The purpose of the study was to determine whether selected participants in collective bargaining between Indiana school boards and exclusive representative teacher organizations agree on selected elements as facilitators for reaching agreement.A list of 21 elements was identified through the cooperation of the Director of Mediation and Conciliation and six mediators of the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board. The 21 elements were included in a survey instrument with instructions asking that each element be rated on a five point Likert-type scale ranging from Critical Importance to No Importance.The survey instrument was sent to teacher and board team representatives in 72 Indiana reorganized school corporations. Half of the selected school corporations had not experienced impasse during the two-year period of time immediately preceding the study, and half ofthe selected school corporations had experienced impasse two or more times during the same time period.A two-way analysis of variance was used to test three null hypotheses for each of the 21 elements. The hypotheses were tested to determine if significant differences existed in responses by (1) team position, teacher or board, (2) impasse experience, multiple impasse or impasse absence school corporation, and (3) interaction of team position with impasse experience.Findings of the study support the following conclusions concerning impasse absence and multiple impasse reorganized school corporations in Indiana:1. Teacher and board representatives share common views concerning the importance of selected elements. A list of 13 such elements was identified.2. Negotiation participants in impasse absence and multiple impasse school corporations share common views concerning the importance of selected elements. A list of 15 such elements was identified.3. The relationship of perceptions of teacher and board representatives from impasse absence school corporations do not differ from the relationship of perceptions of teacher and board representatives from multiple impasse school corporations on selected elements. A list of 19 such elements was identified.Nine elements having no team position, impasse experience, or interaction differences were identified. All respondent groups attached at least Moderate Importance to 20 of the 21 elements, with one group of teacher representatives rating one element between Little Importance and Moderate Importance.Application of the findings were extended for observations beyond the scope of the original research. The following represent a few such observations:Collective bargaining participants in some school corporations could improve the local collective bargaining climate by recognizing the importance of elements identified in the study. Elements perceived differently by respective groups and elements of common agreement can identify areas for consideration.Elements viewed as important by participants regardless of team position or impasse experience should be carefully examined at the school corporation level. An attempt should be made to utilize the elements, where applicable, to expedite the completion of a satisfactory agreement.Differences in perception associated with impasse experience may identify areas of critical importance to the peaceful resolution of negotiations. Six such areas were identified in the study.Differences in perception between teacher and board representatives should be recognized and considered to facilitate agreement. Eight such perception differences were identified in the study.

The purpose of the study was to ascertain the factors and conditions which have contributed to harmonious and cooperative negotiations leading to a mutually acceptable agreement as perceived by school board negotiators, teacher organization negotiators and superintendents in selected Indiana school corporations. Study participants included thirty school superintendents, nine school board negotiators that were not superintendents and thirty teacher organization representatives.An interview guide was developed through information secured from an examination of factors and conditions leading to mutually acceptable agreements found in the literature and research dealing with collective bargaining in the educational setting. A separate survey response instrument, entitled Components of Harmonious and Cooperative Negotiations, was developed for use by study participants. Data from interviews and surveys were organized and analyzed by comparing and contrasting responses of participants with the opinions expressed by authorities in the public and private sectors.The null hypothesis to be dealt with in the analysis of the Components of Harmonious and Cooperative Negotiations stated that there was to be no statistically significant difference in the mean value of responses of school board negotiators and of teacher negotiators relative to each of the eleven components.Statistical treatment of the survey data presented the means and standard deviation and the results of a T-test for each of the eleven Components of Harmonious and Cooperative Negotiations. Each of the eleven questions was analyzed by sequential use of the T-statistic for comparing means of two independent groups. A two-tailed approach was used. For each of the eleven components, the null hypothesis was tested. Means and standard deviations for school board and teacher negotiator responses revealed the differences in mean score responses of the two groups of negotiators. The commonly-used .05 level of confidence was arbitrarily chosen as the level of statistical significance.Based on a review of literature and related research, the study, interviews with public school education, and personal experiences related to the study, the following conclusions were drawn:1. An atmosphere and genuine spirit of cooperation is a highly desirable factor in the establishment and maintenance of harmonious and cooperative negotiations.2. Trust is a key factor in securing and maintaining harmonious and cooperative negotiations.3. Increased delegation and responsibility for negotiations from rank and file teachers to negotiating teams has become commonplace.4. The maturity of the collective bargaining relationship and the overall quality of day to day relationships between administrators and teachers will greatly influence the amount and quality of teacher input in the decision making process of the school corporation.5. The composition of the bargaining team reflects the overall attitudes and posture toward bargaining of the school board, administration, and teachers.6. Bargaining teams must be allowed sufficient authority to make tentative decisions for respective constituencies.7. Power is a necessary entity in collective bargaining.8. Ground rules, as a factor in conducting harmonious and cooperative negotiations, diminish in light of good faith bargaining and gentlemanly agreements relative to procedures for negotiations.9. Communication between teachers and the school administration is an essential factor in the final outcome of negotiations.10. Carefully reading, interpreting and observing the intent of the contract 'Language results are factors of day to day administration of the contract resulting in more harmonious and cooperative negotiations.11. Indiana Public Law 217 contains the necessary ingredients for negotiations to be conducted without revision at this time.12. Negotiations proceed best when rigid proceduresand strict protocol are held to a minimum.13. Negotiations between the school administration and teachers are conducted more harmoniously and cooperatively and with less pressure when the direct participation of the Indiana State Teachers Association, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association is minimized.14. A realistic view of harmonious and cooperative relations between the school administration and teachers calls for earned respect, honesty, integrity and an obvious concern by each side for the other. There is absolutely no substitute for high level professional and ethical relations in all matters between the school administration and teachers.

The study was conducted to determine the ways in which representatives of school corporations and teacher organizations prepared for collective bargaining in 1974. The participants in the study were spokesmen for employer and employee negotiating teams who responded to a questionnaire sent to administrators and teachers in a random sample to fifty school corporations and teacher organizations in Indiana.Findings of the study were:1. A majority of teacher organizations polled the teachers to ascertain what they wanted in a contract.2. Almost three-fourths of the administrative teams attended workshops, conferences, or seminars on collective bargaining to prepare for the collective bargaining process.No other preparations were considered to be among the three most important preparations for collective bargaining by a majority of either school administrators or spokesmen for teacher organizations.State teacher organizations and school boards associations exerted limited influence upon the local participants in the collective bargaining process.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Illinois State University, 1982. / Title from title page screen, viewed April 4, 2005. Dissertation Committee: G. Alan Hickrod, Ned B. Lovell (co-chairs), Ramesh B. Chaudhari, Vernon C. Pohlmann, Creta D. Sabine. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 150-162) and abstract.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1970. / Typescript. Vita. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Illinois State University, 1985. / Title from title page screen, viewed June 8, 2005. Dissertation Committee: Ned B. Lovell (chair), Mary Ann Lynn, Ronald Halinski, Carroll Taylor, Alan Hickrod. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 144-149) and abstract. Also available in print.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The purpose of the study was to collect, consolidate and report the perceived advantages and disadvantages of unified bargaining concepts currently operational in the state of Michigan as ranked by uniserv field representatives, local education association presidents, school board presidents and school superintendents.Data were generated through a forced choice questionnaire of twenty-six items drawn from a review of related literature and validated by professional consultants in the field of unified bargaining. Questionnaires were mailed to randomly selected participants in unified bargaining structures in each of the existing thirty-three multiple association bargaining organizations in the state of Michigan.Responses from the selected respondents were tabulated and reported by respondent group type. Frequency distributions according to items identified as advantages, disadvantages or not applicable to unified bargaining were presented tabularly and discussed narratively as were the-rankings of the most important advantages and disadvantages as perceived by respondents.Findings in the study indicated:1. Employee groups perceived the reduced probability of local associations ratifying sub standard contracts, standardization of contractual agreements, ready availability of professional negotiators and greater employee power in the bargaining process as the most important advantages of unified bargaining.2. Employee groups regarded the subordination of local association goals and autonomy to regional and state associations as the most important disadvantages of unified bargaining.3. Employer groups noted the increased utilization of professionally trained negotiators and the concomitant objectivity introduced into the bargaining process when professionally trained personnel negotiate as the most important advantages of unified bargaining.4. Employer groups identified decreased individual and local association autonomy and influence and the perception professional negotiators are not responsible for managing nor are subject to contracts bargained as the most important disadvantages of unified bargaining.5. A degree of congruence existed within and between employee and employer groupings. The greater degree of congruence between employee and employer groupings was noted in the ranking of disadvantages of unified bargaining.The following were among the conclusions drawn based upon the findings and the review of related literature:1. Individual and local education association autonomy and influence over. the business of the local education association is decreased as a result of participation in unified bargaining.2. Employee association power is increased when unified bargaining formats are operational. 3. Unified bargaining results in increased utilization of professionally trained negotiators. 4. Decreased amounts of direct employee-employer communication occur when unified bargaining formats are operational.5. The probability local education associations will ratify sub standard contracts is reduced when local education associations participate in unified bargaining.