INFORMATION TO USERS
While the most advanced technology has been used to
photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of
the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of
the material submitted. For example:
•

Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such
cases, the beBt available copy has been filmed.

•

Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such
cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to
obtain missing pages.

•

Copyrighted material may have been removed from
the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the
deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are
photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the
upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in
equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is
also film ed as one exposure and is available, for an
additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23”
black and white photographic print.
Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive
microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic
copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge,
35mm slides of 6”x 9” black and white photographic prints
are available for any photographs or illustrations th at
cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography.

8707146

J a n m a n , L enore Ann

TEACHER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN MICHIGAN:
FROM 1965 THROUGH 1985

M ichigan S tate University

University
Microfilms
International

A STUDY OF TRENDS

Ph.D.

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Copyright 1986
b y

Janman, Lenore Ann
All Rights Reserved

1986

PLEASE NOTE:

In all c a ses this material has been filmed in the b est possible w ay from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this docum ent have been identified herewith a ch eck mark V

1.

Glossy photographs or p a g e s ______

2.

Colored illustrations, paper or print_______

3.

Photographs with dark background_____

4.

Illustrations are poor c o p y _______

5.

P ages with black marks, not original copy

6.

Print show s through a s there is text on both sides of p a g e ________

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

8.

Print ex c ee d s margin requirem ents______

9.

Tightly bound co p y with print lost in s p in e ________

.

f

S

10.

Computer printout p a g es with indistinct print_______

11.

P a g e (s)____________ lacking w hen material received, and not available from sch ool or
author.

12.

P a g e (s)____________ seem to b e missing in numbering only as text follows.

13.

Two p ages n um bered

14.

Curling and wrinkled p a g e s _______

15.

Dissertation con tain s p a g es with print at a slant, filmed a s received

16.

Other______________________________________________________________________________

. Text follows.

i /

University
Microfilms
International

TEACHER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN MICHIGAN:

A STUDY

OF TRENDS FROM 1965 THROUGH 1985
By
Lenore Ann Janman

A DISSERTATION
Submitted t o
Michigan S ta te U n iv e rsity
1n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of th e requirem ents
f o r th e degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f Educational A dm inistration
1986

C o p y r i g h t by
LENORE ANN JANMAN

1986

ABSTRACT
TEACHER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN MICHIGAN!
OF TRENDS FROM 1965 THROUGH 1985

A SUJDY
i

By
Lenore Ann Janman

The expansion of c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g 1n Michigan K-12 p u b lic
school d i s t r i c t s was analyzed In t h i s study.

A major purpose of t h e

stuciy was t o examine s p e c i f i c c o n tr a c t c la u se s t o determine th e degree
of u nifo rm ity among such c la u s e s 1n Michigan school d i s t r i c t s * compar­
ing d i s t r i c t s iz e and geographic lo c a tio n .

Another purpose of th e

study was t o measure th e r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of c o n tr a c t language as p er­
ceived by b u ild in g p r in c ip a ls .
Twenty-one school d i s t r i c t s re p re s e n tin g a l l geographic re g io n s
of Michigan were s e le c te d fo r the sample.

Teacher c o n tra c ts n e g o tia te d

between 1965 and 1985 were analyzed u sing t h e Contract Content A nalysis
Form* measuring 29 c o n tra c t c la u se s and t h e 113 c r i t e r i a t h a t d efin e
t h e c la u se s.

E ight of th e c o n tr a c t c la u s e s were ra te d by a randomly

s e le c te d group of p r in c ip a ls t o be the most r e s t r i c t i v e of th e 29
c lau ses.

A panel of 16 judges measured t h e language of th ese e ig h t

c la u se s using th e Measurement of C ontract R e s tr ic tiv e n e s s Form.
A t - t e s t f o r s ig n ific a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e s between c o r r e la te d
means was used t o t e s t the d if f e r e n c e 1n th e number of c la u se s

Lenore Ann Janman
n e g o tia te d In the sample d i s t r i c t s ' c o n tr a c ts between 1965 and 1965.
Ch1-square was used t o t e s t t h e d if fe r e n c e 1n c r i t e r i a n e g o tia te d In to
te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts based on c l a s s s i z e and geographic region of th e
d i s t r i c t . To t e s t t h e r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of th e e ig h t c o n tr a c t c la u s e s and
t

t o compare r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s w ith d i s t r i c t c l a s s size# one-way a n a ly s is
of v a ria n ce was used.

The F - t e s t was used t o measure th e s ig n if ic a n c e

of th e d if f e r e n c e between sample school d i s t r i c t s .
The fin d in g s In d ic a te d t h a t 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 ­
ences e x is te d In th e number of c la u se s n e g o tia te d 1n Michigan p u b lic
school d i s t r i c t s ' c o n tr a c t s between 1965 and 1985.

The l a r g e r th e

d i s t r i c t # th e more c r i t e r i a were mentioned 1n I t s c o n tra c t.

The number

of c r i t e r i a n e g o tia te d was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a te d t o geographic
l o c a tio n o f th e d i s t r i c t .
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 if f e r e n c e s e x is te d among Michigan
K-12 school d i s t r i c t s w ith reg ard t o r e s t r i c t i v e ness of c o n tr a c t
c la u se s.

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 iffe r e n c e a ls o was found w ith

regard t o d i s t r i c t siz e .

The l a r g e r th e d i s t r i c t # th e more r e s t r i c t i v e

p r i n c i p a l s perceived th e language t o be.

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page
1965 and 1985 ...............................

1. Number of Clauses N e g o tia te d :

2 . Means# Standard Deviations# and R e su ltin g T-Rat1o
of Clauses 1n D i s t r i c t C o n tra c ts From 1965 t o 1985 . . .
3.

50
52

Number of Clauses N egotiated by D i s t r i c t C lass and
R e g i o n ..........................................................................................................

52

4.

Number of C r i t e r i a Mentioned# by D i s t r i c t Class

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

53

5.

Number o f C r i t e r i a Mentioned# by D i s t r i c t C lass:
T h ird - and F o u rth -C lass D i s t r i c t s ...............................................

55

6.

Number of C r i t e r i a Mentioned# by Geographic Region . . . .

7.

Number of D i s t r i c t s With S p e c if ic Clauses# 1965 and 1985

.

58

8.

Degrees of R estr1 ct1 v en ess of t h e E ight Contract C lauses .

76

9.

R e su lts of A nalysis of Variance on P erception s o f R a te rs
Toward th e R e s t r ic ti v e n e s s of C on tract Clauses f o r
All 21 D i s t r i c t s .....................................................................................

10.

11.
12.

56

R e su lts of A nalysis of Variance on th e R e s tr ic tiv e n e s s
of Eight C on tract Clauses as Perceived by P rin cip als#
by D i s t r i c t C lass S ize

76

78

Ranking of D i s t r i c t C lasse s by Degree of R e s tr ic tiv e n e s s
o f E ight C ontract Clauses ................................................................

78

Summary of D ifferen ces Between D i s t r i c t s In D if fe re n t
Size C l a s s e s ..............................................................................................

79

13.

Ranking of Eight C o n tra c t Clauses# by R e s tric ts v e n e s s

14.

Ranking of D i s t r i c t s by R e s t r ic ti v e n e s s of C ontract
Cl a u s e s ......................................................................................................

iv

.

.

80
81

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION
Background o f th e Study

As of 1965 t h e r e were 2.2 m illio n p u b lic school te a c h e rs 1n th e
United S t a te s and nearly ninety per c en t of them belonged t o e i t h e r
th e National Education A ssociation (NEA) o r th e American Federation
of Teachers (AFT). In Michigan 87*000 te a c h e rs belong t o t h e
Michigan Education A ssociation and a n o ther 20*000 te a c h e r s belong
t o t h e Michigan F ed eration of Teachers. (Grand Rapids P r e s s * 1985*
p. 2)
Teaching 1s one of th e most highly unionized occupations.
Through th e c o ll e c tiv e - b a r g a in in g process* te a c h e r o rg a n iz a tio n s a re
demanding more control over th e governance of schools than ever before.
Teacher a s s o c ia tio n s a re moving from a l i m i t e d barg aining r o le t o a
p o s itio n 1n which they a re a tte m p tin g t o Influence educational policy
making.

The scope o f n e g o tia tio n s between school boards and te a c h e r s

has expanded beyond t h e t r a d i t i o n a l concerns of salary* frin g e bene­
f i ts * and working c o n d itio n s t o Include such m a tte r s as c la s s size*
t r a n s f e r p o lic ies* textbook selectio n * and te a c h e r- e v a lu a tlo n proce­
dures.

Some have claimed t h a t t h i s expansion 1n the scope of b ar­

gaining has provided te a c h e r unions w ith d is p ro p o rtio n a te p o l i t i c a l
power* undermining th e t r a d i t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l process (Finn* 1985;
Johnson* 1984).
Finn (1985)* w ritin g 1n t h e Phi D elta Kappan. observed
th at:

1

2

Over th e decades# th e NEA and th e AFT have accumulated q u i te a l o t
of p o l i t i c a l power and economic In flu en ce and a measure o f moral
a u th o r ity as w ell. They have claim ed t o re p re s e n t both what I s
good f o r school c h ild re n and what 1s good f o r teachers# and they
have I n s i s t e d t h a t th e two a re com patible. Although not everyone
has accepted t h i s equation* th e unions have s t i l l become extrem ely
I n f l u e n t i a l In thousands o f d e cisio n s made by local* s t a t e and
na tio n al governments, (p. 332)
Today# n e arly 40 y e a rs a f t e r th e f i r s t te a c h e r s 1 c o n tr a c t was
negotiated* controversy p e r s i s t s about t h e e f f e c t of c o l l e c t i v e
bargaining on pub lic education.

Advocates of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining

contend t h a t te a c h e r unions a r e reform ing th e sch ools; c r i t i c s argue
t h a t th e s e unions a re lay in g th e sch ools t o w aste.
B a iley ( c ite d by Johnson* 1984) c h a ra c te riz e d the popular and
p ro fessio n al debates as follo w s:
Few Iss u e s In t h e f i e l d of American education have been more
c o n tro v e rs ia l In th e p a s t two decades than th e r i s e of te a c h e r s '
unions. S tru g g les over a p p ro p ria te bargainin g agents# what Issu es
a re negotiable# grievance procedures* th e r i g h t t o s t r i k e and even
th e underlying c o m p a tib ility of unions and th e educating p ro fes­
sio n s have divided faculty* outraged a d m in istra to rs* p o l i t i c i z e d
schools and colleges* entangled th e courts* and r i l e d pub lic opin­
io n . (p. 36)
Few would deny t h a t during th e l a s t 20 y ears c o l l e c t i v e bar­
gaining and te a c h e r unions have emerged as Im portant p o l i t i c a l and
I n s t i t u t i o n a l fo rc e s 1n p u b lic education o r t h a t bargaining has I n f l u ­
enced t h e way In which schools a re managed.

In January 1986* U.S.

S e c re tary of Education W ill 1am J. Bennett rep o rte d on what 1s success­
ful 1n American education.

This report* addressed t o th e American

people* was Intended t o provide a c c u ra te and r e l i a b l e Inform ation about
what works when 1 t comes t o e d u catin g c h ild re n .

According t o th e

report# '^Schools w ith high stu d e n t achievement and m orale show c e r t a i n

3

c h arac teristics:

a vigorous I n s tr u c tio n a l leadership* a p rin c ip a l who

makes c l e a r * c o n s i s t e n t and f a i r d e c i s i o n s . . . ." (U.S. D e p artm en t of
Education* 1986* p. 4 5 ).
Some c r i t i c s have s a id th e r e a l lo c a t i o n of a u th o rity c re a te d by
th e c o ll e c tiv e - b a r g a in in g process has l e f t p r i n c i p a l s w ith o u t s u f f i ­
c i e n t d i s c r e t io n t o make clear* c o nsisten t* and f a i r d e c isio n s (Cheng*
1976).

Thus they cannot provide th e I n s tr u c tio n a l le a d e rs h ip th e many

c u r r e n t r e p o r ts on reform s 1n education emphasize I s needed t o run
e f f e c t i v e s c h o o ls .
Statement o f th e Problem and Research Questions

Educational lab o r r e l a t i o n s has received l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n 1n
sy s te m a tic research .

A review of th e l i t e r a t u r e on th e t o p ic of

c o l l e c t i v e barg aining 1n th e K-12 p u b lic school s e t t i n g demonstrated
th e f a c t t h a t many gaps e x i s t 1n th e research on c o l l e c t i v e bargaining*
as well as on th e e f f e c t c o l l e c t i v e bargaining has had on school man­
agement.

The e x te n t t o which unions and c o n tr a c t s have a ffe c te d school

p r a c t ic e s I s valu ab le Inform ation f o r school boards* a d m in istrato rs*
and te a c h e r unions* as well a s f o r th e public.

C itiz e n s want t o know

what c o l l e c t i v e bargainin g I s doing t o t h e i r schools.

School admin­

i s t r a t o r s and te a c h e r union le a d e rs want t o know how t o make c o l l e c t i v e
bargain ing work* or a t l e a s t how t o work w ith c o l l e c t i v e bargaining.
Policym akers want t o know how l e g i s l a t i v e a c tio n might change th e
Influence o f te a c h e r unions.

Those who analyze p olicy want t o under­

stand how c o l l e c t i v e bargaining* as an educational policy-making proce­
dure* works.

4

T his re s e a rc h was an a tte m p t t o f i l l some of th e gaps 1n t h e
l i t e r a t u r e by I d e n t i f y in g th e tr e n d s t h a t a re o c c u rrin g In c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g agreem ents.

The s p e c i f i c q u e s tio n s addressed 1n t h e study

are:
1.

Has t h e scope of Is s u e s n e g o tia te d I n t o te a c h e r c o n tr a c t s

expanded sin c e th e passage of P u b lic Act 379 of th e Michigan P u b lic
Acts of 1965?
2.

Has c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g brought about u n ifo rm ity In

c o n t r a c t Issues* excluding compensation and f r i n g e b e n efits* among
d i s t r i c t s In Michigan?
3.

Has c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g r e s t r i c t e d th e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

management of sc h o o ls In Michigan K-12 p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s * a s
p e rc eiv e d by b u ild in g p r i n c i p a l s ?
Purposes o f th e Study

As c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g has evolved In th e e d u ca tio n al s e t t i n g
during t h e p a s t 20 years* t h e scope of Iss u e s being n e g o tia te d I n to
te a c h e r c o n tr a c t s has expanded.

Various a u th o rs have concluded t h a t

c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g has In cre ased t e a c h e r s ' a u th o r ity and r e s t r i c t e d
th e formal a u th o r i ty of school managers (Finn* 1985; Johnson* 1984).
The l i t e r a t u r e suggested t h a t changes In t h e breadth and scope of nego­
t i a t e d agreem ents o f te n occur g ra d u a lly and even Innocuously.

A lo n g i­

tu d in a l view of t h e changes found In Michigan K-12 p u b lic school
d i s t r i c t c o n t r a c t s w i l l show th e tr e n d s t h a t c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g 1s
tak in g .

5

The major purpose of t h i s study was t o p r e d ic t tr e n d s f o r
c o l l e c t i v e barg aining 1n Michigan and t o d isc u ss Im p lic a tio n s of
p o s s ib le value t o school boards* school d i s t r i c t a d m in istra to rs* school
d i s t r i c t n e go tiators* te a c h e r unions* t h e i r Individ ual members* and
tho se who n e g o tiate d c o n tr a c ts on b e h alf of t h e te a c h e rs ' union.
Additional purposes of th e study were:
1.

t o s u b s ta n t ia t e whether th e scope of Issu es n e g o tia te d In to

te a c h e r c o n tr a c t s In Michigan K-12 pu b lic school d i s t r i c t s expanded
from 1965 through 1985.
2.

t o determ ine whether c o l l e c t i v e b argain ing has brought

about unifo rm ity among Iss u e s n e g o tiate d In to Michigan K-12 p u b lic
school d i s t r i c t contracts* excluding compensation and Insurance
b e n e f i ts .
3.

t o determ ine whether c o l l e c t i v e bargainin g has r e s t r i c t e d

a d m i n i s t r a t iv e management of sch ools In Michigan K-12 d i s t r i c t s * as
perceived by b u ild in g p r i n c i p a l s .
4.

t o determ ine whether l a r g e r school d i s t r i c t s have nego­

t i a t e d more Is s u e s I n to t h e i r te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts than have s m a lle r
d istric ts.
Importance o f the_Study
Michigan has been recognized throughout th e United S t a te s as a
le a d e r 1n c o l l e c t i v e bargain ing f o r te a c h e rs.

C o lle c tiv e bargaining

may e v e n tu a lly be viewed as one of th e fo rc e s t h a t has Influenced
American education.

Therefore* t h i s study 1s Im portant In l i g h t o f th e

absence of l i t e r a t u r e and research concerning tre n d s 1n c o l l e c t i v e

6

bargaining.

The research 1s a ls o Im portant because of I t s t i m e l i n e s s

and relevance t o tho se seeking q u a li t y 1n education* a s well as a
pro fessio n al r e l a ti o n s h i p among boards of education* a d m in istrato rs*
and t e a c h e r s .
Hypotheses
The fo llo w in g hypotheses* s t a te d In th e n u ll form* were formul a t e d t o t e s t th e data c o lle c te d In t h i s study.
Hypothesis 1 i There w ill be 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 ­
ence In th e number of c la u s e s n e g o tia te d In Michigan K-12 p u b lic
school d i s t r i c t s ' c o n tr a c ts between 1965 and 1985.
H ypothesis 2 * There w ill be 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 ­
ence 1n th e scope of Iss u e s n e g o tia te d In to te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts
between second-* th ird -* and f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s In Michigan.
H ypotht^ls
There w i l l be 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 ­
ence 1n th e scope of Iss u e s n e g o tiate d I n to te a c h e r contracts*
based on th e geographical region of Michigan In which th e d i s t r i c t
1s lo c a te d .
Hypothes1s_4; There w ill be 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 ­
ence 1n th e r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of c o n tr a c t language among Michigan
K-12 p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s * as perceived by b u ild in g p r in c ip a ls .
Hy p o th e s is e s ; There w ill be no In cre ase In th e range of perceived
r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of c o n tr a c t language a s school d i s t r i c t s i z e
In c re a s e s .
L im ita tio n s
C o n s tra in ts on te a c h e r n e g o tia tio n s a re e s s e n t i a l l y I d e n tic a l
t o th o se on c o l l e c t i v e bargainin g f o r a l l pub lic employees.

These

c o n s t r a i n t s f a l l i n to t h e follow ing c a t e g o r i e s ;
s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n s which e x i s t 1n v a rio u s s ta tu te s * leg al and
p r a c t ic a l l i m i t a t i o n s on th e f i s c a l and managerial a u th o r ity of
p u b lic employers* p r e - e x i s t in g employment laws* r u l e s and reg u la ­
tions* management r i g h t s d ir e c te d by p r e - e x i s t in g laws* r u l e s and

7
regulations* l i m i t a t i o n s upon the o b lig a tio n t o bargain any
changes 1n working c o n d itio n s and f i n a l l y l i m i t a t i o n s upon th e
p u b lic employee's r i g h t t o s t r i k e . (Kerchner* 1979* p. 186)
L im ita tio n s on bargaining e x i s t because r e s t r i c t e d a u th o r ity Is v e ste d
1n th e p u b lic employer.

This l im i te d a u th o rity and j u r i s d i c t i o n over

c e r t a i n employment a re a s In flu e n c e s th e bargaining process.
One l i m i t a t i o n of the study I t s e l f was the siz e of th e sample
used.

Michigan has 531 K-12 p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s ; 21 of them were

Included 1n the sample.

Another l i m i t a t i o n of the study was t h a t only

d i s t r i c t s a f f i l i a t e d w ith t h e Michigan Education A ssociation as t h e
te a c h e r r e p r e s e n ta tiv e were used.

Twenty-five d i s t r i c t s a re re p re ­

sented by th e Michigan F ederation of Teachers; th e s e d i s t r i c t s were
e lim in a te d before the sample was s e le c te d t o control fo r any p h ilo ­
sophical variance between t h e two unions.

This l i m i t a t i o n did n ot

allow fo r the a n a ly s is of a f i r s t - c l a s s d i s t r i c t ' s c o n tra c t because th e
D e tro it P u b lic Schools c o n s t i t u t e th e only f i r s t - c l a s s d i s t r i c t in
Michigan* and t h e t r te a c h e rs a re a f f i l i a t e d w ith the Michigan Federa­
t io n of Teachers.
The w r i t e r l im i te d t h e a re a s of th e c o n tr a c t t h a t would be
analyzed t o 29 s p e c i f i c c o n tra c t clauses* o m ittin g clau ses dealin g with
compensation and f r in g e b e n e fits .

The Michigan School Boards Associa­

t io n annually compiles data on s a l a r i e s and fr in g e b e n e fits In Michigan
school d i s t r i c t s .

Other c o n tr a c t language t h a t a f f e c t s how schools a re

managed does not re c e iv e any sy ste m atic a t t e n t i o n or study.
Another l i m i t a t i o n was t h e number of Judges who were used t o
r a t e the r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of th e e ig h t c o n tr a c t clau ses.

Reading the

8
c o n tra c t c la u se s from each of t h e 21 d i s t r i c t s and r a t i n g each clau se
on a s c a le of r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s was a time-consuming p ro je c t.

Because I t

was d i f f i c u l t t o f in d more than 16 p r i n c i p a l s t o perform t h i s rating#
th e I n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y among the r a t e r s was lim ite d .

Each r a t e r

ra te d th e c la u s e s Independently of th e o th er r a t e r s and Independently
of o th e r c la u se s rate d by o th e r r a t e r s .
The data a re presented a s they e x is te d 1n c o l l e c t i v e bargaining agreem ents from 1965 through 1985.

Hie re s e a rc h e r did n o t

a tte m p t t o determ ine th e e f f e c t s of such o u tsid e In flu en ces a s legal
r e s t r i c t i o n s # leg a l tr a d itio n s # or Individ ual p e r s o n a l i t i e s Involved 1n
th e bargaining process.

Because of th e n a tu re of c o l l e c t i v e barg ain­

ing# Im p lic a tio n s derived from th e data a re g e n e ra liz a b le t o o th e r
Michigan school d i s t r i c t s rep re se n te d by th e same union.
D e fin itio n of Terms
The follow ing key term s a re defined In th e context In which
they a re used throughout t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n .
Clause—An a r t i c l e or provision 1n a c o lle c tiv e - b a r g a in in g
agreement.
C ontract—The formal Ized m aster c o lle c tiv e - b a r g a in in g document
o f f i c i a l l y r a t i f i e d by the union and the board of education.

This term

I s used Interchangeably with m aster agreement# m aster contract# and
c o ll e c tiv e - b a r g a in in g agreement.
The fo llo w in g term s were used In t h i s study as measures of
c o n tra c t-!a n g u a g e.

C o ntract language t h a t 1s r e s t r i c t i v e means l i m i t ­

ing# prohibiting# o b s tr u c tin g an d /o r confining an a d m in is tr a to r from

9

making a decisio n having an e f f e c t on some asp ect of school management*
personnel procedures* or policy.

Extremely r e s t r i c t i v e 1s lim itin g *

obstructing* and/or confining an a d m in is tr a to r t o th e g r e a t e s t degree
from making a decision having an e f f e c t on some a sp e c t of school man­
agement* personnel procedures* or policy.

Moderately r e s t r i c t i v e 1s

lim itin g * obstructing* and /or co nfin ing an a d m in is tra to r t o an average
degree from making a decision having an e f f e c t on some a sp ec t of school
management* personnel procedures* or policy.

Neutral language 1s

n e ith e r r e s t r i c t i n g nor allow ing an a d m in is tr a to r t o make a decision
having an e f f e c t on some a sp e c t of school management* personnel proce­
dures* or policy.

Somewhat r e s t r i c t i v e 1s lim itin g * obstructing* and/

or c o n fin in g an a d m in is tr a to r t o some e x te n t from making a d ecisio n
having an e f f e c t on some a sp e c t of school management* personnel proce­
dures* or po licy .

Least r e s t r i c t i v e 1s lim itin g * obstructing# an d /o r

c o n fin in g an a d m in is tra to r to a l e s s e r degree from making a d ecision
having an e f f e c t on some a sp e c t of school management* personnel proce­
dures* or policy.
Governance—The p r a c tic e of c o n trollin g* guiding* or d ire c tin g .
Issu e—Something published or w r i t te n as a r e s u l t of an
action* which 1n t h i s case 1s a concept reduced t o w r i t in g and nego­
t i a t e d i n t o a c o n tra c t.
Management— The p r a c tic e of directing* c o n trollin g* or regu­

la tin g *
Negot1a tlo n s — A form alized process e n te re d In to by boards of
education and recognized te a c h e r unions t o m utually determ ine wages*

10

hours, b e n e f its , and o th er c o n d itio n s of employment.

In t h i s study,

th e term 1s used Interchangeably with c o l l e c t i v e bargainin g and
bargaining.
Range—The e x te n t of one's knowledge, perception, experience,
or a b ll 1 ty .
Rate— A measured q u a n tity w ith in t h e l i m i t s of a f ix e d amount
of something e l s e .
Scope—The breadth of an area covered.
Union—The National Education A ssociation , to g e th e r w ith I t s
s t a t e and lo c a l a f f i l i a t e s .

Throughout t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n , t h i s term Is

used Interchangeably with te a c h e r a s s o c ia tio n , bargaining u n it, bar­
gaining agent, and te a c h e r organization*
Overview
Chapter I contained an In tro d u ctio n t o th e study, to g e th e r with
a sta te m e n t of purpose, Importance of the study, research q u e stio n s and
hypotheses, assumptions and l i m i t a t i o n s , and d e f i n i ti o n s of Im portant
term s.

The l i t e r a t u r e and research p e rtin e n t t o the study a re reviewed

1n Chapter II.

Also h ig h lig h te d a r e r e l a te d s t u d i e s on t h e to p ic under

In v e s tig a tio n .

In Chapter I I I , th e w r i t e r d e sc rib e s 1n depth th e

design of th e study, background and s e le c tio n of th e sample, and proce­
dures used 1n c o lle c tin g , processing, and t r e a t i n g th e data.
a re presented and I n t e r p r e t e d In Chapter IV.

The data

Major conclusions and

p re d ic tio n s drawn from the data, a s well as sugg estions concerning
f u tu r e resea rch , a re s e t fo rth 1n Chapter V.

CHAPTER XI

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RELATED STUDIES
In tro d u c tio n
"The f i r s t n e g o tiate d c o n tr a c t between te a c h e r s and a board of
education was r a t i f i e d 1n Norwalk* Connecticut* In 1946" (Wesley* 1975*
p. 18).

However* n e g o tia tio n s did not gain n atio nal a t t e n t i o n u n t il

t h e e a r ly 1960s* when problems occurred between t h e United Federation
of Teachers and th e New York City Board of Education.
C o lle c tiv e barg aining between te a c h e rs and boards of education
has gained momentum sin c e I t s Inception 1n th e e a r ly 1960s.

In 1962

th e National Education A ssociation (NEA) passed a r e s o lu tio n a t I t s
natio nal convention s t a t i n g :
The NEA I n s i s t s on th e r i g h t of p ro fessio n al asso ciatio n s* through
d e m o c ratica lly s e le c te d rep re se n ta tiv e s* t o p a r t i c i p a t e w ith boards
of education In th e determ in atio n of p o l i c i e s of common concern
Including s a la ry and o th e r c o n d itio n s of p ro fe ssio n a l s e rv ic e s.
(Finn* 1985* p. 23)
Teacher c o l l e c t i v e bargain ing o r i g in a te d In Michigan fo llo w in g
the passage of P u b lic Act 379 of th e Michigan P u b lic Acts of 1965.

By

I t s own d e fin itio n * P u b lic Act 379 (th e P u b lic Employment R e la tio n s
Act) 1s:
an a c t t o p r o h i b it s t r i k e s by c e r t a i n p u b lic employees; t o provide
review from d i s c ip l i n a r y a c tio n w ith re s p e c t th e r e to ; t o provide
f o r th e m ediation o f griev ances and t h e holding o f e l e c t i o n s ; t o
d e c la re and p r o te c t th e r i g h t s and p r i v il e g e s of p u b lic employees;

11

12

and t o p re s c rib e a means o f enforcem ent and p e n a l ti e s fo r th e
m ediation o f p ro v isio n s of t h i s act. (Michigan Department of Labor*
1965* p. 16)
S ection 9 g iv es employees th e r i g h t t o organize f o r purposes of
c o l l e c t i v e bargaining* and Section 11 s p e c i f i e s th e mandatory t o p i c s of
c o l l e c t i v e bargaining a s being " r a t e s of pay* wages* hours of employ­
ment and o th e r c o n d itio n s of employment" (p. 17).

P u b lic Act 379

se rv e s a s a benchmark f o r th e p re s e n t study because I t was a f t e r th e
a c t was passed 1n 1965 t h a t c o l l e c t i v e bargainin g o f f i c i a l l y began in
Michigan.
C o lle c tiv e bargaining and te a c h e r unions have emerged as
Im portant p o l i t i c a l and I n s t i t u t i o n a l fo r c e s 1n pub lic education.
Since th e 1960s* th e National Education A ssociation and th e American
Federation of Teachers have pursued long-term goals and s t r a t e g i e s
r e l a t i v e t o c o l l e c t i v e bargaining.

Teacher o rg a n iz a tio n s have been

le a d e r s In th e s tru g g le t o extend th e range o f b arg aln ab le Is s u e s to
Include alm ost every conceivable Item t h a t would rem otely a f f e c t t h e
term s and c o n d itio n s of te a c h e r s ' employment.
Organized te a c h e r s have ex erted an In cre asin g ly stro n g I n f l u ­
ence In educational po licy making In a number o f ways.

Early 1n t h e

h is to r y of negotiations* te a c h e r o rg a n iz a tio n s concentrated on
barg aining about such t r a d i t i o n a l c o n tr a c t Item s as salary* frin g e
benefits* and working co n d itio n s.

As th e n e g o tia tio n process has

become more so p h istic a te d * th e scope of n e g o tia tio n s has expanded.
Teacher unions continue t o pursue an expanded b arg ain ing role* which
would Include any school p o lic y or procedure.

13

W riting 1n t h e Journal o f Law and Education, M etzler (1973)
sta te d :
P u b lic employees b a t t l e out by them selves t o determine what I s or
1s not nego tiab le. What Iss u e s a re n e g o tia b le and what c o n s t i t u t e s
good f a i t h bargainin g remain t o be hammered out on a case by case
b a sis. The two l a r g e s t te a c h e r unions contend t h a t any school
board policy or p ra c tic e even remotely a f f e c t i n g te a c h e r s ' I n t e r ­
e s t s and liv e lih o o d 1s or should be n e g o tia b le , (p. 140)
A major Issue In educational la b o r r e l a t i o n s 1s what s u b je c ts
te a c h e r unions can n e g o tia te a t the bargaining t a b le .

Before winning

barg aining rights* te a c h e rs had no say 1n t h e design of school b u ild ­
ings or t h e i r location* fin a n c in g of education* s iz e and scheduling of
classes* purchase of equipment* t r a i n i n g o f teachers* s t a f f develop­
ment* or curriculum development (Cheng* 1976).

However* now t h a t th e

scope of bargaining has expanded* school boards and a d m in is tr a to r s view
t h i s expansion as an encroachment on t h e i r a u th o r ity t o make policy and
manage th e schools.
C o lle c tiv e bargaining and te a c h e r unions a re c en tral t o th e
educational d e d slo n -m a k in g process.

Both p a r t i e s Involved In th e

bargain ing process have stro n g opinions about where th e control and
d e cisio n making regarding policy m a tte r s and procedures should re s id e .
The Iss u e s of power* professionalism * union goals* and management
p re ro g a tiv e s should a ll be kept 1n mind as one review s th e l i t e r a t u r e
and r e l a t e d s t u d i e s r e l a t i v e t o th e scope of c o l l e c t i v e bargain ing and
school management.

14

H is to r ic a l P e rsp e c tiv e on th e Scope_of_Barga1n1nq
In t h i s section* a b r i e f h i s t o r i c a l summary of th e c o l l e c t i v e bargaining p rocess provides background Inform ation and a fram e of
re fe re n c e fo r a d iscussio n of th e scope of bargaining* a s well as th e
v iew p o in ts of boards of education and te a c h e r unions presented l a t e r In
t h i s c h a p te r .
The National Teachers A ssociation was founded 1n 1960 "to
e le v a te th e c h a ra c te r and advance th e I n t e r e s t 1n th e education 1n the
U.S." (Wesley* 1975# p. 24).

In 1957 t h i s o rg an iz atio n became th e

National Education A ssociation (NEA).

During th e e a r ly y e a rs of th e

organization# NEA le a d e r s s t r e s s e d t h e " p ro fe s sio n a l" a s p e c ts of public
se rv ic e and did not champion the ta n g ib le or monetary b e n e f its of
tea ch in g .
Hie American Federation of Teachers (AFT) was c h a rte re d by th e
American Federation of Labor 1n 1916.

As ant1-un1on sentim ent grew

fo llo w in g World War I# th e AFT was c o n tin u a lly lin ked w ith ant1-w ar
and communist f a c tio n s .

The AFT gained stre n g th during th e depression*

and by th e l a t e 1930s th e org an iz atio n was becoming v i s i b l y a c tiv e .
The growth and development of th e AFT have f lu c tu a te d through th e
y e a rs.
I n t e r e s t In s a la rie s # pensions* and te n u re was e v id e n t 1n th e
e a r ly y e a rs of t h e NEA* even though c o ll e c t iv e bargaining was no t
viewed as an a p p ro p ria te a c t i v i t y fo r te a c h e rs.

Because of w e lfa re

d i f f i c u l t i e s during the depression y e a rs and the slow# steady growth of
t h e AFT* 1 t was not u n til t h e e a rly 1960s t h a t th e NEA openly advocated

15

pro fessio n al n e g o tia tio n s.

The NEA apparently used th e term p r o f e s ­

sional n e g o tia tio n s ” d e li b e r a t e l y t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e from th e t o l l e c t l v e
bargaining" t h a t th e AFT advocated.

Most e x p e r ts now agree t h a t any

d iffe r e n c e In th e two term s I s purely sem antic; today th e term s a re
used Interchangeably* a s thqy a re In t h i s study.
As mentioned e a r l i e r 1n t h i s chapter* 1960 marked th e beginning
of th e c o lle c tiv e - b a r g a in in g movement In p u b lic education.

Before

then* both th e NEA and th e AFT had advocated v a rio u s forms of c o ll e c ­
t i v e a c tio n by teachers* but no form aliz ed bargaining on a la r g e s c a le
had y e t occurred In th e teach in g professio n .

In 1960 th e f i r s t major

r e p r e s e n ta tio n e le c tio n took place 1n New York C ity ; th e AFT won t h a t
e le c tio n .

This was th e beginning of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining f o r th e

te a ch in g p rofession .

Teacher c o l l e c t i v e bargaining began In Michigan

In 1965 with th e passage of P ublic Act 379* which allo w s pu b lic employ­
e es t o bargain f o r wages* hours* and o th e r c o n d itio n s of employment.
S ta te s t a t u t e s re g u la tin g te a c h e r c o l l e c t i v e barg aining serve a
purpose f o r both te a c h e rs and school boards.

E xistence of a s t a t e

s t a t u t e mandating c o l l e c t i v e bargaining guaran tees t h a t te a c h e rs w ill
have th e r i g h t t o bargain and w ill be s u b je c t t o a uniform process.
S ta te laws can a ls o r e g u la te th e scope of bargaining and th u s a s s u re
management t h a t i t s p re ro g a tiv e s w ill not be u n n e ce ssa rily compro­
mised.

By 1984* 38 s t a t e s had c o lle c tiv e - b a r g a in in g s ta tu e s .

Many of

th e s e laws con tain p ro v isio n s d e sc rib in g th e scope o f what I s b a rg a in a b le .

16

Several sta te s# Including Michigan# have modeled t h e i r
bargaining p ro v isio n s a f t e r fe d e ra l s t a t u t e s governing p r l v a t e - s e c t o r
bargaining# which allow wages# hours# and o th e r term s and c o n d itio n s of
employment t o be n e g o tiate d .

The fo llo w in g d isc u ssio n of some of th e s e

s t a t e s t a t u t e s provides a b e t t e r understanding of th e language used t o
defin e th e scope of bargaining.
The Kansas S t a te C o lle c tiv e Bargaining Law s t a t e s t h a t any
m u tu a lly -a g re e d -to Item s a f f e c t i n g performance of p ro fessio n al s e r v ic e s
a re n e g o tiab le .

The Oklahoma law 1s general In I t s sta te m e n t t h a t

anything not 1n c o n f l i c t w ith th e s t a t e s t a t u t e s I s n e g o tiab le .
passed a law 1n 1975 t o r e s t r i c t th e scope of bargaining.

Nevada

This law

provides t h a t "the lo ca l government employer sh a ll d isc u ss s u b je c t
m a tte r s o u tsid e th e scope of mandatory bargaining but 1s not req u ire d
t o n e g o tia te such m a tte r s ” (James, 1976# p. 20).

The Nevada law a ls o

c o n ta in s an e x te n siv e m anagem ent-rlghts clause# which s tre n g th e n s th e
barg aining stance of school boards.
The Nevada supreme c o u rt decided t h a t a number of Items s i g n i f i ­
c a n tly r e l a te d t o wages# hours and working c o n d itio n s a re bargainable# Including p re p a ra tio n tim e f o r teachers# s t a f f i n g patterns#
performance standards# c la s s size# stu d e n t d i s c ip l i n e and I n s tr u c ­
tio n a l su p p lies. (James* 1976# p. 21)
In d ian a 's Bargaining Act o f 1973 s t a t e s t h a t "th ere a re
mandatory s u b je c ts re q u irin g school employers and employees t o bargain
over salary* wages and s a la r y and wage r e l a t e d f r in g e b e n e f i ts ” (Cheng#
1976# p. 23).

The s t a t u t e f u r t h e r provides t h a t n e g o tia tio n s can cover

a wide range of perm issive subjects# Inclu din g such Item s as curriculum

17
development and review* textbook selectio n* te a c h in g methods* and
te a c h e r assignments or promotions*
The Michigan s t a t u t e mandates t h a t boards of education must
n e g o tia te hours* wages* and c o n d itio n s of employment.

The s t a t u t e a ls o

s t a t e s t h a t 1 t 1s I lle g a l t o n e g o tia te anything a g a in s t school code or
1 aw.
Michigan has determ ined t h e scope of bargainin g p r im a rily on a
case-by-case basis* w ith decisio n s being made by the p a r t i e s a t th e
t a b l e and th e Michigan P ub lic Employment R e la tio n s Commission (MERC).
The MERC decides the a c tu a l con tex t of what 1s bargalnable when 1 t
r u l e s on Iss u e s brought before th e commission by te a c h e r unions or
school boards.

Some Is s u e s the Michigan board has ru led on as being

l e g i t i m a t e fo r n e g o tia tio n Include salary* Insurance benefits* leav es
of absence* te a c h in g assignments* date of the contract* and grievance
procedures (Jascourt* 1973).
Determining what 1s bargalnab le o fte n becomes a c r i t i c a l
p o l i t i c a l Issue.

In e ffe ct* bargainin g In trod uces a new focus:

p o l i t i c s 1n education.

In h i s book A lte rin g C o lle c tiv e . Bargaining*

Cheng (1976) wrote*
Management of pub lic sc hoo ls In a s i g n i f i c a n t
f o r p o l i t i c s c e n te rs on the p rin cip al fo ci of
p u b lic school a d m in is tr a tio n 1s fundam entally
d e cisio n s a re a r r iv e d a t and Implemented, (p.

sense I s p o litic s *
decision making and
a process In which
7)

One d i f f i c u l t y 1n d e fin in g t h e scope of bargaining 1n education
has been th e f a i l u r e t o d is tin g u is h between working c o n d itio n s and
educational policy.

A c l e a r l i n e has never been drawn between educa­

tio n a l policy and te a c h e r s ' working con ditio n s.

In th e p riv a te sector*

16

th e scope of bargainin g I s I n te r p r e te d by th e National Labor R e la tio n s
Board and upheld by th e Supreme Court*
two c a te g o r ie s of bargaining.

The is s u e s f a l l p r im a r ily In to

The f i r s t category 1s r e f e r r e d t o a s th e

mandatory area of bargaining* which In clu d es wages* hours* and working
c o n d itio n s.

The second category 1s r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e p erm issiv e area

of bargaining.

In t h i s Instance* barg aining I s not req u ire d of e i t h e r

party* but upon volun tary agreement by both p arties* c e r t a i n s u b je c ts
can be n e g o tiate d .
P u b lic school te a c h e r s have a broader scope of n e g o tia b le Items
than v i r t u a l l y any o th e r c l a s s of employees 1n e i t h e r th e p u b lic o r the
p r iv a te s e c t o r .

The NEA has taken t h e p o s itio n t h a t i

Anything p e r ta in in g t o th e te a c h in g -le a rn in g process I s a p o te n tia l
s u b je c t f o r c o l l e c t i v e bargaining. To n e g o tia te an In s tr u c tio n a l
Item means t o Involve th e te a c h e r In educational d e d slo n -m a k in g
v ia h i s / h e r local o r s t a t e a s s o c ia tio n . (Cooper* 1982* p. 31)
The review of l i t e r a t u r e f o r t h i s study In d ica te d t h a t much of
t h e c o n f l i c t occurring In educational bargaining has r e s u l te d from th e
f a c t t h a t te a c h e r s and te a c h e r o rg a n iz a tio n s are seeking Increased
power and p ro fessio n al rights* whereas a d m in is tr a to r s and school board
members perceive t h i s expansion of a u th o r ity as an encroachment In to
t h e i r domain.

The two s id e s of th e Issu e a re considered 1n t h e

fo llo w in g s e c tio n by examining some of th e Iss u e s perceived by both
groups.

19

Viewpoints o f School Board Members Versus
Teacher Union R epresentatives
Tills s e c tio n focuses on th e v iew points of school board members
and te a c h e r union r e p r e s e n ta t iv e s w ith re s p e c t t o what c o n s t i t u t e s a
p e rm is s ib le t o p ic t o Include In c o n tr a c t bargaining.

The re fe re n c e s

a re r e p r e s e n ta tiv e of a t t i t u d e s and opinions concerning th e scope of
bargain ing and serve a s v a lu a b le background on th e complex q u e stio n s
addressed 1n t h i s study.
When te a c h e r s f i r s t began t o seek bargaining rig h ts* school
boards charged i t was unprofessional f o r te a c h e r s t o bargain f o r wages
and f r in g e b e n e f its and encouraged them t o concern them selves s o le ly
w ith I n s tr u c tio n a l and c u r r i c u l a r m atters*

At t h a t point* te a c h e rs

were preoccupied w ith securing b a sic bargainin g r i g h t s t h a t p r l v a t e s e c to r employees had come t o tak e f o r granted.

K a r l l t z (1976)

p re d ic te d then t h a t :
Once m a tte r s r e l a t e d t o economic c o n d itio n s a re firm ly e s ta b lis h e d
as negotiable* In c re a s in g d ecisio n al a u th o r ity In a re a s r e l a te d to
educational policy w ill become a major o b je c tiv e of organized
t e a c h e r s , (p. 125)
A former p re s id e n t of th e AFT* C harles Cogen* s a id :
We p lace no l i m i t on th e item s which a re s u b je c t t o th e bargaining
process. Anything on which two p a r t i e s can agree should become a
p a r t of th e agreement. Anything on which they cannot agree w ill
not appear, ( c i t e d by Cooper* 1962* p. 33)
The s tr u g g le f o r power has engendered 1n te a c h e r s a d e s ir e t o
Influence* 1f not control* as many elem ents of th e educational e n te r ­
p r i s e as p o ssib le .

Unions have continued t o p re s s f o r language t h a t

speaks d i r e c t l y t o th e curriculum .

The process by which curriculum and

20

policy decisio n s a re made 1s becoming a common p rovision of some
te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts .
The philosophy Inherent 1n p ro fessio n al n e g o tia tio n s 1s t h a t
teachers* l i k e o th e r pro fessio n al p ra c titio n e rs * have a deep and tr a n ­
scendent I n t e r e s t 1n a l l m a tte rs t h a t p e rta in t o th e sta n d ard s o f t h e i r
p ra c tic e .

As S tin n ett* Klelnmann* and Ware (1966) asserted* nI f pro­

fe s s io n a lis m 1n education means anything* I t means te a c h e r s have a
l e g i t i m a t e I n t e r e s t 1n every decisio n t h a t a f f e c t s t h e i r pupil c l i e n ­
t e l e and th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e i r work" (p. 154).
In most school d i s t r i c t s * curriculum and policy d e cisio n s a re
made by a d m in is tr a tiv e personnel and descend through t h e system.
Teachers want t o bargain f o r a more dem ocratic approach t o curriculum
and po licy development.

They fee l In h eren tly resp o n sib le fo r th e

success or f a i l u r e of curriculum programs and o ften b e lie v e they should
be d i r e c t l y Involved In or In some
c u r r i c u l a r d e cisio n s.

In sta n c e s have u ltim a te co ntro l over

F arr (1983) stated*

Recent c o n tr a c ts c o n ta in p ro v isio n s fo r curriculum councils*
te a c h e r I n - s e r v ic e and th e s e le c tio n of te a ch in g m a te r ia ls . The
Michigan Education A ssociation and t h e NEA tak e th e p o s itio n t h a t
n e g o tia tio n s should Include a ll m a tte r s which a f f e c t th e q u a li t y of
education. These o rg a n iz a tio n s
b e lie v e
a d m in is tr a tiv e d e c isio n s
regarding c u rr ic u lu m -r e la te d m a tte r s have had de trim e n tal e f f e c t s
on th e q u a li t y of education. Both o rg a n iz a tio n s have not been
s a t i s f i e d w ith th e amount of Input they have had In curriculum
m a tte rs , (p. 18)
T his a t t i t u d e toward t h e scope of Iss u e s t h a t a re bargalnable
was re in fo rc e d by th e Michigan Education A ssociation a t a Representa­
t i v e Assembly held 1n Lansing on November 10* 1984.
t i o n s approved by t h i s assembly were th e fo llo w in g :

Among th e re s o lu ­

21

The A ssociation urges lo cal a f f i l i a t e s t o Involve members and th ose
a f f e c te d 1n th e development and Im plem entation of programs f o r
I n s tr u c tio n a l Improvement# curriculum development# and In d iv id u a l­
ized I n s tr u c tio n . . . . The A ssociation b e lie v e s t h a t classroom
te a c h e rs can be accountable only t o th e degree t h a t they share
r e s p o n s i b i li t y 1n educational dec1 s i on-making and t o th e degree
t h a t o th e r p a r t i e s share t h i s r e s p o n s ib ility * • • ■ Teachers must
s e l e c t I n s tr u c tio n a l m a t e r i a ls w ith o u t censorship. The A ssociation
urges I t s a f f i l i a t e s t o seek t h e removal of laws and r e g u la tio n s
which r e s t r i c t th e s e le c tio n of a d i v e r s it y of I n s t r u c t i o n a l m ate­
r i a l s or which l i m i t te a c h e rs 1n t h e s e le c tio n of such m a te r ia ls .
( V oice# 1904# p. 7)
Taking a d i f f e r e n t p o s itio n on t h e question# Alfonso (1970)
claimed# ,rTTie p resen t model f o r n e g o tia tio n s . . .

1s a n t i t h e t i c a l to

a l l accepted p r i n c i p le s of curriculum development" (p. 45).

He went on

t o e x p la in t h a t he believed curriculum d e cisio n s should not be made by
any power group.

Power groups come In to being because of strong#

m o tiv a tin g s e l f - i n t e r e s t # and s e l f - i n t e r e s t must not be Involved In
curriculum and I n s t r u c t i o n decisions.

Likewise# Alfonso did not

b eliev e curriculum and I n s tr u c tio n should be the s u b je c t of a d v e rs a ria l
n e g o tia tio n s.

'Teacher unions and school boards may d i f f e r on m a tte r s

of sa la ry and r e l a t e d f rin g e benefits# but curriculum and I n s tr u c tio n
a r e not m a tte rs fo r tak in g sid e s " (p. 48).
In Michigan# th e tr e n d has been f o r c o lle c tiv e -b a rg a in in g u n its
t o gradually gain control over th e d ir e c tio n of local school c u rr ic u ­
lum# as well as o th e r p o lity Is s u e s and school procedures.

By law# th e

board of education I s re s p o n sib le fo r educational p o l i c i e s and proce­
dures.

S ta te l e g i s l a t o r s # s t a t e boards of education# and c o u rts of law

provide th e param eters t h a t d e li m it th e powers of a board o f educa­
tio n .

22

The growing tr e n d 1n education I s toward more a c c o u n ta b llI ty ,
and te a ch e r-u n lo n r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s use t h i s tre n d as t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r
t h e i r a ttem p t t o n e g o tia te c u r r ic u lu m -r e la te d I s s u e s and school p o l i ­
c ie s I n to t h e i r c o n tr a c ts .

I f te a c h e r s a re Indeed going t o be held

accountable, they want t o have a voice In determ ining what they a re
acco untab le fo r .

Concerning a c c o u n ta b ility ,

Vaughn (1976) m aintained

th a t:
T his growing tr e n d towards a c c o u n ta b ility makes I t only reasonable
f o r te a c h e r unions t o demand a g r e a t e r r o l e In developing th e g oals
and o b je c tiv e s t h a t te a c h e r s a re being held re s p o n sib le f o r Imple­
menting. . . . Through th e c o l l e c t i v e voice* re le v a n t g oals can be
developed f o r education and meaningful curriculum change can be
n e g o t i a t e d , (p. 22)
W ritin g on te a c h e r unions and th e curriculum change process,
E1ken (1977) s t a t e d :
A sup ervisory s t a f f ' s f l e x i b i l i t y 1n I n i t i a t i n g changes 1s more
l i m i t e d as c o l l e c t i v e bargainin g agreem ents Inco rp o ra te Iss u e s
a f f e c t i n g curriculum Innovation. This w r i t e r se e s curriculum
Iss u e s becoming more c o n stra in e d as th e n e g o tia tin g process
broadens t o Include more I n s tr u c tio n a l re la te d I s s u e s , (p. 175)
In "A Survey of Teacher A ttitu d e s ," Osborn (1975) commented:

"The

c u rr e n t d riv e towards te a c h e r s ' Involvement 1n d e d slo n -m a k in g I s
symptomatic of th e rap id p ro fessio n alism now ta k in g place In education
. . . defined a s t h e d riv e of a group t o control I t s own work" (p. 2 7 ).
The q u e stio n o f which Is s u e s a re n e g o tia b le rem ains t o be
determ ined on a c ase -b y -ca se b a sis.

Teachers a re demanding more con­

t r o l over t h e i r pro fessio n al d e stin y , and th e two l a r g e s t te a c h e r
unions contend t h a t any school board po licy o r p r a c tic e even rem otely
a f f e c t i n g te a c h e r s ' I n t e r e s t s and liv e lih o o d I s or should be nego­
tia b le .

23

Teachers' o rg a n iz a tio n s have been le a d e r s In organized la b o r 's
a tte m p t t o extend th e range of barg aln ab le Issu es t o Include alm ost
every conceivable t o p ic t h a t m ight rem otely a f f e c t te a c h e rs ' term s and
c o n d itio n s of employment.

Three b a sic a re a s a re Included in a con­

tra c t:

money* managerial d e cisio n making* and th e r i g h t s of th e par­

tie s.

The more p ro fessio n al th e p u b lic employee* th e more m anagerial

d e cisio n making 1s demanded.
In th e p r iv a te sector* unions seldom a ttem p t t o bargain on
production process and product design.

In education* however* such

l i m i t a t i o n s would be considered a denial of p ro fe ssio n a l s t a t u s .
Frequently I n - s e r v ic e tim e I s bargained away f o r more b e n e f its .
N egotiated c l a s s s i z e c r e a t e s an a d m in is tr a tiv e mind s e t t o " f i l l
up th e c la s s e s '1 1n a ssig n in g p u p ils t o c la s s e s . The t r a d i t i o n a l
labor-management n e g o tia tin g model 1n education has a number of
weaknesses* one o f which 1s t h a t I t l i n k s personal needs of
t e a c h e r s t o t h e I n s tr u c tio n a l needs of p u p ils . (Selden* 1975)
This continuing controversy p e n e tra te s d i r e c t l y t o th e h e a r t of
te a c h e r/b o a rd of e d u c a tio n /la b o r r e l a t i o n s :

e s ta b lis h m e n t of policy

and management's r i g h t t o determ ine th e I n s t r u c t i o n a l program and
o v e ra ll school curriculum .
Controversy about th e Iss u e s t h a t should be n e g o tia b le 1s
Influenced by c e r t a i n c o n s t r a i n ts on c o l l e c t i v e barg aining f o r a ll
p u b lic employees.

These c o n s t r a i n ts f a l l In to one of t h e fo llo w in g

c a te g o rie s :
S ta tu to r y l i m i t a t i o n s which e x i s t 1n v a rio u s s ta tu te s * leg al and
p r a c t ic a l l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e f i s c a l and managerial a u th o r ity of
p u b lic employers* p r e - e x i s t in g employment laws* r u le s and reg ula­
t i o n s ; management r i g h ts d ire c te d by p r e - e x i s t in g laws* r u l e s and
regulations* l i m i t a t i o n s upon th e o b lig a tio n t o bargain any changes
1n working c o n d itio n s and f i n a l l y l i m i t a t i o n s upon th e p u b lic
employee's r i g h t t o s t r i k e . (E1ken* 1977* p. 174)

24

Thus bargaining 1s Influenced by v a rio u s s t a t u t e s and pre~
e x i s t sin g employment laws.

The fo llo w in g s e c tio n co n ta in s a d iscussio n

of th e balance of power 1n schools as 1 t r e l a t e s t o th e declslon-m aking
process and school governance.
Manager_ial_Dec1s1on_Mak1ng and C o lle c tiv e Bargaining
The decision-m aking process 1n the schools Is c o n tr o lle d by
two a u th o r ity s t r u c t u r e s :

t h e te a c h e rs and t h e a d m in is tra to rs .

Each

group 1s c o n tin u a lly engaged 1n a tte m p ts t o control the behavior of th e
o th er.

This s i t u a t i o n has r e s u lte d In a balance of power between

te a c h e r s and a d m in istra to rs* w ith each group c a r e f u lly preserv in g I t s
own sphere of Influence over s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s of th e school.

Two

tre n d s t h a t a f f e c t the balance of power a re a c c o u n ta b ility and c o l­
l e c t i v e bargaining.

Outside groups a re placin g In c re a s in g p re ssu re on

te a c h e r s and a d m in is tr a to r s to be held accountable f o r the outcomes of
education or stu d e n t lea rn in g .

These o u tsid e groups can be viewed as

In c re a s in g th e emphasis on p o l i t i c a l and b u re a u c ra tic c o n tro ls and
c o n tr ib u tin g t o a s h i f t In th e decision making a f f e c t i n g school
curriculum* policy* and procedures.
One I n f l u e n t ia l o u tsid e group I s th e United S t a te s Department
of Education* which under the d ire c tio n of S e c re tary W illiam J. Bennett
published a r e p o r t of research about te a c h in g and le a rn in g In January
1986 (Bennett* 1986).

Preceding t h i s r e p o r t were Educat1on_Adv1r

sory_ 1985* published by Rexford Brown of th e Education Commission of

25

th e States* and the Michigan S t a te Board of E ducation's B e tte r Educa­
t i o n for__M1chJgan C itiz e n s : _ A B lu ep rin t f o r Action* published 1n 1983.
These r e p o r t s and o th e r s published 1n the p a s t fo u r y ears c a l le d fo r
educational reform.

They presented what re s e a rc h e rs have found about

what works when 1t comes t o educating c h ild ren .

Each of th e s e r e p o rts

s t a t e d t h a t schools w ith high stu d e n t achievement provide vigorous
In s tr u c tio n a l le a d e rs h ip and a re le d by a p rin cip al who makes clear*
co nsisten t* and f a i r decisio ns.

C o lle c tiv e bargaining has changed th e

command s t r u c tu r e 1n pub lic schools.

The focus of decision making has

changed from u n ila te r a l t o m u l t i l a t e r a l .

In addition* c o n tra c t la n ­

guage s p e c i f i e s and r e g u la te s many school p r a c tic e s .
In Educat1on__and_Urban S ociety. Kerchner (1979) wrote* T h e
most s i g n i f i c a n t q u a l i f i c a t i o n about school lab o r r e l a t i o n s 1s t h a t
t h e r e a re extreme v a r i a ti o n s In Impact on school governance" (p. 186).
He made several g e n e r a liz a tio n s about the e f f e c t of lab o r r e l a t i o n s on
governance and grouped them In to th e follow ing f i v e general a re a s :
1.

Hie breakdown of the u n ita ry command s t r u c tu r e and I t s re p la c e ­
ment by a m u l t i l a t e r a l bargaining system or a b i l a t e r a l sys­
tem.

2.

The In tro d u ctio n of new p a r t i c i p a n t s In school decisio n making*
in clu d in g la b o r professionals* both advocates and neutral t h i r d
p arties* organized and unorganized c itiz e n s* and e le c te d o f f i ­
c i a l s o u tsid e of education.

3.

The movement of th e focus of decision making t o c e n tra l o f f i c e s
w ith in school systems and t o lo c a tio n s o u tsid e school systems*
Including le g i s l a t u r e s * c o u rts and p u b lic a d m in is tr a tiv e
ag en cies.

26

4.

The broadening scope of Issu es t h a t f a l l I n to t h e lab o r r e la ­
tio n s arena* both Iss u e s ra is e d during formal n e g o tia tio n s and
those jo in e d t o th e c o l l e c t i v e process during a d m in is tr a tio n of
c o n tr a c ts .

5.

The changing n a tu re of managerial work. There I s evidence t h a t
school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s fa c e d i f f e r e n t ty p e s of Issues* new con­
s titu e n ts * d i f f e r e n t managerial roles* and new c r i t e r i a f o r
s u c c e s s In t h e i r j o b s . Cp. 201)
All of th e s e e ffe c ts* In d iv id u a lly and combined* r e l a t e t o th e

c e n tr a l Issu e s of edu cation al lab o r r e l a t i o n s .

The breakdown of th e

p a t e r n a l i s t i c s t r u c t u r e 1n school d ecisio n making Im pels t h e organi­
z a tio n t o p o l i t i c a l means t o reach agreem ents simply because th e
l e g i t im a t e a u th o r ity w ith in t h e e s ta b lis h e d school s t r u c t u r e i s not
i n f l u e n t i a l enough t o meet i t s g oals alone.

I t must now bargain with

th e union and* more than lik ely * c r e a t e c o a l i t i o n s w ith o th e r s o u tsid e
th e o rg an iz atio n 1f th e schools' go als a re t o be re a liz e d .
Broadening th e number and ty p e s of Issu es covered by th e
c o ll e c tiv e - b a r g a in in g agreement can have a v a r i e ty of e f f e c t s .

More

complex labor-management agreements le a d t o more d e ta ile d r u l e s t o
Implement them.

C o lle c tiv e barg ainin g p laces g r e a te r r e lia n c e on

un iform ity In educational d e cisio n making.

One of th e purposes of

la b o r r e l a t i o n s t h a t was s t a te d e a r ly on I s t o avoid c a p ric io u sn e ss In
school a d m in is tr a to r s ' tre a tm e n t of employees.

The r e a l i t y behind t h i s

goal I s t h a t uniform r u l e s f o r th e treatm ent* payment* and d i s c ip l i n e
of employees a re a p a r t of every lab o r agreement.
o rg a n iz a tio n toward c e n t r a l i z a t i o n .

This pushes th e

In general* s u b s ta n tiv e and

procedural r u le s follow th e sig n in g of a lab o r c o n tr a c t and make 1t
o p e ra tio n a l.

27

When tim e s a r e f i n a n c i a l l y tig h t* management I s o fte n pressed
t o f in d something t h a t I t can give away t o la b o r; th u s an agreement 1s
reached on a noncost Item such as j o i n t c o n s u lta tio n o r review of
curriculum programs.

Kerchner suggested* T h e scope of bargaining

expands both because of legal I n t e r p r e t a t i o n and because th e p a r t i e s
them selves ta k e a c tio n t h a t In c re a s e s th e number of Iss u e s being
discu ssed " (p. 189).
The debate continues.

I s a realignm ent of power o ccurring

between te a c h e r unions and a d m in is tr a to r s ?

I s th e decision-m aking

process 1n school d i s t r i c t s changing from one of u n i l a t e r a l decisio n
making t o b i l a t e r a l d e cisio n making?

Are a d m i n i s t r a t o r s lo s in g ground

when I t comes t o managing t h e i r schools?

The q u e stio n of what th e

scope of bargainin g should Include can be answered by analy zin g the
e f f e c t of th ese n e g o tia tio n s on school governance.
Review o f R e la ted S tu d ies
The preceding s e c tio n o u tlin e d t h e v iew p oin ts of school boards
and te a c h e r unions concerning th e n e g o t i a b i l i t y of policy and proce­
dures In te a c h e r c o n tra c ts .

Formal s t u d i e s d ealin g w ith th e degree t o

which such n e g o tia tio n s have taken place 1n th e p a s t te n y e a rs a re
v i r t u a l l y n on existen t.

One 1n-depth research p r o je c t w ith a r e la te d

follow -up study has been conducted and I s reviewed 1n t h i s section*
along w ith th r e e o th er s tu d ie s t h a t were conducted on s i m i l a r to p ic s .
In 1972* Zlem er completed a doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n on th e degree
t o which c u rr lc u lu m - ln s tr u c tlo n components e x is te d 1n n e g o tia te d
c o n tr a c ts .

He approached th e study by v a li d a t i n g 96 c u r r i c u l a r Item s

28

and then d e sig n atin g them as primary or secondary 1n nature.

Zlemer

se le c te d 14 c u rr e n t N E A -a ffilia te bargaining agreem ents and 14 c u rr e n t
AFT-aff11 l a t e barg aining agreem ents from c i t i e s throughout th e United
S ta te s .

He then used th e s e documents t o determ ine whether th e I d e n t i ­

f i e d c u r r i c u l a r components were* 1n fact* being negotiated*

Zlemer

a ls o sampled a t t i t u d e s of union le a d e r s 1n th e d i s t r i c t s from which
c o n tr a c ts had been s e le c te d and then compared s i m i l a r i t i e s or d i f f e r ­
ences 1n t h e emphasis th e s e union le a d e r s placed on n e g o tia tio n of
c u r r i c u l a r m a tte rs.
Thompson and Zlemer (1975) l a t e r expanded t h e preceding study to
Include an a t t l t u d l n a l survey of board of education members.

Their

study was published by th e National School Boards A ssociation a s a
research r e p o r t e n t it le d Impact o f C o lle c tiv e Bargaining on CurHculumIn stru ctlo n .

One hundred t h i r t y - n i n e school board members from 26 of

th e 28 o r i g in a ll y surveyed d i s t r i c t s responded t o an oplnlonnalre*
which l i s t e d v a rio u s curriculum components and sought respondents'
opinions about whether th e Item s were c le a r l y negotiable* not nego­
tia b le * an a d m in is tr a tiv e function* or whether th e respondent was not
c e r t a i n of the answer.

Only two currlcu lu m -1 n stru ct1 o n c a te g o r ie s were

seen’ as c le a r l y n e g o tia b le by more than 50% of t h e responding board
members.

Those c a te g o r ie s d e a lt w ith working c o n d itio n s such as non­

tea ch in g duties* te a c h e r evaluation* t r a n s f e r po licies* and te a c h e r
meetings.

Overall* board members expressed no consensus about where

th e I n s tr u c tio n decision making should occur.

The Im p lic a tio n I s t h a t

29

c u r r i c u l a r Item s a re appearing In c o n tra c ts even though board members
m ain tain t h a t such Item s a re not negotiable.
Frock (1977) analyzed c o n tr a c t language t o determine th e e x te n t
t o which language d i r e c t l y a f f e c t i n g curriculum e x is te d 1n te a c h e r
c o n tr a c ts 1n s e le c te d school d i s t r i c t s 1n so u th e aste rn Michigan.

He

sampled school d i s t r i c t s In th e highly unionized m etro p o lita n D e tr o it
area t o determ ine whether a tre n d In n e g o tia tin g curriculum m a tte r s
I n to te a c h e r agreements was e v id e n t since P u b lic Act 379 was signed
I n to law In 1965.

Twenty-five school d i s t r i c t s were chosen fo r study*

based on enrollment* r e l a t i v e wealth* and te a c h e r bargaining a f f i l i ­
a te .

Frock chose s i x of th e v a r i a b le s t h a t Zimmer used In h i s study

because they rep re se n t d iv erse c u rrlc u lu rn -In stru c tio n components and
also have policy Im p lic a tio n s .

The s i x v a r i a b le s he analyzed were

declslon-mak1 ng a u th o r ity over curriculum p o licy ; s e l e c ti o n of t e x t ­
books and I n s tr u c tio n a l m a t e r i a l s ; I n - s e rv ic e edu catio n; d eterm ination
of course co n ten t; academic freedom; and te a c h e r assignments* Involun­
ta ry tra n s fe r* and bumping.

S p e c if ic language about each se le c te d

c u r r i c u l a r component was recorded on a d ata-col 1ect1 on sh eet fo r each
of th e c o n tr a c ts analyzed.

The data were rep o rte d In te rm s of t o t a l

frequency with which each component occurred and a ls o In comparison
w ith the th r e e v a r i a b le s :

pupil population* s t a t e eq ualized valuation*

and b a rg a ln ln g -u n lt a f f i l i a t e .
Frock found t h a t from 1967 t o 1976 th e r e was a d e f i n i t e tr e n d
t o Include 1n te a c h e r agreem ents language giving te a c h e r s more voice In

30
determ ining curriculum and r e l a t e d policy m a tte rs.

A s i m i l a r tre n d was

t o Include more language r e l a t e d t o s e le c tio n of textb o o k s and i n s t r u c ­
tio n a l m a te r ia ls .
s e rv ic e education.

A s l i g h t tre n d was t o Include language a f f e c t i n g in Between 1967 and 1976, th e r e was a d e f i n i t e tre n d

1n th e a rea of academic freedom.

The most dram atic tre n d was t o

Include language a f f e c t i n g te a c h e r assignment* Involuntary tra n s fe r*
and bumping.

Frock determined t h a t th e actual language appeared t o

deal more w ith determ inant power than w ith s u b s ta n tiv e elem ents of
curriculum .

He a ls o found a r e l a ti o n s h i p between c o n tr a c t language and

a d i s t r i c t ' s s iz e and w ealth.

He did not f in d t h a t bargainin g a f f i l i ­

a t e played a major r o l e In th e type of language nego tiated .
Magee (1976) stu d ie d th e e f f e c t of c o l l e c t i v e n e g o tia tio n s on
school d i s t r i c t s ' curriculum planning and Improvement of In s tr u c tio n .
He concluded t h a t many c o n tra c ts contained agreements f o r te a c h e r
p a r t i c i p a t i o n 1n curriculum d e c isio n s through th e form ation of cur­
riculum c o u n c ils or committees r a t h e r than the a d d itio n of curriculum
proposals per se t o t h e c o n tra c t.
McDonnell and Pascal (1979) conducted a study of re c e n t tre n d s
1n te a c h e r c o l l e c t i v e bargainin g f o r th e Rand Corporation.

The study

was funded by th e National I n s t i t u t e of Education and th e United S t a te s
Department of Health* Education* and Welfare.

The purpose of the study

was t o examine key gain s te a c h e rs had made 1n t h e i r n e g o tia te d con­
t r a c t s 1n a re a s o th e r than sa la ry and f r in g e b e n e fits .
found:

The au th o rs

31

l i t t l e evidence t h a t c o l l e c t i v e bargaining had much Impact f o r good
or 111 on th e q u a li t y of educational s e r v ic e s t h a t te a c h e rs provide
t o stu d e n ts. Regulation of c l a s s s i z e was one of th e most dram atic
gains# but p ro v isio n s governing te a c h e r assignm ent and t r a n s f e r
policy were o th er Im portant c o l l e c t i v e bargaining achievements.
This studfy a ls o found t h a t organized te a c h e rs have a choice In
determ ining len g th and composition of t h e school day; how te a c h e rs
a re evaluated and promoted; and how a id e s a re used In schools. The
study I d e n t i f ie d a growing tre n d toward p r o f e s s io n a liz a tio n 1n
c o l l e c t i v e b argainin g using p ro fessio n al n e g o tia to r s , (p. 129)
Summary
In t h i s chapter a review of l i t e r a t u r e concerning t h e expansion
of Iss u e s bargained In te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts was presented.

The view points

of both school board members and te a c h e r union le a d e rs were discussed.
The e f f e c t of la b o r r e l a t i o n s on managerial decision making was a ls o
explored.

A h i s t o r i c a l overview of th e scope of bargaining showed th e

d iff e re n c e s t h a t e x i s t 1n the n ature and e x te n t of bargaining Issu e s
from s t a t e t o s t a t e .
A review of s e le c te d jo u rn a l a r t i c l e s # d is s e rta tio n s # and
r e l a te d s t u d i e s from th e past t e n y e a rs In d ic a te d a la c k of consensus
concerning t h e Issue of what should be a to p ic f o r n e g o tia tio n 1n
te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts .

Few s tu d ie s have been conducted on th e broad t o p ic

of educational lab or r e l a t i o n s or th e s p e c i f i c s u b je c t of what Is a
l e g i t i m a t e Iss u e t o be considered In the scope of bargaining.

One

Im portant study# however* was conducted 1n 1972# In which Zimmer
I d e n t i f i e d 96 curriculum components and then surveyed th e e x te n t t o
which th ese components e x is te d 1n 28 NEA- and A F T -a f fllla te c o n tra c ts .
He a lso compared th e a t t i t u d e s of union le a d e rs about th e n e g o ti a b i l it y
of th ese Items.

Frock (1977) focused on s i x key c u r r i c u l a r Item s and

32

t h e tre n d s In bargaining concerning th e s e Is s u e s from 1965 through 1976
1n m etro p o litan D e tro it.
The l i t e r a t u r e review provided background Inform ation and
v a lu a b le i n s i g h t In to p ercep tio n s and a t t i t u d e s concerning th e t o p ic
under In v e s tig a tio n .

A b a sic premise of th e study was t h a t changes 1n

n e g o tiate d agreem ents often occur gradually.

A tr e n d may e x i s t r e l a ­

t i v e to th e expansion 1n th e scope of barg alnable Issues* and t h i s
tr e n d may well a f f e c t th e management or governance of schools.

Because

l i t t l e Inform ation 1s a v a ila b le In t h e f i e l d of educational lab o r
re la tio n s* a study of t h i s n a tu re w ill provide Inform ation t o both
te a c h e r unions and school boards t h a t w ill be v a lu a b le 1n p re d ic tin g
f u tu r e tre n d s 1n c o n tr a c t n e g o tia tio n s.

CHAPTER I I I
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
In tro d u c tio n

The l i t e r a t u r e on educational la b o r r e l a t i o n s has suggested
t h a t c o l l e c t i v e bargain ing w ith te a c h e rs may be ev olu tio n ary 1n nature/
p ro gressin g from b a sic wage and b e n e f it d isc u ssio n s t o more complex and
s o p h i s t i c a t e d I n te r a c tio n s .

This study examined tre n d s In c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining over a 20-year period 1n Michigan K-12 pu b lic schools.

Also

considered was t h e e f f e c t of c o n tra c t language on t h e management of
schools/ as perceived by build in g p r in c ip a ls .

Another issu e addressed

1n th e study was uni form 1ty In th e scope of Issu es n e g o tiate d in to
te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts among K-12 p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s 1n Michigan and a
comparison of those is s u e s by d i s t r i c t s i z e and lo c a tio n .
C o lle c tiv e bargaining had I t s o f f i c i a l beginning 1n Michigan
20 y ears ago.

Those who n e g o tia te contracts# both fo r th e te a c h e r s '

union and th e school board# should know what tre n d s a re o c c u rrin g 1n
c o lle c tiv e - b a r g a in in g agreements.

Knowing what has been Included 1n

p a st n e g o tia te d agreements can be useful 1n p re d ic tin g fu tu re tre n d s.
Awareness of th ese tre n d s and of t h e e f f e c t t h a t c o n tr a c t language has
on th e a d m in is tr a tiv e management of sch ools w ill be of value t o school
boards and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s as well as t o te a c h e r union n e g o tia to rs.

33

34
Michigan has been recognized as a le a d e r In te a c h e r unionism
and c o lle c tiv e - b a r g a in in g advances.

As mentioned e a r l i e r * In p u b llc -

se c to r bargaining* policy m a tte r s and procedures a re l i k e l y t o be
n e g o tiate d only when a r e l a t i v e l y high le v e l of bargain ing s o p h i s t i ­
c atio n I s achieved (Kerchner* 1979).

Therefore* a study of tr e n d s 1n a

geographic a rea such as the one s e le c te d can have Im portant Im p lica­
t i o n s and be of a s s is ta n c e t o o th er school d i s t r i c t s and o th e r s t a t e s
t h a t may not have reached the same lev e l of s o p h i s t i c a t io n 1n bargain­
ing* as well as provide v a lu a b le Inform ation t o th o se who n e g o tia te
school d i s t r i c t c o n tra c ts .
Source o f th e Data
The data f o r t h i s study were gathered through a s t r a t i f i e d
sample s e le c te d by geographical regions w ith in Michigan.

A sample of

21 school d i s t r i c t s was chosen f o r the study* re p r e s e n tin g a ll
geographic a re a s of th e state* as well as rural* urban* and suburban
reg io n s.
The S t a te Department of Education has divided Michigan in to
four geographical reg io n s; th e d i s t r i c t s f o r t h i s study were s e le c te d
from w ith in each region according t o th e s iz e of t h e d i s t r i c t (Appendix
A).

Michigan school d i s t r i c t s a re c l a s s i f i e d by size* according t o th e

pupil population of th e d i s t r i c t .

These c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s a re determined

by g u id e lin e s e s t a b l is h e d In th e Michigan School Code.

Size c l a s s i f i ­

c a tio n s were used t o s e l e c t nine f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s * 11 t h i r d - c l a s s
d i s t r i c t s * and 1 seco n d -class d i s t r i c t .

There a re two se co n d -c lass

d i s t r i c t s 1n t h e s t a t e ; one I s a f f i l i a t e d w ith th e Michigan Federation

35

of Teachers and t h e r e f o r e was e lim in a te d from the sample.

There 1s

only one f i r s t - c l a s s d i s t r i c t 1n Michigan* and I t s te a c h e r a s s o c ia tio n
I s a ls o a f f i l i a t e d w ith the Michigan Federation of Teachers.

Thus* 1 t

was e lim in a te d from t h e sample along w ith o th er d i s t r i c t s a f f i l i a t e d
w ith t h a t organ izatio n .
The c o n tr a c t s n e g o tia te d between 1965 and 1965 fo r each of th e
21 s e le c te d d i s t r i c t s were analyzed using the C ontract Content A nalysis
Form (Appendix B).
U n iv e rsity Archives.

The c o n tr a c ts were lo c a te d 1n t h e Michigan S t a te
S uperinten dents from th e 21 d i s t r i c t s s e le c te d

f o r study were c o n ta cted and Informed of th e study; a l l of them
approved th e use of t h e i r d i s t r i c t s 1 c o n tr a c ts 1n t h i s research .

A

11st of th e school d i s t r i c t s Included 1n t h e study* along w ith th e
s iz e of th e d i s t r i c t and th e region 1 t represents* 1s presen ted In
Appendix C.
Instru m en tatio n
The methodology used In the study was d e s c r ip tiv e resea rch
employing c o n te n t a n a ly s is .

Content a n a ly s is of th e c o n tr a c t language*

as well as c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and comparison* y ie ld e d data t h a t were c l a s ­
sified * generalized* and I n te r p r e te d f o r use by n e g o tia to rs of school
d i s t r i c t c o n tra c ts.
The C on tract Content A nalysis Form
The Contract Content A nalysis Form was developed f o r use In
t h i s study as a to o l w ith which t o analyze c o n tr a c t c la u se s.

The

re s e a rc h e r received and reviewed a sample c o n tr a c t p rin te d by th e

36

Michigan Education A ssociation as a model c o n tra c t.

The Michigan

School Boards A ssociation provided a c h e c k li s t of c r i t e r i a I t uses In
review ing lo c a l d i s t r i c t c o n tra c ts .

From th e se two sources# the

re se a rc h e r compiled a 11 st of 29 common c o n tr a c t c lau ses.

These 29

c la u se s a re recognized a s accepted c la u se s one might expect t o f i n d 1n
te a c h e r c o lle c tiv e - b a r g a in in g agreements.

For each clause# a number of

c r i t e r i a were l i s t e d as Item s t o look f o r when analyzing the clause.
These c r i t e r i a were presented as neu tral c r i t e r i a # not being considered
t o be union c r i t e r i a f o r a good union clause o r management c r i t e r i a f o r
a good management clause.

The c r i t e r i a were used a s t h e measure f o r

Hypotheses 2 and 3 of t h i s study.
The In strum en t was t e s t e d by analyzing nine school d i s t r i c t
c o n tra c ts .

M odifications were made 1n th e c r i t e r i a l i s t e d f o r two

clauses# based on t h e absence of th e c r i t e r i a In t h e nine d i s t r i c t
c o n tra c ts .

M aternity and c h ll d - c a r e le a v e s were combined sin ce c h ild ­

c a re -le a v e term inology did not begin appearing 1n te a c h e r c o n tra c ts
u n til th e mid-1970s.
The 29 Item s l i s t e d on t h e C ontract Content Analysis Form a re
Individual c la u se s found In te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts .
defined by th e c r i t e r i a l i s t e d next t o I t .

Each c la u se 1s f u r t h e r

These c r i t e r i a comprise

s p e c i f i c Item s t o look f o r when analyzing th e clause.

The c la u se s are

l i s t e d on th e C ontract Content A nalysis Form 1n th e order 1n which they
a re usu ally l i s t e d In a te a c h e r c o n tra c t.
belcw.

Each c la u se 1s discussed

37
Recognition.
bargaining agent.

This clause provides t h e sta te m e n t of th e

Usually t h i s I s refe ren c ed t o P u b lic Act 379 of

1965* which allo w s te a c h e r a s s o c ia tio n s t o org an ize f o r th e purposes
of c o ll e c t iv e bargaining.

This clau se also defines c a te g o r ie s of

employees Included 1n th e bargaining u n i t and s p e c i f i e s employees
excluded from the barg aining u n it.
Board/d1str_1ct__r_1ghts.

This clau se r e in f o r c e s th e r i g h t s of

the school board# in clu d in g s t a tu t o r y r i g h t s and the r i g h t t o e s t a b l i s h
p o l i c i e s and procedures.

These r i g h t s may be l i s t e d s p e c if ic a lly # or

I t may be s t a te d t h a t the board r e t a i n s a ll d is c r e tio n not m odified by
th e agreement.
Assoc1at1on/_teacher_r1 g hts.

This clau se u sually s t a t e s t h a t

te a c h e r s have th e leg al r i g h t t o organize# Join# and su ppo rt th e
a s s o c ia tio n f o r t h e purpose of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining.

This clause can

a ls o 11st s p e c i f i c Items# such a s the r i g h t t o use school f a c i l i t i e s
and equipment under c e r t a i n conditions* t o use b u l l e t i n boards f o r
posting notices* and t o use the d i s t r i c t mall se rv ice .

The a ss o c ia ­

t i o n 's r i g h t t o fin a n c ia l Information* board m eeting agendas* and
Inform ation necessary f o r pro cessin g a grievance may be s ta te d .
Union security/m em bership.

This clause u sually makes

membership 1n th e union or payment of an equivalency fe e a cond ition
of employment.

The amount of tim e an Individual can work In th e d is ­

t r i c t before paying a s s o c ia tio n dues or an equivalency f e e may be
sp e c ifie d .

This c la u se usually c o n ta in s language p r o te c tin g t h e board

38
from leg a l a c tio n I f an Individual chooses t o seek leg a l reco u rse 1n
case of d ism issa l.
C lass s i z e .

This c la u se may be found under t h e general

category of te a c h in g c o n ditions.

A l i m i t on the number of s tu d e n ts who

may be assigned t o a c l a s s I s u sually specified# and rem edies may be
provided 1f th e c la s s s i z e 1s la r g e r than th e number l i s t e d In th e
clause.

Additional pay f o r s tu d e n ts above th e l i m i t or a d d itio n a l help

1n th e classroom In th e form of an aide may be included.

This clause

may provide a w eighting of special education s tu d e n ts 1n t h e re g u la r
classroom# I.e.# counting each one as two stu d e n ts.

The clau se may

re q u ire c o n s u lta tio n w ith th e a s s o c ia tio n before p lac in g a d d itio n a l
stu d e n ts In a te a c h e r 's c la s s .

Access t o grievance procedures I f th e

c la s s s i z e exceeds t h e l i m i t may be provided.
Teachlng c o n d ltlo n s.

This c la u se may sp e cify th e hours of work

fo r a s s o c ia tio n members# l i s t i n g an exact tim e a t which they must be a t
school and an e x a c t tim e a t which they may leave school f o r th e day.
The number of c la s s e s t h a t can be ta u g h t 1n a day# th e amount of
planning tim e t h a t must be made available# and the use of planning tim e
may be s ta te d .

This clause may a ls o l i s t th e amount of tim e t h a t must

be provided f o r a d u ty -fre e lunch period*

Extra compensation f o r

te a c h e r s I f they have an assignm ent exceeding what th e clause s p e c i f i e s
may be provided.
Teaching asslgnm ent.

This clau se usually s p e c i f i e s a date by

which te a c h e rs must be n o t i f i e d of t h e i r te a c h in g assignm ent f o r th e

39
next school y ear and t h a t a te a c h e r cannot be assign ed t o a c l a s s th e
S ta te Department of Education has not c e r t i f i e d him /her t o teach.
V a can cles/transfers/prom ot1ons.

These th r e e Item s a re usu ally

Included 1n t h e same clau se and may be defined 1n t h e clause.

Language

may re q u ire v acancies and new p o s itio n s t o be posted fo llo w in g a spe­
c i f i c procedure fo r a c e r t a i n amount of tim e.
t h a t the a s s o c ia tio n be n o t i f i e d of a vacancy.

This clau se may re q u ire
Language 1n t h i s c la u se

may re q u ire an a s s o c ia tio n member t o be t r a n s f e r r e d t o a vacant posi­
t io n before someone new I s h ire d t o f i l l th e vacancy.

This clau se may

a ls o Include language l i m i t i n g Involuntary t r a n s f e r s t o a vacant p osi­
tio n .
Teacher e v a lu a tio n .

This clau se may sp ecify th e procedure fo r

e v a lu a tin g teachers* along w ith th e tim e lin e t h a t must be follow ed 1n
such e v alu atio n s.

S p e c ified may be th e number of classroom observa­

t i o n s t h a t must be conducted; th e f i n a l evaluation be 1n w riting*
signed by th e te a c h e r; and t h a t th e te a c h e r respond In w ritin g .

The

language may re q u ire t h a t a s s o c ia tio n r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s be Involved 1n
developing th e e v a lu a tio n c r i t e r i a and Instrum ent.

The clau se may

sp e c ify th e frequency w ith which ten ured te a c h e rs a re evaluated and may
also. Include a procedure f o r te a c h e rs t o review t h e i r personal f i l e s .
Access t o grievance procedures 1f th e r e Is disagreem ent w ith regard t o
th e e v a lu a tio n and /or process may be provided.
P r o f e s s io n a l behavior.

This c la u se may s t a t e t h a t th e te a c h e r

I s o b lig a te d t o comply with t h e rules* regulations* and p o l i c i e s e s ta b ­
lis h e d by the board of education.

40

Maintenance o f sta n d ard s.

This clause s t a t e s t h a t th e condi­

t i o n s of employment cannot be changed except by mutual agreement o f
both p a r tie s .
Leaves o f absence.
t h i s clause.

Numerous ty p es of le a v e s may be l i s t e d In

Ten d i f f e r e n t le a v e s t h a t may be a v a ila b le t o te a c h e r s

were examined In t h i s study.
A ssociation leave.

This clause provides fo r a s s o c ia tio n

members t o be a b se n t from school t o a tte n d m eetings of th e a s s o c ia tio n .
The clau se may sp e cify th e number of days allowed each year# d efine who
1

s e l i g i b l e t o use th e leave# allow f o r reimbursement t o the d i s t r i c t

f o r s u b s t i t u t e s ' pay# and sp e cify a procedure fo r req u e stin g t h e leave.
Bereavement leave.
family#"

This c la u se may define th e term "Immediate

t h e number of days t h a t may be used# th e procedure fo r

re q u e stin g th e leave# and s t a t e t h a t the days a re t o be taken from sic k
leav e.
M atern1ty/ch1ld c are lea v e .

This clause provides f o r leave

a f t e r the b i r th of a c h ild and may s t a t e t h a t
pay.

1

t I s a le a v e w ith o u t

A s p e c i f i c amount of tim e f o r n o tif y in g t h e d i s t r i c t and l i m i t

th e amount of tim e of th e leave may be req u ired .
D i s a b i li t y leav e.

This c la u se may define what Is meant by

" d i s a b i l i t y " and Include a procedure f o r re q u e stin g th e le a v e .
3urv-duty leave.

This clau se a llo w s f o r absence when an

a s s o c ia tio n member 1s subpoenaed f o r j u r y duty.
procedure f o r handling Ju ry -d u ty pay.

I t may sp e c ify the

41

This clau se may s t a t e t h e param eters f o r

Personal le a v e .

personal leave# s e t a l i m i t on th e number of days t h a t may be used# and
sp ecify t h a t p e rs o n a l-le a v e days a re deducted from s ic k le a v e .
P ro fe ss 1onal_leave.

This c la u se a llo w s f o r a s s o c ia tio n

members t o a tte n d p ro fessio n al conferences# workshops# or meetings.
The clau se may d efin e what c o n s t i t u t e s p ro fessio n al leave# s e t a l i m i t
on th e number of days* and sp e c ify a procedure fo r using th e leave.
Unpaid lea v e .

This clau se may sp e cify what unpaid leave may be

used for* d e lin e a te th e procedure fo r re q u e stin g leave* and place a
l i m i t on the len g th of th e le a v e .
Sabbatical leav e.

Such leave 1s provided f o r 1n th e Michigan

School Code# s e c tio n 380.1235.

The clau se may sp e cify the number of

s t a f f members who may be granted sa b b a tic a l leave a t one tim e and
s t a t e a beginning and ending date f o r th e le a v e .
S1ck lea v e .

This clau se may co n tain a d e f i n i ti o n of what 1s

considered e l i g i b l e use f o r sic k leave.

The c la u se may sp e cify the

number of days available* a t o t a l accumulation f o r unused days* and a
procedure f o r n o tif y in g th e d i s t r i c t of In te n tio n t o use th e leave.
Reduction in person n e l / s e n l o r l t y / l a y o f f / r e c a l l .
Item s a re usu ally found
defined.

1

These four

n th e same clause* and th e term s may be

The clau se may specify th e procedure fo r lay in g o f f proba­

tio n a ry and tenured te a c h e rs .

The procedure f o r n o t i f i c a t i o n of r e c a l l

as well as t h e amount of tim e l e f t on th e r e c a ll

1 1

s t may be s p e c ifie d .

The clau se may s t a t e th e amount of tim e t o respond t o a r e c a ll n o tic e .
In addition* t h i s clause may provide f o r a te a c h e r t o gain te n u re In a

42

s p e c i f i c p o sitio n .

The language may address a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' s e n i o r it y

and may s t a t e t h a t a te a c h e r who becomes r e q u a l if i e d w hile on la y o f f
can be r e c a l l e d when a p o s itio n becomes a v a ila b le .
Grievance procedure.

The grlevance-procedure c la u se provides

fo r enforcement of th e w r i t t e n c o n tr a c t w ith out going t o court.

The

clau se may d efin e a grievance and may l i m i t I t t o a v io la tio n # m isin ­
te rp r e ta tio n # or m is a p p lic a tio n of th e c o n tra c t.
and a tim e l i m i t on each ste p may be s t a te d .
f o r binding a r b i t r a t i o n a s th e fin a l step

1

Steps t o be follow ed

This c la u se may provide

n th e procedure# sp e cify fo r

payment of th e a r b i t r a t o r # and put l i m i t s on th e a u th o rity of th e
a rb itrato r.

The re le a s e of employees Involved In a grievance hearing

and a place f o r th e hearin g may be provided.

The language may exclude

probationary te a c h e r discharge or placement on a t h i r d y e a r of proba­
t i o n from access t o th e grievance procedure.
I n s tr u c tio n a l c o u n cil/c u rric u lu m comm ittee.

Th1 s clause may

provide f o r th e form ation of a committee t o make recommendations t o
th e su p e rin te n d en t fo r textbook o r curriculum changes and may sp ecify
J o i n t membership of a s s o c ia tio n and board members.

The c la u se may a ls o

provide f o r r e g u la r ly scheduled m eetings of th e group.
School calendar.

This c la u se may sp e cify th e number of

te a c h e r workdays as well a s stu d e n t attendance days.

The c o n tr a c t may

contain th e s p e c i f i c school-year calen dar and a procedure f o r making up
days l o s t frcm Inclement weather.

43

Teacher_pr o t e c t i o n /s tu d e n t d i s c i pi 1ne.

This c la u s e may provide

f o r reasonab le su p p o rt of te a c h e r s and allow them te m p o r a r ily t o
exclude s tu d e n ts from c la s s .
C o n tin u ity of o o e r a tlo n s /n o -s tr lk e clause.

T his c la u s e s p e c i­

f i e s t h a t a s s o c i a t i o n members ag ree n o t t o s t r i k e during th e term of
th e agreement.

Procedures f o r t h e board t o d i s c i p l i n e employees found

In v i o l a t i o n may be Included.
Waiver o r z ip p e r c la u s e .

T his c la u se s t a t e s t h a t t h e w r i t t e n

agreem ent 1s th e com plete and f u l l agreem ent between th e p a r t i e s .
n e it h e r party

1

That

s o b lig a te d t o n e g o ti a t e on o th e r Item s during t h e te rm s

of th e agreem ent u n le ss both a g re e t o do so may be s t a te d .
One d i f f i c u l t y encountered 1n a n aly zin g c o n t r a c t s was t h a t t h e
f i r s t o f f i c i a l l y n e g o tia te d te a c h e r c o n tr a c t s did not appear u n til
1966.

Even though school boards may have had u n o f f i c i a l agreem ents

w ith t h e i r t e a c h e r s b efore 1966* 1 t was not u n til then t h a t r a t i f i e d
agreem ents began t o appear.

Another d i f f i c u l t y In a n aly zin g c o n tr a c t s

was th e physical c o n d itio n of some of th e e a r l y c o n tr a c ts .

Some were

mimeographed and t h e pages were faded o r poorly reproduced* making them
d i f f i c u l t t o read.
Measurement o f C o n tra ct
R e s trlc tiv e n e s s Scale

The 29 c la u s e s l i s t e d on t h e C o ntract Content A nalysis Form
were l i s t e d w ith a b r i e f d e s c r ip tio n on th e Measurement of C o n trac t
R e s t r l c t i v e n e s s S c a le (Appendix D).

T w enty -fiv e randomly s e l e c te d

p r i n c i p a l s were asked t o r a t e each of t h e 29 c la u s e s on a s c a l e of

44

r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s ranging from 5 = extrem ely r e s t r i c t i v e t o 1 = l e a s t
re stric tiv e .

A n eu tral r a t i n g of 3 was given a s one of t h e choices.

All rankings were tabulated* and the e ig h t c la u se s t h a t receiv ed th e
h ig h est average score were used t o measure th e r e s t r l c t i v e n e s s of th e
actual c o n tr a c t language f o r th e

21

d istric ts

1

n th e sample.

A panel of 16 p r i n c i p a l s was s e le c te d t o r a t e th e actual con­
t r a c t language f o r the e ig h t s e le c te d c la u se s from the sample d is ­
tric ts .

The panel was composed of t h r e e se n io r high p rin cip als* one

working In a secon d-class d i s t r i c t * one

1

n a t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t * and

one In a f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t ; t h r e e middle school p rincipals* one
each from a second-* th ird -* and f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t ; and te n elemen­
ta r y p rin cip als* t h r e e from a seco n d -class d i s t r i c t * th r e e from a
t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t * and fo u r from a f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t . The p rin ­
c ip a ls had between 3 and 19 y ears of experience as a b u ild in g p rln c lp a l.
The p r in c ip a ls were given th e Measurement of C ontract R e s t r ic ­
tiv e n e s s form with the d e f i n i t i o n s of th e term s on the s c a le and asked
t o r a t e th e c la u se s as they perceived t h e language would lim it#
obstruct* or confine them from making a d ecisio n having an e f f e c t on
some a sp e c t of school management* personnel procedure* or e s t a b l is h i n g
school po licy i f they were t o use th e language In t h e i r b u ild in g and
school d i s t r i c t .

Each of th e Judges ra te d te n c la u se s

e ig h t a re a s se le c te d .

1

n one of th e

The p r i n c i p a l s were asked t o make t h e i r jud g­

ments on th e r e s t r l c t i v e n e s s of th e s p e c i f i c language Independently of
the o th e r c la u se s they were r a tin g .

45

flatura o f Data C ollected
Two ty p es of data were c o lle c te d :

fa c tu a l and perceptual.

The fa c tu a l data concerned th e Iss u e s and scope of c r i t e r i a 1n each
te a c h e r c o n tr a c t n e g o tia te d between 1965 and 1985 in each of th e 21
d i s t r i c t s 1n th e study sample.

The perceptual data were p r i n c i p a l s '

p e rc e p tio n s of t h e r e s t r l c t i v e n e s s of th e e ig h t c o n ta c t c la u s e s rate d
as th e most r e s t r i c t i v e of t h e 29 clau ses.
S t a ti s t ! c a l - P r o c e d u r e f o r Analyzing_the_Data
The I n v e s t ig a to r s e le c te d several s t a t i s t i c a l procedures t o
c l a r i f y c e r t a i n a s p e c ts of th e study and t o t e s t th e hypotheses formu­
l a t e d fo r th e research.

To t e s t Hypothesis 1* r e l a te d t o th e d i f f e r ­

ence 1n th e number of c la u se s n e g o tia te d 1n Michigan K-12 p u b lic school
d i s t r i c t s ' c o n tra c ts between 1965 and 1985* the a n a l y s i s was performed
1n two p a rts .

For each d i s t r ic t * t h e number of c la u se s found In th e

f i r s t c o n tr a c t y ear (1965) was s u b tr a c te d from the number of c la u se s
found 1n 1985* r e s u l t i n g In a d iffe re n c e score.

These d iffe re n c e s were

analyzed using a t - t e s t f o r s ig n ific a n c e of d iffe re n c e s between c o rre ­
l a t e d means (Downle & Heath* 1965).
To a s s e s s t h e d iffe re n c e 1n th e scope of Issu es n e g o tiate d In to
t e a c h e r s ' c o n tr a c ts based on d i s t r i c t s ' c la s s siz e or geographic lo c a ­
tion* th e numbers of Iss u e s were expressed

1

n frequency c a te g o rie s .

The data were then analyzed using th e ch1-square technique t o t e s t fo r
sig n if ic a n c e of th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e number of Issu es mentioned

46
and th e d i s t r i c t s s i z e (Hypothesis 2) o r geographic lo c a ti o n (Hypothe­
s i s 3).
Hypotheses 4 and 5 were t e s t e d using one-way a n a ly s is of
varian ce.

This s t a t i s t i c allowed th e re s e a rc h e r t o t e s t th e null

hypo th esis of no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e among t h e means of th e vario u s
d i s t r i c t s or groups of d i s t r i c t s .

V a ria tio n

t o each of th e e ig h t c la u se s was considered
between d i s t r i c t r e s u l t s .

1

1

n each r a t e r 's response

n analyzing t h e variance

When th e v a ria n ce was deemed s ig n ific a n t*

f u r t h e r a n a ly s is was conducted t o a s c e r t a i n d if f e r e n c e s between d is ­
t r i c t s or groups of d i s t r i c t s .

An F - t e s t was used t o measure th e

s ig n if ic a n c e of th e d iffe re n c e between th e Independent v a r i a b le s
(school d i s t r i c t s ) In t h i s study.
The .05 alpha level was s e le c te d a s th e c r i t e r i o n f o r accept­
ance or r e j e c t i o n of th e s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses.

This lev e l was

thought t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y rigorous f o r th e c o n d itio n s of th e study.
Thus* I f th e p r o b a b ility was equal t o or l e s s than f i v e tim e s In a
hundred* th e observed d if fe r e n c e s could be a t t r i b u t e d t o chance and t h e
null hypothesis r e je c te d .
magnitude t h a t

1

I f th e observed d iffe re n c e was of such

t m ight a r i s e more than f i v e tim e s In a hundred through

th e o p eratio n of chance facto rs* th e nu ll hyp othesis was accepted.
Summary
Sources of data f o r th e study were described 1n t h i s chapter.
The s t a t i s t i c a l - a n a l y s i s procedures used In t e s t i n g th e hypotheses
were explained.
IV.

R e su lts of th e data a n a ly s is a re d iscu ssed In Chapter

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
I n tro d u c tio n
To begin Chapter IV# 1t Is a p p ro p ria te t o d iscu ss some general
f in d in g s about Michigan te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts t h a t became apparent as th e
barg aining agreem ents were analyzed.

The 21 school d i s t r i c t s 1n th e

sample produced a t o t a l of 186 te a c h e r c o n tr a c t s between 1965 and 1985.
These c o n tr a c ts can be found 1n th e a rc h iv e s a t th e Michigan S t a te
U niversity Library.
2 0

The number of c o n tr a c t s n e g o tiate d during th e

-y ea r tim e span v a rie d f o r each d i s t r i c t because each d i s t r i c t nego­

t i a t e s i t s own c o n tr a c ts ; some a re s in g le - y e a r agreements and o th e rs
a re m ulti pi e -y e a r agreements.

Most d i s t r i c t s neg o tiated c o n tr a c ts of

two years* duration# but t h e range was from s ln g le - y e a r agreem ents t o
th o se of fo u r y e a rs' duratio n .

Therefore# th e number of c o n tr a c t s

analyzed f o r each Individual d i s t r i c t ranged from
20

6

t o 13 over th e

-y e a r p e rio d .
Some of th e e a r l i e r te a c h e r c o n tr a c t s were p a r t of a d i s t r i c t

te a c h e r handbook compiled by th e a d m in is tra tio n t o provide b a sic guide­
l i n e s fo r th e te a ch in g s t a f f .

Other e a rly c o n tr a c ts were a com pilation

of mimeographed pages t h a t incorpo rated board p olicies* d i s t r i c t phi­
losophy# and t h e Code of E th ic s of th e Michigan Education A ssociation.
A fter t h r e e rounds of bargaining# th e Code of E th ic s of th e Michigan

*17

46

Education A ssociation no long er appeared 1n te a c h e r barg aining agree­
ments.

The physical appearance of t h e c o n tr a c ts gained s o p h i s t i c a t io n

as mimeographed pages were soon replaced by typed and p ro fe s s io n a lly
reproduced documents.

The number of pages a ls o Increased as c o n tr a c t

language became more s o p h is tic a te d and c la u se s expanded.
P u b lic Act 379 of th e Michigan Pub lic Acts became law on
Ju ly 1* 1965* and th e fo llo w in g y ear formal n e g o tiate d te a c h e r bargain­
ing agreem ents began appearing In Michigan.
sample* 16 had c o n tr a c ts t h a t were
year.

1

Of th e 21 d i s t r i c t s 1n th e

n e f f e c t during th e 1966-67 school

Of th e s e 16 d i s t r i c t s * f iv e had m ulti pi e -y e a r agreements o f two

or th r e e y e a rs ' duration .

Five of th e d i s t r i c t s

1

n th e sample did not

have a n e g o tiate d c o n tra c t u n til th e 1967-68 school year.
In an aly zin g th e 166 contracts* some I n c o n s is te n c ie s were noted
1n t h e c o n tr a c t c la u se s during t h e 20 -year tim e span.

In seven of th e

d i s t r i c t s * c o n tr a c t c la u se s t h a t were p re s e n t In th e f i r s t n e g o tiate d
agreement were not p re s e n t
th e 1964-85 school year.

1

n th e c o n tr a c t t h a t was

1

n e f f e c t during

In each of th e s e seven d i s t r i c t s * one t o

t h r e e c la u se s were dropped from th e c o n tr a c t a t some p o in t during th e
20-year period.

These seven c o n tr a c t c la u se s were (a) a s s o c ia tio n

leave* (b) d i s a b i l i t y leave* (c) m a t e r n lty /c h lld - c a r e leave* (d) aca­
demic freedom* (e)

1

n s t r u c t 1 ona 1 / c u r r 1 culurn council* if) maintenance of

standards* and (g) c o n tin u ity of o p e ra tio n s.

In t h r e e of th e d is ­

t r i c t s * c la u se s were ab sen t from th e f i r s t c o n tr a c t and th e l a s t con­
t r a c t analyzed but appeared a t some p o in t w ith in th e

20

- y e a r period.

These c la u se s were (a) waiver or z ip p e r clause* (b) Ju ry -d u ty leave*

49

(c) p ro fe s s io n a l leave# (d) union security/m em bership# and (e) I n s t r u c ­
t io n a l c o u n c il/c u rrlc u lu rn com m ittee.

The re s e a r c h e r assumed t h a t such

f l u c t u a t i o n s In c o n t r a c t language were r e l a t e d t o v a r i a b l e s In volving
th e o v e ra ll economic clim ate# changes
s k i l l 1 n n e g o ti a t i n g

1

n personnel and t h e i r le v e l of

t h e agreements# and changes In law and r u l i n g s

t h a t were passed on through l e g i s l a t i v e bodies In flu e n c in g te a c h e r
n e g o ti a t i o n s .
As mentioned e a r l i e r # v a rio u s a u th o rs (Finn# 1985; Kerchner#
1979) have a s s e r t e d t h a t c o n tr a c t n e g o tia tio n s a re e v o lu tio n a ry 1n
nature# and t h e d ata compiled f o r t h i s study s u b s t a n t i a t e d th e
e v o lu tio n a ry n a tu re of c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g In Michigan te a c h e r
c o n tra c ts.
R es u lts o f th e Data A n a ly s is

The f in d in g s r e l a t e d t o th e hypotheses of t h e study a re p re­
se n te d 1n t h i s s e c tio n .

The f i r s t su b sec tio n c o n ta in s t h e fin d in g s

w ith reg a rd t o th e c o n t r a c t c la u s e s o f t h e 21 d i s t r i c t s .

Findings

r e l a t e d t o t h e r e s t r l c t i v e n e s s o f th e e i g h t s e l e c te d c o n t r a c t c la u s e s
a re d isc u sse d In th e second su b s e c tio n .
Findings Regarding C o n tra ct Clauses

Hypothesis 1 ; There w ill be 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 ­
ence 1n t h e number o f c la u s e s n e g o tia te d 1n Michigan K-12 p u b lic
school d i s t r i c t s ' c o n tr a c t s between 1965 and 1985.
Table 1 shows th e number o f c la u s e s n e g o tia te d f o r each of th e
21 d i s t r i c t s 1n t h e study f o r t h e y e a r s 1965 to r f i r s t n e g o tia te d
c o n tr a c t) and 1985.

The s t a t i s t i c a l tec h n iq u e used t o determ ine

50

whether th e d iffe r e n c e between th e number of c la u se s n e g o tia te d from
1965 t o 1965 was s i g n i f i c a n t was th e t - t e s t of th e means of c o r r e l a t e d
data because th e two s e t s of measures (1965 and 1985) were on the same
d istric ts.

Table 1 ."Number of c la u s e s n e g o tia te d :

1965 and 1985.
Number of Clauses

D i s t r i c t Name

Grand Rapids
Grand Haven
P o rt Huron
Utica
Traverse City
Saginaw
B a tt l e Creek
Livonia
Lansing
C a d illac
S a u lt S te . Marie
Allegan
Mlo-Au Sable
Petoskey
Camden-Frontier
Ewen-Trout
Onekama
Cassopol1s
Whitmore Lake
D eerfield
Iro n Mountain

Reg1on

Class
1965

1985
26
26
27
24
24
26
24
28
26
24
27
19
19

2

2

20

2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

21

2
1

3
2
2
1
2

3
4
2

3
3
2

4
3
2
2
2

4

21

15
12
21

17
21
21
11

23
16
13
13
13

20

12

21

8

20

11

20

10

20

13

20

6

20

To determ ine th e s ig n if ic a n c e of th e d iffe re n c e between th e
1965 and 1985 c o n tr a c t clauses* th e fo llo w in g form ulas were used t o
compute th e s ig n ific a n c e of th e d iff e re n c e s between th e c o r r e la te d
means obtained from th e 1965 and 1985 c o n tr a c ts .

20

where Xgg= mean number of c la u s e s n e g o tiate d 1n 1965
Xgg = mean number of c la u s e s n e g o tia te d In 1985
SE<j e standard e r r o r of th e d iffe re n c e between c o rr e la te d means

SEd - / s E

8 5

)2 + <SE65>2 - 2r(SE6 s )<SEe s >

where SE5 5 = standard e r r o r fo r 1965
SEss = stan d ard e r r o r f o r 1985
r = c o r r e l a t io n between 1965 and 1985 number of c la u s e s
The means* standard deviations* and th e r e s u l t i n g t - r a t l o were
compared w ith th e t - v a l u e In a t a b l e of t- v a lu e s .
presented In Table 2.

These data a re

The average number of c la u se s n e g o tia te d In 1985

was 23* whereas th e average number of c la u se s n e g o tia te d 1n 1965 was
15* a d iff e r e n c e of e ig h t c la u se s.

The observed t - v a l u e of 10.1 In d i­

c ated t h a t t h i s d iffe re n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t a t a l l l e v e ls (p < .0 0 0 1 ).
Thus Hypothesis l - - t h a t th e r e would be 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 iffe re n c e 1n th e number of c la u se s n e g o tia te d In Michigan K-12 pu b lic
school d i s t r i c t s ' c o n tr a c ts between 1965 and 1985—was re je c te d .

52

Table 2.--Means» sta n d ard deviations* and r e s u l t i n g t - r a t l o o f c la u s e s
In d i s t r i c t c o n tr a c t s from 1965 t o 1985.
1965
Number o f d i s t r i c t s
Mean number of c la u se s
Standard d e v ia tio n
Standard e r r o r of th e mean

1985

21

21

15
5.1

23
4.1
.9

1 .1

.71

C o rre la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t
Standard e r r o r of d if f e r e n c e s
between means
Observed t - v a lu e

.80
1 0 .1

S i g n i f ic a n t a t th e 5% le v e l ( t . g s * 20* =

2

. 1 )•

F u rth e r a n a ly s is by d i s t r i c t s In d ica te d t h a t th e d if f e r e n c e s In
the number of c la u se s between th e two y e a rs under In v e s tig a tio n were
a ls o s i g n i f i c a n t when d i s t r i c t c la u s e s were analyzed by d i s t r i c t siz e .
Table 3 shows th e s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s .
Table 3 . —Number of c la u se s n e g o tia te d by d i s t r i c t c l a s s and region.

D i s t r i c t Class
.Two
Three
Four
Region
One
Two
Three
Four

1965

1985

20

18

26
25

11

20

18
17

26
23

11

21

14

23

*S1gn1fleant a t th e 5 % l e v e l .

D ifference

*
7*
9*

6

6*

*
1 0 *
9*
6

53

Hypothesis 2; There w ill be 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 ­
ence In th e scope of Is s u e s n e g o tia te d I n to te a c h e r c o n tr a c t s
between second-# th ird -# and f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s In Michigan.

R e su lts of th e ch1-square a n a ly s is conducted on th e data f o r
H ypothesis 2 a re shown 1n Table 4 .

Table 4 . —Number of c r i t e r i a mentioned# by d i s t r i c t c l a s s .
Number of
C rite ria
Mentloned
100

+

90-100

D i s t r i c t Class
Total
Two
N count
% o f row t o t a l
% of column t o t a l

0

1

0

1

0

100

0

5

0

10

0

N count
of row t o t a l
of column t o t a l

25

3
75
27

0

%
%

80-90

70-80

Total

1

100

0

N count
of row t o t a l
of col umn t o t a l

0

5

0

0

100

0

0

45

0

N count
of row t o t a l
of column t o t a l

0

2

0

33
18

N count
of row t o t a l
o f column t o t a l

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

%
%

N count
of row t o t a l

1

11

5

52

%

4
19

0

%
%

%
%

60-70

Three

Four

4
67
44
5
100

5
24
6

29
5
24

56
9
43

21
100

Ch 1-square = 20.68
Chi-square with

8

df a t th e

$%

alpha lev el of s ig n if ic a n c e = 15.5

df = (number of c l a s s d i s t r i c t s - 1) x (number of c r i t e r i a - 1) = (3-1)
x (5-1) = 8

54

The r e s u l t i n g ch1-square value of 20.68 was l a r g e r than th e
t a b l e value o f 15.5.

Based on th e s e re s u lts * th e second h y p o th esis--

t h a t th e r e would be 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 iffe re n c e In th e
scope of Is s u e s n e g o tia te d I n to te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts between second-*
t h ir d - * and f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s 1n Michigan—was r e je c te d .
The highly s i g n i f i c a n t c h i-s q u a re value gave a stro n g In d ica­
t i o n t h a t 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 if f e r e n c e s e x is te d among t h e th r e e
d i s t r i c t c la s s e s .

A f u r t h e r t e s t was conducted t o determ ine whether

t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s d if f e r e d from f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s .

R e su lts of

th e ch1-square a n a l y s i s are shown 1n Table 5.
The r e s u l t i n g c h i-s q u a re value of 14.22 was la r g e r than th e
t a b l e value o f 9.5.

Based on th e s e re s u lts * I t was concluded t h a t

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 if fe r e n c e s e x is te d

1

n th e scope of Issu es

n e g o tiate d in to te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts between t h i r d - and f o u r t h - c l a s s
d i s t r i c t s 1n Michigan.
Because only one seco n d -class d i s t r i c t (Grand Rapids) was
Included

1

n th e sample* a c h i-sq u are a n a ly s is could not be conducted

f o r t h a t d i s t r i c t a g a in s t th e t h i r d - c l a s s o r f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s
Independently.

However* th e number of Issu e s or c r i t e r i a f o r Grand

Rapids (94) was c l e a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than t h a t f o r t h i r d - c l a s s
d i s t r i c t s (average »

8 8

) and f o r f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s (average = 69 ).

The data analyzed f o r t h i s hypothesis stro n g ly In d icated t h a t
th e number o f Issu es ( c r i t e r i a ) mentioned

1

n th e seco n d -class d i s ­

t r i c t s ' c o n tr a c t s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than th e number mentioned
t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s * which

1

n tu rn was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than

1

n

55

th o se mentioned 1n f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s .

Based on th e s e findings* 1t

was concluded t h a t th e l a r g e r th e d i s t r i c t # th e g r e a te r th e p r o b a b ility
t h a t I t s te a c h e r c o n tr a c t s would Include more c r i t e r i a and t h e r e f o re
th e c o n tr a c t c la u s e s would be more s p e c i f i c .

Table 5 . — Number o f c r i t e r i a mentioned# by d i s t r i c t c l a s s :
and f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s .
Number of
C rite ria
Mentioned
100

+

90-100

D i s t r i c t Class
Total
Three
1

0

1

100

0

5

10

0

N count
of row t o t a l
of col linn t o t a l

3

0

100

0

27

0

N count
of row t o t a l
of column t o t a l

5

0

100

%
%

70-80

N count
of row t o t a l
o f column t o t a l

%
%

60-70

N count
o f row t o t a l
of column t o t a l

%
%

Total

Four

N count
* of row t o t a l
% of column t o t a l
%
%

80-90

tM rd -

N count
% of row t o t a l

45
2

33
18
0
0
0

11

52

0

5
25

0

4
67
44
5
100

6

30
5
25

56
9
43

Ch1-square « 14.22
Chi-square with 4 df a t th e 5* alpha level of s ig n if ic a n c e ** 9.5
df = (2-1) x (5-1) - 4

3
15

20
100

56

Hy p o th esis 3 ; There w ill be 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 ­
ence 1 n th e scope of Is s u e s n e g o tiate d i n t o te a c h e r contracts*
based on t h e geographical region of Michigan 1n which th e d i s t r i c t
Is lo c a te d .
R e su lts of th e ch1-square a n a ly s is conducted on t h e data fo r
Hypothesis 3 a re shown 1n Table

Table

6

+

90-100

80-90

Geographic Region
Total
One

.
Total

Three

Four

%
%

N count
o f row t o ta l
of column t o t a l

25
50

N count
of row t o t a l
of column t o t a l

1

1

20

20

50

10

40
40

4
67
36

2

0

6

33
40

0

29

N count
of row to ta l
of column t o t a l

%
%

60-70

Two

N count
% of row t o t a l
% of column t o t a l

%
%

70-80

.

.--Number of c r i t e r i a mentioned* by geographic reg ion .

Number of
C rite ria
Mentioned
100

6

N count
% of row t o t a l
% of column t o t a l
N count
% o f row t o t a l

1

0

0

1

0

100

0

0

5

0

10

0

0

3
75
57

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0
0
0

0

2

0
0

40
18

2

11

10

52

2

1

1
20

5
24

33

0

2

20

40
67

5
24

3
14

20

4
19

5
24
21
100

Chi-square = 11.62
Chi square with 12 df a t th e 5% alpha lev el of s ig n if ic a n c e » 21.0
df ■ (number of reg io n s - 1) x (number of c r i t e r i a - 1) = (4-1) x (5-1)
= 12

57

The r e s u l t i n g c h i-s q u a re value of 11.6 was s m a lle r than th e
t a b l e value o f 21.0.

Based on th e s e re s u lts * th e t h i r d hypothesis—

t h a t th e r e would be 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 iffe re n c e In th e
scope of Is s u e s n e g o tia te d In to te a c h e r contracts* based on th e
geographical region of Michigan
not re je c te d .

1

n which th e d i s t r i c t

1

s l o c a te d —was

No f u r t h e r a n a ly s is between reg io n s was necessary.

The

re s e a rc h e r concluded t h a t th e number of Issu e s ( c r i t e r i a ) n e g o tia te d
was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o th e geographic region of Michigan In
which th e d i s t r i c t was lo c a te d .
In summary* t h e t e s t s of th e f i r s t two hypotheses showed t h a t
s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s e x is te d In c o n tra c t c la u se s n e g o tiate d

1

n

Michigan K-12 p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s from 1965 t o 1965 and t h a t
s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e s e x is te d In the scope or number of Issu es nego­
t i a t e d In to d i s t r i c t c o n tr a c ts between second-* th ir d - * and f o u r th c la s s d i s t r i c t s .

The t e s t of th e t h i r d hypothesis showed t h a t th e

lo c a tio n of t h e d i s t r i c t made no d iffe re n c e

1

n th e scope of Issues

neg o tiated In to I t s te a c h e r c o n tra c ts .
N a rra tiv e a n a ly s is o f th e 29 s p e c ific c o n tra c t cla u s e s . — Table

7 shows a 11st of th e 29 c o n tr a c t clau ses considered and th e number of
d i s t r i c t s w ith such c la u se s fo r t h e two y e a rs examined

1

n th e study.

During th e f i r s t y ear of c o n tra c t negotiations* 27 of t h e 29 c o n tra c t
c la u se s were found 1n a t l e a s t one d i s t r i c t c o n tra c t.
t r a c t clause t h a t was p re s e n t
th e s ic k -le a v e clause.

1

n each of t h e

21

The only con­

sample d i s t r i c t s was

The re c o g n itio n c la u se and t h e grlev ance-

procedure c la u se were p re se n t 1n 20 c o n tra c ts .

Teaching c o n d itio n s and

56

bereavement le a v e were p re se n t 1n 19 of t h e 21 d i s t r i c t s * and a s s o c ia ­
t i o n r i g h t s / t e a c h e r r i g h t s and te a c h e r p ro te c tio n or stu d e n t d i s c i p l i n e
were p re s e n t 1n 16 of t h e 21 d i s t r i c t c o n tra c ts .

The lo w e st number o f

c la u s e s found In t h e d i s t r i c t c o n tr a c t s during t h e 1984-85 c o n tr a c t
y e a r was 19.
Table 7 .— Number of d i s t r i c t s with s p e c i f i c clauses* 1965 and 1985.
Number of D1 s t r l c t s
Clause
1965
Recognition
B o a r d /d 1 s tr ic t r i g h t s
A ssociation r i g h t s / t e a c h e r r i g h t s
Union security/m embership
C lass s i z e
Teaching c o n d itio n s
Teaching assignment
V a c a n c le s/p rc m o tlo n s/tra n sfe rs
Academic freedom
Teacher e v alu atio n
P ro fe ssio n a l behavior
Maintenance o f stan d ard s
A ssociation leav e
Bereavement leav e
M a te rn ity /c h ild c a re leave
D is a b ility lea v e
Ju ry -d u ty leave
Personal lea v e
P rofessio nal leave
Unpaid leave
Sabbatical leave
SIck lea v e
Reduction In p e r s o n n e l / s e n i o r i t y / l a y o f f / r e c a l l
Grievance procedure
I n s tr u c tio n a l counci 1 /currlculurn committee
School c alen d a r
Teacher p r o t e c tio n /s tu d e n t d i s c i p l i n e
C ontinuity of o p e ra tio n s /n o s t r i k e
Waiver or z ip p e r c la u se

1985

20

21

10

20

18

2 0

6

21

7
19
17
15
8

7
3
7

15
21
21
20
10
21

10

7
9
19

19
14

20

0

9
17

21

1

18
21

6

10

11

21

8

13

21

21

0

21

20

21

9

9

8

20

18
7
3

18
IS
9

59

The two c o n tr a c t c la u s e s t h a t were a b sen t from th e f i r s t
n e g o tiate d te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts were d i s a b i l i t y le a v e and reductio n In
p e rs o n n e l/se n lo rlty /la y o ff/re c a ll.
1

The nonexistence of th ese c la u s e s

n e a rly c o n tr a c t s was In a l l p r o b a b ility due t o t h e economic c lim a te

and supply and demand of te a c h e rs .

During t h e 1966-67 school year*

tea ch in g p o s itio n s were p l e n t i f u l ; school d i s t r i c t s were h ir in g s t a f f
and were not concerned about cutbacks or la y o f f s due t o economic
n e c e ssity .

W ithin f i v e y e a rs t h i s tr e n d quickly changed* as d i s t r i c t s

were beginning t o experience economic d i f f i c u l t i e s coupled w ith
d e c lin in g e n ro llm e n ts.

Therefore* th e focus on c o n tr a c t n e g o tia tio n s

began t o change w ith th e In tro d u c tio n of c o n tr a c t language on reduction
1

n p e rso n n e l/se n io rity /!a y o ff/re c a ll.
The f i r s t red u c tio n -In -p e rso n n el c la u se language appeared among

sample d i s t r i c t s during th e 1970-71 school year* and by 1976 each of
t h e 21 d i s t r i c t s had some language on reduction In personnel.

The

f i r s t c la u se s n e g o tia te d were very basic# p roviding f o r la y o f f of
ten u red te a c h e r s according t o s e n i o r it y .

During t h e next round of

n egotiations* t h e language expanded t o cover la y o f f of probationary
t e a c h e r s before th e la y o ff of tenured teachers# th e s p e c i f i c amount of
tim e req u ire d f o r n o tif ic a tio n * and th e amount of tim e a te a c h e r would
remain on th e r e c a l l 11st.

The language continued t o evolve and

become more s o p h is tic a te d w ith th e In clu sio n of a s p e c i f i c amount of
tim e t o respond t o a r e c a ll notice# a procedure and t im e lin e f o r a
s e n i o r it y l i s t i n g of d i s t r i c t teachers* a s p e c i f i c procedure f o r
n o tify in g th e te a c h e r of layoff* and a d e f i n i ti o n of term s used In t h e

60
clause.

This clause appeared 1n a l l 21 d i s t r i c t s by th e 1904-85

c o n tra c t y e a r.
The o th er c o n tra c t clau se t h a t did not e x i s t 1n any of th e
sample d i s t r i c t s during th e 1966-67 c o n tr a c t y e a r was d i s a b i l i t y
leave.

This clau se was th e most c o n s is te n tly absent from d i s t r i c t

c o n tr a c ts during th e 20-year period examined 1n t h i s study.

J u s t one

d i s t r i c t had d ls a b ll 1 ty -le av e language by th e 1984-85 c o n tr a c t.

It

became app arent as th e c o n tr a c t c la u se s were analyzed t h a t d i s a b i l i t y
leave* I f addressed by c o n tr a c t language* was Included w ith t h e s ic k leave language and n ot a s a se p ara te clau se 1n the c o n tra c t.

During

th e l a t e 1970s* some language began t o appear concerning workers'
compensation as I t r e l a t e s t o d i s t r i c t procedures and s ic k -le a v e bene­
fits.

Perhaps th e legal requirem ents of th e school d i s t r i c t s with

regard t o workers' compensation covered d i s a b i l i t y leave.
Two c la u se s t h a t were Included In only th r e e d i s t r i c t c o n tr a c ts
during th e 1966-67 c o n tr a c t y ear were a p ro fe s slo n a l-b e h a v lo r clause
and a waiver or z ip p e r clause.

The c r i t e r i a fo r a p ro f e s s lo n a l-

behavlor clau se s t a t e t h a t a te a c h e r I s o b lig a te d t o comply w ith th e
r u l e s and r e g u la tio n s e s ta b lis h e d by th e board.
negotiations*

1

During e a r ly c o n tra c t

t was probably assumed t h a t te a c h e rs would comply with

r u l e s and re g u la tio n s e s ta b lis h e d by th e board; thus* th e p a r t i e s did
not deem 1 t necessary t o Include such language

1

n the c o l l e c t i v e -

bargaining agreement.

1

n t h e c o n tr a c ts of

This clau se was p re se n t

seven t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s during th e l a s t year of th e study.

61

The waiver or z ip p e r clause s t a t e s th e c o n tr a c t 1s t h e complete
agreement between th e p a r t i e s and t h a t n e ith e r party

1

s o b lig a te d t o

n e g o tia te on o th e r Item s during t h e duration of th e c o n tra c t.

The

purpose of t h i s c la u se Is t o avoid continuing n e g o tia tio n s a f t e r th e
c o n tra c t has been r a t i f i e d ; and* when coupled w ith a stro n g b o a rd -rlg h ts
clause* can l i m i t th e ro le of p a st p ra c tic e used by grievance a r b i t r a ­
to rs.

This clause appeared 1n t h r e e c o n tra c ts during t h e f i r s t y ear of

the study and

1

n nine c o n tra c ts during th e l a s t year of the study.

The union security/m em ber ship clause appeared In th e f i r s t
c o n tr a c t of s i x sample d i s t r i c t s .

This clause 1s one t h a t expanded

with changes 1n law regarding agency shop f o r te a c h e r unions.

In th e

f i r s t contracts* t h i s clause contained language allow ing the board t o
deduct un1on-membersh1p dues from te a c h e rs upon a u th o riz a tio n .
second or t h i r d round of c o n tra c t n e g o tia tio n s

1

By t h e

n th e l a t e 1960s or

e a rly 1970s* language began t o appear t h a t allowed f o r c o ll e c t io n of an
equivalency fee f o r te a c h e rs no t choosing t o j o i n th e MEA.
t r a c t clause was p resen t

1

n a ll

21

The con­

sample d i s t r i c t s during th e l a s t

year of the study.
S a b b a tic a l-le a v e language appeared In e ig h t d i s t r i c t c o n tr a c ts
th e f i r s t y ear of the study and 1n 13 d i s t r i c t c o n tr a c ts th e l a s t year
of th e study.

The Michigan School Code covers sa b b atica l leave fo r

teachers* making

1

t an option of th e board t o g ran t such leave t o a

te a c h e r who has been employed w ith t h e d i s t r i c t seven years.

D istric t

n e g o tia to r s may deem t h i s coverage or provision f o r sa b b atica l leave
adequate.

62

Leave language was popular In th e f i r s t c o n tr a c ts .

In fact*

te n d i f f e r e n t leav e c la u s e s were p a r t of t h e 29 c la u se s analyzed.
of th e se te n le a v e s were p re s e n t 1n th e f i r s t y e a r 's c o n tra c t.
only leave c la u se a b se n t was th e d l s a b l l l t y - l e a v e clause.

Nine

The

Bereavement

le a v e was found 1n 19 of th e 21 d i s t r i c t c o n tr a c t s and p e rs o n a l-le a v e
language 1n 17* follow ed by m a t e r n l t y /c h l ld - c a r e leave In 14 of th e
c o n tr a c ts .

Language reg arding m a t e r n i t y /c h i ld c a re has evolved t o

r e f l e c t changes 1n th e law (E lU o tt-L a rs e n C1v1l R ights Act).

The

f i r s t c la u s e s req u ire d te a c h e rs t o q u i t working from fo ur t o s i x months
before th e b i r t h and forbade them t o re tu rn sooner than s i x weeks a f t e r
b irth .

In th e mid-1970s* th e language began changing t o allow te a c h e rs

t o work u n til* by n o tic e o f t h e i r physician* they were unable t o do so*
and t o r e tu r n as soon as t h e i r doctor s t a t e d they were p h y sic a lly ab le
t o resume t h e i r d u tie s.

This clau se appeared In 20 of th e 21 sample

d i s t r i c t s ' c o n tr a c t s during 1984-85.
S ic k -le a v e c la u s e s sp e cify t h e number of days allowed per year
f o r I l l n e s s and the t o t a l number of days of unused s ic k leave t h a t
te a c h e rs may accumulate.

The number of days allow ed f o r s ic k leav e

ranged from 9 t o 12 th e f i r s t y ear of th e c o n tr a c t.

The t o t a l

accumulation of days ranged from 60 t o an u n lim ite d number.
m entioning a s p e c i f i c number of days

1

D istricts

n th e c la u se in creased t h a t

number w ith subsequent te a c h e r c o n tra c ts .

Sick days could accumulate

t o 130 In some d i s t r i c t s and t o 200 In o th ers.

In c re a s e s 1n t o t a l

accumulation were apparent* whereas th e number of days a l l o t t e d per
y ear remained f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t w ith in each d i s t r i c t .

Three of th e

63

d i s t r i c t s 1n th e sample (P o rt Huron* Livonia* and C a d illac ) had
language providing f o r a s ic k - le a v e bank f o r te a c h e rs .

Each te a c h e r

donated one day o f h i s / h e r s ic k - le a v e a llo tm e n t t o a d i s t r i c t bank
a d m in istere d by a d m in is tr a to r s and a committee of te a c h e rs appointed by
the education a s s o c ia tio n .

This group determined te a c h e r s 1 e l i g i b i l i t y

t o use th e s ic k - le a v e bank.
P e rso n a l-b u s in e ss -le a v e language* which appeared In 17
c o n tr a c ts th e f i r s t y ear of the study and In a l l

21

c o n tr a c ts th e l a s t

year* s p e c if ie d th e number of days per year each te a c h e r could use* s e t
g u id e lin e s f o r use of th e days* and o u tlin e d a procedure f o r o b ta in in g
use of th e days.

The 21 d i s t r i c t s allowed between one and th r e e

p e rso n a l-b u sin e ss days per y ear.

As th e c o n tr a c ts progressed* th e

c lau se language expanded t o re q u ir e te a c h e rs t o give n o tic e and
complete a d i s t r i c t form before ta k in g a p e rso n al-b u sin e ss day.

Three

of th e 21 d i s t r i c t s 1n t h e sample (Camden-Frontier* Grand Rapids* and
S a u lt Ste. Marie) allowed tenured te a c h e rs two days of p e rso n albusi ness leav e per y e ar; p rob atio nary te a c h e rs were given one day per
year.

Two o f th e sampled d i s t r i c t s (Cassopolls and T raverse City)

allowed th e f i r s t day of personal bu siness t o be taken a t no charge t o
th e .teacher; I f a second day was taken* the s u b s t i t u t e te a c h e r 's pay
was deducted from th e t e a c h e r 's s a la r y .

Three of th e d i s t r i c t s 1n th e

sample (Allegan* Camden-Frontier* and Petoskey) allowed te a c h e rs t o
accumulate t h r e e or f i v e unused p e rs o n a l-le a v e days.
Another change t h a t appeared In t h e mid-1970s was language
l i m i t i n g t h e number of te a c h e r s who could ta k e a personal leav e on th e

64

same day.

In th r e e of th e sampled d i s t r i c t s (B a ttle Creek* Grand

Rapids* and Petoskey)* th e term inology was changed 1n th e mid-1970s
from personal le a v e t o busin ess or emergency leav e.

This change a ls o

brought about m o d ific a tio n s In th e language* sp e c ify in g t h a t p e rso n alleave days be used t o a tte n d t o bu sin ess t h a t cannot be taken c a re o f
o u tsid e th e work day or emergency s i t u a t i o n s t h a t need Immediate
a tt e n t i o n .

These d i s t r i c t s go as f a r as t o l i s t examples of what

1

s

meant* such as seeking a law yer’s advice* c lo s in g a house sale* or
ta k in g a sic k c h il d t o th e doctor.

The language says the days may not

be used f o r r e c r e a tio n or v a ca tio n or t o extend a v a c a tio n .
C la s s - s lz e language appeared In th e f i r s t c o n tr a c ts o f 7 of th e
21 sampled d i s t r i c t s and In 15 1984-85 c o n tra c ts .

In a l l cases* th e

e a rly c o n tr a c t language was vague and spoke of a "goal" o f 25 o r 30
stu d e n ts per c l a s s a t t h e elem entary level and 150 stu d e n ts per day a t
th e secondary le v e l.

Class s iz e appeared 1n c o n tr a c ts of another seven

of th e sampled d i s t r i c t s by t h e second round of c o n tr a c t negotiations*
which took place from 1969 through 1971.

One o th e r d i s t r i c t had c l a s s -

s l z e language by 1978-79* and th e remainder did not have any language
concerning c la s s s iz e by 1984-85.

C la s s -s lz e language changed gradu­

ally. over th e 20 y e a rs under study In th e 15 d i s t r i c t s whose c o n tr a c ts
Included such clauses.
The number of s tu d e n ts who could be assig ned t o a te a c h e r 's
c l a s s decreased a t th e elem entary le v e l and remained c o n s is te n t a t the
secondary le v e l.

The language expanded t o Include v a rio u s remedies fo r

c la s s e s exceeding th e s t a t e d

11

m1 t* Including such th in g s as an a id e

65

provided t o a s s i s t the teacher* e x tra te a c h e r pay fo r each stu d e n t
above th e lim it* and c o n s u lta tio n w ith th e union

1

f c l a s s s i z e exceeded

the lim it* 1n o rd er t o reach agreement on a s o lu tio n .

Three d i s t r i c t s

(P ort Huron* T raverse City* and Lansing) went t o w e ig h te d -c la s s la n ­
guage 1n th e e a rly 1980s.

This language allow ed f o r counting s p e d a l -

educatlon s tu d e n ts who were mainstreamed I n to a re g u la r education
t e a c h e r 's c la s s as one and o n e -h a lf s tu d e n ts .
Grlevance-procedure c la u s e s appeared In th e f i r s t c o n tr a c t of
20 of th e 21 d i s t r i c t s .

The one d i s t r i c t (Iron Mountain) t h a t did not

have a grlevance-procedure c la u se

1

n th e f i r s t c o n tr a c t n e g o tia te d

such language In th e second contract* which was
1968-69 school year.
a r b l t r a t l o n language

n e f f e c t during th e

1

All but one d i s t r i c t In th e sample had b ln dln g1

n t h e i r grlevance-procedure c la u se s.

The one

t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t (B a ttle Creek) w ithout binding a r b i t r a t i o n had
advisory a r b i t r a t i o n p ro v isio n s.
Seven of th e 21 d i s t r i c t s had b ln d ln g - a r b lt r a tl o n language 1n
t h e i r f i r s t c o n tr a c t's grlevance-procedure c lau se.

Two d i s t r i c t s had

obtained binding a r b i t r a t i o n by t h e second round of negotiations* and
f i v e d i s t r i c t s had binding a r b i t r a t i o n by th e t h i r d c o n tra c t n e g o tia ­
t io n .

The rem aining d i s t r i c t s 1n t h e sample had M nd1ng-arb1trat1on

language by 1980.

Five d i s t r i c t s had advisory a r b i t r a t i o n during the

f i r s t c o n tr a c t and binding a r b i t r a t i o n by 1980.

Along w ith language

a llo w in g f o r binding a r b i t r a t i o n were p ro v isio n s f o r l i m i t i n g th e
a u th o rity or th e a r b i t r a t o r and prov isio n f o r payment of th e a r b i ­
tra to r.

66

In 11 of th e d i s t r i c t s * e a rly con tracts# grlevance-procedure
c la u se s s p e c if ie d th e S t a te Labor Mediation Board as th e agency t o
s e t t l e grievance d isp u tes.

Each d i s t r i c t had a committee t h a t heard

the grievance a t th e second o r t h i r d ste p and attem pted t o reach a
s e ttle m e n t on th e issu e before proceeding t o a hearing by an o u tsid e
agency.

Most d i s t r i c t s c a l le d t h i s e n t i t y a p ro fessio n al r i g h t s and

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s committee* an MEA term.

Other d i s t r i c t s c a lle d t h i s

group th e grievance committee or th e a r b i t r a t i o n panel.
1960s* d i s t r i c t s made a change

1

In th e e a rly

n th e s e l e c ti o n of a r b i t r a t o r s ;

11

d i s t r i c t s s p e c if ie d th e American A rb itr a tio n Association* and one
named th e Michigan Employment R e la tio n s Commission a s th e agency from
which both p a r t i e s would m utually s e l e c t th e a r b i t r a t o r .

Other

d i s t r i c t c o n tr a c ts did n ot name th e agency t o be used t o s e l e c t an
arb itrato r.
One of th e sample d i s t r i c t s * Grand Rapids P ub lic Schools* had
language sp e c ify in g two ty p es of grievances.

In th e 1969-71 contract*

language appeared e s t a b l is h i n g a Type-A grievance* which concerns
d isp u te s w ith which th e p a r t i e s a re not
a re nongrlevable.

1

n agreement; such d isp u tes

Type-B g rievances concern m i s in t e r p r e t a t i o n of th e

c o lle c tiv e - b a r g a in in g agreem ent; th e s e Iss u e s a re g rlev a b le .

One

o th er t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t * Saginaw P u b lic Schools* had some unusual
grlevance-procedure language allo w ing f o r a d m in is tr a to r s t o f i l e
grievan ces a g a in s t Individual te a c h e rs or th e union fo r v i o l a t i o n s of
the bargainin g agreement.

67
G rlevance-procedure language has evolved from advisory a r b i t r a ­
t io n to binding a r b i t r a t i o n and from s e le c tio n of an a r b i t r a t o r from
th e S ta te Labor Mediation Board t o choice of e i t h e r th e American Arbi­
t r a t i o n A ssociation or th e Michigan Employment R e la tio n s Commission.
Language on te a ch in g c o n d itio n s appeared In 19 of t h e 21 d is ­
t r i c t s ' f i r s t c o n tr a c ts .

This language covers te a c h in g hours# number of

c la s s e s ta u g h t each day# amount of tim e a l l o t t e d t o planning time#
s p e c i f i c tim e fo r the beginning and end of the work day# and amount of
tim e fo r lunch.

This clau se a ls o provides f o r e x tra compensation f o r

a d d itio n a l assignm ents.

The two d i s t r i c t s tone t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t and

one f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t ) t h a t lacked such language th e f i r s t c o n tr a c t
year had 1 t a f t e r the second round of n e g o tia tio n s In 1966-69.
The e a rly c la u se s contained p ro v isio n s e s t a b l is h i n g th e
te a c h e r s ' workday.

Twelve of th e d i s t r i c t s s t a te d th e hours of th e

workday# sp e c ify in g t h e tim e te a c h e r s must r e p o rt t o work and when
they could leave.

These tim e s v a rie d from d i s t r i c t t o d i s t r i c t #

depending on school schedules and unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Individual
communities and d i s t r i c t s .

The b asic tim e param eter f e l l between

7:50 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. fo r th e f i r s t c o n tra c ts .

In subsequent bar­

gaining agreements# te a c h e r s ' workdays were shortened considerably.

By

th e m1d-l970s# th e leng th of te a c h e rs ' workday was s i x and o n e -h a lf to
seven and th r e e - q u a r t e r s hours.

Because Individual b u ild in g schedules

can vary w ith in a d i s t r i c t # four of th e d i s t r i c t s addressed t h i s prob­
lem w ith c o n tr a c t language s t a t i n g t h a t th e te a c h e r must be a t work 15

68

m inutes before th e stu d e n ts r e p o r t f o r c l a s s and remain 15 m inutes
a f t e r th e s tu d e n ts leave.
Another p ro v isio n of th e teach1ng-cond1t1ons c la u se t h a t
th e

21

6

of

d i s t r i c t s addressed d e a l t w ith th e amount of tim e a f t e r th e

normal workday t h a t te a c h e rs were req u ired t o a tte n d m eetings.

In th e

m1d-l970s# language appeared 1n th e se co n d -c lass d i s t r i c t ' s c o n tr a c t
t h a t req u ire d te a c h e rs t o be a v a i la b l e f o r fo u r m eetings and four
a fte r-s c h o o l ev en ts each month.

The language In th e th r e e t h i r d - c l a s s

d i s t r i c t s ' c o n tr a c ts req u ire d te a c h e r s t o be a v a i la b l e from 60 t o 90
m inutes one day a week fo r s t a f f m eetings.

By th e m1d-l970s# th e

amount of tim e and th e number of meetings t h a t could be held each month
were reduced.
The amount of tim e allow ed fo r lunch was a ls o addressed 1n th e
te a c h ln g -c o n d ltlo n s c lau ses.

In general# lunch tim e ranged from 30 t o

60 minutes# depending again on stu d e n t and b u ild in g schedules.

One

f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t (Onekama) a ls o had a sta te m e n t that# during th e
workday# te a c h e r s could not leav e th e prem ises w ith o u t th e adm inis­
t r a t o r 's p e rm is s io n .
One f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t (Camden-Frontier) had language 1n th e
e a r ly c o n tr a c t y e a rs s t a t i n g t h a t excessive delinquency

1

n re p o r tin g t o

work would be d e a l t w ith by th e a d m in is tr a tio n and two members of th e
education asso ciatio n *

T his language no lon ger appeared 1n c o n tr a c ts

a f t e r 1972.
One f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t (D eerfield P u b lic Schools) has some
unique language under the te a c h ln g -c o n d ltlo n s c la u se In I t s p r e s e n t

69

c o n tra c t.

This language s t a t e s t h a t te a c h e rs a re n o t expected t o check

s tu d e n ts f o r head H c e except under extrem e emergencies.
tio n s e x ist

1

a r e addressed

n each d i s t r i c t * and
1

1

Unique s i t u a ­

f they become a problem they o fte n

n th e c o n tr a c t w ith s p e c i f i c language a tte m p tin g t o

re s o lv e th e s i t u a t i o n .
The teach1ng-ass1gnment clau se appeared 1n th e f i r s t c o n tra c t
f o r 17 of th e 21 d i s t r i c t s .

The four d i s t r i c t s la c k in g such language

1n th e f i r s t c o n tr a c t had 1 t In t h e second n e g o tiate d agreement.
21 d i s t r i c t s had teach 1ng-assignment c la u se s by 1971.

All

S ix of th e

d i s t r i c t s had vague language* s t a t i n g t h a t te a c h e rs would be n o t if i e d
of t h e i r assignm ent a s soon a s p o ssib le or as soon as p r a c t ic a l .

Eight

d i s t r i c t s had language In t h e f i r s t c o n tr a c t saying te a c h e r s would be
n o t i f i e d of t h e i r t e n t a t i v e assignm ent before June 1.
During subsequent c o n tr a c t n e g o tia tio n s In nine d i s t r ic t s * th e
date was moved back t o June 30* J u ly 1* or Ju ly 15.

This clau se was

changed t o allow a d m in is tr a to r s more tim e t o n o tify te a c h e r s of t h e i r
assignm ent f o r th e fo llo w in g year.

These changes occurred In th e

second or t h i r d round of c o n tr a c t n e g o tia tio n s and remained c o n stan t
u n til the e a r ly 1980s.

L ater language changes 1n the te a c h ln g -

asslgnm ent clau se req u ired n o t i f i c a t i o n only

1

f t h e assignment was

going t o be changed from th e previous y e a r.
The o th er c r i t e r i a analyzed f o r th e teach1ng-ass1gnment clause
p e rta in e d t o assignm ent only w ith in th e major o r minor a rea of c e r t i f i ­
c atio n .

The e a rly c o n tr a c ts did n o t co n ta in t h i s language 1n t h e i r

teach 1ng-ass1 gnment clauses* but 1 t began appearing In th e mid-1970s In

70
some of th e d i s t r i c t s .

The seco n d -class d i s t r i c t re fe re n c e d th e

g u id e lin e s e s ta b lis h e d by th e North Central A c cre d ita tio n A ssociation
f o r assignm ent c e r t i f i c a t i o n .
The te a c h e r - p r o te c t l o n /s tu d e n t - d ls c l p l1 n e c la u se s t a t e s t h a t
te a c h e r s w ill re c e iv e reasonable su pp ort and a s s is ta n c e and Includes
language a llow ing te a c h e rs te m p o ra rily t o exclude a stu d e n t from c l a s s
f o r m isbehavior.

This c la u se appeared In 18 of th e

c o n tr a c ts t h e f i r s t y e ar and remained
20-year period addressed 1n the study.

1

21

d istric ts'

n th ese 18 c o n tr a c t s over th e
The th r e e f o u r t h - c l a s s d is ­

t r i c t s t h a t did n o t have such language p re se n t In th e f i r s t c o n tra c t
remained c o n s i s t e n t

1

n t h i s om ission throughout t h e

20

y e a rs under

study.
V a c a n c ie s/p ro m o tio n s/tra n sfe rs language s p e c i f i e s t h a t new
p o s itio n s w ill be posted throughout the d i s t r i c t * n o t i f i c a t i o n sen t t o
t h e association* and req u est fo r t r a n s f e r considered before new s t a f f
members a re h ire d ; 1 t a ls o l i m i t s Involuntary t r a n s f e r s of s t a f f .

This

c la u se appeared 1n 15 of th e 21 d i s t r i c t s ' c o n tr a c ts during t h e f i r s t
round of n e g o tia tio n s but was a b sen t from the f i r s t c o n tra c t of s i x
f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s and then began appearing during t h e second round
of c o n tr a c t n e g o tia tio n s .

One d i s t r i c t remained s i l e n t on t h i s clau se

throughout th e 20-y ear period of th e study.

One of t h e d i s t r i c t s

(Whitmore Lake) did not n e g o tia te such language u n til th e 1964-87
c o n tr a c t y e a r; t h a t language provides fo r vacancies t o be posted
throughout th e d i s t r i c t and n o tic e sen t t o the a s s o c ia tio n .
rem aining c r i t e r i a a re absent from th e c o n tra c t.

"The

71

Another d i s t r i c t (Cassopolls) had language 1n th e 1974-76
c o n tr a c t re q u ir in g t h a t n o t i f i c a t i o n of a vacancy be se n t t o th e a sso ­
c i a ti o n and In th e 1984-87 c o n tr a c t expanded t h e clau se t o Include
c r i t e r i a a llo w in g f o r vacancies t o be posted throughout th e d i s t r i c t #
c o n sid e ra tio n of a re q u e st f o r t r a n s f e r b efore new s t a f f a re hired# and
language l i m i t i n g Involuntary t r a n s f e r s .
An I n s t r u c t i o n a l - c o u n c i l/ c u r r l c u l um-commlttee c la u se was found
1n nine d i s t r i c t s ' f i r s t c o n tr a c t and In nine d i s t r i c t s ' 1984-85 con­
tra c t# even though they were not th e same nine d i s t r i c t s .

This c la u se

s p e c i f i e s t h a t th e committee w ill have J o i n t membership of te a c h e rs and
ad m in istra to rs# provide f o r re g u la rly scheduled meetings# and provide a
procedure f o r recommending textbook changes.

Three t h i r d - c l a s s d is ­

t r i c t s (Allegan* Lansing# and Fetoskey) had such language In th e f i r s t
c o n tr a c t but not In th e 1984-85 c o n tr a c t; two d i s t r i c t s ( B a ttle Creek
and P o rt Huron) had no such language In th e f i r s t c o n tr a c t but had
n e g o tia te d language by th e 1984-85 school year.
d istric ts#

t h e c la u se was p re se n t during t h e

2 0

In f i v e t h i r d - c l a s s
y e ars of t h e study.

Eight f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s lacked such language In both th e f i r s t and
l a s t c o n tr a c t y e a rs under In v e s tig a tio n .

The seco n d -class d i s t r i c t

a l s o was a b se n t language p e r ta in in g t o I n s tr u c tio n a l c o u n c i ls /c u r r i c u ­
lum comm ittees throughout th e 20-year period of study.

This c la u se was

one recommended 1n th e MEA sample c o n tr a c t and was Introduced a s th e
P rofessio nal Study Committee.

By th e mid 1970s* th e c la u se had been

changed t o e i t h e r I n s tr u c tio n a l council o r J o i n t curriculum committee.

72

The re c o g n itio n c la u se I s co nsidered one o f t h e fundamental
c la u s e s of a b a rg a in in g u n i t 's agreem ent because

1

t p ro v id es a fram e­

work f o r t h e e x is te n c e o f t h e c o l l e c t i v e - b a r g a i n i n g agreem ent.

T his

c la u s e s p e c i f i e s th e b a rg a in in g agent* c a t e g o r i e s of employees Included
1n th e unit* and employees excluded from th e b a rg a in in g u n it.
of th e

21

c o n tr a c t.

Twenty

sample d i s t r i c t s had a re c o g n itio n c la u s e In t h e i r f i r s t
The only f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t w ith o u t a r e c o g n itio n c la u se

In I t s f i r s t c o n tr a c t had one

1

n th e second b a rg a in in g agreement.

These c la u s e s expanded through t h e 2 0 -y ea r p e rio d t o Include more
p o s i t io n s In t h e b a rg a in in g u n it.

The f i r s t c la u s e s Included te a c h e r s

only and were expanded t o Include s p e c ia l personnel l i k e music* a rt* and
physical e d u c a tio n te a c h e r s and school nurses.
th e language
" tea ch e r."

1

During t h e mid-1970s*

n e i g h t d i s t r i c t s was expanded t o Inclu de a d e f i n i t i o n of

S u b s t i t u t e te a c h e r s were excluded from th e re c o g n itio n

c la u s e of most d i s t r i c t s by t h e e a r ly 1980s.
The a s s o c i a t i o n r i g h t s / t e a c h e r s ' r i g h t s c la u s e was found In t h e
f i r s t c o l l e c t i v e - b a r g a i n i n g agreem ent of 18 of t h e

21

sample d i s t r i c t s .

Only one f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t did not have t h i s c la u s e 1n th e 1984-85
b a rg a in in g agreem ent.
The b o a r d / d i s t r i c t r i g h t s c la u se was found In 10 o f t h e 21
d i s t r i c t s 1 f i r s t b a rg a in in g agreem ents.

Five o f th o se te n d i s t r i c t s

were t h i r d - c l a s s and t h e o th e r f i v e f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s .

By t h e

1984-85 c o n tra ct* only one f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t (Whitmore Lake)
remained w ith o u t such a c la u se .

One t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t n e g o tia te d

I t s f i r s t b o a r d / d i s t r i c t r i g h t s c la u s e I n t o t h e 1983-85 c o n t r a c t .

73

The academic-freedom c la u se appeared In e ig h t d i s t r i c t s '
c o n tr a c ts th e f i r s t c o n tr a c t y e a r and In te n d i s t r i c t s ' c o n tr a c ts
during t h e 1964-85 school year.

Three t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s lacked

t h i s language in th e f i r s t c o n tr a c t but had a clau se by t h e 1964-85
c o n tr a c t year.

Two f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s had no academlc-freedom

language th e f i r s t c o n tr a c t y e a r but did have 1 t In th e 1964-85
c o n tra c t.

Seven t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s had an academlc-freedom c la u se

1n each c o n tr a c t from 1965 t o 1985.
The sc h o o l-ca le n d ar c la u se l i s t e d c r i t e r i a sp e c ify in g a par­
t i c u l a r calendar* th e number of te a c h e r workdays and stu d e n t atten d a n ce
days per year* and a procedure fo r making up snow days t h a t would be
a p p lic a b le t o m u lti- y e a r c o n tr a c ts In e f f e c t from 1986 on*

S ix t h i r d -

c l a s s d i s t r i c t s * one f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t * and t h e se co n d -c lass d i s ­
t r i c t had sc h o o l-ca le n d ar language

1

n th e f i r s t contract* and

remained throughout th e 20-year period.

1

t

All but one f o u r t h - c l a s s

d i s t r i c t had n e g o tiate d such language by th e 1964-85 c o n tr a c t year.
Beginning w ith th e 1975-76 contract* one t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t (S au lt
Ste. Marie) and one f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t (Mlo-Au Sable) had c r i t e r i a
fo r making up snow days 1f they exceeded a s p e c if ie d number.

Another

t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t (C a d illac Area Schools) had such language 1n
e f f e c t during t h e 1975-77 school year* and y e t an o th er (Allegan) had
included I t by th e 1978-81 c o n tr a c t year.

Two t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s

(P o rt Huron and T raverse City) and one f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t (Onekama)
had language on making up snow days
th e study.

1

n th e l a s t c o n tr a c t analyzed fo r

74

The c o n tin u ity of o p e ra tio n s or no-str1ke c la u se appeared 1n
7

of th e 21 d i s t r i c t s ' c o n tr a c ts th e f i r s t y ear of the study and In 15

d i s t r i c t s ' c o n tr a c t s t h e l a s t year.

Six f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s were

w ith o u t such language throughout th e 20-year period.

This clau se l i s t s

c r i t e r i a s t a t i n g t h a t th e a s s o c i a t i o n I t s agents* and members agree t o
no s t r i k e or work stoppage during the term of the agreement.

I t a ls o

c o n ta in s c r i t e r i a sp e c ify in g t h a t th e board re s e rv e s t h e r i g h t t o
d i s c ip l i n e employees found 1n v i o la t io n .

The d i s t r i c t s t h a t had no

c o n tin u ity of o p e ra t 1 o n s / n o - s t r 1 ke c la u se s th e f i r s t y e a r had nego­
t i a t e d t h a t language by th e mid-1970s.
R e s tric tiv e n e s s o f C ontract Language*
as Percelved„bv_Rr1nc1pals

Hypotheses 4 and 5 t e s t e d th e p erception s of a randomly chosen
group of p r in c ip a ls regard ing th e r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of e ig h t c o n tra c t
c la u se s.

The p r i n c i p a l s perceived th e s e c la u se s as lim itin g # o b s tr u c t­

ing# and/or c o n fin in g t h e i r a b i l i t y t o make a decision having an e f f e c t
on some a sp ec t of school management# personnel procedures# or school
policy t o a g r e a t degree.
1 .
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8 .

The e ig h t c la u se s were as fo llo w s:

Teaching assignment
Reduction 1 n p e r s o n n e l / s e n io r i t y /I a y o ff/re c a l 1
Grievance procedure
School calen dar
Teaching c o n d itio n s
Class s i z e
V acanc1es/prcm ot1ons/transfers
Teacher e v alu atio n

75

Table

8

shows th e degrees of r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of th e e ig h t

c o n tr a c t clauses* as perceived by th e p rin c ip a l r a t e r s .
ra tin g

1

The mean t o t a l

s th e sum of th e average r a t i n g (tw o - r a te r s ) fo r a l l e ig h t

cla u se s reviewed by th e p r in c ip a ls .

The sc a le d r a t i n g 1s simply th e

sum of th e average r a t i n g s divided by e ig h t.

I t 1s obvious from t h i s

t a b l e t h a t th e more r e s t r i c t i v e c o n tra c t c la u s e s were n e g o tiate d by th e
seco nd-class d i s t r i c t and th e t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s .

With th e excep­

tio n of th e D e erfield School D is tr ic t* a l l f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s had
" n e u tra l'' o r M o d e ra te ly r e s t r i c t i v e "

language.

It

1

s In te re stin g

t h a t none of th e d i s t r i c t s had a sc a le d r a t i n g below 2 3 .

In th e views

of th e r a t e r s (p rin c ip a ls)* no d i s t r i c t had a "somewhat r e s t r i c t i v e " o r
" l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e " c o n tr a c t clause.
Hypothesis 4 : There w ill be 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 ­
ence 1n th e r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of c o n tr a c t language among Michigan
K-12 p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s * as perceived by b u ild in g p r in c ip a ls .
Table 9 shows th e r e s u l t s of th e a n a l y s i s of v a ria n ce on th e
p r i n c i p a l s ' ( r a t e r s ') p e rc e p tio n s toward t h e r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of c o n tr a c t
c la u se s f o r th e 21 d i s t r i c t s .

Because th e F-value o f 7.75 was s i g n i f i ­

c a n tly l a r g e r than th e t a b l e F-value of 2.94* th e null hypothesis—t h a t
th e r e would be 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 iff e re n c e

1

n th e r e s t r i c ­

t iv e n e s s of c o n tr a c t language among Michigan K-12 p u b lic school d i s ­
t r i c t s * as perceived by b u ild in g p r i n c i p a l s —was r e je c te d .

That

1

s*

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 if f e r e n c e s e x is te d among Michigan K-12 pub­
l i c school d i s t r i c t s
language.

1

n term s of th e r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of t h e i r c o n tr a c t

76

Table 0 . —Degrees of r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of th e e ig h t c o n tr a c t c la u s e s .
Di s t r i c t
C lass

Mean
Total Rating®

D istric t

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

Grand Rapids
Grand Haven
P o r t Huron
Utl ca
T raverse City
Sagi naw
B a t t l e Creek
Livonia
Lanslng
C a d illac
S a u lt S te . marie
Allegan

32.0
21.5
29.5
26.0
25.0
30.0
22.5
30.0
32.5
22.5
26.0
23.5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

Mlo/Au Sable
Petoskey
Camden-Frontier
Ewen-Trout
Onekama
C assopolls
Whitmore Lake
Deerf 1el d
Iro n Mountain

19.0
23.0
23.0
18.5
20.5
18.0

2

aMax1imiti “ 40; minimum =

4.0
2.7
3.7
3.3
3.1
3 .8
2 .8

3 .8
4.1
2 .8

3.3
2 .9
2.4
2 .9
2.9
2.4
2 .6

26.0

2.3
2.5
3.3

2 1 .0

2 .6

2 0 .0

8

Mean
Scaled Rating^

.

^Maximum = 5; minimum = 1.

Table 9 . —-R esults of a n a ly s is of varian ce on p erception s of r a t e r s
toward th e r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of c o n tr a c t c la u se s fo r a ll
21 d istric ts.
Source of
Variance
Treatment
E rro r
Total

df
20
21

41

Sums of
Squares

Mean
Squares

767.33
104.00
871.33

38.46
4.95

* S I g n t f l e a n t a t the 5 % l e v e l .

F-Value
7.75*

77

F u rth e r a n a ly s is of two d i s t r i c t s a t one tim e and t e s t i n g t h e
d iffe re n c e s between them In d ic a te d th e follow ing:
1

.

Grand Rapids* Lansing* Livonia* and Saginaw School Dis­

t r i c t s were equally r e s t r i c t i v e * a s perceived by the p rin cip als* and
were s i g n i f i c a n t l y n ore r e s t r i c t i v e than o th e r d i s t r i c t s

1

n th e study.

The e ig h t clau ses 1n th ese d i s t r i c t s were perceived as '^extremely
re s tric tiv e ."
2.

Deerfield# P o rt Huron* S a u lt Ste. Marie# T raverse City#

and U tica School D i s t r i c t s had s i m il a r degrees of r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s .
This degree of r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s was Judged t o be Imoderately r e s t r i c ­
tiv e . "
3.

Allegan* B a ttle Creek# Cadillac* Camden-Frontier# Grand

Haven# Iron Mountain* and Petoskey School D i s t r i c t s had s i m il a r degrees
of r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s In th e c o n tr a c t c la u se s t h a t p r in c ip a ls rated .
P r in c ip a ls perceived them t o have "n e u tra l" language.
4.

Cassopolls# Ewen-Trout* and M1o/Au Sable School D i s t r i c t s

were " l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e # " as perceived by the prin cip als# and were
s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e than th e o th e r d i s t r i c t s In th e study.
Hypothesis St There w ill be no In cre ase 1n th e range of perceived
r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of c o n tra c t language a s school d i s t r i c t s iz e
In c re a s e s .
Table 10 c o n ta in s t h e r e s u l t s of th e a n a ly s is of variance on
th e r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of e ig h t c o n tr a c t c la u se s as perceived by p r i n c i ­
pals* by d i s t r i c t c l a s s siz e.

Because th e F-value of 95.11 was highly

s ig n ific a n t* th e null hypothesis—t h a t th e r e would be no In crease
t h e range of perceived r e s t r i c t i v e of c o n tra c t language as school

1

n

78

d i s t r i c t s i z e In c re a s e s—was r e je c te d .

D i s t r i c t s of d i f f e r e n t s iz e s

d if f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y In te rm s o f th e perceived r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of
t h e i r c o n tr a c t c la u se s.

The a n a l y s i s of v a ria n ce was conducted

between th e se co n d -c lass d i s t r i c t and th e t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s .

Table 10.—R e su lts of a n a l y s i s o f v arian ce on t h e r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of
e ig h t c o n tr a c t c la u s e s as perceived by p rin c ip a ls* by
d i s t r i c t c la ss siz e .
Source of
Variance

df

Treatment
E rror
Total

3
5

2

Sums of
Squares

Mean
Squares

119.85
1.89
121.74

59.92
0.63

F-Value
95.11*

• S ig n i f ic a n t a t th e 5 % l e v e l.

Table 11 shows th e average (mean) ranking of th e d i s t r i c t s * by
class* as perceived by the p r in c ip a ls (raters)* on th e e ig h t c o n tr a c t
c la u s e s .

Table 11.—Ranking of d i s t r i c t c la s s e s by degree of r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of
e ig h t c o n tr a c t c la u se s.
D i s t r i c t Class
Second
Third
Fourth

Mean Total Rate

Mean Scaled Rate

Rank

32.0
26.3

4 .0
3.3

2

2 1 .1

2 .6

3

1

79

The s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n ific a n c e of t h e magnitude of th e d i f f e r ­
ences on th e r a t i n g s c a l e s between d i s t r i c t c la s s e s was a ls o computed.
Comparisons were performed between t h e se co n d -c lass d i s t r i c t and t h e
t h i r d - and f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s * a s well as between th e t h i r d - and
fo u rth -c lass d is tr ic ts .

A summary of th e r e s u l t s 1s shown 1n Table 12.

All F-values were s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .05 l e v e l.
re s u lts *

1

t

1

Based on th e s e

s c l e a r t h a t th e la r g e r th e d i s t r i c t * t h e more r e s t r i c t i v e

th e language of th e e ig h t c o n tr a c t clauses* a s perceived by th e p r i n c i ­
p a ls (ra te rs ).

Table 12.--Summary of d iff e re n c e s between d i s t r i c t s In d i f f e r e n t
s iz e c la s s e s .
D i s t r i c t Class

Mean D ifference 1n Rating

F-Val ue

5 .7
10.9
5 .2

63.60*
134.14*
29.31*

Second and t h i r d
Second and fo u rth
Third and f o u rth
*S1gn1fleant a t the 535 l e v e l .

A f u r t h e r a n a ly s is of t h e r a t i n g s of th e e ig h t c o n tr a c t c la u s e s
t o determ ine which c la u se s th e r a t e r s perceived as th e most r e s t r i c t i v e
r e s u lte d In th e ranking shown In Table 13.

The p r i n c i p a l s who ra te d

th e c o n tr a c t language perceived th e grlevance-procedure c la u se t o be
th e most r e s t r i c t i v e f o r a l l d i s t r i c t s * follow ed by te a c h in g condi­
tio n s .

Next 1n order of r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s were c la s s siz e and red u c tio n

In p e r s o n n e l / s e n i o r i t y / l a y o f f / r e c a l l clauses* which were perceived as

60

being eq ually r e s t r i c t i v e .

The next most r e s t r i c t i v e c la u se was school

calendar* follow ed by te a c h e r evaluation* te a ch in g assignment* and
v a c a n c ie s /p ro m o tio n s /tra n s fe rs .

‘Hie sc h o o l-ca le n d ar clau se receiv ed

the g r e a t e s t number of neutral r a t i n g s f o r a l l

21

d i s t r i c t s In th e

study.

Table 13.--Ranking of e ig h t c o n tr a c t clauses* by r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s .
Mean Rating of
R e s tr ic tiv e n e s s
3.97
3.52
3.19
3.19
2 .6 8
2 .8 6

2.52
2.50

Cl ause
Grievance procedure
Teaching c o n d itio n s
Class s iz e
Reduction In p e r s o n n e l / s e n i o r i t y / l a y o f f / r e c a l l
School calen dar
Teacher e v a lu a tio n
Teaching assignment
V a cancles/prcm ot1on s/transfers

The 21 sample d i s t r i c t s were ranked by th e degree of r e s t r i c ­
tiv e n e s s f o r th e sum t o t a l of th e e ig h t c o n tr a c t clauses* as perceived
by th e p r in c ip a ls .

Table 14 shows t h a t ranking.

l i s t e d from most t o l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e .

The d i s t r i c t s a re

D i s t r i c t s t h a t received th e

same mean sc a le d r a t i n g have th e same ranking.

61

Table 14.— Ranking of d i s t r i c t s by r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of c o n tr a c t c la u s e s .
Rank

D istric t
Lansing
Grand Rapids
Saglnaw
Livonia
P o rt Huron
U tica
S a u lt S te . Marie
Deerf 1 el d
Traverse City
Allegan
Petoskey
Camden-Frontier
B a t t l e Creek
C a d illac
Grand Haven
Onekama
Iro n Mountain
Whitmore Lake
Ewen-Trout
M1o-Au Sable
CassopolIs

1
2

3
3
5
6
6
6

9
10
10
10

13
13
15
16
17
18
19
19
21

S unwary
This chapter contained an a n a ly s is of t h e data* 1n both t a b u l a r
and n a r r a t iv e form* as 1 t r e l a te d t o th e hypotheses of the study.

A

summary of th e study* conclusions* tre n d s and Im p lic a tio n s f o r f u tu r e
c o n tr a c t negotiations* and recommendations f o r f u r t h e r stu<fy a re pre­
sen ted

1

n Chapter V.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY# CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, PREDICTIONS,
AND REGOMTCNDATIONS

'

In tro d u c tio n

In t h i s study, te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts f o r 21 Michigan school
d i s t r i c t s were analyzed over a 20-year period.

Also t e s t e d were the

p e rc e p tio n s of a randomly s e le c te d group of p r i n c i p a l s reg a rd in g th e
r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of e ig h t c o n tr a c t c la u se s, which were r a te d as being
extrem ely r e s t r i c t i v e .

The c o n tr a c t s were analyzed f o r 29 s p e c i f i c

c la u se s and th e 113 c r i t e r i a t h a t e s t a b l is h th e language of th e clause.
The re s e a rc h e r compared t h e c la u s e s between 1965 and 1985; between
second-, t h i r d - , and f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s ; and between d i s t r i c t s In
d i f f e r e n t geographic re g io n s w ith in Michigan.

The data were presented

In s t a t i s t i c a l form, along w ith a n a rra tiv e a n a ly s is of th e c o n tr a c t
c la u se s Included In t h i s study.
Summary

C o lle c tiv e b a rg a in in g between te a c h e r s and boards of education
has been ta k in g place 1n Michigan since the passage of P u b lic Act 379
of th e Michigan P u b lic A cts of 1965.
d e cisio n making

1

P a tte rn s of school governance and

n the p u b lic schools have been a ff e c te d by c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining.

82

83

The expansion o f c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g
school d i s t r i c t s was analyzed 1n t h i s study.

1

n Michigan K-12 pu b lic

A m ajor purpose of the

study was t o examine s p e c i f i c c o n tr a c t c la u s e s t o determ ine t h e degree
of u n ifo rm ity among such c la u se s 1n Michigan school d i s t r i c t s .

Another

purpose of th e study was t o measure th e r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of c o n tra c t
language as perceived by b u ild in g p r i n c i p a l s —th o se most c lo s e ly
r e s p o n sib le f o r Implementing c o n tr a c t language.

A review of t h e l i t ­

e r a tu r e on te a c h e r c o l l e c t i v e bargaining re v e a le d t h a t l i t t l e research
has been conducted

1

n th e s e areas.

The f in d in g s In d ic a te d t h a t th e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d ifferen ce
In the number of c la u se s n e g o tia te d between 1965 and 1985.
th e r e has been an expansion

1

Therefore,

n c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g In Michigan

d i s t r i c t s s in c e th e passage of P u b lic Act 379 of the Michigan Public
Acts of 1965.

The w r i t e r p resented a comprehensive review of the

expansion of th e 29 c o n tr a c t c la u se s Included 1n th e study.
The fin d in g s a ls o showed t h a t d i s t r i c t s i z e has a s i g n i f i c a n t
e f f e c t on th e breadth of the clau ses n e g o tia te d In to te a c h e r c o n tra c ts.
The l a r g e r t h e school d i s t r i c t , th e more s p e c i f i c th e c o n tra c t lan­
guage.
Conclusions
The fin d in g s of t h i s study le d th e w r i t e r t o draw th e follow ing
concl u slo n s:
1.

The a n a l y s i s of th e s p e c i f i c c o n tr a c t language confirmed

t h a t te a c h e r s have In creased t h e i r formal power.

Their c o n tr a c ts

sp ecify and r e g u la te many school p r a c tic e s and procedures such as th e

84

f o llo w in g examples.

C1ass-s1ze c la u se s l i m i t th e number of stu d e n ts

who can be a ssig n e d t o a c la s s .

T ea ch lng -condltlons c la u se s specify

th e le n g th of th e te a c h e r work day* the number of m eetings te a c h e rs can
be r e q u ir e d t o attend* e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r and v o lu n ta ry a c t i v i t i e s t h a t
te a c h e r s a r e re q u ire d t o p a r t i c i p a t e

1

n* and th e amount of stu d e n t

1

su p e rv isio n they can be req u ire d t o perform.

Teach1ng-ass1 gnment

c la u se s s p e c if y a date by which a te a c h e r must be n o t i f i e d of- h i s / h e r
assignm ent f o r t h e fo llo w in g y e a r and o f te n l i m i t changes
a f t e r a s p e c i f i c date.

1

n assignm ent

This c la u se has th e p o te n tia l o f l i m i t i n g an

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s p re r o g a tiv e t o change a te a c h e r assignment.

The

grievance procedure r e q u ir e s s p e c i f i c d e t a i l e d procedures along w ith a
t i m e l i n e f o r so lv in g problems and d if f e r e n c e s of opinion about th e
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of c o n tr a c t language.

This c la u se also allow s a t h i r d

party t o e n t e r t h e p i c t u r e t o help re s o lv e t h e dispute.

Vacancies/

prom otions and t r a n s f e r c la u se s l i m i t th e a d m in is tr a tio n from
I n v o l u n ta r il y t r a n s f e r r i n g a te a c h e r and r e q u i r e t h a t employees on
s t a f f be co nsidered f i r s t fo r any d i s t r i c t va ca n cies f o r which they a re
q u a l i f i e d b efore someone from o u tsid e t h e d i s t r i c t Is hired.
1

Reduction

n p e rs o n n e l/s e n 1 o r 1 t y / l ay o f f / r e c a l l c la u se s have the p o te n tia l of

l i m i t i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1 p re ro g a tiv e s t o r e t a i n t h e te a c h e r s they would
l i k e t o employ under c o n d itio n s of red u c tio n 1n s t a f f .

The c la u se s

re q u ire t h e l e a s t - s e n i o r te a c h e r to be l a i d o f f f i r s t *

re g a rd le ss of

te a c h in g performance.

T eacher-evaluatlon c la u s e s l i m i t the number of

e v a lu a tio n s a p rin c ip a l can make on a t e a c h e r 's performance* th e

85

frequency of th e evaluation* and In sa n e c a se s th e number of observa­
t i o n s t h e p rin c ip a l can make in a t e a c h e r 's classroom .
2.

Once a clau se 1s n e g o tia te d I n t o a t e a c h e r s ' contract* 1 t

rem ains t h e r e .

The study showed t h a t only t h r e e c la u s e s were dropped

from any one d i s t r i c t ' s c o n tr a c t over t h e

2 0

-y e a r p eriod examined.

T his could have occurred due t o a t r a d e o f f of c o n tr a c t language fo r
economic g a in s made by th e t e a c h e r s ' union or th e e v olu tion of c o n tr a c t
language t h a t meets th e needs of both p a r t i e s .
3.

The scope or breadth of Is s u e s n e g o tia te d In to Michigan

te a c h e r c o n t r a c t s has expanded In t h e l a s t 20 y ears.

In 1965# th e

average number of clau ses was 15* and th e average number In 1985 was 23
(Table 1).

The s o p h is tic a tio n of t h e n e g o tiato rs* g o a ls and o b je c tiv e s

of th e p a r t i e s Involved

1

n the bargaining process* and s t a t u t e s have

a f f e c t e d t h e expansion of th e scope of Is s u e s
4.

1

n te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts .

The l a r g e r th e school d i s t r i c t * th e g re a te r the number of

c la u s e s p re s e n t In I t s c o n tra c t.

In addition* 1n t h e c o n tra c ts of

l a r g e r d i s t r i c t s # the c la u se s had more breadth or Included more spe­
c i f i c c r i t e r i a * and they were more r e s t r i c t i v e (Tables 4* 5* and

8

).

L arger d i s t r i c t s employ more people and have the p o te n tia l f o r more
problems.

C ontract language ten d s t o a d d re ss problems t h a t a r i s e

between t h e employer and th e employee* and t h i s can account fo r a
g r e a t e r breadth
language

1

5.

1

n c o n tra c t language# as w ell as more r e s t r i c t i v e

n th e te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts of l a r g e r d i s t r i c t s .
The geographic l o c a tio n of t h e d i s t r i c t did not play a

s ig n if ic a n t ro le

1

n determ ining th e number of c la u se s or c r i t e r i a t h a t

86

were p r e s e n t 1n th e t e a c h e r s 1 c o n tr a c t.

T his fin d in g s u p p o rts th e

notio n t h a t th e MEA has prepared I t s n e g o ti a t o r s and has been a b le t o
e f f e c t a c o n s is te n t n e g o tia tin g sta n c e
6

.

throughout Michigan.

Contract language developed during t h e 2 0 -y ear p e rio d from

vague and general t o s p e c i f i c and comprehensive.

An In c re a s e 1n

s o p h i s t i c a t io n of th e p a r t i e s r e s p o n s ib le f o r n e g o tia tin g t h e c o n tr a c t
and I n c re a s in g c o m p lica tio n s and r e s t r i c t i o n s

1

n d e alin g w ith personnel

and d i s t r i c t problems can account fo r t h i s tr e n d
n e g o tia tio n .

1

n c o n tr a c t - 1 anguage

The use of le g a l counsel by both p a r t i e s t o a s s i s t 1n

d r a f t i n g language f o r te a c h e r c o n tr a c t s can a ls o account f o r more
s p e c i f i c language.
7.

Contract language appears t o have reached a 11m1t In regard

t o th e number of s ic k days and p e rso n a l-b u sin e ss days t h a t w ill be
a llo tte d .

Changes 1n t h e number of days a l l o t t e d have not occurred 1n

the sampled d i s t r i c t s 1 c o n tr a c t s s in c e th e mid-1970s.
appear t o

Both p a r t i e s

be s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e number of days n e g o tia te d

1

s m eeting

th e needs of the employees.
8

.

C ertain b a sic c o n tr a c t c la u se s have appeared from th e

beginning of c o lle c tiv e b a rg a in in g f o r te a c h e r s 1n Michigan and have
remained con stan t.

Such c la u s e s a d d re ss recognition# sic k leave#

bereavement leave# and th e grievance procedure.
b a s ic t o any c o lle c tiv e - b a r g a in in g agreement.

These c la u se s a re
The reco g n itio n clau se

p ro vides th e framework f o r I d e n t i f y in g the members covered by the
c o lle c tiv e - b a r g a in in g agreement.

S1ck le a v e and bereavement le a v e s

were p ro v isio n s t h a t te a c h e r s had before o f f i c i a l bargaining agreem ents

07
were n e g o tia te d .

The grievance procedure provides a means f o r s e t t l i n g

d isp u te s a r i s i n g from m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of c o n tr a c t language.
9.

The l a r g e r th e school d i s t r i c t * t h e more c r i t e r i a t h a t were

found in th e c o n tr a c t and th e more r e s t r i c t i v e were th e c la u se s.
Larger school d i s t r i c t s a r e faced w ith more com plicated pro ced ures and
p o l i c i e s f o r handling employee problems* and the s iz e of th e d i s t r i c t
as w ell a s t h e number of employees can account f o r more s p e c i f i c and
r e s t r i c t i v e c o n tr a c t language.
10.

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 if f e r e n c e s e x is te d among

Michigan school d i s t r i c t s w ith regard t o th e r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of the
e i g h t c o n tr a c t c la u s e s measured.

The la r g e r t h e school d i s t r i c t * th e

more r e s t r i c t i v e p r i n c i p a l s perceived th e e ig h t c la u se s t o be.

The

se c o n d -c la ss d i s t r i c t had t h e most r e s t r i c t i v e language* fo llow ed by
the t h i r d - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s and th e f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s .
Trends and Im p lica tio n s
In a naly zing th e c o n t r a c t s f o r th e 21 sample d i s t r i c t s * th e
w r i t e r observed t h e fo llo w in g tre n d s .

The data showed t h a t once a

c o n tr a c t c la u se was n e g o tia te d In to a t e a c h e r s ' contract*
th e r e .

1

t remained

Thus 1 t 1s Im portant t h a t c o n tra c t n e g o tia to r s be c a u tio u s

when d r a f t i n g c o n tr a c t language t o avoid ambiguous or e a s i l y m is in t e r ­
prete d c lau ses.

Also* because c o n tr a c t n e g o tia tio n s o fte n ta k e place

under th e pressure of rea ch in g an agreement quickly* those who nego­
t i a t e c o n tr a c t s should be c a re fu l

1

n w r i t in g c la u s e s and c o n sid e r the

I m p lic a tio n s of such language on the t o ta l edu cation al program.

68
S p e c if ic c o n tr a c t language evolves over tim e.

T his became

a p p aren t when a n a ly z in g th e c o n tr a c t s from each d i s t r i c t .

Without

exception* each c la u se was sim ply s t a te d I n i t i a l l y * w ith out comprehen­
siv e procedures Included.

However* w ith each subsequent round of

neg o tiatio n s* t h e language became more s p e c i f i c and Included d e ta ile d
sta n d a rd iz e d procedures or g u id elin es.
example.

C la s s -s lz e language 1s an

Early c l a s s - s l z e c la u s e s s t a te d t h a t 25 s tu d e n ts per c l a s s

would be th e goal.

The language changed t o s t a t e t h a t t h e r e would be

no more th a n 25 s tu d e n ts per c l a s s In grades K-2* 3 0 s t u d e n t s 1n grades
3-6* and 150 stu d e n ts per day In grades 7-12.

The language continued

to expand t o Include procedures t o remedy s i t u a t i o n s In which c l a s s
s iz e exceeded th e l i m i t a t i o n s e s ta b lis h e d

1

n th e c o n tr a c t clause.

C la s s - s l z e l i m i t s decreased over th e 20-year period of study* as has
th e d efined work day f o r te a c h e r s .
S ch o o l-calen d ar language has been changing In t h e most rec en t
co n tracts* providing a means of making up stu d e n t a tten d a n ce days l o s t
because of Inclem ent w eather.

Recent changes 1n t h e School Code (1985)

r e q u ire d i s t r i c t s t o have 180 days of stu d e n t atten d an ce or lo s e s t a t e
a id f o r th o se days under th e requirem ent.
Most re c e n t d i s t r i c t c o n tr a c ts showed few changes In c o n tr a c t
language.

The tr e n d appears t o exp ed ite t h e formal n e g o tia tio n process

by l i m i t i n g d isc u ssio n t o compensation and f r i n g e b e n e f i ts and perhaps
one or two other c r i t i c a l Issu es.

The p a r t i e s meet f o r a l i m i t e d

number of s e s s io n s f o r th e purpose of reaching an agreem ent quickly.
The language of th e previous c o n tr a c t I s extended throughout t h e new

89
agreement* a lon g w ith changes In th e c r i t i c a l I s s u e s and compensation
and f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .
The Michigan E ducation A ssociation was b e t t e r p rep a red f o r
c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g th a n were d i s t r i c t school boards and a d m i n i s t r a ­
to rs.

D i s t r i c t c o n t r a c t s and t h e proposed model c o n tr a c t p u b lish ed by

t h e MEA a r e very s i m i l a r .

The data p resen te d 1n t h i s study showed

g eo grap hic re g io n s of t h e s t a t e made no s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e

1

n th e

c o n tr a c t c la u s e s ; s m a l l e r r u r a l d i s t r i c t s had th e same or very s i m i l a r
c o n t r a c t language t o t h a t found In l a r g e r urban d i s t r i c t s .

The Inves­

t i g a t o r b e l i e v e s t h a t t h i s s i m i l a r i t y did n o t occur by chance b u t was
t h e r e s u l t o f a c o n c e rte d e f f o r t on t h e p a r t of t h e Michigan Education
A s so c ia tio n a s they t r a i n e d and prepared t h e i r people t o n e g o tia te
c o n tra c ts.
The f in d in g s on t h e r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of t h e e i g h t c o n tr a c t
c la u s e s shou ld be of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t t o sc h o o l-b o a rd n e g o tia to rs .
P r in c ip a ls ^ who a r e most c lo s e l y involved w ith c o n t r a c t Implementation*
r a t e d th e clauses* and they perceived t h a t t h e most r e s t r i c t i v e c la u se
was t h e g rle v a n c e -p ro c e d u re clause* follow ed by te a c h in g conditions*
c l a s s size* r e d u c tio n

1

n p e r s o n n e l / s e n lo r l t y / 1 a y o f f / r e c a ll * school

calendar* te a c h e r eval uatIon* te a c h in g assignment* and vacancies/prom o­
tio n s/tra n sfe rs.

Each o f th e s e c la u se s a f f e c t s personnel procedures

and p ro v id e s f o r a s t a n d a r d i z a ti o n of t h e way
handle t e a c h e r s .

1

n which p r i n c i p a l s

C l a s s - s l z e c la u s e s s ta n d a rd iz e the number of stu d e n ts

a ssig n e d t o a t e a c h e r 's c l a s s and provide a means of r e l i e f f o r c l a s s ­
rooms t h a t exceed th e maximum.

90

Teach 1ng-cond1t1ons c la u se s sp ecify a s ta n d a rd work day for
teachers* t h e amount of p re p a ra tio n tim e t h a t

1

s t o be provided fo r

teachers* t h e len g th of tim e f o r a d u ty -fre e lunch period* and provide
f o r e x t r a compensation I f th e assignm ent exoeeds th e l i s t e d norm.
Reduction in p e r s o n n e l / s e n l o r l t y / l a y o f f / r e c a l l c la u se s a t tim e s of
re d u c tio n

1

n s t a f f can r e s t r i c t the p r i n c i p a l s a b i l i t y t o r e t a i n th e

s t a f f member b e s t s u i t e d f o r an assignment t o allow a te a c h e r with more
s e n i o r i t y t o remain in p o s itio n .

T eacher-evaluatlon c la u se s have the

p o te n tia l of l i m i t i n g t h e number and frequency of e v a lu a tio n s t h a t a
p rin c ip a l can conduct 1n a te a c h e r 's classroom.

V acancies/prom otions/

t r a n s f e r c la u s e s have t h e p o te n tia l of l i m i t i n g a p r i n c i p a l 's preroga­
tiv e s

1

n f i l l i n g v a c a n c ie s and t r a n s f e r r i n g employees from one b uilding

t o a n o th e r.
S c h o o l-ca le n d ar c la u s e s specify th e number of work days fo r
teachers* and t h i s has th e p o te n tia l of l i m i t i n g an a d m in is tr a to r from
exten d in g a t e a c h e r 's work y e a r without a d d itio n a l compensation fo r
c u r r l c u lu n development or o th e r I n s tr u c tio n a l planning a c t i v i t i e s .
T his language can l i m i t th e a d m in is tr a to r 's a b i l i t y t o use nonteaching
days f o r c u rr lc u lu n planning or f o r In se rv ic e t r a i n i n g .
I t 1s Im portant f o r school board n e g o ti a t o r s t o be careful when
n e g o tia tin g any language changes

1

n th ese c la u se s because they a re

p erceived by p r i n c i p a l s t o be extremely r e s t r i c t i v e .
Teacher c o n tr a c t language has a ttem p ted t o reduce th e perceived
abuses o f te a c h e r s ' time* energy* and commitment t o th e te a ch in g pro­
fession* a s w ell as c a p r ic io u s or d isc rim in ato ry tre a tm e n t by

91

a d m in istrato rs.

As c o n tr a c t p ro v isio n s reduce te a c h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i ­

tie s * t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s of p r i n c i p a l s ' work w i l l Increase as they look
f o r a l t e r n a t i v e methods of handlin g such I s s u e s a s stu d en t su p e rv isio n
during and beyond t h e te a c h e r work day and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of th e
te a c h in g s t a f f f o r cu rric u lu m -p lan n in g m eetings.
P re d ic tio n s f o r Future C ontracts

The fo llo w in g p r e d ic tio n s f o r f u t u r e te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts a re made
by t h e researcher* based on t h e a n a ly s is o f te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts
sampled d i s t r i c t s n e g o tia te d over a

20

1

n th e

-y e a r period and the tre n d s t h a t

a r e o c c u rrin g In edu catio n .
Throughout t h e 20 y e a rs under In v estig a tio n * th e research
showed t h a t c o n tr a c t language became more s p e c i f i c and r e s t r i c t i v e .
The w r i t e r p r e d i c t s t h a t c o n tr a c t language w i l l continue t o become more
r e s t r i c t i v e from th e management p e rsp ec tiv e .

As c o n tra c t language

evolved thro ugh out t h e

1

2 0

y e a rs of th e study*

t was apparent t h a t

c la u se s o f te n were vague a t f i r s t mention In a c o n tr a c t and with
subsequent agreem ents became more s p e c i f i c and d e ta ile d .
e v a lu a tio n c la u se s provide an example.

Teacher-

F i r s t mention of t h i s clau se

1

n

d i s t r i c t c o n tr a c t s made a s ta te m e n t t h a t te a c h e r e v a lu a tio n s would be
reduced t o w r itin g .

During th e next round of negotiations* language

was added t o sp e cify th e frequency fo r te a c h e r e valu atio n.

Subse­

quent n e g o tia tio n s expanded th e language t o Include s p e c i f i c procedures
fo r p r i n c i p a l s t o follow when making classroom observations* d a te s by
which t h e procedure must be completed* and allowed f o r recourse on th e
p a r t of t h e te a c h e r I f he/she did not agree w ith th e e v aluation .

92

The re s e a rc h e r p r e d i c t s t h a t c o n tr a c t language w i l l co ntinu e t o
s ta n d a rd iz e and c e n t r a l i z e school p ractices*

The te a c h ln g - c o n d ltlo n s

c la u se d e fin e s t h e te a c h e r work day and s p e c i f i e s th e len g th o f th e
work day* re q u ire d and v o lu n ta ry p a r t i c i p a t i o n

1

n e x tra c u rric u la r

a c t i v i t i e s * and t h e amount of p re p a ra tio n tim e f o r te a c h e rs .
t i o n t im e f o r secondary t e a c h e r s has g e n e ra lly been provided
amount o f one c l a s s period per day.

Prepara­
1

n th e

Elementary planning tim e has been

l e s s s p e c i f i c In te a c h e r c o n tr a c ts because of th e nature of th e s e l f c o n ta in e d elem entary classroom .

Elementary te a c h e rs usu ally rely on

a n o th e r p ro fe ssio n a l t o ta k e t h e i r c l a s s t o tea ch a r t o r music or
physical education t o provide t h e i r planning tim e.

The r e s e a rc h e r

p r e d i c t s t h a t th e amount of planning tim e between elementary and sec­
ondary te a c h e r s w ill become more c o n s is te n t
tra c ts.

1

n f u tu r e te a c h e r con­

The re s e a rc h e r a ls o p r e d ic ts t h a t c o n tr a c t language In th e

f u t u r e w i l l decrease th e amount of tim e t h a t te a c h e rs a r e re q u ire d t o
s u p e r v is e s tu d e n ts before and a f t e r th e school day# a s well as during
r e c e s s and lunch periods.

The tre n d has been t o shorten th e work day

f o r teachers# and th e re s e a rc h e r b e lie v e s t h i s tre n d w ill continue.

As

more em phasis i s placed on t h e p ro fe ssio n a lism of te a c h e rs and edu­
c a t o r s c o ntinu e t o s t r i v e t o Improve th e q u a l i t y of education* t h e
r e s e a r c h e r p r e d i c ts t h a t su perviso ry and c l e r i c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w ill
s h i f t from t e a c h e r s t o o th er n o n c e r tif ie d d i s t r i c t employees.
The re s e a rc h e r p r e d i c ts t h a t changes In t e a c h e r - c e r t l f 1 c atio n
requirem ents# re q u ir in g elem entary te a c h e r s t o have a major or minor
1

f they teach above grade five* w ill cause c o n tr a c t language t o

93

change.

P re se n t c o n tr a c t language d e a lin g w ith te a c h e r assignm ent and

r e d u c tio n

1

n p e r s o n n e l / s e n l o r l t y / l a y o f f / r e c a l l now c l a s s i f i e s

e lem entary te a c h e rs as K-B c e r t i f i e d .

Contract language makes t h e

assum ption t h a t elem entary t e a c h e r s can be assigned t o any classroom*
k in d e rg a rte n through e ig h th grade.
m ents w i l l re q u ire changes

1

Changes In c e r t i f i c a t i o n r e q u ir e ­

n c o n tr a c t language t o a d d re ss th e Issu e.

The research er p r e d i c t s t h a t sc h o o l-ca le n d ar language w i l l
c o n tin u e t o change.

The minimum number of req u ire d days of a tte n d a n c e

f o r s tu d e n ts w ill re q u ir e more f l e x i b i l i t y

1

th e number of days te a c h e r s work each year.

n c o n tr a c t language governing
School d i s t r i c t s 1n n o rth ­

e rn and w e stern a re a s of Michigan experience a la rg e number of snow
days each w in te r when d i s t r i c t buses a re unable t o n avig ate r u r a l
roads* and th u s schools c lo se.

Teacher c o n tr a c t language

1

n a l l of th e

sampled d i s t r i c t s does not r e q u ir e te a c h e r s t o work on those days when
sc hoo ls a r e closed t o s tu d e n ts because of Inclement weather.

For

d i s t r i c t s t o hold 180 days of re q u ire d stu d e n t attendance* c o n tr a c t
p r o v is io n s w i l l need t o be made f o r a more f l e x i b l e work y e a r f o r
teach ers.
The resea rch e r p r e d i c t s t h a t le a v e language 1n te a c h e r
c o n t r a c t s w ill become more fle x ib le * a llo w in g te a c h e rs le a v e s of
absence f o r study* ta k in g re q u ire d co u rses f o r r e c e r t i f ic a t i o n * or
cont1nu1ng-education c r e d i t s .

Changes 1n teach 1ng-cert1f1 c a tio n

req u ire m e n ts and t h e emphasis on ex ce llen c e

1

n education w i l l promote

t h e concept of f l e x i b l e lea v e tim e f o r te a c h e r s t o meet req u ire m e n ts
f o r f u r t h e r education and t r a i n i n g .

94

The re s e a rc h e r p r e d i c t s t h a t un ifo rm ity among c o n t r a c t c la u s e s
1n Michigan school d i s t r i c t s w i l l continue.

The re s e a rc h e r b e lie v e s

t h a t boards of education and te a c h e r union le a d e rs a r e making a tte m p ts
t o r e s o lv e la b o r d is p u te s and problems w ith c o n tr a c t I n t e r p r e t a t i o n
be fo re they become m ajor I s s u e s and t h e p a r t i e s become p o la riz e d on th e
Is s u e s .

The re s e a rc h e r p r e d i c t s th e 1980s w ill be remembered f o r more

harmonious lab o r r e l a t i o n s In p u b lic education th an t h a t of t h e 1970s*
a s d i s t r i c t n e g o tia to rs con tinue t o le a r n how t o work w ith c o l l e c t i v e
bargainin g.
Recommendations f o r Future Study

More resea rch In th e a re a of educational la b o r r e l a t i o n s 1s
needed.

Few s t u d i e s have been conducted on te a c h e r c o l l e c t i v e -

barg aining agreem ents.
c o n tr a c t area.

Those t h a t were done were l i m i t e d t o a s p e c i f i c

These s t u d i e s have not begun t o In flu en c e t h e m u ltitu d e

of a r e a s t h a t could be researched .
In r e l a t i o n t o t h e s p e c i f i c a re a s addressed In t h i s study* th e
follow ing to p ic s a re a p p r o p r ia te f o r f u r t h e r re s e a rc h :
1.

This w r i t e r examined* In depth* th e c o n tr a c t s from 21

d i s t r i c t s re p r e s e n tin g a l l a r e a s of Michigan.

A f u r t h e r I n v e s tig a tio n

could Include a l a r g e r sample of d i s t r i c t s .
2.

This w r i t e r e lim in a te d a re a s of th e c o n tr a c t a d d re ssin g

compensation and f r i n g e b e n e f i t s because Inform ation on th e s e a re a s 1s
complied by o th er ag en cies.

F urth er research could Include f in a n c ia l

data along w ith Inform ation on c o n tra c t language t o p re s e n t a more

95

comprehensive p ic tu r e of th e tr e n d s In c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g In
Michigan te a c h e r c o n t r a c t s .
3.

F u rth er s tu ty on te a c h e r c o lle c tiv e - b a r g a in in g agreements

from o th e r s t a t e s would allow f o r comparison o f data between and among
sta te s.
4.

F urther re s e a rc h on v a r i a b le s a f f e c t i n g c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining# such a s laws# a r b i t r a t i o n rulings# and the s k i l l le v e l of
n e g o tiato rs# would enhance a study on te a c h e r c o lle c tiv e - b a r g a in in g
agreements.
5.

This w r i t e r measured t h e r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of e i g h t c o n tra c t

c la u se s a s perceived by p r in c ip a ls .

Further research could be con­

ducted t o measure t h e r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s of a l l c o n tr a c t language and
Include th e p e rc ep tio n s o f teachers# school board members# and parents
and th en compare t h e p e rc e p tio n s of these groups.

APPENDICES

1

APPENDIX A
CONTRACT OONTENT ANALYSIS FORM

97

98
contract content analysis form

DISTRICT.

.CLASS.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF CONTRACT.

.TERMINATION DATEL

AREA_____________________

.DATE OF ANALYSIS.
NOT

CLAUSE

■CRITERIA

Recognition

1 . Statement o f bargaining
2.
3.

Board/District
Rights

t.

2

.

3.
Association Rights/
Teacher Rights

Union Security/
Membership

agent.
Categories o f employees
included in recognized
un it.
Categories o f employees
excluded i . e . substitutes,
principals, supervisors.
Reserve rights doctrine.
Specific waivers on work
assignments, e tc .
Reinforces statutory rights
of board.

Teacher righ t to organize,
Join and support
association.
Association rig h t to use
school f a c ilit ie s and
equipment at reasonable
times.
A designated b u lle tin board
available in each building.
Association access to
d is tric t mall service.
D is tric t financial
Information available to
constituents available to
association.
6 . Access to Board Agenda and
Minutes of meetings.
7. Access to Information
necessary to process a
grievance.

1.

2.
3.

Class Size

MENIiaHEP

1.
2.
3.

Specifies dues collected
Specifies equivalency fee
collected.
Save harmless clause.
Indemnification fo r a l l
costs Involved for
complying.
Specifies number o f
students per teacher (K-6)
Specifies number o f
students per class (7-12)
Weighted class size.

HENXIfiMEP

COMMENTS

99
CLAUSE

CRITERIA
4.
5.
6.
7.

Teaching Conditions

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

Teaching Assignment

1.
2.

Vacancies/Promotions/
Transfers

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
Academic Freedom

1.
2.

Teacher Evaluation

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

HEKTIflRQ)

Extra pay fo r students
above the elass size
lim its .
Additional help provided
teacher with students above
lim it.
Consultation with
association.
Access to grievance
procedure.
Specifies number o f classes
to be taught per day.
Specifies amount of
planning time per day/week.
Defines what planning time
can be used fo r.
Specifies beginning and
ending time o f work day.
Specifies amount o f time
fo r duty free lunch.
Provides for extra
compensation fo r
assignments in excess.
N otification o f assignment
prior to end o f year.
Assignment only within
major/ minor area
c e rtific a tio n .
Defines terms.
Vacancies, new positions
posted throughout d is tr ic t.
Notification sent to
association.
Request for transfer
considered before new s ta ff
hired.
Language lim itin g
involuntary transfers.
Statement on academic
freedom.
Religious, p o litic a l
convictions respected.
Teacher participation in
development o f instrument,
c rite ria .
Teacher evaluation reduced
to w riting.
Specifies procedures for
classroom observations by
administrators.
Specifies time by which
procedure must be
completed.
Teacher able to respond in
w riting.

NOT
HEMXIGHED

too
NOT
CLAUSE

CRITERIA
6.
7.
B.
9.

Teacher signs signifying
receipt o f evaluation.
Specifies frequency o f
evaluation fo r tenured
teachers.
Specifies proaedure fo r
reviewing personnel f i l e .
Access to grievance
procedure.

Professional Behavior

Teacher obligated to comply
with rules, regulations
established by board.

Maintenance of
Standards

Conditions o f employment not
changed except by mutual
agreement o f both parties.

HEKTIDHED

MENTIONED

COMMENTS

———

— <------

. —- — -

—

---------

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

----— —

______

---------

- __ __

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

—

---------

---------

----- —

-- —

________

Leaves o f Absence
Association

1*
2.
3.
A.

Bereavement

1.
2.
3.
n.

Maternity/
Child Care

1.

2.
3.

Specifies number o f days
per year.
Defines who may use days.
Allows fo r association
reimbursement to d is tric t
fo r substitute.
Specifies procedure for
requesting leave.
D efinition o f term
"inmediate family".
Specifies number o f days.
Specifies procedure for
using leave.
Specifies days taken o ff
sick leave.
Specifies leave without
pay.
Specifies length of time
for n o tific a tio n to
d is tr ic t.
Limits length o f leave.

---------

D is a b ility

1.
2.

Definition of d is a b ility .
Specifies procedure for
requesting leave.

--------— —

Jury Duty

1.

Specifies procedure for
notifying d is tr ic t.
Specifies handling of jury
duty pay.

---------

2.
Personal

1.
2.
3.

Sets parameters for use.
Limits number of days.
Specifies days taken o ff
sick leave.

-

— ----

—------

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

----------

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

---------

-- -

———
-----------------

, , i ----

T-T.

i

—-------

M

101
NOT
CLAUSE

Professional

CRITERIA

1.
2.
3.

Unpaid

1.
2.
3.

Sabbatical

1.

2.
3.

Sick

1.
2.
3.
4.

Reduction in Person­
nel/Seniority/Layoff/Recall

1.
2.
3.

Specifies what leave may be
used fo r.
Procedure for requesting
unpaid leave.
Limit on number o f days.
Meets requirements of
School Codes 300.1235.
Specifies number of s ta ff
granted leave a t one time.
Specific beginning/ending
date of leave.
D efinition of sick leave.
Specifies number of days.
Specifies procedure for
notifying d is tr ic t.
Specifies to ta l
accumulation fo r sick days.
D efinition of terms.
Probationary teacher lay­
o ff by seniority.
Tenured teacher la y -o ff
according to c e rtific a tio n ,
qualification .

Tenured teacher lay-off
by seniority.

5.

Specifies amount of time
l e f t on recall l i s t .
Specifies amount of time
for n o tific a tio n .
Provision fo r tenure in
position.
Administrative seniority
addressed.
Specific amount of time to
respond to recall notice.
Specific procedure for
n o tificatio n .
Requalified teachers
recalled when position
available.

7.
8.
9.

10.
11.

Grievance Procedure

Defines e lig ib le use of
leave.
Limits number o f days to be
used.
Specifies procedure for use
of leave.

4.

6.

1.
2.
3.
4.

MENTIONED

Grievance clearly defined.
Limited to violation,
misinterpretation or
misapplication o f contract.
Time lim its on each step.
Limits scope of authority
of a rb itra to r.

MENTIONED

COMMENTS

102
CLAUSE

MENTIONED

CRITERIA

5.
6.
7.
8.

Excludes probationary
teacher discharge or third
year probation.
Provisions for place of
hearing, release of
employees.
Specifies procedure for
payment of arbitration
Binding arbitration - fin a l
step.
i

Instructional Council/
Curriculum Commit­
tee

1.
2.
3.

School Calendar

1.
2.
3.
4.

Teacher Protection/
Student Discipline

1.
2.

Continuity o f
Operations/no
Strike

1.

2.

Waiver or Zipper
Clause

1.
2.

Miscellaneous Provisions:

Joint membership between
association and board.
Regularly scheduled
meetings.
Procedures fo r recomnending
textbook changes.
Specifies number of teacher
workdays.
Provision for minimum of
180 student days.
Specific school year
calendar.
Procedure for making up
snow days.
Reasonable support and
assistance given to
teachers.
Procedure fo r excluding
student from class
temporarily.
Association, agents,
members agree to no strike
or work stoppage during
term o f agreement.
Board reserves right to
discipline employee found
in violation.
States contract is complete
agreement between parties.
Neither party obligated to
negotiate on other items
for duration o f contract.

NOT
MENTIONED

DOCENTS

t

APPENDIX B
SAMPLE OF THE STUDY

103

Sam ple o f th e S tu d y

D istric t

Region

C la s s Size

Grand Rapids P u b lic Schools

2

Second c la s s

Allegan P u b lic Schools

2

Third c la s s

B a t t l e Creek P u b lic Schools

2

Third c la s s

C a d illa c Area Schools

3

Third c la s s

Grand Haven P u b lic Schools

2

Third c l a s s

Lansing P u b lic Schools

2

Third c l a s s

Livonia P u b lic Schools

1

Third c l a s s

P o rt Huron Area Schools

2

T hird c la s s

Saginaw P u b lic Schools

2

Third c la s s

S a u lt S te . Marie Pu blic Schools

3

Third c l a s s

U tica Community School D i s t r i c t

1

Third c la s s

Camden-Frontier P u b lic Schools

2

Fourth c la s s

C assopolis P u b lic Schools

2

Fourth c la s s

D e erfield P u b lic Schools

2

Fourth c la s s

Ewen-Trout Creek Consolidated Schools

4

Fourth c la s s

Iron Mountain P u b lic Schools

4

Fourth c la s s

Mlo-Au Sable Publ i c Schools

3

Fourth c la s s

Onekama C o nso lidated Schools

3

Fourth c la s s

Petoskey P u b lic Schools

3

Fourth c la s s

Whitmore Lake Pu blic Schools

2

Fourth c la s s

APPENDIX C
REGION AND COMMUNITY TYPE CATEGORIES

105

106

107

REGION AND COMMUNITY TYPE CATEGORIES
Region 1--Wayne# Oakland and Macomb Counties.
2—-All c o u n tie s In Southern Michigan t h a t a re south of
and In c lu d in g Muskegon# Kent# Montcalm# G ra tio t#
Midland and Bay c o u n tie s . This excludes Region 1.
3— All c o u n tie s t h a t a re north of th e above mentioned
l i n e and t h a t a r e 1n th e Lower Peninsula.
4—*A11 c o u n tie s t h a t a r e In th e Upper P eninsu la.

Type I —M etropolitan Core: One or more a d ja ce n t c i t i e s with
a p o pulation of 50*000 o r more which serve a s th e economic
focal p o in t o f t h e i r environs.
I I —C ity: Community of 10»000 t o 50*000 t h a t serv es a s th e
economic fo cal p o in t of i t s environs.
I l l —Town: Community of 2#500 t o 10#000 t h a t serv es a s th e
economic fo cal p o in t of I t s environs.
IV—Urban Fringe: A community of any population s iz e t h a t has
a s i t s economic focal p oin t a m etro p o litan core or a c i t y .
V—Rural Community:

A community l e s s than 2*500.

APPENDIX D
MEASUREMENT OF CONTRACT RESTRICTIVENESS SCALE

108

109

MEASUREMENT OF CONTRACT RESTRICTIVENESS
How long have you been a principal ?
Check the category which describes the size of your school district:
___________

F ourth C la ss
Third C lass

___________
'

DIRECTIONS :

more than 75 students * 2,400 students
2,400 students - 30,000 students

S eco n d C lass 30,000 students ■ 120,000 students
First C lass

120,000 s tu d e n ts -

Using the term s listed and their definitions determine the degree ol restrictiveness lor
each of the twenty-nine contract clauses listed. The contract clause is delined by
listing criteria the clause would include.

5.

EXTREMELY

RESTRICTIVE*

limiting, obstructing and/or confining a building administrator to the
g re a te st d egree from making a decision having an eltect on
some aspect ol school management, personnel procedure or
policy.

4.

MODERATELY RESTRICTIVE • limiting,obstructing and or confining a building administrator to an
av e rag e degree from making a decision having an effect on
som e aspect of school management, personnel procedures or
policy.

3. NEUTRAL LANGUAGE •

neither restricting nor allowing a building administrator to make a
decision having an effect on some aspect of school management,
personnel procedures or policy.

2. SOMEWHAT RESTRICTIVE •

limiting,obstructing and/or confining a building administrator to
so m e extent from making a decision having an effect on some
aspect of school management personnel procedures or polcy

1. LEAST RESTRICTIVE •

Limiting, obstructing and/or confining a building administrator to a
le sse r degree from making a decision having an effect on some
aspect of school management, personnel procedures or policy.

110

CLAU8E

DESCRIPTION

1

R e co g n itio n

Statement ol bargaining agent, listing categories of
employees included and excluded.

1

Board Rlghta/
District Rights

Reinforces statutory rights ol board.

1

A s so c ia tio n /
, T ssc h sr R ights

Gives association right to use school buildings,
equipment, bulletin boards and mall service. District
financial Information available. Information neded to
process grievance provided.

1

Union Security/
M em bership

Specifies d u es or equivalency fee collected.
Indemnifies board and holds harmless.

1

C lass Size

Specifies number ot students per class ( K-12 }.
provides for extra pay and/or aide provided K class
above limit. Consult with association. Access to
grievance procedure.

1

T eschlng
A ssig n m en t

Specifies hours worked. Number of classes taught,
amount of preparation time, specifies amount of
time for duty free lunch. Provides for extra
compensation for assignments in excess.

1

V a c a n c ie s/
P rom otions
T ren slsrs

Vacancies posted throughout district. Notice sent
to association. Request for transler considered
before new stafl hired. L anguage limiting
involuntary transler.

1

Academic
F reed om

Statement on academic freedom

1

T ea ch er
Evaluation

Teacher participation In development of instrument.
Reduced to writing. Specifies procedure for class
room observations. Time by which m ust be
completed. Teacher responds In writing. Specifies
frequency of evaluation for tenure teachers. Access
to grievance procedure.

1

P r o fe ssio n a l
B ehavior

Teacher obligated lo comply with rules, regulations
establslhed by board.

t

A sso cia tio n
L eave

Specifies num ber of days, who m ay use.
Reimbursement to district for sub.

1

Bereavem ent
L eave

Definition of immediate family. Specific number of
days, procedure for requesting. Days used taken
off sick leave.

1

Maternity/
Child Care

Specifies leave without pay, amount of time for
notificalioin to district. Limits length of leave.

1

Jury Duty Leave

Specifies handling ot jury duty pay.

Ill

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

P ersonal L savs

Sets parameters for use. Limits number ol days.
SpecHies taken oil sick leave.

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

Profaalonal
L ea v e

Defines eligible use ol leave. Limits number ol
days. Procedure for use of days. Specifies what
leave used for. Limit on number of days.

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

U npaid Leave

SpecHies what leave used for. Limits number of
days.

5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . . 1
i

Sabbatical Leave Specifies number of stall granted leave. Follows
School Code.

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

Slck/Dlaablllty

Defines sick/disability leave. Specifies number ol
days, procedure for notifying district. Accumulation
of days.

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

R eduction In
P e r s o n n e l/
S en iority/L ay-off
Recall

Delines terms.Probalionary teacher layed oil first.
T enure te a c h e rs by seniority, certification,
qualifications. Specifies amount ot time on recall list,
amount ol time for notification and to respond to
recall notice. Procedure tor notification.

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

G rievance
P ro ce d u re

Grievance limited to violation, misinterpretation or
misapplication ot contract. Time limits on each step.
Final binding arbitration. Limits authority of arbitrator.
Excludes probationary teacher discharge or third
year probation. Procedure lor payment of arbitrator.

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

Instructional
C ouncil /
C urriculum
C o m m ittee

Joint membership between association and board
Regularly scheduled meetings. Procedures for
recommending textbook changes.

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

S ch o o l C alendar

Specifies number of teacher workdays, student
days. Specific calendar. Procedure for makeup
snowdays.

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

T e a c h e r Protec*
tlo n / S tu d e n t
D iscipline

Reasonable support, assistance given to teachers.
Provision tor excluding students from class
temporarily.

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

C ontinuity o f
O p e ra tio n s /
No Strike

Association members agree not to strike during
term ol agreem ent. Board reserves right to
discipline employee found in violation.

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

W aiver o r Zipper
C la u s e

S tates contract is complete agreem ent, neither
party obligated to negotiate on other items lor
duration of contract.

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

Teaching
C o n d itio n s

Specifies hours worked. Number of classes taught,
amount of preparation lime. Specific amount ot time
for duty free lunch. Provides for extra compensation
for assignments in excess.

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

M aintenance of
S ta n d a rd s

Conditions of employment not changed except by
mutual agreement.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

112

BIBLIOGRAmy

Alfonso# Robert J. " C o lle c tiv e N ego tiatio n 1n Curriculum and I n s t r u c ­
ti o n ." N e g o tia tin g l a c P ro fe ss lo n a l 1z a t 1on. Washington# D.G.:
National Education Association* 1970.
Angell* George. Faculty and Teacher B argaining: The Im pact o f Unions
on Education. Lexington# Mass.: Lexington Books# 1981.
Ashby# Lloyd W.; McGinnis# James E.; and Perslng# Thomas E. .Common
.Sense In N e g o tia tio n s In P u b lic Education. S p rin g field * 111.:
The I n t e r s t a t e P r i n t e r s and Publishers# 1972.
Cheng* Charles W. A lte rin g C o lle c tiv e Bargaining.
Publishers# 1976.

New York:

Praeger

Cooper* Bruce S. C o lle c tiv e Bargaining. S tr ik e s and f i n a n c i a l Costs i n
P ub lic Education: A Comparative Review. Oregon: ERIC C learin g­
house* 1962.
Downle* N. M.# and Heath# R. W.
Harper and Brothers# 1965.

Basic S t a t i s t i c a l Methods.

Elcker# Dorothy. "The In flu en ce of C o lle c tiv e Bargaining."
School Board Journal (Lansing# Michigan) (1983): 8-10.

New York:
Michigan

Elken* Keith P. "Teacher Unions and t h e Curriculum Change Process."
E d ucation al Leadership (December 1977): 170-76.
Farr* Joseph E. "The Impact of B argaining on Curriculum Development."
Michigan School Board Journal (Lansing# Michigan) (1983): 17-18.
Finn# Chester E.» J r . "Teacher Unions and School Q u a lity : P o te n tia l
A l l ie s or I n e v ita b le Foes?" Phi D elta Kappan (January 1985): 30035.
Grand Rapids IM lchlgani P r e s s . 16 May 1985# p. 2* c o l. 1.
James# Tom. "The S t a te s S tru g g le t o Define th e Scope of Teacher
B a rg a in in g ." Education D igest (January 1976): 18-26.
Jascourt* Hugh D. "The Scope of N e g o tia tio n s 1n P u b lic Education:
Overview." J o u rn a l o f Law and Education (January 1973): 136-38.

113

114

Johnson* Susan Moore, Teacher Unions In Schools.
Temple U niv ersity Press* 1984.

P h ila d e lp h ia !

K arlltz* Howard. E d u c a tio n a l A d m in is tra to rs and Teachers Union an
A llian ce of Convenience.n Clearinghouse (November 1978).
Kerchner* Charles T. T h e Impact of C o lle c tiv e B argaining on School
Governance." Education and Urban Society (February 1979): 183-89.
Lleberman* Myron. P u b lic S e c to r Bargaining.
D. C. Heath and Co.* 1980.

Lexington* Mass.:

Magee* Robert Charles. T h e E ffe c t of C o lle c tiv e N e g o tia tio n s on
School D i s t r i c t s ' Curriculum Planning and th e Improvement of
I n s tr u c tio n ." Ph.D. d is s e r ta tio n * U niv ersity of New York a t
Buffalo* 1978.
McDonnell* Lorraine M.* and Pascal* Anthony H. n a t i o n a l Trends In
Teacher C o lle c tiv e B argaining.” Education And Urban S o c iety
(February 1979): 127-36.
________ , Organized Teachers 1n American Schools.
Corporation* 1979.

C a lif o r n ia :

Rand

Metzler* John H. T h e Need f o r L im ita tio n Upon t h e Scope of Negotia­
t i o n s 1n Pu blic Education." Journal
Law And Education (January
19 73): 138-45.
Michigan. Department of Labor. Public Employmant R e la tio n s Act.
L ansing: Michigan Department of Labor* n .d .
Michigan Education A sso c ia tio n .

Voice, 19 November 1984.

Perry* C harles R.» and Wlldman* Wesley A. The Impact o f N e g o tia tio n s
I n P u b lic Education: The Evidence from th e Schools. Ohio:
C harles A. Jones P u b lish in g Co.* 1970.
Selden* David. *How Fares Curriculum In C o lle c tiv e Bargaining?"
Educational Leadership 33 (October 1975): 28-30.
S tin n e tt* T. M.; Klelnmann* Jack H.; and Ware* Martha L. P ro fe ssio n a l
N egotiation In P u b lic E ducation. New York: Macmillan* 1966.
Thompson* A. Gray* and Zlemer* Russell H. The Im pact of C o lle c tiv e
Bargaining on C u rrlc u lu m -In s tru c tlo n . National School Boards
A ssociation Research Report No. 1975-2. Evanston* 111.: National
School Boards Association* 1975.

115
U.S. Department of Education* What Worksi Research About Teaching and
Learning [by W illiam J. B ennettL Washington* D.CL: Department
of Education# 1966.
Vaughn# Ja c q u e lin e B. T h e Expanding Role of Teachers In N eg otiating
C urriculum ." Educational Leadership (October 1976): 21-23.
Wesley* Edgar B. NEA: Jhfi F i r s t Hundred Years* Ihfi B uilding £ f Xh&
Teaching P r o fe s s io n . New York: Harper and Row* 1975.
Zlemer* R ussell H. "An Ldent1f1 c a tio n and A naly sis of Currlculum I n s t r u c t l o n Components N egotiated by S e le c te d A f f i l i a t e s of th e
N ational Education A ssociation and t h e American F ed eratio n of
T e a c h e rs." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n * Marquette U niversity* 1972.