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

One in three districts report collaborative bargaining

Is so-called "collaborative" bargaining sweeping away the last vestiges of traditional "adversarial" bargaining between school boards and teacher unions?

In a word, no. But this year's survey of Illinois school districts suggests that alternative approaches to collective bargaining are becoming a way of life in at least some districts.

Fully one-third of the responding superintendents (167 districts) said their districts used "win-win" or some other form of collaborative bargaining in their negotiations with their teacher unions this year. Another 41 districts reportedly have used an alternative approach in past years but later abandoned it.

For next year, 181 districts have either agreed to a collaborative approach or are considering it. Nearly 80 percent of the districts that used the alternative style this year are considering using it again next year, along with about 20 percent of the districts where bargaining to date has been by more traditional means.

To clarify, traditional bargaining typically consists of two teams facing one another across a table, each represented by a single spokesperson. Discussion among team members is reserved for private caucuses. Processes called win-win, interest-based bargaining or mutual gains bargaining encourage open communications among all members of the bargaining teams, a process that relies heavily on mutual trust. Many districts have evolved their own hybrid combinations of collaborative practices.

(For more analysis of the various approaches to bargaining, see "Collaborative bargaining: Ready to play by new rules?" by Ronald Booth.)

The survey of district superintendents also shows that 60 districts this year used "expedited" bargaining, a form of traditional bargaining that employs clear tasks and deadlines to hasten settlement.

Whether a district had experienced a strike threat or had gone through mediation to reach a contract agreement this year, or whether bargaining was characterized as amicable or contentious, showed little or no correlation with the type of bargaining process and had little bearing on the likelihood of using a collaborative process next year.

Regardless of approach to bargaining, high percentages of superintendents reported that their district's bargaining relationships were amicable or respectful (85 percent), contract agreements were reached without mediation (82 percent), both sides were satisfied with current practices (81 percent), and the school board gave the union about what it had intended to give from the outset (64 percent).