Formal Training In Collective Bargaining: Superintendents .
1Formal Training in Collective Bargaining: Superintendents’ PerspectiveCeline M. JohnsonDoctoral Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Doctorate of Education (Ed.D.)The College of Professional Studies, Northeastern University, Boston, MassachusettsDr. Christopher Unger, AdvisorMarch 2013
2AbstractThe purpose of this qualitative study is to investigate superintendents’ perspectives of the valueof formal training in collective bargaining negotiations. Dependent on their responses, one couldpropose negotiation skills training as a crucial area of need for superintendents. Socialinterdependence theory provides the theoretical framework for the literature review and helps toinform an analysis of following research question: What is the impact of formal training innegotiation, or lack thereof, as perceived by LEA administrators on the outcomes of contractnegotiations? Seven superintendents of medium size school districts across three states wereinterviewed about their perspectives of the impact of formal negotiation training in the outcomesof collective bargaining. A qualitative approach was used to examine their perspectives and thepotential impact of such training on school district negotiations.Keywords: Negotiation, Collective Bargaining, Superintendent, School Committee, LocalEducation Agency
3AcknowledgementsI would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Chris Unger for his patience, understanding and dedicationto this process. I would also like to thank my committee member Dr. Claire Jackson. A specialthanks to my friend, mentor and committee member, Dr. Robert Fricklas, whose tireless effortsand support never wavered. I thank the faculty and staff of Northeastern University College ofProfessional Studies. I would like to thank the superintendents interviewed who made this studypossible. Their willingness to share their formal training and experiences may help otheradministrators gain the knowledge needed for negotiations. I also thank my parents who arealways there to support me in any endeavor I choose. They have always encouraged me to domy best and make a difference. I thank my friends for their continued support as I progressedthrough this program to achieve my final goal. I want to include a very special thank you to mydaughters Sarah and Stephanie who are my true inspiration to always strive to be more.
4Table of ContentsABSTRACT .2ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .3TABLE OF CONTENTS .4CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .Problem of Practice . . Purpose of the Study .Significance of the Problem .Research Question .Document Organization .Theoretical Framework. . 6678101011CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW .Relevant Literature Regarding the History of Collective Bargaining in Education. .Relevant Literature Regarding Effective Administrative Decision-Making .Graduate Programs in Administration that Include Courses in Negotiation Major Collective Bargaining Successes and Failures in the Educational Arena .1718192528CHAPTER III: RESEARCH DESIGN Research Question Methodology .Site and Participants .Data Collection .Data Analysis Validity and Credibility . Researcher’s Role .Protection of Human Subjects .Conclusion . .30313134343537393940CHAPTER IV: REPORT OF RESEARCH FINDINGS . .Reporting the Findings and Analyses Study Context Coding Findings .Major Findings .414142424359CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS . .Revisiting the Problem of Practice Review of Methodology Summary of Findings Discussion of Findings in Relation to Theoretical Frameworks .Discussion of Findings in Relation to Literature Review .616162636870
5Limitations Significance of Study Next Steps/Future Research .Conclusion . 75767777APPENDICES 79REFERENCES 80
6Chapter I: IntroductionProblem of PracticeIn the contentious world of school reform, the art of negotiation is of utmost importance.In the past ten years alone, local and national teachers’ unions have challenged almost everyaspect of education reform, most recently the effort to connect teacher pay to studentachievement. In most of the country, educators and paraprofessionals are represented in contractnegotiations and disputes by professional associations or unions led by individuals with strongbackgrounds and experience in negotiation. In the many Local Education Agencies (LEA’s)where management-level school district personnel are responsible for leading contractnegotiations, the fact that the majority of people in school or district positions of authority do nothave the proper background or formal graduate level coursework to negotiate contracts orresolve disputes with any degree of expertise can create a significant problem. Therefore, due tolack of expertise on the part of those individuals who represent management, ineffectivenegotiation and resolution of conflict may lead to other problems that affect morale, budget andultimately, student achievement. This is the issue to be addressed in this doctoral research.When school superintendents, administrators and school committee members lack formaltraining in negotiation, what are the ramifications for districts, schools and students? Do schooldistricts lose the advantage in all or some of the following: management prerogative (e.g. abilityto assign a paraprofessional appointed by the school committee as a special education teacherassistant to a general education teacher assistant); fiscal prudence/cost control (e.g. ability todefine co-pay for benefits); interpretation of laws and regulations? For example, under the RhodeIsland certification (RICT), every paraprofessional must participate in professional developmentrelated to their work, but the law does not specify the number of hours. Consequently, personnel
7negotiating with the paraprofessional union could easily be led to agree to provide suchprofessional development without understanding the critical importance of defining when thatprofessional development occurs (before, after or during the workday) and who must participate.Purpose of the StudyOver the past several years, collective bargaining and negotiation between teachers andlocal community agents such as school committees or school boards have become the subject ofnational attention. Most recently, Wisconsin and Tennessee have challenged the status quo byending collective bargaining and giving local school boards the full authority to operate theirdistricts in the manner they choose. However, that does not mean the unions are shut out of thediscussion. The new laws create a process called “collaborative conferencing,” where the schoolboard, administrators and union officials will be forced to sit and discuss many of the normalissues, including salary, insurance, grievance procedures and working conditions. This researchis an effort to unravel the ramifications of collective bargaining with teachers' unions when thepower of negotiating with local agents is limited by the extent to which they have been trained innegotiation strategy.Important research, conducted by Taylor, Mesmer-Magnus, and Burns (2008),investigated the efficacy of negotiation training courses in promoting individuals’ post-trainingself-confidence in negotiating ability. In their study, they found that despite the popularity ofsuch courses, relatively little research has assessed course effectiveness in improving traineeself-confidence and post-training transfer.The purpose of this research is to determine the impact of formal graduate levelcoursework in negotiation by members of LEA negotiation teams or the lack thereof on contractnegotiations as perceived by superintendents. The method to be utilized in this dissertation
8involves research in the area of negotiation conducted through a study of seven school districts inNew England where the superintendent is the head of contract negotiations. This researcher willassess the formal level of training in negotiation, the types of negotiation engaged-in and theresults of those negotiations. The data and information will be compiled, reviewed andpublished for the benefit of school committees, school administrators and post-secondaryprograms.Significance of the ProblemNegotiation is a topic that begs more research because school committees,superintendents and administrators need sharply honed negotiation skills in order to generate thebest collective bargaining agreement (CBA) they can on behalf of their constituencies includingparents, students and tax payers. Without these skills, the superintendent and administrators willbe negotiating with individuals representing the teachers and/or paraprofessionals (typicallyunions) who are highly trained in negotiation and who, when aware of bargaining weaknesses onthe part of the administration, will quickly counter any move that does not benefit their position.According to Bazerman and Neale (1992; Thompson, 1991), the ability to negotiate effectivelywith coworkers, superiors and subordinates is critical to success in today’s workplace. Thoughsome individuals are considered to be natural negotiators, for most, effective negotiation requirestraining and practice (Shell, 2000).Given the importance of this topic, there appears to be little research available fordiscussion and review. Hannaway and Rotherham (2006), state there are several factors thatmake the study of collective bargaining difficult. First, Hannaway and Rotherham stress thatcollective bargaining is a process based on a number of factors rather than a predetermined set ofoutcomes. As a result, negotiation processes may be adversarial in one place and collaborativein another. They continue to state that “some bargained agreements constrain administrators
9from responsibly managing the schools, while others create opportunities for progressivechange” (p. 112).A second factor, according to Hannaway and Rotherham (2006) that makes the study ofcollective bargaining difficult is that collective bargaining for teachers in the United States ishighly decentralized. Within the constraints of state law, “district labor and management maywrite and sign any agreement they choose. What the agreements include results from severalfactors: the state and local labor contexts, the history of labor-management relations within thedistrict, prior contracts, current reforms, and the personalities and priorities of the participants”(p.113).Third, and quite importantly, is the fact that unions and school boards in many states havebeen negotiating and signing contracts for over 35 years. It is due to this, as stated by Hannawayand Rotherham (2006), that researchers face “daunting methodological problems as they try toestablish the effects of collective bargaining” (p.113). Hannaway and Rotherham also note thatit may have been possible in the 1960’s, to collect and compare data about teacher quality orstudent performance as unions were still fairly “new” and bargaining was being introduced. Itwould have been easier to isolate the effects of collective bargaining in different districts andstates.The fourth and final factor that makes collective bargaining difficult to study is thatcollective bargaining, according to Hannaway and Rotherham (2006), was only one of manypolicies that changed public schools during the 1960’s. During this time, new programs werebeing introduced to districts such as Title I, ESEA and PL 94-142 (Special Education Law) thataltered the responsibilities and practices of both school officials and teachers. Additionally,career opportunities for women expanded during this time, a factor that transformed the labor
10market of the public schools. With all of these “new” initiatives taking place, it “became nearlyimpossible for researchers to isolate the role of collective bargaining during this rapid change”period (p. 113).Research QuestionThroughout this research proposal, the following question will be investigated: What isthe impact of formal training in negotiation, or lack thereof, as perceived by LEA administrators,on the outcomes of contract negotiations?Document OrganizationThis proposal will begin with the theoretical framework of social interdependence theory.A literature review will follow based on limited research surrounding the topic of negotiation.There are several factors that make negotiation and collective bargaining in education difficult tostudy and research, for example, the fact that collective bargaining is a process rather than apredetermined set of outcomes, is highly decentralized in the United States, is difficult toestablish its impact on communities, and that it is only one of many policies and influences thatchanged public schools since the late 1960’s.A research design will be introduced taking into account the theoretical frameworks andthe review of the pertinent research. This qualitative study is comprised of the interviews ofseven superintendents across seven New England school districts. The districts arerepresentative of a variety students and communities of different ethnicities and socioeconomicstatuses. The research will be conducted to identify the degree of formal training that practicingsuperintendents have or have not engaged in in regards to collective bargaining as well as thedegree to which they believe it has impacted their ability to negotiate. The qualitative studyapproach will allow this researcher to pursue the research questions based on the interview data
11of the seven superintendents. This type of approach will be useful in attaining information fromthe management side of negotiations.However, it should be noted that this research design has a number of limitations, e.g.;1. External validity limitation.a. The interview uses the school district superintendent who takes the lead role incontract negotiations.b. No school committee members who are involved in negotiations, will beinterviewed for the purpose of this study.2. No formal quantitative analysis of interview or historical data will be collected.3. The population size is moderately small and without a quantitative analysis, will notyield any results of statistical significance.Theoretical FrameworkThe educational theory that applies to negotiation is social interdependence theory.One of the most important skills within this theory is decision-making that includes bothjudgment and choice. Both at a personal level and in the context of organizations, decisionmaking strongly affects the quality of life and success (Hammond, McClelland andMumpower, 1980; Kaplan and Schwartz, 1975).Social interdependence theory is about how to understand and negotiate life. It servesas a foundation for other theories by providing the ability to deal with trust, conflict,integrative negotiations, distributive justice, positive power and values (Johnson & Johnson,2005, p. 296). “Integrative negotiations are grounded in promoting a cooperative, problemsolving process to an agreement” (Johnson & Johnson, 2006, p. 287).
12“Social interdependence exists when the outcomes of individuals are affected by eachothers’ actions” (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, p. 41). According to Johnson and Johnson(2006), social interdependence theory has its “origins in Gestalt Psychology and Lewin’sField Theory. The historical roots of social interdependence theory can be traced to a shift inphysics from mechanistic to field theories. It is this shift that influenced the field ofpsychology” (p. 287). Kurt Lewin (1935, 1948) proposed:The essence of a group is the interdependence among members, which results in thegroup being a dynamic whole so that a change in the state of any member or subgroupchanges the state of any other member or subgroup. Group members are madeinterdependent through common goals. For interdependence to exist there must bemore than one person or entity involved and the people or entities must impact eachother (Johnson & Johnson, 2006, p. 288).These concepts adapt well to the practice of negotiating teams in that, theoretically, inthe negotiation process, one group is attempting to make a change to the other group’sproposals. It involves much interaction both within the groups themselves as well asbetween the two opposing groups.The basic premise of social interdependence theory, according to Johnson andJohnson (2006) is that the structure of the goals of the people in the situation determines howparticipants interact and the interaction patterns determine the outcome of the situation.Holmes (2002), conducted research that focused on the functional approach ofinterdependence theory. Holmes notes that interdependence theory expands the formulaproposed by Lewin (1948) in which behavior is a function of the person and the environment.With respect to social relationships, “the interaction that occurs between persons A and B is a
13function of both persons’ respective tendencies in relation to each other in the particularsituation of interdependence”(p. 3).Johnson and Johnson (2005) noted that Deutsch expanded on Lewin’s ideas of socialinterdependence theory. “Deutsch (1949) stated that positive interdependence resulted in aprocess of promotive interaction whereas negative interdependence resulted in a process ofoppositional interaction” (p. 292). Promotive interaction, according to Johnson and Johnsonis defined as individuals engaging in actions that increase the likelihood of each others’success in achieving the joint goal. It consists of a number of variables, including mutualhelp and assistance, exchange of needed resources, effective communication, mutualinfluence, trust and constructive management of conflict (p. 292).Johnson and Johnson (2005) defined oppositional interaction as individuals engagingin actions that reduce the likelihood of successful achievement of the joint goal. It consistsof variables such as obstruction of each others’ goal achievement efforts, tactics of threat andcoercion, ineffective and misleading communication, distrust and striving to win in conflicts(p. 292).Johnson and Johnson (2005) state there are three implications of the basic premisenoted by Deutsch. First, that cooperation and competition only exist as people take action toachieve a goal. Second, that appropriate action depends on a person’s cognitiverepresentation of a situational context meaning. As an individual’s behavior unfolds, it doesso in response to their perceptions and assumptions about the current situation. Lastly,according to Johnson and Johnson (2005), cause and effect can go both ways. Any part ofthe social interdependence process elicits the other parts of the process (pp. 292-293).
14According to Johnson and Johnson (2003), social interdependence theory provides theframework for understanding integrative negotiations (a cooperative situation in whichindividuals seek an agreement that benefits everyone involved). There is an absence of researchlinking social interdependence theory and integrative negotiations (p. 40). In this qualitativestudy, social interdependence theory provides a framework in order to summarize existingresearch, conduct new research and develop a procedure for integrative negotiations linked to abroader base of knowledge
make the study of collective bargaining difficult. First, Hannaway and Rotherham stress that collective bargaining is a process based on a number of factors rather than a predetermined set of outcomes. As a result, negotiation processes may be adversarial in one place and collaborative in another.
determine the terms and conditions of the Collective Agreement. This Collective Agreement then sets the rules for the workplace until the next bargaining round. The best way to learn about collective bargaining is to do it! We will be using a collective bargaining simulation designed by Dr. Kelly Williams-Whitt of the University of Lethbridge, AB.
the purposes of collective bargaining as defined in Chapter 4117 of the Ohio Revised Code for the bargaining unit defined in Section 2.02A. 2.02 Bargaining Unit A. The bargaining unit shall include all classified employees currently employed or to
Georgia is the only state that singles out teachers in legislation in order to prevent them from bargaining collectively (Ga. Code Ann. § 20-2-989.10).3 In Tennessee, case law has ruled public-sector collective bargaining to be illegal, but the state legislature passed a law that specifically permits collective bargaining for teachers.
Agreement, the University's Polices, Rules, Regulations and Procedures, as currently written or as amended, will apply to all Employees. 1.9 Collective Bargaining. Where required by law, and where there has been no waiver of bargaining required, the University will satisfy its collective bargaining obligation before DRAFT
whether or not to offer the terms of any existing collective bargaining to school employees. North Carolina No Ohio For start-up schools, teachers may work independently or form a collective bargaining unit. Conversion schools are subject to a school district's collective bargaining agreement, unless a majority
B. This Agreement supersedes and replaces any and all previous agreements, understandings (whether written or oral) and supplements between the Parties made under the auspice of a previous collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to include midterm bargaining, memoranda of understanding/agreement based on such bargaining, etc. 1.
4 59 ARTICLE 2 RECOGNITION60 61 62 2.1 Bargaining Unit. The University of Florida Board of Trustees (hereinafter Trustees) 63 recognizes the United Faculty of Florida (hereinafter UFF) as the exclusive representative for 64 the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and 65 conditions of employment for all faculty members in the bargaining unit as defined in
2 Ring Automotive Limited 44 (0)113 213 7389 44 (0)113 231 0266 Ring is a leading supplier of vehicle lighting, auto electrical and workshop products and has been supporting the automotive aftermarket for more than 40 years, supplying innovative products and a range synonymous with performance and quality. Bulb technology is at the heart of the Ring business, which is supported by unique .
