This research provides a systematic, analytical examination of the evolutionary development of labor relations in a large public school district in the southwestern United States. The Kerchner and Mitchell (1981) generational framework of labor relations has been utilized in this study to evaluate its explanatory power. Research questions included: (1) Does the evolution of labor relations in this district follow the generational patterns specified in the framework developed by Kerchner and Mitchell (1981); and (2) What has been the impact of teacher collective bargaining on governance of this disrict? This work constituted a detailed case study of the school district. Method included analysis of data gathered through board minutes, newspaper and other publications, census data, contract and arbitration history data and semi-structured interviews with persons who played key roles in district labor relations. Findings indicate that generational development in this district has evolved along the lines of the Kerchner and Mitchell framework. The district is idiosyncratic, however, in the nature of coalitions formed, stimuli for change, and the continuing unresolved legal questions regarding collective bargaining in Arizona resulting from a lack of legislative guidance in this area. Generational movement of labor relations in this district is traced through two generational periods and two periods of intergenerational conflict. Findings suggest that relations appear to be suggestive of early third generation as the district enters 1987. With regard to impact, findings of this study generally support those of Kerchner and Mitchell (1981) that: (1) "accidental" policy is made through the bargaining process and contract implementation; (2) collective bargaining, contract making and contract enforcement in this district have enhanced the "laboring" aspect of teacher work; and (3) substantial change has occurred in this district in managerial beliefs and operations as a result of the consensus agreement. Further, findings suggest that although public participation in the district has been episodic, it has greatly influenced generational movement, as has partisan politics. Variance from Kerchner and Mitchell findings and intradistrict variance is also addressed.

The problem of the investigation was to determine the legal status of public sector school oriented professional negotiations in the fifty states of the United States. Available data dealing with the status of public sector school oriented professional negotiations between boards of education and teacher organizations proved to be disorganized in terms of providing readily available, complete, and accurate information.The attorney general of each state was contacted by letter for the purpose of completing a questionnaire. The secondary source of information was the executive secretary of each state school board association.Thirty states have statutes mandating negotiations between boards of education and teacher organization representatives. Within each state statute information was gathered concerning (1) statutory inclusion, (2) impasse procedures, (3) grievance procedures, (4) scope of negotiations, (5) employee rights, (6) employer rights, and (7) strikes and penalties.Findings included:1. Thirty state legislatures have mandated negotiations between boards of education and teacher organizations.2. All state legislatures in the Northwest area of the United States mandate professional negotiations between boards of education and teacher organizations.3. One state legislature in the Southeast area of the United States mandates professional negotiations between boards of education and teacher organizations.4. One state statute prohibits boards of education from recognizing teacher organization representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining.5. All thirty state statutes mandating collective bargaining between boards of education and teacher organizations provide teachers with exclusive representation,6. All thirty state statutes mandating collective bargaining between boards of education and teacher organizations provide as negotiable items such matters as salaries, hours, and working conditions.7. All thirty state statutes mandating collective bargaining between boards of education and teacher organizations provide for settlement of impasse by mediation, factfinding, or arbitration.Conclusions were:1. Negotiation rights for teachers have come about more slowly than for most government employees.2. Increased organized efforts to formalize the negotiation procedures have continued to be faced by boards of education in all states.3. Teacher strikes are increasing in spite of anti-strike legislation in most states.4. Statutes have given priority to teacher rights in terms of the rights of teachers and boards of education.5. The passage of legislation is no panacea for problems stemming from board of education and teacher organization relationships and legislation will not eliminate the possibility of court cases, attorneys general opinions, and teacher strikes.Recommendations are:1. Periodic studies should be undertaken in order to update professional negotiation procedures.2. Specific statutory provisions should be studied in depth to determine if such provisions are fulfilling the needs of both parties.3. Attention should be given to professional negotiations within states to determine how legislation is being implemented and how the legal status is developing in states where no guidelines are provided.4. Further study should take place to determine the impact of statutory enactments on both parties.

No description available.

No description available.

The purpose of the study was to determine if the language of the negotiated agreements of Indiana School Corporations was reflected in professional growth and staff development activities. Collective bargaining agreements during 1982-1983 and 1988-1989 from 289 Indiana School Corporations were compared to identify the existence, if any, of (a) a trend in the acknowledgement of professional growth and staff development-related statements found in the contracts, and (b) policy statements delineating how staff development activities and curriculum-related activities were to be conducted in schools. Contract language in which comparisons appeared to be significant were subjected to the Friedman Two-way Analysis of Variance (Friedman ANOVA) to determine whether or not comparisons were statistically significant at the .05 level. Such statistically significant comparisons also helped to determine whether or not school corporations incorporated contract language, which gave instructional staff a legal position in decisions which affected teacher professional growth and participation in curriculum-related matters.Conclusions1. Compared to small enrollment Indiana School Corporations (3,000 students or less), large enrollment Indiana School Corporations (3,001 or more students) were more likely than statistically expected to provide salary compensation for higher levels of teacher education training and sabbatical leave compensation at statistically significant levels of .05 or less, based upon use of the chi-square statistic.2. The research findings failed to support movement toward greater Indiana School Corporation contract language in 1982-1983 and 1988-1989 in most of the specified staff development factors under investigation in the research. Therefore, contrary to the literature which claimed that collective bargaining would be used as a vehicle for staff development change, collective bargaining has not provided structural support for such change among Indiana School Corporations. / Department of Educational Leadership

The purpose of this study was to determine the level of satisfaction of selected teacher spokespersons toward Indiana Public Law 217, the collective bargaining law for teachers.A survey instrument consisting of forty-six items in five Likert-response categories was mailed to 125 randomly selected teacher spokespersons in Indiana. Space was provided for respondents to write comments or rationale for their answers. Fifty-seven teacher spokespersons responded to the survey.The following rank order was utilized for each of the sections of Indiana Public j 217 ranging from (5) highly dissatisfied, (4) somewhat dissatisfied, (3) neutral, (2) somewhat satisfied to (1) highly satisfied based on the mean scores.Findings1. Selected teacher spokespersons rated four section items between 4.00 and 5.00.2. Of the forty-six section items that were surveyed, seventeen sections were rated between 3.00 and 3.99.3. Negotiators for the teachers ranked seventeen sections of Indiana Public L&7_ between 2.00 and 2.99.4. Eight section items were rated between 1.00 and 1.99 by the teacher spokesperson.Conclusions1. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the inability to strike and the penalities for unlawful strikes.2. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the procedures and restrictions governing bargaining and discussions.3. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the provisions and procedures of fact-finding, arbitration and maintaining a status quo contract.4. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the sections of the law dealing with the rights of the employer5. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the stated intent of the law.6. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the structure and powers of the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board.7. Teacher spokespersons were satisfied with the definitions of certificated employees and exclusive representative.8. Teacher spokespersons were satisfied with the procedures of unfair practices as stated in the law.9. Teacher spokesperson were satisfied with the procedures of dues deductions as stated in the law.

The purpose of the study was to investigate and report hierarchies of teacher job and working condition wants. Teacher ranked wants were compared with ranked perceptions of teacher wants as perceived by school board presidents, superintendents, principals, Indiana State Teachers Association staff and the staff of the Indiana Federation of Teachers. Comparisons were also made of elementary and secondary teacher wants. The study was predicated upon the need for current information defining teacher priorities for collective bargaining.The instrument consisted of two decks of rank-sort cards. The job wants deck was imprinted with ten motivators and hygiene factors. The working conditions deck was imprinted with ten hygiene factors in the teaching environment. Teachers were instructed to rank factors in both decks according to prepotent job wants. Participants other than teachers were instructed to rank factors in both decks reflecting personal perceptions of teacher job and working condition wants. Completed instruments were returned by thirty-six elementary teachers, forty-two secondary teachers, sixty board presidents, eighty-seven superintendents, eighty principals, forty-two Indiana State Teachers Association representatives and six Indiana Federation of Teachers representatives. Eighteen hypotheses were tested to provide for two-way comparisons between teacher wants and perceptions of teacher wants.Significant differences were noted between job rankings by elementary and secondary teachers. Meaningful work was the most prepotent teacher motivator. Board presidents, superintendents, and teacher organization staffs ranked improved wages as the most prepotent teacher want. Significant differences were noted between rankings of teacher job wants and rankings of teacher wants by non-teachers. Rankings of perceived teacher job wants by board presidents, superintendents and teacher organization professional staff members were significantly congruent. Perceptions reported by principals concerning teacher job wants were more congruent with teacher rankings of job wants than were the rankings of other non-teacher samples. Non-teacher groups were able to rank teacher working condition (hygiene) wants with greater correlation to teacher opinion than was achieved in ranking teacher job wants (motivators). Administrators need to demonstrate loyalty to teachers and teacher organization leaders need to recognize the need for loyal relationships between teachers and administrators. The study seems to support the contention that administrators and other teacher leaders need to become sensitized to teacher job wants.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Teachers College, Columbia University, 1994. / Includes tables and appendices. Typescript; issued also on microfilm. Sponsor: Jonathan T. Hughes. Dissertation Committee: Margaret Terry Orr. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 159-163).

No description available.

No description available.