This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
January/February 2002

IASB survey probes collective bargaining practices, training

by Gerald Glaub

Labor-management relationships in most Illinois school districts appear to be amicable, or at least respectful. That is among the good news from a survey of district superintendents conducted this fall by the Illinois Association of School Boards.

The survey asked superintendents for information and perceptions of bargaining procedures, outcomes, levels of satisfaction and training received by members of the school board bargaining team. Survey findings were so generally favorable that most variables seem to have little or no impact on results.

Most recent teacher contract negotiations were settled without mediation (82 percent of reporting districts), and both school boards and teachers were reported satisfied with current bargaining practices (82 percent).

Moreover, the quality of board-union negotiations does not seem to vary much regardless of who serves on the board bargaining team, who speaks for the board at the bargaining table, how much training the board team has received, or whether the process is collaborative or adversarial (traditional).

Districts where relationships were not so warm tended to be those where teacher union bargaining went to mediation or produced strike threats. School boards were reported "satisfied" with current bargaining practices in 92 percent of the districts where contract settlements were reached without mediation. The "satisfied" proportion dropped to 54 percent of school boards in districts that went to mediation and 20 percent of boards facing strike threats. Only 28 of 499 bargaining districts reported strike threats.

Most of the districts where feelings on both sides of the bargaining table were described as "contentious" or "hostile" were those that went to mediation or produced strike threats. Yet, feelings were described as amicable or respectful in 52 percent of the districts with mediation and 29 percent of the districts with strike threats.

There also appeared to be a significant correlation between contracts settled without mediation and whether the settlement required the school board to give more than it had intended to give. Boards gave more than they wanted to give in just 26 percent of the settlements reached without mediation, in 49 percent of the settlements reached with mediation, and in 59 percent of the settlements reached after a strike threat.

The quality of the board-union relationship, levels of satisfaction and how settlements were reached appear to have no bearing one way or the other on whether a board might be considering an alternative, more collaborative bargaining process for next year.

Most school board members and administrators who sit across the bargaining table from their teacher unions have had some training for the task. Three-fourths of the 499 bargaining districts report training for at least some members of the board's bargaining team. That percentage breaks down to board members trained in 60 percent of the districts and administrators trained in 65 percent of the districts.

The bad news is that training for many districts has been limited to occasional panel sessions at the Joint Annual Conference or IASB division meetings. Moreover, it appears that one-fourth to one-third of the board members and superintendents serving as spokespersons for their bargaining teams have not attended training sessions of any kind.

Among districts where some members of the bargaining team have taken part in training, less than one percent of the superintendents reported the training as not useful.

Most frequent sources of training reported were: the Joint Annual Conference (50 percent of reporting districts), workshops conducted by IASB and/or the Illinois Association of School Administrators (34 percent), workshops conducted by private law firms (28 percent) and IASB division meetings (21 percent).

Most frequent focus of training sessions attended were reported as: negotiations procedures (40 percent of reporting districts), role of the school board and current issues (both 33 percent) and alternative bargaining processes and contract language (both 20 percent).

Asked what types of training they wish were readily available for their districts, a majority of superintendents cited training for board members in what their role is, followed by current issues and negotiations procedures. Large numbers also pointed to contract language and alternative bargaining processes as areas calling for more training.