Group Title: study of issues in the collective bargaining process in public education
Title: A study of issues in the collective bargaining process in public education
Full Citation
Permanent Link:
 Material Information
Title: A study of issues in the collective bargaining process in public education and alternative strategies for dealing with those issues
Physical Description: x, 218 leaves : ; 28cm.
Language: English
Creator: Sickles, Walter Lee, 1934-
Publication Date: 1975
Copyright Date: 1975
Subject: Collective bargaining -- Teachers -- Florida   ( lcsh )
School personnel management -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: by Walter Lee Sickles.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098320
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000163184
oclc - 02740056
notis - AAS9536


This item has the following downloads:

studyofissuesinc00sick ( PDF )

Full Text


A OL'Lk1 tl P1 e P' Ti I 'Q

A Ii i TG C I Ir'L

Of ~.'11 I






The writer wishes to express iiis appreciation for the direction

and encouragcmen! provided hy the committee. Ite especially thanks

the conmitt.-e mem l-rs for their cooperation and time given unhesitat-

ingly towards the fulfillment of his goal. The writer is indebted to

Dr. K. Forbis Jordan, Chairmen, Ur. Ralph B. Kimbrough, and Dr. Arthur

J. Lewis.

The writer wishes to express his deep appreciation and gratitude

for the cooperation, extra time, end assistance provided by Dr. K.

Forbis Jordan for suggesticni, regarding the organization and general

suppor'-t th'rouighIout the study.

Finally, the writer wishes -to recognize his indebtedness to his

wife, Jill, and his children, Lisa, Laurie, and Matthew, for the

pa tiene, understarndin, and it:spiration they provided as this study

was .ur'sued.


ACKNOWLE: DGMENTS . . . . . . . * iv

A.STRAC .r . . .. . . . . . . * * * i

C!iA? PEk

i I V:O, r"..'i.''"i .I . . . . . .

Statement of the Problem . . . . . .
Delimintations and Liimitatioins . . . . . 3
Justification for the Study . . . . .
Definition of Terms . . . . . .... .
Procedures . . . . . . . .. 7
COrg'nization of the Research Re.ort. . .... .. 9
Review of Related literature and Research. . .


What Shlould Be the Roie of the School Roard
in Ccllectiv Bargaini g?. . . . . ?6
What Should Be the Role of the Su'perirtendent
in Collec:tive Bargaining?. .. .. 33
What Shou!d Be the Role of the Frincipal in
Collective Bai~ dining? . . . ....... 41
What Should Be included or. th.e Board's
Bargaining Team;? . . . . . 5. * '
Hlw Should Baruaining Te.i;s Prepare for
NegoliiaTions and Wnt Strategies Ijore Used
to se- Protposa!is tc the eg;ctiating ;Tble? . 71
Wih:t Stretegies ; Soulr 5e Used in Preseriing
Prop'mals feo bargaining . . . . . . 7 Sh: ud Be tih Scope of Co!lective
Barg',ining in t'blic t uc Should Collective Bargininig Invilve
Curriciiumir i and Instruction?. . . . . .. 90
Should Comipul oi,' Uiionism Be Required in
',lrJcai ioral Coilective c ;: iirg g? . . . 97
iio should;?es in Co! :ectie Uargaining
in Public Lduication b!- Resolved? .. . . . 100
Should tie Strike e used as a Labor Weapion
in Pubnlic Fdoic 'inn? . . . . .

ISSUES AND STR l . . . . . . . ; i6

What Streptegy Shoii;llu the "hv *.n! ;:rird A fDot;.
in Deterrminii'" Its R'i Barg-aining? . .. . . . . ... . 1
What Strategy Should i the p,.iprinterndent Adopt
in Lo! active 'r iinin' ? . . . . . 128
What Stra tegy Clt.uld the Principl Adopt in
Collective Bariai ling?. .. . . . . i29
Who Should cB Included on the Board's T':le
Eargaiin g Ten i!?. . . . .. . . 130
What Stra.tegy S!ho,;d 'e Used to Get the
Necessary Proposals to the Lrr araininq
Table? . . . . . . 13
What Strategy Shoild E[e Used to Determine the
Scope of Collective Bargainig? . . . 33
What Strategy Should Be Used for Curr;clr.
and Instruction in Collective 'rgai;iinri? ... 1
What Strategy Sho.ild Be Used fore Dealiir withi
Coimpul sory Unionisn in Educational CociecLive
Bargaining? . . . . . ... 13
What Strategy Should E: Used by the School
Systmn in Resl;:vii: an passe? .. .. . 3
What StraigCy Siou:id Be Used by tie School
Board in Deal ing with Strikesf. . . . .... 1

SURVEYS. . . . . . . .. . . . . .13

l!!umber One. . . . . ..
l.;ume ier Two. . . . . . .
Number Three . . . . .
Number Four . . . . . .
Number Five . . . . . .
Nwiimber Six. . . . . . .
i .umber Seven . . . . .
,Nujlier [E ght . . . . ..
i..i:mber N ne . . . . . .
Number Ton . . . . . .

. . 144
. . 14(
. . .. !45
. . . 15.
. . . 163
S . . !. 8
. . . . 73
. . . 178
-~~~ F,4-- 8

V SUiMp.A.RY, CO.CiLUSinMS, ANO IMP!LI'AiTlO .. . ....

Suina.ia ry . . . . . . . . . . .
implicationss for the Theory and PractctPe of
NegA i tions ....... . .. . .. .
Subsi onive Conc icns .............
Proced'rlo- Conclc usi; . . . . . . . .
Iplic;tions for Fi:'ther Reserch . .......






1 Prel imr;iry .eti' i Survey . . . . . . 207

S Sri'vey Results to rDeP:ciriine Yeais:. of Bargaining
in Florida by Count..... .. ...... .... 209

3 interview Guide ................... 211

4 Letter to Selected Experienced Negotiators . . . 215

5 Experienced Negotito-rs Interviewed . . . . .. 216

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . ... . . . . 218

Abstract of Dissertatir~n presented Co, he Graduate Council
of the University of IFor-ida in FPe t~i Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the rDeree of .c-tGor of Philosophy



Walter Lee Sickles

August, 1975
Chairman: K. Forbis Jordan
Major Department: Educational Administration

The purposes of this study were to identify issues in the col-

lective bargaining process in public elementary and secondary educa-

tion, referred to in this study as public education, and alternative

strategies for dealing with those issues from the school board's

perspective. Collective bargaining literature written between 1965

and 1974 was reviewed. To validate the major issues and alternative

-strategies, an interview guide was developed from the literature.

Experienced administrative negotiators and experienced teacher

negotiators from six Florida counties were interviewed. The six

counties represented large, medium, and small pupil populations; urban

and rural settings; and each had been involved in collective bargain-

ing for five years or more. The substantive findings and conclusions

were as follows:

1. li;e school board should approve its bargaining team, estab-

lish guidelines and lihiits, and give the team authority to

act. Boards should remain away from the table during the

bargaining process.

2. 'he superinten:tr:l a. wouldd w e;k as executive off icr lo tle.

board and provide direction tr t he board's team. lie should

not rcpir'eent l;otl board and te.!hecr t ems, act as cihef

negotiator For the ioard, or assume a neutra` posture in

collective bargaining.

3. The princil al should alig, !hii iis wthi the board's tca:i a:d

sit with that team at the table as an advisor. He should

not assume a neutral role, join the teiclrs' group:, or

organize his own unit.

4. The board's table team should include district peron!)e1

without the superintendent, principals 4n an advisory capacity,

and an outside expert if expertise i5 uravailable in the dis-

trict. The team should not include board members, superin-

tendents, or attorneys.

5. The board's team should consult with principals to determine

what portions of Lhe contract need modification. Proposals

are prepared from the principals' recommendations and ex-

changed with teachers during the first bargaining session.

The board team should not work exclusively front counter-

proposl s.

6. The best strategy for determining scope should be a broad

interpretation of "conditions of employment" with discussions

of concerns throughout the year. The scope should not be

confined to salary and fringe benefits.

7. Cirricu'ii and instruction should he deait with by a com-

mittee of administrators and teachers away from the bargaining,

tD 1 oe. However, procecoures for ,stabiiishing the jonit cam-

mittee are 1egitiimate items for bargaiining.

S. Thl best strategy for dealing w;ci compulsory urionismn is

a rightt to wvork" law. Keeping it out of the negotiation;

law is not adequate protection fo: boards.

9. Mediation and fact finding are the best strategies for boards.

Roards should avoid arbitration whenever possible.

10. The board should keep schools open by calling upon qualiifed

amimers of the community to take over classes until the dis-

pute is resolved. Teachers should Dc informed of their legal

obligations. Boards should not use the locKoui against

striking groups.

In addition, the following procedural conclusions appear to be

justified by the study:

1. The body of literature on collective bargaining ii education

was sufficient to provide ample material for the identifica-

tion of issues and alternative strategies for copiny with

each issue.

2. issues have remained relatively constant over tiii, but LhI

strategies for coping with the issues appear to :e evolving.

3. 1Wh;n que'ied concerning the validity and relevance of ihe

issues and strategies, negotiators for admifnistrators arni

techliers had a high level of agreement except in certain

isolated instances.



A.c.oring to Pierce, nc-third of the general labir' force of

the nation has become uimiondizd since the passage of the Wagner

Act in l0.. Bet.wen 1964 an? 1974, thirty-one states passed

public enil ',yee co llective bargaining laws and large numb.frs of

teachers became involved; in collective bargaining.2 Liebermian

reported that 1.4 million teachers were involved in some form of

collective bargain:i g in 1i973 aind the numbers were likel:' to con-

tinlur to rise ihrou!lhout the 1970s.3

By the rid-1970., whether collective bargaining, sho,.!Il or

should not havw heen encouraged in public -duication was no longer

an issue; pubiic educators hGo tr face realistically the problems

n.. i.isues ',hich eme'red witnii the profession as a result of the

rapid deve;lopent il c coll.ive bargaining. Pierce said that edu-

cationr had a critical ncid for more inform mation and 'more knowledge-

able indi liuWls. in the cal: t:ive bargaining area if the problems

were to he u!i'rstor.'! aind tihe vfeCs of society met.

ic ll.: -:.l Pierce. "Enucai.ion and Uiionisn," Compact 6 (June
1972): 2.

2oijOiat o' Rse.sp ch Dii.s 8 (May 197'1): 10.
3Pvron Liebe:-n-l;, ',.-.. itiois: Past, Proesent, and Future,"
'Sch,,ol ,' '17 k 1 /73): 14.

P^i *r'i'o, "Educa. 'to' ad Uriot. ism," p. 2.


A major problem in ,r',':-t:i in tihe '9 .'t ',:s to determine the

.t M.I'dl-; is :.c u se i i.i-i. Io l' c.cive L ;;An. i : 'oce s. IK ues i

the public educali;: collective bargaining process have resulted in

the development of vdariou; strategies. -

Statement of the Pr-oblem

The; procmb of this study was to identify issues in the collec-

tive bargaining process in public elementary and secondary education,

referred to in tnis study as public education, and alternative strat-

egies for dealing with those issue; from the school board's perspective.

Answers iere 'oucht to the followir ng questions :

1. Whai w.ere the issuen:- ad alternative strategies most fre-

quer.tly cited in the !iieraturc and research relative to

coilctive agsir ~in i:n ui'blc education from ,65 through


2. From among t1n a'tcrnatives identified, which strategies

were most herieficiai to the cota! educ.iticnal program accord-

inm, to tile expYeri'ced ad ministrative n-egtiators and

exnerienced teacher- nefotiatcrs? Why were the selected

scr:at' egNes, i-st eni;M-cil to i the total educational program?

3, From' among tIe 'terteratives den!.ificd, which strategies

were the least be;nficial to the total educational program

according to the experiei'cel" administrative negotiators and

experienced teacher negotiators? w'hy i'cr selected strat-

egi;:s :;.t be:~ficirIa ito rhe otal educationr;a program?

4. ;1r a, ,diii' 0ife alternatives identified, what differences

ad/or,' im 'il artie', ;:-:rc tin"r" acnona those which ;were

cc.:: idE r" to c i, osi benefici;,l ai;d least beneficial to the

educ'ti: ala priJgri. as selected by experienced administrative

-:;.-.i.tors d eeriienced t?,cher negotiators in public


5. What w:c-e some (r the imost important observations w-hich may

be mar,? 3 a:s result of th; interviews?

De[ imit nations ann L'imitations

!he sl dy included a review of the related literature and -esearch

on colulctiv c bar'.jaining from i965 through 1974 to identify issues and

alterr;tive strategies. To determine the relative value of the various

stratcyies, interviews were conducted among selected districts in Florida

which have had five years or more of collective bargaining experience.

Those districts were determined by a prior letter and brief survey to

county superintendents.

The study was ex-post-facto and contained the w'.eaknesses inherent

in that design. Therefore, causal relationships w;re not determined

and conclusions w;re not generalized beyond the time for whiich the data

were appropriate.

Justification for the Study

This study added to the growing body of knowledge on the process

of collective bargainiw g inQ public education and it may Iilp s sove some

practical problems for practicing !:ootiators. The alterrn; tive strat-

egies may be )articulaely useful to practitioners.

Cocli-cLtive b3r;ira:i;g became inaj,' influence in education during

thI period stud-;d. Growing acceptancee o, collective bargaining

ldice ,y frn i t y o. r .s .s me..-'n.tin c such legislation. The

first lw as r enctc,' by isi.r.sin, in 1 90, and by Ma-y 1914, thirty-

one state, had ::oli.ctive bi.;g:iinir i lerjisltion for teachers.s The

iJegs!ut:.i'n 'vried ii scope, bIt, i. general, it ss as brod as that

granted Li-e priv't sector.l,

Cn May 30, 1974, the Gscvernir of Florida approved a comprehensive

Puilic Emi:pioly(-es Colc!rtive barq-aining Law. The law required each of

the sixty-seven Florida counties; to bargain ,with public employees who

wisheW to barqga in collectively. The NegptiLation_ Resea.rci Difjest of

June 1973 reported that eighteen counties out of fifty responding

Florida counties had written negotiation p :cedures.6 Since there

were sixty-seven counties in Florida, the possibility existed that

forty- nine counties had little or no experience in collective brgain.-

ing in 1974. Even if thnse counties represented a sail lpercenltaye of

the total instruction! l positions in Florida, the poteitil for dir-

harmony was evident. Therefore, there was a need for strategies which

experienced administrative ncgutiatcrs and experienced teacher negotiators

found to be successful.

Another indication of the impact of collective bargaining in edu-

cation, and a sign that knowledge on the process was needed, wras

the qrowthl of signed d gr-emcnints between boards cf education and teacher

groups over the Uniit ?d Staies. A January 1974 National Education

Associdtion Research Report showed an increase in negotiated agreements

tegjotitio.'n Research Dijet. ? 93): 16:1
No iatiation Rpe .arrDigest 7 (June 1973): 16.

fro:& 389 in 196 .-7 1, 2,56 iC 19ii '2--, o: 'a 500 pc'rcent iricreoase

dur'ig th!i t t eid','

PiN;o suy..est. that tjucat. nuot only needed Pore accurate

T:.f'rmirntiu:., U:t also needed to identify the issues at state and

iWstiLution- l 'cv 's a!d to become betti informed on col'iective bar-

gaining. 8

Ocin-itien of Ten-s

Alltterneativ strateio i. Alterra ive strategies "were different

actions which :aPy be taken either prior to or during the collective

bargaining process to deal with identified issues.

jary~pi:ing unit. A bargaining unit is a group of employees

recognized by the employer or designated by an agency as appropriate

for repres'-ntation by an employee organization for purposes of coli-

iactivp bargaining.

Collective -_arqgaining. .Collective bargaining is the perforr!;an.ce

of the inutual c;ligations of the public employer ard the bargaining

ag-et of the e:nployee organization to meet at rsuiinable tirjes, to

negotiate in good faith, and to execute a written contract with respect

to agreemcnts reached concerinirg the terms and conditions ovf u.impoy-

rnet, except l.hat neither party shall be co.p1.elled to agree. to a

'Nation'al [d'caLin Associ3tion Research Repo't (January 1974):
Pi'ir'cc, education n end ilnonismi," p. 2.

9',,i I1 ii'a C. Miller and David N. Newbury, Tcacher leioti.tiij.n -
A G-ide f*or dar a inii .-. T- ;- (West Nyack, Now York: I. r.'. ,,
in Colpal, Inc., T "i, T 234.

proposal or hb: roqired to n te i c "..',:,n unless ol.her'ise prov ded1

in this part.. )

eeneiped pnr Irhi at.iY; n, Fxperie.cred arministir s-

tive nego.tiat.)rs :tere indiv- uials i: n were responsible foir negotiating

fo.r scho'1 da', ,cts in the St.,.e or Floricda !;ring the 1973-74a chuol


Eyp/i c dj te'ilaclri ureoti'l.,rs. [per;oic.:ed teache,- noelgntiators

were individuals who wa,'e responsible for neyoW.iating for a teacher

unit in the State oF I-lorida during the 197 /-74 school year.

Gi-ievance. A grievanmti is an employee i problem w1:.hos,: solution io '

within the province of the emnipoyer or re'?ulating agency.

mpasse. An impasse is a persistent disagrc;tlment bit.aieen the

employee or'.,Jniization and the employer,, rcEmuingin the u se of cWdia-

tion or a;ipeial procedures for res'lition. '

Issues. Issues are basic feaiui'es whiicn hWvye i erg-d in the

public negotiations sector anti are cnsidi;-'d ir.:portant to the process

by either administrators or teachers orh botth.

MediaL-ti.. Mediation is ac'io;, ty a Lird party to hi p in th''

sctt!eiernt fi di ;i.utcs between a.d cL) 'ye's Ihro gh fact-

-findin, ini-.r pretation, sun,:; Lion, and advice;. Reco'rrenh.ations of

mediators are- a-Imost alva;y: advisory and int 'Li'.dng. in pr-actic,

mediation is synenuano!;s ,ithl cocil iation.K

F or~idi tutes'. 4' --\i 'Pub ic E.,-l ., ',.: R l~ tons Act.
Section cf7.002 (Ot).
hill.c. r and e;! ,', Teacha dr :- iju ..i A uid" -.or Bar-

12. id.

.c.. ii; lc tio i iS oriis i!ckno-wl!edgpmelit by the employer

that a particular organization has the right to represent all of the

em ,ployeere (,r a portion of .the i, in col iec.tivr bargaining.


The prible,'. of the study was ft identify issues in the collective

barga in,(.. process In public education and alternative strategies for

des-lirng vit!, these issiies froi a review of the related literature and

reseh'ch from 15G65'".;rough 1974. Identified issues and alternative

strategies ,ere zrs,- a. basis for the development of an interview

instru::Ient. Ex;er'..filcd ,dministl:riive and experienced teacher nego-

tiators wroee seleclcutd fro, six school systems in Florida that were

involved in co'illctive baqraining for five years or more. Those

individua-is wer: inLue'viewed to provide data for the study.

Depverlointnt of Lit '-,.l'A:re anld R~.-eorch to Determine Issues and
Ate'j ti~s.ra' ei'- in th CoLLeive Bargainrig Process
in Public Education

A review was compCleied on the related literature and research un

collective bar -:..,: in public education from 1965 through 1974. The

writer 1:ientific' .-nd listed issues from the related literature and

research on !cn"le o ve bargaini( duirinig this period. Strategies from

the ireatFd it 'r;'m' and re!.c ch for dealing with each of the issues

were also iden t.; nd listie.

Oivelor'e'nt of a1 ..' :-. : Guitde for Usc. with Exoeri.rnced
flidici s ive 'L>. Lios o t__ani fxr:rincrd leacher

An i,.-tr:vi;,: I,; .d'e vfs dUvclped which enumerated selected

issues fri,; thi: Yr:I kt ,d lit"r:',. ire nid i're(earch in cecl active bargaining

in pli ic educ on. td ;lt H .' -. L .iaes for d -cI ; wn.h -s'

iSSU: S c'ie'rnative sti nuicts wer ii.tod so that r'espoKi eTIs

were .'. to idniiy th'e i .v bWeA iij ve .'Ould be most benefic3i

end tnose h'" bh: iev-id w,~rl e i, I st ibe.'f-icial to the educaioncl

piqi-oram. "lhi expeeriencd adRil:; istrative and" teacher niootrtiators wcre

also asked why t-iey tlho'!yht certain strategies were nost Leneficial

and !,.; h' br'-efi.i & .

Id!n 4t'ic.i_ t:i._n oF "rperQie.c":C' M nag;-'eiet and F--periercnrd
Slecien Neqti a.trf

The writer surveyed Florida ccl.!cty school systems to identify

school districts which had experilecc in co!active bargaining. Ihe

brief survey also determined the nr'i;cs o..d buhsiress addresses of the

individuals reqponsib'ic for negotiating for Flr;ida school boards and

the names and adrdl'sses of i:ndividduals negotiating for Florida teacher

organic ztions.

Collection of the -. a

Using the inter:vi.c: w guide developed from a review: of the related

lit.eraure and research fonr he study, data were obLained by interview-

ing selected, experienoced, adiiinistirative negotiators and selected,

expe-imrced, tlecher negotiators from among those named in the brief

proe-.survy. App;tintments foi the interviews were made with adninis-

trative tv l. teaIher r egotiators. Ihe interview guides were sent to

the negotiators ii advance to facilitate the process.

Tr'earmeni. of the D0,ta

1 c answer q t'.es.tions posed in tei statement of the problem,

the data .'cre tr' ied in a doc iptivr- manner. However, frequincies

nr:d total ~ oF I h o. eperi e.ced adminii -ri tive negotiators and exp.ri-

c.:'ced uc;.te i;, r jegotiato:-s were calculate: : for strategies that vire

most beneficial and for strategies that ,-?re least beneficial for

each issue.

Organization of the Research Report

The study was reported in five chapters. The first. chapter de-

tailed the problem and the procedures of the study and, additionally,

offered an overview of related literature and research illustrative

of collective bargaining in public education. Chapter II focused or

issues and alternative strategies identified in the literature and

research on collective bargaining in public education. Chapter III

presented a discussion of findings from the literature on issues and

strategies. Chapter IV presented a discussion of findings from admin-

istrative and teacher negotiators interviewed. The data from Chapter

IV ,;erp reported individually and comparatively for administrative and

teacher negotiators. Chapter V summarized, drew conclusions, and

offered implications for further research.

Review of Related Literature and Pesearch

Although collective bari,'ini,'ig in private industry was widely

accepted by the general' public in the United States from 1935 through

!974, dttemits to encourage its adoption in the publicc sector met

resistance in the courts until 1951. In 19,17, several teachers were

dismis :ed from thei" :po-itions Ly ith Ch!ic_:o 'j r'd of & education

necauCse they ...i: a union. The oC'-i had adopted a po i'cy, prior

t: hir j ini the uiio rrli itin su.h a1tio n by ceochers. The

Supreme. Court of Illinois i~!,i;d the Bo"!W's resolution, declaring that

- lioin .t'mtership "is irir to pc'o-' i".cipliine, prejudicial to

the efficiency of the teac',- ng force, and detrimental to the welfare

of the public school system."'" in 1930, a similar case was ruled on

in Seattle with the same result.14

The union membership issue was not settled until 1951 when several

teachers in the Norwalk, Connecticut, schools were dismissed for striking.

The state court upheld the dismissal, but ruled that, in the absence of

enabling legislation, (1) public school teachers nay organize; (2) a

school board is permitted, but is not legally obligated, to negotiate

with a teachers' organization; (3) a school board may agree to arbitrate

with teachers, but only on those issues that do not erode the board's

legal prerogative to have the last word; (4) a school board may not

agree to a closed shon; and (5) public school teachers may not strike

to enforce tneir demands.15 Those five conclusions from the Norwalk

Case set precedent in states without enabling legislation and were used

between 1951 and 1974 as a basis for teacher collective actions.

For most practical purposes, 1960 marked the beginning of the col-

lective negotiations movement in public education. The formal movement

was preceded by a period of informal discussions where teachers and

13(Peojpe ex rel. Fursman v. Ci'! cf C'l; r.. 116 N.E. 158, 1917)
as cited in M. Chster Nolte, Status and Scope of Collective Bar-
l93ininq in Public Fducation (Eug-ene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1970), p. 4.

14(Seattle Hich School Chapter No. 200 of the AFT v. Sharples,
293, Pac. 994, 1930) as cited in Nolte, Status anc Scope of Collective
Bargaining ini Public Fducation, p. 4.

15(No -walk Teachers' Association v. B:!ard of Education, 83A, 2d
482, 195a - cii;d in 'ol:, -t3LTs and Scope of CoeTl active Bargain-
(1 m io PYblc dc Cti rr, 4-'.

!'a:' moriCrs cr earcins:s :i iscusSda aries. fr ince benefiLts,

an; oh ie'r I'tte.trs. li' in dr-i.;.'~: on1 w:r" pJ.r;sud biy teachers as an

effort to con"ey o.eir cron'C r;. to-.ed;cra-io'.al management.

Teachc'r leaders h beed 'a;iae of the advances made in private

industry though the collective: ba,'gaining process, and unions had

reconr.izer( tc;.chE,-s as an exe.:'ient source of revenue. Dr. William

G. Carr, rExecrtive Secretary uf the National Education Association,

discussapd what he identified as the threat of unionization at the

196 lNatio;al Education Association Convention in Denver, Colorado:

It now seems probb'le that a change may be taking
place in the attitude of leaders in organized
labor toward education. Some years ago, in !957,
after some internal controversy, tne AFL-CIO con-
demned the NFA and your state and local associa-
tions as companyy unions." Witiin the past year,
the AFL-CIO has ben spending heavily to unionize
public school teachers. I believe the resources
assigned this year by union labor to achieve its
objectives among the teachers of New York City,
alone, amounted to about a half-million dollars.

Why has thi AFL-CIO, after decades of cooperation
with the NEA, suddenly moved in on the teaching
profession? Union membership has been declining
since 1956; the average loss being about 140,000
members per year. Many union leaders believe
that they nwmt organize the white collar workers--
office employees i, ::', main--in order to serve
the labor nvere-nt piorerly. Pe-haps, they regard
teaching as d relatively undefended gateway to
this widr .ojectie. I think it is not really
thIe gatew'ay, and I a. sure it is not deferseless.16

Organ;.iaLio;al p. terns in many school systems over the nation

have lo..n m::odale d after irndstrial systems with typical line and staff

orarni.ati. is. Authority w.os laced large1v in the hands cf adminis-

trator's cand beards and ro corresponding po-wr was built into the

Wiliar G. C.'r, [h. L:ni'in rFoil Address .nd Proceedin.s,
Or:-l!d'- cr..d 'dtih A!r;ici -teAM. Ui-nr -. uly nsni nqLi io .-:
Ni-.,, i'ci. r;. ,: .

structure for teachers. Abbot:t and Lo:-'i expressed the point as

follows: "There is not a ;o,'i-ial, legitii ized structure through

which teachers can make p!1icy decisions and be held responsible for

those decisions.7

The basic problem was that power and influence for teachers

was not built into the structure of the school system or embedded in

the legal structure until the recent state laws regarding teacher

negotiations were passed. These followed the industrial model.

Saunders and Lovell expressed ideas for a different structure

for education:

It is our contention that the education profession
should initiate action immediately to change the
legal structure within which schools now operate
so as to permit the legitimatized involvement of
teachers. It is.possible that objectives being
sought through structured, industrial type nego-
tiations may be achieved through a different model
of educational administration which would generate
efficiency in goal attainment, better policies,
higher levels of teacher satisfaction and less
confrontation, unrest and militancy.l1

Administrators and teachers generally agreed that employee involve-

ment would lead to better education, but the methods and degree of

involvement rarely gained bilateral acceptance. Prior to collective

bargaining, the methods and degree of involvement were generally deter-

mined by administrators. However, major differences existed between

the traditional approach to school personnel administration and collec-

tive bargaining and perhaps tne differences will help define methods

17Max G. Abbott and John T. Lovell, eds., Changing Perspectives
in Education3i Administration (Auburr, Alabama: Auburn University,
1965), p. 10.

1'Robert H. Sia:nders and Johri T. Lovely' "Negotiations: Inevitable
Consequ0rnces of Bireaucracy?" EdLcat ion.l Le .d.r-ship 26 (October 1969):

and;! derce fr oldmiistraito teiach.':: NolCe ie- the fol w-

I,-P differr: ce s:

Trad!.itn._Apjproc .. The l'.r(; could pnt act
i aiC'Tral y wit -Phoe- coLn'ul t:;:r.n wich employees,
l i-; oinly one way com.imylicaUtrin, always nave the
last word, lack gord fai!.r, i. .mrr divere'j'cies
between policy and crC.t-ice, and ret-: I.a piowe!'
relationship ; thai iht s uiiateral, paterniali',tic,
and alrthoiitarian.

(ol ic:iv e Bargai :i The c'a d is required to
tcoi- wi-th -ep'l.eos, uc:inuni cut ;on is Iwo way,
impasse procedures are 1p:ovidedt good fail.l balr-
gaining is mandated, constant dialogue requires
the board Li discuss divereiincie: btwen policy
and practice, ard tlh pou er re-'lationlship is hi-
lateral, cooperati,'e and de;locr''tic 19

The industrial collective bargaining modcl was used widely in

education but many, realizing the wide differences be'.ween r'druc.atio:

and private industry, wondered if the model w'as appropriai.e. That

question remained unanswered in 1974.

Several of the differences have been identified by Ashby, McCi,:,is,

and Persing as follows:

1. Industry is profit motivated. School systems
are ,t proprietary. Except as a long-ranag
investment of a high order, public schools are
not operated for profit.

2. industryy is a matter of p'rivt:e enterprise
and initiative. Schools are mandated by law for
tile general wcifare of all concerncid the indivi-
dual and th: corporateuoti state.

3. Industry exists in a highly competitive milieu.
School syvremis are not comrttiiv, thougL: certain
critics ae arguing tLhi more coip-'etition iC1 edu-
cation would be desirable.

4. Industry is concerned with turning out tangible
goods and services. Sci:cils, un thn other hnd,,
arc coAc'rnrd witih iuma: griwt.h and deveiopnernt, a
process infinitely :.iore complex and individualized.

-1i 1te, Stat'. and Sceopt! of Colletiv Si: ,g :ii ir Pi u b i Ldu-
ctKo n, p, ,--'


5. Industry, in a trI-dition ,; s r',>s '..-ounits oiy
.o tl.. sto 1d., S.1 School: h: accoiuitabie to
the cc;mmw1iL y through a o-ar. (rf educaiion, and
schools are beinry piessured in;." le`.ny ;lnre re-spcnsi-
0!, m *ore rcpon' ive arid mnor.e i .countable for w!at.
they dA anidl the mAietiwds -i::d.

6. i1ra'iinipg in ir:dultl.'y is colrerned with a f;ir
distribution of profits; harn~-il!inq here is ocily
coi21ce1r:!;. with wages, salaries fringe heiireits
ard i;orkiiion condition',. Induzs ri; al unions
seldom a Ltempted to take over Ifa,-gemient i'eson;:-
bilities. In educational institutions there are,
cf :cour.c, concerns with s.lar -:, Iringo benefits,
and w" okin conditioi;s. But, public emii eoyee a-.r-
Odii'-,; in education tends tc o furt.l!hr by sking
that the i:ip1ioyees be co-eqiua;s at tnc negqoiating
i.abl l!;e rai;nc of considerations cos- far Lbeyo d
those noioi:ially barg:in'ed i industry > 20

General' op inionrs aiiong teach-rs and adminiw-n..:rators were that the

i;idui.rial model of collective bar 'iniing w;:s here to slay. A nuiiber

of fc:tors led ei-ritcrs to accept the industrial modil of collctnitve


Fac ; I. ,; i, tf r, 11 .-Ii. r -:.. : ., ;

Liiber.,o1i. and l ioskow suggested that there \were six imjor '-ctors

,,-wicii co':t-ributed to collective bargaining in education as follows.

(1) ti;e need for effective teacher rep:escntation at tie il ocal lcv',;

(2) chutganes in teacher aLtitudes; (3) organizational ri'al'sy; (4~)

niein s 'oui ide of O..uriition.21

2'.1,od -. A J'i ,y, James E. MrcGinnis. aind T!ho:mas Pr-sing.
C.i]:r.T "i;; nK-'ian in n r i ii Plub ic Educ: i ;i (Dan-,ille, ]ilinrCis:

21.- ic !c'iran and Michael H. Mlio-kor, (.0p cct ivce N jeaoti tinis
for Te-cn crs ( ic' : :: '

Carlton and Goodwin ;'Jo 4uggest-r .: -factors which contributed

to teacher military. They ere (1) ": .o:anom.ic problem, (2) intense

organizational power, (3) ne'ly ,'ieveioped political potency,

(4) increased size and imprscnnality of t'e educational bureaucracy,

(5) tendency of teachers no longer to be tied to the commlinities they

serve, and (6) tendency of teachers to be brighter, younger, more self-

assured, and less likely to accept non-professional duties and arbitrary


Nolte, in 1970, suggested that there were nine important factors

which contributed to collective bargaining in education. They were

(1) teacher militancy, (2) lower compensation in public service, (3)

increasing numbers of public employees, (4) size of the educational

enterprise, (5) Presidential Order No. 10988, (6) statutory enactments,

(7) labor management experience, (8) bargaining as a constitutional

right, and (9) waning power of local boards.23

Myers condensed twenty-four studies on the factors that have affected

collective bargaining and teacher militancy into six internal and four

external factors.24

The six internal factors were:

1. Civil Disobedience. Successes gained by those using civil

disobedience were not ignored by teachers. Carlton and

?-2atrick W. Carlton and Harold I.Goodwin, eds., The Collective
Dilemma: Neqotiations in Education (Worthington, Ohio: Charles
A. Jones Publishing Company, 1969T, pp. 24-28.
23Nolte, Status and Scope of Collective Bargaining in Public
Education, pp. 5-9.
24Donald A. Myers, Teacher Power Professionalization and
Collective Bargining (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books,
D.C. Heath and Company, 1973), pp. 6-7.

GAcd'. in sugstid ii: the ci.h qP of techler leader attitudes

from conservatism, aid. coiilor..ity Io militant I iheral ':.m has

b.?ee infiucncer! by the "v'a lur rier:tatiolis" of the social pro-

test pmvemeint.25 hi noi-Ni-violent civil rights activities of

the er!ly 1950s and the social protests of the 1960s rein-

fou-ced the feeling that militant protest was acceptable for


2. The Ami! Laboir ovement.. Teachers were aware of the

labor m;noemeni's success in improving the c-ages and working

conditions in the private sector. Lieberman and Moskow sug-

gested that "blue collar workerss have bc-n decreasing as a

perciitage of 1iie total labor furce, and white collar and

professional workers have been increasing."26 With tradi-

tional sources of incoi:e declining, unions placed increasing

emphasis on white collar and professional workers.

3. Dissatisfaction with Schools. The schools were goirg through

a crisis as many educators and other citizens charged that

the public schools were not imkiing the proper contribution

to socie yi This created o. climate of dissatisfaction and

Ltndc t loegitimiize teacher militancy. Lutz and Azzarelli

identi:fi"l .:oe of tlhe dissatisfactions as follows:

The: 'i a filing that tle schools are not reach-
inng Ce lower class child in Americani cities.
lhe- .is a sense of frustration that if such chil-
dtr:.: .e n-'l recied er-iy, they ,are co'demned1ic to
a uci'.ess ,";r:rh through tLh years of the school
sys, ;*r TneCie i:; fc rr thi.'t the body of knowledge

25Carl ton in ',.;'.: dwi,. The iol i.' .i. iJ 'il rootiat ions
in Education, p. 27,

'1Lieberamai ai:d Kos.ow, Co .ec.iv' NvoiotL .i.tioi'.s for Tachers,
p. 87.

*1 ( (ru i.:1 '; i -g, l ,r p at .. . iooe! curricull:;
do t el ;-1 ;' i. r-1.,-!'(:e ti. stLu eit r tf his
woorl of tL;o,'. ,,; A'.hr ;, i ' a.n Ui nae yiess
1M; e'2n.:e :,vw:s; a r-cater piace in sch'uo!
tih-p haI evecr- '. : t. There is an at.i-
tioin l fear th,! .c s rs 'ailing, dis i aily,.
to prepa- for Lth :.,rk world eC-
coi;:l rJI r 27

4. h:,-9'n .g h .. t".;_:f ic _Tr,'cin _Froufess i:n AcccrJ i-;,, to

i4y;.rs, tie d decdie of ;c i:'-te:. L buried perica2 enn tly ti'e 't

that te Cri;:-r, were s'! f-sacriicir; mission; i"es c(.ntn': to

wiork fcr vwl:atvcer wyags aind uorder whatever condIt!.ions tihe

paltrons; ii a loca' cormuniiy thiougit prprcpriai.- or i-uc.h

"service-mir ndeld f'ol.''28 !e poi,:d out th: t they were be-

noriing ou.sponken and, at tines, rude groups of selsf-,'er;-,"e:

professionals dedicated to iw!,p'ovi:-ig their lot and, at the

same Lime, improving the education of children 2 Perry An

Wildma:- said:

The pericenFtcs of males in the teaching force is
increasing; teachers of both sexes are better
traii:ed ai.d prepared than ever before; and, turn-
over -Aiwong teachers is decreasing moderately. Th:.
great dis-pa'ity in years of fori;al preparation
whicIh used to cxirt between rank-and-file teachers
an,. adcministraLors i- no longer in evidence. M.-:ny
tecrcheis are becominipg increasingly professionalize
in te'rc;i of trpin-rnli andi career commi'tmnent and want
a larcter vnice in determining exactly how, they wili
!.b allowed to go about the job of teaching.30

''w:- '. '. Lita and Jo'.sph J. AzzrlI ii, Strule_ ] 'or Povecr _in
EF'u:atio ('':e Ye : The LCei.:-:' or ',ppl -ied iResearch in i education ,
] c'-~.~, Th6 ,), p. 4 -.

!,!ye,., Tedcher P':oer" Pra;iessioin li-ationi and Collective

S ;',id; pi. 8.

30Lhar e.:s. 2 Fer,'y and ti .leo, A. !-l: ,~i-, Tht- T.. I ,., t..
ticl'iO r. i0 Cc u '! F .d.t'( I. iu : "ihi: [I.'ir -l'.' ;'*i'-' im)n tt Scho . ls
i.i-' v '. I:- v li i' .r r sciic i t ),
It. i

a '.,.i 'ci.. l F' iEe h ,' -i. *^Y.f Si.Y t'f:. '.;ai1 ari s and ben fits for

workers in the pub' i : -'cto; .'- tradit: iona ly, beeni !o's

att'-.c ;e thad th e.'.; in the il .v ;.ae sector. According to

Nl :e, boc'muse of pirussur.s plr.nd i, .'o: the spoils system in

1,83, Co'nr'-es.s 'nic'.l:e; t.i' I'e;nel le onn Act providing fnr roin-

petitiv.- a;aminia ins under the .ewlly established Civil

Service Coi,,ission. 3 Security of emp!oyimn;.t b'ecime n!i:re

ipo':,tanc t to workers than compensation. TIt:; tenure laws

provided the same kind of security for teachers. No' te

pointed t ot that it was

Not ui.til gover;imeni. worker:; realized that
Lhi'. were s.ubsidizing the government through
inedesquate pay and that They acked nrg 'iiiza-
tio!u anid lbarigaining power, did they beg-in to
cimpa ign For the sa3,e rigihis as workers in the
pri'ave secter.32

ThO allocation of sadrce resources in the fcrn of tax dollars

\.as a proh lem in public education for years and will proabihly

remain a problem in the future.

6. Professional in the Orqnization. As tecct'.es gained in

power diiii ability, they increasin-gly viewed thle;selves as

professionals ai!d ;i:it more pressure on adrriristrators. That

increased the tension between nmaagqenment and labor.

lh; four etiLernal factors , contributed to collec-tie bargain-

ing and teacher milita ancy reported by Myers %er e33

31N' lte Sta i ,. l i r:, _. ; ,, ",.!,1
Ercatici.r! p. 5.

32Ibid., pp. 5-6.

.-3:iyers, T.,c. r i rowcr i Pr oft sionalizatla ion anrd Cc';l active
n o ; :,,^ p p" c /
........ ..c-,

I. Larger and More -' *w' crtic v.s The decrease in the

number of school y'"'ms rerSlic; in larger school districts.

Teachers felt that -hey lost identities in the large

bureaucracies. .~.,'ijg trecher ;:ilitancy may have been associa-

ted with the increasing size of school districts over the


2. Societal Demands Toward More Democratic Institutions. Myers

reported that

The societal thrust toward more democratic insti-
tutions was evidenced by factors such as the
reduced number of autocratic heads of nations,
the lessening number of colonial possessions
throughout the world, and the ecumenical move-

Teachers were aware of the movement in every aspect of society

and became convinced that education would be better with more

democracy in the public schools.

3. Struggle Between the AFT and the NEA. The beginning of this

power struggle was 1965 when the AFT defeated the NEA for

representation rights for New York City teachers. Since that

time, the AFT has gained much support in the larger cities

around the country and the NEA has taken a more militant

approach in education. It became difficult to distinguish

between the two organizations and suggestions of -merger were


4. Countervailing_Power. Countervailing power occurred when

one section of the economy gained a disproportionate amount

of power over another section. According to Goodwin and

34Myers, Teacher Power Professionalization end Collective
!.a'!aining., p. 96.

fhempson,. teaciieC '":. : ; i!i z l.;sitin c of c n...t -rva- i ni

power in education' t. a rejspo..; Whe po;'er held by buards

of Education." Coonfict Will coniime until a balance has

been reached.

S>ve..ra oith;i, factorIs cotrihtyibt! to the teochcer iovef;.i; toward

cl:'l'ictive bargy'iing wore idetl.fiid:

1. Increan I..,_ _.. I. i .1 t.l c eloces. No te repor;ic id t rat

Lhe numilber of public employees was approximatel-y s;ven millii.:

in 1956, reached twelve milio; in 1969, antd was projected to

be fifteen million by 1975.36

Educators copo'rise a substantial promurtiun of
all govern;n;-iL workers. One of every 2 stait
or lucal e,;i11o,',?ees iti public service is eaagced
in eiducaion. The ilumibn r of public school
empiovees in the 1970s is expected to exceed'
2.4 itillion. Should these workers unite a;d
speak with one voice, the resulting organiza-
tion would be larger thai; the Teamsters Union:,
the American Medical Association, or tie United
Automobile Workers. It could well be the most
influcniial organization in tile I.Inted States.37

2. Presidential Ord-r 10988. In January 1952, President Kennedy

formalized relationships between the federal government and

its eiieseiplyee within Executive Order No. 10988. Even though

they cLculd negotiate, Ithey had little power without sone fori!

of sarlctions or the power to strike. Though they w.'ere illegal,

strike, .;id occur After several years of unsatisfactory

35iiarold I. eod',.;in and Geraid t'.. !hompson, "'Teatchi-r Militancy and
Coimtervyail1in Pover," Th Coll"Ieyctve nilemmina: Nego tioi's in Edu-.
ca:':iu., Pat-i k W. Carl i os ad liarold 1. Giod i ds. W ii-dtiidgtoT,t
(ii i: Cha:rl-s A. Joi.nes Pbl ishincg Comp'ny, g19"9), pp. ?72-8 n.
I'., .> .t-s aJ ciSoe _of Cc lecitive Rarpainig in Pubi ic
7d t bid, .

L.Zp"'riW CP 'i r i::.u i r Lu. 1n3d Presid (itt Iixor;

iinvoked ''-citiv: Ord- No. 1 -. '' I!- bec.nm effective

On. Jarn:ary 1 1'71. anrd provi ("d for binding arbitratiof. in

impasse sit'!atior", o0: F'ed'r!l [lii yces.

3. 11i-I;Wtive Acts.. lwM;::'IAi;rg, linerss nf sOtte legislatures

have enacted 1a.s granting collective ba:rgiiing Yights to

public eiipliyee The fisi. i. ;,iwas enact by iscons;i in

1955, anj, iy I 'd! !074, thirt.y-orne states h1.r 1 LO< I lec.iO !t ( 'bar-

Uainiri legislation for teach"rs.39 According to Nolte, the

lack of enabling 1ci isl!.jioni has not ,!Lvented collective

barg3ining in ediLcation.

Arizinaa hias o legislation concer- ing r;liec+ive
bargaining .in education, LbN 68.9 porci-l of Lhe
instructicnal i-r c'Omne w re engaged i;- collec-
tive Largainiig. Co!orrad ha! 8C2.4 percent;
11liois, 6.5 perLent; Kansas, 62.5 percent;
and COIio, 69.1 percent o(I their iitsci-ic;onl;
persuon-'ie enga1 ed! ii barigai ni.j. NoP of these
state- had col! ict-ive iba-'aining righnqi s for

These factors suggest ti;ht collective o'i r'.iing in public educa-

tion is par; of a sigrcificant lmovei'rt in labor rclatic.s in the public


The second chapter will idrntify i,-,ijor issue:-. ii c ro elective bar-

(dining ain the strategies used to deal with those issues from the

related lite'r t'ture a reictrcli.

3'Ashhy, M::Ginr: is. aiJ IPerrsing, C.: ... ^ .. ; -' '.1 i
P 'ibi_ i acf..ducati. nr, p. 4.

... i .. '. Rese rch ,,et 8 (May 1974): o10.

.it., S .., a'r Sc ui_' oif (:ol c-tive Borainin ii Publ ic
Educw aL 'i;, p. -8.

Ci-iA i I 1.


Collective bargaoirpi in subic r.ecation has ge'eran foiicwid

the industrial nmdel through 1971i and t tie trid appeared to be to ia' d

le gislation aEdi c:c.,i-L decisions whirh m ,anctioed many of th p ores

a 3d practices found ini the i didustri ma iodel As a. result, mar!~ o thi

issues that have surfaced in public education have beer. faced in the

private sector.

The ke. is;,us in private sector bar'jainin:g ,;ve traditioi i ly

been (k) .Ije right to orgqani:7, (2) desi'n'eion o0 a mjori.y reipre-s.ta-

tie. (3) uiiion-sihop or "union security" p-r"visins, (4) due ,-h-cc-f,

(b) ba-gap'ning ,and ac :epting an enforceable agrci:-n1 (6) grievL ce

procesin- [, *e ri'a.i.ig in hindirg orbi ration. aid (7) the stti'e.

In 1966, public s.,hooel teachers and boa'-ds of edjat: ic we,e iki a

positii;: arnalo. tos i that of employes nd Pmployrrs in private i;nd.s-

try i-i,;r to Bn ia,:n, riiCilly following tohe enactment oi;f the l;nit.ed

Stei.,.s iior Relatioi n Law i, 1935.2 The essentit l difference was

th-a no ift-' rate coe cc s involved i1 education: Ithererfo'a,

Wesiey A. W-idI'n. '"l.rigel AspecL. of Teacher Collective Action,'
Th.r," i]n o-P__.','_:a 3 (-r ." ::ry 1P('>): 5,-57.
P. -r- l;helt.', "Tlh inniart of ITach:r Onrpani nation Upfon
Sett ir S -ho 'l Io-c i s-. C' srin- lSe 0 ('M y 196h): 515.

school systems operated tun.e4r~ fifty d'ii~ernt sets of rules and


In 1974, after approximately ten ye1-rs of public employee

collective-bargaining, the issues were teing institutionalized

through the establishment of !iore formal relationships. By June

1974, thirty-one states had passed public employee collective bar-

gaining laws.3 According to Hough, "it can be safely said that,

with the enactment of state laws with respect to staff negotiations

in schools, an adversary relationship has been created and does, in

fact, exist."4

Carlton wrote of a three-stage evolution in attitudes toward

negotiations within teacher organizations.5 (See Table I.) The

first stage was identified by hesitancy and uncertainty on the part

of teachers since the process was foreign to them. The second stage

was hard-nosed militancy to overcome the board's initial reluctance

to deal with teacher groups on a power equivalence basis. Demands

were extreme during that period. Following the militant stage, where

teachers gained major economic concessions, they moved into a steady


At the beginning of negotiations, the administrator-board group

also went through identifiable stages which began with shock and

3Negotiations Research Diaest (May 1974): 7.

4Charles R. Hough, "Negotiations and Accountability," National
Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin 55 (December i971):

5Patrick W. Carlton, "Educator Att-tudes and Value Differences
in Collective Negotiations," The High School Journal 52 (October
1968): 16-17.






spirit of
mutuality of




balance of


utter shock;

refusal or

of mutual
spirit of

Source: "Educator Attitudes and Value Differences in Collective Nego-
tiations" by P. W. Carlton, The High School Journal 52 (October
1968): 18.

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

dis: tiy tl'. L teacich re, who 'd !ear -r -, v'1 1, Awo ro s"i c 0"de

such! t:ctics.* The shock .y'.,rged to ion'.. Ir; 'ic", i'Jdiinatio:.,

and hostiit;. The we-lthy syndrets w.', .v iden' al that pint.

The we- i hey s yndromen'- rii.c Ippe:ared cr.e.'; telyf, buti became '.-s

prolnolnced a, ts i' rcotior:S;ips nmt'.:e-i.

P,1r inlg ;heo i:' i l '.' star!.:,, issues w ere h1ci-oained which pro-

videi ma xic conflict. of ii-terurs Si'l],y !id ;rin-ge Lenefits

\ ere i!cui i. n tha i: group l with other i issues nvolvir tihe all'ocl .

tion eo scarc-' -resourceI. I stage ti'ree, issris were brgnaind

wiich had ad Lta:is to both teachers and boards. An exain!eo was

the iimro'vemerit of teaching facilities,

This stMudy focuses on issues which h::ve em-'rqed over the years

in collective bargailiiny. According to Carl Wu, administrators an:,

l;o;.rd memiP;-s Y-,ave (&ge-ally tt u;e!pOted to resolve education na! isf'r.cs

thinuirgh t'i- ap!;: ication of rational a ialytic processes.' However,

ccl:cctive barcg fining cften has been an exercise in p.olit';ca power

!"n tIhe rational, analytic Froc:ss imuy be iniilpropriat'e.

!ci inr i3oiiT0 ed out there were significant diffcrerces

amor!y teachf.irs, adinistrato,"', and school bo..rd members in their

pe-ctLion s of noiaititon and nergotiated ito an So:me prob'i ems

61bid., pp. 17-18.

"1 ia'.. i. 19.


Ray irin- A' Si'.-i: of the; Sci op' : of t:he ieioi ti.b' e and

i, --j t i ii'..l; I., .I.- .nti -na 19, c i c ver i 1- k, ." i
Ii c....... t...... ... .. .... ... ....... ..... . ......oy' 9 7

"avf .pearcd IrpeateIl y :.., i' v'.iiL -t;. co l tv b ui --

i" in the past t-n year:;. i:':;' Were ( ) the Iole f thI s.ho! or,

i:. collective ba:'gaii:ig. () lto role f .he supe r'intendnt in col-

lect.i'e ba'go'inig, (3) the role (of t: p .:WA.;ir l in col l .tive ',r-

gaining, (4) thae cmiVsi ';i of to. I boi d's brii"CiA'a giI team, ('

st'ateies to get propo).;s 1:o t8 Lhle (6) .he scopY of collrctiv

ibuaining, (7) .u'riculun and instructcn .d wuO'caLional bi hargainin,

(8) compulso ry i'io isi inn rdijuc ti'on, (9) i!ip;s-e ini storte.a ics ir:

eiducatiorn! l ,a.irga'ini ng, and (10) strikes in edutm'ion a.d collect.iv'e

bargai n ng.

What: Should Be the Roi: of the .School
Board in Collective

Scihoeo Board Issiue

The school board has been charged with certain I g:; respond --

bi cities. The board is to provide educaticn for i.he c!: li-re, '.hin

(he school district's boundaries according to tihe icgal 11'.mitiRU 'n

imposed by t!'e community and state. It is to provide" huidir'i s, ;f

sunplies, and transportation. The Loarr has a l]ga l obii i;tion t'

protect the public's inrerest. Hough has sugiesiea that its pri ;ary

holigactionis are tofod: ) t provide the stud t K'th e b st

facilities, staft, and materials tliha available mionrey 'ill buy; oan

(2) i.o spend the tac.xiyers' rmiioy t.i th ti ~-r(:st;st pos'sitibl efficiency

and w'isdo an d theri- b ideal ly, to provide t Ii l: d f e' ucation; that

is for the best good of the individual studen.:t a.,.! the community.i

loug ', "Negot ,itioe!ns and :Acc'i'ii bi i i:y," p. ?.

T'aitiona iy. tiool ,,Uj s h.c e.A sed :.o'le authority in

ki.r, iion.. reca ';, i; :iyn. i;.. r, teachers have had

th" 1ro-. si; pr iv 1 ee of a iving re o,,:d,:!. 'datio sis about salaries

and; cond itions. r[':ior t.o col li. 'tive bargaining, sug!e)stion

could be eitherr acc:pteJ oi- rejectd unil- 1."a'lly by the board. collective bar'gainii, b(oiards have lost sone of dthir

flex;bi it. iWhen th cy r hearse to be ;i a iencL:s for t-ech recoil n-;.--

tiuns, requests, o:r cincernis. and entered i;to col lectie harg.ininin

for miitual ly acceptable eplioy::.nt rules anid condition s, boards lost

their rights to make unilateral cecisionis on piersoi;-l matters,

Doherty seid, "Illha 's what col active bargL b 'i n is 'all aboul. It is

the intrusciin by employees inLto the unilateral decisioini-mlaking .;ithority

of the empiloy-er-.'

Tihe role of school board i;imbers ii collective bhqrgcining is of

great importance. The philosophy of the board, its basic posture,

and the r.nture and extent of its involvement inr the blrgainin procs.;

have spelled the difference bet.teen a successful bargaining ee'rie-:ce

and a disaster.12

Many boards have been reluctant to exle,:d Lc teachers the p' rivi ege

of negotiating with thel' on natters of mutual educational concO n..13

Weinstock an,' Van Horn suggested that the consensus among school board

rb11i, E i. Doherty, "Letti.ers to a Scrho-l bi ard," Phi Delte
apyn 4 ( ebru- y 1 967): 272.
'"yio Li'l ii- .r, 'Avoid These Costly Bargaining Mistakes."
Sch-oo M'1a"' @::a t 13 (February 1969); 36.

13ir; R. keiinstock and Paul L. Van Horn, linmpact of Ne:Lotia-
tion- ilci T'lubl i Ed:i!.'a t iot ,' Tle~ Clea Cina House 43 (January 1IQ9i)
35?. -

members .was that :ole. i .c i i., aning unnecessary in light

of their own vie, oif "od l.'"aitional ;ng relationships with

teachers.'4 The high deg'u. of teacher litancy caused most

observers to doubt th:: outlo:;:.

Since collective bargaini-g cegislatio;n was inevitable, accord-

ing to Jaomies:n, bjards should have attempted to influence le'i1-

lators in drie:!opiing laws and should hau.e strciogly opposed laws not

in the boad.s' interests.1 In 1965, !,: suggestedd fighting for

legislation which was informal, \wihici e::ijasized voluntary board

action, and which avoided out-nf-disb.rict intervention. SI;ch legis-

lationr wucld have provided mli;ch flexibility among boards and little

standardization of collective bargaining practices.

Many boards or education felt oppressed by increased militant

demand s from teu.cher groups. Jarimeson., while Vice President of the

illi;ois Associationi of Schoil B;; rds, suggested that boards have

been led to believe that contract ne;otiations were needed because

of ;miversal dissatisfaction with problcias in education.16 Edu-

catior, i; become' the arena for issues s'ch as federal aid,-civil

rights, drsegregatiorn, separating of clihuch and state, and the v..I

on poverLy. All of these issues, along wii:h aTrchaic systems of

school ioncing, have i brought increased pressures on school boards

in C;i ,:'>, o;' thi' allo.atioi ( of scarce r ounces.

14Ibid., p. 352'.

I'Rcbert A. jaimi;eson, "ithe Ioard's Positive Approac;i,"
The A' i-:e ,ic, Schoci [-o_:,d Jo.,i:rnl.- 155 ( November 1967): i4.


v.. s*chcol bou'd ,:t Am-,,- irnerpr ~ .-i the nepotiatiol _." process

as ille 1 becia ': it pu'.,'ted y rcote. :h; publ Iic's dKlegation of

,tiori. ith.iy from the b<;rd. A.. jr :;, ic Foetersorn, this position was

qusinE;,;d by iary author iniis, for tih ourt.s hd already denied that.

a par'iy r 'whi'! must biargian C0; !'; cti".,iy wa's forced to delegl te awt'y

either itis ,Q alh te author iy cr it. ? res)ososiility 18 N,' hul said.

'B. 's iha'e : ''e a h' o'it' to i rr pl em.:;'t n' icy; te acthers are gcr n-

h.g d' "ac i -.'' to inili;t1 nce and eveni v ri district pOlicy."''19

1he ntimber of hoard !i.e,'iers whVio reootLiaie directly with opl oyc

organizations has decl in.:"d .
196-C 7. 33 percent of board negoLiating teams were m de tup exclusive''y

of heard meters; by 1971-72, the number had dropped to 14.7 percent.20

Boa-ds- realize d that participation required excessive toim, participa-

tion may result in the legal risk of losirn tie right to refuse to

ratify, and inexperi--nced riegoetiators on the management side frequently

were pitted against experienced full-tiim negotiators for teachers.

Board members have been challenged to find a balance between Lhe dcsi'res

of teachers for morie involvrenren in dec'is in imdking and the demands

oi constituents to provide educational leadership.

17einstock iand Van 1o rn, "Ir'p -ct of i'eyoi 'atio!in Upcn Publ ic
Education," p. 5').

1L2erto rete'son' "Legal SLr.tus of Teacher- Personrn-l ," Reiv-;"
of lduca'ti!:tral ;- ; 9.lrch 37 (June 1957) : 295-20_ as tri in
ei-Tn'ock-i.; Mi Vti-Hw'n, Impoct of Ne'gotiatiors Upon Public Education,"
p. 13n.
lM. Chesrtcr Nolte, "School Bo.:rd Power and Its lhree Cynical
(. ateori es," ]' Ani/ er!itn ScHo- l oo_ -rdi J uir-'-i 161 (Octoier 1974):

;O yr'O; l. i:berm;! "'l';:' ', 5n : Past, F' sent, ai fut 'e,"
SiiCf.' Mo:n" i 17 (:ay .i/-73) i6.

Furr &nd 1;h ;ii'duia :t Idy in l;9i8 tO obtle ain or-i io

on 5crol b.o ord members' t'rci.ions to ,C;iu ctve negooia3ions. Re-

sp.!idets were divided in;:o twoi griios f those who hAd opposed a

collective bargaiiing l"aw and those ,h!i hald not opposed it. Several

gene'rc-oa!-ations wecre made as follow s;:

1. As a group, school Iooard Mi,: as anti-emplo'ie. p ao-lWnlw'lii n'i ;as :mig.t be
expectPd. in their stand! for and against' nego-
tiati ns for tIeachers, threy appeared a,.o't evenly

2. About two-thirds of the school bhoari members
originally opposed to negotiations for teachers
do not believe that negotiations have harmed their
school program in the short-tm, m and onlrv a thin
nijority of those originally opipo.ed to nerotia-.
tions believe their school proram!' has beni h;raed.

3. School board members seem to be- Imorc: con.'ce-nr'
and less optimistic about the e c ies oF negotia-
tions in the future than at the' present.

4. School board members who pab icinate directly
in negotiations are less positive in asscrsing
results than school board ine~;bers who partLcipa.e
indire tly.

5. School board members from 1 lrge and snall dis-
tricts tend to believe that negotiations ha'e
restricted school programs, wh-,ereas school board
imeibers from med;ium-sized districts ten i to
believe that negotiations haves not rest'icted
school proqrams.21

Iroescho'ldL found that boards of education in thi Twin Cities

Ietropo i tan area (1) had not prepared for negotiat ons it the iidner

sugje.tec by to1!he lite;oatu-:e, (2) had generally not p'-esentd positive

proposals to i.c hcia rs at 'the ouLtsel, o i actual !harga inning, and (')

ticonted to retain the authority fur doe.;sion riak'ing .in the are, of wag.

21Robert N. Furr a in h:.Lort !. l "B; tard f'iLi:bers Vieo,, PIN,"
.ic.ij ,_ du, catiot nJoi n1 i l i< ( et :',l ry *,' l J ,: '8-19.

structure formulation, rather than to E;-S this authority on to the

voting citizenry.22

A two-year study conruc'icd by Rehm;.; found that:

The majority of board meiSbers held a negative
opinion about long-term benefits of negotia-
tions and a high degree of anxiety for the
future of education. Small district boards
were more conservative and less hopeful for
negotiations than urban districts. Ten per-
cent of board members from larger school
districts adopted a "wait and see" attitude
relative to negotiations.23

School Board Strategies

The strategies concerning the role of the school board from 1965

through 1974 remained fairly consistent. The theme running through

.that period was for boards to remain away from the collective bargain-

ing table. Lieberman and Moskow held a somewhat different view in

1966, but had changed their thinking by 1969.24 They suggested that

practice might differ in relation to the size of the district. In

large districts, personnel experienced in collective bargaining could

feasibly negotiate for the board, while in small rural districts, due

to the lack of experienced personnel, board members could reasonably

be expected to negotiate.

22Paul W. Proescholdt, The Preparation Process for Collective
Negotiationsby_ Boards of Education in the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area (Ed.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1969). Dissertation
Abstracts International 30 (April 1970): 4202A.

23Charles Rehmus, "The Economic Results of Teacher Bargaining -
Michigan's First TWo Years," as cited in Kai Erickson, "Board Opinions
Vital to Us,'" Michigan Education Journal 46 (February 1969): 19.
24Myron Lieberman and Michael H. Moskow, Collective Negotiations
for Teachers An AErioa-ch to School Administration lChicago: Rand
i- ,.j1 . 1966)., p,. 249-50.

The task of a board is not to. negotiate, but to ensure that

negotiations ere conducted by competent personnel. Such personnel

may or may not be employed by the school system. If they are com-

petent, they will take steps to provide adequate communication be-

tween the board and its negotiating team. Such communication should

preclude erosion of board authority, on hand, and insufficient

delegation of authority to negotiate, on the other. Boards should

respect expertise in this area, but such experience should not make

basic policy decisions for the board. Rather, it should be used to

clarify important alternatives from which the.board must choose.25

Manning stated that board members should not be on the team

since it would place the superintendent in an almost untenable role

in terms of compromising his leadership role in matters of adminis-

trative authority and professional expertise.26

Gilroy et al. stated that:

Nevertheless, the board should not become
involved in negotiations unless the board's
confidence in its administrators is shaken.
The board's chief role is to provide policy
guidelines to the administrator prior to
negotiations in order that the administra-
tor has a reference 9oint to guide him
through the session.-'

25Lieberman, "Avoid These Costly Bargaining Mistakes," p. 44.

26William R. Manning, "Negotiations: The Process of Collec-
tive Bargaining," The American School Board Journal (August 1966),
p. 15.

27Thomas P. Gilroy, Anthony V. Sinicropi, Frederick.D. Stone,
and Theodore R. Urich,.Educators'Guide to Collective Negotiations
(Coliumbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1969), p.

f Th n .ts. CO' 'c'y iI;! i.e that Utr "ni !inuotthi1nfr g ter S.hiulc

.i cUp! ,. 2 .. iPi(e;t':bcrs of hc d.' tricl s 4 j d iinistr tive s.aff.

he IT "uii t sc,; SssiiO (i f SchT'..' Laird st atd hit 'hoards

of eaucatiot should refreir fro'i. c*l-ng into iret negyoti -i on'."

Lichivnisit sgieCi.; R.-veni "n'tidiw rui-c'cs" oF cot Iil.tL i.jrYiln!inlg

fur bo r',.,. The,' ,,;.'.:

1. if viu otn't :ov,'w wl t .o!'re do'"n g, hire
SOfleOilt w4'O doS.s

2. n'oitd members soitl 1 st y, out. of the actua!

3. Give your r Lnea'otiatil ..; eam authority.

4. Know ,row inuch im money you're talking Louiut.

5. Don't agrec to 10o ire:ch too socn--;; too

6. .'mit require' tLeach-r c.t,..?'on, as ?
pr 0cun i : !*iot to, ,i ^ti L',j.',s.

7. Don't get bocigle dow;, i ovc'" procedit'rs.29

i't 'iold 'R iye orti of tno S n-intendon
in l.o !le':. !vt 'a t:c irn .g?

SuI iper it nd nt! l\ sues

A tnumbe-r cf artic.e :. :.' :'ud os bct'he an 19G5 and 297' suggested

.th t, te s;upe i,' ,ntei t t- in 1 m !' it tic ; t I Ic i '

(of ut Lime p '-icd the siTperin,'tendent' role in collective b!.; a'-

inig ,' o'"icti t 'i of a neArWl-, adviso 'o bot!, it:ers and board.

'-Who e, r Nt ''. I'; 4,1 ."_Lat t; (Sp-inw'fi-''d, I l in;'is:
A ito 't f ., l,,tis .sehri. l oa~~i, 1957), p. 7.

.L "r ;- i': ', ", lihcse Cos tly ; er ga -ilng 'i st.a es," pp, .

Towrdi the end of the per".. ,e h-d A iiied i -'" lederish1ip

role f';r bioards' in coll eci.-'ve barga-ir

i, a .bout 75 percerL if i'l d rict. ;h:ie
negotiations Lo.ok iiia-' th-:- '. rirtendnt
was either' a maec,:r of t'he board negot itin",
team or serve i '. ri: lu- ively .s 1i1 a '!v;: ,'.
in S196!-67, !i'ore than 40' percent of the sur,-
intelfmenli'.; served as av iors Lu Lboth boarO
and te.ichlr rneotiar-i ;; by 19i7!72, on' v ;4
percc-.: server- in dLi' capacity. S:)me
,!hat surp,' singly ; lIthou. h t the crocorti;rn
v';.o F.*rved .s a "ne.ut al rcsomr-c( per-on"
!r:.'!i 'Cd from 6.8 ilece- t tou r0 percent,
tlhe nr,:i;h;cin who were lono; panr.s incre'i: .
from, 1 perc;-in to 5 pecenLt.

The i'i of ith sLuper-ntendcnt in teacher rn.gti:ti";ns as a

m;jo- isu' in education in 190i .31 Geiseri-, in 1o6:, stated thadt

'Th-re 'is great need to clacify thie itunclion of the scierintridernt

in collective barg c. Ig.'.'32 The super;'nL'ndCnt's role was compli-

cat-fd bV. L;'. v ri'e-t at:i d c(.;, l.;;:i expectations and pressures of

diffr, -n -'t ,," ioanal nrouns .

The li- 1 i ;c i.' -.' o l" c American
F.-d.r.tii T e' .I.* ie--, i; : i School
c. :r's itss c( .. an' -.' A--n ri, c'n Assoc:ia ion
of r,,:Sc .. /d:,i n ctoi were i -,imels O' F qrc.up-
that su.jgeted their r -oe .- fi ti.

Co;.'lic.i;ng definiT:iGns of rt i:trid'rntl role led to

consida. r S conus -in with trepuct to thiS it;1poarIti. pect of

''Librm. n-n, ".-Littinls: Past, Prr~etnt and Future," p.

3 lIoy S..i!-,;lt. "e'iach;e r Negotitiion and the Role of the
'.iuperi Vnent," 'et Ci 'cariJ !o i .e 43 (May 1963: 5J4.

Io-ild F. iamps: l 1 "!. I!he School Sipe-rin tendeint Obsole c ?"
P[ Si .- i -O;pa (: (Octoicr 1 "6): 57.

3- -he.'t "To -:cr ;.,gotitio aond ithe Role of the Super-
i!!tend~en't ." F, r ."

Ipr-f ei rn'COtidt l 'i o s. Prrha;s, ihe greatest prolJei r t t1

devcopei wp. the change ii. t.e profe: sin-l status of the supti -

in:'.-niei 35 Cl'ark w tie c-!t~ .nie. co;:'ig' in 19f6fi when he said:

"P;r fes*.s l i It r.: 't ia ion'. were straining t;he bond which bii'.Il

i (;!,er and ad':: i. 'ir actors together'. "'3 At that time, many of

ci; sta. e o'g. ci <.ins to ihich r-upecri i.tndents belonged and tihe

Anmericn 'ssc." ;n of Sc!oool' Adii, rislrciors were under the umbrelr!a

of st le .--r es:,~~itions -,ii the .' .!ionali Education Associatioi'.

Tli' ii i. Ed. ":.'i i )a'iati n in 1,(,67, stated:

ihe .;.:.;i' nii ende-nt has a dual role to fulfill
as educational &I>:er of the ;aftf and as chief
adr'miin: ,it;Y: off'-icer of tVle boardd of educa-
tion. Hr sihal possr.s an allegiance to the
lear per *'hi,: h super!'edeJs eithclr of these loyal-
iies. 3

vans piu'ilntI i;' th. i,;. I'nfy suOeririent;tdents selectri the rol' cO

either iim .ri' l .i', or ,." ,,np ticipa t.38 In Conn'.cticut, out

of !i:.!t-...-. hree.:.; '..s in:, ith. 'i ,;- l school year', t'l e su;erinttnde crt

ser:'c as; tihe advi.or to otth p. ;i'ris in forty-five cases, In tvernt.y-

thIree ca es Ie ''"';d a's n'ura! or .s'c e v'.r. In only Tour in'tai:cs,

3 i. ',. 'Sl Ja:- I, H. Kl einirai.i, and Mortha are, Prof.';siural
e .o _' i 1 ."_'._ -!_ tli_.'.n (j: Yc"k: The MacmilA l n Company .
196..," !. O .

'i. r;.,r:-d. l)';e'va ': .i ti is: ;1 -en Years Later N'atironl
( ^;/ c i- ... of -'. y S ph-.o. ri ;,'-- :.s Ll .eti. N5 (Dccmi C er 197-' );
'j.' 3. 3

,:i r : "1::-;., "TIohe ;' "ir n ; ': 's Role Qi Pr'otessional
i go..; i:ns," d.c ': 57 Io'. .obsr 6S): /0.
S ; :s. .:. ii o, ;A r i i. i i ( li i i ru' cation Associa-
t ", i-'-. i. r-. j I:-.,'"' i: .i, ,'i LeCnd riLt's i;ol'l in Pro-
-- si'v '' ;eg '. : p. ft.

SSayor Fn :, "T :. Su, n ed t's illmrrr '," This America'.,
Sc l i\o .''d , '-' .' l:v .b'' 1 ii,7): 11.

dNO he .Ac. as tihe boE rd's "'Mior G'"! W .. -,!? ro n5 t:iaLor for the

l boardd w,' limited to i hu .: xStrict .'

1achr- mcd i L l.- ;!..a L I hey 1did .ot vie ; he superintendent

as Wheir leader in matters of stall p(r.o:el. The middle man role

serv-i to r-_-ic' tle efft; i VYess oUf :thei superintenent, for tea .cher

w,,i perceived. time sui:erin"e'iip nc i r e :a translitte o; rqa:-ncscs found

it o'nre ,div.i;jeous tn bype., hi-; completely a : go di:r-c tly i.o lh

in .- : survey "" VW the I^"io.l lduca i..', Ass.cation, over

50 pnecenK-c oFr .e respo':linq sui'iiperii Cnd s cns:ridcS d L!msev '.e

advisor: .o th'a goitiattc s, 40.6- plr':n:,:t for both the scloolx board

an. twn,", and i3.3 percent 'or the school board only. Over

37 p..rcent considered Li:hemselves chief negotiato.s, 21.4 pcr:el:nt with

full author":Ity, and 15 8 ': -cen ,ii:h l i i ted authori ty.

rMany auchuritie- s ' : he S ,u1,_;'i'L' ; i,.-L:'t should be at the

ne'lioti.tinq atrble as adviser ti the boa d o0 '.E advisor to th:e boa-d

aw I t ihe lt ;.: -e's.42 Tic Illinois /'ssociatt! ;n x. S ;c, r, r oa rds stalted

that "Th i- Slu;,cr int rie'-t ': l- I' bop rcespo sib'le fior l.h colllecti'v, bar-

C in r'i p-ccec ;. "

-'Cr.xxn.' i c' Educ r Li. :,Ln :s.;. i. I n ',I'.,x P, F gr' s RkCpr.- of
,C .. c=s- 1;'.-o.i'i.n.. t",." '--i' (' ircd: Conlnr ectc icut Ldu-
Cc--i;'iOCI. a..*,: l-- .i ;:i b f vli.r y), cii-. in Evx ns, '"The Super-
"i"n .l ',r. I'i .-l 51,' pC f l '. 1[ .

4'"Pi-c :i.;'; a ;t-!u R. o itole in O 'ti et oin," 1N 4i1 1a Educati on
;,ss,:ciatio! e ch !. l .n 43 '0,. iuber 1% 7): 84.
42R.;i-1-,,- e-b r, "pihi Su.!;je,'i ,:.' -nt.i ,"'.d Decision Maki ng -ii; iN otia-
1"",n i p -i t. 1 I (Dv" r',! 17''): 1.
"'i.'..i F,,;'..i i,,. ia t or :. ;,A! -c.;? inn of Ill inois Sch aonl
oaCrr'ds. ** i iii e-, .1 1-tintendir, 'c Il in l ro-

he h A .',::!ric n A.sscir :i, f; Schc.'- t:miuistrator: :, in ,9f ,

'ta.ted t bat t\i ; :' : -in:' t ,ei 's ro e iiaped by ;- m.ber of

factoMrs: ( ) 1 r.'-,o. u:p N; tI!. own IF lcphy oI personal

Fprferoe"ce (2) thel f o !i-F of t h' oai-d of eduaL tion in th n' t: r:,

(3) ihe ;I :, in cx;:teP ce in -, Lt.; (;! the ci.r e'i.t c. li of

teacheir-ci istror eel atiohs; arid (5) TI', d"riTee to which infltu-

,c;e fro! i.Leach r r ,' iz ios :; t the s! in ii, nation n i level s is

oxe Lrtd upoi local orgua ;- 'io;;. ;Tor a cmlini ii pit_'r of ncgoL iation:.

procedure. 4'-

Clarki suggetes that the siperirtenderL shoiiuld be iih charge rf

the negotiating p: o:ess for the board. 5 tie did not sugg'q;s that

the slpc 'Iteli;de t conduct t) !ective b.rgeining. his suggestion war

that the super i-' ;nndc;t r;s ii chirge of instruction pr.;d the budget,

but rn(loved ('ther'- to C(oid.,t tios ac ti-v iti'S 5n shW O id do 'he

same roe colfecl.ive bargaining, if he i'rhse to diu So.

A.culding to Martin, geography made a differeni;.e i:; :o hor.'

superintendent; n ra-ctf, to collective b-g :aiiin'Ig.

Most sunorintendecnts in CWlio!!ni;, Chi o,
Michiii an, Illinois, and Indiaiii function na
chief negotiators for their hodards. But,
in Coior ado, Connecticut, Msslchusctts,
Minnies.ot 'iiNe Je'rsey, [I i York, Washington,
a. Wiscoisil, yo., 11 find th m just one of
the troops rather than the bhord
s o);is3!ra'. L ' et I i ans: i.',souLri,

.'1 AuinIS'trati,.F, a;d ,':i o 1 in-.g tmerican Associatioun of
Schi'ol /!;iFHit'. (WaFIU i.ion D.C.: Ami can Asssociation tof
Sclkoo \ ir:iinstri. ucr !67) ;,. I I, .as cit .1, in C( ark, "The'F Superin-
cnde;nt'e ",'e in r: fe' si !l ieg.tiations.F p. 71 .

''...., "Thle Superirtend l' s 'o;le i P;'ofessio(nl i. jgotiatioFs,"
It. t'I

fii C the: -i1! aS f t finders o.- ienia-
tors. 46

District sii aind ler;.Li of se:ivic:- also made a difference in

t!e s. iup: iint::idenr t' c io! ec] iv- b-aig inii n role. In districts under

1'O.C'0 pouils, siu. -e:iilrn;drens often worked with teachers and boards

plrior Ln tl ': n-eot actions. However, in large suburban and urban

cistricit, cu pierin tr-!-.i ts aligned .hemselves] ; with boards prior to

ard ftiro- c t.:. iegotiii 's. 47 Suiperintendents w ho worl:ed with boards

cls; Hian ji,'-c ve.;", \;v were firmly on the side of the board, while those

,.it! 1:or(. It:an five yearyc.' experience wirh,, h a single board exhibited

9re-':;.r :!,''thy for the professioral staff.48

The :!os' influential factor in role choice in a collective bar-

.,:i!-i. situa i 'o;i V .as Reper ierce and the second most influential fec-

tof 's a *iir ective fr''i the board.'9

[va'n sugi'.sted that tie most approprrii.e role for the superinticn-

dc-it shrio!d ;be thai. of negotiator for the board.5 A study conducted

in 1972 al the University of Wi;sconsin examined the wianner in which

superintendei.ts functioned in the collective bargaining process.

ppro>'i':ate ~iy 13 percent of the sample said they were nIegoiators for

th!', board, 1i p-ercr't said they were at the negotiating table but not

16:Ja!': AF. 'iarti-:. beforee Youi Bargain, iMake Sure Your Super-
irnteneidnt is ;On oYr S'de," Tihe Americanr Schoool Ioard Journal 159
(,iJ;ly i972): 3i.


4 .bi. ci

-19 bii.

"'SIvans, "Ti 1, 1,p4riC Ond t's 4i1&m :i," p. 12.

the egoLtiator, ,.*.; 17 perc :I sa id t y ; r; e iio at th c ne:'tit !

ta'le in any

Prourccholdi. found that (1) superior ents were hbeirp phItsed out

cs ciincf nigoo-itoirs too b oars in iMinoiesot' (2) super'CiiYitd -en. w:r'e

rote mai rkig ''e of .their pr incipal, i- t' fo'rm!ulation ot counter ]pr';-

ios;is, and (3);l'deti's viewed thrir role in collective bar-

gainipg as advisors t l their boFa:i"d of edJucati;i.5

Eastmai;i in a study of eighteen urban school syste'ls; Pii. fui!-

tiimei chie- neigot;iators, found! t!ht (1) the superi-!:nt- V ;! i, not

bren atLive participants in actual nie otiating proce:;i 'igs, (2)

super'i rtendi-nts had not been hypssed in any w.y, but had been cl sely
involved Lbf;aind t!e scenes in collective bVgci'.ig.t

Sulp-r-itr,'ie eti_. S i-at _e.'

The trend arp-'ared to !e thai the amhivtleince of the siiperin.ta-i

dent's necgtiation role would polarize in the direction of "agent

for the iiorjd' not of "professional educat-or."' A national sample

of 675 pjubiic school superintendents in forty states in..icated ti .t

51 perrce-,: of sueherinitelndits thought of themselves as direct agents

of ihe bo:-rd during the data gathering stage of collective bargeiinig;

5- ,ebe '-r, "Superintendeni a d Decision a-ing! ,' ri, 281.
52p-au "rl rrePchl dl T.h_ Preparation Process_ for Cor'!!ct ve
S,' oards of Educat-iln in thie F in Citi ..C. tai

53C'l er Eastmaan, TI ._ Fligiung Pcititon of hietf C !'et '.I t 9_ toet
te u'-i *'i: S school .S'yntendeh cy Ed.D. diss. WlHi .tatc Univ'r-
. i:,y, .' '- t.i. Jnt rt' .io n.. 32 (W.ruery 1972):

Lov::": L. C',n in ha.' "Coi 'cctiv\e N lIotitio norc n e
Pr',ici, :,!hi,, TIeota y into P ortcl : 7 (Apr:' : .73-. ,

59.2 perce' nt considered th('mcise'v.s aI in c i Cih the ,ordc, an:d 1 3.1

peaice"t assumed the stance of di,: iidepnp..i: third par y pr-ovidi;.;

fats n::d figure': to both sidcs a.d:; fun i:J ( as a ne:utr- The

superinteealent was no longer trhe i natruci..orar. leader inore :r ,' hi al

of the simple disti:icts. He hacd L-er oie (an ercnt of t'i-, w"iile

organization !cadeis had become The teacher Iaders.
1~ll" .... c -, 1-1 -or, .O" :,:,
Hli-.r .!, Tireholm,'7 Fjerain,5 Pow.?l! v .9 and ;r,,i sj1:i!e i a

iieutral J ;;d i-ole for the superintendent nill whic he cd ':

resource person n to both the i..,ard and tiachle;- collective bargainiing

55HJni:tin, "Before You Bargain Ma':e Sure Your Superintendent Is
ori Your Side," p. 31.
'1iMa'. 0. Heira, A Studl, of what Selected Respoidets Thin': the
Rol. of fthe Sperin:!endeint Should be- in thit Nceotian-n Proc- .s.
(Ei.D. diss., Uni varsity of Kainss, G7). Dissertiation Abstracts
Internt'ltioial 28 (May 1958): 441 V .

5l[toiiai'd U. Trenho'lil, T1e spe ; ri;i iondent'0 Role in :, Ale
N eortiatiioins a.. Perceivedl bly Ke".al Bo)ard Ciai r ,a and rp' .'stri I .a-
tees of *. J. I_ I. I -, Colovt o, State Colu ie l..8).
2'"' T," r-t. s Internatirnl 29 (Ccto'er 1968). 1i 'OA.
5Orirn B. Fjeran, Role Lxpectations of tic S-upe) itecirnII nt
in Teacihcoe hIeqUoti ins 'd. D. diss., Univer :ity of OregOn, 1 ) 85c.
bIs ,'erti lo0 A1stracts International 29 (Jan:iury 1969) 20rf1A
'9-Ja'ies R. Powell, The Ro l of tile Soperi -ende;eit In Collec--
tive .'tiatics tRiverenTaciats aid aomrds of _Lducatirn (Ed. .
discs. Te;ple "Uni'e-siy, 19j) ''ssertatfi o Abstrracts lnt r-

60Oa/kid C. Hartl', ifn Analysis of Lhe Opinions of ,si*ch a
State Sic.. ho l BoarJ Ci:' irrioo ad I I. .' i iline Sta/ 'v
P othv-i-oin fons ir Rio' oF the '',earinti,:d'tdet. in States wi h' Paro-
f-es -ica -I N (Ititatiion w '. dis. -, Washiriaatop -... I' i ty,
19714 D soonaoiNa s-t Iic_ riA.aatnal 32 (Nover' 1):

fte .ns. (.urino 2nd Mcl.. r'l :, v i.c-'d i, -' b.ii e utend-, as a, n 9;.a ;;t

of tii,- board in col!ecic'e b.., caiiinC.

-What sirateqgies are h-oon :i the su'?erit-' en-t? Loqirally, he

has five fr-c; which to choc Se', y r' (i) ncllparticipir:t, in which

he served as a co!- ioni in' for bet!: the tcachirm- .rd the b. .r ,

hut does not C vis' e o. ig '0 ot:i :t-- o itht;t pa ;t y; (2) "':)o!, i tor tfo

thei teachers; (3) adv'iso: to th,! te.cie-:; (1d) atdviscr '.o l.he b:cu- d;

an (5, I!ego.;i-tor for lhe boarJ.3 7Te ',- ;- strao;.ey appeared to

be the. role in wi tihe suOerinteni-ent pit'.id d i le.'rlei-shir for the

board .n;d ie hard's team, without sitting at the b-arauininin table.

What ShouJld P- the Ro'!e of the Pi r'pal
Pin Co.ctv; n -'.'i iu s su

Tr.e status os i ,ii dle- mlna-g..mrt Was one nf tiia most con;trove-'sial

areas in pfjblii scrhooe collecil ve harcaisning. Its role way a maeior

issue fo' a n f:;iber of years.

Sat:rie lqishl:tin e'it'hr excluded 10iddle Imanigc-
I.' lt f''om n'cqotia i r ;ghts, prov.irdied it wi th
nwrti -ing lights i' scpairate ni.otitioiso inl ts,
'1.u nth;o-/ui!d egoti ti;: u ts to include all
)pro'ssn'' stc s up to ti Lhe levCl of the

6IDe;n E Co;in., T.- [ ffcct o;f Colictiv e Nugool Lions on thi-
of t S.p a -rito uT' -- " '. ''s of SixSe Ic ti CIi lordtds Lci''r'i
'i't' d. d1!''iss., Coloradt etos bt losne,lb19)l i'>:.LeTatioe
A' n nt '.tional- 30 (Apri i 19 0): 4175A.

15Roud L. McDona ld, f t ,A iy,- it uof th2 ble of the S)ulp:'rin'r.-. d. -at
of 'hools il P,'ofessi na "r!.l i: T- xa on- --;-c !T L( ( ) . di s .,
. i... ........ ... .... 1.. .... .. i" Lc i ':; : I:'; Itol. ats I !l\i 0cts __ I:l} t e: i .

63L,, ,., Thi. S ,e'rl.n t ndes 0 5 Dil n a," pp. .10-13.

.. :,, , i1f0ti ,i iil-: t St, P ,, s dlI Fii: 'ir. ," p. i .

In a 1970 study conducted by Nunley, the majority of building

principals had not had a personal experience with teacher negotia-

tions and were uncertain regarding their role when negotiations

became a reality in their districts.65 They were poorly informed

on what transpired during negotiations and had not made up their

minds as to their proper roles in collective bargaining.

From the point of view of collective bargaining, the positions

of boards and teachers have been relatively clear. Each was a-repre-

sentative body given the task of protecting interests which it

represented. The positions of administrators in relation to collec-

tive-bargaining were not clear and, as a result, a growing frustration

was found among administrators who saw negotiations going-on around

them, but rarely with them.

When teachers decided to bargain directly with boards of educa-

tion, the traditional role of school administrators being the official

spokesmen for teacher interests was disrupted.66 By their actions,

teachers rejected administrators as their representatives to thie board

of education. At the same time, boards of education and superintendents

were ignoring principals during bargaining sessions. As a result,

concessions were made in bargaining which placed serious limitations

on effective administration by the principal.67

65Charles E.. Nunley, The Role Perception of the Public School
Building Principal in Teacher Negotiation in Ohio tEd.D. diss.,
The University of Akron, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International
31 (May 1971): 5722A-5723A.

66Lester W. Anderson, "The Management Team and Negotiations,"
National Pssociation of Secondary School Principals Bulletin 53
(Octcber 1969): 107.

67Ibid., pp. 108-109.

intc.,""3 Ard-rsGon,69 Cin;i.r 'Fn,771 i 72 :jL 7

Bet'll, !';rpiy,7i5 and Eichj T7 all poiui&u out 1th Vrinci l. ., t

tht : '., e.'y had b;'en 1-ft out o'; reoi ati 'n:, wanted ]:cre involve-

Iment i; the total prices.

Smith fn-nd ,i;.. 49.3 p;,,..nt of' 231 p, incipa'H s .u-veyed h3d

not bee : involved in thn n;egoti.:; ion: process, 27.7 ,re'celr of the

respondents .had served as co;.suilats for- 'he board. and t'o gro;:ps

68Terra'ce F. Hatch, "The Pri,!cipal's Role in Collective NegoLia-
tionrs." N.ioral A\ssociation of Srecondary Sc:oc'l P'Inci;.-:!i s RPulletin
55 (Dc-T. :r- 19717: 28.

'"An 'Lcrson, "M!anagement: T'eam Ver'sus Collect ive bargainingg for
Pri n i ip s ." p. 17 .
70ouve-n L, Cunrcningham, "Collectivei Neg'.tiatiort s aond the Principal-
ship," Tic r-y Ttfo 'e;rctic 7 (Apr ;i 196): G.:

711(eu- r e B. eKtficr'!, I .LiaLnion Chanre.e Princi 'l -'!c c hh:':
Relationshipas T' ,"i;o.. ;al Fl,-i;enita P"rtic;'.pa 47 (Apri1 1958): 2.

72jcie- C. K "ing, "NeR, Dir-..ct ;ions fo; Collective Ncr.tiatio,,
IhL- nat i 1 .: ar. F-i' i l 47 ( .Se camber 1967 : 45.

73N iunl PiTh" RlO 'ercr tfio oIf thie l ic :choo'ii Build-ilP
Principal in Ia K 'tfln: -0

ll:.- e jr., BThe ,'J dh i'1.i; ichno P i'i l
I '.n.. i s ie' 1 r .; a itt 1 q'' !irn i. -- 1l
in t .i_ I ive Neo': Ii c-t iVo., a P:n" o .;c:, s- ci-.i'aio'
g cOr. _- t ; h :c-i !: 1w-a;.- 0 : .0 -, (I : '; r: :-" -~t'ia---
UniI'.''- iy 19 b ). lissert'c ''' t rn t ia ..3 0 (M, y_"
1170): i/- ,_.,.

J'SJac1. W ., A .. A u to dent-.f, the Present and; Fut.'re>
'+ ". I' '. ': '!*-" 2 a .'. '0 :si i.... ..'. ....... ' ;"i_.
Pol of th' P' i t''t c ip!! 11) ;. S' o') ti r (1 (1t I
Univi-sTi 2li]). rissser atio Abs-racts ,t,.irnatii.;' 32 (March
1972): i4f-,, .

76 1 ilo L. Eich: ; St u. y oC r.i Etfc: i s_ of Coipleci. r Nc9Q-
tiaticons Unron the l'-.iciion.i Roe of Selected SeOcean d" ', oo
Pri: i n i : (a i7t.'. -Ti-s -,n" i oT;i,-, 'nfiTi,'I .--, ',f1; ti.UYj":' Eati ion
A I t TI n a- t is, 3? ( i -i rarvy 1972)i : 4i A.

of 11.2 percent had served as active participants for boards and as

consultants for both boards and teachers.77 Of that group, 45.88

percent felt that they-should have beei involved in the negotiation

process as consultants for the board and 32.03 percent felt that they

should have been consultants in the negotiations process for both

boards and teachers.78

The principal was unhappy because he had been largely ignored

in the negotiation process. The general effect of collective bar-

gaining was to bring about a principal-staff situation characterized

by a strained, more formalized, and less open relationship.79

In a 1968 study conducted among school board members, superin-

tendents, principals, and teachers concerning the probable effect on

the role of the principal in teacher collective bargaining, Thompson

found that 70 percent of the respondents reported that principals were

not involved.80 Principals felt they should be on the board's team,

but board members and teachers were opposed to principal membership.

Many principals were concerned about how they were to be repre-

sented. Some were included in the teacher unit; others were excluded

deliberately either by teachers, by the law, or by state regulating


77Stanley S. Smith, Some Effects of Collective Negotiations
on Principal-Staff Relationships as Perceived by the Secondary School
Principals in Illinois (Ed.D. diss., University of Illinois at
Urbana Champaign, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International 31
(March 1971): 4434A-4435A.


80John A. Thompson, The Role of the Principal in Collective
Negotiations (Ph.D. diss., The University of Wisconsin, 1968).
Dissertation Abstracts international 29 (September 1968): 788A-789A.

Table 2 shows the results of the NEA Research Division study

that asked a representative sample of the country's teachers, in

the spring of 1968, and again in the spring of 1971, if teachers and

administrators should be in the same unit.

In 1968, teachers were evenly divided between
those who favored the same negotiating unit
and those who favored separate units. Four
teachers in 10 expressed their preference for
each type of unit; one teacher in ten had no
opinion, and less than one teacher in 20 did
not believe in the negotiation process. How-
ever, in the three years from 1968 to 1971,
opinion has occurred from the same negotiation
unit for teachers and administrators, to
separate units. There were no significant
changes in percentages who held no opinion
and the percentages not believing in the
negotiation process.81



1968 1969

Same Unit 42.6% 38.2%
Separate Units 41.4 45.8
No Opinion 12.2 11.6
Do-Not Believe In Negotiation 3.8 4.4
100.0% 100.0%

Source: "Teachers and Administrators: Same or Separate Negotiating
Units," by NEA Research Division, NEA Research Bulletin 49
(October.1971): 77.

81"Teachers and Administrators: Same or Separate Negotiating
Units," NEA Research Bulletin 49 (October 1971): 77.

How collective bargaining affected the principal hinged primarily

on factors at the local level. Comments from principals who have

worked in systems under contract, ranged from the Brooklyn principal,

who was confined to a master contract about which he was not consulted

and which gave him very little leeway .to.administer his school, to

the Michigan principal who felt that collective bargaining had been a

strengthening influence in his district.82

Traditionally, the principalship has been an extension of the

administrative arm of the school system. In operational terms, the

principal implemented administrative policies at the local school level;

he interpreted the objectives and purposes of the school system; and he

expedited ard coordinated the ongoing program of the educational enter-


Cunningham concluded that, while feelings about what was happening

to the role of the principal were consistent, (among principals) the

reactions--the ideas of what to do about it--were quite different.84

Though principals expressed a variety of reactions to teacher militancy,

they tended to reflect beliefs toward collective bargaining at the

extremes of complete rejection or complete acceptance. Many who rejected

collective bargaining felt threatened by it; the few who accepted it would expand their roles routinize some tasks.

Reality dictates that principals and other
administrators would be wise to accommodate
themselves to changes in working relation-
ships. The reallocation of power in educa-
tional decision making more properly means

82Kinq, "New Directions for Collective Negotiations," p. 45.

83Redfern, "Negotiation Changes Principal-Teacher Relationships,"
p. 20.

84Cunningham, "Collective Negotiations and the Principalship," p. 65.

sci e th. e' ;. :" Li H,- n a i n s I
teachi r b. w;. i be iH :i'.he h:col: ;"'i boi i ':
suppeliy iL .i t e>:prert ;,.. :qI -..;ya e ." c': ta'!eA 1 i. On

oTi-ite ,:c.hie.; l fcl, ,,e th?e pri cpa f la ;t a-..Mi-ai
or t !>'- s u'rv"/isor1 wh'o n 1 ''"v'id(-l the I,.s";
info,''.tion an!i p; o;"tness .!n. nij'k'irng t;c

of mi'.e pp:lor Lu rp c, i;"".s doea nlt r,'
s'ier- iocai l :sirreii.-;' Tas e-! a stk ugiw
t ie tlec coi-cl ; ret in e r cisn on t-e issue as

Many pi';ncipals lbeicoive i.haL the, d' cistn making. roles wore

reducedri' by colective bargaining g. Hoavier, colr!ewthve bae argainiq

brouohi: complex pro!)em.: which d cu'nded qrcter ta'!:,t'. among priincipals.

The issue for the prinJ.ciplshiS ) wac oi'v; o acod.,l,!it and reaioca--

tion of response ilities, rot a reductio'' of 1cadership importance.

A!ign-ment ch' _For The:e has beeri a struggle

si'c"e creLi vve barga''in2 ; gan e'' in educrirt'ion on the issue as to

wheth!e-r pritncls sh'idl'I remain' in the snc.e unit with teachers, or

whether '.hy sh-.;ld b-. in 'j ;epp'.-jtc unit, or whether they should

bat'ai". at all

in 1967-68, the Nl; R.'ese:rcl Division conrdiucted a nationwide

survey anc d doi.e'' ::, ;'.. thaat

The b ;inii'' uiitst in school sytemC s which
reccgni.: l':,' ui teacher or(ariization
i -' r-s.cn1t'd' tihe foll,'i':i c ategC i es of
p.-on c ;2..'i i';r ntrl!; r'c pret s'nt c'iaS'i rool ;
te-chi r:, only; 23.9 -,"i cc-;: t are '1i.-inclusive
inims, M,.7 cree t ;-;r::.en t -lpssrnom teach-
r;'s : !;.c 'ildring ad. 'i-:trators; 0.3 percent

i '!ice 'r'sotn' oel. r '

S. !'ern, "iei tiati: ChR.:t Sc P inc I .' I l-Tlear:her Relatio;C sh;'s," p. ?2

S''' P. ii.ipsIs Repr:' cited i'1 F r!li hring Uncit ?" i- t : '" .
Bul' e .I: ,1- t. ( ':;:r 19'6' ): 85.

Ir '/2 pri' cipa!s ha d On': r1 Jt to b i" Ai i A ia:.. OC li--

i-'.r, ., -: i'c"i' i ;Lv.';! Id h'o K as :s. Mahin :, l.'y :nd, ias na.-

ch-i>' tts, M1'b h'ig:',5 ,'' i s Mi Ot.' 0' I1::, 'h. ,., N', Jd rs..:, New Yrs '

n ort DilA.Ln-:, COl'!hoi;a. OCs ppn. S'itl Da?*t;a, vonion;, ;ashirgto;n,

and Wiscona;i.'7 i-i le the '.;'go:ti,' ionl' s i Ces in ;ichiQan :.i '

1Wiscnsin did not excl. e supervise' i ':rca th' to board'.

in those sie'L.s '.ei'n in'd tia: K np visu 'Y."2 e!.- t e' tic' ployer

and, theree'fr', could not re irlCiude: I i.; O: su.nC b-ab- rxiniig unlii:s

ci .h other en loyees. '

Prince i ps' agre'me'ts w're inp eiet in New V'c', bshington,

D.C.; Ci'eve'lnd, c allnei ir Nc".;k;., Bostor,, Mi 'iouse De.,ruii.,

and Potl .d. M-ost w ee umc'ela dmijei :nts That coAbired ad rins-

trati v' -supe-',rvi'*,ry staff rL 'ath- i-.tan p)i :cipal excl ci Uively.

The lMassac;;,i 'etts labor b.ard took d ifFe'r'eIit ap:proa:Ci to i'h

b5'a in 'i unit issie. Th!t [:oir' de rc'iii;d that supervisors had

th: sae repi"esni.:ti.! ci..i ei oti:ati ion i rights under t ; law ?a

other 'cttQ;!lac''s. Mni e srpervio'.;, li'sonne. constitltd a uii i

separate f : or.ti persornc the manjoni'y ii each if ri i detrni ed

their rei., senati'e creinzai.ioni; by seact e ballot.90

822, ee if ITin iir's^/Schooal '". da Co" I i cti'Q Nrc'iC atioer
Legi 'lati ,''i, C ,la-:-:ct (LJun,-.e 1!;/#): /;;-33.

8 "Ao P,:';rin i pal. s R ipris' n t.J in 1;a ,;' .nr !' Ui; Ihs?" p. 86.

'S.n. j K' '4 i" "Pri'' ,i!:ls; i/r,, aon.'.iz'-i Fr: e o r,"' Leader-
shin,' F 's (...:hingt5.' D.C., '."l. }, .' t',!. : s i/f.'), p. 4' .

9 ;Ci.y f Pit ;f:e .ld Pitisf :,i.1 Sch r,. ,-.t ,nthl Pit S -
field Teacheri A'o'.'; i ni ard Pit Lsield [e w ,ti '. Teachers,
Local l13.; 'as r'.::' ."R- 8, ia:, 7, 9'.C e ci ed in "Are PrQi -
cipoi l s ie! e1 (,entSed 'ii in .:r -i, i 1ig! U' i is?' p. 'G .

The Minnesota secondary principals considered their negotiation

rights to be submerged in the teachers'association under the hargain-

ing statute enacted by the Minnesota Legislature; they found their

position untenable and have tried during each legislative session since

1969-to amend the law.91 As a result, they have hired an executive

secretary, increased dues, and become a political force in the Minnesota


Principals who bargained for a school district in negotiations

were classified as managerial under the 1971 amendments to.the Taylor

Law in New York State if they belonged to no bargaining unit and served

on the board's negotiating committee.92 On the'other hand, principals

who belonged to recognized teacher bargaining units were not managerial.

Because Massachusetts state collective bargaining statutes did

not exclude supervisors, the Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission

determined that it had the authority to decide whether persons were

supervisors and whether they should be included in a unit with non-

supervisory employees. Supervisory employees were included in the

nonmanagement bargaining units with which they had a community of


The New Jersey Public Employees Relations Commission dismissed

a petition from the West Patterson Board of Education seeking to

exclude principals from the West Patterson Education Association

91Terrance E. Hatch, "The Principal's Role in Collective Nego-
tiations," National Association of Secondary School Principals
Bulletin 55 (December 1971): 29.

92Negotiations Research Digest 7 (September 1973): 8.
93Negotiations Research Digest 7 (December 1973): 8.

bargoainini u.nit: and Wihe N;.,w o.k Publ Ic PCoy ePs Retlti,',ns r i

dismissed, a petition Of the New York f ity of [duceaiol"n vor

de-sig; ation of 1,200 pr-ii piai 1 as iia;rii al. emplovw-ers.'.

Anderson ide-tificd weakiess-s in the collective batruinin! ap-

pioach ifo)' ni-i c; 3pals:

Better sa.l r-ies, ip-'ovcd 'elf; re provsicr'..
and resolutions of hoit -tr-,:1 gievasnces cfao
be achi,'ved, bi .1a high level cf satisfaction
ith. one's job p.-foirmannce is unlikely to be
accompisihe. Cooperative .a'-i- ing rneation-
shins can becon-ic so disropied that theIn. n:o
oF the entire cIraGnizaticn may jdeterircato
subsiat ially.95

AlIthough somin, agreenents permit Ld a merging of adMiii strativw

an:d teaching personnel into a single unit with the board of oducatiorn,

a more radical cleavage between "'labor" (teachers) and "inai 'e'ment"

(admini''tors d tors seed to be imerg g. The pircedents in big city

AFT contracts. clon wi t the goro;wing senisilivity of the N A to

charges o0 being a "coinpay unirn", iNUde the principAl's position

within the iol t!.eache;rs organization teo!ious at hcst.90 Thus, in

miiany barinini -,greemenRt', principles, department chairmen, and

guidance counsel:,r wer' Y:iC!ud:d from tile .eployues' bargaining team.97
WIhen Carr w3s Execiitiv"' Secreiciy oi the NE[, hi)s views proniably

i'rclf.tud the views of ihe Nationa! Education Association at that

timc. He sujiiest! d that:

"',-_- .;_t-i-:s RPs..e ai-'ch Dinr st 7 (lJanui ay "!74) : 9.
; '- son, '"Mana.i 'e'nt Ten e V'.!:rsuC Collet.Live Bargaining for
Priinc-ipa! p. 172.

'GCunrnin.ihaml "'Collective Neg(tiatintons aid' the Principal ship," p. 63.

y97bert E. Doiierty, "D.oc:'ni ::,'. IdOr itial and LWI:.or Rplations
Review (July I'-.:1 as c cited in C( illi ..., o Ialet ve ,,:ot: tion and
th-l ---P'rin::ipalsh p," p. ,3.

P: Vl'.5;I l h: i t p" Spc1 it .: n d; i--
si"ona c ; i'oulit li N cM\ r-' of educatCion
in their cc.t'u .ti: s They L',iungii-d with their
coi'eagues, in Oii' r u'':fei' io.nal associations.
inai(: on r 'i dic'i lr.o;st. cepiarate.d arid alienatec
teachers aind pr-inc:ir "s surely As op[en hos--

Care: risgreed wi ith th content.ton that principals could ino

bo.-ing to l.cgl ecK'.i;-j I .3ssociatiois and could nort porticipite in

negotiations .s par 't of ;. united !teali. He said it Could' be done,

it had been dLine, and it was being 'one in hundreds of school systems

throughout the aton.99

The aLionalm Education Association suggested that principals

functioned with the local, state, and national association without

conflict. Hoc.ever, the matter' of incincuig cr excluding principals

from membership in local essociatfons was considered to be a matter

of lochl op ion. 10I

Araguments for inclusion were:

(i) dCriinistrative a'd facilty concern cannot
rationally be sc-arated; (2) a common sense
approach to problems avoids coercion, (3) the
process dengocritizes and acti..' 1v strengthens
administrative authority; (4; hi principals
and teachers are agents of the' hoard of edu-
cation; and, (5) involvinV pri.ci1pals assures
that their" ii, maj.e needs wil! hoe cCnsider .i01

Several points oF view were c'xp-'res c abi:ut the role of the

pri:c'.pal in colectiv1e barg.ii iiny Juiring 1965-66. The views extended

98i'iliiam G. Carr, "The P' il:ipal's Role in Professionai Nego-
tiation," Ne':w Yor State iduca lcoi 53 (April 1966): 25.

gilbv. p 4.

OOKig, "':.nw Directions for Collective 'Niegtiation'>, p 45.
101 bid., p. 46.

fro. oppo-i) it. 'L i i.' to v ri,.! n; b...- :. i; '; m a ::' j that

ri n jila's :ithiidJi. fore.. Ir lc: l r s o jr iu at' ;: and avoid all

re at.ic :t;.ith hi t r n'co n;z d to:,' ; : l '-ctj'' b.'a 'ga ning unit. 02

io v-/it;'. i.d.--n co -te- L..i.( here .,:os a a o'fl ir t o F interest

betW or the admiisrrCat. .: rco:sr0, 1i il ity to diirect his staff and

hi- active r .be'0r.,p i '. t or .';izat"o'.103 Districts which had

,:r icar, F:ider :ti ;;o f Te'i ch ; s' ,rou ; s s har:gaie i;ig agents leif no

room fur spocultp i!.:: the teacher org ,izdt iron denied f r.e princ'ial

any vlole on the teacher's side. A"',piroxi!matlv 50 perrentt of the locIa

professional associations did li;: e-se and the percentage was rapidly

9ir.-wini. !o i Arguments ,against inclui'inj t'i-Wi: 0^icip.l en the teachers

te-m in clu-reJd:

( ) a fear of :d,;iniistrati,' coercion, (2) an
apparent or ~~sui:.d coifl ic:t of i re:s; (3)
a weakenin ig cf the teaC'ler' positicin if -he
inceir- sts of The prirci:pal ar'e coisil:ier i d; (')
suspecti" attitude to',arc tih p','i cipi as the
superintendent's argent: aind i.5) a feelii c that
the princO l' role is a member of the teachers'
group is irt.ompatible vithi his r'cl as the
first r nq u f the :administrative ladder in all
gr i 0ra pr'c0u cs 10C;

If prinipcipal wee to project their expe'-tise into the negotia-

tory process in the c:os effective : mrann er, Lh.'y should not held

i-"-o2 .. i ." Co:.,be, J r.. "i'. .o inimize Teacher vs. io rds
C(., ict' s 1" :' Colec iv:.: -' i in r ." 'er ic-an Sch 1Ool Pieard
Journal 153 (August 1966): 54.

1032rnc.r.-d 0. DOoUovn i:i Ar- vid Anderson. "Collective Bar-
paininq vs0, Py:of :essi na! irC4o 1 i i; -," Scio M"n,'' "L, :l i:te t
(Ncv:iber 1 .3 ) : 72.
i .. '.... 'e. Di-e. ic(is for Collec iv. Negotiations," p. '5.


.:.fmbersil in t 5he scie ,, ,:goti 'ln, unit c tFachc's.105 hey should
MCIEGO- ._ i ..:v ir'I n'

identify with the boari ob f c- ur 'aL .n'. i.: i:I;tt iv ty e .ue .

the frequency of thn.r i:;:ni cast 'i: :ke ro e of anlement. P rn-

cilpals per.e!vcc! (,{f thevsr.lves a' iViina;e ment, in structure o,; tle

school system."07 [eiientdry prir.cipClt s r .;re most satisfied wi.1, .Swher. !thy v: ert in-;A lve'd in the negotiation pr'ocss. The

ele:Oentary pri ncipal pref'LSJrd serving r.s i co 'L;;;tat tio the board

of di.cation w'l:n the board lneI3gtiated l .ith te-'cher ;s,

Jaileson tcok a strong stand ann stated th;t schoi. boards mist

make quite clear that school administrators cas no longer. egquivo'ate

as to where they stand in relationship to their role as ajer.i.s .o

the board a!d i h.t failure to '.eirfo 'r in this man:3er or to

this responsible ity should result in the early termination eo their

services.10 '

10'Ronzel Minney, Ar .!naly is n'of .ihe_ Fuction's of Lhe.w ili
School ProinciiP;, i Co lortiV. ;... t r : .O.
.'iss-., Oni o1 li sity 1970) -i .i .- A'' fnrt 1- ; tiona
31 (Febcuary 1971i): 3830A.
F'ilrancia D. King, Studyv and Analys'is of the Elemrrntary School
P'ri;:! pal's Per' I( .ion of ; ,_ ., ,.i : .. ..' -' .'
(-'.D. diss., West Virginia Jni-er Ly, i / I tb/n L.tu-- o-.-
sti-acis Intertnational 33 (October 1 72:): -3655A.


109Jnamieson, "Tihe Board's Posit;ve Approach," p. 1V.

Principalship Strategies

Hatch,110 Redfern,111 King,112 and Smith113 indicated that the

profession was unable to reach complete agreement on strategies that

were available for use with principals in collective bargaining.

Redfern recommended direct participation by principals in nego-

tiations as follows:

(A) review teacher demands carefully,advise
the superintendent on the implications of each
item as it may affect the operation of his
school, and point out the pros and cons of
agreeing to the demand; (B) the principal
should serve on the administrative team as
an active member or as a consultant; (C) he
must be a direct participator in the implemen-
tation of the agreement that is developed.114

King suggested four strategies which were available for use with

principals in collective bargaining:

(1) A joint review with principals (or prin-
cipals' representatives in large cities) sit-
ting with the superintendent and/or the board
to cooperatively review, analyze, and evaluate
the demands of teacher negotiators in terms of
the positive or negative effects on school
management and quality of education. This
joint review becomes the basis for the board-
superintendent response in negotiations. (2)
Representatives of a principal-supervisor
team may be permitted.full-fledged membership
on the board's negotiating team. (3) Repre-
sentatives of a principal-supervisor team may

110Hatch, "The Principal's Role in Collective Negotiations," p.

111Redfern, "Negotiation Changes Principal-Teacher Relationships,"
p. 22.

112King, "New Directions for Collective Negotiations," p. 45.

113David C. Smith, "Professional Negotiations and the Principal,"
National Elementary Principal 52 (January 1973): 84.

114Redfern, "Negotiation Changes Principal-Teacher-Relationships,"
p. 23.


sit in on three-party conferences v.ith board and
teachers. (4) A series of teacher-administraLor
negotiating units may work on various areas and
transmit conclusions to superintendent or board
to be worked out with the teacher negotiators.115

Hatch identified three strageties for principal representation.

They were (1) In many systems, principals were still represented by

the teachers' bargaining team which negotiated with the board of edu-

cation; (2) The second way that principals could be represented in

negotiations was by being members of the negotiations team which repre-

sented the board of education; (3) A third way that principals could

be presented in negotiations was by being consultants to the board.116

Anderson suggested three alternatives for principals to gain

involvement in policy formulation. They were (1) Organize a separate

bargaining unit for principals and demand a voice through collective

bargaining; (2) Organize an-internal structure within the school sys-

tem which will provide representation of all administrators within the

system; (3) Organize both a formal collective bargaining unit for

principals and an internal representative structure.117

Several approaches have been presented to insure principals

representation in a school system. Keller identified three as follows:

(1) The management team with the principals reviewing teacher pro-

posals and making recommendations to the board's negotiating team

regarding them; (2) The informal negotiations approach with a fully

organized administrative group negotiating with the.superintendent

1!5King, "New Directions for Collective Negotiations," p. 45.

116Hatch, "The Principal's Role in Collective Negotiations,"
p. 32.

117Anderson, "The Management Team and Negotiations," pp. 110-11.

bdoIar ;ourd; (3) Foil tiOt ti. I: Wu its repri'os.-ntiationr clIct ins

antd forilTai recogn i tion pro :c:(!,u es. S,

For tihe purposes of collecctive r;negtiation, principAl:. cay bw

reipser;ted 'by an .i i-inc u: ie u i or by a separate admit ;Nristri:ors '

up i:, or they nay :ot, be repr csent.::d at all ---it dee d..'- (on state

nego tiations stat.utts;' labor an J other public bodrd ru lings, or ocal

detreinl. tions by tn? admli nisi:, tors' or teachers' groups;. itl;:'n

sugoest49'd th t principals should resist icicanus which would r-,d.'e

their a'.thnrity and should not be 'eiaiobers of the teacher's nr;eotiating

team. 11

In cases whereM the suiperiintendent was coimiatted to a philosophy

of particip.atory Int:.';gel]ent, ali internal struacti ue wri generally

adopted that wa" characte-*ized oD open coao,,i:mn ication in preparing

policy crc, enacJations and in planning 2 procedures for the sysi',;,: as

a whcle. The crucial factors in inmpleetnting a strategy of a ranage-

rient lea;ii concept were (1) the acceptance by the superintendren of

the dc.sii-ability of involving all s'ib-cadinistrato,., i i adwinistaraiive

plannii, ; and in i.i; cy foriulc.tic; a nd. (2) the ad.-ptisn of a. fo:ntal

stO'ri:tul' whi l. a d.-.Ored ;a yse f: of open co: un: icatiun ,.iith all admin-
istra",.or s. 120

1 -i rd KUllor, "Principals Wyor.t-:: What is Our P.le?'" Michigan
Fducrtioin Journal 46 (Oct.obe' 193 ): 1 .
' . L. i .n Role I._l cctationt [ for Princi els. in Adiinis.-
tration .oand in Collect] ive Nioot-i a ons is ircealv;l dby Reorrseltt.atives
of Si! ecrl d it-ba- n Schiool rc- s {L1.J. diss., I- Uh St ati- U.nivrsiTty-
Ja uit >. - .. ,- r T i arts Irt 'r atio a i 3z/ (January 1972):

-.*.nr, .i,, 'Managemenelt l-iam VOew asAr Colecltive Bdrgaining for
Principals," p. 1/5.

A C'" rr.. n ;oinTed cul t thL. a n!, : I i iu I gre'ie'n: in the ... :. f-

:c' t:' *:'cpr ,as- a cmm:i; t:eni to i"no!vini people in the process

(f '.' y form-culi.ion 21 lio,'re; li the mail gemient tea, conceit:

;is v:.I,:.- O s n only' inforuial cc!:imunication, Andr orson thou't.ql' I: Itas

i i- f pol icy ;st r'c'n as he e':cli!sivi prero active ofr the board

Ouf iu.'ti,., b-t all administ 'utos sho.iuld hdvw the onportunity to

i .iue:.- ;olicyv devr,-lounr .g L

R-idfte.-! si g esid ted th.t he p rinc ipal hi;., as custom '-r, ily c'on-

ccivei. wi. he r.-kcedly altered and Cvesituai y s'is-u,:e: by soic-e

othii fcrpi .:f aidini.-Ltrat;ve control. StI"on: con'it-' fr-o ii. central

oFFrice, t'r:nsittc ti n rougi a, o J5,ristrative uf c ,onav.d, was

waning, i Grea ccr a itri : y -. o.iiJ" loc1 al school co'lwit i,.'es ds ina;d..

by teCra: Is ." '

-'dro Shou'ld 1 ,e ncl uded or' t:ec

Bai -;ainnt a lea;_ ssue

Mitciie l L:uat;e that "the primary object sf select ing thl.. a d's

bLir'ai iny team is tu bring ;,d!sin:iis ri ve [r,1owledye i.d -'apr-ien.: e to

the bcrg'ininrg tal e.''23 The teri! shoAuld ale to discus s a.curuteily

and intell ig-!ntly all relevant 1.,"l.IAle"s which mry arise in the iALsti n.

kA'.derstn, "The ,I'rnailieent Team and Negotiations," p. 109.

122i 'rnern, "Negotidtionn Clihal"ge. Principal-Teachcr R';c tionshipis,"
p 22.

123"Leabo, Re'ition:. Unhondb'ok for Sciccl i.u'irdJs ad SupAeintEn--
dents" (N:FA, 19s66) 'as cite.J iln onald P. -i tci l "Ncgotiat io)s:
lImrn''ov t -' Psr-ocess' ." .Ld c.,t.ioan l L pc'r:h 'ip 30 (F[ebrusary 1973):
i4 5.

The selection of a '.rcootiatlu k te,,; w s considered to be one

of the nmo.t important deJ vision that eithcl of the parties had to

make;. i T i', e alpro.;;c.rh 'cd! ted by the ttam often establ wished the

operatioal tone for tie strictcl. Ihe agreement reached by the teums

ofter, C-ter!r;ied the nuiity of 1.he educational program for the time

spar o0 the agreemrenc. Either side was iit a position to "win thie

L'nttle aild cse ithe war," thereby severely hampering tIhe educational

program o.f tne district.

Sarthory, il a study on the effect of the makeup of negotiating

tenel or the outco:ie of the negotiations, found the following: (1)

teacher teams composed of a majority of secondary teachers were lore

likely lo reach agreement with the board team; (2) reaching agreeiimnt

was rore difficult .when climbers of teachers teams had over ten years'

experience; (3) the composite n of the board team was not significantly.

related to the outcome of req-tiations; (4) the involv\~-ient of lawyers

in nqegoi:iations was more likely to lead to impasse; and (5) the role

of the superintendents and tihe status of the building principal in

negotiations was not significantly related to the outcome of .ne otia-

tions. 12

Board e,:imbejrs ba Lrgainiijg teawi. Attitudes and practices

relating ton board ..e'iresentatio'., have changed sihce the early stag-s

of collective l-argiiing. At first, whole boards or individual merohcrs

124Domia!d C. Kilgras, Admiinistration as an Adversary Role:
Barcainin i Colitive' eot at l ins -- Fign, -T- egon: C -- ege of
Ldu:ation, iiniver i.y of '" ie -. ., i3), p. 19.

125Joseph A. :.ithiorv, "Structural Characteristics and the Out-
come of Collec -iv' Nil'eotiations," Educational Admlinistrat rs QOtua erly
7 (Autumn 1971 ): 7l -8,9.

were involved in bargaining. As boards became more aware of the com-

plexities of the process, they tended to have bargaining carried out

by the superintendent or a staff specialist. Most parties changed

from large negotiating teams tc either small groups or a single

spokesman. In many districts, professional negotiators or lawyers

served both groups.126

Koerner and Parker warned against having school board members

on the team.127 The board was the highest authority on school mat-

ters in the community. When it did its own bargaining, nothing remained

in reserve for settling disputes. Teachers bargaining with board

members assumed that statements made by board members were official

and binding on the board and, since that was not the case, friction

was likely to develop. Lieberman also suggested strongly that board

members not be on the bargaining team because they could not refuse

to ratify an agreement they had approved at the table.128

Lieberman and Moskow suggested that practice might differ in

relation to the size of the district.129 In Targe districts, it was

perhaps feasible to.have personnel experienced in collective bargain-

ing negotiate for the board, while in small districts, due to the-

lack of experienced personnel, it was more reasonable to expect board

members to negotiate.

126Kilgras, Administration as an Adversary Role: Bargaining -
Collective Negotiations, p. 20.

127Thomas F. Koerner and Clyde Parker, "How to Pick a Bargaining.
Team and What to Teach It," American School Board Journal 156 (May
1969): 20.
128Lieberman, "Forming Your Negotiations Team," p. 31.

129Myron Lieberman and fMichael H. Moskow, Collective Negotiations
for Teachers: An Approach to School Administration (Chicago: Rand
McNally and Company, 1966), pp. 249-50.

Gi'lroy Ct 3a were nore ,p.ii ic d :-.t that:

Nevc.rther- l s s, i.i bo;;d s'ild iio b' cc : involved
in noeg;a.iuonr. unis tie L'oa rd's ornfidence in
its "aq:i Strat, s ; haere. The oArNd's (.hief
role is to provide i olicy gaJidielines to the acin-
istral:rs pri;;'W ;.o onqo'l tiatiors ;n order th.t tie
amini t.rator ,s a r:.:fere: ;.e point te iuide hi:!
thro'rh the sessions.l O

This state ee'nt c!a''!y imipi-d tiha1 the 'o-rid niropotiatiny i i team should

h,'ce been comipo.ead of mersic'!;- of t, e dic tri t. 's a ;ini s t.rt ive staff.

MNIlniin coii-"Itened t. at because much t i ;i will be required in negctia-

tions, c':rpo'aiion boards of do not send their beards to

the ncqotiating tablc, and the superintendent would be placed in an

alimont untenable role in: tears of coimpr:; ising his leadership in mat-

ters of admiWnistr1'tive a'l.,'ho i-i.y and profess-ional expertise, boards

should not cgo to the table.!3!

The number of boards anJ board mmt:bers who negotiate directly

with employees organizations has declirn:d substantially since thn mid-

dle sixtie. lii 1M66 57, 33 iperceni of board ineiotiating tpaio:i 'ere

made up, exclusively, of board meihbers; by 1971-72, the number; had

dropped to 14.7 percent. 1'? Miure and iorte board membeis reco.grnized that

their personal participate (;i n at the nej3tatdtin table ieo;q red an

exc:ss.ive a t o ti ino of tie, i e teeg l isk o losirin tihe r-ight

to refuse to ratify, and frequently pittej icnxp,: iced l)ersonnel

130Thomra P. CGilroy, Anthony V. Sin;cr;opi IFrdericl, D. Stone,
and Ted P. irichi, Educator's Cijide to CGcl'e:tive N-.otiations
(Co !ui,:b s, Ohio: 1.. 1. -L crre li ', ii "- '), p.

1lMan'i '"Neri otiaio. Is: lhe !'ro ceS i Collective Bargaining,"
p. 15.
l .Lieherriri,!, ". e ,' otio ti' .: 'a-.t. Pr;esirt, and Future," p. 16.

on *he :!ragcemnit si-: ":'ii, 'eriencod, full-time negotiators

for teachers.

s- ei.n.',,l! Z.': i. e oi f t!i e bargaining team. Different

authors have viej-ed i.hi'e '.iit~uior diffe; e-nily, but the date that

articles ;'e ri ite appeared to influence their thinking. Articles

in the xniddie ixticers often suggested that superintendents should

serve in a dual role advising cards and principals and teachers in

the sa ;w b'rgii'.-ilg units. By the-end of the sixties end early

sev'nztes, authors had cha;-ied' and were suggesting management roles

for boih su-,ePriitendents and principals.

A key dcciiuon to be made at the beginning of collective bar-

gaining i- the role to b' pl.iyed by the superiintendent. Manning bliev ed

that the siupe'.'inte~lident should assume a dual role in collecti-e bar-

Faii;i:. 3'i His job was to imediate problems between the board a:id

teacihe: orgar;izaticn and stand on principles of what was best oi:'

childreoi and youi.h.

Liebermian said the superintendent should not be on the negotiat-

ing team..134 iHe sihocdi be inforimFed and available to provide direction

to the teami within guidelines set by the board.

One of the recurring contentions was that the superintendent was

not adequately prepared for the process; the following statement 'illus-

trates this problem:

The advent of legal bargaining in Michigan, in
1965, found most school districts and their
administrators io wholly unprepared. During the
first years, many superintendents negotiated

133%ill ia R. Manniin, ",acitiations: The Process in Collec-
tiv:e i;arinino," Schl l BeSrd Ju';rnal 153 (Aunoust 1966): 15.

'13'Li- irma.In!, "Formin Your Negotiations Team," p. 31.

personally and directly with teacher representa-
tives. Superintendents were iil prepared by
academic training or temperament for this task.
The values, judgments, and even competence of
school executives were challenge by their
teaching staffs.J35

Superintendents have abandoned the neutral posture that many tried

to-adopt in the 1960s.

In about 75 percent of all districts where
negotiation takes place, the superintendent is
either a member of the board negotiating team
or serves it exclusively as an advisor. In
1966-67, he was advisor to both board and teacher
negotiators; by 1971-72, only 14 percent served
in this dual capacity. Somewhat surprisingly,
although the proportion who served as "neutral
resource persons" dropped from 6.8 percent to
4.6 percent, the number who were nonparticipants
increased from one percent to five percent.136

In summary, superintendents have become overwhelmingly active

on the management side, and nonparticipation has replaced neutrality

as the other major role of superintendents. The increase in non-

participating superintendents probably can be attributed to situations

in which the board had lost confidence in the superintendent's ability

to handle the negotiations.

Principals on the bargaining team. The literature was not com-

pletely clear on the role of the principal in collective bargaining.

If any role was emerging, it was that principals were management and

should be represented on board teams and be excluded from teacher

135Erickson, "New Management Figures in Michigan School Admin-
istration," p. 426.

136Lieberman, "Negotiations: Past, Present, and Future," p.

itas. T ins was eious;e' y Therty,137 *.f'vall 5. 1 13 and AFT

Ieader-s. The ,' .' i pi'ono t.'d : differ rc i vi .- that all c:rtif ied employees

sho'v!d be un.:le" Ih sa e 'Cbr'-elia.

A current t [r.d oF' the wiithdrai!al of administrators' organiza-

i ns front ieci'r's' gi oip vo d sec' t'1 indicate a move to the board

side. 13 The h cia~al ,aeup cf i:he t(ams varied greatly and -included

suc; irndividuals ;'-s conrsu1it a =', legi counsel, and various menibess

of lthe te cher i'nd adinltrtive sti-.,fs. Koerner and Parker sug-

gested that princi;cals from: high schools and elementary schools,

assistant principa Is, department cw airmen, and the personnel super-

visor shAuld be on the board's ncott ::tion team along with the super-

iintlt',de-:. 140

f:el'(:tio:i of ti_:ih chif nequtiator. The importance of selecting

tihe chief !g.r tiiator cannot be overreimphasized. According to I.iebr'near,,

if boards oc not. have staff members in i.heir organizations with nego-

tiating skill and experience, they ,oull Ihe well advised to consider

h'ir.ging in outs ;de consultants to Ihead up their negotiating Iea.-ms.14!

137pobert F. ioherty, "Negotiations: Impact of Teacher ('oraniza-
tions Upon Sot.i-'ng School Policies," Ci earinr Hunse 40 (May 19G);:
51 5-24.
1 i r. Donovan, Arvid Anik'cson, Charlos Cogec, and
AlberL W' Wolp!rrt, "Coli ct'ive Bre.i:pini Versus Professional iego-
tiat.icns," Sch;:',i rann1rCm nt (Nov'ember 1i965): 6Si-75.

'"Doraid C. Kilgras, Aidmiinistra.tion as an Adveorsarl Role: Bar-
gair ino Coil :,'ive egoti itri7ns-, p. li07
14;,cOr!nr ;:,,di Parker, "How to Pick a Bargiining Team and What
to Teach lt," p,-. 278-30.

111i eberi ", '"Aoidi These Coil iy I. lining Mistakes," p. 37.

Small school districts which-lacked the financial means to

employ competent staff were particularly hard hit and vulnerable

to financially motivated operators. Universities were slow to

develop programs for training school administrators in collective

bargaining.142 Thus, many districts had to fall back on persons

with little or no professional background to conduct collective bar-


Lieberman said:

The chief negotiator must have a "feel" for
negotiating. The qualities required are
almost subliminal in nature. In addition
to being diplomatic, patient, tough, flex-
ible, and so on, the ideal negotiator must
be extraordinarily good at reading signals.143

Negotiators should be selected carefully and objectively. A

sense of humor was considered to be essential and negotiators should

display calm, accurate logic, alert responsiveness, and cool headed-


Proescholdt, in a study undertaken to determine how boards pre-

pared for collective negotiations, determined that:

(1) spokesmen for.boards of education in
negotiations have not been selected because
of their skill or training in the art of
negotiating; (2) school superintendents are
being phased out as chief negotiators for

142Erickson, "New Management Figures in Michigan School Admin-
istration," p. 426.

143Lieberman, "Avoid These Costly Bargaining Mistakes," p. 38.

144Koerner and Parker, "How to Pick a Bargainibg Team and What
to Teach It," p. 30.
145Proescholdt, The Preparation Process for Collective Nego-
tiations by Boards of Education in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area,
p. 4202A.

i.' the larger districts, rany s.upe ini.cndents employed full-time

executive assistaiits to handle the tolal spectrum of :employe rela-

tions unrer their guidance.146 Their duties inclut'ud collective bar-

gai'inig, iuperrvision of grievance processing, and the daily responsi-

bilities of administering the faster agreement. Judging by the relative

absence of rancor- anr; turmoil, these practices were evidently successful.

Ea.stman's study to determine working relationships between full-

time chief negotiators, s:perintendionts of schools, members of the

negotiating team, and school boards, found that:

(1) Full-time chief negotiators have, with few
exceptions, reported directly to the superin-
tendent of schools. (2) Board teams have usually
included, in addition to a full-time chief nego-
tiator, at least one member with major responsi-
bilities for instructional and/or.personnel
matters. (3) The chief negotiator, with few
exceptions, has been chairman of the noard ;ego-
tiating team and has been charged with responsi-
bility for setting strategy and directing the
progress of negotiations. (4) The full-time
chief negotiator has ordinarily served as the
only spokesman for the school board during nego-
tiation sessions. (5) Most superintendents felt
the establishment of the position of full-time
chief negotiator was beneficial and essential to
the functioning of their school systems. (6)
Super' nie.dents and chief negotiators, as a
general rule, attended all sciiool board execu-
tive sessions dealing with negotiation matters
and m:rie recommendations s to the board.147

The education and experiential backgrounds of professional

negotiators were similar in states with a negotiation lawv and states

without a law. Responsibilities of professional negotiators were

14GE.rickson. "New Mranaqement Figure. in Michigan School Admin-
istration," p. 427.

1Estman, The Fmerqinr Po'sition of Chief Ne-otiator in the
Public p hool Su'erinr.tendc;ncv, p. '2Tt'A.

much the same in both groups of state". Sealey found that factors

which led to the appointment of a professional negotiator to.repre-

sent school boards were not influenced by the size of the districts,

nor by the makeup of the districts.148

Some of the personal qualities that the chief spokesman should

have were:

(a) command respect and confidence, (b) have
patience and a sense of humor, (c) be a good
listener, (d) know how to sell the board's
proposals, (e) have the ability to organize
his thoughts and speak well, (f) be able to
say "no" effectively, (g) have physical and
mental stamina, and (b) above all, have a
keen sense of timing.19

Employment of attorneys. The degree to which lawyers should be

involved in negotiations in education was also subject to differing

opinions. Sarthory indicated that some had great fear that, as lawyers

become more heavily involved, the legal precedents with which they were

familiar--namely, the labor-management conflict model from the private

sphere--would become the educational model.150 Most agreed that the

system's counsel should be a member, particularly during the initial

stages when so many legal questions were being raised and certainly

in the preparation of the contract. Some people advocated that the

attorney should be the chief spokesman. This was difficult to accept,

148Robert D. Sealey, The Emerging Role of the Professional
Negotiator in.Public School Education (Ed.D. diss., University of
Northern Colorado, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International 31
(February 1971): 3840A.
14Donald P. Mitchell, "Negotiations: Improve the Process,"
Educational Leadership 30 (February 1973): 476.
150Joseph A, Sarthory, "Structural Characteristics and the
Outcome of Collective Negotiations," Educational Administrators
Quarterly 7 (Autumn 1971): 80.

because most.of the problems and dcisagrr;i:.i;ets that have to be resolved

are educational, not legal in. nature. I:1

As superinter:dcntss withd,'rec f.~on tab;e bargaining in Michigan,

labor attorneys or consul tar'ts were employed.

The eaierness of tl'e outside entrTppreieur to
display his ability to "save the district money,"
coupled vith a general teacher ,ntaonsonis! to-
ward attorAnys and consuit.ints i~jo;ranrt of the
education; p.ocess. has se. the scene for soire
of Miciiiaan's most turbu er'nt and hitter teacher
strikes. A subtle side effect has been a severe
erosion of traditioni-.. authority for superinte.-

Advantages in employ igloutside s prnfessionajls. Several advantages

have been presented to support hiring outside professionals to do the

negotiating for the board:

(1) cn!lective bargaining was time consuming;
(2) professional negotiators ware knowledgeable
about collective bargaining; (3) their knowi:cv,,
and ancnyfmity cowminded respect from
teachers; and, ( ) their use ailo;ed the board
to remain as the final authority.153

Lieberman added the following advantages to the list:

(1) it was easier to change outside negotiators
than to replace staff members if there was dis-
satisfaction with perFormance:; (2) the outsider
on an hourly or per diem basis posed fewer
problems than a full-time employee utilized
as chiel negotiator. 54

151Ianning,' "Negotiations: The Process in Collective Bargain-
ing," p. 15.

152Erickson, "New Management Figures in Michigan School Adminis-
trai.ion," c. 42 '.
53Koerner and Parker, "How to Pick a Bargaining Teaim and What
to Teach It," p. 29.
1541ieberman, 'For7ir. g Yur Negotiatirng eai," p. 32.
t.3l;~!i'g "11' ~eotiti 1

Di-dvantac.s r.~_n npl.Lj outi I ;rof. ionaf.. is-advantae';

to hiring .;refessional negotiators f:or th<; board's tedm include the

f;'l owingo:

(1) Outside negotiators were expensive and they
did not have an intimnite knowledge of the school
system. (2) No amount no advanced study can
prepare outside negotiators for the subtleties
and sensitivities trnat exirt within school
system~s. (3) Teachers often got the idea that
hiring outside nePotiators meat that the
board [men-mbers] didn't consider negotiations
important enough to command their time. (4)
Hiring outside professionals may have limited
the in-district training efforts toward develop-
ing staff negotiators. 5

Other disadvantages were that the outsider was not around to administer

the agreement and that he may agree to clauses which would be unaccept-

able to a parson who had to live with the agreement on a daily basis.

Also, outsiders may have a tendency to seek spectacular results to

add to their reputations and business and some consultants may desire

to make themselves indispensable so that they can stay on the payroll.

Team size. Lieberman suggested a team of two or three adminis-, needed by a person who reportEd directly to the superintendent

of schools.156 The number of persons suggested for a negotiating team

varied according to the size of the school system and the nature of the

problems negotiated. Generally, the team; should have three to five


155Koerner and Parker, "How to Pick a Bargaining Team and What
to Teach It," p. 29.
156Lieherlman, "Forming Your Negotiating Team," p. 35.

157Manning, "Negotiations: Thc'Process in Collective Bargaining,"
p. '15.

Bowers found that larger districts were more likely to be

(1) eiigiaged in negotiations ihat are expected
to result in !ormlll'y ratified and binding
agreemenits; (2) angaiged in exclusive recogni-
tion procedures; and (3) eilgaged in impasse
proced'.res~nrievance procedures arid master
contracts. oo

At the same time, smaller school districts were more likely to have

independent local teacher organizations ard receive fewer teacher

propose l s.

The smaller the team, the easier it was to reach agreement, both

within Lhe team end with the teacher team, and it was also easier to

make serious mistakes in collective bargaining.159 There was no way

to cover all the procedural variations that may occur in a school sys-

teii by adding representatives to the team; reasonableness must prevail.

Obviously, all prirncipais cannot be on the team.

Liberman sugge-sted five-person teams for systems employing up

to 1,00U teachers. He felt that administration teams tended to be

larger than necessary.160 Lieberman and Moskow indicated that the

size of negotiating teams is an important structural factor when they


;O the otier hand, larger negotiating groups
find it mre' difficult to make concessions and
are less -ikely to respect the confidences
that are frequently essential to effective
negotiatioiCs. Furtherlnore, large negotiating

15'Edward L. nowers, The Development end Utilization of a Classifi-
cation Svsteim for !'ecribin. the Status of Teacher Groun School
_.'' ___ 'ij TED d. lis.. ndTiiana UflTni Tvt terst, 971).
Disserta:.ion ALt~ict.s .Ir:ternational 32 (December 1971): 2936A.

159Liebeiran, "Forming Your Negotiating Team," p. 30.
16()ibid., p. J1.

committee's rfii. t i.;:. diffi cu for the chief
tpovenian to c'n'tro n io i io s. 1 6

SKoern-r and Parker suggest th:. three approaches were most common.
1) First, school board i.embers themselves--
either as a committee of the whole or as a
suh:com...ttee--can ne otiat? -with the repre-
sertativc-s of the teachers. (2) The second
}way for a buard tn bargair is to hire pro-
fessicrals in the field of tiegotia'.ions;
-irdivid'al.' usually not a.ssociat ?; with the
school systeni. (3) The third mntilod of
selecting a bargain;ing team for thi board--
the one that seems best to oue- -is using the
school system's administrative staff.162

Mitchell, in a 1969 Michigan study, found that:

(1) Most teams have five or less members.
(2) Th;e si.'printindent o' a central office
administrator was the chief spokesman in 72
percen-C of t!he districts. (2 The school
board determined who would b.e the chief
spokesman 100 percent of The time. (4)
Only half the .chooi districts had an organ-
izational structure supporting the negotiat-
ing team. (5) Miembieship of the teams usually
included representative of the central office,
secondary principals, and elementary prin-
cipalc.. (6) Very seldom did the board mem-
bers enter drcectly into bargaining o other
than by observation or caucus. (7) The school
attorney was generally used to give only
opinions on legal matters and check the
language of the contract.163

161'Myron Lieberman and Michaei H. Moskow. Collective Nieo-
tia ions for Teache s: An iApproach to School rAdminist1raftloi
S.. : ': : an3 C mpiia!, '9 67, "253.

162Koerncr ani Parker, "l-ow to Pick a Bargaining leamr and What
to Teach It," p. 30.

1 63 itcheli, i r Evaluation of the Co:,ipcsition and Selection
of Neo.titi e for bic School Bords of education, p.

[estman concluded thu. L'e chair.ian (.f the board's negotiating

teaim should be an employee of the school system with wide system

knowledge and close .ndi identification with the superinten-

dent and board He suggested that the chief negotiators should report

directly to the superintrnd.2nt and that superintendents would lose no

status under this arrj c"oment.164

How S!i-our.h ._ Bar~_aining Teams Prepare for Negotiations
an.d_ Ih_ t S ftr?tgics Were Used to et Propsals
tc, th- Negotiating Tabie?

Issues on Preparation

The success of productive collective bargaining can be directly

related to the thoroughness of advanced preparation.165 According

to .ieLerman and iMoskow, one of the most i-mportant factors to be

enmphisiz7ed in preparation was adequate time.166 School administrators

ond teachers often un(.ei-estimated the amount of time needed for nego-

tiations. The teacher group had to submit its proposals in time to

permit adequate bargaining to take place before the budget submission

date. Wo'lett suggested that a reasonable time schedule "would call

f.;- the initiation o ',ri:gotiations at least ninety days in advance

oF the time when final nation on the budget must occur."167

164Eastman, The.Feerqing Position of Chief Negotiator in the
Public School Spqri 'nden':y, p. 4277.

165Starnley M., My,'on Lieberman, and Michael H. Moskow,
Readings on Collective Neciot'.itions in Public Education (Chicago:
Rand Mc~aiy ad Cojij^ /', p. 390.
166Liebermanf and Noskow, Collcctive Negotiations for Teachers:
uJl'proach to School Admiinistratin, p. 754.

!67Donald ;. Wietn'itt, Readings on Collective Neqotiations in
Public Education, ed. Stanley l. E-lai, Myron Lieere an, rljichael
:. h.... .: Rand McNally and Company, 1967), p. 374.

According to Ashby, McGirni.:r s, and ;'e sina, "the mnost impeota;nt

of all preparations for negLiations is that of building a healthy

climate of relationships bet-weern ha:d ard staff."1'6 Collective

bargainin -.annot bt removed freo the total set of relationships in

the school system. If the bosrd anid staff have developed procedures

whereby a partnership exists, thiee will be less tendency to put

everything into a f;oimal negotiations agreement. 16

Assemblino Ga rainrin_ Data

Fac;ual data must be collected ana assembled for each issue.170

The ignore facts prepared for each iss.e, "the simpler the less emo-

tional will be negotiations,"171 Somei of the data needed by the board's

team for collective bargaining were salaries in neighboring districts

and in comparable districts nationally, costs or savings of pro-

poses cihnges, the board's ability to pay, national, regional and

Iccal economic conditions, agreements recently negotiated in compar-

able communities, working conditions in the school district, and

related items. 72

168Lloyd W. Ashyv, Jamers E. hicirmiis, and Thomas E. Persing,
Common S:nse in Necitiations in Public Education (Danville, Illirois:
The interstate PtrsFr nt'r nd, PuTTse Inc., lT72), p. 26.

1 .i9bid.

17OJohn Metzler, The Collcctive Dilemiaa: Negotiations in
Ed.lcation, ed. Patrick ll. (C.riton an- H Harol- I. i oodwin orthington,
Ohio-- C-erles A. Jones Publ i hinQ company, 1969), p. 99.
171Wollett, Readinijs on Collective Ne otiations In Public Edu-
cation, p. 39?..
1721.iebermnan and Moskow, Collective Negotiations for Teachers:
An ppr-iach to Schoci Administration, 1p. 25,7.

Lieberman indiciiatcd that tihe iiterest.s of the parties determir n

what 'data will be collected.173 Teacher groups hve selected data

emphasiziiiq th-eir intere-ts nr;d adiminlistirtive groups have sought

data supporting their interests.

Since onoe can never be sure whetho-r a particular
board or crlon.aiz tien ;:ill be inl Ienced hby data,
tho1 sensible timing Lo dr. is to be fully prepared
for a.ny CeelZ p.p;i:pt, inc !uding the eventuality
thait r le \' v:nt data wil'l be igl;orr'd.174

Data preparation, doesn't reduce ;the possibility of differences

developing between the teams since controversy "develop', cver what

the 'facts' are, let alone ;hi t inte.erpretations to give themn."175

However, factual cou:siderations cainno: bu ig:iorcd in a mature relation-

ship as costs mn.ust b known before proposals can realistically be con-


The board's team must devote substantial time to pre-negotiating

meetings. The administrat-ive units must. be consulted to establish

administrative prior ties, establish or review policies on known or

anticipated issues, and prepare p,'oposa!s and fallback positions.176

Important factors .;ihiuh should tbe considered have bae; missed unless

all groups were cnnsulte-i in ]irepL''ing for collective bargaining. The

administration rust thoroughly consult witih its representatives in the

schools or it wi .! have diiffci; Lies in inmp":emeiting lth agreement.177

1731bid., p. 25G.



1761bid., p. 255.


Discussion i'.ith Tio Ma'tci::.!ent

An essential part of collec.tiv: hiariail;ning preparaticri is dis-

cussion between the snokesma8i ot Ith. bard's bargaiining tem and the

superinteln.dent.1...1 This discuss ,:' should occur prior to a meeting

with the board for claricyinr the latitude of regotiatiorns. The chief

negotiator can outlii:e the expected outcome of collective bargaining

for the chief executive.'79 tihe session should include the superin-

tendent and his top staff and is designed Lo ide.itify concerns before

maanagemeiit' package is submitted to the board.

A final task in the preparaticr, for negotiations is the develop-

ment of a model agreement. Though iieither party will come away from

the table with an ideal agreement, the model agreement will serve as

a goal for which the chief negotiator can aim; it also serves as his

principal negotiating tool.180 The language in the ideal agreement

should be well reasoned and thus should be done away from the pressures

of the negotiating table.

Ciarjfyinqflatitude Ifor negotiations. When the probable areas of

negotiations have been identified by the total administrative team

and data have been collected, a meeting should be held with the board

to investigate the latitude available for negotiations.11 At that

poir:t, the super:-intendn and chief negotiator must present the

179Elan, Liebernmn, ano Moshow, Readinqs on Collct-ive Negotia-
tions in Pui;lic Education, p. 394.

1 Ibid.

l".hliarles T. Schmiidt, Jr., Hyman Parker, and Bob Repas. A Gruide
to ColleciivP Ne(oWiiatons in Education (East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan E)Ltte University, 1937), p.
Wo -I 1 ett, Pea li n s on Co llctive _rN oi ;ations in Publ i Edu-
catior, p. 392.

prepared d, ata and proposals to the board. In addition to pertinent

internal financial data, it is "advisable to sLudy the. personnel

practices of nther agenci-s and private employers in the area.'18'

The boar' should review the data and proposals and provide guidelines

for the team on Imnney and non-money items. In establishing direction,

the board should consider the limitations imposed by the law, state

board reogu:ations, and the general publ ic.183

The whole purpose of this phase is to prepare the negotiating

team and to.give them specific guidelines to use at the negotiating


Very specific goals ar2 established: e.g.,
What do you want to achieve during the
course of n(,otiations? l.hat do you want
to maintain? What are you williin to con-

Pronhahy t'he miost important decision that the board must make in

establishing these guidelines is to set a specific economic package

within which the negotiators nmust operate.185 The package should apply

to salaries an- also te the dollar cost of fringe benefits. This

prep~rjtinon give tie manageminnt team flexibility and a tactical

advantLcag in adjusting to developments during the bargaining sessions.186



18'Schmidt, Jr. et al., A Guide to Collective Necotiations in
Education, p. ).3.

18'5 bidl., p. 5 .

Wihat Strat.e-i"Ro Sri'd. BE Used iSn Presen-tinj
_ _'. '._ "..._ ._ 1n ,

l.crjotiaticns have no cet patter n because euch is a produce of a

particular epl(cy:iysnt relationship. Sci:idt et al. categorized the

general types as follows:

Type I. The nor.!al negotiations follow a pattern.
The enpl'oyee organization presents its demands,
and the board imkcs counter-proposals; reduced
deii'anrl are fo! iowed by add it ioa ccunOtr-
proposals, and evaititally an aqreeient results.

lype 11. A vi riation of 'ype I is caused by the
i!i.rodi::'tioni ii: i t netuoatiions of board demands
up'n:- the ciiplovye organization. This variation
wil prn-bably btecon;e incr.;singly frequent because
oF tie ai.c(! to hold costs to a i:imnimu.o and to meet
educational obi'ccives.

Type IT1. Tihe bard prersif ts its entire true
propuoYals' at tihe beirniir.' -ad will not r,,ovc from
that position 'unitess sits "i'act. car Le disprov'en.
ihis approach requires irtensiv\e preparation and-.
Post impo'tlat-a clre, iV:tioy rf successful public
rei'ticu!s work with the eo p!oy'.-es an< their com--
i:,n'ai s-es. Moreonvr, it shiiuld n't be adopteci
iiqh!ily, since t: sonre ob;erve\rs, it is the ant.i-
thcsis o? cnllectiveo b-ir'air;i rg .

lype IV. The "war'' aj.pproac.h can be appi ied when
each sidel dcis.ruists thle theirr and thr',;s u!!:imc;a-
tinm lifter ultimatiu at one a notherr. lMoely to
mention this way oif br g-Ainirng is sufficient to
show its uselessness. Nothing constructive can
be acco:pl ished this way. Lxprerienced ngotia-
ters cannot affnrd to act imn.ilurely.187

Wnllett identified the following three basic methodss for getting

proposals into table consi ration: (1-) The teachers' esscciation

presents its proposals tu tih board or a board coe:-!litti:e with the

superintendnlnt present; .wo or three questions i;ay be asked and

anr.s,'red, or maybe there won't be any (uest-ions. The meeting is closed

8 Srniiidt. Jr. et al., A Gui d.. to Collective Leglotiations in
Ec.-s! t i n- p. 56.

and the board takes action shortly thereafter which bears little

resembl.nrce to what the teachers proposed. (2) The teachers' associa-

tion presents proposals and supports them with data and argument. The

board discusses the pi'oposals, their wisdom, and their feasibility,

and advises the teachers' representatives of the reasons why they are

probably not acceptable. (3) "ih teachers' association presents pro-

posais, again supported by argm'iient, evidence, and data. This is

followed by ai ex.chWnje of specific couintur-proposals made by board

representatives and by counter-conter-proposals from the teachers'

association. Through th!is process of give and take, areas of dis-

agreement are narrowed and finally elimiiinted. Or, alternatively--

and this may happen, despite many meetings and good faith and earnest

efforts to reuoncile differences- areas of disagreement remain and the

parties come Lo an impasse wit neith-r willing to make an additional
18 .

The tirst process hasr bhen called the "white cane" approach which

was predicaled on the notion that the school board, over-come with pity

for the plight of s. underprivileged teachers, "put something in the

cu'p"; the second .;roach canme closer to collective bargaining, but

it still ended wii na unilateral decision; the third procedure was the

only one tthart ,oo.:'d be called rollerctive bargaining.13

Metzler suig ':-ud that the board bargaining tejm agree on its

own proposals, p'e-:;ire counter--propolsals to the teachers' demands, and

S"Wol i ett, r-d i rns on ol I ect ivCe !qgotati ns_ i n Publ ic fdu-
cation, pp. 364--U.
l Ib id. 6.

set fortth he rationale on each, issue.l90 Hle strenuously emphasized

that the board's team inritate its own proposals and not come to the

table merely to res-pond.

Tcaihers have special cor-ipetencies which enable them to contribute

significantly to cdu,:al:ionnal aclects in the school situation.191 Mech-

anisms may be established through which the hoard, administration, and

staff consult regularly on tihal. is good education for the district.

According to Meatzlcr, such sessions can occur in an informal setting

and con result in-improved education, better board.-dministrator-staff

relationships and school community morale, and no formalized agreement

is sigi.d.192

Those engaged in preparation must anticipate what some of the

demands of the employees may be. Too often an employer, either private

or public, will. simply sit back and receive the employee's demands,

revise them, and later reject some or all.193 According to Schmidt

et al., taking the offense with a list of demands was a legitimate

move in collective bargaining; otherwise, the board was tied to a

defensive position.i'4

The board tea!:1 should prepare proposals to be submitted to

employee g(rops. The contention of Ashiy et a-. was that proposals

1 Otetzle;'. The Collective iicemma: Negotiations in Education,

1 bid.

193Schmidt, jr. et al., A Guido to Collective Neaot iations in
Education, p. 50.

shou'. .- b.ui t .nd the f,;' :: "het are .e ooirsq to et for o Jcd

cxri: ti. v'" .m b-yon.h those fn',ce.iy for kc in g prce with
l vi r --::'.'?' Tih;t ppru 't.! M, logical during a period" -,'hr-,

bLr.: -i: rci .'dte,'':, wv r- s okn Lu a.-coj t for is :g costs. in: dl"

faii;:esst, .bord ,l teciher priopoi'' sAhuld bte m.-:.cha .. at the first

npet inI.

halt ..:j:ild t e !ihe jico:pe of Cull:'tivr-
i.. .i.. n ij. in l . . ...i.ig. l.. . .

issue's o.- ~rgi"_ .ir: Ssc-'.i

Boards and ini ;rst.'at. -. p.l.m 'erin, for negotiations are norlmaiVy

concerned ..;'at they can, shliW'!d, or iz:'; t harcain about. The

problem i -.reas'ld hom'a e of I-t. )'- i Lical rn;ttire of the broad deter-

Prili. i ,tilf, of sal'cita s alis fri'igc ;' fnefi :. SNm I.'l crds a''d! so:e!:

teae '. ,:' ;:-c at :. Oere fairW' c.-nfideiLt tt-. ..a-*t aerialril preroga-

Lives In :: aun. i.-'.'n it-nA s could to identify ed,

Hi;ow;: ':', th !- cta' "!,y of ':c i P..r. :i.': hir!ya.ninri in the private

S ct r ,' (h 0 y to'.',i-tt'rl.i;,l tiht; I'ed f r an ev r\' incrl a in scopc-

fo 'i ron ?i on ad' t it.:ii's.1 The public sector, unro'ubt:ced y,
w 1'il ; itolOs the Z 1,e oro,:.

rOatrds ha e .' r t'..lgi' z (id t.i' f ,t thai thn. ih tte r, al politic s :f u-

an': i,'',i on c;ciae ': i:, c.l1 ectL ivC ;, i;t i d. a1 s t! he eain! oyee

or, 'Sr:i '. ii C o! o i itI' isiv e.xp;i)nd inC sc. ti onf issues on w'hici. it seeks

hAsi!by t .: J'>" i_'. ;t -i i.. 1 in i l'. ic _Edt'. tion.,
p. t 4.


1 0- 0h' y .. .ildo n, . ;;:cts of Tr.c.e,- Cjllective Action,"
.T!V ,f, W, Q. , ..: .;-O s .u ,'r ; .... ', Sh : 5-6.

action.9 Th lick of definitive le gis latie ai nd judicial guidelines

and precedent on bargaiiraole subject natter in education have made it.

more difficult for board; to resist the rapid growth of issues .which

become fair game for the power plays of collective bargaining. State

statutes have addressed.the question of bargaining subject matter in

a variety of ways. Many employed different forms of the private sector

definition of wages, hours, and othe- terms and conditions of employ-

ment.199 The important question revolved around what was and was not

included in wages, salary, hours, and other terms and conditions of

employment. In some states, statutes referred to "al! terms and con-

ditions of employment," but others, such as Nevada and Michigan, re-

ferred to "terms and conditions of employment" and left out the word,

"all.'20 That was an important omission. "Conditions of employ-

ment" was subjected to interpretation and the courts gave ever-

broadening interpretation. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that subject

matter pertaining to bargaining may be grouped into:

1. Matters which must be-bargained about.

2. Matters which can be bargained about if the
parties wish to do so.

3. Matters which cannot be bargained about
because it would be illegal to do so.201

98Patrick W. Carlton and Harold I.Goodwin, eds., The Collec-
tive Dilernia: Negotiations in Education (Worthington, Ohio: Charles
A. Jones Publishing Company, 1969), p. 236.

99Wesley A. Wildman, "What's Negotiable?" The School Board
Journal 155 (November 1967): 9.

20 avid C. Smith, "What's Negotiable?" The nationall Elementary
Principal 53 (March-April 1974): 74.
?2"Reynold C. Seitz, "Collective 3argaininq Can Help Achieve
Reasonable Agreement," The American School Scard Journal 47 (Noveimber
!966): 53.

l)i 1966, 1;lc sier surveyed 1"7' p, e;'idents of locia teacher'i:.-

tionr to icntif; areas that 'ereu icing negotiated at that time and

ara.s that wme? not being neg-otiated. He found that they were nego.-

tiati 'g:

( ) Determiiation of teacher !work lo-d. (2) Dis-
cipline o' prOessrsnrail staff. (3) Standards for
nes professional rsaff positions. (4) Duties of
p;-rofEs;.ion-i staff e;' (5) iFacilities for
pcrsonail lihalt:h itr' co0for;. of the staff. (6)
ais levels r lev of salary ;'c.edules. (7) Fringe
beni its. (<) Lav'e programs. (9) Lengt of
contract. (1') Prarcti ces of pupil control. (11)
The school talrer;ar. (12) The curriculum content
end quality of the instructional program.202

Boards \:"a re cfing to negotiat':

(1) ilc-rMiaintion of the .ize and qualifications of
the adminictrative staif. (2) Respn.::sibiiities of
the administrative staff. (3) Buildinu g and main-
tenance prorain. (4) Promiotion and retention of
professional otr.onnel. (5) Sa.ndards for sub-
stitute teacher s. (6) Assignients of teachers.
(7) SelecLion and recomsientuation of pi'ofessional
personnel (8) Guidance program. (9) Const,'uc-
tion and remodel ing. (10) Sup)ievisory program.
(11) Kind and amount of expense money. (12)
Lengthl of professional contracts. (13) Standards
for professional staff positions. (14) Fees and
tines charge-d students. (15) Justification and
pres.encation of the budget. (16) Discipline of
oifessional staff. (17) Kin:! and size of summer
proora!. (18) Auxiliary services s offered by the
school. (19) Ccmmunity service. (20) Teachcr

Some local association presidents agreed that all matters were

negotiable; others contended that negotiable items should be restricted

to salaries, benefits, and working conditions. The American Associa-

tion of School Administrators (AASA) found the reasoning for a rather

202Rich l prd H. oei cr. "Wiat Is Negotiaable?" School 3!anagemient
tU (SeptMl:l'r IW.6): 163.

broadl'y construed concept of negotiations most persuasive.204 The

selection of a specific tex!book, a curricular sequence, or educa-

tional imateriels fo"; a specific class would not be negotiable; how--

ever, the prror rs by which these basic decisions were made could have

been the subject for nneotiation. The AMSA believed that negotiation,

in cood faith, might ,Aell encompass all or some aspects ol policy

goverrir:ni, such items as:

curriculum in-service education, personnel poli-
cies, teaching assignments, transfers and pro-
motion, recruitment of teachers, discharge and
discipline of teachers, provision of physical
facilities for teaches, pgieven ce procedures,
recognitiun of the negotiating team, lunch and
rest periods, salaries and wages, welfare bene-
fits, class size, leaves of absence, expiration
date of negotiation ogr'eemeniit and other mutually
agreed-upon matters which directly affect the
quality of the educational program.205

Crane, in a study conducted in iNew Jersey among school board,

teacher, and siuperilntendcnt groups, determined that the most important

bargaining areas were salaries, grievances, and impasse procedures.206

Personne! policies, fringe benefits, and teaching conditions were

second in order of importance. Instruction and organizational rights

were perceived as having relatively little importance.

Kalish found thatt state legislation :as not significantly

related to the scope of negoi ated items, but. a relationship was found

20."Schroo Adminsistrators Vie,' ProFessional Negotiations,"
!llinois .d-ucation f55 (Januiary 19/): i97.


6Do,,ild C. Crane, The Rolative Importance of rVo-tiiab e Issues
as _Pec ei ve.l by Rc.ard, TPilchi ,, aid \!ii s i- Led(rs ii Ne

"" -i.,' i ,''d1 (Setptenaier 1it!/)): 957A.

bet.we;n I-he number of i teams negotiated ard the number of years nego-

tiations hm.l occurred in the district.207 Long lists uf items were

presrerted at the beginning of a collective bargaining relationship,

but, as the relationship matured over the years, lists became shorter.

The folljo! ;ng issues may be found in the articles of a substantive


grievance policy, class size, teaching hours and
work load, work year, holidays and storm days,
after srchooi rmet.igs, non-tc'achi' ,g duties, spe-
cialists, teaching assignments, transfers and
promotions, teacher facilities, textbooks, sub-
..tit tte teachers, summer school program, pro-
tection, sick leave and personal injury benefits,
leavi-s of absence, profess iunal development and
educational improvement, salaries and fringe
I.elenfits, annuity plans, duration of agreement,
dlue deduction, and salary schedules for various
rassignelts of certificated employces.208

Shannon identified con'd ti:ns which restricted the scope of

negotiations, and another set which expanded the scope of negotiations:

An adversary relatiorship between the negotiat-
ing p-rties, plus absence of state law, plus
d:t inite school board mind-set, plus high de-
gree of board independence yields the most
re- tr -cted s'.upe of negotiations possible under
the forinuia. A nonadversary relationship, plus
state law defining a thing as negotiable, plus
aiserO of mind-set, plus beard independence
coci:strcted by veit) n:;vw of another govern-
wientiLa entity ov.'r district budget yields the
inost r! .ns ive scope. 209

27nic-,;s F. Kalish. The Scope of Collective Baraining Agree-
menti; in" Sil. l-I Sch. Di trT: ETTioTs Ind iscsnP onn Ph.D.
diss., 1n- siy of 'iiTcionrin, 1968). Dis sertation Abstracts
Inter, nitiora;l 2- (A".nst 1',? ): 440A.

2' .. .d C.y.ijy "',. Direction for Professional Negotia-
tions,": N'A\ Jornal 5b (SipL:caber 196b): 28.
?09r .;!:.. A A. Shai;.:'n, "Fo!rila Gives Negotiations More Meaning,"
Thie Am,:riic. in cho r;o-I-d Jour;i'al 155 (Jine 1968): 13.

Under ihe rn stricted sr lie ov' r;neotia ions, s:.u!ar'is, .ri rie

benetlts. a grievances procedure:,a nd oN'h er narrowly defined working

co''di Liors were athd. The most ,-xp'.,siv\e scope included

salary, fr-inge benef;is, curricuuim, inserrvie education, recruitment,

pl;ec'.Tcient, 'ssi;"nm'.nt, t-ansi'e's, pron;tiens, and class size.

i 'itr :. J i' (i inn Silpl

Mok~, stated( that a suL:iy was needed to develop cidlelines to

determirne what topics should ;r negotiated 'i ith a teacher organization

and whaLt subjecr s :.:1-.::id b dcioe'edi by so t, oLher mieclhanisin. 210 yards

and adiinisr radov ;r !. Th) c,'rtain a,;acos wref': add':i, '.is. rative pre-

rogatives and, as s.Uch, wer c "'rside! re non-.r cotiable. At the same

time, teach.;r gr-.'.ps- attempt'J to move w ivc -, the non-negotitable areas

in collective bwqgai;i&iq.

The ASA? bei ..ved that i we,;:s .c:e rot negotiable and that

school boards Lcuhl, refuse to bargain aiout thie' with:cut violating

agr,-ements to nego"ticr Le in no: Faith.

itAms s~o'ld wot b:: n-qeotiacld which violate
state ws or codes of ethics. ie selection
of bc rd i "l counsel, determi nat ion of finan-
c(.i atid pup il acou3ci ting Systl';i, and selec-
tion o; the superi,-.,':ndent were ocher io:n-
neguoti.l ( items.'! ;

Ag]rc:;,ntrLa.~Stw l. ee teach' groups -:id bouids of edulatt;ion ;:;ad.i

inrnoa" into ar c' trac'i rii'al'iy r! ri;ianemnren prerogatives.

TexLbon., sel'rctio', r'cass si z student snupcn:;ion, pr-chil-ition on

'ic i. Monko'. 'e Lh.;'s an i';'Os. ('ild i, hia: Univer-
sity of Pc-nnsyl v i; .:, i )..), p ',-- .
211 "School ;,'i: ist i aLor V"'.' Prirc'sin.oni Negcctiat ions,':
ill in i Idu(c 'tion 55 (j ,in ury 1067): 197.

teaching condition changes, det i;iination of the irngth of tuacl!hi

day, and apn.ointment of curric'uim comni Ltees were considered marnage-

m lot prerogatives.2i

One right that manrageient att:a!"ted' to hold inviolate was the right "

to assign worik. 23 This right was carefully guarded, as small con-

cessinns ofte-rn led to very far-reaching consequences. Smith contended

that curr'icui um contest, curricullmi revision, and textbook selection

were central ti the purp-ese for which schools exist.

Wholesome and 1.i, ,fjul decisions involve students,
parents, teacir-rs, professional administrators, and
the com miinnil.y and decisions on these matters should
be pade mnder circumstances in which all may partic-
ipate-.-not nt the netotiatiing tale, where some of
the pat'tics directly 'ffiected are only indirectly

Lieberman said tihat the riht of management to evaluate teachers *

should rot be negotiated. 21 Collective agreeoiments should spell out

the criteria fc' person:.ei evaluli ion, but management must interpret

arl apply the criteria. He stated that, if management and teacher

peer ev-auatio.i differed, management could not win, for it wnuld be

char'rgd with bi ,s ;'hen it evaluatccd negatively and charged with recom-

I,;ending ;incoi;p)it.eont teachers when it evaluated positively.

Donovan suggested that it was most unfortunate when boards

:: e:iu:.-ionM agreed to put into contracts either average or specific

'AJ.on R. LEr;nr and Kenneth Lane, "Collective Bargaining and
Ad ;inistra.{ ive ':-ernl(atives," Peabody Journal of Education 46
(Nuven:b r 19' ); 1-2'-43.
213mith, "Wha-i c otiable?" p. 74.


21'i Myron i..ieber;i~, "Shoild teacherss Evaluate Oth:;, Teachers?"
School M!'ifllnle -nt .16 (,' e 19/2) ; 29.

class s-izes.-" N .- O, objected to unreasonable maximums, but the

t:;.i-ciht to determining class size through collective bargatiniag was

repui;ar.. C".isses had to depend upon the type of pupil, the subject.

and the 'phy icl facilities within which each class was to be con-

duct ei;.
On Octobt- 14 i 1971, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

ruled on the on;-s Land cing issue of scope of bargairi-ig under Act

915, dealirg speciiicdlly wiith the State College Area School District

case. The tc~r.,t'.-'' organization brought twenty-one issues before

the Board. 1: i:h ,-:-.receder: t-setting case, the first attempt to

determinel wha-''.as.1-.l'rgain;ble under the Act, tie .abor Board ruled

that all twenty-one items were o.oicy iters on which employers were

not reqni.iredi to bargain. The effect of this ruling was that all

school distrit---L.:'', all o tiier pupliic iemployers--no longer needed to

be "hung ip" i. i',,: ti ors by employee groups on the issues covered

in this ruling 1;'-he employee group attempted to negotiate one of

these issues, the employer should immediately file an unfair labor

practice rlia..fl .7::ve such issue reilov.ed as a possible basis for

imn sse.'!-7 !e.: .'n-:.,.bargai nabei items were:

(1 .... '; L:,. and adequate classroom instructional
pri"'.ed trial l ; (2) time during the school day
f .or:.: :.:. p?!.innin; ; (3) timely notice of teaching
ss:;.:..:',;- f:r the chiming year; (4) separate
des .;i:..:! cckable dr.;Jer space for each teacher;
(5) '. .-;!:a for teaciirs; (6) eliminating non-
tct- 1.u;i !.ties such Ea, but not limited to, hall
u : Juty, lunri d'ty, study hall, and parking

216'erft'r 0 inovin, '"iigotiatiion,: Ten Years Later," The
Nli oil Ass;*: o'f ucniry Schooul F;in. cipal's l:ulletin 55

I2 Ncot ti Guidli ,s 'iber 1;-15-71-2l- Fennsylvailia
School ".ards Ass i action, p. C.

lot duties.; (7) e1 iminating the requirement that
teachers teach or supervise tvo consecutive per-
iods in two different buildings; (8) eliminating
the requiretint that teaches substitute for other
teachers during planicinti pcrio'i and teaching in
non-certificated subject areas; (9) el iiiiatin i
the requirement that teachers chaperone aith!tic
activities: (10) eliminating the requirement that
teachers unpack, score, chlec: or otherwise handle
supplies; (11) one niglit each week free for Assj-
ciation meetings; (1') teacher will, without prior
notice, have free access to his personnel file;
(13) teacher to leave the building any ti, e duiinq
tie school day unless he- has a teaching assign-
ment; (14) ovidij'g special teachers with pre-
paration time equal to that provided for other
staff nrmbears (15) provision fu;' ixinum class
sizes; (i6) Association wii1 e corsulted tn
determi':ing t e school calendar; (17) school will
officially clo e l noon of the last day of
classes for 1. i.;. iving, Christmas, Spring and
Summeri vacation: (18) at least one half of the
ti;ie reqiustej for staff meetings be held during
the sclooil day; (19) teachers not be required to
be in the school nmoir than !0 minutes prior to
the time students are required to be in attendanrce
and not !;more the'; i minutes after students at"e
d'snismissed ('ithdrawn); (20) Tuesday afternoon
confere'ice' wiLh parents be abolished and teachers
hold contereces with parents by appointment at
a. mutually convenient time; and (21) secondary
teachers 'ot be renqired to teach more than 25
periods p2r week and have at least one planning
period per day.2!'

Increasingly, contracts provided for teacher organizations'

involvement in curricular, textbuok, and educational policy decision-

making by affording organization representatives the r;ght to confer~

on such matters \.iilt board and ain;in;strative personnel during the

ter-! of the contract away f-o;; tLhe collective ba;rai.iing table.

Lic'berm'inr saited:

If teawiers want to h2 equal partners in formu-
latinr! i -'u:.tionral policy, then Lhey should
give i! any right io teacher Ltr.!;'e if they

21"' bid.

a1re jcing to makUP ecd ationra i:jicy en i.te saw;
eCVe" as th, sh. i ~'d beo:, U in a deinocr'aT.i.
society, we -, Qi: to have the right to change our

Many sun!rcinitendcents voluntar.Iv given teachers ar oprorti'n-

ity to part.irc;ate in the development of staff personnel poliics.220

iHowevey, this !,rocndure has not been universally practiced. The

Amierican Fssocia tion of School AcdministraLors h.s suq gested itht:

teachers should be given the 'oppor1'uiity to miake recom;i.:endat;i:is on

textbooks aned i iterials, propose curriculum chaii9es, advocate irnno'-

civr. practices, and roppose other policies through a iediur different

from the negotiatiig process.;2i

The deve'op'rent: of the democra!.ti concept in school' administra-

ticr was r:pelled out Dy the EductiL;iornal Po icies Coi;;Jissio; ii 1938.

To indicate the uDlce of leadership in all
good a&dminis{'traion' is not to denvy the lariqe
part to be played in the deevl:op"ent of poli-
cy hby al professional ;..orkrs. . It is
sound procedi;re t' povid:.l for the active
participation of' teachers in the developnmeni
of administrative, policy.'22'

21"0Myron Lieb .rian, "T-acii lr Neyotlatlions," School BIoards:
A Cre'.T.ive F.or_:e, Pro'ceed injs of the 1967 CGnventiTn of- the --
atiuoi Sclioc ,oanrds Ass-ciation, p. 76 as cited in Wesley A.
i\ld:i ".hat s N o fcIotab-. ?" ilic School b-oard Journal 155 (Nove-;li-
ber 196 ): :.i.
220- 1M. StinnctL, ac k H. Kle'nilann, and ilMeiarha I... Uare,
Profess-ionil K: ot- tion in Public Fiducation (iw Yrk: k ihe Mac--

2?21Scjhool Adioistsratorl View 1irFess.inal Fg qntiatinns
(S .hi icn* i ssociati o ato ,
.1960), 3'.
S tt.i ne t, KI ei nmann, ;nd 'zi're, Proft-ss-- nal Ni 'otiat 'ion
in Pu'blic du,. i 'i p. 19.

Wildmarn sutqes td -h:it:

Those responsible fer board st,'otcgy and tocsics
in collective negotiations ;,Al' read widely in
the field and t.rike advantage of avai'icble train-
ing opportulnitiCle so that thL.y mly be consttni:l
aware of cxperi nces and bert practices i~! school
districts tnronughout the country.223

The approach to negotiations that my offer the best prospects

for the future is to limit discussions at the negotiatibig tabie as

much as possible to salary items aJid basic condit-ions of employment

and to provide for year-round study committees of teachers and

administrators to consider such professional probe ems as curriculum,

textbooks, aind teaching techniques.c224

The "What is peiotiabic?" issue has empha-ized the need for a

strong management's rights 1-,use.225 Tiiis has helped to establish

the position that the bo-ard has ri'ihts which are non-negotiable. In

addition to prtc:. t i; tlhe- o.:-n t i ht-, boards of education must

avoid negotiating provisions into teI,,her agreei;iets that will unduly

restrict tncir administirators.

Seitz su'c'gested inat:

Sci;,ol Lards should be liberal about the
topic; they will bLci-ra;n aiuut. They should
rot atte:st to draw too narlon a line defining
"t.c;ditions of !emp; .yent." It is not sug-
gested th at stlool boards, hoJld bargain about
every;h!g u;i; L thr sn that is not illegal;
it sedois :ise, though, that they bargain about
a great mai,v things. Forward loolki-'.;

2 ,3',' i .ir,, "'What's Negotiable?" p. 10.
2J!; R. Egner and Kennsth Lane, "Coilentivh Bargaining and
Ad;,itin i .t) i Prt'. a "'dives," Peab.dy Joir r.dol cof Liucation 46
(lioveiber 1 's ): 45- ,,

.ith, >hat's Neaotible?" p. /,.

ir(duSTrl al istl s !! 1:. this p !0cple. On the
premise that co ! hargnuni i helps attain
a harmo'iom s relNai chip, ih-re shoAM!d be ho
diipositiont to Civ iro 'nar, a definition to
'ce;ditio;s of epn:Q;i:,uient.'2

In ne:ot.iating on work rUles, the a-:;.Vrse consequnnces of giving

up ciscr:eton ovr a decision n imae rnly rnce in several years m 'ty 'b

much mio;e iimp;ori-; t than iit '. ersn,:. c;; on cence., fc reli r'uishinyg

control over decisions rd(:e :.'erl u.2.27

Should Coxlr'ive -r'('iilO i vnhOv
Curv'tic 'llilo: al:d il',S3 liriLc' n?

Cury 'cirulum and Inrstruc.tion is' uns

A najor issue in, in the literature, Ihas been whether

curric';il, and ii:;truction sihoi;ld bu i cloudedd i;' tie scr pe of collec-

tihe bar'tjning. Curric:ul;"m mntteis tave been judge- to be negotiable

by both the NEA and the AFT.228

Historically, the bargaining .r-.cess has foll'.;wed an interesting

cycle with respecL to curriculn andi ii .truction. In the carly and

middle sixties, wh!i' rechers wcre bat ;ir'iqg for wage' an flEriing

benefits, ini'y boaerds charygd tihat. tc'la.:hers were unprofess'ic;,i to

hargain for wv.a\ges and fringe bel!efits tan sugige sttJ that teachers

should cioicern theISei.,Ivcs ,with inatructi'a:o and cirric1ulum niattros.2 2-J

"'-Reynold C. Seit7, "Corletive B~rgqainii Cran Helep Achieve Reason-
ab Age nt" ThAe Amer;ic n Schoo! C;oard Journal 47 (Naov:,eA::er 1966): 53.
227lMytron ';icl'-Prmc!?n, "'n iageria Discretions in Negotia io ns,"
r:' ..' "- ... 15 (Apil i97i): G
2'.oi vyd Wi. .h-.'hIy, Jrio; E. rMccGin is, and Thoi;.:; F. Per'.iog, C' ;:-
mi1n Sefnse in l.:'o' .tj iner ii Public [ducalion ([onvi -, Il' in;,is: ?lhe
int.crstate Pr'ciers a i-uitlishes, lic., 1972 p. 49.
2NJack Pl. -einmann, "Curriculum ;pegotationh : How? To iaL Etrd?"
-ducational L('eadershif 29 (Apri'! 197': 57/3.

However, teachers, were peicc;ifd, at u... point in time, with s-'cir-

ing basic Ibargpining rights. In the early seventies, Nohen teacher

attitudes chanced toward co!''-ern for cui 'riculu and irlstructiorn, boards

referred to those areas as i nieri,'iet p'ro g tives.-

Kleinn)inn sai:! that:

Since curr iculum is vzhaI teachers do, and
iStsruction is huow tlly do it, it foiloCws
that ci Urr-;ciilum and ;ist''iuc io.i are essli--
tial elements of their d:;ily workir'g con-
ditiurn: and, thur, are appropriate su!,jects
for the bargaining table. 23

One of the ciajor issues since te i advent of negotiations has been

the question of whai is negotiable. ,ost state 'aws were clear and

some wert- tested in court. In I' , school boards ii New Jersey, wh; :h

hld bar'ained ,'h;h their staffs foi years, had to be for-ce by the

ccu.ts to negotiate curriculum! and instructional matters.231 By an

Ame icrn Arbitration Asssociation decision, Trenton, iew Jersey was

forcml- to reduce all class sizes in which enrollm,:nt was above thirty. 32

Tih "bargainahle subject matter" problem in privately. sector nego-

tiatiors hs become highly complex and designation of an issue as

''. I inal,/ie cr "non-barg;inabie" under federal labor laiit, has been

f;aught with significance for both management and the union.233 Sisiop

predicted. "Once '.'ages, hours, benefits, a!:d rights are established,

230Klein,!nlir. "Curricil lu Negotiation: How? To WhaT. End?"
p. 573.

23 Ibid.

2:Phtrick ,. Lairlo: and Harold I. Goodwill, a;s., TIe Co tlr' -
live, Dilmlua: Neqou-,itionis in Education (Worthingt.on, Ohio:- Cihaes
A. Jon' s Ii i .' 7.. [Coi'iny, i S') 7p. ?325.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs