Delphi q u e s t i o n n a i r e and a b r i e f t i m e t a b l e f o r t h e re m a in d er o f
t h e stu dy . Also# I would be very p le a s e d t o send you a summary o f t h e
r e s u l t s 1 f you d e s i r e .
Won't you p le a s e j o i n tw e n ty -s e v e n o t h e r c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t e d c e n t r a l
o f f i c e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s In t h i s stud y? As a fe llo w c e n t r a l o f f i c e
a d m i n i s t r a t o r ( G r e e n v ille P u b lic Schools)# I know your tim e I s very
v aluab le# b u t t h e r e s u l t s we o b ta in should p ro v id e us w ith some
v a lu a b le I n s i g h t I n t o f r i n g e b e n e f i t tre n d s# and your c o n t r i b u t i o n w i l l
be very much a p p r e c ia te d .
S in c e r e ly yours#

J e r r y L. Cushman

Name_

R esearch Number

The fo llo w in g 1 1 s t c o n ta i n s 29 f r i n g e b e n e f i t s t h a t may o r may n o t be a
p a r t o f Michigan p u b lic school t e a c h e r s ’ f r i n g e b e n e f i t packages now o r
1n t h e f u t u r e .

Directions
1.

C i r c l e any f r i n g e b e n e f i t number t h a t 1s u n c le a r o r c o n fu s in g 1n
I t s w ording. I f t h e Items a r e a l l u n d e rs ta n d a b le ( I n t h e i r g e n e ra l
c o n te x t)* 1 t 1s n o t n e c e s sa ry t o do a n y th in g .

2.

I f you can t h i n k o f any a d d i t i o n a l f r i n g e b e n e f i t s t h a t may develop
1n t h e fu tu re * p le a s e add them t o t h e 1 1 s t (Item 3 0 ) .

3.

P le a s e r e t u r n t h i s 1 1 s t In t h e s e l f - a d d r e s s e d stamped e n v elo pe by
Friday* March 21* 1980. Thanks!

1.

In c re a s e d term l i f e In s u ra n c e up t o f u l l amount o f s a l a r y .

2.

I n c re a s e d a c c id e n ta l d e ath and dismemberment (AD&D) In su ra n c e
up t o f u l l amount o f s a l a r y .

3.

Paid o ve rtim e f o r hours worked beyond normal school

4.

Paid d e n ta l In s u ra n c e w ith a v a r i e t y o f b e n e f i t o p t i o n s .

5.

P aid v i s i o n c a r e w ith a v a r i e t y o f o p t i o n s .

6.

Paid h e a r in g c a r e w ith a v a r i e t y o f o p t i o n s .

7.

F u ll t u i t i o n reim bursem ent f o r approved coursework.

8.

Teacher e f f e c t i v e n e s s pay (m e rit pay* perform ance bonuses* e t c . ) .

9.

F u lly paid h e a lt h In s u ra n c e and p r e s c r i p t i o n s .

day.

10.

S u rv iv o r Income In s u ra n c e w ith a minimum o f $200 a m onth/spouse
and $100 a m o n th /c h ild .

11.

Automatic c o s t-o f-1 1 v 1 n g allow ances (COLA).

12.

U nlim ited s i c k le a v e acc u m u la tio n .

160

13.

Full pay f o r unused s i c k le a v e a t r e t i r e m e n t based on f i n a l
pay r a t e .

14.

S a b b a tic a l le a v e s w ith f u l l pay a t l e a s t every seven y e a r s
f o r approved re a s o n s .

15.

F u lly paid s h o r t- te r m d i s a b i l i t y In s u ra n c e .

16.

F u lly paid lo n g -term d i s a b i l i t y In s u ra n c e .

17.

A h e a lt h ex am in atio n . In s u ra n c e program o r s c h o o l - d l s t r l c t fln a n c e d p h y sica l exam ination a t l e a s t every two y e a r s .

18.

A f u l l y p aid t r a v e l a c c id e n t In su ra n c e program.

19.

V acation tim e a l lo tm e n ts based on y e a r s o f s e r v i c e , t o be ta k en
d u rin g t h e r e g u l a r school y e a r .

20.

A d d itio n a l u ltr a - m e d ic a l o p tio n s t o c o v er 1 n -h osp 1 tal b e n e f i t s ,
weekly Indem nity, e t c .

21.

A minimum o f two p e rso n al h o lid a y s t o be used du rin g t h e school
year (b irth d ay s, a n n iv e rsa rie s, e t c . ) .

22.

R etire m en t I n c e n tiv e p la n s where a t e a c h e r may be compensated
a minimum o f one y e a r ’ s s a l a r y f o r e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t .

23.

A p re p a id le g a l p la n t h a t would a llo w a d v iso ry s e r v i c e , le g a l
c o u n s e lin g . In v e stm en t p la n n in g , e t c .

24.

A f u l l y p a id c a n c e r In su ra n ce p la n .

25.

Dependent l i f e In s u ra n c e w ith a minimum of $1,000 p e r dependent.

2 6.

A minimum o f two p e rso n al le a v e days t h a t can be used w ith o u t any
re a so n given and f u l l y compensated.

2 7.

Longevity pay ( t h e to p c o n s e c u tiv e pay s te p ) o f IX o f base f o r
each y e a r beyond.

2 8.

A minimum o f $ 10 0/year f o r membership t o nonunion e d u c a tio n
a sso c ia tio n s.

29.

A t a x - s h e l t e r e d a n n u ity p la n up t o 5% o f annual Income paid by
t h e school d i s t r i c t .

30.

P le a s e 1 1 s t any a d d itio n a l f r i n g e b e n e f i t s t h a t you f e e l may
become Im p o rta n t.

Name.

R esearc h Number

FRINGE BENEFIT DEVELOPMENTS
The f o llo w in g 1 1 s t c o n ta i n s 27 f r i n g e b e n e f i t developm ents t h a t may o r
may n o t a f f e c t f r i n g e b e n e f i t s now o r In t h e f u t u r e .
D 1 re c tlo n s
1.

Do n o t t r y t o answer t h e q u e s tio n e x p re sse d 1n any o f t h e
developm ents.

2.

C i r c l e any number t h a t 1s u n c le a r o r c o n fu sin g 1n I t s wording. I f
t h e Item s a r e a l l u n d e rs ta n d a b le (1n t h e i r g e n eral c o n te x t)* 1 t 1s
n o t n e c e ssa ry t o do a n y th in g .

3.

I f you can th in k o f any a d d itio n a l developm ents t h a t may be f a c t o r s
1n f r i n g e b e n e f i t tre n d s * p le a s e add them t o t h e 1 1 s t (Item 2 8 ) .

4.

P le a s e r e t u r n t h i s 1 1 s t 1n t h e s e l f - a d d r e s s e d stamped env elop e by
Friday* March 21* 1980. Thanks I

1.

The U.S. Chamber o f Commerce r e p o r t s t h a t f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r
a l l employees reached 36.7% o f p a y r o ll 1n 1977. In y our opinion*
In what tim e I n t e r v a l w i l l f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r Michigan p u b lic
school te a c h e r s av erag e 50% o f p a y r o ll?

2.

In what y e a r w ill t h e median fam ily Income (1n 1980 d o l l a r s )
reach tw ic e I t s p r e s e n t amount?

3.

When w ill t h e median t e a c h e r s ' s a l a r y reach tw ic e I t s p r e s e n t
amount?

4.

By what y e a r w i l l 50% o r more o f t h e lo c a l LEAs belong t o a
r e g io n a l b a rg a in in g u n i t ?

5.

By what y e a r w i l l t e a c h e r s belong t o one s ta t e w id e b a rg a in in g u n i t
t h a t w ill d eterm in e s ta t e w id e t e a c h e r s ' s a l a r i e s and f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s (w ith p o s s i b l e c o s t - o f - H v 1 n g Indexes f o r d i f f e r e n t a r e a s
of th e s ta te )?

6.

In what y e a r w i l l t e a c h e r s have t h e i r s a l a r i e s and f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s n e g o tia te d by a f e d e r a l b a rg a in in g u n i t (w ith a c o s t o f - l i v i n g Index f o r d i f f e r e n t a r e a s o f t h e U nited S t a t e s ) ?

7.

By what tim e I n t e r v a l w i l l t e a c h e r s be a b le t o s e l e c t an I n d iv i d ­
u a l l y t a i l o r e d ( c a f e t e r l a - s t y l e ) f r i n g e b e n e f i t package from a
d e s ig n a te d number o f d o l l a r s 1n t h e i r school d i s t r i c t ?

162

8.

In what y e a r w i l l 50% o r more o f t h e school d i s t r i c t s s e l f i n s u r e some f r i n g e b e n e f i t s such as lo n g -te rm d i s a b i l i t y o r l i f e
in s u ra n c e ?

9.

In what y e a r w i l l 50% o r more o f t h e Michigan school d i s t r i c t s
u n i t e t o g e t h e r t o s e l f - 1 n s u r e some f r i n g e b e n e f i t s such a s
lo n g -te rm d i s a b i l i t y o r l i f e In su ra n ce ?

10.

In what y e a r w i l l 50% o r more o f t h e Michigan school d i s t r i c t s
pay a l l o f t h e t e a c h e r ’ s f r i n g e b e n e f i t c o s t s w ith no c o n t r i b u ­
t o r y c o s t s made by te a c h e r s ?

11.

By what y e a r w i l l 50% o r more o f t h e Michigan school d i s t r i c t s
p e rm it t e a c h e r s t o t r a d e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f o r cash 1n hand 1f
th e y des1 re?

12.

In what tim e I n t e r v a l w i l l Michigan p u b lic school t e a c h e r s have
o p tio n a l r e t i r e m e n t a f t e r 30 y e a r s o f s e r v i c e w ith f u l l f r i n g e
b e n efits?

13.

In what tim e I n t e r v a l w i l l Michigan s c h o o ls o p e r a te l e s s th a n
180 days?

14.

In what tim e I n t e r v a l w i l l Michigan s c h o o ls o p e r a te on a .four-day
week and s t i l l m a in ta in a minimum 180-day school y e a r?

15.

By what tim e I n t e r v a l w i l l Michigan t e a c h e r s have a s h o rte n e d
workday* p e r m itti n g t e a c h e r s t o work o nly when th e y have s p e c i f i c
te a c h in g a ssig n m e n ts?

16.

In what tim e I n t e r v a l w i l l t h e n o n te n u re t e a c h e r s ’ p ro b a tio n a ry
p e rio d be reduced t o one y e a r?

17.

In what tim e I n t e r v a l w i l l t e a c h e r s ’ s a l a r i e s * In c lu d in g c o s t s f o r
f r i n g e b e n e f its * be t i e d t o a v a l i d Index o f economic growth such
a s a consumer p r i c e Index (CPI)?

18.

By what tim e I n t e r v a l w ill perform ance c o n t r a c t i n g w ith t e a c h e r s
become an a c c e p ta b le method f o r r e c e iv in g a d d i t i o n a l compensation?

19.

By what tim e I n t e r v a l
20 s tu d e n t s ?

20.

In what tim e I n t e r v a l w i l l 1 t become commonplace f o r school d i s ­
t r i c t s t o o f f e r bonuses t o h i r e o u ts ta n d in g t e a c h e r c a n d id a te s ?

21.

By what tim e I n t e r v a l w i l l fe d e r a l funds reach a 15% p r o p o r tio n o f
t h e t o t a l t a x d o l l a r s r e c e iv e d by Michigan school d i s t r i c t s
( p r e s e n t le v e l 1s a p p ro x im a te ly 7%)?

w i l l t h e a v erag e c l a s s s i z e be l e s s th a n

163

22.

In what tim e I n t e r v a l w ill g r e a t e r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y o r s c r u t i n y o f
school d i s t r i c t e x p e n d itu re s be Implemented by lo c a l* s t a t e *
and f e d e r a l funding so u rc e s?

23.

By what tim e I n t e r v a l w i l l I n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g o f t e a c h e r s become
a n e c e s s i t y because of computers* T.V. * and new te a c h in g t e c h n o lo g le s ?

24.

By what tim e I n t e r v a l w i l l t h e r e be a 50% I n c r e a s e 1n personnel
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s whose primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w ill be t o work
w ith employee b e n e f i t s and o th e r r e l a t e d personnel f u n c tio n s 1n
t h e p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s o f Michigan?

25.

By what tim e I n t e r v a l w i l l boards o f e d u c a tio n In a re g io n o r a re a
u n i t e t o g e t h e r t o review n e g o tia te d l o c a l agreem ents f o r a c c e p ta ­
b ility ?

2 6.

By what tim e I n t e r v a l w i l l t h e Michigan P u b lic School Employees1
R etire m en t System have a b u i l t - i n c o s t-o f-1 1 v 1 n g f a c t o r In t h e
re tir e m e n t allow ance?

27.

By what tim e I n t e r v a l w i l l t h e IRS t a x f r i n g e b e n e f i t s re c e iv e d
by t e a c h e r s a s t a x a b l e Income?

28.

P le a s e l i s t any d e v e lo p m e n ts ) t h a t 1n y our judgment may have an
I n f lu e n c e on f r i n g e b e n e f i t s now o r 1n t h e f u t u r e .

164
A p ril 1 7 , 1980
D ear C o lle a g u e ,

I was very p le a se d t h a t you a r e w i l l i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e 1n t h i s f r i n g e
b e n e f i t study. The re sp o n se t o t h e stu dy was e x c e l l e n t , and I am very
c o n f id e n t t h a t some very b e n e f i c i a l In f o rm a tio n w i l l be o b ta in e d .
Also, I would l i k e t o th ank many o f you who made some m eaningful
s u g g e s tio n s t o Improve t h e q u e s ti o n n a ir e .
As I m entioned 1n t h e I n i t i a l communication, t h e r e w i l l be t h r e e rounds
t o t h e Delphi q u e s t i o n n a i r e . This t e n t a t i v e t i m e l i n e w i l l be follo w ed :
A pril 3 0 , 1980— Complete and r e t u r n Round I
May 2 3 , 1980 — Complete and r e t u r n Round I I
Jun e 3 0 , 1980 — Complete and r e t u r n Round I I I
D ir e c tio n s f o r Round I (e n c lo se d )
P a r t I — FRINGE BENEFIT DEVELOPMENTS— This p a r t I s a 1 1 s t o f 30 develop­
ments t h a t may o r may n o t be f a c t o r s t h a t I n f lu e n c e f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s f o r Michigan p u b lic school t e a c h e r s . Simply I n d i c a t e
t h e tim e I n t e r v a l under Date o f O ccurrence t h a t 1n your
j u d g m e n t t h e e v e n t I s m o s t l i k e l y t o o c c u r . Use an "x" o r ">£n
P a r t I I — FRINGE BENEFITS— P a r t I I o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e l a t e s t o some
a c tu a l f r i n g e b e n e f i t s t h a t have appeared o r may p o s s ib ly
a p p e a r In t h e f u t u r e . By u s i n g an "x" o r " , ” I n d i c a t e t h e
tim e I n t e r v a l d u rin g which, in your judgm ent, t h e f r i n g e bene­
f i t w ill be r e c e iv e d by 50% o r more o f t h e Michigan p u b lic
school t e a c h e r s .
The column REMARKS 1n P a r t s I and I I may be used JLf you wish t o make
any comments t h a t may be r e l e v a n t t o t h e tim e I n t e r v a l you s e l e c t e d .
I t would be a p p r e c ia te d I f you co uld co m p le te t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e by
A p ril 30, 1980, and r e t u r n 1 t 1n t h e stam ped, s e l f - a d d r e s s e d envelope
e n clo se d . Round I I o f t h i s Delphi p r o j e c t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l
In c lu d e t h e t o t a l group t a b u l a t i o n s from Round I and any r e l e v a n t
remarks co n cern in g t h e Item s.
F i n a l l y , because o f t h e n a tu r e o f t h e developm ents and v a r i e t y o f
f r i n g e b e n e f i t s p o s s i b l e , t h e f a c t o r s 1n t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e a r e l i s t e d
In g en eral te rm s . Also, some o f t h e Item s may p r e s e n t l y be I l l e g a l
a c c o rd in g t o p r e s e n t law s. The l a s t p o i n t t h a t needs t o be m entioned
1s t h a t t h e s e p r o j e c t i o n s should be made lo o k in g a t t h e e n t i r e s t a t e o f
M1chlgan.

165

I f you have any q u e s ti o n s co n cern in g any a s p e c t of t h i s q u e s tio n n a ir e *
p le a s e c o n t a c t me by phoning 616/754-3686 o f f i c e phone o r 616/754-8591
home phone.
Again* I want t o thank you f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g 1n t h i s p r o j e c t . A
summary o f t h e f i n d i n g s w ill be made t o each p a r t i c i p a n t . Thanks I
S in c e re ly ,
J e r r y L. Cushman
912 South S t r e e t
G re e n v ille * Michigan 48838

166
J u n e 19# 1980
D ear D elphi C o lle a g u e :

T his envelope c o n t a i n s Round I I o f t h e Delphi P r o j e c t i o n Q u e s tio n n a ire
r e l a t i n g t o f r i n g e b e n e f i t s 1n M ichigan's p u b lic s c h o o ls . Because of
some minor d e la y s , 1 t 1 s s l i g h t l y behind s c h e d u le as o r i g i n a l l y
planned.
As a s e l e c t e d e x p e r t 1n t h i s study# you may be I n t e r e s t e d t o know t h a t
t h e Rand C o rp o ra tio n developed t h i s Delphi f o r e c a s t i n g te c h n iq u e . One
o f t h e f e a t u r e s o f t h i s p ro c e d u re 1 s t h e use o f c o n t r o l l e d feedback t o
t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s In a s e r i e s o f s u c c e s s iv e rounds. The Delphi method
sum m arizes t h e re s p o n se s t o one round o f q u e s ti o n s and p ro v id e s t h i s
In f o rm a tio n t o t h e su rvey p a r t i c i p a n t s w ith t h e n e x t round o f ques­
t i o n s . In t h i s way# t h e exp erts# w h ile rem ain in g anonymous# s t i l l
communicate w ith each o t h e r 1n a l i m i t e d fa s h io n . Through t h i s ano­
nymity o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s # t h e Delphi method p r e v e n ts some members o f
t h e panel from unduly o v e r r i d i n g o r swaying t h e o p in io n s o f o t h e r
members# which o f te n o c c u rs In f a c e - t o - f a c e group s i t u a t i o n s .
T h is 1s t h e re a so n you a r e g iv e n t h e feedback from t h e t o t a l group o f
p a r t i c i p a n t s 1n Round I. Also# I have I n d ic a te d t h e re sp o n se you made
a s a rem in der. T h is feedback may o r may n o t I n f lu e n c e your re s p o n se s
t o Round I I .
Round I I I sho uld be a v a i l a b l e som etim e In August. With t h i s f i n a l
round# I w i l l In c lu d e a b r i e f q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e q u e s tin g In f o rm a tio n
r e l a t i n g t o your p r o f e s s i o n a l background. These d a ta w i l l be used t o
re c o g n iz e you and t h e o t h e r s p e c i a l l y s e l e c t e d e x p e r t s who have
p a r t i c i p a t e d 1 n t h i s s tu d y .
F in a lly # I want you t o know t h a t your p a r t i c i p a t i o n 1s g r e a t l y
a p p r e c ia te d . I t I s n ' t a very easy jo b t o make f o r e c a s t s I n t o t h e
f u t u r e w ith a l l o f t h e u n p r e d ic ta b l e f a c t o r s t h a t a r e p a r t of our
e d u c a tio n a l system . However# 1 t 1s w ith y o u r h e lp and o th e r
p r o f e s s i o n a l s l i k e y o u rs e lf# t h a t some I n s i g h t may be o b ta in e d t h a t
w i l l e n a b le us t o b e t t e r cope w ith t h i s p e rio d of u n c e r t a i n t y and
change.
I hope you have an e n jo y a b le summer!
Very t r u l y yours#
J e r r y L. Cushman
912 South S t r e e t
G re en v ille# MI 48838
O ffic e Phone: (616) 754-3686
Home Phone:
(616) 754-8591

167
EDITED FEEDBACK FROM ROUND I
PART I

2.

I n f l a t i o n 1s a big f a c t o r .

3.

Median I s going up because t h e r e
te a c h e rs .

4.

Is o la te d d i s t r i c t s o u ts ta te w ill
n o t a c c e p t o r w ill withdraw from
t h e re g io n a l u n i t s .
Local re s o u r c e s d i f f e r * and bo ard s w ill
re fu se to lo se Id e n tity .

5.

T h a t’ s a f t e r th e y g e t w ise t h a t th e y would have a chance as a
u n ite d f r o n t .

6

.

a r e fe w e r and fe w er young

The s t a t e c a n n o t respond q u ic k ly enough. Teachers o f urban a r e a s
w ill n o t allow t h i s f o r some tim e . I n t e r n a t i o n a l ty p e s o f a g re e ­
ments f o r economics. Working c o n d itio n s * e t c . * s t i l l t o be done
lo c a lly .

7.

T eachers have t h i s t o some e x t e n t now. I don’ t t h i n k 1 t w ill be as
I n c l u s i v e a s t h e s ta t e m e n t I n d i c a t e s . Never* a t l e a s t u n t i l they
l e a r n what t o do f o r f e d e r a l employees. Too many problem s.

9.

S e l f - I n s u r a n c e needs a t l e a s t a group o f 200 o r more t o s u s t a i n a
program. Do 5056 o f t h e d i s t r i c t s have 200 o r more t e a c h e r s 1n
them? Could d i s t r i c t s combine f o r s e l f - I n s u r a n c e ? This c u t s a
l o t o f bucks and a s th e y add plans* th e y a r e l e a r n i n g t h i s . Some
l a r g e r d i s t r i c t s a lre a d y a r e .

10.

T h is would have t o be done by an o u t s i d e p a rty o r a g e n t.
Risk I s t h e key.

C o st us.

11.

We a r e In a p o s tu r e o f expanding b e n e f i t s .
th o s e as c o - p a ld f o r a w h ile .

12.

T h is d e s tr o y s t h e Idea o f In s u ra n c e . In s u ra n c e s p re a d s t h e r i s k .
I f o n ly people who use 1 t t a k e It* t h e c o s t would be p r o h i b i t i v e .
IRS t a x a b i l i t y would be a problem. Option packages more l i k e l y .

13.

B argain w ith l e g i s l a t u r e .
The n e x t o n e - h a lf decade w ill s e e some
re tre n c h m e n t eco n o m ica lly .

14.

Never 1s a long tim e . However* I do n o t s e e a re d u c tio n a t t h i s
tim e . P a r e n ts d o n 't t h i n k k id s a r e 1n school enough now. Can
d o l l a r s f o r s a l a r i e s and f r i n g e s be j u s t i f i e d 1 f s h o r t e r school
y e a r?

G e n e ra lly nphase in "

168

Too many a g e n c ie s In v o lv e d . P a r t o f t h e Job 1s c u s t o d i a l . People
a r e used t o t h i s . I t would be p o l i t i c a l l y un p o p u lar. Not 1f t h e
p u b lic has a n y th in g t o say about I t . I s e e expansion* o p tio n a l
o f f e r i n g s * a c c e l e r a t e d g r a d u a tio n .
15.

T h is 1s p o s s i b l e 1n l i g h t of t h e energy problems.

16.

Only 1f t h e jo b m arket g e t s even more d r a s t i c .
T eachers l i k e a d d i t i o n a l tim e because th e y g e t paid f o r 1 t.

17.

I t may move t h i s way In n e x t 15-20 years* a g a in .
Not f e a s i b l e by t h e way c o l l e g e s a r e t r a i n i n g t h e s e days.
a r e lo b b y in g f o r more tim e .

Boards

18.

"Never” f o r com plete s a l a r i e s . A formula w i l l be used t o d eterm in e
a segment o f t h e wages* a s 1 t 1s now. The c u r r e n t in d i c e s a r e n o t
t r u e I n d i c a t o r s . Done by d i s t r i c t s t o n o t g r a n t s i z a b l e I n c r e a s e s .
T each ers t o I n d i c a t e th e y a r e la g g in g behind. Need more s t a b i l i t y
in t h e economy.

19.

No way! H a lf t h e s t a f f would be fir e d * o t h e r h a l f to o busy compet­
in g t o do t h e i r j o b s .

20 .

The s t r u c t u r e o f t e a c h in g would have t o change. To a s s u r e a l l
In c r e a s e s and f r in g e s * c l a s s s i z e has t o be s a c r i f i c e d .

21.

Teacher un io ns w i l l oppose t h i s . T h at push 1s on and has been f o r
coaches e s p e c i a l l y . Supply and demand a r e o u t o f " s y n c ."

22.

Federal programs a r e dropped by d i s t r i c t s when funds run o u t.
T h is
w i l l 11m1t f e d e r a l fu n d in g . Too much p r e s s u r e from o t h e r a r e a s o f
governments f o r fu n d s. Cutbacks w i l l o ccur f e d e r a l l y . P o l i t i c a l l y
w e've become more f o r c e f u l .

23.

I s n ' t I t now?

2 4.

I f o r e s e e a p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h i s o c c u r rin g a t t h e I n te r m e d ia te le v e l
o r w ith s e v e r a l d i s t r i c t s h i r i n g someone. I t w o n 't be adm inis­
t r a t o r s who I n c r e a s e . Depending on s t u d e n t en ro llm en t* s t a f f i n g
p a tte r n s * a n d /o r c o n s o l i d a t i o n s . T h is a r e a has grown more complex—
a s c o s t s ris e * so does m o tiv a tio n t o seek some s a v in g s .

25.

The o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e lo o s e b u t do e x i s t .

26.

Too many groups have a v e s te d I n t e r e s t .

28.

Perhaps some o f t h e l a r g e school system s.
d ip .

C u r r e n tly we can double

169

29.

Depends on t h e energy crunch and number o f b u ild in g s t h a t have
been c lo s e d . W111 sav e money. P a r e n ts have h i s t o r i c a l l y o b je c te d
most.

30.

I t w i l l become an I n t e g r a l p a r t b u t w i l l n o t r e p l a c e . They w ill
c o - e x 1 s t. Unless th e y c le a n up t h e i r act* th e y may J u s t go o u t o f
e x i s t e n c e . P r im a r ily In t h e l a r g e m e tr o p o lita n school system s.

170
EDITED FEEDBACK FROM ROUND I
PART I I

1.

T his I s a very In e x p e n siv e f r i n g e .

2.

T his I s n o t a very c o s t l y f r i n g e .

6

.

7.
8

.

11.

Our te a c h in g p o p u la tio n may n o t be o ld enough t o w a rra n t t h i s .
Labor m arket w i l l have t o change.
The union h as fo u g h t a g a i n s t t h i s f o r y e a r s .
no e q u i t a b l e way t o do 1 t .

There seems t o be

Many forms now* bu t 1s 1 t COLA? No te a c h e r s 1n Michigan have a
t r u e COLA. I t depends on o u r dom estic economy. Depends upon
form ula.

13. AGO r u l i n g s a r e n o t en co u rag in g .
14. Some f r i n g e b e n e f i t s may be c o n tin u e d .
assumes c o s t .
15.

Not c u r r e n t s a b b a t i c a l .

17.

Unnecessary w ith u n lim ite d s i c k days.

21 .

Not u n le s s s t a t e

T h is c o u ld happen 1 f we have y e a r-a ro u n d s c h o o ls . Communities
would n o t allo w t h i s t o go th ro ug h u n le s s 1 2 -month school system .
C ost problems alon g w ith c u r r e n t c a l e n d a r .

22.

O u t- o f - d a t e coverage now.

24.

This depends on

25.

T h is depends onAGO r u l i n g s and c o u r t c a s e s 1n t h e near f u t u r e .
Teach ers would no t s e e t h i s plan a s w o rthw h ile.

27.

T h is ty p e o f In su ra n c e 1s a r 1 p - o f f . Any e x c e l l e n t medical plan
w ill co v er 1 t.
L i t t l e t r u s t 1n t h i s program.

33.

In some form.

3 4.

Maybe.

35 .

Everyone j u s t about has t h i s 1n some form e x c e p t 1n t i n y d i s t r i c t s .

c o u r t r u l i n g s 1n t h e n e a r f u t u r e .

Reduced ra te s * e t c .

171
41 .

T his would depend on how 1 t 1s packaged.

43.

Hard t o say 1f t h e a r e a o f r e t i r e m e n t n e g o t i a t i o n s w i l l ta k e
e x a c tly t h i s t u r n . T his 1s more r e a l i s t i c . Most have t h i s
In s te a d o f a paid r e t i r e m e n t p la n . AGO o p in io n a problem. C ourt
f i g h t now.

172
EDITED FEEDBACK ON FRINGE BENEFIT DEVELOPMENTS
ROUND I I , PART I

1.

P h i l o s o p h i c a l l y , unions have t o show money g a in s a l s o . I th in k
government w ill s t a r t t o z e r o In on t a x - f r e e b e n e f i t s . When
more f r i n g e s become t a x a b l e , t h e t r e n d w i l l c e a s e . I b e lie v e t h i s
t r e n d may r e v e r s e 1n te rm s o f p e rc e n ta g e o f p a y r o l l . T eachers may
a g ain o p t f o r B.F. as I n f l a t i o n re c e d e s o v e r s a l a r y because 1 t
comes o f f to p and t h e r e 1 s no Income t a x .

2.

There a r e b a la n c in g f a c t o r s . Companies move o u t. Probably wish­
f u l t h i n k i n g , b u t t h e v a lu e o f t h e d o l l a r I s a t s t a k e . I f I t ’ s
I n f l a t i o n , so what. I may be o v e rly o p t i m i s t i c 1n s p i t e o f some
e c o n o m ists ’ p r e d i c t i o n s . I s e e t h e I n f l a t i o n a r y s p i r a l coming t o
a s c r e e c h in g h a l t . Depends upon f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o such an
I n c r e a s e , I . e . , r a t e o f I n f l a t i o n , Improved p r o d u c t i v i t y .

3.

T e a c h e rs ' s a l a r i e s w i l l n o t keep pace w ith I n f l a t i o n . I f I t ' s
I n f l a t i o n , so what. Based on p a s t re c o rd , s a l a r i e s a r e n 't c lim b in g
t h i s r a p i d l y . C on versely, as I n f l a t i o n I n c r e a s e s , boards g e t
t i g h t e r ; s o does community.

4.

T his c o n c e p t 1s lo s in g ground. T h is was t r u e 1n 1979 as well as
1980. There w ill be a c o n s o li d a tio n I n t o l a r g e r d i s t r i c t s who w ill
remain j e a l o u s o f t h e i r I d e n t i t y . This 1s a new c o n c e p t...c h a n g e
o c c u rs slo w ly .

5.

There may n o t be a need t o do t h i s . Boards do n o t want t o g iv e up
t h e i r lo c a l c o n t r o l . They (members) c a n ' t even a g re e among them­
s e l v e s . The tr e n d w i l l r e v e r s e when t h e d is a d v a n ta g e s a r e known.
Local c o n tr o l w i l l win o u t 1n t h e end.
Boards a r e a f r a i d t o do 1 t .

6

. The l a r g e r d i s t r i c t s w i l l n ev er a g re e t o t h i s . The tim e and e f f o r t
o f 560 K-12 d i s t r i c t s 1n b a rg a in in g w ill f o r c e t h i s e a r l i e r th a n
1995. N e ith e r t h e union o r boards w i l l allow t h i s . I saw t h i s
happen 1n New York s t a t e . They have s i n c e s p l i t . T his w ill mean
s t a t e c o n tro l o f s c h o o ls ; lo c a l boards w o n 't allow 1 t .

7.

8

As soon as t h e f in a n c in g s h i f t s t o f e d e r a l money, t h e b a rg a in in g
w ill a l s o — even 1f th e y a r e s ta t e w id e u n i t s . We le a r n a t t h e
b a rg a in in g t a b l e n ever t o say " n e v e r ." Never t o me means Impos­
s i b l e . I d o n 't b e lie v e b a rg a in in g 1s a f e d e r a l a re n a .

. I do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t d o l l a r s w ill be s p e n t l i k e t h i s . Equal
coverage does n o t mean equal d o l l a r s . Proposal makes s e n s e . Use
money on b a s i s o f n e e d l Will d e stro y t h e p r i n c i p l e o f In s u ra n c e ,

173

which depends on chance. I s u s p e c t t h a t such an approach would
e v e n tu a lly c au se b e n e f i t s t o be tax ed . Because o f f e a r o f lo s in g
t a x ad v an ta g e s p lu s B o a r d 's "B1g B ro th e r" a t t i t u d e . O ptions
packages 1n c e r t a i n d i s t r i c t s . The way o f t h e f u t u r e .
9.

Some c o s t s a v in g s can r e s u l t . There a r e o v er 500 d i s t r i c t s 1n
Michigan where t h e c o verage h a s l e s s th a n 250 t o t a l employees and
going down. You c a n n o t s e l f - 1 n s u r e w ith t h e s e numbers. A poor
Id e a f o r small d i s t r i c t s . OK f o r big on es. I s e e p i t f a l l s f o r
s e l f - i n s u r a n c e . Could c a u s e I n f e r i o r programs t o m a t e r i a l i z e .
P o t e n t i a l f o r c a t a s t r o p h i c c o s t 1s to o r is k y f o r school d i s t r i c t .
Also* r e q u ir e d r e s e r v e would be to o g r e a t .

10.

T h is c o uld prove t o be a s a v in g s t o school d i s t r i c t s depending on
t h e e x p e rie n c e f a c t o r . Sounds l i k e an In s u ra n c e co-op* and I
d o n 't s e e t h i s as p ro b a b le .

11.

I f e e l t h e r e should alw ays be some employee c o n t r i b u t i o n ; o t h e r ­
w ise In c re a s e d c o s t s have no meaning f o r them. " A ll" 1s to o
I n c l u s i v e . " A ll" o f " a l l " f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w i l l never happen. I
s u s p e c t t h i s 1s t r u e now. T h is w ill n o t o ccu r u n t i l a f t e r te a c h ­
e r s have an a c c e p ta b le f r i n g e b e n e f i t package. MERC* a r b i t r a t i o n *
c o u r t r u l i n g s en cou rage t h e employee t o pay a " l i t t l e " f o r c a r r i e r
p u rp o s e s.

12.

D e stro y s t r u e In s u ra n c e c o v e ra g e . T his goes a g a i n s t In su ra n ce
p r i n c i p l e s — chance. T h is has pros and co n s. Too c o s t l y . P r o te c ­
t i o n I s more Im p o rta n t 1 n my e s ti m a ti o n th a n money In t h e po c k et.
Runs a g a i n s t h i s t o r i c a l argum ent w ith Board and IRS— f r i n g e s
a r e n 't ta x ab le s a la ry .

13.

T h is w i l l h e lp t o enco u rage e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t . There w ill be a
need f o r l e g i s l a t i o n t o do t h i s . MEA 1s s t r o n g 1n t h i s a r e a .
H o pefully we have le a r n e d from o t h e r governmental u n i t s — la r g e
c i t i e s —many b e n e f i t s d o n ' t make s e n s e — a l s o double d ip p in g . The
r e t i r e m e n t system c o u l d n 't h an d le such a wide v a r i e t y o f c o v e ra g e s.
Michigan s c h o o ls w ill n ev er be a b le t o a f f o r d I t . Perhaps I'm to o
o p tim is tic * b u t I t h i n k t h e c u r r e n t t h r u s t 1 n r e t i r e m e n t I n c e n t i v e s
w ill ground s w e ll.

14.

R 1 g h t- to - s tr 1 k e l e g i s l a t i o n w i l l p e rm it t h i s . There a r e a l t e r n a ­
t i v e s . Perhaps we w i l l be f o r c e d t o e x p lo r e them. This w ill be
an a r e a o f movement when money I s n ' t . W111 p rob ab ly happen soo ner
th a n p r e d i c t e d w ith t r e n d t o fo u r-d a y week—m a in ta in h o u rs . Fourday week due t o energy c o s t s .

15.

I f we go t o a fo u r-d ay week* I do n o t b e l i e v e t e a c h e r s w i l l work
t h e a d d i t i o n a l weeks. T h is may be an answer f o r more I n - s e r v i c e
a n d /o r management. Not u n le s s t h e p a r e n ts go on a fo u r-d a y week.
T h is would mandate y e a r -ro u n d s c h o o l; I t J u s t I s n ' t going t o

174
happen. Some w ill do t h i s ; n o t a l l . Depends on f u e l / t y p e s o f
w i n t e r s . Have been doing t h i s 1n New Mexico d i s t r i c t s and e l s e ­
where* s u c c e s s f u l l y .
16.

Why not? I t I s done a t t h e c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l . T h is
c o u ld be a p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t y . I f s c h o o ls a r e t o m a in ta in p u b lic
support* t e a c h e r s need t o be Involved 1 n more th a n j u s t c l a s s e s .
My answer was and 1s based on t e a c h e r s s e e k in g p a r t - t i m e o r sh ared
classroom assig nm ents.

17.

With p ro p e r e v a l u a t i o n , why should 1 t be so long?
s t a f f must be Improved f o r t h i s t o happen.

18.

As long a s t h e r e a r e u nio ns o r even a la b o r p a r ty t h e push w i l l be
t o Improve. CPI 1s b e g inn ing t o l o s e I t s c r e d i b i l i t y ; b e s id e s t h i s
Idea 1s n o t t o o r a t i o n a l f o r c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g . T h is j u s t
w o n 't happen w ith a l l t e a c h e r s a s t h e q u e s tio n I n d i c a t e s . "V alid "
1s a key word. CPI 1s c u r r e n t c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r In n e g o t i a t i o n s .

19.

T h is form o f m e r i t pay w ill be a r e a l i t y 1 f re s p o n se s c o n tin u e a s
th e y have. P r o d u c t i v i t y w i l l become a n a tio n a l Is s u e a s demanded
by a weakened economy. Over s e v e ra l c o l l e c t i v e dead b o d ie s .
Damnable n o tio n !

20.

With d e c l i n i n g e n ro llm e n ts c l a s s s i z e s w i l l edge downward. With
f e d e r a l f in a n c in g o f an a p p r e c ia b le amount. Too ex p en siv e f o r
th is.

E v a lu a tio n o f

2 1.

With an I n c r e a s in g t e a c h e r s h o r ta g e t h i s w i l l be a r e a l i t y . A
long s h o t . We may s e e a t e a c h e r s h o rta g e a g a in . C o n tr a c ts may
change In t h i s regard* b u t commonplace? P ro b ab ly n o t.

2 2.

T h is 1s d e v elop in g c l o u t and s t a t e s ' f i s c a l woes w ill h a s te n
a r r i v a l o f t h i s . A f te r t h e 1984 p r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n y e a r . I do
n o t s e e an I n c r e a s e In f e d e r a l fu n d s . The new Department o f Edu­
c a t i o n w i l l t a k e money t o c r e a t e more o f f i c e s and p ro c e d u re s . The
p o l i t i c a l s c e n e changes t o o q u ic k ly t o be a c c u r a t e . Although new
Department o f E ducation w i l l push f o r more funds* th e y a r e v u ln e r­
a b l e f o r c u t s a s t o t a l s t u d e n t e n ro llm e n ts d e c l i n e . As long as
n a tio n a l d e fe n se has t h e f i r s t p r i o r i t y * t h e p ro g r e s s w i l l be
slow and m inim al. I t h i n k t r e n d w ill r e v e r s e 1n s p i t e o f o u r
d e s i r e s . T h is w ill ta k e a long tim e .

23.

I changed my mind. We need more o f t h i s . I t ' s a n e c e s s i t y now*
b u t 1 t 1s n o t r e q u ir e d . Such a tim e i s a lr e a d y upon u s. I n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g h as always been a n e c e s s i t y . I w ill r e v i s e my
e s t i m a t e downward h e r e .

2 4.

The personnel fu n c tio n w i l l be more and more Im p o rta n t. I b e l i e v e
50* 1s J u s t t o o high a p r o j e c t i o n . The growth w ill I n s te a d come 1n

175

c l e r i c a l r a te d employees. Fin an ces w i l l p r o h i b i t t h i s . I t I s n ' t
going t o happen u n t i l t h e r e 1s a s i g n i f i c a n t exp ansion o f t h e F.B.
package. Budget problems c au se a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c u t s . T his 1s a
reaso n why d i s t r i c t s w ill n o t s e l f - 1 n s u r e . Runs a g a i n s t MESSA r e
" c a r r i e r " q u e s ti o n .
2 5.

T h is c o n c e p t 1s n o t b e in g a c c e p te d o r used s u c c e s s f u l l y now. Rep­
r e s e n t a t i v e s o f Boards a r e doing t h i s now. But "review " does n o t
y e t mean having t h e r i g h t t o a c c e p t o r r e j e c t . As Boards f i g h t
re g io n a l barg ain in g * th e y w i l l be fo rc e d o u t o f t h i s . Local
autonomy. Boards d o n ' t o rg a n iz e t h a t e f f i c i e n t l y . This could be
h ig h ly d e s i r a b l e o r h ig h ly u n d e s ir a b le — depends on a t t i t u d e .

26.

Again* I b e l i e v e t h e magic o f C ost o f L iv in g may be d e c li n in g 1n
Im portance In t h e n e a r f u t u r e .

27.

"Some" f r i n g e b e n e f i t s o r " A ll" f r i n g e b e n e f i t s ? Only 1 f we a r e
f o o l s enough t o t a k e c a f e t e r i a . Not a s long a s th e y a r e n o t f l a t
d o l l a r amounts. Too many and v a r ie d groups would fig h t* e . g . *
b u sin ess* unions* e t c .

28.

T h is c o u ld prove b e n e f i c i a l t o a l l In vo lved. Never 1s a long tim e .
Changed my mind on t h i s one— I t h i n k 1 t may w ell happen. We can do
1 t b e t t e r and r e t a i n more c o n t r o l . F r u s t r a t i o n w i l l I n c r e a s e more
q u ic k ly .

29.

The community w i l l r e q u i r e f u l l u t i l i z a t i o n o f b u i l d i n g s . I t has
a lr e a d y happened 1n Michigan— w ill n o t be t h e tr e n d ! My re sp o n se
1 s based on e x p e rie n c e w ith school c l o s i n g s and more e f f i c i e n t
u se o f b u i l d i n g s .

30.

They w i l l c o e x i s t .

176
EDITED FEEDBACK ON FRINGE BENEFITS
ROUND I I , PART I I

1.

I d o n 't t h i n k t h i s has high p r i o r i t y .
t h e amount— f u l l s a l a r y .

I t ' s not th e c o st.

I t's

2.

I d o n ' t t h i n k t h i s has high p r i o r i t y .
t h e amount— f u l l s a l a r y .

I t ' s not th e c o st.

I t's

3.

I t ' s happening now.
Already being p a id .

4.

I t h i n k th e y have I t now.

5.

T his 1s a c o s t l y f r i n g e n o t a l l peop le a r e I n t e r e s t e d 1 n.
Addi­
t i o n a l f r i n g e s come a w fu lly slow . V ision w i l l fo llo w d e n t a l .

6

Very p r e v a l e n t 1n Metro c o n t r a c t s .

. Should be covered by c u r r e n t h e a l t h In s u ra n c e .
n o t on t h e m arket.

7.
8

I d o n 't t h in k t h i s has high p r i o r i t y .

.

9.

Not 50%.

S p e c i f i c p la n s

Many d i s t r i c t s pay on s c a l e — why pay tw ice?

T his w i l l come w ith t e a c h e r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y .
There a r e to o many c o n t r a c t s through 1983 w ith o u t t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n
r i d e r . Very p r e v a le n t 1n Metro a r e a .

10.

Government b e n e f i t s . S o c ia l S e c u rity * e t c . Cannot c o n tin u e
t o be
p i l e d on to p o f each o t h e r .
Not u n t i l g r e a t e r expansion o f f r i n g e s
f o r p r e s e n t employees. T his depends on which p a r ty 1s 1n c o n t r o l .
T h is w ill encompass much more th a n e d u c a tio n . Some d i s t r i c t s have
th is.

11.

C a n 't budget 1 t . COLA w ill
COLA la n g u ag e may come w ith
u n iIm lte d .

12.

I th o u g h t we had t h i s now. Tremendous l i a b i l i t y f o r d i s t r i c t s .
T h is t r e n d 1s tow ard LTD In s u ra n c e . LTD r a t h e r th a n u n lim ite d
sic k leav e.

13.

D oesn't make sense.
from t h i s .

14.

D o e s n 't make s e n s e . Will remain a t s t a t e l e v e l . I l l e g a l . I s an
e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t I n c e n t i v e . Extremely ex p en siv e — s c h o o ls 1n
budget cru nch.

l o s e I t s magic. The tr e n d w i l l change.
caps o r o t h e r l i m i t a t i o n s . . . b u t n o t

Far to o c o s t l y .

I t h i n k w e're moving away

177
15.

Not f u l l pay and n o t so f r e q u e n t. Too c o s t l y . Not a blgg ee with
most t e a c h e r s . Small s c h o o ls w ill never a g re e — to o e x p e n siv e .
Not a c c e p ta b le t o p eo p le n o t on le a v e .

16.

Too c o s t l y .

17.

S1ck le a v e bank 1s a b e t t e r answer.
can s u r v i v e t h e s h o r t te rm .

18.

C lose now.

19.

Not t o o bad an Idea* b u t I doubt 1 t .

20.

Too d i f f i c u l t t o r a t e f o r In s u ra n c e premium. Not a h1gh-pr1or1ty
Item. Not u n t i l t h e b a s ic f r i n g e s a r e o b ta in e d .

2 2.

T h a t 's an o u td a te d b e n e f i t .

23.

T h is I s alm o st t r u e now. S t i l l a low p r i o r i t y . Too e x p e n s iv e .
Many Boards d o n 't re c o g n iz e any h o lid a y s . They a l s o a r e convinced
t h a t th e y have t o o many paid le a v e days now. Many have t h i s 1n
my a r e a .

2 4.

Few p eo p le can a f f o r d t o r e t i r e a t age 55. Pyramiding b e n e f i t s .
When t e a c h e r s a r e n o t p l e n t i f u l * p la n s w ill s t o p . I t ' s going t o
t a k e a l o t more e d u c a tio n o f g en eral p u b lic /s c h o o l b o a rd s.

2 5.

These p la n s h a v e n 't worked s o f a r . When t e a c h e r s a r e n o t p le n ­
t i f u l * p la n s w i l l s t o p . As 1 t s ta n d s t h i s 1s I l l e g a l (AGO
o p i n i o n ) . In c o u r t now.

26.

Boards a r e going t o r e s i s t t h i s . They w ill pay t o sue t h e i r
s e l f . T h is h as t o come a f t e r dental* LTD and v i s i o n . At t h e
p r e s e n t tim e , t h i s I s a lo w -c o s t f r i n g e .

27.

The I n n o v a tiv e In s u ra n c e p la n s a r e c o n s t a n t .

28.

Dependent In s u ra n c e 1s I l l e g a l . Only a f t e r adequ ate f r i n g e s
f o r employees. Being phased In . Some have now.

29 .

I t ' s j u s t n o t happening any more.
begin t o c u r t a i l o r r e s t r i c t use.

3 0.

Extremely e x p e n siv e .

31 .

Depends on how much p r o f e s s i o n a l development comes thro u gh mem­
b e rs h ip 1 n such a s s o c i a t i o n s .

3 2.

Changed my mind. T h is may w ell happen.
1 f 50% d o n 't need t h e money.

Too d i s r u p t i v e t o personnel o f f i c e s .
The tr e n d 1s LTD.

Employees

T his I s a s u b s t i t u t e f o r u n lim ite d s i c k le a v e .
Already

1

n many d i s t r i c t s .

Phasing 1n now as o p tio n p la n .

C o st Item .

Bad In s u ra n c e .

D i s t r i c t s w ill

O ther needs f o r d o l l a r s .

Cannot j u s t i f y r a i s e s

178

33.

Cannot j u s t i f y t h i s t o p u b lic .

3 4.

D o e s n 't make s e n s e . Boards a r e r e l u c t a n t t o a u to m a tic a lly g u ar­
a n te e a n y t h i n g . . . e s p e c i a l l y le a v e days. Being phased In now.

3 5.

Too c o s t l y .

3 6.

Too e x p e n s iv e .

37.

Most In my a r e a have s t a r t e d t h i s w ith In s u ra n c e f o r 30 days
more.

38.

Q u e s tio n a b le on t a x .

39.

Q u e s tio n a b le on t a x .

40.

Changed my mind. T h is m ight happen.
w ith a c t i v e employees.

41.

Boards w i l l n o t do t h i s u n le s s r e q u ir e d by law. I doubt t h a t
v ery many Boards w ill go f o r t h i s soon— 1 f e v e r . T h is does n o t
seem l e g a l . H i s t o r i c a l l y we have argued d o l l a r s w ith Board and
IRS.

4 2.

There w i l l always be some p e n a l t y .

43.

Obviously n o t v ery e x p e n s iv e approach— R ea lly n o t much economic
1n c e n tlv e . L egal1ty?

4 4.

Too d i f f i c u l t t o r a t e f o r In s u ra n c e c o v erag e . Board w i l l n e v er be
a b l e t o a f f o r d a u to damages. J u s t t o o much broad l i a b i l i t y f o r
Board. Board w o n 't g u a ra n te e — p lu s need room t o allow f o r t e a c h e r
f a u l t . Many have t h i s .

Boards a r e more concerned

I t ' s done a l r e a d y .

179
EDITED FEEDBACK FROM ROUND I I I
PART I

1.

T his w o n 't happen u n le s s we become much more o f a s o c i a l i s t
n a tio n . D i s a g r e e . . . s a l a r i e s w i l l r i s e f a s t e r .

2.

Ten p e r c e n t a y e a r w i l l y i e l d tw ic e t h e fam ily Income by 1988.
Must slow down o r o t h e r f a c t o r s w i l l a p p e a r. We w i l l g e t a
h a n d le on I n f l a t i o n 1n t h e n e x t decade. I d o n 't t h i n k M ic h ig a n 's
economy w i l l allow t h i s t o happen as soon a s you t h i n k .

3.

S t a t e w ill have t o r e c o v e r e c o n o m i c a l l y . . . I t h i n k t h e re c o v ery
w ill be slow . M ic h ig a n 's economy w ill n o t allow t h i s t o happen
a s soon as you t h i n k .

4.

I d o n ' t b e l i e v e o n e - h a l f o f t h e d i s t r i c t s w i l l have r e g io n a liz e d
b a rg a in in g by 1990. T h is 1s a lre a d y t r u e 1f mere d e f i n i t i o n s
a r e u sed . P r e s e n t s t r u c t u r e has n o t produced and h as c r e a t e d
some ba ck la sh o f p u b l i c s e n tim e n t.

5.

Local c o n tr o l 1s more Im p o r ta n t. I d o n ' t b e l i e v e o n e - h a l f o f
t h e d i s t r i c t s w i l l work 1n t h i s manner. Boards w ill r e a c t and
ad o p t t h i s p la n a s a d e fe n s e 1n b a r g a in in g . Local c o n tr o l 1s
one f a c t o r . . . T h e l e g a l i t y w i l l be c h a lle n g e d . Boards a r e to o
p r o t e c t i v e o f t h e i r p o l i t i c a l power. This w i l l n o t o ccu r u n le s s
fo r c e d by s t a t e l e g i s l a t i o n . . . p o l l t i c s w i l l d elay t h i s I n d e f i ­
n i t e l y . Regional b a r g a in in g 1s l o s i n g I t s charm.

6

.

T his would t a k e l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n . Never 1s a long t i m e . . . I
changed my mind. A s ta t e w i d e s c h e d u le f o r s a l a r i e s and f r i n g e s
w i l l come a s ta x i n g power s h i f t s and a s la b o r peace becomes more
a ttra c tiv e .
Local u n i t s w i l l be r e l u c t a n t t o g iv e up autonomy.
I t h i n k t h i s 1s being plann ed n o w .. .t h e t r e n d 1s t o t i g h t e r s t a t e
c o n t r o l . T h i r t y y e a r s 1s t o o lo n g ...I say 14 years* b u t 1 t m ig h t
happen so o n e r w ith s t a t e o f o u r economy.

7 . When t a x i n g
8

. The b i g g e s t

9.

base s h i f t s t o t h e f e d e r a l le v e l* so w i l l b a rg a in in g .
f e a r 1s l o s s o f t a x ad v an tag e.

As t h e money squeeze c o n tin u e s t h i s o f f e r s some hope o f r e l i e f .
T his i s a o n e -tim e cash flow ad vantage by e l i m i n a t i n g r e s e r v e s .
T his i s b e g inn ing t o o ccu r more f r e q u e n t l y a lr e a d y . Many a r e
a lr e a d y doing t h i s . . . I t ' s a m ust. The f i n a n c i a l crunch w ill
f o r c e s e l f - i n s u r a n c e . S e l f - i n s u r a n c e w i l l be combined w ith h ig h r i s k In s u ra n c e .

180

10.

W orker's comp. 1s a l i k e l y p ro s p e c t on a re g io n a l b a s i s . I t may
be n e c e ssa ry t o e s t a b l i s h groups l a r g e enough t o be r a t e d . Legal
problems and autonomy b a r r i e r s w i l l h in d e r t h i s .

11.

The p r i o r i t y w ill c o n tin u e t o be s a l a r y Improvement. The B o a r d 's
p o s i t i o n I s b e t t e r c o s t c o n ta i n m e n t.. . t e a c h e r pays p a r t o f b e n e f i t .
We a r e s e e in g t h i s 1n some c o n t r a c t s 1n r e c e n t y e a r s .

12.

The c o s t o f equal d o l l a r s f o r each t e a c h e r 1s p r o h i b i t i v e l y expen­
s i v e . I hope n e v e r . . . o n l y s i c k peo ple w ill t a k e In s u ra n c e and
c o s t s would s k y ro c k e t.

13.

Many d i s t r i c t s and lo c a l EA's w i l l be promoting e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t
p la n s . Paid f r i n g e s w i l l be I n c e n t i v e s t o e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t . Not
f u l l b e n e f i t s . Some d i s t r i c t s a r e p r e s e n t l y g iv in g huge lump-sum
payments which s e r v e t h e same p u rp ose.

14.

This one 1s now open t o q u e s t i o n . . . I would change my answer t o
1990-94. R ig ht n o w ... r 1 g h t - t o - s t r 1 ke l e g i s l a t i o n allo w s t h i s .

15.

I n - s e r v i c e and a f u l l work y e a r w i l l move t h i s Idea ahead.

16.

I b e lie v e t h i s 1s In t h e Immediate f u t u r e and I s being done r i g h t
now 1n some d i s t r i c t s by s h a re d assignm ents* e t c . P o s s ib ly 1n
1 1 eu o f added compensation when t h e money runs dry.

17.

Few 1 f any p r o f e s s i o n s have p ro b a tio n a ry p e r io d s o f two y e a r s .

18.

I see many c o n t r a c t s a c r o s s t h e s t a t e where s a l a r y and b e n e f i t s
a r e t i e d t o a CPI. I doubt I f any t a x p a id employees can e v e r
e x p e c t COLA...The employer d o e s n 't have t h a t much c o n tro l over
re v e n u es. CPI ty p e Index 1s on t h e way o u t. Need t o p u t l i m i t s
t h a t a r e known.. . e x p e r ie n c e s w ith COLA have n o t always worked o u t.
A CPI uncapped w i l l n o t be a v a l i d Index.

19. Our p r e s e n t K-12 s c h o o lin g p a t t e r n 1s going t o change d r a s t i c a l l y .
...P e r f o r m a n c e c o n t r a c t i n g may happen so o n er th a n most people
t h i n k . As t h e p u b lic becomes more vocal* a c c o u n t a b i l i t y w ill be
stre sse d .
20.

No one 1s a g a i n s t small c l a s s s i z e s I f I t can be a f f o r d e d . R e s u lts
su p p o rte d by re s e a r c h v s . c o s t w ill have t o be shown 1 n o r d e r f o r
t h i s t o happen. D e c lin in g e n ro llm e n ts combined w ith s t r i c t l a y o f f
p r o v is io n s may c au se t h i s t o happen.

2 1.

T his may happen so o n er th a n most peop le t h i n k . Unions c a n ' t allow
t h i s . T h is o c c u rs now when d i s t r i c t s g iv e c r e d i t f o r a d d i t i o n a l
e x p e r ie n c e .

181

22.

D i s t r i c t s w i l l ta k e t h e funds and th e n complain about t h e s t r i n g s
a t t a c h e d . We a r e going t h e o t h e r way. Trend tow ard "Reaganlsm"
w i l l reduce f e d e ra l Involvem ent 1n school f in a n c in g . I t ’ s ta k e n
o v e r 200 y e a r s t o g e t 7%.. . I t ' s n o t going t o double f o r an
a w fu lly long tim e .

23.

I t 1s a lre a d y upon u s. We need 1 t now b u t c o s t s w o n 't allow us
1n t h e n e x t 10 y e a r s . I t 1s a n e c e s s i t y now.. . t e a c h e r s d o n 't want
1t,
boards c a n ' t a f f o r d 1 t and a r e unaware o f need.

24.

As personnel problems c o n tin u e t o become more complex* 1 t w i l l
become n e c e s s a ry . C ost f a c t o r 1s t o o high f o r most b o a rd s.

25.

Boards w o n 't do t h i s . . . n e g o t i a t o r s a lre a d y do.
j e a l o u s l y guard t h e i r autonomy.

26.

COL 1s on t h e way o u t a s an a u to m a tic f a c t o r .

27.

P o l i t i c a l c l o u t w ill p r e v e n t t h i s f o r some tim e . T his w o n 't happen
a s long a s te a c h e r s remain p o l i t i c a l l y a c t i v e and away from f l a t
amounts f o r f r i n g e s .

28.

O ptions t o S o c ia l S e c u r ity w i l l c o n tin u e t o be s o u g h t. As 1 t
a p p e a rs t h a t t h e system w i l l become b a n k ru p t t h e change w ill
o c c u r. I wonder about my " n ev e r" re s p o n se . There 1s a le v e l of
d i s t r u s t a b ou t o u r S o d a ! S e c u r ity system and I t s s o lv e n c y .

29 .

T h is w i l l f i l l t h e need t o f u l l y u t i l i z e t h e d i s t r i c t s ' r e s o u r c e s .
Not s u r e any group r e a l l y s u p p o r ts y e a r-ro u n d s c h o o l. I t h in k
t h i s s t i l l 1 s an approach t o save energy and make more e f f e c t i v e
use o f f a c i l i t i e s .

30.

HMO p la n s can c o e x i s t w ith h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n and medical In su ra n ce
p la n s .

Local boards w ill

182

DELPHI PROJECTION QUESTIONNAIRE
ROUND I I — PART I I
P a r t I I o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e 1s concerned w ith some a c tu a l f r i n g e
b e n e f i t s t h a t have appeared o r w i l l p o s s ib ly ap pear 1 n t h e f u t u r e .
Your re sp o n se s w i l l be based on your judgment# "When w i l l 50% o f
Michigan p u b l i c school t e a c h e r s r e c e iv e t h e fo llo w in g f r i n g e b e n e f i t s ? "
D irectio n s—P a rt I I
Each o f t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t s has feedback from t h e Round I re sp o n se s.
These re sp o n se s have been summarized a s I n d ic a te d 1n P a r t I u sin g t h e
same symbols f o r t h e I n t e r q u a r t i l e range# median# and your l a s t
re sp o n se .
In t h e column headed w ith t h e tim e I n t e r v a l s I n d i c a t e your e s t i m a t e
when t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t has a chance o f being p a r t o f t h e f r i n g e
b e n e f i t package f o r 50% o r more o f Michigan te a c h e r s . Use an "x" o r
The column headed REMARKS I s provided f o r you t o make any comments t h a t
may be r e l e v a n t t o t h e t i m e I n t e r v a l you s e l e c t e d . S p e c if ic a l ly # you
a r e re q u e s te d t o respond t o th o s e f r i n g e b e n e f i t Item s where your Round
I I tim e e s t i m a t e 1s o u t s i d e o f t h e I n t e r q u a r t i l e range (Round I fe e d ­
back). These rem arks w i l l be summarized f o r t h e f i n a l round and may
p ro v id e I n s i g h t t h a t could I n f lu e n c e o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t re sp o n se s.
P le a s e c o m p le te t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e and r e t u r n 1 t 1n t h e stamped enve­
lo p e e n clo se d . These d a ta w i l l be t a b u l a t e d and In c lu d e d w ith t h e
f i n a l round feedback. The f i n a l round should be m a ile d t o you some
tim e 1n August.
I f you have any q u estio ns# p le a s e c o n t a c t me by phoning (616) 754-3686
o f f i c e phone o r (616) 754-8591 home phone.

Datea of Occ urrei ice
Es tima ted time inti erva
o
oo
CM
cn
o ■sr
cn
CO
co c o -3cn
cn
-o
i
<T\
i
i
i
c
u r\
o
o
in
o
CO
oo c n c n
>.
>cn
cn
cn
cn

GO

1. The U.S. Chamber o f Commerce
re p o rts th a t f r in g e b e n e f its fo r
a l l employees reached 3 6 . 7 % o f
p ayro ll in 1 9 7 7 . In your o p in ­
ion, in what time in te rv a l w ill
fr in g e b e n e f its f o r Michigan
p u b lic school te a c h e rs average
5 0 % o f p a y ro ll?
2. In what year w ill th e median
fam ily income (in 1 9 8 0 d o lla r s )
reach twice i t s p re s e n t amount?
3. When w ill th e median t e a c h e r s '
s a la r y reach tw ice i t s p re sen t
amount?
k . By what year w ill 50% o r more
o f th e lo cal EAs belong to a
regional bargain ing u n it?
5. By what year wi 11 50% o r more o f th e
Michigan publ ic school d i s t r i c t s 1
boards o f education u n ite in to a
m u l t i p l e - d i s t r i c t bargaining u n it?

a)

CO

Remarks
Never

Fringe B enefit Developments
P a rt 1

By 1980

Fringe B enefit Developments
P a rt 1

6

. By what year w ill te a c h e rs belong
to one s tatew id e barg ain in g u n it
th a t w ill determ ine statew id e
t e a c h e r s ' s a l a r i e s and fr in g e
b e n e f its (with p o s s ib le c o s t - o f liv in g indexes f o r d i f f e r e n t
a re as o f th e s t a t e ) ?

7. In what y ear w ill te a c h e rs have
t h e i r s a l a r i e s and f r in g e b e n e f its
n e g o tia ted by a fe d e ra l bargaining
u n it (with a c o s t - o f - l i v i n g index
f o r d i f f e r e n t are as o f th e United
S ta te s ) ?
8

. By what time in te rv a l w ill te a c h ­
e rs be a b le to s e l e c t an in d iv id u ­
a lly ta ilo re d (c a fe te ria -sty le )
f r in g e b e n e f it package from a
d esig nated number o f d o l l a r s in
t h e i r school d i s t r i c t ?

Occ iirre nee

stim ated tim b in te rv
o
o
o
CM
-a- cn
cn
CO
00 cn cn •u
i
i
i
i
c
LTV
in
o
o
o>CO
CO
cn cn
cn cn cn «n V
to

Oi

o f

Remarks
Never

m

Dat 3

Date o f O ccurrence

Estimated time in te rv a l
Fringe B enefit Developments
P a rt I

o
CO

cn

>-

CO

9. In what year w ill 50% o r more o f
the school d i s t r i c t s s e l f - i n s u r e
some f r in g e b e n e f its such as long­
term d i s a b i l i t y o r l i f e insurance?
10. In what year w ill 50% o r more of
the Michigan school d i s t r i c t s u n ite
to g e th e r to s e l f - i n s u r e some f r in g e
b e n e f its such as long-term d i s ­
a b i l i t y o r l i f e insurance?
11. In what year w ill 50% o r more of
th e Michigan school d i s t r i c t s pay
a l l o f th e t e a c h e r 's f r in g e bene­
f i t c o s ts w ith no c o n trib u to ry
c o s ts made by te ac h e rs?
12. By what y ear
th e Michigan
mit te a c h e rs
f i t s fo r cash

w ill 50% o r more o f
school d i s t r i c t s p e r­
to tr a d e f r in g e bene­
i n hand i f they des i re?

-3CO
I
o
co
cn

o
o
o
cn
co

i

LA
co
cn

-a<n
i
o
cn
cn

cn
cn

i

LA
cn
cn

Remarks

AC

~o
c

o>~
0)
CO

L.
0

)
V
>

Date o f Occurrence
Estimated time in te rv a l
Fringe B enefit Developments
P a rt I

o

co

(TV

-a -

oo

i

o

>»
CQ
13. in what time in te rv a l w ill Michi­
gan p u b lic school te a c h e rs have
o p tio nal re tire m e n t a f t e r 3 0 years
o f s e r v ic e w ith f u l l fr in g e bene­
f i t s t h a t a re o ffe re d by th e local
school d i s t r i c t ?
]k. In what time in te rv a l w ill Michi­
gan schools o p e ra te le s s than 1 8 0
in s tr u c tio n a l days?
15. In what time in te rv a l w ill Michi­
gan schools o p e ra te on a f o u r - day
week and s t i l l m aintain a minimum
1 8 0 -day school year?
16. By what time in te rv a l w ill Michi­
gan te a c h e rs have a shortened
workday p e rm ittin g te a c h e rs to
work only when they have spe­
c i f i c teaching assignments?
17. In what time in te rv a l w ill th e
nontenure te a c h e r s ' probationary
period be reduced to one year?

oo
cn

<y\
oo
i
oo
cn

■acn
i
o
<T\
cn

<n
cn

i
in
cn
cn

o
o
o
CM

TJ
c
o>«
Q)
CD

Remarks
a)
>
Q)

Dat e of Occ u rre nee
Es tima ted time in t erva
0
00
cn

>ao
18. In what time in te rv a l w ill te a c h ­
e r s ' s a l a r i e s , including c o s ts fo r
fr in g e b e n e f i t s , be ti e d to a v a lid
index o f economic growth such as a
consumer p r ic e index (CPI)?:
19. By what time in te rv a l 1 w ill p e r­
formance c o n tra c tin g w ith te a c h ­
e rs become an a c c e p ta b le method
fo r re c eiv in g a d d itio n a l compen­
satio n ?
20. By what time in te rv a l w ill th e
average c la s s s i z e be le s s than
2 0 stu d en ts?
21. In what time in te rv a l w ill i t
become commonplace f o r school
d i s t r i c t s to o f f e r bonuses to h ir e
o u tsta n d in g te ac h e r cand id ates?
22. By what time in te rv a l w ill fe d e ral
funds reach a \S% pro p o rtio n of the
t o t a l ta x d o l l a r s received by Michi­
gan school d i s t r i c t s (p resen t level
is approxim ately 7 %)?

j00
1
0
00
cn

cn
00
1

m

00
cn

-3cn
1
0
cn
cn

<n
cn
1

m
cn
cn

0
0
0

cs|
T3
c
0
>0)
ca

Remarks
Never

Fringe B en efit Developments
P a rt 1

Dat e o f Occ u rre nee
Fringe B enefit Developments
P a rt 1

Es tima ted time in t erva 1
o
o
o
o ■3- <n -3" c n CM

oo
cn

>>
m

23- By what time in te rv a l w ill in serv i ce t r a i n i ng of te a c h e rs become
a n e c e s s ity because o f computers,
T.V ., and new teaching tech n o lo ­
g ie s?
2k. By what time in te rv a l w ill th e re
be a 5 0 % in c re a s e in personnel
a d m in is tra to rs whose primary
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w ill be to work
with employee b e n e f its and o th e r
r e la te d personnel fu n c tio n s in th e
publ ic school d i s t r i c t s of Michigan?
25• By what time in te rv a l w ill boards
o f education in a region o r area
u n ite to g e th e r to review n e g o ti­
ated lo cal agreements f o r a c c e p t­
ab ility ?
26. By what time in te rv a l w ill th e
Michigan Public School Employees'
Retirement System have a b u i l t - i n
c o s t - o f - l i v i n g f a c to r in th e
re tire m e n t allowance?

co
1

o

oo
cn

oo
1
LA
OO
cn

cn
i

o

cn
cn

cn
i
in
cn
cn

T3
c
o
>»
V
00

Remarks

0)

>
0)
z

0

-3 -

00
cn

00
1

>~

00
cn

0

CO

27. By what time in te rv a l w ill th e IRS
ta x f r in g e b e n e f its received by
te a c h e rs as ta x a b le income?
28. By what time in te rv a l w ill Michi­
gan p u b lic school employers and
employees g e t o u t o f th e Social
S e c u rity (FICA) program and
i n s t i t u t e an a l t e r n a t e program?
29. By what time in te rv a l w ill Michi­
gan go to a year-round school
w ith te a c h e rs working on a s ta g ­
gered ba sis?
30. By what time in te rv a l w ill
h e a lth maintenance o rg a n iz a tio n s
re p la ce the p re sen t medical and
h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n plans?

cn
00

-a -

1

1
0

cn
00
m

cn
<n
<n

cn
cn
1

in
cn
cn

0

(B

™
<

Remarks
Never

Fringe B en efit Developments
P a rt 1

m

Es tima ted time int

Beyond
2000
'

Dat e of Occ urre

1. Term l i f e insurance up to f u l l
amount o f s a la r y o r h ig h e r.
2. Accidental death and dismemberment
(AD&D) insurance up to f u l l amount
o f s a la r y o r h ig h e r.
3. Paid overtim e fo r hours worked
beyond c o n tra c te d school day a t
a n e g o tia ted r a t e .
k. Paid dental insurance.
5. Paid v is io n c a re .
6

. Paid hearing c a r e .

7. Full t u i t i o n reimbursement.
8

. Teacher e f f e c t iv e n e s s pay ( i . e . ,
m erit pay, performance bonuses).

9. H o s p ita liz a tio n insurance w ith
p r e s c r i p tio n r i d e r .

-3OO
1

>.
m

<n

o
oo

<r»

oo

1
IA
OO
(Tv

-d"
cn
i

o

cn
cn

Never

2000

o

OO
CTv

Beyond

(In your judgment, when w ill 50%
o f the Michigan p u b lic school
te ac h e rs re c eiv e the follow ing
f r in g e b e n e f its ? )

1995-99

Fringe B e n e fits , P a rt II

Mark th e column th a t in d ic a te s
th e time in te rv a l when the
f r in g e b e n e f it is most lik e ly
to o ccu r. Use "x" or

Remarks

10. Survivor income insurance w ith a m ini­
mum o f $ 2 0 0 a month/spouse and $ 1 0 0 a
month/chi Id.
11. C o st-o f-1 iv in g allowances (COLA).
12. Unlimited s ic k leave accumulation.
13' Full pay f o r unused s ic k leave a t
re tire m e n t based on f i n a l pay r a t e .
14. C ontinuation o f fr in g e b e n e f its
coverage f o r r e t i r e e s .
15* S abbatical leaves w ith f u l l pay a t
l e a s t every seven years fo r
approved reasons.
16. Paid leaves o f s h o r te r d u ra tio n
than s a b b a tic a l leav es.
17> S hort-term d i s a b i l i t y insurance.
18. Long-term d i s a b i l i t y in su ran ce.
19. S c h o o l- d i s tr ic t- f in a n c e d physical
examination a mini mum o f every two y e a rs.

2000
o
oo
<r»

>~

m

-a co
1
o
00
cn

cn
oo
i
in
00
<n

-dcn
i
o
cn
<T\

cn
cn
i
-3*
cn
cn

Never

(In your judgment, when w ill 50% of
th e Michigan pubi ic school te a c h e rs
re c eiv e the following f r in g e b e n e fits ? )

Beyond

Fringe B e n e fits, P a rt II

Remarks

20. Travel a c c id e n t insurance program f o r
jo b -rela te d tra v e l.
21. Vacation time a llo tm e n ts based on years
o f s e r v ic e to be taken du rin g th e regu­
l a r school year.
22. A dditional medical o p tio n s to cover
in -h o s p ita l b e n e f i t s , weekly indem­
n ity , e tc.
23. A minimum o f two personal holid ay s to
be used during th e school year ( i . e . ,
b irth d a y s , a n n i v e r s a r i e s ) .
2k. Retirement in c e n tiv e plans where a
te ac h e r may be compensated a minimum o f
one y e a r ’s s a la ry fo r e a r ly re tire m e n t
a t age 55•
25. A re tire m e n t in c e n tiv e plan t h a t would
pay the te ac h e r o n e -h a lf o f th e d i f f e r ­
ence between th e B.A. minimum and what
they could be earning fo r every year
from age 5 5 up to a n e g o tia te d y e a r.

>•

m

-3OO
1
0
00

CT\

cn
00
1
in
00
cn

-3cn

t

0
cn
cn

Remarks
Never

0
CO
cn

Beyond 2000

(In your judgment, when w ill 50% o f
th e Michigan p u b lic school te a c h e rs
re c eiv e the follow ing f r in g e b e n e f its ? )

1995-99

Fringe B e n e fits , P a rt II

26. A prepaid legal plan t h a t would allow
advisory s e r v ic e , legal c o un selin g,
investment planning, e t c .
27. Cancer insurance plan.
28. Dependent l i f e insurance w ith a m ini­
mum o f $1,000 per dependent.
29• A minimum o f two personal leave days
per year t h a t can be used w ithout any
reason given and f u l l y compensated.
30. Longevity pay (the top c o n secu tive pay
step ) o f a t l e a s t 1% o f B.A. base fo r
each year beyond top s te p o f n e g o ti­
ated s a la r y schedule.
31. A minimum o f $ 100/year f o r membership
to nonunion education a s s o c ia tio n s
paid fo r by th e school d i s t r i c t .
32. A ta x - s h e lt e r e d a n n u ity plan up to 5%
o f annual income paid by th e school
d is tric t.

2000
-dcn
1
0
<n
<n

Remarks
N ever

cn
00
1
Lf\
OO
cn

Beyond

-S ’
OO
1
0
00
<n

1 9 9 5 -9 9

(In your judgment, when w ill 50% of
the Michigan p u b lic school te ac h e rs
re c eiv e th e follow ing f r in g e b e n e f its ? )

By 1980

Fringe B e n e fits, P a rt II

33* Auto insurartce.
* . L i a b i l i t y insurance; damage to personal
p ro p e rty , c lo th in g , e t c .

3 4

35. Guaranteed p ro fe s sio n a l conference
leave w ith expenses p aid .
36. Lease c a rs f o r te a c h e rs t h a t tra v e l
between b u ild in g s .
37. Fringe b e n e f it and s a la r y c o n tin u a tio n
a f t e r death o f employee fo r a n e g o ti­
ated period o f time.
3 8

. Home insurance.

39- Home mortgage insurance.
AO. Paid counseling s e r v ic e s f o r l a i d - o f f
te ac h e rs to a s s i s t them in a cq u irin g
o th e r employment.

>-

CO

-3CO
1

0
CO
cn

cn
co
1
in
co
<n

-acn
1
0
cn
cn

Never

2000
0
00
<T\

Beyond

(In your judgment, when w ill 50$ of
th e Michigan p u b lic school teach ers
re c eiv e the follow ing f r in g e b e n e f its ? )

1995-99

Fringe B e n e fits, P a rt II

Remarks

41. Option
fr in g e
double
by the

to re c eiv e money in lie u o f
b e n e f its in the event of
coverage w ith a spouse employed
school d i s t r i c t .

42. Sick leave bank t h a t continues 100$
pay and f r in g e b e n e f its from the
time personal leave is used up u n t i l
th e te a c h e r q u a l i f i e s f o r long-term
d i s a b i 1 i ty .
43. Retirement pay o f a minimum o f $100
f o r each year o f s e r v ic e in th e
school d i s t r i c t .
44. Guarantee th a t th e board w ill pay
fo r any pro p erty damage incurred
by a te a c h e r when on le g itim a te
school b u s in e s s .

2000
-3 -

oo oo
1
oi
u>
oo oo
>■ cr> cn
CO

-3*

cn
i
o
cn
cn

Remarks
Never

o
<y\

OO

Beyond

(In your judgment, when w ill 50$ of
th e Michigan p u b lic school te a c h e rs
re c eiv e th e follow ing f r in g e b e n e fits ? )

1995-99

Fringe B e n e fits , P a rt II

APPENDIX D

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS:
FRINGE BENEFITS

196

Tabl e D . l . — F r in g e b e n e f i t s :

summary o f s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l , t h r e e rounds.

S ig n if . Level 0.05

Round 3

Round

Null Hypothesis
Accepted Rejected

Fringe B en efit
1

2

3

1. Term l i f e insurance up to f u l l amount o f s a la ry
o r h ig h e r.

.586

.586

.263

X

2. Accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) in s u r­
ance up to f u l l amount o f s a la r y o r h ig h er.

.333

.263

.263

X

3. Paid overtim e f o r hours worked beyond c o n tra c te d
school day a t a n e g o tia te d r a t e .

.395

.741

.470

X

4. Paid dental insurance.

.741

.741

.444

X

5. Paid v is io n c a re .

.741

.556

.458

X

6. Paid hearing c a r e .

.395

.051

X

7. Full t u i t i o n reimbursement.

.414

.255

.333
.128

1.000

1.000

1.000

X

9. H o s p ita liz a tio n insurance w ith p r e s c r i p tio n r i d e r .
10. Survivor income insurance w ith a minimum o f $200
a month/spouse and $100 a m onth/child.

.751

.789

.526

X

.570

.570

.542

X

11. C o st-o f-1 iv in g allowances (COLA).

.430

.745

.430

X

12. Unlimited s ic k leave accumulation.

1570

.395

.395

X

13. Full pay fo r unused s ic k leave a t re tire m e n t
based on f i n a l pay r a t e .

.430

.414

.255

X

14. C ontinuation o f f r in g e b e n e f its coverage fo r
ret i rees.

.259

.414

.430

X

8. Teacher e f f e c t iv e n e s s pay ( i . e . , m e rit pay,
performance bonuses).

X

Table D . l . — Continued.

S ig n if . Level 0.05
Fringe B en efit
1

Round
2

3

Round 3
Null Hypothesis
Accepted Rejected

15* Sabbatical leaves w ith f u l l pay a t l e a s t
every seven y e ars f o r approved reasons.

.370

.370

.370

X

16. Paid leaves o f s h o r te r d u ra tio n than sab­
b a tic a l leaves.

.745

.570

.430

X

17. S hort-term d i s a b i 1ity insurance.

.395

.395

.184

X

18. Long-term d i s a b i 1i t y insurance.

.395

.741

.570

X

19. S c h o o l- d i s tr ic t- f in a n c e d physical examination
a minimum of every two y e a rs.

.741

.556

.370

X

20. Travel a c c id e n t insurance program f o r jo b re la te d t r a v e l .

.444

.395

.570

X

21. Vacation time a llo tm e n ts based on years o f
s e r v ic e to be taken during th e re g u la r school year.

1.000

1.000

22. A dditional medical o p tio n s to cover in -h o s p ita l
b e n e f i t s , weekly indemnity, e t c .

.395

.570

.570

X

23. A minimum o f two personal holidays to be used
during th e school year ( i . e . , b irth d a y s ,
a n n iv ersa rie s).

.745

.570

.242

X

2**. Retirement in c e n tiv e plans where a te a c h e r may
be compensated a minimum o f one y e a r 's s a la r y
f o r e a r ly re tire m e n t a t age 55.

.011

.125

.128

X

.055

.259

.130

X

25. A re tire m e n t in c e n tiv e plan t h a t would pay the
te ac h e r o n e -h a lf of th e d if f e r e n c e between the
B.A. minimum and what they could be earning fo r
every year from age 55 up to a n e g o tia ted y e a r.

1 .00 0

X

Tabl e D .1 . —Continued.

S ig n if . Level 0.05
Fringe B enefit

Round 3

1

Round
2

.7*1

.751

.556

X

1 .0 0 0

1.000

1.000

X

28. Dependent l i f e insurance w ith a minimum of
$ 1 , 0 0 0 per dependent.

.395

.115

.370

X

29. A minimum o f two personal leave days per year
t h a t can be used w itho ut any reason given and
f u l l y compensated.

.370

.3 7 0

.370

X

30. Longevity pay (th e top con se c u tiv e,p a y step )
o f a t l e a s t 1% o f B.A. base fo r each year
beyond top s te p o f n e g o tia te d s a la r y schedule.

.017

.119

.119

X

31. A minimum o f $100/year f o r membership to nonunion
education a s s o c ia tio n s paid fo r by th e school d i s t r i c t .

•

74S

.7 ^ 5

.586

X

32. A t a x - s h e lt e r e d an n u ity plan up to 5% o f annual
income paid by th e school d i s t r i c t .

.586

.7 4 5

.586

X

33- Auto insurance.

• 7*>5

.7 8 9

.789

X

3*». L i a b i l i t y insurance; damage to personal p ro p e rty ,
c lo th in g , e t c .

.255

.7*»5

A7k

X

35. Guaranteed p ro fe s sio n a l conference leave with
expenses p aid.

.055

.255

. Lease c a r s f o r te a c h e rs t h a t tra v e l between
b u iId in g s.

1.000

1.000

26. A prepaid legal plan t h a t would allow advisory
s e r v ic e , legal c o u n selin g, investment planning, e t c .
27* Cancer insurance plan .

3 6

3

Null Hypothesis
Accepted Rejected

X

1.000

X

Table D . l . —Continued.

S i g n i f ,. Level 0.05

Round 3

Round
2

Null Hypothesis
Accepted Rejected

Fringe B en efit
1
37. Fringe b e n e f it and s a la r y c o n tin u a tio n a f t e r
death o f employee f o r a n e g o tia te d period
o f tim e.

3

.259

.130

X

38. Home insurance.

1.000

1.000

1.000

X

39. Home mortgage insurance.

1.000

1.000

1.000

X

40. Paid counseling s e r v ic e s f o r l a i d - o f f te ac h e rs
to a s s i s t them in a cq u irin g o th e r employment.

.119

.751

.751

X

41. Option to re c e iv e money in lie u o f fr in g e
b e n e f its in the event o f double coverage
w ith a spouse employed by th e school d i s t r i c t .

• 741

• 370

.741

X

.259

.259

.255

X

43. Retirement pay o f a minimum o f $100 fo r each
year o f s e r v ic e in th e school d i s t r i c t .

.586

.586

.586

X

44. Guarantee t h a t th e board w ill pay f o r any
p ro p erty damage incurred by a te ac h e r when
on le g itim a te school b u sin ess.

.414

.249

.249

X

42. Sick leave bank t h a t co n tin u es 100% pay and
f r in g e b e n e f its from th e time personal leave
is used up u n til th e te a c h e r q u a l i f i e s f o r
long-term d i s a b i l i t y .

200

Mo

APPENDIX E

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS:
RELATED FRINGE BENEFIT DEVELOPMENTS

201

Table E . l . — F r in g e b e n e f i t developments:

summary o f s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l , t h r e e rounds.

S ig n if . Level 0.05

Round 3

Round
2

Null Hypothesis
Accepted Rejected

Fringe B enefit Development
1
1. The U.S. Chamber o f Commerce r e p o r ts t h a t fr in g e
b e n e f its f o r a l l employees reached 36*7% o f pay­
r o l l in 1977* In your o p in io n , in what time
in te rv a l w ill f r in g e b e n e f its fo r Michigan
p u b lic school te a c h e rs average 50% o f p a y ro ll?

3

.157

• 451

X

In what year w ill the median fam ily income (in
1980 d o lla r s ) reach twice i t s p re sen t amount?

.231

.392

.392

X

When w ill th e median te a c h e r s ' s a la r y reach
twice i t s p re s e n t amount?

.608

.600

.300

X

By what year w ill 50% o r more o f th e local EAs
belong to a regional bargaining u n it?

.500

.500

.150

X

By what year w ill 50% o r more o f th e Michigan
p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s ' boards o f education
u n ite in to a m u l t i p l e - d i s t r i c t bargaining u n it?

.s ^ s

.286

.671

X

By what year w ill te a c h e rs belong to one s t a t e ­
wide bargaining u n i t t h a t w ill determ ine s t a t e ­
wide te a c h e r s ' s a l a r i e s and f r in g e b e n e f its
(with p o s s ib le c o s t - o f - l i v i n g indexes fo r
d i f f e r e n t a re a s o f th e s t a t e ) ?

.500

.055

.300

X

1.000

1.000

1.000

X

In what year w ill te a c h e rs have t h e i r s a l a r i e s
and f r in g e b e n e f its n e g o tia te d by a fed eral
bargaining u n it (with a c o s t - o f - l i v i n g index
fo r d i f f e r e n t a re a s o f th e United S ta te s )?

202

.157

Tabl e E . l . —Continued.

S ig n if . Level 0.05

Round 3

Round
2

Null Hypothesis
Accepted Rejected

Fringe B en efit Development
1

3

8. By what time in te rv a l w ill te a c h e rs be a b le to
s e l e c t an in d iv id u a lly t a i l o r e d ( c a f e t e r i a s t y l e ) f r in g e b e n e f it package from a designated
number o f d o l l a r s in t h e i r school d i s t r i c t ?

.500

.608

.700

9. In what year w ill 50% o r more o f th e school
d i s t r i c t s s e l f - i n s u r e some f r in g e b e n e f its
such as long-term d i s a b i l i t y o r l i f e insurance?

.671

.671

.329

.500

.i»5I

.451

10. In what year w ill 50% o r more o f th e Michigan
school d i s t r i c t s u n ite to g e th e r to s e l f - i n s u r e
some f r in g e b e n e f its such as long-term d i s a b i l i t y
o r l i f e insurance?
11. In what year w ill 50% o r more o f th e Michigan
school d i s t r i c t s pay a l l o f th e t e a c h e r 's
f r in g e b e n e f it c o s ts w ith no c o n trib u to r y
c o s ts made by te ac h e rs?
12. By what year w ill 50% o r more o f th e Michigan
school d i s t r i c t s permit te a c h e rs to tra d e
f r in g e b e n e f its f o r cash in hand i f they d e s ir e ?
13* In what time in te rv a l w ill Michigan p u b lic
school te a c h e rs have o p tio n a l re tire m e n t a f t e r
30 y e ars o f s e r v ic e w ith f u l l f r in g e b e n e f its
t h a t a r e o ff e re d by the local school d i s t r i c t ?
]k. In what time in te rv a l w ill Michigan schools
o p e ra te le s s than 180 in s tr u c tio n a l days?

.671

.500

.671

.500

.286

.500

.500

.500

.500

1.000

1.0 0 0

1.000

X

S

Tabl e E . l . —Continued.

S ig n if . Level 0.05
Fringe B en efit Development

15.

In what time in te rv a l w ill Michigan schools
o p e ra te on a f o u r -day week and s t i l l m aintain
a minimum 180-day school year?

16. By what time in te rv a l w ill Michigan te a c h e rs
have a shortened workday p e rm ittin g te a c h e rs
to work only when they have s p e c i f i c teaching
assignments?
17- In what time in te rv a l w ill th e nontenure
t e a c h e r s ' p ro b a tio n a ry period be reduced
to one year?
18.

In what time in te rv a l w ill te a c h e r s ' s a l a r i e s ,
including c o s ts f o r f r in g e b e n e f i t s , be ti e d
to a v a lid index o f economic growth such as
a consumer p r ic e index (CPI)?

19. By what time in te rv a l w ill performance
c o n tra c tin g w ith te ac h e rs become an a c c e p t­
a b le method f o r re c eiv in g a d d itio n a l
compensation?
20. By what time in te rv a l w ill th e average c la s s
s i z e be le s s than 20 stu d en ts?

1

Round
2

3

.286

.121

.231

.500

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

.286

.029

.069

1.000

1.000

1.000

.671

.286

.451

Round 3
Null Hypothesis
Accepted Rejected

x

m

o
-E-

Tabl e E . l . —Continued.

S lg n if . Level 0.05

Round 3

Level
2

3

Null Hypothesis
Accepted Rejected

1.000

1.000

1.000

.671

.500

.392

Fringe B en efit Development

21. In what time in te rv a l w ill I t become common­
p la c e f o r school d i s t r i c t s to o f f e r bonuses
to h i r e o u tsta n d in g te a c h e r cand idates?
22. By what time in te rv a l w ill fe d e ra l funds
reach a 15$ pro p o rtio n o f th e t o t a l ta x
d o l l a r s received by Michigan school d i s ­
t r i c t s (p resen t level is approxim ately 7$)?
23. By what time in te rv a l w ill in - s e r v ic e
tr a i n i n g o f te a c h e rs become a n e c e s s ity
because o f computers, T .V ., and new
teaching technologies?
2k. By what time in te rv a l w ill th e r e be a 50$
in c re ase in personnel a d m in is tra to rs whose
primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w ill be to work w ith
employee b e n e f its and o th e r r e la te d personnel
fu n c tio n s in the p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s of
Michigan?
25. By what time in te rv a l w ill boards o f edu­
c a tio n in a region o r are a u n ite to g e th e r
to review n e g o tia te d local agreements
f o r a c c e p ta b i1i ty?

ro

,157

.127

.700

,5k3

.671

.500

,500

.500

.635

o
v/i

Table E . l . —Continued.

S i g n i f ., Level 0.05
Fringe B en e fit Development

26. By what time in te rv a l w ill th e Michigan
P u blic School Employees Retirement System
have a b u i l t - i n c o s t - o f - l i v i n g f a c t o r in
the re tire m e n t allowance?
27. By what time in te rv a l w ill th e IRS ta x f r in g e
b e n e f its received by te a c h e rs as ta x a b le income?

29. By what time in te rv a l w ill Michigan go to a
year-round school w ith te a c h e rs working on a
stagg ered b a sis?
30. By what time in te rv a l w ill h e a lth maintenance
o rg a n iz a tio n s re p la c e th e p re s e n t medical and
h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n plans?

1

Round
2

3

.5^9

M\

.157

X

.365

.608

Mo

X

1.000

1.000

1.000

X

1.000

1.000

1.000

X

.157

.671

X

.500

Null Hypothesis
Accepted Rejected

206

28. By what time in te rv a l w ill Michigan p u b lic
school employers and employees g e t ou t o f th e
Social S e c u rity (FICA) program and i n s t i t u t e
an a l t e r n a t e program?

Round 3

APPENDIX F
SUMMARY OF FRINGE BENEFITS:
MEDIAN, RANGE, AND CONSENSUS

207

Table F. I . — F rin g e b e n e f i t s :

summary o f t h r e e rounds f o r median, ra n g e , and c o n se n s u s.

Fringe Benefit

Median Time Interval

Semi-lnterquartile Range

Consensus

Round 1 Round 2

Round 3

1980-8') 1980-84

1985-89

1980-89

1980-89

1980-89

N

47.4*

1985-89

1985-89

1985-89

1985-89

1985-89

1985-89

Y

57.9%

3. Paid overtime for hours worked beyond
contracted school day at a negotiated rate.

1990-91) 1995-99

1995-99

1990-2000+

1990-2000+

1990-99

N

21 .1*

<1. Paid dental insurance.

1980-81)

1980-84

1980-84

1980-89

1980-89

1980-94

Y

68.4*

5. Paid vision care.

1985-89

1985-89

1985-89

1980-89

1980-89

1980-89

Y

57.9%

6. Paid hearing care.

1990-9!) 1990-94

1995-99

1985-2000+

1990-99

1990-99

N

31.6%

7. Full tuition reimbursement.

1990-9!) 1995-99

1995-99

1985-2000+

1990-2000+

1990-2000+

N

26.3%

8 . Teacher effectiveness pay (i.e., merit
pay, performance bonuses).

Never

Never

Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

Y

63.2%

9. Hospitalization insurance with pre­
scription rider.

1980-84

1980-84

1980-84

1980-84

1980-84

1980-84

Y

68.4%

10. Survivor income insurance with a minimum
of $200 a month/spouse and $100 a month/
chi Id.

1990-94

1990-94

1995-99

1985-99

1990-2000+

1990-99

N

3 6 .8*

11. Cost-of-living allowances (COLA).

1985-89

1985-89

1990-94

1985-94

1985-99

1985-99

N

15.8%

12. Unlimited sick leave accumulation.

1985-89

1985-89

1985-89

1980-94

1985-94

1985-94

N

3 6 .8*

13. Full pay for unused sick leave at
retirement based on final pay rate.

2000+

1995-99

1995-99

1985-2000+

1985-Never

1985-99

N

10.5%

1*. Continuation of fringe benefits
coverage for retirees.

2000+

1995-99

1995-99

1985-2000+

1990-2000+

1990-2000+

N

26.5%

2000+

2000+

2000+

1985-2000+

1990-Never

1990-Never

N

31.6%

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Round 3

1. Term life insurance up to full amount

of salary or higher.
2 . Accidental death and dismemberment
(ADSD) insurance up to full amount
of salary or higher.

15. Sabbatical leaves with full pay at
least every seven years for approved
reasons.

Table F . l . —Continued.

Fringe Benefit

Median Time Interval
Round 1 Round 2

Round 3

Semi-Interquartile Range
Round 1

Round 2

Consensus
Round 3

Round 3

16. Paid leaves of shorter duration
than sabbatical leaves.

1985-89

1985-89

1985-89

1980-99

1985-99

1985-94

V

57.91

17. Short-term disabi1ity insurance.

1985-89

1985-89

1985-89

1980-94

1985-94

1985-89

Y

63.2%

18. Long-term disability insurance.

1980-84

1980-84

1980-84

1980-89

1980-89

1980-89

V

57.9%

19. School-district-financed physical
examination a minimum of every two
years.

1990-9*1

1990-94

1990-94

1985-99

1985-99

1990-99

N 42.1%

20. Travel accident insurance program
for job-related travel.

1985-89

1985-89

1980-94

1980-94

1980-94

N

31.6%

Never

Never

Never

1995-Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

Y

68.4%

22. Additional medical options to cover
ln-hospital benefits, weekly
indemnity, etc.

1990-94

1990-94

1990-94

1985-99

1985-99

1985-99

N

36.8%

23. A minimum of two personal holidays to
be used during the school year (i.e.,
birthdays, anniversaries).

1985-89

1985-89

1985-89

1985-94

1985-94

1985-94

N

47.4%

1990-9*1

1985-89

1985-89

1985-94

1985-94

1985-94

N 47.4%

25. A retirement incentive plan that would
pay the teacher one-half of the differ­
ence between the B.A. minimum and what
they could be earning for every year
from age 55 up to a negotiated year.

1995-99

1995-99

1995-99

1985-2000+

1990-2000+

1990-2000+

N

31.6%

26. A prepaid legal plan that would allow
advisory service, legal counseling,
investment planning, etc.

1990-9*»

1990-94

1990-94

1985-94

1985-94

1985-94

N

47.4%

27. Cancer insurance plan.

Never

Never

Never

Never

Never

Never

Y

84.2%

2 8 . Dependent life insurance with a minimum
of $1,000 per dependent.

1985-89

1985-89

1985-89

1985-99

1985-99

1985-94

Y

63.2%

1985-89

1985-89

1985-89

1980-94

1980-94

1980-94

N 42.1%

24. Retirement incentive plans where a
teacher may be compensated a minimum of
one year’s salary for early retirement
at age 55*

29. A minimum of two personal leave days per
year that can be used without any reason
given and fully compensated.

209

1990-94

21. Vacation time allotments based on
years of service to be taken during
the regular school year.

Table F. I .--Continued.

Fringe Benefit

Median Time Interval

Semi-Interquartile Range

Consensus

Round 1 Round 2

Round 3

Round 1

30. Longevity pay (the top consecutive pay
step) of at least It of B.A. base for
each year beyond top step of nego­
tiated salary schedule.

1995-99

1995-99

1995-99

1985-2000+

1985-99

1990-2000+

N

31.6$

31. A minimum of $IOO/year for membership to
nonunion education associations paid for
by the school district.

2000+

2000+

2000+

1995-Never

1995-Never

2000+-Never

N

36.8$

Round 2

Round 3

Round 3

1995-99

1995-99

1995-99

1990-2000+

1990-2000+

1990-2000+

N

15.8$

33. Auto insurance.

1995-99

2000+

2000+

1990-2000+

1990-2000+

1995-2000+

N

47.4$

3*. Liability insurance; damage to personal
property, clothing, etc.

1985-89

1985-89

1990-94

1980-94

1980-94

1985-94

N

47.4$

35. Guaranteed professional conference leave
with expenses paid.

1990-94

1990-94

1990-94

1985-99

1990-99

1990-99

N

47.4$

36. Lease cars for teachers who travel
between buildings.

73.7$

Never

Never

Never

2000+-Ne'ver

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

Y

37. Fringe benefit and salary continuation
after death of employee for a negotiated
period of time.

2000+

2000+

2000+

1990-Never

1990-Never

1995-Never

N 26.3$

38. Home insurance.

Never

Never

Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

2000t-Never

Y

68.4$

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

Y

73.7$

39. Home mortgage insurance.

Never

Never

Never

2000+-Never

40. Paid counseling services for lald-off
teachers to assist them in acquiring
other employment.

1990-94

1990-94

1990-94

1985-94

1985-94

1985-94

N

31.6$

1990-94

1990-94

1990-94

1985-94

1990-99

1990-99

Y

63.2$

1985-89

1985-89

1985-89

1985-99

1985-94

1985-94

N

47.4$

1985-99

1985-99

1990-94

1985-99

1985-99

1985-99

N

26.3$

1985-89

1990-94

1990-94

1985-94

1985-94

1985-94

N 47.4$

41. Option to receive money in lieu of fringe
benefits in the event of double coverage
42. Sick leave bank that continues 100$ pay
and fringe benefits from the time personal
leave Is used up until the teacher quali­
fies for long-term disability.
43. Retirement pay of a minimum of $100 for
each year of service in the school district.
44. Guarantee that the board will pay for any
property damage incurred by a teacher
when on legitimate school business.

210

32. A tax-sheltered annuity plan up to 5t of
annual income paid by the school district.

APPENDIX G
SUMMARY OF FRINGE BENEFIT DEVELOPMENTS:
MEDIAN, RANGE, AND CONSENSUS

211

Table G . l . —Fringe ben efit developments:

summary of th ree rounds for median, range, and consensus.

Fringe Benefit Development

1. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports
that fringe benefits for all employees
reached 38.7% of payroll in 1977. In
your opinion, In what time interval
will fringe benefits for Michigan public
school teachers average 50% of payroll?
2. In what year will the median family
income (in 1980 dollars) reach twice
its present amount?
3- Vlhen will the median teachers' salary
reach twice its present amount?

Median Time Interval

Semi-Interquartile Range
Round 2

Round 3

Consensus

Round 1 Round 2

Round 3

Round 1

1990-94

1990-94

1995-99

1985-2000+

1985-2000+

1990-2000+

N

18.8%

1990-94

1990-94

1990-94

1985-99

1990-94

1990-94

Y

56.3%

Round 3

1990-94

1990-94

1990-94

1985-94

1990-94

1990-94

Y

68.8%

4. By what year wi11 50% or more of the
local EAs belong to a regional bar­
gaining unit?

1980-84

1980-84

1985-89

1980-89

1980-89

1980-89

N

37.5%

5. By what year will 50% or more of the
Michigan public school districts' boards
of education unite into a multipledistrict bargaining unit?

1990-94

1990-94

1990-94

1990-99

1990-99

1990-99

N

37.5%

6. By what year will teachers belong to one
statewide bargaining unit that will deter­
mine statewide teachers' salaries and
fringe benefits (with possible cost-ofliving indexes for different areas of
the state)?

1995-99

1995-99

2000+

1990-2000+

1995-2000+

1995-2000+

N

43.8%

7. In what year will teachers have their
salaries and fringe benefits negotiated by
a federal bargaining unit (with a cost-ofliving index for different areas of the
United States)?

Never

Never

Never

Never

Never

Never

Y

75.0%

8. By what time interval will teachers be
able to select an individually tailored
(cafeteria-style) fringe benefit package
from a designated number of dollars in
their school district?

1985-89

1990-94

1990-94

1985-94

1985-94

1985-94

N

43.8%

1990-94

1990-94

1990-94

1985-99

1990-2000+

1985-99

N

18.8%

9. In what year will 50% or more of the
school districts self-insure some fringe
benefits such as long-term disability
or life insurance?

Table G . l . —Continued.
Median Time Interval
Fringe Benefit Development

Round 1 Round 2

Round 3

1995-99

1995-99

1985-89

12. By what year will 50% or more of the
Michigan school districts permit teachers
to trade fringe benefits for cash in
hand if they desire?

Semi-Interquartile Range

Consensus

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

2000+

1985-2000+

1990-2000+

1990-2000+

N

25.0%

1985-89

1985-89

1985-2000+

1980-94

1985-94

N

43.8%

1990-94

1995-99

1995-99

1990-2000+

1990-2000+

1990-2000+

N

18.8%

13. In what time interval will Michigan public
school teachers have optional retirement
after 30 years of service with full fringe
benefits that are offered by the local
school district?

1990-94

1995-99

1995-99

1990-2000+

1990-2000+

1990-2000+

N

18.8%

14. In what time interval will Michigan schools
operate less than 1BO instructional days?

Never

Never

Never

1985-Never

1990-Never

1995-Never

Y

56.3%

15. In what time interval will Michigan schools
operate on a four-day week and still main­
tain a minimum l&O-day school year?

2000+

2000+

2000+

1995-Never

1990-Never

1995*2000+

N

37.5%

16. By what time interval will Michigan teach­
ers have a shortened workday permitting
teachers to work only when they have
specific teaching assignments?

2000+

Never

Never

1995-Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

Y

62.5%

17. In what time interval will the nontenure
teachers' probationary period be reduced
to one year?

Never

Never

Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

Y

68.8%

18. In what time interval will teachers'
salaries, including costs for fringe bene­
fits, be tied to a valid index of economic
growth such as a consumer price index (CPI)?

2000+

2000+

2000+

2000+-Never

1990-2000+

2000+

Y

56.3%

19. By what time interval will performance con­
tracting with teachers become an accept­
able method for receiving additional
compensation?

Never

Never

Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

Y

62.5%

10. In what year will 501 or more of the
Michigan school districts unite together
to self-insure some fringe benefits such
as long-termdisabilityor life insurance?
II. In what year will 50% or more of the
Michigan school districts pay all of the
teacher's fringe benefit costs with no
contributory costs made by teachers?

Round 3

Table G . l . —Continued.
Median Time Interval
Fringe Benefit Development
20. By what time interval will the average
class size be less than 20 students?

Round 1 Round 2

Round 3

Semi-Interquartile Range

Consensus

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Round 3

2000+

2000+

2000+

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

Y

50.0%

21. In what time interval will it become com­
monplace for school districts to offer bonuses
to hi re outstanding teacher candidates?

Never

Never

Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

V

56.3%

22. By what time interval will federal funds
reach a 15% proportion of the total tax
dollars received by Michigan school dis­
tricts (present level is approximately 71)7

1990-9*1

1990-94

1995-99

1985-2000+

1990-99

1990-99

N

31.3%

23. By what time Interval wi 11 in-service training
of teachers become a necessity because of
computers, T.V., and new teaching technologies?

1980-8*1

1980-84

1985-89

1980-89

1980-89

1980-89

N 43.8%

2*1. By what time interval will there be a 50%
increase In personnel administrators whose
primary responsibil ities wil 1 be to work with
employee benefits and other related person­
nel functions in the public school districts
of Michigan?

1990-96

1990-94

1990-94

1990-99

1990-Never

1990-99

N

37.5%

25. By what time interval will boards of education
in a region or area unite together to review
negotiated local agreements for acceptability?

1980-8*1

1980-84

1985-89

1980-94

1980-94

1980-94

N

37.5%

26. By what time interval wi 11 the Michigan Publ ic
School Employees' Retirement System have a
bui It-in cost-of-1 iving factor in the
retirement allowance?

1985-89

1985-89

1985-89

1985-94

1985-94

1985-94

N

43.8%

27. By what time interval will the IRS tax fringe
benefits received by teachers as taxable
income?

1990-9*1

1990-94

1990-94

1985-99

1985-94

1985-94

y 50.0%

28. By what time interval wil 1 Michigan publ ic
school employers and employees get out of the
Social Security (FICA) program and institute
an alternate program?

Never

Never

Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

Y

62.5%

29. By what time interval will Michigan go to a
year-round school with teachers working on a
staggered basis?

Never

Never

Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

2000+-Never

Y

56.3%

30. By what time interval wil 1 heal thmaintenance
organizations replace the present medical
and hospitalization plans?

1990-9*1

1990-94

1995-99

1985-Never

1985-Never

1990-2000+

N

12.5%

APPENDIX H

SUMMARY OF FRINGE BENEFIT DEVELOPMENTS:
COMPOSITE

215

216

SUMMARY OF FRINGE BENEFIT DEVELOPMENTS:
A.

COMPOSITE

Local and Regional F rin g e B e n e f it Developments

By what y e a r w i l l 50% fir more o f t h e lo c a l EAs b e l ong t o fi r e g io n a l
b a rg a in in g u n i t l i t e m 4JL?
P ro bab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1985-89
1980-89

D e s1 ra b ll1 ty
Composite:
Comparison:

N eu tral
G re a t disag reem ent

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

MEA
Local boards

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— I s o l a t e d d i s t r i c t s o u t s t a t e w i l l n o t a c c e p t o r w i l l w ithdraw from
t h e re g io n a l u n i t s . Local re s o u rc e s d i f f e r and boards w i l l
refu se t o lo se Id e n tity ( I ) .
— T his co n ce p t 1s l o s i n g ground.
1980 ( I I ) .

This was t r u e 1n 1979 a s w e ll as

— There w i l l be a c o n s o l i d a t i o n I n t o l a r g e r d i s t r i c t s and th e y w i l l
be j e a l o u s o f t h e i r i d e n t i t y ( I I ) .
—T h is 1s a new c o n c e p t . . .change o c c u rs slow ly ( I I ) .
— I d o n 't b e l i e v e o n e - h a l f o f t h e d i s t r i c t s w i l l have r e g i o n a l i z e d
b a rg a in in g by 1990 ( I I I ) .
- - T h i s 1s a lre a d y t r u e 1 f mere d e f i n i t i o n s a r e used ( I I I ) .
— The p r e s e n t s t r u c t u r e has n o t produced and has c r e a te d some
b ack lash o f p u b lic s e n tim e n t ( I I I ) .

217
I n what y e a r w i n 50% o r more n f t h e Michigan school . d i s t r i c t s pay
d l l £ f ±hs te a c h e rs 1 frin g e b e n e fit r e s t s w ith nc co n trib u to ry r o s t s
made by t e a c h e r s l i t e m I D ?
P ro b ab le d a te o f a cc e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1985-89
1985-94

D e sirab ility
Composite:
Comparison:

N eutral
Very g r e a t disag reem en t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most In f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

LEA
Local boards

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— We a r e In a p o s tu r e o f expanding b e n e f i t s ( I ) .
— G e n e ra lly "phase 1n" th o s e as co-pa1d f o r a w h ile ( I ) .
— I f e e l t h e r e should alw ays be some employee c o n tr ib u tio n s *
o th e r w is e In c re a s e d c o s t s have no meaning f o r them ( I I ) .
— " A ll" I s to o I n c l u s i v e ( I I ) .
— " A ll" o f " a l l " f r i n g e b e n e f i t s w ill n ev er happen ( I I ) .
— I s u s p e c t t h i s 1s t r u e now ( I I ) .
— T h is w i l l n o t occu r u n t i l a f t e r t e a c h e r s have an a c c e p ta b le
f r i n g e b e n e f i t package ( I I ) .
— MERC# a r b i t r a t i o n # c o u r t r u l i n g s encourage t h e employee t o pay a
" l i t t l e " f o r c a r r i e r pu rp oses ( I I ) .
— The p r i o r i t y w ill c o n tin u e t o be s a l a r y Improvement ( I I I ) .
— The B o a r d 's p o s i t i o n 1s b e t t e r c o s t c o n ta in m e n t.. . .T e a c h e r pays
p a r t of b e n e fit ( I I I ) .
— We a r e s e e in g t h i s 1n seme c o n t r a c t s 1n r e c e n t y e a r s ( I I I ) .

218

By what ti m e I n t e r v a l w i l l I n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g o f t e a c h e r s .become a
n e c e s s i t y because £ f computers* T.V., end new te a c h in g techno1Pa1.es
(Item 2 3 ) ?
P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1985-89
1985-89

D e sira b ility
Composite:
Comparison:

Medium d e s i r a b i l i t y
No d isag ree m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

Local boards
Local boards

P a n e l i s t s 1 feedback (Round)
— I s n ' t 1 t now ( I ) ?
— I changed my mind ( I I ) .
— We need more o f t h i s ( I I ) .
— I t ' s a n e c e s s i t y now b u t 1 t 1s n o t r e q u ir e d ( I I ) .
— Such a tim e 1s a lr e a d y upon us ( I I ) .
— I n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g h a s always been a n e c e s s i t y ( I I ) .
— I w i l l r e v i s e my e s t i m a t e downward h e r e ( I I ) .
— I t 1s a lr e a d y upon u s . We need 1 t now b u t c o s t s w o n 't allow us
1n t h e n e x t te n y e a r s ( I I I ) .
- - I t 1s a n e c e s s i t y n o w .. .t e a c h e r s d o n ' t want 1t» Boards
a f f o r d 1 t and a r e unaware o f t h e need.

c a n 't

fiy what t i m e 1n t e r v a l w i l l boards o f e d u c a tio n I n .a region AC a re a
u n i t e t o g e t h e r to rev.lew u s g o l i a l e d lo c a l agreem ents lor a c c e p t a b i l i t y
(Item 2 5 ) ?
P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1985-89
1980-94

219

D esirability

Composite:
Comparison:

N eutral
No d isag ree m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

Local boards
MEA

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— The o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e lo o s e bu t do e x i s t ( I ) .
— T h is c o n ce p t 1s n o t b e ing a c c e p te d o r used s u c c e s s f u l l y now ( I I ) .
— R e p r e s e n ta ti v e s o f b o ard s a r e doing t h i s n o w ...b u t review does
n o t y e t mean having t h e r i g h t t o a c c e p t o r r e j e c t ( I I ) .
— As b oard s f i g h t re g io n a l b a r g a in in g , th e y w i l l be fo rc e d o u t
of t h i s ( I I ) .
— Local autonomy ( I I ) .
— Boards d o n 't o r g a n iz e t h a t e f f i c i e n t l y ( I I ) .
— T his could be h ig h ly d e s i r a b l e o r h ig h ly u n d e s ir a b le — depends
on a t t i t u d e ( I I ) .
— Boards w o n 't do t h i s . . . n e g o t i a t o r s a lr e a d y do.
w i l l j e a l o u s l y guard t h e i r autonomy ( I I I ) .

Local boards

fiy what t i m e I n t e r v a l w i l l teachers he able to . s e l e c t a n
I n d i v i d u a l l y t a i l o r e d ( c a f e t e r l a - s t y l e ) f r i n g e .benefit package from
a d e s ig n a te d number. e£ .dollars in th e ir school d is tr ic t (Item fil?
P ro b a b le d a t e o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1990-94
1985-94

D e s 1 ra b ll1 ty
Composite:
Comparison:

N eutral
No d isag ree m e n t

220
Organizational fa c to rs

Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

LEA
Local boards

P a n e l i s t s 1 feedback (Round)
— No comments ( I ) .
— I do n o t b e lie v e t h a t d o l l a r s w i l l be s p e n t l i k e t h i s ( I I ) .
— Equal cov erag e does n o t mean equal d o l l a r s ( I I ) .
— Proposal makes s e n s e ( I I ) .
— Use money on b a s i s o f needl ( I I )
— W111 d e s tr o y t h e p r i n c i p l e o f Insurance* which depends on
chance ( I I ) .
— I s u s p e c t t h a t such an approach would e v e n t u a l l y c a u s e b e n e f i t s
t o be ta x e d ( I I ) .
— Because o f f e a r o f l o s i n g t a x ad v an ta g e s p lu s B oard’ s "B1g
B ro th e r" a t t i t u d e ( I I ) .
— O ptions packages In c e r t a i n d i s t r i c t s ( I I ) .
— The way o f t h e f u t u r e ( I I ) .
— The b i g g e s t f e a r 1s l o s s o f t a x ad vantage ( I I I ) .

In w hat y e a r w i l l £02 o r more o f the school .d istricts s e l f - i n s u r e
some f r i n g e b e n e f i t s such .as lo n g -te rm d i s a b i l i t y o r l i f e In s u ra n c e
(Ite m £1?
P ro b a b le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1990-94
1985-99

D e sirab ility
Composite:
Comparison:

N eutral
Minor disag ree m e n t

221
Organizational fa c to rs

Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

Local boards
MEA

P a n e l i s t s * feedback (Round)
— S e l f - I n s u r a n c e needs a t l e a s t a group o f 200 o r more t o s u s t a i n
a program ( I ) .
— Do 50% o f t h e d i s t r i c t s have 200 o r more te a c h e r s 1n them ( I ) ?
— Could d i s t r i c t s combine f o r s e lf - 1 n s u r a n c e ( I ) ?
— T his c u t s a l o t o f bucks and as they add plans* they a r e le a r n in g
th is (I).
— Some l a r g e r d i s t r i c t s a lre a d y a r e ( I ) .
— Some c o s t s a v in g s can r e s u l t ( I I ) .
— There a r e o ver 500 d i s t r i c t s 1n Michigan where t h e coverage has
l e s s th a n 250 t o t a l employees and going down ( I I ) .
— You c an n o t s e l f - 1 n s u r e w ith t h e s e numbers ( I I ) .
— A poor Id e a f o r small d i s t r i c t s .

OK f o r big ones ( I I ) .

— I s e e p i t f a l l s f o r s e lf - 1 n s u r a n c e ( I I ) .
— Could c a u s e I n f e r i o r programs t o m a t e r i a l i z e ( I I ) .
— P o t e n t i a l f o r c a t a s t r o p h i c c o s t 1s to o r is k y f o r school
d i s t r i c t . . . A l s o * r e q u ir e d r e s e r v e would be t o o g r e a t ( I I ) .
— S e lf - I n s u r a n c e w i l l be combined w ith h i g h - r i s k In s u ra n c e ( I I I ) .
— As t h e money sq ueeze c o n tin u e s t h i s o f f e r s some hope o f r e l i e f
(III).
— T his 1s a o n e -tim e cash flow advantage by e l i m i n a t i n g r e s e r v e s
(III).
— T his I s beginning t o occur more f r e q u e n t l y a lr e a d y ( I I I ) .
— Many a r e a lre a d y doing t h i s . . . I t ' s a must ( I I I ) .
— The f i n a n c i a l crunch w ill f o r c e s e l f - 1 n s u r a n c e ( I I I ) .

222

JSy what y e a r w i n 5fl& jar more M ±£l§ Michigan school d i s t r i c t s .pexmlt
t e a c h e r s ±o .trade IJriAflfl b e n e f i t s la c cash i n hand I f they desire litem
12 ) ?

P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Ra nge:

1995-99
1990-2000+

D e sirab ility
Composite:
Comparison:

Low u n d e s i r a b i l i t y
Minor d isag ree m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

LEA
Local boards

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
- - T h i s d e s tr o y s t h e Id ea o f In su ra n c e ( I ) .
— In s u ra n c e s p re a d s t h e r i s k ( I ) .
— I f only peo ple who use 1 t ta k e 1t» t h e c o s t would be p r o h i b i ­
t i v e . ..IR S t a x a b i l i t y would be a problem ( I ) .
— Option packages more l i k e l y ( I ) .
— D estro y s t r u e In s u ra n c e coverage ( I I ) .
— T h is goes a g a i n s t In s u ra n c e p r i n c i p l e s — chance ( I I ) .
— T h is has p ro s and cons ( I I ) .
— Too c o s t l y ( I I ) .
— P r o t e c t i o n I s more Im p o rta n t 1n my e s ti m a ti o n th a n money 1n
t h e pocket ( I I ) .
— Runs a g a i n s t h i s t o r i c a l argument w ith Board and IRS— f r i n g e s
a r e n 't tax ab le s a la ry ( I I ) .
— The c o s t o f equal d o l l a r s f o r each t e a c h e r I s p r o h i b i t i v e l y
ex p en siv e ( I I I ) .
— I hope n e v e r . . . o n l y s i c k people w i l l ta k e In su ra n c e and c o s t s
would s k y ro c k e t ( I I I ) .

223

By what tim e 1n te r v a l w i l l h e a l t h m ain ten ance o r g a n i z a t i o n s .re p la ce ± h s
pr.es.ejit medical a n d h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n p la n s l i t e m 101?
P ro b a b le d a te o f a cc e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1995-99
1990-2000+

D e sira b ility
Composite:
Comparison:

N eu tral
Minor d isag ree m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

Local boards
MEA

I n .wh.at v e a r j t l l l SOI n r more n f t h e Mi chi g an school d i s t r i c t s u n i t e
t o g e t h e r J& s e l f - 1 n s u r e some f r i n g e t s n e f l t s such a s .l o ngr-term
d i s a b i l i t y n r l i f e In s u ra n c e ( Item 1B1?
P ro b a b le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

2000+
1990-2000+

D e s 1 r a b llI ty
Composite:
Comparison:

N eutral
No d isag ree m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

Local boards
MEA

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— T h is would have t o be done by an o u t s i d e p a rty o r a g e n t ( I ) .
— C ost us ( I ) .
— Risk 1s t h e key ( I ) .
— T h is could prove t o be a s a v in g s t o school d i s t r i c t s depending
on e x p e r ie n c e f a c t o r ( I I ) .

22k
— Sounds l i k e an In s u ra n c e co-op and I d o n 't s e e t h i s as
p ro b a b le ( I I ) .
— W orker's comp. 1s a l i k e l y p ro s p e c t on a re g io n a l b a s i s ( I I I ) .
— I t may be n e c e ssa ry t o e s t a b l i s h groups l a r g e enough t o be
r a te d ( I I I ) .
— Legal problems and autonomy b a r r i e r s w i l l h in d e r t h i s ( I I I ) .

Ill what tim e interval w ill teachers' salaries* Including £fls±£ IfiT
fringe benefits* Jig tie d ±fi a valid Index £ f .economic growth such ££ a
consumer price Index (CPI) .(Item 181?
P ro b ab le d a te o f a cc e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

2000+
2000+

D e sirab ility
Composite:
Comparison:

N eutral
Very g r e a t disagreem ent

O r g a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

MEA
Local boards

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— "Never" f o r com plete s a l a r i e s ( I ) .
— A form ula w ill be used t o d eterm ine a segment of t h e wages* as
I t 1s now ( I ) .
— The c u r r e n t In d ic e s a r e n o t t r u e I n d i c a t o r s ( I ) .
— Done by d i s t r i c t s t o n o t g r a n t s i z a b l e I n c r e a s e s ( I ) .
— T eachers t o I n d i c a t e th e y a r e la g g in g behind ( I ) .
— Need more s t a b i l i t y 1n t h e economy ( I ) .
— As long a s t h e r e a r e un ion s o r even a la b o r p a r ty t h e push w ill
be t o Improve ( I I ) .
—CPI 1s begin nin g t o l o s e I t s c r e d i b i l i t y ; b e s id e s t h i s Id ea 1s
n o t to o r a t i o n a l f o r c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g ( I I ) .

225

— T h is J u s t w o n 't happen w ith a l l t e a c h e r s as t h e q u e s tio n
In d ic a tes ( I I ) .
— " V a lid " 1s a key word ( I I ) .
— CPI 1s c u r r e n t c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r 1n n e g o t i a t i o n s ( I I ) .
— I s e e many c o n t r a c t s a c r o s s t h e s t a t e where s a l a r y and b e n e f i t s
a r e t i e d t o a CPI ( I I I ) .
— I doubt 1 f any t a x p a id employees can e v e r e x p e c t COLA...The
employer d o e s n 't have t h a t much c o n tro l over revenues ( I I I ) .
— CPI ty p e Index I s on t h e way o u t ( I I I ) .
— Need t o p u t l i m i t s t h a t a r e known.. .e x p e r ie n c e s w ith COLA have
n o t always worked o u t ( I I I ) .
— A CPI uncapped w ill n o t be a v a l i d in d ex ( I I I ) .
By what ti m e 1n t e r v a l w i l l perform an ce c o n t r a c t i n g w ith .te a c h e rs become
An a c c e p t a b l e method £f r e c e i v i n g a d d i t i o n a l compensation litem 19? ?
P ro b a b le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median: Never
Range: 2000+-Never
D e sirab ility
Composite:
Comparison:

Low u n d e s i r a b i l i t y
Minor d isag ree m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most In f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

Local boards
MEA

P a n e l i s t s ' feedb ack (Round)
— No way I ( I )
— H a lf t h e s t a f f would be f i r e d , o t h e r h a l f t o o busy competing t o
do t h e i r j o b s ( I ) .
—T his form o f m e r i t pay w i l l be a r e a l i t y 1f re sp o n se c o n tin u e
a s th e y have ( I I ) .

226

— P r o d u c t i v i t y w i l l become a n a tio n a l Is s u e as demanded by a
weakened economy ( I I ) .
— Over s e v e ra l c o l l e c t i v e dead b o d i e s . . .damnable n o tio n ! ( I I )
— Our p r e s e n t K-12 s c h o o lin g p a t t e r n I s going t o change d ra s ­
tic a lly (III).
— Performance c o n t r a c t i n g may happen so on er th a n most people
t h i n k . As t h e p u b lic becomes more vocal* a c c o u n t a b i l i t y w ill
be s t r e s s e d ( I I I ) .
Ey wtiat t i m e i n t e r v a l W.1.1J i h e average class s1z.e J2£ l ess than 20.
s t u d e n t s (Item 2121?
P ro b a b le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

2000+
2000+-Never

D e sira b ility
Composite:
Comparison:

Median d e s i r a b i l i t y
Minor d isag reem en t

O r g a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

LEA
Local boards

P a n e l i s t s * feedback (Round)
— The s t r u c t u r e o f t e a c h in g would have t o change ( I ) .
— To a s s u r e a l l ( s a l a r y ) I n c r e a s e s and f r in g e s * c l a s s s i z e has
t o be s a c r i f i c e d ( I ) .
— With d e c l i n i n g e n r o llm e n ts c l a s s s i z e s w i l l edge downward ( I I ) .
— With f e d e r a l f i n a n c i n g o f an a p p r e c ia b le amount ( I I ) .
--T o o e x p e n siv e f o r t h i s ( I I ) .
— No one I s a g a i n s t sm all c l a s s s i z e s I f I t can be a f f o r d e d ( I I I ) .

227

— R e s u lts su p p o rte d by r e s e a r c h v s . c o s t w ill have t o be shown 1n
o r d e r f o r t h i s t o happen ( I I I ) .
— D e c lin in g e n ro llm e n ts combined w ith s t r i c t l a y o f f p r o v is io n s
may c ause t h i s t o happen ( I I I ) .
In what ti m e I n t e r v a l w i l l I t become commonplace .for school d i s t r i c t s
o f f e r bonuses ± e h i r e o u ts ta n d in g t e a c h e r c a n d id a te s (Item 211?

± 2

P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

Never
2000+-Never

D e sirab ility
Composite:
Low u n d e s i r a b i l i t y
Comparison: Minor d isag ree m e n t
O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

Local boards
MEA

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— T eacher unions w i l l oppose t h i s ( I ) .
— T hat push 1s on and has been f o r coaches e s p e c i a l l y ( I ) .
— Supply and demand a r e o u t o f "sync" ( I ) .
— With an I n c r e a s in g t e a c h e r sho rtag e* t h i s w ill be a r e a l i t y ( I I ) .
— A long s h o t .

We may s e e a t e a c h e r s h o r ta g e a g ain ( I I ) .

— C o n tr a c ts may change 1n t h i s regard* bu t commonplace?
not ( I I ) .

Probably

— Unions c a n ' t allow t h i s ( I I I ) .
— T his may happen so o n er th a n most people t h i n k ( I I I ) .
— T h is o c cu rs now when d i s t r i c t s g iv e c r e d i t f o r a d d itio n a l
e x p e rie n c e ( I I I ) .

228
B.

S t a t e F r in g e B e n e f i t D evelopm ents

£y what tim e 1n t e r v a l w i l l
Michigan P u b li c School Employees
Ret1 rem ent System has a b u i l t - i n c o s t-o f-1 1 v 1 n g factor In the
r e t l r e m e n t allow ance H t s m 2fil?
P ro b ab le d a te o f a cc e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1985-89
1985-94

D e s1 ra b ll1 ty
Composite:
Comparison:

Medium d e s i r a b i l i t y
Minor d isag ree m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

MEA
L e g is la tiv e actio n

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— I b e lie v e t h e magic o f c o s t-o f-1 1 v 1 n g may be d e c l i n i n g 1n
Im portance In t h e n e a r f u t u r e ( I I ) .
— C ost-of-11 v1 ng 1s on t h e way o u t as an a u to m a tic f a c t o r ( I I ) .
I h e i l J u Chamber n £ Commerce jap.or.ts that f r i n g e henS-flts for a l l
employees reached 36.7% o f p a y r o l l I n 1977. I n your .Ofi.1n.lQnt I n Jfchat
tim e i n t e r v a l w i l l f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .fo r Michigan public school .teachers

average 5Q2Ls i nayrol 1 .(Item 11?

P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Ra ng e :

1995-99
1990-2000+

D e s1 ra b ll1 ty
Composite:
Comparison:

N eutral
Minor d isag ree m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

LEA* MEA
Local boards

229

P a n e l i s t s 1 feedback (Round)
— I n f l a t i o n 1s a big f a c t o r ( I ) .
— P h ilo s o p h ic a lly * u n io n s have t o show money gain ed a l s o ( I I ) .
— I t h in k government w i l l s t a r t t o z e r o In on t a x - f r e e b e n e f i t s .
When more f r i n g e s become ta x a b le * t h e t r e n d w ill c e a s e ( I I ) .
— I b e l i e v e t h i s t r e n d may r e v e r s e 1n term s o f p e r c e n t o f p a y ro ll
(II).
— Teachers may a g ain o p t f o r f r i n g e b e n e f i t s a s I n f l a t i o n re c ed e s
o ver s a l a r y because 1 t comes o f f t h e to p and t h e r e I s no Income
tax ( I I ) .
— T his w o n 't happen u n le s s we become much more o f a s o c i a l i s t
n a tio n ( I I I ) .
—D is a g r e e ...s a la r ie s w ill r is e f a s te r ( I I I ) .
£ y what y e a r w i l l £££ o r more s i ±hfi Michigan p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s '
bo ard s £ f e d u c a tio n u n i t e I n t o a m u l t 1 p l e - d 1 s t r 1 c t b a r g a i n i n g JWl±
(Ite m £1?
P ro b ab le d a t e o f a cc e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1990-94
1990-99

D e sira b ility
Composite:
Comparison:

Low d e s i r a b i l i t y
G re a t d isag ree m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most In f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

MEA
Local boards

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— T h a t 's a f t e r th e y g e t w ise t h a t th e y would have a chance as a
u n ite d f r o n t ( I ) .
—There may n o t be a need t o do t h i s ( I I ) .
— Boards do n o t want t o g iv e up t h e i r lo c a l c o n tr o l ( I I ) .

230

— They (members) c a n ' t even a g r e e among th e m selv e s ( I I ) .
— The t r e n d w i l l r e v e r s e when t h e d is a d v a n ta g e s a r e known ( I I ) .
— Local c o n tr o l w i l l win o u t 1n t h e end ( I I ) .
— Boards a r e a f r a i d t o do 1 t ( I I ) .
— Local c o n tr o l 1s more Im p o rta n t. I d o n ' t b e l i e v e o n e - h a lf of
t h e d i s t r i c t s w i l l work 1n t h i s manner ( I I I ) .
— Boards w i l l r e a c t and ad o p t t h i s p la n as a d e fe n s e 1n b a rg a in ­
in g ( I I I ) .
— Local c o n tr o l 1s one f a c t o r . . . t h e l e g a l i t y w i l l be c h a lle n g e d
(III).
— Boards a r e t o o p r o t e c t i v e o f t h e i r p o l i t i c a l power ( I I I ) .
— T his w ill n o t o ccu r u n l e s s fo r c e d by s t a t e l e g i s l a t i o n . . .
p o l i t i c s w i l l d e la y t h i s I n d e f i n i t e l y ( I I I ) .
— Regional b a r g a in in g 1s l o s i n g I t s charm ( I I I ) .

In what time i n t e r v a l w i n Michi gan p u b lic s.choal teachers lxa.v.e
o p tio n a l r e t i r e m e n t a f t e r 30 y e a r s M s e r v i c e jd.th fu ll I f Inge benefits
t h a t a c s o f f e r e d h y t h s lo c a l school d i s t r i c t litem 131?
P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1995-99
1990-2000+

D e sira b ility
Composite:
Comparison:

Low d e s i r a b i l i t y
Very g r e a t d isag ree m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most In f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

LEA# MEA
Local b oard s

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— B argain w ith l e g i s l a t u r e ( I ) .
— The n e x t o n e - h a l f decade w i l l s e e some re tre n c h m e n t econ om ically
(I).

231

— T his w ill h e lp t o encourage e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t ( I I ) .
—There w ill be a need f o r l e g i s l a t i o n t o do t h i s ( I I ) .
— MEA 1s s tr o n g 1n t h i s a r e a ( I I ) .
— Hopefully# we have le a r n e d from o t h e r governmental u n i t s — l a r g e
c i t i e s —many b e n e f i t s d o n 't make sen se— a l s o double dip p in g
(II).
— The r e t i r e m e n t system c o u l d n 't han dle such a wide v a r i e t y o f
co v erag e s ( I I ) .
—Michigan s c h o o ls w i l l ne v er be a b le t o a f f o r d 1 t ( I I ) .
— Perhaps I'm t o o o p t i m i s t i c # b u t I t h i n k t h e c u r r e n t t h r u s t In
r e t i r e m e n t I n c e n t i v e s w i l l ground sw ell ( I I ) .
— Many d i s t r i c t s and lo c a l EA's w ill be promoting e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t
p la n s ( I I I ) .
— P aid f r i n g e s w i l l be I n c e n t i v e s t o e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t ( I I I ) .
— Not f u l l b e n e f i t s ( I I I ) .
— Some d i s t r i c t s a r e p r e s e n t l y g iv in g huge lump sum payments which
s e r v e t h e same purpose ( I I I ) .

By what t i m e 1n t e r v a l w i l l .there Be A Sfli I n c r e a s e I d perso n nel
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s whose p rim a ry r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w i l l Be t f i JtfiTk With
employee benefits and o t h e r .re lated p erson nel Jjinctl.pjis In th e pubJ±c
school d i s t r i c t s j t f Michigan .(Item 241?
P ro b a b le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1990-94
1990-99

D e sirab ility
Composite:
Comparison:

Low d e s i r a b i l i t y
Minor d isag ree m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

A d m in is tra to r a s s o c i a t i o n s
Local boards

232

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— I f o r e s e e a p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h i s o c c u r rin g a t t h e In te r m e d ia te
le v e l o r w ith s e v e ra l d i s t r i c t s h i r i n g someone ( I ) .
— I t w o n 't be a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who I n c r e a s e ( I ) .
— Depending on s t u d e n t en ro llm en t» s t a f f i n g p a t t e r n s a n d /o r
co n so lid atio n s ( I ) .
— T h is a r e a has grown more complex— a s c o s t s r i s e so does m otiva­
t i o n t o seek some s a v in g s ( I ) .
— The personnel f u n c tio n w i l l be more and more Im p o rtan t ( I I ) .
— I b e l i e v e 50* 1s j u s t to o high a p r o j e c t i o n ( I I ) .
— The growth w i l l I n s te a d come 1n c l e r i c a l r a te d employees ( I I ) .
— Finances w ill p r o h i b i t t h i s ( I I ) .
— I t I s n ' t going t o happen u n t i l t h e r e 1s a s i g n i f i c a n t expansion
o f t h e f r i n g e b e n e f i t package ( I I ) .
— Budget problems c a u s e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c u t s ( I I ) .
— T h is 1s a reaso n why d i s t r i c t s w ill n o t s e l f - 1 n s u r e ( I I ) .
— Runs a g a i n s t MESSA r e " c a r r i e r " ? ( I I )
— As c o s t problems c o n tin u e t o become more complex I t w ill become
n e c e s sa ry ( I I I ) .
—C o st f a c t o r I s to o high f o r most boards ( I I I ) .

By what y e a r w i l l t e a c h e r s b e lo n g ±q one s t a t e w i d e b a rg a in in g j m l t th a t
■W1.1.1 d e te rm in e s t a t e w i d e te a c h e rs * s a l a r i e s a n d f r i n g e b e n e f i t s (w ith
p o s s i b l e c o s t - o f - l i v l n g Indexes iar. d if f erent areas e f th e state)

(Item £1?

P ro b a b le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

2000+
1995-2000+

D e sira b ility
Composite:
Comparison:

N eu tral
G re a t d isag ree m e n t

233

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s

Group most 1n f a v o r : MEA
Group most opposed: Local boards
P a n e lis ts * feedback (Round)
— The s t a t e c a n n o t respond q u ic k ly enough ( I ) .
— Teachers of urban a r e a s w ill n o t allow t h i s f o r some tim e ( I ) .
— I n t e r n a t i o n a l ty p e o f agreem ents f o r economics ( I ) .
— Working c o n d itio n s * e t c . * s t i l l need t o be done l o c a l l y ( I ) .
— The l a r g e r d i s t r i c t s w i l l never a g re e t o t h i s

(II).

— t h e tim e and e f f o r t o f 560 K-12d i s t r i c t s 1nb a rg a in in g w i l l
f o r c e t h i s e a r l i e r th a n 1995 ( I I ) .
— N e ith e r t h e union o r boards w ill allow t h i s ( I I ) .
— I saw t h i s happen 1n New York S t a t e .

They have s in c e s p l i t ( I I ) .

— T h is w i l l mean s t a t e c o n tr o l o f s c h o o ls ; l o c a l boards w o n 't
allow 1 t ( I I ) .
— Never 1s a long t i m e . . . I changed my mind ( I I I ) .
— T h is would t a k e l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n ( I I I ) .
— A s ta t e w id e s c h e d u le f o r s a l a r i e s and f r i n g e s w i l l come as ta x in g
power s h i f t s and a s l a b o r peace becomes more a t t r a c t i v e ( I I I ) .
— Local u n i t s w i l l be r e l u c t a n t t o g iv e up autonomy ( I I I ) .
— I t h i n k t h i s I s bein g planned n o w . .. t h e tr e n d 1s t o t i g h t e r
s t a t e c o n tr o l ( I I I ) .
— T h ir ty y e a r s 1s to o l o n g . . . I say 14 y e a r s b u t 1 t m ight happen
soo ner w ith t h e s t a t e o f o u r economy ( I I I ) .

234

I n what ti m e I n t e r v a l w i l l M ichigan s c h o o ls o p e r a te l e s s th a n 180
I n s t r u c t i o n a l .days litem M l?
P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

Never
1995-Never

D e sirab ility
Composite:
Comparison:

Low u n d e s i r a b i l i t y
No d isag ree m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

LEA
Local board s and S t a t e Board

P a n e l i s t s ' feed back (Round)
— Never 1s a long tim e ( I ) .
— I do n o t s e e a r e d u c tio n a t t h i s tim e ( I I ) .
— P a r e n ts d o n ' t t h i n k k id s a r e 1n school enough now ( I ) .
— Can d o l l a r s f o r s a l a r y and f r i n g e s be j u s t i f i e d 1f s h o r t e r
school y e a r ( I ) .
— R 1 g h t- to - s tr 1 k e l e g i s l a t i o n w i l l p e rm it t h i s ( I I ) .
— There a r e a l t e r n a t i v e s .
them ( I I ) .

Perhaps we w ill be f o r c e d t o e x p lo r e

— T h is w i l l be an a r e a o f movement when money I s n ' t ( I I ) .
— Will pro bab ly happen so o n er th a n p r e d ic te d w ith t r e n d t o f o u r day week— m a in ta in h ou rs ( I I ) .
- F o u r - d a y week due t o energy c o s t ( I I ) .
— T h is one 1s now open t o q u e s t i o n . . . I would change my answer t o
t o 1990-94 ( I I ) .
— R igh t n o w . . . r 1 g h t - t o - s t r 1 k e l e g i s l a t i o n a llo w s t h i s ( I I I ) .

235

I n what Jtlmfi 1nterval Mill Michigan s c h o o ls operate a n a .four-day weak
And still maintain A minimum 180-dav school y e a r (Item 151?
P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

2000+
1995-2000+

D esirab ility
Composite:
Comparison:

N eu tral
No d isag ree m e n t

O r g a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

Local
S ta te

b o ard s and LEA
board

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
—T h is 1s p o s s i b l e in l i g h t o f t h e energy problem ( I ) .
— I f we go t o a fo u r-d a y week, I do n o t b e l i e v e t e a c h e r s w ill work
t h e a d d i t i o n a l weeks ( I I ) .
— T h is may

be an answer f o r more I n - s e r v i c e a n d /o r management ( I I ) .

— Not u n le s s t h e p a r e n ts go

on a fo u r-d a y week( I I ) .

— T h is would mandate y e a r-ro u n d s c h o o ls ; I t j u s t I s n ' t going t o
happen ( I I ) .
— Some w i l l do t h i s ; n o t a l l ( I I ) .
— Depends on f u e l / t y p e s o f w i n t e r s ( I I ) .
— They have been doing t h i s 1n New Mexico J u s t r e c e n t l y and e l s e ­
where, s u c c e s s f u l l y ( I I ) .
— I n - s e r v i c e s and a f u l l work y e a r w i l l move t h i s id e a ahead
(III).

By .what ±.1me In terv al W ill Michigan t e a c h e r s have a s h o rte n e d work .day
permitting .teachers IQ work only when th e y have s p e c i f i c te a c h in g
assignments lllem 1£1?
P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Med1an:
Range:

Never
2000+-Never

236

D e sira b ility

Composite:
Comparison:

N eu tral
G re a t d isa g re e m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

LEA
Local b o ard s

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— Only 1f t h e jo b m a rk e t g e t s even more d r a s t i c ( I ) .
— Why not?

I t 1s done a t t h e c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y le v e l

(II).

— T his could be a p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t y ( I I ) .
— I f s c h o o ls a r e t o m a in ta in p u b lic support* t e a c h e r s need t o
Involved 1n more th a n j u s t c l a s s e s ( I I ) .

be

— My answer was and 1s based on t e a c h e r s s e e k in g p a r t - t i m e o r
sh a re d classro o m a ssig n m e n ts ( I I ) .
— I b e l i e v e t h i s 1s 1n t h e Immediate f u t u r e and 1s bein g done
r i g h t now In some d i s t r i c t s by sh ared assignm ents* e t c . ( I I I ) .
— P o s s ib ly 1n H e u o f added com pensation when t h e money runs dry
(III).

In JuAat .time IflJaaml W ill ±ilfi JK>Jlt9I),U.r.9 t e a c h e r s ' p ro b a tio n a ry p e rio d
Jls reduced Jts £os year ( Item I I I ?
P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Med1an:
Range:

Never
2000+-Never

D esirab ility
Composite:
Comparison:

Low u n d e s i r a b i l i t y
Minor d is a g re e m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

MEA
Local boards

237

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— Too many groups have a v e s te d I n t e r e s t ( I ) .
— With p ro p e r e v a lu a tio n * why should 1 t be so long? ( I I )
— E v a lu a tio n o f s t a f f must be Improved f o r t h i s t o happen ( I I ) .
— Few 1f any p r o f e s s i o n s have p ro b a tio n a ry p e rio d s o f two y e a r s
(III).

By x h a i .time i n t e r v a l w m Michigan jmfcllc school smplgyMs And
employees ££±
jgf ihfi S o c ia l S e c u r ity IfJ.CAl program anh In stitu te
an a l t e r n a t i v e program (Ite m 291?
P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

Never
2000+-Never

D e sira b ility
Composite:
Comparison:

Low u n d e s i r a b i l i t y
Minor d is a g re e m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

L e g isla tu re
MEA and l e g i s l a t u r e

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— Perhaps some o f t h e s e l a r g e school system s ( I ) .
— C u r r e n tly we can double d ip ( I ) .
— T h is c o u ld prove b e n e f i c i a l t o
— Never I s a long tim e .
may well happen ( I I ) .

a l l Inv olved ( I I ) .

Changed my mind on t h i s one— I t h i n k 1 t

— We can do 1 t b e t t e r and r e t a i n more c o n tr o l ( I I ) .
— F r u s t r a t i o n w i l l i n c r e a s e v ery q u ic k ly ( I I ) .
— O ptions t o S o c ia l S e c u r ity w ill c o n tin u e t o be so u g h t ( I I I ) .
— As 1 t a p p e a rs t h a t t h e system w i l l become b a n k ru p t t h e
change w i l l occu r ( I I I ) .

238

— I wonder a b o u t my " n e v e r” answer ( I I I ) .
— There 1s a le v e l o f d i s t r u s t ab o u t our S o c ia l S e c u r ity system
and I t s so lv en c y ( I I I ) .

By w.hat Urns .ln.ter.v.a.1 tf-UI Michigan a s ±fl .a v e a r-ro u n d school w ith
te a c h e r s working £ n a s t a ggered basts l i t e m 292?
P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

Never
2000+-Never

D e sira b ility
Composite:
Comparison:

N eutral
No d isagreem en t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

S t a t e board
Local boards

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— Depends on t h e energy crunch and number o f b u ild in g s t h a t have
been c lo s e d ( I ) .
— Will save money ( I ) .
— P a re n ts have h i s t o r i c a l l y o b je c te d most ( I ) .
— The community r e q u i r e f u l l u t i l i z a t i o n o f b u ild in g s ( I I ) .
— I t has a lr e a d y happened 1n Michigan— w i l l n o t be t h e t r e n d . My
re sp o n se I s based on e x p e r ie n c e w ith school c l o s i n g s and more
e f f i c i e n t u se o f b u ild in g s ( I I ) .
— T h is w i l l f i l l t h e need t o f u l l y u t i l i z e t h e d i s t r i c t ' s
re s o u r c e s ( I I I ) .
— Not s u r e any group r e a l l y s u p p o r ts y e a r-ro u n d school ( I I I ) .
— I t h i n k t h i s s t i l l 1s an approach t o save energy and make more
e f f e c t i v e use o f f a c i l i t i e s ( I I I ) .

239
C.

N a tio n a l F r i n g e B e n e f i t D evelopm ents

in what year will ihe median fa m ily
twice its p r e s e n t amount litem 21?

Income

iln 1980

d o l l a r s ) reach

P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1990-94
1990-94

D esirab ility
Composite:
Comparison:

N eutral
G re a t d isag ree m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

LEA and MEA
Local boards

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— I n f l a t i o n 1s a b ig f a c t o r ( I ) .
— There a r e b a la n c in g f a c t o r s .

Companies move o u t ( I I ) .

— Probably w ish fu l th in k in g # b u t t h e v a lu e o f t h e d o l l a r 1s a t
stak e ( I I ) .
— I f I t ' s I n f l a t i o n # s o what? ( I I )
— I may be o v e rly o p t i m i s t i c 1n s p i t e o f some e c o n o m ists ' p r e d ic ­
t i o n s . I s e e t h e I n f l a t i o n a r y s p i r a l coming t o a s c re e c h in g
h a lt (II).
— Depends upon f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o such an In crease# I . e . # r a t e
o f I n f l a t i o n # Improved p r o d u c t i v i t y ( I I ) .
— 10% a y e a r w i l l y i e l d tw ic e t h e fam ily Income by 1988 ( I I I ) .
— Must slow down o r o t h e r f a c t o r s w ill ap pear ( I I I ) .
— We w i l l g e t a han d le on I n f l a t i o n 1n t h e next decade ( I I I ) .
— I d o n ' t t h i n k M ic h ig a n 's economy w ill allow t h i s t o happen a s
soon a s you t h i n k ( I I I ) .

240

Ehfin ,w.m IhS median t e a c h e r s ’

s a l a r y reach 1m 1ce U s

present

amount

(Item 21?
P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1990-94
1990-94

D e sira b ility
Composite:
Comparison:

N eu tral
G re a t d isag ree m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

LEA
Local boards

P a n e l i s t s ’ feedback (Round)
— Median 1s going up because t h e r e a r e few er and few er younger
teach ers ( I ) .
— Teachers* s a l a r i e s w i l l n o t keep pace w ith I n f l a t i o n ( I I ) .
— I f I t ’ s I n f l a t i o n # so what? ( I I )
— Based on p a s t record# s a l a r i e s a r e n ’ t clim b in g t h i s r a p i d l y ( I I ) .
— Conversely# a s I n f l a t i o n In c re ase s# boards g e t t i g h t e r ; so does
t h e community ( I I ) .
— S t a t e w i l l have t o re c o v e r eco n o m ica lly .
w ill be slow ( I I I ) .

I t h in k t h e recovery

— M ic h ig a n 's economy w i l l n o t allow t h i s t o happen a s soon a s
you t h in k ( I I I ) .
By w hat .time 1n t e r v a l .w1.U f e d e r a l funds reach a 1 51 proportion &£ ±hs
t o t a l la x d o l l a r s re c e iv e d i y Michigan school d is tric ts Iprasont lov.O.l
I s a p p ro x im a te ly 211 (Item 221?
P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1995-99
1990-99

2*fl
D e s1 ra b llIty

Composite:
Comparison:

N eu tral
G re a t d isag ree m e n t

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

LEA
Local boards

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— Median I s going up because t h e r e a r e few er and few er younger
te a c h e rs ( I ) .
— T e a c h e rs ' s a l a r i e s w i l l n o t keep pace w ith I n f l a t i o n ( I I ) .
— I f I t ' s I n f l a t i o n * so what? ( I I )
— Based on p a s t record* s a l a r i e s a r e n ' t clim b in g t h i s r a p i d l y
(II).
— Conversely* a s I n f l a t i o n In c re a s e s* boards g e t t i g h t e r ; s o does
th e community ( I I ) .
— S t a t e w i l l have t o re c o v e r e co n o m ica lly .
w ill be slow ( I I I ) .

I th in k t h e recov ery

— M ic h ig a n 's economy w i l l n o t allow t h i s t o happen a s soon as
you t h i n k ( I I I ) .
£ y what ti m e 1n t e r v a l w i l l f e d e r a l funds reach a 152 proportion £ f ±h£
t o t a l ±a* d o l l a r s re c e iv e d t y Michigan school d i s t r i c t s ( p r e s e n t leyfil
l S ap p ro x im a te ly 2S1 (Item 221?
Pro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1995-99
1990-99

D e s 1 ra b ll1 ty
Composite:
Comparison:

N eutral
G re a t d isag ree m e n t

O r g a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

NEA
Local b oards and l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n

242

P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
— Federal programs a r e dropped by d i s t r i c t s when funds run o u t.
T h is w i l l l i m i t f e d e r a l fu nd ing ( I ) .
— Too much p r e s s u r e from o t h e r a r e a s o f government f o r funds ( I ) .
— Cutbacks w ill o ccu r f e d e r a l l y ( I ) .
— P o l i t i c a l l y w e've become more f o r c e f u l ( I ) .
— T h is 1s d ev elo p in g c l o u t and s t a t e ' s f i s c a l woes w i l l h a s te n
arriv a l of th is ( I I ) .
— A f te r t h e 1984 p r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n y e a r ( I I ) .
— I do n o t s e e an I n c r e a s e 1n f e d e r a l funds ( I I ) .
— The new D epartment o f E ducation w i l l t a k e money t o c r e a t e more
o f f i c e s and p ro c e d u re s .
— The p o l i t i c a l sce n e changes to o q u ic k ly t o be a c c u r a te ( I I ) .
--A lth o u g h new Department o f E ducation w ill push f o r more fun d s
th e y a r e v u ln e r a b le f o r c u t s a s t o t a l s t u d e n t e n ro llm e n ts
d e clin e ( I I ) .
— As long a s n a tio n a l d e fe n s e has t h e f i r s t p r i o r i t y t h e p ro g r e s s
w ill be slow and minimal ( I I ) .
- - I t h i n k t h e t r e n d w i l l r e v e r s e 1n s p i t e o f o ur d e s i r e s ( I I ) .
— T h is w ill t a k e tim e ( I I ) .
— D i s t r i c t s w i l l t a k e t h e funds and th e n complain a b ou t t h e
s tr in g s a tta ch e d ( I I I ) .
— We a r e going t h e o t h e r way. Trend tow ard "Reaganlsm" w i l l
red u c e f e d e r a l Involvem ent 1n school f in a n c in g ( I I I ) .
- - I t ' s ta k e n o v e r 200 y e a r s t o g e t 7 5 5 ...I t ' s n o t going t o double
f o r an a w fu lly lo ng tim e ( I I I ) .

243

fiy w h a t ti m e 1n te r v a l *111 lb s IBS ta x f r i n g e b e n e f i t s jcacelyftd
te a c h e r s a s taxable I ncome l i t em 2Z1?
P ro b ab le d a te o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

1990-94
1985-94

D esirab ility
Composite:
Comparison:

H ighly u n d e s ir a b le
Minor d isag ree m e n t

O r g a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s
Group most 1n f a v o r : L e g i s l a t i v e a c ti o n
Group most opposed: NEA
P a n e l i s t s ' feedback (Round)
--T o o many groups have a v e s te d I n t e r e s t ( I ) .
— "Some" f r i n g e b e n e f i t s o r " a l l ” f r i n g e b e n e f i t s ( I I ) ?
— Only 1f we a r e f o o l s enough t o ta k e c a f e t e r i a ( I I ) .
— Not a s long a s th e y a r e n o t f l a t

d o l l a r amounts

(II).

— Too many and v a r ie d groups would
unions* e t c . ( I I ) .

f ig h t* e . g . * business*

— P o l i t i c a l c l o u t w i l l f i g h t t h i s f o r some tim e ( I I I ) .
— T h is w o n 't happen a s long a s t e a c h e r s remain p o l i t i c a l l y
a c t i v e and away from f l a t amounts f o r f r i n g e s ( I I I ) .

In what y e a r w i n t e a c h e r s M xs t h e i r salaries And fringe benefits
n e g o t i a t e d Jzy a f e d e r a l b a rg a in in g u n i t (w ith a C0St~0frJ.1ving index
Ssl d i f f e r e n t .areas e f t h e United States? l i t e m 21?
P ro b ab le d a t e o f a c c e p ta n c e
Median:
Range:

Never
Never

D e s 1 ra b ll1 ty
Composite:
Comparlson:

Medium u n d e s i r a b i l i t y
No dlsag ree m e n t

2kk

O rg a n iz a tio n a l f a c t o r s

Group most 1n f a v o r :
Group most opposed:

MEA
Local boards

P a n e l i s t s ’ feedback (Round)
— Teachers have t h i s t o some e x t e n t now ( I ) .
— I d o n 't t h i n k I t w ill be a s I n c l u s i v e a s t h e s ta te m e n t I n d i c a t e s
(I).
— Never, a t l e a s t u n t i l th e y le a r n what t o do f o r f e d e r a l
employees ( I ) .
— Too many problems ( I ) .
— As soon as t h e f in a n c in g s h i f t s t o f e d e r a l money, t h e b a rg a in ­
in g w ill a l s o — even I f t h e r e a r e s t a t e w i d e u n i t s
(II).
— We l e a r n

a t t h e b a rg a in in g t a b l e n ev er t o say "n ev er" ( I I ) .

— Never means t o me Im p o ssib le ( I I ) .
— I d o n 't b e lie v e b a rg a in in g 1s a f e d e ra l arena ( I I ) .

APPENDIX I

NEA PROFESSIONAL SALARIES
AND FRINGE BENEFIT GOALS

245

2k6
NEA PROFESSIONAL SALARIES AND FRINGE BENEFIT GOALS
(E d ite d L i s t )
Source:
1.

2.

NEA R e p o r te r* September 1981

S a la r y Goals
a.

P ro v id e schedu led minimum s a l a r i e s which a r e c o m p e t itiv e w ith
b e g inn in g s a l a r i e s p a id t o c o l l e g e g r a d u a te s e n t e r i n g b u s in e s s
and In d u s tr y and a d ju s t e d a n n u a lly th rough n e g o tia te d c o n t r a c t s
which r e s u l t 1n a d o u b lin g of t h e c u r r e n t annual minimum s a l a r y
w ith in t e n y e a r s o f f a c u l t y e x p e r ie n c e .

b.

Have a u to m a tic annual In c re m e n ts f o r e x p e rie n c e which a r e In no
c a s e l e s s th a n 10% o f t h e b a c h e l o r 's degree minimum.

c.

A ssure t h a t I n i t i a l placement* advancement on t h e s a l a r y
schedule* and p ro m o tio ns a r e based on o b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a t o
e l i m i n a t e t h e d i s p a r i t i e s which c u r r e n t l y e x i s t among f a c u l t y
members o f com parable p re p a ra tio n * experience* and le n g th o f
serv ice .

d.

A ssure t h a t s a l a r y p aid f o r summer* c o n tin u in g e d u c a tio n
programs* extended c o n tra c ts * and e x t r a duty 1s n o t l e s s th a n
t h e r a t e f o r r e g u l a r c o n t r a c t pay.

e.

Be developed th ro ug h t h e p ro c e ss o f c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g .

f.

In c lu d e a c o s t - o f - H v 1 n g adjustm ent* based upont h e consumer
p r i c e Index, which 1s In a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e g u l a r pay s c a l e and
p a y a b le t o t h e employee.

B as1c/Fr1nge B e n e f i t s

The N a tio n al E ducation A s s o c ia tio n b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e school system
must p ro v id e and pay f o r b a s i c / f r i n g e b e n e f i t s Including* b u t n o t
l i m i t e d to* t h e fo llo w in g :
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
1.
j.
k.

Comprehensive h e a l t h In su ra n c e
S ick leave* w ith u n lim ite d accu m ulation
P e rso n a l le a v e
M a t e r n i t y / p a t e r n i t y leave* In c lu d in g ad o p tio n
S a b b a tic a l le a v e
P a id p r o f e s s i o n a l le a v e
P a id a s s o c i a t i o n le a v e
Workers' Compensation
L i f e In s u ra n c e
Severance pay
T u i tio n reim bursem ent

1.
m.
n.
o.
p.

P erso nal a s s a u l t p r o t e c t i o n
Long-term p h y s ic a l and mental d i s a b i l i t y In s u ra n c e
B e n e f it e x te n s io n f o r l a 1 d - o f f employees
R e lig io u s le a v e
R etirem en t com pensation

The A s s o c ia tio n a l s o b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e b a s ic b e n e f i t s o f comprehen­
s i v e h e a l t h Insurance* l i f e insurance* and lo n g -te rm d i s a b i l i t y I n s u r ­
ance sh ou ld be provided f o r e d u c a tio n a l s t a f f members on o f f i c i a l le a v e
o f absence o r m a t e r n i t y / p a t e r n i t y le a v e .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Advocate ( P r o f e s s io n a l Development and Human R ig h ts D iv is io n ,
Michigan E ducation A s s o c i a t i o n ) , no. 15 (September 1981).
B a rz e r and L arsen, e d s. M ic h ig a n 's F is c a l and Economic S t r u c t u r e .
Ann Arbor: U n iv e r s ity o f Michigan P r e s s , 1982.
B ay to s, L. M. "The Employee B e n e f it Smorgasbord: I t s P o t e n t i a l and
L i m i t a t i o n s . " Compe n s a tio n Review 2 ( F i r s t Q u a rte r 1970).
Bendlx, J e f f . "HMO E n ro llm en t W ill I n c r e a s e 12% 1n '8 2 . "
H e a lth c a re 12 (Ja n u a ry 1982): 50.
"Beware t h e P i t f a l l s o f S e l f - I n s u r a n c e . "
P u b l i c a t i o n ) , O ctober 2 6, 1981.

Modern

T e a c h e r 's Voice (MEA

B ishop, Harry W. "1981-82 T e a c h e rs ' C o n tra c t S e ttle m e n t R e p o r t."
Lansing: Michigan A s s o c ia tio n o f School B oards, J u ly 14, 1982.
B u sh a rd t, Stephen C . , and Fow ler, Aubry R.
f i t s : T o day's Dilemma In M o tiv a tio n ."
(A p ril 1982): 23 -2 6.

"Compensation and Bene­
P e rs o nnel Adminis t r a t o r 27

C arey, Dennis M ichael. "An Assessment o f F u tu r e In - S e r v ic e T ra in in g
Needs o f School P r i n c i p a l s In a M assa c h u se tts Delphi S tu d y ."
D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s 33A (March 1973): 4712.
C h ie f Spokesman (Michigan N e g o tia t o r s A s s o c i a t i o n ) , October 1981.
"Comparison o f S ta te /L o c a l K-12 Revenue." T a b le by House Democratic
E ducation O f f i c e , r e p o r te d In a pamphlet by Equal P a r t n e r s
f o r E d u c a tio n , Michigan PTA, 1983.
"A C o ord in ated B arg ain in g P ro po sal f o r Region Seven."
Region Seven, 1974.
C o ord inated B arg ain in g U n i t s .
P o s i t i o n P a p e r, 1977.

D ra fte d p a p er,

Michigan N e g o tia to r s A s s o c ia tio n

Copeland, Paul J . " S a f e t y , P r o t e c t i o n and Savings D o l l a r s . "
School A d m in is tra to r (O ctober 1981): 16-17.

ZkS

The

250

Cypert* F r e d e ric k R.» and Gant* W alter L. "The Delphi Technique:
A Case S tu d y ." Ph1 .D elia Kaplan (Ja n u ary 1971): 272-73.
________ . "The Delphi Technique: A Tool f o r C o l l e c t i n g O pinions 1n
Teacher E d u c a tio n ." J .o u m a l .of Zeachac E d u c a tio n 21 ( F a ll 1970).
Dalkey* N. "Use o f t h e Delphi Technique In E d ucation al P la n n in g ."
H erald (N e w s le tte r o f t h e E d ucation al R esources Agency*
Sacramento* C a l i f o r n i a ) 21 (1970).
Delbecq* Andre F. * and Van* Andrew H. Techniques f o r Program P la n ­
n in g . Glenview* 1 1 1 .: S cott* Foresman* and Co.* 1975.
Del sol* Louis G. "Stay-W ell* Two Years L a t e r . "
t r a t o r (O ctober 1981): 16.

I h e School Adminis­

"Dental P la n Study F o r e c a s ts Growth Through 1990." A stu dy by t h e
Department o f Health* Education and W elfare. In Employee Be n e f i t
Plan Review. Chicago* 1 1 1 .: O ctober 1979.
"Dental In s u ra n c e I s F a s t e s t Growing B e n e f i t . "
Review. Chicago* 1 1 1 .: November 1981.

Employee B e n e f it Plan

Deutsch* Morton. The R e s o lu tlo n o f Co n f l i c t : Cons t r u c t i v e and
D e s t r u c t i v e P r o c e s s e s . New Haven: Yale U n iv e r s ity Press* 1973.
" D i s a s t e r a t Muskegon Community C o lle g e ."
P u b l i c a t i o n ) (September 1981).

T eacher»s Voice (MEA

Dunham* R andall B .* and Formlsano* Roger A. "D esigning and E v a lu a t­
ing Employee B e n e f it S y stem s." Personnel A d m in is tra to r (A pril
1982): 29 -3 5.
Education USA. Washington* D .C .: N atio n al School Publ1c R e l a tio n s
A sso ciatio n * November 10* 1980.
________ . Washington* D .C .: N atio nal School P u b lic R e l a tio n s A ssocia­
tio n * September 28* 1981.
"Employee B e n e f i t s — 1 977." Washington* D .C .: Chamber o f Commerce o f
t h e United S t a t e s o f America* 1977.
"Employee B e n e f i t s — 1981." Washington* D .C .: Chamber of Commerce o f
t h e United S t a t e s o f America* 1971.
Farr* Joseph E. "C ontainm ent o f R isin g In s u ra n c e C o s t s ." C h ie f
Spokesman (Michigan N e g o tia to r s A s s o c ia tio n ) (September 1983).

/J

251

Foltman, Fel1c1an F. " I m p l i c a t i o n s o f F rin g e B e n e f i t s In t h e 19 70s."
R e p r in t S e r i e s No. 48 . Fourth Annual Labor-Management C onfer­
ence* I n s t i t u t e o f I n d u s t r i a l and Labor R e l a t i o n s , U n iv e rs ity of
A rizona, Tucson, J a n u a ry 1968.
F rench, Wendell L. The P erson nel Management P r o c e s s .
Houghton-M1ff11n, 1978.
" F rin g e B e n e f i t s f o r T eachers 1n P u b lic S c h o o ls ."
Survey o f F rin g e B e n e f i t s 1n P u b lic S c h o o ls.
E d ucatio n al Research S e r v i c e , 1981.

Boston:

P a r t 3 o f N ational
A r lin g t o n , V a .:

G la s s , Gene, and S ta n le y , J u l i a n . S t a t i s t i c a l Methods JLd E ducation
and Psychology . Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t1 c e - H a l l, 1970.
Gordon, T. J . , and LeBleu, R. E. "Employee B e n e f i t s , 1970-1985."
Harvard B u siness Review (Ja n u ary -F e b ru a ry 1970).
G re en b e rg e r, R ob ert. E x c e rp t from a Wall S t r e e t l o u m a l a r t i c l e
r e p o rte d 1n MASB-MASA Table Talk 106 (Jan uary 19, 1982).
G ro ss, John G. "Michigan S t a t e E x p e n d itu res and t h e P r o v is io n o f
P u b lic S e r v i c e s . " C ontained 1n a l e t t e r t o ISD s u p e r in te n d e n ts
from Dr. James P h e lp s , S t a t e o f M ichigan, Department o f Educa­
t i o n , A pril 15, 1982.
G roty, K eith. " R e tr ie v a l B arg ain in g ." C h ie f Spokesman (Michigan
N e g o tia to r s A s s o c ia tio n ) (O ctober 1981).
Grubbs, Donald S . , J r . "The Revenue Act o f 1978—How Does I t A ffe c t
Employee B e n e f i t P la n s ? " Pension World 15 (May 1979): 46-47.
Hedger, Douglas, and S c h m itt, Donald. "Trends In Major Medical
Coverage During a P e rio d o f R isin g C o s t s . ” Mo n th ly Labor
Review ( J u ly 1983).
Helmer, O la f. "A n a ly s is o f t h e F u tu r e : The Delphi Method."
Monica, C a l i f . : The Rand C o rp o ra tio n , March 1967.

S an ta

_________. "The Use o f t h e D elphi Technique 1n Problems o f E ducational
I n n o v a tio n s ." Rand C o rp o ra tio n Paper P-2982. S an ta Monica,
C a l i f . : The Rand C o rp o ra tio n , December 1966.
H erzberg, F r e d e r ic k ; Mausner, B a rb a ra , and Snyderman, B arb ara.
M o tiv a tio n ±Q Work. New York: John W iley, 1959.

The

Jud d, R obert C. "Delphi Method: Computerized 'O racle* A c c e le r a te s
Consensus F o rm atio n ." C o lle g e a n d U n iv e r s ity B u siness
(September 1970): 3 0 -3 4 .

252

Kasper* K lr s c h e l. "The E f f e c t s o f C o l l e c t i v e B a rg a in in g on P u b lic
School T e a c h e rs ' S a l a r i e s . " I n d u s t r i a l a n d L abor R e la tio n s
Review 24 (O ctober 1970).
The K1pl 1nger Washington E d i to r s . Ihfi K1pl1nger Washington N e w s le tte r .
March 27, 1981.
_________.

The K lp H n g e r Washington N e w s le tte r , J u ly 2 , 1981.

________ .

The K lp H n g e r Washington N e w s le tte r . February 18, 1983.

L l p s l t z , Alvin H. "Delphi a s an I n t e r v e n t i o n Technique 1n Developing
a P lan o f Change f o r a S tu d e n t A f f a i r s O f f i c e a t Ohio S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y . " D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c ts 33A (Ja n u ary -F e b ru a ry
1973): 4125.
Maslow, A. H. "A Dynamic Theory o f Human M o tiv a tio n ." In U nderstand­
ing Human M o tiv a tio n, pp. 84-109. E d ited by Chalmers L. S tacey
and M. F. DeMartln. New York: World P u b lis h in g C o ., 1965.
Math, Connie. C ite d 1n E d u c a to rs N e g o tia tin g S e r v ic e ( P u b lic a tio n
o f Robbins A s s o c ia te s Management S e r v i c e ) , August 1, 1979.
McCaffery, R obert M. "Employee B e n e f i t s : Beyond t h e F rin g e ? " In
P e r s p e c tiv e s in Personnel/Human Resource Management. E d ited
by H. Neneman I I I and D. Schwab. Homewood, 1 1 1 .: Irw in , 1982.
" M e rit Pay Task Force R e p o r t." P rep ared f o r U.S. House o f R ep rese n ta ­
t i v e s . Reported 1n ERS B u l l e t i n (December 1983).
Michigan K-12 P u b H c School D i s t r i c t s Ranked b y S e le c te d F in a n c ia l
D ata: 1980-81. B u l l e t i n 1014. L ansing : S t a t e Board o f Educa­
t i o n , 1981.
M u e lle r, John H .; S c h u e s s l e r , Karl F . ; and C o stn e r, H e rb e rt L. S t a t i s ­
t i c a l Reasoning In S o c io lo gy . 2nd e d . B oston: Houghton-M1ffl1n
C o ., 1970.
"N atio n al C e n te r f o r E ducation S t a t i s t i c s R e p o r t." In S ta te w id e
Communication Add D isse m in a tio n System S ta te w id e N e w s le tte r
(December 1982).
"A N atio nal Survey o f P r i n c i p a l s ' S a l a r i e s and B e n e f i t s . "
Elementary P r i n c i p a l 56 (M arch/April 1977): 21.
"New B e n e f it s f o r New L i f e s t y l e s . "

N a tio n a l

B u sin e ss Week, February 11, 1980.

O l t h o f f , Kenneth. C ite d In C h ie f Spokesman ( P u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e
Michigan N e g o tia to r s A s s o c ia tio n ) (December 1981).

253

"The O ut-of-Form ula D i s t r i c t s . " Memorandum from Gene C a e s a r, House
Democratic Research S t a f f , Michigan House o f R e p re s e n ta tiv e s *
Lansing* Michigan* September 8* 1983.
Pagen* John.

Michigan School Board Jo u rn a l 29 (Jun e 1982).

" P o lic y Change 1n S t a t u s o f Employees 1n t h e Form o f F rin g e B e n e f it
( C a f e t e r i a ) P l a n s . " L e t t e r by M arilyn Hammond* S o c ia l S e c u r ity
Advisor* Department o f Management and Budget* S t a t e o f Michigan*
Lansing* M ichigan.
" P r o f e s s io n a l S a la ry and F rin g e B e n e f it G o a ls ."
(September 1981).

NEA Reporter

" P r o j e c t i o n s Show D e c lin in g Secondary E n r o llm e n ts ." C o lle g e o f
Education Educators* R eport (Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity ) 7 (W inter
1980).
" R e g io n a l/C o o rd in a te d B a r g a in in g : T o t a l1 s t1 c P e r s p e c t i v e . "
N e g o tia to r s A s s o c ia tio n P o s i t i o n Paper* 1981.
R o e lo fs.

Michigan

Grand Rapids (M ichigan) P r e s s * February 2 3, 1982.

Romano* L o u is; F e a th e rsto n e * R ichard L .; Georglady* N ic h o las P . ; and
W otlska, S i s t e r D o r l t a . The Management o f E d u catio n al P e r s o n n e l.
Rev. ed. Wheeling* 1 1 1 .: W hitehall Company, 1977.
"S e lf-In su ra n c e ."

Employee B e n e f it Plan Review (March 1980): 3 0-32 .

Serg1ovann1* Thomas J. " F a c to rs Which A f f e c t S a t i s f a c t i o n and D is­
s a t i s f a c t i o n In T e a c h in g ." Jo u rn a l o f E ducation A d m in is tra tio n
5 (May 1967): 6 6 -8 2 .
_________» and C a rv e r, Fred D. The New School E x e c u tiv e : A Theory o f
A d m in is tr a tio n . New York: Dodd* Mead and Co.* 1973.
Spence* J a n e t T . ; Cotton* John W.; Underwood* Benton J . ; and Duncan,
Carl P. Elementary S t a t i s t i c s . 3 rd ed . Englewood C l i f f s *
N . J . : P r e n t l c e - H a l 1» 1970.
Stevenson* William J . B u sin e ss S t a t i s t i c s : Concepts and A p p l i c a t i o n s .
New York: H arper and Row* 1978.
"Teacher Unions Accede t o Wage Freeze* Wage R o llb a c k ."
T able Talk 106 (May 18, 1982).

MASB-MASA

T eachers Voice (Ja n u ary 1976).
Terslne* R ichard J . » and Riggs* W alter E. "The Delphi Technique: A
Long-Range P la n n in g T o o l." B usiness Horizons (A p ril 1976).

254

Uhl, N. P.

Encouraging Convergence o f Opinion* Through t h e Use o f

ihs EfilgM Technique In lb s Process e f i d e n t i f y i n g an In stitu ­
t i o n ^ G o a ls. Durham, N .C .:
S o u th e a s te rn O f f i c e , 1971.

E du cation al T e s tin g S e r v ic e ,

Warner, Kenneth C . , and Hennessey, Mary L. P u b lic Management a t t h e
B arg ain in g T a b le . Chicago: P u b lic Personnel A s s o c ia tio n , 1967.
Weatherman, R ichard , and Stev en son , Karen. "Delphi T e c h n iq u e." In
Futurism l a E ducation M ethodologies. E d ite d by Stephen P.
Hencley and James R. Y a tes. B erk ele y , C a l i f . : McCutcheon Pub­
l i s h i n g C o rp ., 1974.
Zarowln, S ta n le y . "The P erk s Package: An A l t e r n a t i v e t o R a i s e s . "
T o d a y s O ffic e (December 1983).