The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of three Indiana public laws upon the role of the public school superintendent with various publics.Population was defined as practicing Indiana public school superintendents having a minimum of ten years experience as superintendent in Indiana prior to 1978. Five superintendents were selected for personal interviews and the sixth member of the population was the writer.Literature related to the role of the school superintendent was reviewed.Three Indiana laws were selected which were passed by the Indiana General Assembly during the last ten years. Laws selected were: (1) Indiana Public Law 162, the Student Due Process Statute, (2) Indiana Public Law 217, the Collective Bargaining Statute, and (3) Indiana Public Law 57, the Open Door Statute.Analysis of the data obtained in the interview was based upon the formula: R = A + T + C, where R = Role A = Autocratic Behavior exercised by the superintendentT = Time expended by the superintendentC = Control the superintendent has over outcomes, results or goalsSpecifically each superintendent was asked if the degree of autocracy, the time involved and the control of outcomes in working with six publics had increased, decreased or remained the same. The publics selected were school boards, administrators, faculty, parents, students and school attorneys.Findings: Public Law 162 did affect: the degree of autocratic behavior exercised by the superintendent in working with boards, administrators, faculty, parents and students; the time spent by the superintendent when working with boards, administrators, faculty, parents, students and attorneys; the control of outcomes by the superintendents when working with boards, administrators, faculty, parents, students and attorneys.Public Law 217 did affect: the degree of autocratic behavior exercised by the superintendent in working with boards, administrators, faculty and attorneys; the time spent by the superintendent when working with boards, administrators, faculty and attorneys; the control of outcomes by the superintendent when working with boards, administrators, faculty and attorneys.Public Law 57 did affect: the degree of autocratic behavior exercised by the superintendent when working with boards and parents; the time spent by the superintendent when working with boards, administrators and parents; the control of outcomes by the superintendent when working with boards.Conclusions: (1) Public Law 162 had the greatest effect and Public Law 57 had the least effect upon the role of the superintendent. (2) No superintendent spent less time with any publics as a result of Public Law 162 and 217. (3) No superintendent spent less time working with administrators, parents, students, faculty and attorneys as a result of Public Law 57. (4) Public Law 217 had no effect upon the role of the superintendent in working with parents and students. (5) Public Law 57 had no effect upon the role of the superintendent in working with faculty and students. (6) The three laws had the greatest effect on the role of superintendents when working with boards and administrators and the least effect when working with students and parents. (7) The three laws required increased time expended by the superintendent. (8) The relationship most affected by Public Laws 162 and 217 was with administrators and the relationship most affected by Public Law 57 was with boards.3

The study was designed to ascertain the tax supported cost of implementing collective bargaining in Indiana School Corporations in 1975. Two research questions were developed: (1) What was the statistically estimated direct cost to taxpayers attributable to implementation of Indiana Public Law 217 in 1975, and (2) what was the relationship between school corporation size and costs factors pertaining to implementation of Indiana Public Law 217.A questionnaire was designed, to obtain actual and/or estimated costs of administrative and clerical man-hours utilized to implement collective bargaining, costs of consultants and/or legal services, training workshops and materials, equipment and expendable materials. The questionnaire was sent to approximately one-half of the school superintendents in randomly selected Indiana School Corporations with large, medium and small size pupil enrollments.Useable responses were obtained from 93 out of 153 potential participants (60.7 percent), which included 13 reports that no bargaining occurred in 1975. Information from each questionnaire received was sorted and tabulated by means of a computer program especially designed for the purposes of the study. The total cost of implementing bargaining within each school corporation, the total and average cost of implementing bargaining within the groups of large, medium and small size school corporations, and within the entire set of respondents were found and analyzed.Findings derived from the present study indicate that the average cost of implementing bargaining in large size Indiana school corporations, as reported by 28 superintendents, was $10,839. The average cost of implementing bargaining in medium size school corporations, as reporter: by 32 superintendents, was $6,128 and the average cost of implementing bargaining in small school corporations, as reported by 20 superintendents, was $3,761 per school corporation. The average cost of implementing collective bargaining within the set of respondents, as reported by 80 superintendents, was $7,185 per school corporation. The total direct cost of implementing collective bargaining, determined by extending the average cost to all school corporations believed to have engaged in collective bargaining, was $2,047,725.The major conclusions were that: If all 305 Indiana school corporations had bargained and experienced expenses comparable to the reported expenses, implementation of collective bargaining would have cost taxpayers $2,191,425 and would have consumed 158,905 man-hours by administrators, clerical personnel and members of boards of trustees.

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.