There is no abstract available for this thesis.

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.

The purpose of the study was to measure the difference between teacher need fulfillment and desired need fulfillment as related to the teacher evaluation process. The study was designed to (1) measure teachers perceptions of need fulfillment through the evaluation process; (2) measure teachers perceptions of desired need fulfillment through the evaluation process; and (3) examine the relationship of the teacher evaluation process and discrepancies between actual need fulfillment and desired need fulfillment of teachers.A questionnaire was developed for the study. The questionnaire was designed to measure the perceptions of teachers actual and desired need fulfillment through the evaluation process. The questionnaire was adapted from questionnaires developed by Porter and Sergiovanni. The discrepancy between actual and desired need fulfillment provided a Need Deficiency score.The items on the questionnaire were designed to relate to four levels of needs as identified by Maslow: (1) Security; (2) Social; (3) Esteem; and (4) Self-Actualization. The questionnaire was administered to elementary, middle school, and high school teachers in a single school corporation in Northeast Indiana. Mean Need Deficiency scores were used to describe the deficiency of need fulfillment in the need levels of Security, Social, Esteem, and Self-Actualization.The analysis of data indicated the lowest level of need satisfaction was at the Social level for the teachers participating in the study. Elementary teachers had the highest Need Deficiency mean scores. The younger and less experienced teachers were generally the teachers with the highest Need Deficiency scores, and therefore were the least satisfied.

The purpose of the study was to identify and compare the perceived concerns of novice and experienced teachers in the middle-level teaching years. The population consisted of 200 public school teachers and 100 Catholic school teachers in grades six, seven, and eight in the state of Indiana.A forty-item questionnaire listing concerns in the areas of professional growth, classroom management and routines, instructional activities, and evaluation problems was utilized. Three null hypothesis were tested by using a multivariate of analysis of variance (MANOVA). Decisions with regard to the hypotheses were made at an alpha level of .05.Findings1. No statistically significant differences were found to exist between novice and experienced teachers.2. No statistically significant differences were found to exist between male and female teachers.3. No statistically significant differences were found to exist between public school and Catholic school teachers.4. Salary commensurate with demands for professional growth, motivating pupil interest and response, stimulating critical thinking and developing good work and study habits were identified as major professional concerns of teachers.Conclusions1. Level of experience does not account for major differences in the degree of concerns of teachers.2. Sex of the teacher does not account for major differences in the degree of concerns of teachers.3. Type of school--public or Catholic--does not account for major differences in the degree of concerns of teachers.4. The area of Instructional Activities causes the greatest concern followed by Classroom Management and Professional Growth. Evaluation Problems causes the least concern.5. Salary, motivating student interest and response, developing in students good work and study habits, and stimulating critical thinking are major concerns for teachers.6. Individual items causing concern for teachers have experienced modest changes during the past 14 years. / Department of Educational Administration and Supervision

The study was designed to assess the perceptions of secondary public school teachers toward the relationship between collective bargaining and the level of teacher participation in decision making. Specifically, the problem was twofold: 1) to determine teachers' perceptions of the extent of participation in decision making before and after collective bargaining, and 2) to determine teachers' perceptions of the desired amount of teacher participation in decision making relative to ten decisional items. The study was predicated upon the need for empirical data of teachers' perceptions of the actual and desired amount of teacher participation in decision making and the effectiveness of collective bargaining as a vehicle for increasing teacher participation.The sample consisted of 97~ randomly selected Indiana secondary school teachers. Data analysis was based upon the responses from 870 teachers which represented an 89.2 percent response rate.Data were secured by means of a survey questionnaire designed and validated for the study. The instrument included ten decisional items: 1) teaching loads, 2) class size, 3) teacher assignment, 4) teacher evaluation, 5) student discipline, 6) budget policies, 7) non-classroom duties, 8) class preparation time, 9) instructional methods, and 10) course content. Teachers were requested to indicate the amount of teacher participation in decision making before and after collective bargaining as well as the desired amount of teacher participation in decision making.Data of teachers' perceptions of the differences in the amount of teacher participation before and after collective bargaining were treated descriptively. Differences in teachers' perceptions of the desired amount of teacher participation were tested by the chi-square test of independence and were accepted as statistically significant at the .05 alpha level.Data relating to teachers' perceptions of teacher participation in decision making before and after collective bargaining revealed that 1) teachers perceived increased teacher participation after collective bargaining relative to each of the ten decisional items, 2) instructional methods and course content were the only decisional items perceived by the majority of teachers as teacher dominated both before and after collective bargaining, and 3) teachers perceived the greatest gains in participation in teaching loads, teacher evaluation, non-classroom duties, and class preparation time.Chi-square values indicated that differences in teachers' perceptions of desired participation in decision making were statistically significant at the .05 alpha level for nine of the ten decisional items relative to the selected variables. The statistically significant variables and related decisional items included: 1) sex: course content, non-classroom duties, teacher evaluation and teacher assignment; 2) age: course content and teacher assignment; 3) teacher organization membership: teaching loads, class size, teacher assignment, teacher evaluation, budget policies, and course content; 4) professional negotiation involvement: class preparation time, teacher assignment, and teaching loads; 5) size of school district: student discipline, teacher evaluation, and teaching loads; and 6) the existence of negotiation trouble: teacher evaluation.Review of the data led to the following conclusions: 1) although teacher participation had increased after collective bargaining, the perceived increase was minimal; 2) there is a discrepancy between teachers' present and desired amount of participation in decision making; 3) teachers' endeavors to expand the amount of teacher influence in decision making prior to collective bargaining were unsuccessful; 4) teachers' perceptions of desired participation are conditional upon teacher and school district characteristics; and 5) failure to provide for teacher participation in decision making increases the probability of negotiation conflict.

The purpose of the study was to determine if a particular school board bargaining team composition resulted in shorter negotiating time for teacher-school board contract settlement and if a particular composition of the school board bargaining team resulted in lower cost increases for salaries and fringe benefits that result from a negotiated teacher-school board contract.The study was limited to all school districts in Indiana in which a teacher-school board contract was negotiated for the 1975-76 school year. The study was restricted to the 1975-76 contract negotiations.The study was limited further in that only the composition of the school board bargaining team as related to time/cost factors were examined.A review of literature and related research revealed that the recommendations regarding bargaining team composition were diverse and that many different bargaining team compositions had been used by school boards in Indiana.All superintendents of school systems in Indiana where a teacher-school board contract was negotiated for the 1975-76 school year comprised the population for the study.Seventeen null hypotheses were developed relative to school board bargaining team composition and time/cost factors.A questionnaire, with a cover letter and an endorsement from the Indiana School Boards Association, was mailed to 280 Indiana school superintendents. Responses were received from 228 superintendents after two mailings. Responses to the questionnaire were recorded on contin-gency tables to allow chi-square analysis to be utilized to statistically test the hypotheses. The .05 level was established as the level of confidence to reject a null hypothesis.The findings were based on data presented in Chapter IV. 1. School board bargaining teams with school board members, teams with superintendents without school board members, and other teams were significantly different in the amount of time required to negotiate a teacher-school board contract.2. School board bargaining teams with board members and teams without superintendents or board members were significantly different in the time required to negotiate a teacher-school board contract.3. School board bargaining teams with superintendents without board members and teams without superintendents or board members were significantly different in the time required to negotiate a teacher-school board contract.4. School board bargaining teams with superintendents and teams without board members or superintendents were significantly different in the amount of time required to negotiate a teacher-school board contract.5. School board bargaining teams with board members and/or superintendents and teams without board members or superintendents were significantly different in the time required to negotiate a teacher-school board contract.6. School board bargaining teams having chief spokesmen with different titles were significantly different in the time required to negotiate a teacher-school board contract.No other significant differences relative to team composition and time/cost factors were discovered.The following conclusions were based on the data presented in Chapter IV and the findings related to the hypotheses.1. School board bargaining teams with superintendents as members and school board bargaining teams with superintendents and board members as members tended to negotiate teacher-school board contracts in a shorter amount of time than teams composed of persons other than superintendents or board members.2. Superintendents and school board members as chief spokesmen for the school board bargaining team tended tonegotiate a teacher-school board contract in less time than teams with other persons as spokesmen.3. Administrators other than the superintendent as spokesmen tended to take a longer amount of time to negotiate a teacher-school board contract than all other spokesmen.4. School board bargaining team composition was not significantly related to the increased cost of salaries and fringe benefits that resulted from a negotiated teacher-school board contract.54

The purpose of this study was to compare the opinions of kindergarten teachers, transitional grade teachers, and first grade teachers regarding the importance of selected goals, content, learning activities, and evaluation procedures for a transitional grade between kindergarten and first grade. Effects of teaching experience and educational background were examined.The Transitional Curriculum Questionnaire for Teachers was developed by the researcher and mailed to 189 elementary schools with transitional classrooms. Respondents included 156 kindergarten teachers, 104 transitional grade teachers, and 263 first grade teachers. The majority of the teachers reported educational backgrounds in elementary education. Teaching experience ranged from 1 to 44 years.Through the use of a checklist, responding teachers identified goals, content, learning activities, and evaluation procedures which they considered "important" for a transitional program. A chi-square test at the .05 level of significance was used to analyze the data.Results1. Kindergarten teachers, transitional grade teachers, and first grade teachers agreed on the importance of 10 of the 16 goals, 6 of the 16 content areas, 6 of the 16 learning activities, and 11 of the 16 evaluation procedures for a transitional program.2. Teachers with backgrounds in early childhood education and teachers with backgrounds in elementary education agreed on the importance of all 16 goals, 14 of the 16 content areas, 13 of the 16 learning activities, and all 16 evaluation procedures for a transitional program.3. Teachers with varying years of teaching experience agreed on the importance of 15 of the 16 goals, 14 of the 16 content areas, all of the 16 learning activities, and 13 of the 16 evaluation procedures for a transitional program. / Department of Elementary Education

The purpose of the study was to identify and describe the nature of change, relative to the roles and responsibilities of personnel administrators in selected Indiana public school corporations, resulting from mandated teacher collective bargaining.Personnel administrators with seven or more years of experience were selected to insure that participants in the study had had experience both before and after the enactment of Public Law 217. In-depth taped interviews were conducted with nine personnel directors.The responses of personnel directors participating in the study were compared, correlated and contrasted with statements made by authorities in the field relative to private and public sector personnel administrators. Major findings were:Additional Time Requirements1. Personnel directors are devoting additional time to record keeping activities, such as:a.Formulating reduction in force lists and call back lists.b. Reviewing and revising student enrollment by building and class as necessary.c. Developing expanded salary schedules which reflect broader range of teacher educational preparation.d. Maintaining information relative to the number of graduate hours taken and advanced degrees earned by teachers.e.Maintaining information relative to teacher fringe benefits.f.Maintaining information relative to compensation for extracurricular responsibilities.g.Maintaining information relative to number and type of leave days taken by teachers.h.Maintaining teacher requests for transfers.i.Maintaining detailed information relative to teachers holding temporary contracts.j.Maintaining information relative to teacher seniority by school system and building.2. Personnel directors are devoting additional time to activities required for the collective bargaining process, such as:a. Collecting and organizing financial and personnel information.b. Providing and explaining financial and personnel information to the chief spokesman.c. Preparing salary schedules to determine cost of various teacher group and board proposals.d. Compiling and analyzing statistics relative to the number of various teacher leave days taken and days on which leaves occurred.e. Developing expanded salary schedules which reflect broader range of teacher educational preparation as required by the agreement.3. Personnel directors are devoting additional time to consultation, such as:a. Providing guidance to building administrators relative to teacher evaluations.b. Advising building administrators regarding granting of teacher leave days.c. Discussing the status of negotiations with building administrators, superintendent and board members.d. Providing guidance to building administrators relative to contract implementation.4. Personnel directors are devoting additional time to grievance activities, such as:a. Reviewing teacher evaluations to prepare for grievance hearings.b. Meeting with union officials to hear grievances.Preparing for grievances and arbitration hearings.5. Personnel directors are devoting additional time to inservice training activities, such as:a. Explaining evaluation procedures and instruments to building administrators.b. Explaining the intent of contract language to building administrators to insure uniform contract implementation.6. Personnel directors are devoting additional time to cooperative activities with union officials, such as:a. Providing personnel and financial information relative to teacher seniority, salaries, and fringe benefits.b. Developing and revising teacher evaluation instruments.c. Hearing grievances and jointly determining equitable settlements.7. Personnel directors are devoting additional time to other activities, such as:a. Considering leave requests of teachers.b. Planning for staffing needs and teacher vacancies.Changed Organizational Relationships1. The majority of personnel directors have been placed in the grievance structure and now represent the superintendent, usually at the second or third step of the grievance procedure. Therefore, personnel directors now have more line authority to make binding decisions regarding grievances.2. Because personnel directors now have line authority in the grievance structure, personnel directors may support or reverse the decisions of building administrators regarding grievances. Therefore, building administrators are now consulting more with the personnel director relative to the handling of employee grievances at the initial step of the grievance structure.3. Building administrators are now seeking advice and approval of personnel directors regarding teacher evaluations and granting of leaves.4. The majority of personnel directors participate in the negotiation process either as chief spokesman or members of the negotiating team. As the administrative representative in the collective bargaining process, personnel directors are now the main communication link between the teacher union, superintendent and board of education.5. As the administrative representative in the collective bargaining process, personnel directors have been given the additional responsibility of insuring that principals understand the intent of contract language and implement the contract accordingly.Direct Participation in the Negotiations Process1. The majority of personnel directors participate in the negotiation process either as chief spokesman or members of the negotiating team.a. As chief spokesmen, new roles and responsibilities of the personnel director include:(1) Consultation with the superintendent relative to the selection of negotiating team members.(2) Consultation with the superintendent and other administrative personnel concerning the collecting, organizing and writing of board proposals for negotiations.(3) Consultation with the superintendent and other administrative personnel relative to the development of a negotiation strategy.(4) The presentation of school board proposals.(5) Receiving teacher union proposals during negotiations.(6) Communications between the teacher union, superintendent and school board.(7) Consultation with the superintendent and board members concerning the development of school board counterproposals.(8) The equitable and expeditious conclusion of negotiations.b. As members of the negotiating team, new roles and responsibilities of the personnel directors included:(1) Providing relevant and necessary personnel and financial information to the chief spokesman.(2) Explaining and describing pertinent conditions surrounding negotiations, personalities of the individuals involved in negotiations, and attitudes within the community.