DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 035 080 EA 002 676

ATIm9017)

TTTTP

TNSTTTUTTON

PTIB DATEII f mr!!

AVAITABLP, FROM

EDT's PPTCPDESCPTPm0PS

APSTPACT

Kinsella, RPrnard W.; And. OthersThe Supervisor's Role in Negotiation: Por the ASCDCommission on Problems of Supervisors and CurriculumWorkers.Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment, Washington, D.C.6931n.Association for Supervision and CurriculumT)evelopment, NEA, 1201 Sixteenth St., N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20036 (Stock No. 1-17798, T.79,quantity discounts)

P,DP9 Price MF-0.29 HC Not Available from EDPS.Administrator Pole, *Collective Negotiation,Professional 'Recognition, *Public Fducation, SocialChange, *Supervisors, Teacher Militancy

This namphlet discusses the problems andcomplexities of supervisory workers caught in the middle managementposition. An attempt is made to identify the supervisors' role and tocontribute to an understanding of the nressures that produce changesin the local school staff relationships. A brief history ofnegotiation among teachers is presented. A model of collectivebargaining and professional negotiation contract language and contentis included. (MP)

COCoCDLINre'tCD The Supervisor's Rolec=I

in

Negotiation

by

Bernard W. Kinsella, Gordon J. Klopf,Harold T. Shafer, and William F. Young

For the ASCD Commissionon Problems of Supervisorsand Curriculum Workers

Edited by William F. Young

PROCESS WITH MICROFICHE ANDPUBLISHER'S PRICES. MICRO-FICHE REPRODUCTION ONLY.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA1201 Sixteenth Street, Washington, D.C. 20036

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

Copyright © 1969 by theAssociation for Supervision andCurriculum Development, NEA

All rights reserved. No part of this publicationmay be reproduced or transmitted in any formor by any means, electronic or mechanical,including photocopy, recording, or any infor-mation storage and retrieval system, withoutpermission in writing from the publisher.

The materials printed herein are the expressionsof the Commission. They do not represent en-dorsement by, nor a statement of policy of, theAssociation.

Price: $ .75NEA Stock Number: 611-17798

Orders for fewer than three copies must be ac-companied by payment. Discounts on quantityorders: 2-9 copies, 10%; 10 or mor copies,20%. Postage and handling will be chargedon all orders not accoiiipanied by paymnt.

Library of CongressCatalog Card Number: 78-93287

Permission to reproduce this copyrighted work has beengranted to the Educational Resources Information Center(ERIC) and to the organization operating under contractwith the Office 01 Education to reproduce documents in-cluded in the ERIC system by means of microfiche only,but this right is not conferred to any users of the micro-fiche received from the ERIC Document ReproductionService. Further reproduction of any part requires per-mission of the copyright owner.

Contents

Foreword 2

Introduction: Progress and Problems 4

Negotiation in the Private Sector 5

Negotiation in Public Education 7

Social Change Through Confrontation 8

The Commission's Concern 10

Dilemma of Supervisors 13

Function of Supervision 16

Proposals for Involvement ofSupervisors 18

Future Goals for the Profession 24

Conclusion 26

References 28

Members of the Commission 29

Foreword

THE use of mandatory negotia-tion as a legal means of solving manyeducational problems is today becoming in-creasingly evident on the national scene.Drastic changes caused by practicessomehurriedly developedto meet the negotia-tion requirements in recent state laws havealso produced a set of new professionalproblems. Moreover, teachers, administra-tors at all levels, Boards of Education, andthe citizenry are hearing new words, newterms, and new slogans come into usage inthe educational world.

Terms such as "disenfranchisement ofthe middle management workers," "labor-management adversary (we-they) relation-ships," "power struggle," "mediation andarbitration procedures," and "a communityof interest," are now becoming commonvocabulary items.

This publication addresses itself to theproblems and complexities now consumingthe attention of supervisory workers caughtin "the middle management" position, notknowing where they stand or what theirofficial status is in the (we-they) relation-ship. The writers of this booklet have triedto identify and to contribute to our under-standing of the pressures producing changesin the local school staff relationships.

In the vanguard of the daily appear-ance of articles, news releases, professionalbooklets, bulletins, and books on aspects ofnegotiations, ASCD's Commission on Prob-lems of Supervisors and Curriculum Work-ers herein presents some timely and newconcepts which hopefully will help in resist-ing further polarization or splintering of theeducational family.

2

To counter the psychology created outof the turmoil, the Commission suggests sev-eral worthy and new concepts to be enter-tained as one tries to attain some objectivity.

1. Items of welfare, such as salaries,health insurance, and leave policies, shouldbe dealt with apart from instructional pro-gram policies.

2. The term arid spirit of "a com-munity of purpose" rather than the popularterm "a community of interest" (usuallymeaning self-interest) should counter thedivisiveness now apparent in educationalranks.

3. The best instructional programshould be produced through the cooperativedeliberation of professionals representing avariety of roles in a school system.

4. Related to number three, is theconcept that the local staff should exploreand develop recommendations in the pre-negotiation period.

The Commission's Subcommittee onNegotiation, chaired by Bernard Kinsella,Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Pitts-ford, New York, submits its statement tosupervisory personnel across the nationhoping they will find it helpful in under-standing the local as well as the nationalscene. William F. Young, Director for Ad-ministration and Communications, Michi-gan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory,Detroit, Michigan, a member of the Com-mission, is to be commended for his incisiveediting of the booklet.

HAROLD T. SHAFER. Chairman

ASCD Commission on problems ofSupervisors and Curriculum Workers

3

Introduction:Progress and Problems

In many states the supervisors havebeen disenfranchised through negotiation.They are being labeled "middle manage-ment," a term used to describe their relativeposition in the organizational structure ofa school system. Yet more important, theterm represents the bind supervisors are inas a result of negotiation. Being "neitherfish nor fowl" has too often resulted insupervisors' being left outside the negotia-tion arenathus the dilemma.

Supervisors across the country arelearning, to their dismay, that they are beingmoved into a position in which their ex-pertise cannot be utilized properly; that theyare not being given a voice in matters thataffect them; that conditions conducive tohostilities between and among professionalstaff members are developing that they arenot able to alleviate; that curriculum andcurricular matters are being negotiated with-out tkleir input; that their professional func-tions are being limited and restricted at thenegotiation table; and that they are tendingto gain less than teachers in economic mat-ters dealing with salaries and fringe benefits.

The Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development and its Commis-sion on Problems of Supervisors and Cur-riculum Workers applaud the progress madethrough negotiation; yet they are very con-cerned about the negative ramifications ofthe negotiation process. The polarizationphenomenon, resulting from negotiation, hascreated many problems for all professionalstaff members. Supervisors and curriculumworkers, in particular, are being placed ina precarious position.

Supervisors and curriculum workersrepresent a critically important and neces-

4

sary segment of the profession. They arecharged with the responsibility of providingleadership in the area of curriculum devel-opment and instructional improvement.They are either curriculum generalists orcurriculum specialists and they have manydifferent job titles.'

The Commision presents this docu-ment, to help supervisors better under,;tant.fthe negotiation devolopment; to provide in-sights and suggestions that will help themlive more effectively with the development;and to propose some alternatives in an at-tempt to influence the future of negotiationin a positive direction. In order to accom-plish these goals, it is necessary to providesome historical background data, as wellas to analyze a new force in the changeprocess. The present status and currenttrends of negotiation must be explored alsowith a close examination of the dilemmapeculiar to supervisors. Some discussion ofthe function of supervision is also essentialprior to the exploration of action proposalsand future goals.

Negotiation in the Private Sector

The recent entry of negotiation in thepublic domain has grown out of, and ispatterned after, the collective bargainingmodel that has developed in business andindustry. We must look at the long historyof negotiation in the private sector to betterunderstand the relatively short history andpresent status of negotiation in publiceducation.

1 Supervisors and curriculum workers (here-after referred to as supervisors) include principals,assistant principals, directors, coordinators, super-visors, consultants, assistant superintendents, as-sociate superintendents, assistant directors, staffassociates, curriculum advisers, and instructionalassistants.

5

The practice of employee groups' or-ganizing for collective action, a practice thatis now accepted in our economic system, hasa long history nationally and internationally.The trade guilds in Europe during the Medi-eval Period probably marked the beginningof labor unions as we know them today. Inthis country during the early 1800's therewere some attempts by labor groups to actcollectively for the purpose of promotingtheir interests. However, the courts ruledtheir actions illegal by concluding that suchgroup activity was "criminal conspiracy,"This legal interpretation was upheld untilabout the middle 1800's, when the Massa-chusetts Supreme Court ruled that the natureand purpose of group action could be illegalbut not group action itself.

The next major problem that blockedthe use of collective action in accomplishingthe aims of labor unions was the ShermanAntitrust Act, which was passed in 1890.The courts supported employers and re-strained labor unions by saying that theunions were restricting trade. The ClaytonAct of 1914 was designed specifically toprotect unions against the application of theantitrust law. In spite of this legislation,the Sherman Antitrust Act was still used torestrain unions until shortly after the enact-ment of the most important legislation insupport of labor's right to organize and bar-gain collectively, the Wagner Act of 1935.

The Wagner Act, or the NationalLabor Relations Act, provided for the estab-lishment of the National Labor RelationsBoard and affirmed labor's right to organizeand bargain collectively. This legislationwas tested at the level of the United StatesSupreme Court in 1937 and was found tobe constitutional.

For many years now labor groups havebeen organized for the propose of promoting

6

their interests within the law. They have hadthe right to bargain collectively with em-ployers in matters rel4Led to wages, hours,and working conditions. They have also hadthe right to strike, which has been theirmajor weapon when bargaining has failedto produce the results they desired.

In this historical context, it is not diffi-cult to understand why lawmakers in manystates have passed laws to permit negotia-tion in the public sector patterned after thecollective bargaining model. Legislatorshave given little or no attention to otheralternatives such as a "legal model," or a"professional model." Teacher organiza-tions have tended to behave as trade unionsin an effort to achieve their goals. They areworking with a model that has been tried,tested, and proven in business and industry.The collective bargaining model has achievedresultsgains for labor unions.

Negotiation in Public Education

Negotiation in education has a veryshort history. It began in Norwalk, Con-necticut, in 1946. A collective negotiationagreement was entered into by the teachersorganization and the Norwalk Board ofEducation. In 1951, the courts supportedthe right of teachers to organize and statedthat boards of education had the right tonegotiate with teachers. About six yearslater the same teachers group reached awritten agreement with the Norwalk Boardof Education that provided the right forteachers to appeal for mediation of disputes,At this time the teaches were affiliated withthe Connecticut Education Association.These developments in Connecticut did notreceive broad coverage in the news media.

The disputes that did receive majornational coverage were those between the

7

United Federation of Teachers and the NewYork City Board of Education between1960-62. The New York teachers had thefull support of the American Federation ofTeachers. The National Education Associa-tion did not officially enter the negotiationpicture until after the AFT's involvement inNew York. In 1962, the NEA took formalaction at its Representative Assembly Con-vention in Denver, Colorado. The NEAaction was in support of teacher negotiationand resulted in a leadership commitment tothe membership.

Since 1962, negotiation developmentsin education have been rapid as a result ofthe vigorous efforts of the AFT and theNEA; a growing impatience on the part ofteachers; and the enabling legislation inmany states, which has legalized teachernegotiation. The power struggle within theprofession is between teachers, on the onehand, and boards of education and admin-istration, on the other. Operationally, thelaws and organizational behavior have tendedto imitate the labor-management adversaryrelationship patterns found in business andindustry.

State laws authorizing negotiation forteacher organizations are becoming quitecommon. In many states the laws on nego-tiation pertain exclusively to public schoolpersonnel. In other states, the laws are moregeneral in that they apply to all public em-ployees including public school personnel.

Social ChangeThrough Confrontation

Educational institutions and manyother institutions in our society have beencharacterized by arriving at solutions toproblems through a very slow, deliberate

8

process, oftentimes inexcusably slow. Untilrecently, management's authority to estab-lish organizational structures with the powervested only in the higher echelons of thestructures, has perpetuated this slow process.Management's authority has been able tocontain the pressures and implement changeswhen it was ready to do so. According topresent signs, however, those times are goneforever.

Many groups and individuals in oursociety have become very impatient. Theyare no longer asking or requestingtheyare demanding. The concept of confronta-tion has in recent years become very popu-lar. Although this is not a new concept, itscurrent application does reflect a new pat-tern of pressures producing recurring de-mands from different sources exhibiting awide variety of issues. With many persons,the concept of confrontation has become away of life, and utilization of the concepthas achieved results, some desirable andsome undesirable. The drive to bring aboutrapid change through various forced con-frontation approaches has become a fairlycommon sociological pattern in Americansociety today.

Negotiation behavior in education canbe viewed as a part of this pattern. Thenew strong voice of the teacher and the newdemands for shared power relationships arelong overdue. For too many years, in toomany instances, teachers have been the vic-tims of tokenism. They had little to sayabout the decisions that affected them. Con-sequently, little progress was made in theareas of teacher salaries, fringe benefits,class size, instructional facilities, instruc-tional equipment, instructional materials,and financial support for education.

The power teachers are gaining, inmany instances, is right and proper. If we

9

are ever to become a profession, then themanagers of the teacher learning processmust have a strong voice in all welfare andinstructional matters that affect that process.However, it should be added that with prog-ress come new problems. An analysis ofwhat has happened clearly indicates thatresults have been both positive and negative.

Initially the major thrust by teachers,through the negotiation process, has beenin the category of welfare and job securityissues.' Generally speaking, significant gainshave been made in most school districts in-volved in negotiation on most of theseissues. For example, in Chicago and in NewYork City, salary and fringe benefit gainshave been averaging more than $1,000 ayear per employee affected. Gains on theseissues have been needed for many years.

There is little quarrel with the teach-ers' right to present the issues and their new-found power to do something about theissues. A balance of power is an essentialingredient in the pursuit of professionalism.There also is little quarrel with the statedgoals of teacher organizations. However,not all the results have been positive.

The Commission's Concern

The ASCD Commission on Problemsof Supervisors and Curriculum Workers has

2 These issues typically have included salaryschedules, salary increments, life insurance bene-fits, sick leave provisions, hospitalization insur-ance, maternity leave, military leave, personal busi-ness leave, family illness leave, sabbatical leave,leaves of absence, transfer rights, income protec-tion, liability insurance, travel allowance, extrapay for extra duties, terminal leave or severancepay, tuition reimbursement, promotion opportuni-ties, length of the teaching day, teaching assign-ments, duty-free lunch hours, duty-free planningperiods, tax-sheltered annuities, the school calen-dar, teaching facilities, grievance procedures, pay-roll deductions, and released time.

10

serious reservations about the collective bar-gaining model being employed in the process,the fact that only a part of the total profes-sional staff is involved, the nature of theitems now being placed on the bargainingtable, the detrimental effects on the in-structional program, and the resultant nega-tive impact on professional relationships.Although the gains have been significant,the costs have been high in terms of rolerelationships and the instructional program.

A basic premise of collective bargain-ing is the existence of a labor-managementadversary relationship. Such a relationshippromotes a "we-they" climate at a timewhen all professional staff members shouldbe working cooperatively on the criticaleducational problems of today. This is atime when teachers and administratorsshould be sitting together having the free-dom to explore, create, invent, and im-plement solutions to complex curricularproblems.

Bargaining groups characteristically usethe "community of interest" concept. Thisconcept has too frequently been interpretedas meaning the same job classificatnn, suchas all teachers, for example, and/or it hasbeen interpreted to mean all persons oper-ating on the same salary schedule. In toomany instances, such interpretations haveexcluded supervisors from negotiation andfrom membership in local educational asso-ciations.

The fragmentation of groups of staffmembers resulting from teachers' placingthemselves in a separate bargaining unit hascreated a new type of hostility between andamong staff members, has adversely affectedcommunications, and has impeded coopera-tive efforts. The present trend appears tobe to accept and perpetuate what is. Insome districts there are splinter groups of

11

teachers, each with "a community of inter-est," each working for separate bargainingrights.

Administrators, too, have seized uponthe community of interest concept. In somecases they have been recognized as separatebargaining groups while other administra-tive groups also are striving for recognition.The Hillsdale Case decision of 1969 maybecome a landmark for administrativegroups. The ruling states that principalshave a right, under the Michigan negotia-tion legislation, to organize and bargaincollectively.

If the "me too" and the "bandwagon"approaches persist, we may have inventeda monster that will devour all of us. Wemust, however, resist making a self-fulfillingprophecy. If we decide something is in-evitable and act accordingly, the stage willbe set to make it so. Just imagine whatwould happen if a local school district ulti-mately had separate bargaining units forclassroom teachers, department chairmen,counselors, school social workers, librarians,nurses, coaches, driver education teachers,and elementary special (art, music, physicaleducation) teachers. Then add to the pic-ture elementary principals, secondary prin-cipals, assistant principals, supervisors, di-rectors, coordinators, and consultants.

The ASCD Commission on Problemsof Supervisors and Curriculum Workersholds that it is ludicrous and ineffective foreducators to work as splinter groups; theprofession needs to coordinate and unify allits efforts. The profession needs to organizeon the basis, not of a community of interest,but of a community of purpose concept.Professional staff members need to operate,not as labor-management, but as co-profes-sionals. The profession needs to grow outof the collective bargaining model and grow

12

into (invent) a professional model. Theprofession needs to develop power relation-ships that are more consistent with and moreadequate for the complex nature of the edu-cation enterprise. More about this will besaid later.

Dilemma of Supervisors

Devoting special attention to the di-lemma of supervisors should serve to illumi-nate the problems resulting from negotiationand should serve as a basis for recommend-ing positive approaches. It is ironical thatthe essence of the negotiation concept, thehard-won right of teachers to be involvedin decision making on matters that affectthem, would be denied to supervisors by theimplementation of that very concept.

This irony is compounded by the factthat supervisors have often been in the fore-front demanding more involvement andpower for teachers. They are in the "no-man's-land" of middle management. Inmany states, supervisors have been disen-franchised organizationally and thereby arenot represented at the negotiation table. Yetmaster contract provisions are agreed uponthat directly affect their daily leadershipfunctions.

Illustrations of this point would in-clude: the exclusive right of teachers toselect instructional materials; a defined lengthof the school day that prohibits after-schoolmeetings; the exclusive right of teacher or-ganizations to select curriculum committeemembers; the adoption of new units of studyor new courses in the curriculum at the"table" through negotiation; provisions thatprohibit changes in the curriculum withoutprior approval of the teacher organization;restrictions on classroom visitations; teach-

13

ing assignments based upon teacher choiceand seniority; summer school teaching posi-tions based upon seniority; transfer regula-tions that are based upon seniority ratherthan qualifications; restrictions on evaluationletivities; rigid class-size restrictions; andlimitations on experimental and innovativeprograms. Contract provisions of this typetend to limit sonic functions of supervisorsand at times to eliminate other functions,often denying the input of much-neededexpertise. There is some reason to believethat in sonic instances teachers may inad-vertently limit and restrict their own func-tions also through negotiation.

The power struggle in too many localschool districts has resulted in dividing peo-ple into two camps: the teachers in onecamp and top level administration, alongwith the board of education, in the othercamp. The longer the collective bargainingmodel is used, the wider the gap betweenthese two groups will become. Supervisorsare in the middle. Their success is de-pendent upon working effectively with bothgroups. Choosing sides, if they actuallyhave a choice, would not represent a posi-tive contribution, nor would such choiceenable them to carry out their responsibili-ties properly. This aspect of the dilemmahas forced supervisors to work under ahandicap that has made it more difficult forthem to initiate and bring about instruc-tional change.

Their lack of involvement in the nego-tiation process has also resulted in dispro-portionate economic growth for supervisors.In most settings, middle management peoplehave not gained as much as teachers in re-gard to salary increases, fringe benefits, andjob security. No legal channel is providedthrough which supervisors can speak abouttheir unique welfare concerns. In many dis-

14

tricts the result has been that, due to ashortage of funds following teacher negotia-tion, supervisors are given less money thanthe teachers on a proportionate basis. Super-visors do not have a legal base from whichto operate and they lack the strength ofnumbers.

Another major concern of supervisors,and of others who look objectively at theproblem, relates to the impact of negotiationon children and young people and on theinstructional program. Who negotiates forthe pupils? When limited resources areavailable, the accomplishment of personalgains for teachers is achieved at the expenseof the instructional program and of otherhuman beings. Among these persons wouldbe other professional staff members, mem-bers of the community, and the young peo-ple for whom schools are responsible.

Some negotiation demands that arecommonly considered in the welfare cate-gory have implications for or direct effectsupon curriculum and instruction, Shouldpupils not have some voice in matters thataffect them? Should the community nothave some voice? Do not all segments ofour school communities have a moral rightto be represented? It appears, then, thatwe are dealing not only with a dilemma ofsupervisors but with a dilemma of a largersociety.

The "table problem" may not havebeen unique to the Paris Peace Talks. Cur-rently negotiation in public education ischaracterized by a two-sided table, one sidefor the teachers and one side for the board-administration. Perhaps we need a five-sidedtable so that all segments of the school-community are properly represented. Thenyoung people, parents, supervisors, teachers,and board-administration could sit and talkabout mutual concerns, issues, and prob-

15

lems, We need to maintain or to increaseselflessness in the process and to adopt amore responsible, comprehensive approach.

Function of Supervision

Beginning with the early history of theAmerican school, the supervisory functionhas existed and has carried with it greatresponsibility. This function has usually in-cluded the detetplination of the design ofthe learning environment as well as theprocess of carrying out the design. Thishas meant knowing the fields of knowledgeas well as ways of facilitating and enhancingchildren's learning through work with schoolpersonnel and the community. These dualfunctions of persons responsible for super-vision have remained fairly consistent in thedevelopment of American education.

The element which has not remainedconsistent is the role and status of the in:li-viduAl who performs the supervisory func.-tioyis. In many of the first schools in thiscountry, supervision was accomplished bycommittees representing the community. Asthe function became centralized in a person,the individual carrying out the role began toassume a great deal of authority and power.

The authority and power held by indi-viduals performing supervisory functions didnot always mean that the supervised teacherswere teaching more effectively; but in manycases, the use of such authority meant theimposition of controls on the teaching proc-ess and content. This control was executedin terms of the strengths, interests, convic-tions, inadequacies, and prejudices of thepersons in the supervisory positions.

One of the constants in the history ofsupervision is that the function is so vital

16

that it is always performed by someone;somebody influences those who teach. Theneed and the function will always exist.Generally speaking, this has been a functionperformed by individuals in a variety ofroles with different degrees of authority,power, and ability and with different inter-ests and titles. In some instances the posi-tion has been held by individuals who them-selves have not been learners or innovators,but maintainers of the status quo. Suchpersons perhaps have been better informedabout the new content of education thanabout the process of education. The processhere is critical, The people in supervisoryroles must be adequate in their skill andknowledge of the processes of teachingteachers, of helping other adults assume newprofessional responsibilities and enhancetheir competencies.

In the past 25 years there have beenmajor shifts in the ways individuals whoperformed supervisory functions were sup-posed to work. One of the major shifts hasbeen toward a more democratic approachin the relationship between those in thesupervisory role and the classroom teacher.Teachers became involved in the develop-ment of curriculum. Administrators andsupervisors attempted to use shared leader-ship, consulting, and counseling skills. Theyalso utilized a varied range of new designsfor workshops, seminars, institutes, and even"happenings." In some areas of the nationtheir authority and power as specialists havebeen given to general administrators, withspecialists' having to assume a consultantrole.

With the new complexities and de-mands of the tremendous social revolutionof the times, and with the school establish-ment being challenged to its very core, those

17

who are responsible for developing the con-tent and process of education must meetthese demands. New competencies andskills will be required of supervisors andnew types of managerial roles will develop.One has only to look at the recent interestof organized management in the operationof schools, the teachers union, and parentand other community groups to realize thatif the present establishment of supervisorsdoes not respond, other sectors of societyare ready to take over the supervisory lead-ership functions in American education.

The nature and the changing percep-tions of the educative process, as well asthe impact of negotiation, mandate thatsupervisors rethink their roles and staffingpatterns. Also supervisors need to look atperforming their functions of improving edu-cation through persuasion and leadership,rather than through exertion of powerthrough authority.

Proposals for Involvementof Supervisors

As we view the dilemma of supervisorsand the profession, we must look at twosets of approaches, one set of short-rangeproposals and one set of long-range goals.Conditions today cannot be wished awayand we cannot pretend they do not exist.To get from where we are to where weshould be will take time and effort. Super-visors have the potential of being influentialin the process. Their leadership in this re-gard is badly needed.

The short-range proposals that are sug-gested are specifically designed to influencethe current negotiation scene so that thenegative ramifications can be reduced oreliminated. These proposals are also de-

18

signed to establish a position of influenceand provide a voice for the supervisor inteacher-board negotiation. The proposals inthis section should be viewed as idea gen-erators and direction setters. They are pre-sented with fu)1 knowledge that conditionsand situations across the nation vary somuch that what may be appropriate in onesituation may be completely inappropriate

another.Effort to influence negotiation content

and processes must be exerted well in ad-vance of the formal beginning of negotia-tion for a new contract. Such effort mustbe made at a time when emotions are notrunning high and a time when negotiatorson both sides are apt to be most receptiveto intelligent, logical, and positive proposals.It is also important to "reach" negotiatorsbefore "packages" and "counterproposals"are developed. Once statements are in writ-ing and commitments have been made, it isextremely difficult to effect changes.

In settings where supervisors are out-side the negotiation arena, it would be ap-propriate for them to submit formal actionideas designed to improve current negotia-tion practices. Implicit in the proposals pre-sented here are the notions that curricularmatters should not be subject to an adver-sary collective bargaining approach; thatpeople who are to be affected by curriculumdecisions should be involved in the decision-making process; that curriculum develop-ment is a growth and study process; thatthe end products of curriculum developmentactivities evolve and are continually recon-structed; and that the best curriculum prod-ucts result from the deliberations of profes-sional people representing a variety of rolesin a school district and with various back-grounds of experience.

19

The short-range proposals that mightbe helpful to supervisors are:

1. That a pre-negotiation workshopbe established which would involve indi-viduals representative of the total profes-sional staff.

2. That the explicit purposes of theworkshop be to open channels of communi-cation and to discuss ways of improving thenegotiation process.

3. That the pre-negotiation workshopconcept, if successfully implemented, be es-tablished on a permanent basis for continu-ous, ongoing dialogue.

4. That legal negotiation betweenteachers and administration-board be re-stricted to problems and issues that areclearly in the teacher welfare category.

5. That a second negotiation groupbe established, involving representatives ofthe total professional staff, to deal with cur-riculum issues and problems.

6. That the curriculum negotiationgroup restrict its agrL to the processand design for seeking solutions.

7. That the curriculum negotiationagreements clearly specify who is to be in-volved, the decision-making procedures,realistic timetables for completion of tasks,time for staff members to work on the tasks,the controls necessary to ensure continuedprogress, and provisions for accountability.

8. That participation in all negotia-tion sessions be restricted to professionalstaff members, The temptation to involve"third parties" should be resisted. Localprofessional problems and issues should beresolved by local professional staff members.

Specific illustrations of contract lan-guage and content that could result fromthe implementation of the foregoing pro-

20

posals related to curriculum might be help-ful at this point. Figure 1 (see page 22)presents a sampling of negotiation items thatare curricular in nature; typical collectivebargaining contract provisions on each item;and contract provisions that might resultfrom a more professional approach con-sistent with the proposals that have beenpresented here.

The next set of proposals pertain ex-clusively to the relationships between super-visors and the administration-board:

1. That the administration-board es-tablish an Advisory Council on Negotiation.This council should be representative of allmembers of the professional staff who arenot represented by the teacher bargainingunit.

2. That the council meet regularlywith the administration-board negotiatingteam for the purpose of reviewing teacherdemands, reacting to the demands, offeringsuggestions, receiving progress reports onthe conduct of negotiation, and receiving re-ports on agreements reached in negotiation.

3. That a group be established repre-sentative of all non-teaching professionalstaff members for the purpose of talking tothe administration and the board about theirwelfare concerns.

4. That the purpose of this new groupbe to discuss problems professionally and toarrive at agreementsnot to bargain collec-tively or to develop a master contract.

All of the proposals in this section canbe implemented without legislative action inthe states. Laws tell us what we must do,what we must not do, and what we may do.They do not tell us what we should do. TheASCD Commission on Problems of Super-visors and Curriculum Workers views theproposals in this section as short-range ap-

21

FIGURE 1. Examples of Contract Language and ContentLabor Model vs. Professional Model

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MODEL NEGOTIATION ITEM PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATION MODEL

1

There shall be at least one teacher oneach curriculum committee. All teachercommittee members shall be appointedby the teacher bargaining unit. No newcommittees shall be established withoutconsent of the bargaining unit. Curriculum

Committees

Curriculum development work is theresponsibility of teachers and supervisorsworking together. All committee mem-bers are to be selected on the basis ofinterest and qualifications. All curricu-lum committees should have combinedmembership of teachers and supervisors.Committee appointments, coordinationof committee activities, and the imple-mentation of committee recommenda-tions are the joint responsibility of thesuper visory and teaching personnel.

1

Only teacher selected and approvedtextbooks will be purchased by theschool district.

Textbooks

Criteria and procedures for the selec-tion of textbooks and other instructionalmaterials are to be developed by a corn-mittee of teachers and supervisors, andapproved by the superintendent. Eachtextbook selection committee will havea supervisory staff member represented.

2

3

No class in the school district shallexceed a maximum enrollment of thirty(30) students.

Class Size

The guideline for each school will hean overall class size average of twenty-eight (28). Class size adjustments will hepossible based upon data related to levelof instruction, nature of the content,nature of the total program, nature ofthe community, type and condition offacilities, school enrollment, and distri-bution of students by grade level.

3

4

The length of the teacher's work dayshall be from 8:45 a.m. until 3:45 p.m.Teachers will not be required to attendafter-school meetings unless they aregiven extra pay. Length of

School Da y

The length of a teacher's day cannothe circumscribed by hours. The lengthof each day relates to completion of pro-fessional responsibilities and should heflexible. Teachers are to he available forsupervision of students before and afterschool, for faculty meetings, committeemeetings, conferences, and attendance atan agreed-upon number of school ac-tivities.

4

proaches and presents these in the hope thatthey will be of some immediate help tosupervisors.

Future Goals for the Profession

The major concern of the ASCD Com-mission on Problems of Supervisors andCurriculum Workers is the future of educa-tion and the future of our profession. Repe-tition at this point seems appropriate. Theprofession needs, not to work as splintergroups, but to coordinate and unify all itsefforts. The profession needs to organizeon the basis, not of community of interest,but of community of purpose. Professionalstaff members need to operate, not as labor-management, but as co-professionals. Theprofession needs to develop power relation-ships that are more consistent with and moreadequate for the complex nature of the edu-cation process. The profession needs togrow out of the collective bargaining modeland to grow into a professional model.

A professional negotiation model wouldhave the potential of contributing to a newkind of cooperation between and among allprofessional staff members. Such a modelcould help in the coordination of effortsamong the various segments of the profes-sion, and thus lead to its unification. Thecomplexity of the education enterprise re-quires differentiation of roles, functions,training, and compensation. The need forspecial groups to organize and to have anidentity cannot be denied. These groupswill have special interests and special prob-lems. The realities must be recognized aswe talk about the goal of a unified profes-sion. The term, unified profession, is notbeing used in the context of mandatory mem-bership, but rather relates to the quality of

24

relationships and the pursuit of commongoals.

The achievement of the qualitativeconcept of a unified profession would resultfrom recognition of differences, respect fordifferences, and the establishment of pro-cedures for resolving conflicts in construc-tive ways. Professional staff members wouldbe talking to, with, and for one another.They would deal with one another fairly andjustly. They would assume joint responsi-bility for the conduct of members of theprofession. They would no longer say,"That's your problem"; they would say,"That's our problem." They would have astrong voice in relation to school financeand educational legislation. They wouldassume responsibility for and be held ac-countable for their negotiation proposals.

Our task is to determine creative waysto achieve such lofty goals. Too often wefeel that we must "invent the wheel" all overagain. Educators in this country can learnmuch from experiences that led to the pres-ent status of the American Medical Associa-tion. Within our own field we can look tothose experiences that aided Canadian, andother British Commonwealth educators, inthe accomplishment of their unified profes-sion concept.

The implementation of sonic controlsover the content and process of negotiationthrough legal provisions might also be help-ful, or at least worth exploring. New ad-ministrative staffing patterns that would as-sure full participation of teachers in allinstructional decisions certainly would con-tribute to improving our profession. Ex-perimentation with alternative models fornegotiation might prove highly productive.These suggestions should be viewed as cluesto new approaches rather than as recom-mendations for change. The best answers

25

to our problems do not appear to be avail-able at this time; we are still in the brain-storming and learning stage relative to theachievement of a more unified profession.

Conclusion

In this paper the ASCD Commissionon Problems of Supervisors and CurriculumWorkers has attempted to treat the subjectof negotiation in a comprehensive manner,giving special attention to the present plightof supervisors. The brief historical reviewof collective bargaining in the private sectorshould help supervisors better understandthe current status of negotiation in the publicsector. The comparatively short history ofnegotiation in education clearly indicates thatthe collective bargaining model is being im-plemented in many states across the nation.The fact that teacher groups have becomevery impatient with the change process ineducation has led to strong militant be-havior on the part of many teacher or-ganizations.

The gains teachers have made on wel-fare issues are commendable. Their legalright to be actively involved in all mattcrsthat affect them has excellent potential forimproving education and fostering betterprofessional relationships. However, this po-tential has not been realized because of theutilization of the collective bargaining modeland the "we-they" climate that has devel-oped. Too often supervisors are excludedfrom the negotiation process. This has hada negative impact on supervisors in regardto status, functions, and working relation-ships with other staff members.

The review of the function of super-vision in education clearly supports the factthat the performance of supervisory func-

26

tions is more important than ever before inAmerican education. It is also clear thatsupervisors must reassess the nature of theirfunctions and the procedures they employin carrying out their functions. A reviewof staffing patterns would be a necessaryelement in the reassessment process. Theaction proposals presented in this paperhave been designed as suggested approachessupervisors might use in local districts toimprove current negotiation practice andprovide a voice for themselves in the process.The specifics of the proposals can and shouldbe readily adapted and improved. The as-sumptions implicit in the proposals and theintended results of the proposals are theimportant elements.

The Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development and its Commis-sion on Problems of Supervisors and Cur-riculum Workers have attempte'l here torecognize the urgent need to deal with therealities supervisors face today. At the sametime we must also look down the roadin terms of the best educational society wecan visualize 10 or 15 years from now.The long-range goal must be the more uni-fied profession that can result from theinvention and implementation of a profes-sional negotiation model.

ASCD and the Commission view thepresent negative developments in negotia-tion as a critical area of concern. This con-cern will remain a priority of the Associationin the future. Efforts at the national levelwill continue in the direction of influencingall professional associations toward im-proved communications, agreement on com-mon goals, and greater unification of effort.

27

References

Roy B, Alien and John Schmid, editors. Col-lective Negotiations and Educational Adminis-tration. Fayetteville, Arkansas: University ofArkansas, College of Education, and the Uni-versity Council of Educational Administration,1966,

Charles Cogen. "Collective Bargaining: TheAFT Way." Speech given at National Instituteon Collective Negotiations in Public Educa-tion, Rhode Island College, July 8, 1965.Chicago: American Federation of Teachers,1965.

Ronald O. Daly. "New Directions for Pro-fessional Negotiation." National Education As-sociation Journal 55(7) :27-29; October 1966.

F. Keppel. "Use Strike Only as Last Resort,Keppel Urges AFT Members." Nation'sSchools 76:92; October 1965.

Charles T. Schmidt, Jr., Hyman Parker, andBob Repas. A Guide to Collective Negotia-tions in Education. East Lansing, Michigan:Social Science Research Bureau, MichiganState University, 1967.

Joseph Shister, Benjamin Aaron, and Clyde W.Summers. Public Policy and Collective Bar-gaining. New Yo!k: Harper & Row, 1962.

T. M. Stinnett, Jack H. Kleinmann, and MarthaL. Ware. Professional Negotiation in PublicEducation. New York: The Macmillan Com-pany, 1966.

28

Members of the ASCU Commissionon Problems of Supervisors

and Curriculum Workers

HAROLD T. SHAFER, ChairmanSuperinten-dent, Wyckoff Township Public Schools, Wyck-off, New Jersey.

ROBERT J. ALFONSOAssistant Dean for In-struction and Graduate Studies, College ofEducation, Kent State University, OhioMRS. MARION C. BEcKwITHAssistant Direc-tor, Department of Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment, Montgomery County Schools,Rockville, MarylandLEO BLACKAssistant Commissioner, ColoradoState Department of Education, DenverGERALD R. FIRTHChairman of the Depart-ment of Secondary Education, University ofAlabama, UniversityJOHN FORTENBERRYASSiStant Superintendentfor Instruction, Little Rock Public Schools,Little Rock, Arkansas

BEN M. HARRISAssociate Professor of Edu-cation, University of Texas, AustinBARBARA HARTSIGDirector, Elementary Edu-cation, California State College, FullertonBERNARD W. KINSELLAAssistant Superinten-

1 dent, Pittsford Central Schools, New YorkGORDON J. KLOPFDean of Faculties, BankStreet College of Education, New York, NewYork

JOHN T. LovELLean, School of Education,University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, Con-necticut

WILLIAM H. LudoProfessor of Education,University of California, Los AngelesKENT MEYERS--Assistant Superintendent,Lake Oswego Public Schools, Lake Oswego,Oregon

JOHN PRATERSuperintendent, Maywood Pub-lic Schools, Maywood, IllinoisJ. T. SANDEFURChairman of the Division ofEducation, Division of Teacher Education,Kansas State Teachers College, EmporiaWILLIAM F. YOUNGDirector for Informationand Communication, Michigan-Ohio RegionalEducational Laboratory, Detroit

29