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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BSU/oai:cardinalscholar.bsu.edu:handle/181249 |
| Date | 03 June 2011 |
| Creators | Stroup, Jack Lawrence |
| Contributors | Riegle, Jack D. |
| Source Sets | Ball State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Format | vi, 89 leaves ; 28 cm. |
| Source | Virtual Press |
| Coverage | n-us--- |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds