Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Teacher Dispute Resolution Procedures in Virginia:Demographic Characteristics and Opinions of Neutral
Chairpersons, School Division Superintendents, Attorneys,and Teacher Association Leaders
Ardene D. Bunch
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
in
Educational Administration
M. David Alexander, Co-ChairRobert R. Richards, Co-Chair
Joan L. CurcioKusum Singh
Donald Peccia
February 23, 1998Blacksburg, Virginia
Keywords: Grievance, Teacher Dispute Resolution
Copyright 1998, Ardene D. Bunch
Teacher Dispute Resolution Procedures in Virginia:Demographic Characteristics and Opinions of Neutral
Chairpersons, School Division Superintendents, Attorneys,and Teacher Association Leaders,
by
Ardene D. Bunch
Committee Chairpersons: M. David Alexander and Robert R. Richards
Educational Administration
(ABSTRACT)
The purposes of this study were to examine the opinions
of respondents regarding dispute resolution procedures
utilized by public school teachers as described in sections
22.1- 312 of the Code of Virginia. In this study,
demographic and opinion data were collected from individuals
selected to serve as neutral chairpersons of fact-finding
panels, school division superintendents or designees, local
teacher association presidents, Virginia Education
Association UniServ directors, and attorneys. The history,
development, and intent of teacher dispute resolution
procedures are presented in Chapter II.
A descriptive research design was utilized. A
researcher-designed survey instrument was used to gather
demographic and opinion data from the five groups. Neutral
chairpersons who had administrated a panel hearing were
located through correspondence with school division
superintendents or personnel directors and teacher
association leaders in the state of Virginia. School
division superintendents or designees employed in school
divisions who had experienced a fact finding panel hearing
were included in the investigation. The opinions of local
iii
teacher association presidents and UniServ directors were
sought. Attorneys who had represented either a teacher or a
school board during a grievance or dismissal hearing were
included in the study. The information gathered was compared
and analyzed statistically.
Five surveys were developed for this study. The first
part of each survey requested opinion data regarding the
role and function of the fact-finding panel, the procedural
framework of grievance and dismissal hearings, advisory
fact-finding, and the experiences, training, and
qualifications of neutral chairpersons. A five-point
Likert-type scale was utilized with statements included in
the section. The second part of each survey requested
demographic information to include the respondent’s gender,
age, race, degrees earned, current employment, and questions
regarding training and experience. The demographic
characteristics revealed a composite profile of neutral
chairpersons in the state. Opinion data were statistically
analyzed to determine significant relationships between the
five groups based on their gender, race, age, and highest
level of education.
The information may be useful to school division
personnel and others involved in dispute resolution
procedures, which advance to the fact-finding hearing level.
iv
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my husband Carl, daughter
Meredith, mother and father Howard and Ura Warren, and
friends with gratitude for their love and continued support
during my participation in this program of study. Some
people lost faith in my efforts to complete this endeavor
while others did not. These are the true friends I will
always remember.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the members of my dissertation
committee for their assistance with this project. Each
member brought expertise and insight to the project.
A special thank you is extended to the co-
chairpersons of my dissertation committee. Dr. David
Alexander helped and encouraged me with this project. He
accepted my ideas and suggested ways to make them better.
Without his expertise, this project would have been
difficult. A special thank you is expressed to Dr. Bob
Richards. Not only did he motivate me to pursue this topic
in his personnel class, but also encouraged me through the
times when I wanted to give up which was often. Now Marty
Berkhimer can remove my name from her Rolodex.
Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Joan Curcio for
inspiring me in her law class. She helped and encouraged as
I memorized cases and composed law briefs. I learned to
enjoy education law. I was very fortunate to have had her
as a professor during her only semester in our area.
Thank you also to Dr. Kusum Singh for all of her
assistance. She helped me through statistics and provided
encouragement when I just did not understand. Appreciation
is expressed to Dr. Donald Peccia for his assistance with
this project.
I would like to express my appreciation to Carl Bunch,
my husband, for his assistance with this project. His many
hours of help on the computer were appreciated and the paper
would not have been the same without his skills. Now he can
complete his own projects in peace.
Finally, I would like to extend a special thank you to
Dr. David Parks. Without his constant encouragement with
this study, I would still be “stuck in neutral”. His
vi
encouragement, editing, and expertise will always be
gratefully appreciated.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION............................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................... v
LIST OF TABLES............................................ x
LIST OF FIGURES......................................... xiv
CHAPTER I................................................. 1
The Problem ............................................. 1
Background .............................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ................................ 4
Significance of the Study ............................... 5
Questions ............................................... 7
Limitations of the Study ............................... 11
Study Overview ......................................... 11
CHAPTER II............................................... 12
Review of Related Literature ........................... 12
Introduction ........................................... 12
Content ................................................ 12
The History of the Procedure ........................... 22
Summary ................................................ 33
CHAPTER III.............................................. 34
Methodology ............................................ 34
Introduction ........................................... 34
Research Design and Procedure .......................... 34
Target Population ...................................... 34
viii
Development of the Instrument and Validation ........... 44
Data Collection Procedures ............................. 47
Data Analysis .......................................... 52
CHAPTER IV............................................... 53
Research Findings ...................................... 53
Introduction ........................................... 53
Demographic Characteristics of Neutral Chairpersons .... 53
Demographic Characteristics of Superintendents or
designees, VEA UniServ Directors, Local VEA Presidents,
and Attorneys .......................................... 67
Procedural Questions..................................... 75
Training Questions ..................................... 91
Experience Questions .................................. 103
CHAPTER V............................................... 133
Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations .......... 133
Conclusions ........................................... 133
Discussions ........................................... 137
Recommendations ....................................... 139
Bibliography............................................ 141
Glossary................................................ 145
Appendix A.............................................. 148
Appendix B.............................................. 151
APPENDIX C.............................................. 182
ix
APPENDIX D.............................................. 183
Raw Data Respondent Comments .......................... 183
UniServ Directors ..................................... 184
Local Education Association Presidents ................ 188
Attorneys ............................................. 190
VITA.................................................... 192
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Definitions of Variables in Study................. 8
Table 2 Report of Neutral Chairpersons Utilized in School
Division Panel Hearings (Counties - 74% Return Rate) . 37
Table 3 Report of Neutral Chairpersons Utilized in School
Division Panel Hearings (Cities – 63% Return Rate) ... 40
Table 4 Report of Neutral Chairpersons Utilized in School
Division Panel Hearings (Towns – 100% Return Rate) ... 42
Table 5 Report of Neutral Chairpersons Reported By Education
Association Leaders (54% Return Rate) ................ 43
Table 6 Number of Surveys Mailed to Respondents.......... 50
Table 7 Number of Questionnaires Sent, Returned, and Usable
..................................................... 51
Table 8 Demographic Characteristics of Neutral Chairperson
Respondents in Study ................................. 58
Table 9 Neutral Chairperson Ratings of Legal Term
Understanding and Satisfaction Level at First Panel
Hearing (Procedural) ................................. 59
Table 10 Neutral Chairperson and Perceptions of Leniency of
Teacher Grievances and Dismissals (Procedural) ....... 60
Table 11 Neutral Chairperson Procedures Prior to the Panel
Hearing (Procedural) ................................. 61
Table 12 Neutral Chairperson Procedures After the Hearing
(Procedural) ......................................... 62
xi
Table 13 Report of Neutral Chairperson Training as an
Arbitrator, Mediator, or Fact Finder (Training) ...... 63
Table 14 Report of Neutral Chairperson Experiences with
Grievances and Dismissals (Experience) ............... 64
Table 15 Report of Neutral Chairperson Experiences....... 66
Table 16 Demographic Characteristics of Superintendents or
designees, UniServ Directors, VEA Local Presidents, and
Attorneys ............................................ 71
Table 17 Report of Ratings Regarding the Administration of
the Panel Hearing by Superintendents or designees,
UniServ Directors, VEA Local Presidents, and Attorneys 72
Table 18 Report of Ratings Regarding the Preparation Level
of the Neutral Chairperson by Superintendents or
designees, UniServ Directors, VEA Local Presidents, and
Attorneys ............................................ 73
Table 19 Report of Representation at Panel Hearings by
UniServ Directors, VEA Local Presidents, and Attorneys 74
Table 20 Summary Table for Perceptions Regarding Procedural
Questions with One-Way ANOVA ......................... 81
Table 21 Post Hoc Tukey Test for ANOVA Summary Table of
Procedural Questions ................................. 82
Table 22 Gender of Respondents and Perceptions Regarding
Procedural Questions ................................. 87
Table 23 Race of Respondents and Perceptions Regarding
Procedural Questions ................................. 88
xii
Table 24 Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Age of
Respondents and Perceptions Regarding Procedural
Questions ............................................ 89
Table 25 Highest Degree Earned by Respondents and
Perceptions Regarding Procedural Questions ........... 90
Table 26 Summary Table for Perceptions Regarding Training
Questions with One-Way ANOVA ......................... 95
Table 27 Post Hoc Tukey Test for ANOVA Summary Table for
Training Questions ................................... 96
Table 28 Gender of Respondents and Perceptions Regarding
Training Questions ................................... 99
Table 29 Race of Respondents and Perceptions Regarding
Training Questions .................................. 100
Table 30 Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Age of
Respondents and Perceptions Regarding Training Questions
.................................................... 101
Table 31 Highest Degree Earned by Respondents and
Perceptions Regarding Training Questions ............ 102
Table 32 Summary Table for Perceptions Regarding Experience
Questions with One-Way ANOVA ........................ 106
Table 33 Post Hoc Tukey a for ANOVA Summary Table of
Experience Questions ................................ 107
Table 34 Gender of Respondents and Perceptions Regarding
Experience Questions ................................ 110
xiii
Table 35 Race of Respondents and Perceptions Regarding
Experience Questions ................................ 111
Table 36 Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Age of
Respondents and Perceptions Regarding Experience
Questions ........................................... 112
Table 37 Highest Degree Earned by Respondents and
Perceptions Regarding Experience Questions .......... 113
Table 38 Raw Data Matrix of Themes by Respondents....... 118
Table 39 A Summary of Responses, by Count, to Statements by
Neutral Chairpersons, Superintendents, UniServ
Directors, Local Presidents, and Attorneys .......... 128
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Neutral Chairperson Years of Experience as a FactFinder in Virginia and Other (Experience) ........ 65
1
CHAPTER I
The Problem
Background
Formal dispute resolution procedures established by
statute provide public school teachers in Virginia with a
systematic process for handling complaints. For a variety
of reasons, school employees confront employment-related
problems that affect job performance. An individual may
experience dissatisfaction, frustration, or disagreement
over the policies or procedures of the school
administration. If not addressed, complaints or
misunderstandings can accumulate and impact organizational
effectiveness (Castetter, 1981). For these reasons, the
state legislature, state school board, and local school
divisions developed formal teacher dispute resolution
procedures. Resolving an issue at the earliest possible
stage is the intent of the procedures (Milkovich, 1985).
In Virginia, the structure of teacher dispute
resolution procedures involves a prescribed set of steps or
line of appeals, beginning with the presentation of an issue
to the immediate supervisor (Code of Virginia Section 22.1-
312). This informal step begins the procedure for adjusting
grievances. When a solution is not attained at the initial
level, the issue may be taken to higher officials in order
of authority. In its final stages a hearing is conducted by
either the school board or an unbiased panel which renders a
disposition of the dispute. The findings of the panel are
recommendations to the school board. The decision of the
board can be appealed in court. The process is based on the
assumption that fair and equitable treatment of employees
increases the probability that issues can be resolved in an
equitable manner. Success in the effort greatly contributes
to the orderly resolution of disputes and ultimately to
2
organizational effectiveness (Milkovich, 1985). In cases of
dismissal or the placement of a teacher on probation, the
teacher has the option of having the dispute examined by a
fact-finding panel or a school board hearing. Grievance and
dismissal are defined separately in Section 22.1-306 of the
Code of Virginia, however the same procedure is used for
both.
The development of teacher dispute resolution
procedures for public school teachers began nationwide
during the middle and late 1960s when professional education
associations initiated a proposal to help educators resolve
disagreements over school policies and practices (Fischer,
1971). Formal grievance procedures were commonly tied to
collective bargaining agreements in states where collective
bargaining had statutory protection (Zirkel, 1986).
Grievance procedures were created to resolve disputes with
the teaching contract or application of the contract. In
Virginia, grievances are permitted under State School Board
policy and statutes. Virginia does not have a collective
bargaining agreement for state employees. A dispute
resolution procedure was developed by the State Board of
Education following legislation enacted by the 1973 Virginia
General Assembly. The statutes provided due process for both
grievance and dismissal. The first part applied to
grievances involving the application or violation of local
school board policies, rules, and regulations as they
influence the work activity of teachers. In such cases, the
burden of proof rested with the teacher. The second part
applied to disputes involving the dismissal or placing on
probation of any teacher. In these cases, the burden of
proof was placed on the school administrator.
According to Virginia statute, a teacher recommended
for dismissal has fifteen days to request a hearing (Section
3
22.1-309 Code of Virginia). In both grievance and
dismissal, the teacher may elect to be heard by either the
local school board or a fact-finding panel. The three-
member panel includes a school employee selected by the
teacher and another employee named by the school
superintendent. An impartial third person is chosen by the
other two panelists. If the two panel members are unable to
agree upon the third person, the chief judge of the circuit
court will provide upon request a list of five qualified and
impartial fact finders. The two panel members select one
person through a process of deletion. The panel member
representing the teacher begins the process by making a
first deletion and then the person representing the school
division makes the second deletion. This continues until one
name remains on the list. The person selected serves as the
chairperson of the committee. Time limits are a part of the
procedure. When the panel hearing has been completed, a
non-binding written recommendation is submitted to the
school board. The school board renders the final decision.
This panel recommendation enables the board to retain the
right to make the final decision yet have the benefit of
objective, expert, opinion (Lovell, 1985). Demographic
characteristics and opinions regarding dispute resolution
procedures utilized in Virginia will be gathered from
neutral chairpersons, school division superintendents, local
teacher association presidents, teacher association UniServ
directors, and attorneys who have either represented a
teacher or school board during a panel hearing. The
information gathered from the five groups will be examined
in this study.
4
Statement of the Problem
The knowledge and skills of the neutral chairperson on
the fact-finding panel during a grievance or dismissal
hearing is consequential to all parties participating in the
procedure. The preparation required for the position is
written in Section 22.1-312 of the Code of Virginia. The
segment relating to prerequisite training explains that the
neutral chairperson must "possess some knowledge of and
expertise in education and education law." The statement is
vague considering the fact that the appointed person is in
the position to advise and influence the judgment to settle
a grievance, terminate the teacher’s employment, or impose
disciplinary action. This is an important reason to
investigate the demographic characteristics of neutral
chairpersons. The Virginia Education Association or the
State Department of Education does not record demographic
information about neutral chairpersons in Virginia. The
data collected will provide information regarding the
backgrounds and experiences of the neutral chairpersons in
the occupation. A compiled list of experienced
chairpersons does not exist in their records and will be
gathered as part of this study. However, the list of names
will remain confidential. A study of opinions regarding the
procedural aspects of grievance and dismissal hearings and
the necessary training and experiences of neutral
chairpersons is nebulous in the extant literature. School
division superintendents, personnel directors, and often
teacher association leaders assume major roles in the
process prior to and often during panel hearings.
Additionally, the opinions of the persons involved in the
process are relevant to school personnel, school board
members, and legislators who continue to refine teacher
dispute resolution procedures.
5
Significance of the Study
The purposes of this study were to examine the opinions
of neutral chairpersons, school division superintendents,
teacher association leaders and attorneys concerning the
role of the neutral panel member and dispute resolution
procedures utilized by public school teachers in Virginia.
This is provided for in Section 22.1-312 of the Code of
Virginia (Appendix A). Absent until 1979, the law was
developed to ensure a method to settle differences arising
over the application and interpretation of policies. In the
years that followed, the Virginia General Assembly amended
the law periodically. Debate and recommendations for
modifications continue annually in the legislature. Despite
these amendments, recent formal studies in Virginia have not
been conducted regarding the fact-finding process or panel
hearing of the grievance procedure. A review of the history
and development of the procedure in the state indicated that
the opinions of the individuals actively involved in teacher
dispute resolution were not solicited as changes were
endorsed (Kieley, 1974).
Though several qualifications are described for the
neutral chairperson, the law is unspecified in terms of the
quality and amount of knowledge and experience that is
required to serve in the position. The person selected to
assume the role is assigned the task of presiding over the
panel hearing and composing written recommendations as to
the future employment of the teacher in the case of
dismissals. Considering the lack of specificity in the
qualifications of the neutral chairperson, the findings of
this study provided information about the individuals who
serve as neutral chairpersons. Additionally, demographic
characteristics revealed a composite profile of neutral
chairpersons. The survey instrument was designed to elicit
6
opinions from individuals involved in dispute resolution
procedures but the results provided some insight into the
procedure itself. The information may be useful to the
legislative body in the Virginia General Assembly as changes
are contemplated in the procedure.
The time, money, and effort expended in teacher dispute
resolution, aside from its impact on the lives and
occupations of people, qualified it as a subject for study.
7
Questions
The opinions of neutral chairpersons, school division
superintendents, education association leaders, and
attorneys regarding the current status and implementation of
teacher dispute resolution procedures in Virginia were
examined in this study.
The purpose of the study is to answer the following
research questions:
1. What are the demographic characteristics of persons who
serve as the neutral chairperson during teacher grievance
and dismissal hearings in Virginia?
2. What is the relationship between the opinions about the
procedure of grievance and dismissal hearings and the
gender, race, age, and highest degree earned of neutral
chairpersons, school division superintendents, education
association leaders, and attorneys?
3. What is the relationship between the opinions regarding
the training of the neutral chairperson and the gender,
race, age, and highest degree earned by neutral
chairpersons, school division superintendents, education
association leader, and attorneys?
4. What is the relationship between the opinions regarding
the experiences of the neutral chairperson and the
gender, race, age, and highest degree earned of neutral
chairpersons, school division superintendents, education
association leaders, and attorneys?
8
Table 1Definitions of Variables in Study
Variable ConstitutiveDefinitionOperationalDefinition
NeutralChairperson
Superintendents
UniServDirectors
LocalPresidents Attorneys
Age(Attribute)
Number of years of life to thelast birthday. Age will bemeasured by the survey question“Your age on your lastbirthday.”
Q-36 Q-19 Q-19 Q-19 Q-19
Gender(Attribute)
The gender (male or female) ofthe person responding. Genderwill be measured by the surveyquestion.
Q-34 Q-17 Q-17 Q-17 Q-17
Race(Attribute)
The race of the respondent inthe categories of Caucasian orother.
Q-35 Q-18 Q-18 Q-18 Q-18
Degrees Earned(Attribute)
The level of higher educationattained with a degree awardedfrom a college or university inthe categories of Associate’sDegree, Bachelor’s Degree,Master’s Degree, DoctorateDegree, Law Degree, or othernot listed in the previouscategories. Degrees earned willbe measured by the surveyquestion with the respondentindicating all that apply.
Q-37 Q-20 Q-20 Q-20 Q-20
9
Table 1 (continued)Definitions of Variables in Study
Variable ConstitutiveDefinitionOperationalDefinition
NeutralChairperson
Superintendents
UniServDirectors
LocalPresidents Attorneys
Current PrimaryEmployment(Attribute)
The position in which therespondent is currentlyemployed including thecategories of business, publicschool teacher, schooladministrator, collegeprofessor, attorney, or othernot indicated in the previousgroups. The category of retiredwith a request forspecification is included forthose persons no longer workingin a profession. Currentemployment will be measured bythe response to question:
Q-38 Ç-----(Not included on the surveys) -----È
Procedure(Attitude)
The criteria for proceduralframework of the hearing willbe that decisions are based onthe evidence presented duringthe panel hearing and that therights of both parties arerecognized.
Opinions regarding theprocedural framework of thepanel hearing will be measuredby the following surveyquestions:
Q-1Q-2Q-4Q-5Q-14Q-15Q-16Q-17Q-18Q-19Q-20Q-21Q-22Q-23
Q-1Q-2Q-4Q-5Q-14Q-15Q-16Q-23Q-24
Q-1Q-2Q-4Q-5Q-14Q-15Q-16Q-23Q-24Q-25Q-26
Q-1Q-2Q-4Q-5Q-14Q-15Q-16Q-23Q-24Q-25Q-26
Q-1Q-2Q-4Q-5Q-14Q-15Q-16Q-21Q-22Q-23Q-24Q-25Q-26
10
Table 1 (continued)Definitions of Variables in Study
Variable ConstitutiveDefinitionOperationalDefinition
NeutralChairperson
Superintendents
UniServDirectors
LocalPresidents Attorneys
Experience(Behavior)
The criteria for experiencewill be the number of years theperson served as a neutralchairperson, expertise in thefield of education andeducation law, the number ofcases heard in or outside ofthe state and arbitrationexperience with organizationsother than school divisions inVirginia.
Experience will be measured bythe responses to questions:
Q-7Q-8Q-9Q-10Q-25Q-26Q-27Q-28Q-29Q-30Q-31Q-32Q-33Q-39Q-40
Q-7Q-8Q-9Q-10Q-21Q-22
Q-7Q-8Q-9Q-10Q-21Q-22Q-23
Q-7Q-8Q-9Q-10Q-21Q-22
Q-7Q-8Q-9Q-10Q-27
Training(Behavior)
The criteria for adequatetraining will be any formalcourse work, workshops, orseminars taken by the neutralchairperson specificallyrelated to grievance hearingsor teacher dispute resolution.
Training will be measured bythe responses to questions 3,6,10, 11, 12, 13 on allquestionnaires. Opinions willbe measured by the followingsurvey questions:
Q-3Q-6Q-11Q-12Q-13Q-24
Q-3Q-6Q-11Q-12Q-13
Q-3Q-6Q-11Q-12Q-13
Q-3Q-6Q-11Q-12Q-13
Q-3Q-6Q-11Q-12Q-13
11
Limitations of the Study
The results and conclusions of this study are limited
to action in the Commonwealth of Virginia as specified by
law and therefore, cannot be interpreted as applicable to
other states or jurisdictions beyond local Virginia school
divisions. Only the opinions of the following persons were
studied:
1) Neutral Chairpersons
2) School Division Superintendents or designees
3) Virginia Education Association UniServ Directors
4) Virginia Education Association local presidents
5) Attorneys (who represented either a teacher or school
board during a fact-finding panel hearing)
Study Overview
The study is composed of five chapters. Chapter I is
an introduction of the study. Chapter II includes a review
of the literature relevant to the history and issues
surrounding the development of dispute resolution procedures
for public school teachers in Virginia. The approach used
in this chapter was to collect and report on primary sources
(private documents, administrative documents, newspapers,
and journal articles) relative to the period of time the
procedure was developed and initially implemented.
Additionally, a description of related research and
literature was included.
The methodology of the research project is discussed in
Chapter III. Included in this chapter are the design of the
study, data collection techniques, and the procedure for
data analysis. The findings of the study and an analysis of
the data are presented in Chapter IV. The conclusions,
recommendations, and implications revealed in the study are
included in Chapter V.
12
CHAPTER II
Review of Related Literature
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to review research and
literature relevant to the study, the major portion of which
will incorporate an examination of the historical,
political, and legislative events that advanced the
development of dispute resolution procedures for public
school teachers in Virginia during the past thirty years.
Additionally, it will include a review of research relative
to the topic of dispute resolution procedures for public
school employees.
Content
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
provides that the state shall not deprive a person of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law. According
to the courts, the actions of public school officials are
state actions, which means that this protection extends to
school employees if liberty or a property right is taken
away (Lilly, 1988). Two ideas evident in the due process
clauses are relevant in the area of teacher dismissal.
First, in regard to public school employment, the concept of
liberty recognizes the protection of an individual’s good
name, reputation, honor, integrity, and freedom to take
advantage of other employment opportunities or property
right. Next, due process of law includes both substantive
and procedural elements. Procedural due process ensures that
a fair procedure must be followed in the event a person is
to be deprived of life, liberty, or property. Under this
action, the individual must be given proper notice of the
allegations against him (Grier and Turner, 1990). He must
be granted the opportunity to be heard and the hearing must
be conducted in an impartial manner. Substantive due
13
process requires that there be a valid reason for depriving
the person of life, liberty, or property and that the method
must be sufficiently studied to accomplish the objective.
Actions that are arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or
based on obscure rules violate the employee’s substantive
due process, while unjust procedures breach procedural due
process (Lilly, 1988).
In Virginia, a nontenured teacher who is not granted
continuing contract status may not appeal a dismissal or
suspension (Code of Virginia Section 22.1-305).
Additionally, a nontenured teacher whose contract is not
renewed due to a decrease in enrollment or personnel has no
recourse for the action (Code of Virginia Section 22.1-306).
However, when the dismissal or suspension of a conditional
contract teacher is for reasons including incompetence,
insubordination, immorality, conviction of a felony or crime
of moral turpitude, or disability as shown by medical
evidence, the decision may be challenged with the burden of
proof on the school board (Code of Virginia Section 22.1-
307). Generally, the board functions as a legislative body,
debating and setting policy for the school system (Grier,
1984). When a dismissal hearing occurs, the board is
transformed into a judicial body that hears and decides the
case on the basis of the evidence presented (Munnelly,
1983:22). The Code of Virginia addresses grievances and
dismissals of teachers in Section 22.1-306 through Section
22.1-314. The law provides specific requirements in respect
to the hearing procedure.
When the grievant requests a hearing before a fact-
finding panel, the law is explicit as to the composition of
the committee. The grievant and superintendent each select
a representative to serve as panel members. The two panel
members then select a third, impartial member. If the two
14
panelists are unable to agree upon the third person, a list
of five qualified and impartial fact-finders are provided by
the chief judge of the circuit court. The two individuals
alternately delete names until one name remains. The third
person must reside in the state, possess some knowledge and
expertise in public education and education law, and be
capable of assuming the role of chairperson to preside over
the administrative hearing. Specifically, elected officials
may not serve as fact-finding panel members. In the event
civil action emanates from the proceedings, the law
specifies that the Attorney General or a representative from
his department will represent the third impartial panel
member in court. If representation by the Attorney General
or his representatives is impractical or uneconomical,
special counsel may be contracted with compensation
predetermined by the Attorney General and paid with funds
allocated for the administration of the Department of
Education (Code of Virginia Section 22.1-312). In Virginia,
fact finding by a three-member panel is practiced as the
school board, by statute, "retains its exclusive final
authority over matters concerning employment and supervision
of its personnel" in suspensions, probation, or dismissal
hearings (Code of Virginia Section 22.1-313).
The neutral member of the fact-finding panel may be
compared to the arbitrator in private sector hearings; the
person selected to decide a dispute or empowered to examine
the facts and settle the point at issue. In 1981, Arnold
Zack, an experienced arbitrator in the private sector,
expressed concern about the shortage and training of
competent arbitrators (Zack, 1981). In the last twenty
years, there has been a substantial increase in the use of
arbitration as more parties utilize the process to resolve
disputes (Zack, 1978). Arbitration extended into the public
15
sector and health care professions. Attention was focused
on the need to expand the ranks of arbitrators in the effort
to bring new, qualified, practitioners into the field. Yet,
opinions vary concerning the training and development of
these persons. Zack explained that the very nature of the
system encourages the use of proficient arbitrators rather
than inexperienced persons. Each case is deemed too
important to take chances on the untried or unfamiliar
arbitrator (Seltzer, 1991). Consequently, the great
majority of the work continues to be performed by a fraction
of the talent pool. It appears that experience is
unquestionably the best teacher in the field and there are
many potentially able arbitrators whose services are not
being utilized.
Public schools have transformed from simple
organizations to complex communities of interdependent
clusters. The emergence of formalized labor relations into
the work environment has advanced the restructuring of
schools and the management of personnel in school settings
(Ramsey, 1984). With these changes, strategies for
managing school employees have changed to become more
complex. Personnel administration began to focus on human
resources and the human relations’ approach to the solution
of problems (Castetter, 1981). This perspective centered on
the organization's concern for the improvement of
interpersonal relationships, attendance to justice and
equity in the workplace, the search for better methods of
resolving conflict, and improved understanding among
personnel (Milkovich, 1985). The development and
utilization of dispute resolution procedures influenced
labor relations in the attempt to minimize discontent and
dissatisfaction. The belief was that if smaller problems
were settled in the early stages, cooperation and
16
communication between employees and management would be
enhanced. To remain productive, employees and their
supervisors maintain good morale. Grievance procedures help
to achieve the goal in that personnel complaints are handled
quickly and efficiently according to rules that everyone
understands (Coulson, 1985).
The creation of organized and written grievance
procedures can be found in the beginnings of collective
bargaining in the private sector of labor management
relationships (Neal, 1971). Originally, contracts were
acquired by labor through collective bargaining. Following
the negotiation of the contract, there were numerous
complaints that management was not complying with the
conditions of the contract. These expressions of
dissatisfaction about the conditions of employment were
brought to the attention of management. The disputes between
employees and management became known as grievances. As time
passed, these grievances grew to be so numerous that it
became necessary to include in labor contracts written
procedures for settling questions regarding the
implementation of the contract. The prescribed series of
steps or line of appeals, beginning with the presentation of
the problem to the immediate supervisor, became known as a
grievance procedure (Ostrander, 1981). When the employee
found no settlement at one level, the case could be taken to
consecutively higher officials in order of authority. At the
present time, samples of such procedures can be found in
almost any labor management contract, many or which are
extensive and complicated. Since collective bargaining had
not been present generally in public school personnel
management, grievance procedures developed differently.
During the first half of the twentieth century, few
school systems had instituted formal grievance procedures to
17
examine and solve personnel disputes (Dept. of Elementary
School Principals, 1969). The chief administrator through
the employment of an “open door policy” handled most
difficulties. Grievance procedures were typically developed
at the top level of the school administration hierarchy. In
1973, the Virginia General Assembly approved legislation
which compelled local school boards to adopt a grievance
procedure (Acts Of Virginia General Assembly, Chapter 311,
The Standards of Quality for School Divisions). In response
to the law, the State Board of Education created a grievance
procedure, which became effective on July 1, 1973 (Board of
Education Regulation, “Procedure for Adjusting Grievances”:
1973). The local procedure had to fit the guidelines adopted
by the State Board of Education. In 1979, Raymond Leonard
tracked the development of the state procedure and compared
locally adopted grievance procedures with selected standards
from the field of labor relations. His investigation
confirmed that all local procedures met the State School
Board standards. He reported that both management and
education association representatives expressed concern
about the training of principals in processing grievances,
the lack of trained arbitrators with a knowledge of public
education, and the need for better understanding of the
process by the involved personnel.
Historically, grievance procedures were developed with
contributions from labor and management. Commitment from
both groups was viewed as crucial to the success of the
endeavor (Coulson, 1985). The "Procedure for Adjusting
Grievances" was adopted effective July 1, 1973, as rules and
regulations of the Board of Education pursuant to Chapter
311 of the 1973 Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia.
Yet in Virginia, local boards and school personnel were
excluded during the development phase of the procedure. The
18
requirement for a grievance procedure created mixed
reactions from many superintendents and other public school
administrators throughout the state. In 1974, James Kieley
reported that while acceptance of the procedure was not
significantly different in rural or urban school divisions,
acceptance was significantly distinct at various levels of
the school administration hierarchy. Division
superintendents were notably more critical. The procedure
was described as too extensive as it limited the
decision-making authority of the local school board and
administration. Local education association members were
critical of the unwillingness of the local school board to
accept the mandate. Teacher leaders asserted that local
boards did not seem supportive of the attempt by the State
Board of Education efforts to ensure fair practices for
local school employees. Kieley disclosed that this group
felt excluded during the development phase.
In 1980, Patrick Carlton and Richard Johnson surveyed
459 Virginia school board members to assess perceptions
about employee relations in the public schools. The research
focused on respondent attitudes toward "teacher utilization
of legitimate governmental channels to seek redress of
grievances and the use of pressure tactics and other
behaviors, some or all of which could be characterized as
illegitimate in nature" (Carlton and Johnson, 1980). A
Likert-type attitude scale developed by the researcher was
utilized and the responses revealed that Virginia school
board members strongly opposed collective negotiations among
public school teachers. Respondents rejected the idea that
negotiation was inevitable in the state and that teachers
could acquire fair salaries solely through collective
bargaining. The majority of respondents believed the
procedures at the time of the study were adequate for
19
dealing with employees. The data indicated that the
majority of board members "strongly believe in the efficacy
of good management procedures as an alternative to
collective bargaining" (Carlton and Johnson, 1980). This
evidence confirmed a strong commitment to the existing
personnel policies. Additionally, respondents (59%)
rejected the need for an improved state-mandated grievance
procedure. A vote of confidence was expressed in the
procedure previously mandated by the Virginia State
Department of Education. The researchers considered the
question of whether the 1978 Supreme Court ruling which
invalidated binding arbitration would modify feelings or
confirm them. The decision came after the research data was
collected and the article completed. It was suggested that
a better method be developed for dealing with employee needs
as board members did not recognize that a management-labor
problem existed or that the two groups needed to develop a
structure in which employees could "wield power or influence
vis a vis the board."
Investigations in the last decades have focused on
grievants and their perceptions regarding the utilization of
the procedure. In 1981, Elizabeth Morie studied the
perceptions of grievants regarding the functions of the
grievance procedure and the personal characteristics of the
grievants in the state of Virginia. The population used
consisted of public school teachers in Virginia who had
filed a formal grievance during 1976-77 and 1977-78 school
years. The study focused on the functions of
communication; conflict resolution; morale; interpretation
of school board rules, regulations and policies; and an
alternative to collective bargaining and were compared to
the independent variables of age, sex, academic degree,
20
educational experience, teaching assignment, community type,
and education association membership.
In 1985, Diane Martin investigated the extent to which
school boards in Virginia accept or reject the
recommendation of the fact-finding panel. The population
included superintendents and representatives of ten selected
school divisions. A survey instrument developed by the
researcher was utilized to determine the school divisions,
which reported panel hearings during 1982-83 and 1983-84.
Interviews were conducted to collect information on ten
cases. The researcher disclosed that during the two-year
period, school boards accepted the recommendations of the
fact-finding panel more often than they rejected their
decisions. Findings indicated that panel hearings convened
in school divisions regardless of the size of the student
population or the setting of the district. Dismissal was
found to be the most common reason for dispute resolution.
In conclusion, the researcher reviewed the data and
confirmed the fact-finding hearing to be both expensive and
time consuming. School administrators indicated that panels
should be permitted to subpoena witnesses and evidence and
rule on teacher competency.
One study related to the research topic was conducted
in the business sector. In 1990, an experimental study
designed to investigate the effects of the gender of
grievants and arbitrator characteristics on arbitrator’s
decisions (Bemmels, 1990). A common practice in labor and
management in cases involving an arbitrator is to
investigate the background of the arbitrator as part of the
selection process. If the results indicated that males and
females show partiality to a particular gender, management
might select arbitrators based on their gender rather than
their experience and qualifications. The methodology of
21
this research involved a written transcript sent by mail to
practicing arbitrators accompanied by a survey asking how
they would decide the case. The results provided no support
for grievant gender effects or a relationship between the
characteristics of the arbitrator and their decisions.
The Virginia Education Association investigated the
number of grievances filed, at what level they were
resolved, and trends regarding the types of grievances filed
and by whom. This examination continues biannually. The
underlying philosophy and motivation of school board
members, education association leaders, and legislators
during the developmental phase of the grievance procedure in
Virginia is an area of investigation that appears lacking in
the extant literature.
22
The History of the Procedure
The Beginning Years 1960-1969
The foundation for collective bargaining for federal
employees was provided by President John F. Kennedy’s
executive order in 1962 (Kennedy, 1962). Section 8
permitted advisory arbitration in the federal employment
sector but prohibited binding arbitration. The order gave
federal employees a limited version of the rights private
employees had as early as 1932. Seven years later the order
was updated and expanded by President Richard M. Nixon’s
Executive Order #11491 which provided for binding
arbitration relating to matters of contract negotiation,
impasses, and grievances (Nixon, 1969). As early as 1960,
the National Education Association recognized professional
negotiations as a major goal for the financial security of
its members (Truitt, 1975). In 1966, a pamphlet was
published by the organization entitled "Taking the Grief
Out of Grievances." The grievance procedure was described as
an important element of effectual school management
(National Educational Association, 1967). As a result, the
Virginia Education Association Delegate Assembly, a policy
making body, recommended that local associations in Virginia
seek to secure grievance procedures in their respective
local school divisions the following year. On April 5, 1968
the General Assembly enacted a contractual procedure for
employment of public school teachers; to provide for
continuing contracts, probationary periods, basis and
procedures for dismissal; and to repeal Section 22-207 and
Section 22-208 of the Code of Virginia.
1970
In 1970, a survey by the Virginia Education Association
affirmed that Alexandria, Arlington, Chesterfield, Fairfax,
Gloucester, and Roanoke City had grievance procedures in
23
effect (Virginia Education Association, 1971). Delegate
Bill Lemmon representing Smyth County in the Virginia
General Assembly, introduced legislation which contained a
grievance procedure for all public employees of the
Commonwealth the following year. In a personal interview
with Raymond Leonard in 1979, Lemmon proclaimed that the
mission of his recommendation was to produce a procedure
that would enable employees of state agencies to appeal,
through an orderly process, the resolution of problems found
at the various agencies. He explained that a grievance
procedure with binding arbitration was a desirable
instrument for improved employee relations. Lemmon suggested
that both state agencies and employees would benefit from a
similar procedure. The bill passed by a two-to-one margin
in the House of Delegates but was opposed in the Senate with
the State Personnel Department leading the battle against
the legislation. No decision was attained in the Senate and
the bill was carried over to the next session with the State
Personnel Department vowing to compose its own procedure.
Two groups, teachers from local school divisions and the
State Police, were excluded from the proposed legislation.
1971
In the summer of 1971, the number of localities with
formal grievance procedures escalated to sixteen with Prince
William County accepting final and binding arbitration.
Several local grievance procedures incorporated advisory
fact-finding. School divisions in Gloucester and Arlington
allowed for class action or association grievances. On
October 5, 1971, Glen Pond, the Director of Professional
Negotiations for the Virginia Education Association sent a
model procedure to local association presidents and
Professional Rights and Responsibilities chairpersons (Model
Grievance Procedure, 1971). The document presented local
24
associations with a framework from which they could adjust
and revise according to local division requirements.
1972
In 1972, legislation was introduced to formulate a
grievance procedure for public school teachers. At that
time, the State Board of Education requested one year in
which to develop its own procedure. On October 27, 1972
William B. Poff directed a meeting of the Professional
Relations Committee of the State Board of Education (Summary
Report of Meeting of the State Board of Education, 1972).
He expressed opposition to collective bargaining but
supported a workable grievance procedure. On December 18,
1972, the board agreed to a proposal for a prototype plan,
"Suggested Procedure for Adjusting Grievances," which
included final and binding arbitration (Superintendent’s
Memorandum, No. 6542, 1972). Additionally, it addressed the
detail of permitting the school board to be the final
authority and the appellate alternative to binding
arbitration. The procedure was modeled after the grievance
procedure for state employees.
1973
The Virginia General Assembly passed legislation which
compelled local school boards to adopt a grievance procedure
acceptable to the State Board of Education (Act of the
Virginia Assembly, Chapter 311, The Standards of Quality for
School Divisions) by July 1, 1973. The local procedure had
to satisfy the guidelines recommended by the State Board of
Education. On January 26, 1973, the State Board of Education
modified the panel procedure and called for a three-member
fact-finding panel. The following month, Dr. Thomas Little,
Superintendent of Richmond Public Schools, employed a
Maryland law firm to communicate a disapproving opinion of
the grievance procedure (Cook and Lareau, 1973). The
25
document established opposition to the binding arbitration
feature of the procedure. Cook and Lareau were the
attorneys expressing the opinion of the law firm.
On March 26, 1973, an informational bulletin from the
State Department of Education recounted the March State
Board of Education Meeting. The Professional Relations
Committee told the board that the grievance procedure
adopted in January was being reviewed in light of concerns
expressed by local school board members and division
superintendents. On May 17, 1973, the State School Board
Association developed a suggested grievance procedure for
local school boards. Joe King, President of the School
Board Association presented the plan to a committee directed
by Poff. On May 25, the third draft was completed. The
State Board promulgated a procedure for adjusting grievances
for all non-supervisory school employees to become effective
on July 1, 1973. The new version drafted by Poff
incorporated the recommendations from the Virginia Education
Association, Virginia School Board Association, and other
interested parties. It was to be utilized by all school
boards in the state unless an equivalent procedure that
contained a provision calling for binding arbitration was in
effect. Staff members of the Virginia Education Association
reviewed the procedure with keen interest. One critic,
Eugene A. Truitt, Northern Region Director, accepted the
document generally, but expressed concern for the
composition of the fact-finding panel. Originally, the
procedure called for a fifteen-member body of candidates
selected by the school board. Five local school
administrators, five tenured teachers, and five members from
the general public not employed by the school board, city,
or county would be included. From this group, the school
board and grievant would select one or two panel members.
26
The final member would be selected by agreement or strike
method. Truitt strongly favored the binding arbitration
feature, and praised the timeline for grievance processing
in his review. The Virginia Education Association submitted
an additional review written by Truitt that was presented to
the State Board of Education at the May meeting. On June
26, 1973, Andrew Miller, Virginia Attorney General, issued
an opinion which indicated that the binding arbitration
feature of the grievance procedure was not illegal because
it focused on policy interpretation and not policy
development. The next day, administrators in Northern
Virginia were encouraged by the Virginia Education
Association to conduct a letter writing campaign requesting
that school principals be included in the State Procedure
for Adjusting Grievances. Poff responded with a group letter
to assert that, "No procedure will ever be approved which
does not exclude principals from the grievance machinery
available to teachers."
1974
The first year of operation under the State Board of
Education Grievance Procedure modified version, enacted by
the State School Board occurred between July 1,1973 and June
30,1974. On February 26, 1974 the General Assembly acted to
amend and re-enact Section 22-217.8 of the Code of Virginia
relating to a written decision of the school board and
hearing concerning the dismissal or placing on probation of
a teacher. The written decision was to be given within ten
days rather than five after the hearing.
1975
As of January, 1975, thirty-one states, excluding
Virginia, had some form of mandatory meet and confer or
collective bargaining legislation for educational personnel.
Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr. expressed his support for a
27
revision of grievance procedures for state employees in a
statement. He elaborated, "This process is in recognition of
the generally accepted principle that a matter of such
concern as to affect the morale of an employee or a group of
employees should be of equal concern to management." He
affirmed his opposition to union membership and collective
bargaining legislation for state employees and committed his
administration to improving grievance procedures for all
public workers. The comments were in response to the defeat
of the collective bargaining legislation in the current
session of the General Assembly. On May 25, Joseph W.
Bland, Jr., Director of Communications for the Virginia
Education Association, released the results of a survey
distributed to administrative and supervisory school
personnel in the state. Eighty percent of the respondents
favored a grievance procedure for administrators with
binding arbitration (Bland, 1975). On August 23, the
grievance procedure was revised. The Professional Relations
Committee held a full day hearing directed by Poff of the
State School Board. Poff expressed his concern in a
memorandum about the hearing. He elaborated, "Some local
boards in the utmost of good faith we are sure, are taking
the position that employees could be denied access to the
final and binding arbitration feature of our procedure by
the simple expedient of ruling that the grievance was non-
arbitral, a matter within Board’s Prerogatives in Section 7
of the procedure.” On September 26, the procedure was
revised again. On October 15, Vincent Thomas, President of
the State Board of Education and William B. Poff, Chairman
of the Professional Relations Committee, State Board of
Education sent a memorandum to all division superintendents
and members of the local school boards (Poff and Thomas,
1975). They professed that the intention of the memorandum
28
was to dispense "information in order to avoid any
misunderstanding about the intention of the State Board."
It was asserted that the procedure functioned favorably in
the first years of operation (Superintendent’s Memo
#7703:2). Several local school boards had taken the
position that employees could be denied the right to the
arbitration step. School boards ruled that the grievability
issue was within the Board’s Prerogatives of Section 7 and
was not grievable. The problem was so significant that in
1975, the State Board added a section to the grievance
procedure which specified that when a question came forth
concerning whether a dispute was grievable or not, the
question would be within the administration of the
arbitration panel. The losing participant would incur all
expenses involved in the arbitration issue. One month later
on November 15, at a meeting of the Virginia Education Board
of Directors, a resolution was adopted deploring the
calculated motives of the State Board of Education and the
falsification with which the grievance procedure had been
presented to teachers. Virginia Education Association
President Beth Nelson was enraged by the memorandum from
Poff and Thomas, and professed that "the document states
blatantly that the State Board’s motivation for establishing
the procedure was to thwart the move for collective
bargaining legislation by the Virginia General Assembly."
1976
On March 28,1976 the General Assembly, acted to amend
and re-enact Section 22-217.7 of the Code of Virginia
relating to a hearing for teacher dismissal, suspended, or
placed on probation. In July of the same year, F. Edward
Boggs, Virginia Education Association Director of Teacher
Rights issued the report, "An Analysis of the Use of the
State Grievance Procedure by Public School Teachers with
29
Assistance of UniServ Directors for 1975-1976." It revealed
that the State Department of Education acknowledged that
only 95 grievances were formally filed in the 1973-1974
school year (Boggs, 1976). Most grievances were processed
in the Northern Virginia and Tidewater areas. He attributed
the increase in number filed to thirty newly employed
UniServ Directors by the Virginia Education Association that
year. It was revealed that in some circumstances, there
were multiple individual grievances filed pertaining to the
same issue. At present, the State Procedure does not allow
for group or class action grievances. During the same year,
the City of Richmond challenged the binding arbitration
feature of the State Board of Education Grievance Procedure.
The Fourth Circuit Court in Richmond ruled that binding
arbitration was legal. The City of Richmond continued the
pursuit and appealed the Parham case to the to the Supreme
Court of Virginia.
1977
On January 4, Ryland Dishner, Assistant Superintendent
for Professional and Supportive Services for the Virginia
Department of Education in correspondence with Leonard,
stated that the State Board of Education "has considered
each request for approval rather than develop a set of
guidelines." He added that the State Board "has concluded,
thus far, that a procedure negotiated and agreed to by both
employees and employers would serve best the needs of the
locality" (Leonard, 1979). As of that date, the following
school divisions had a local grievance procedure approved by
the State Board: Arlington County-December 12, 1975,
Franklin County-February 27, 1976, Fairfax County-June
25,1976, Alexandria City-July 23, 1976, Virginia Beach City-
December 10, 1976, and Prince William County-December 12,
1976.
30
In April, the Roanoke Times newspaper, reported that
approximately 30% of Virginia Education Association
membership was operating under collective bargaining
agreements at the time of the Arlington decision. In 1977,
the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that the Virginia
General Assembly had not passed legislation expressly
granting the power to bargain collectively nor had the
General Assembly implied that a school board had the
authority to bargain collectively with employee.
Commonwealth of Virginia v. County Board of Arlington
County, et al (217 Va. 558). This decision made each
locally adopted grievance procedure "illegal because each
procedure was a part of an illegally negotiated contract"
(Leonard, 1979).
1978
In April, Attorney General Andrew Miller filed a
petition with the court to intervene in the case on behalf
of the State Board of Education. In School Board of City of
Richmond v. Parham (1978), the Supreme Court of Virginia
ruled that binding arbitration could not be mandated upon
local school boards and was an unlawful delegation of power
violating the State Constitution (Section 7 of Article
VIII). Parham filed a petition to compel the school board to
arbitrate. On May 26, a revised procedure was drafted in
the aftermath of the court ruling. The new additions made
panel decisions the third step in the four-step procedure
that concluded with the school board making the final
decision. One day earlier, the State Board of Education
passed a resolution. The resolution indicated that if a
local school division, "following careful deliberation and
advice of counsel as is customary in the decision making
process of such localities, the State Board of Education
declares that it will favorably consider the approval of
31
such plans in accordance with the past policy under the
terms of the Equivalent Procedure section of the State
Grievance Procedure Plan." No documentation of local school
divisions making the request was found. Virginia Beach City
Public Schools expressed support for binding arbitration on
July 1, 1975 in a statement by R.C. Horvedt on behalf of the
local school board (Horvedt, 1975).
In 1978, dismissals were incorporated into the
grievance procedure. Part B was added whereby a certificated
employee on continuing contract could request a panel to
conduct a hearing and prepare a finding of fact that would
be advisory to the local school board in its consideration
of the superintendent’s recommended dismissal.
1979
On March 20,1979 more amendments were added to sections
relating to teacher grievances, dismissal, suspension, and
probation.
1980-1989
In the next nine years, refinement of the procedure
continued. In March 1983, the General Assembly acted to
amend and re-enact Section 22.1-312 of the Code of Virginia
relating to teacher grievance procedures. Several phrases
were added:
In cases of dismissal or probation, a record orrecording of the proceeding shall be made and preservedfor a period of six months. If either the teacher orthe school board requests that a transcript of therecord or recording be made, copies shall be furnishedto both parties.
In April of the following year, the General Assembly
acted to amend and re-enact Sections 21-121 and 22.1-312 of
the Code of Virginia relating to the panel hearing a
grievance filed by a teacher. The addition pertained to
legal service in civil matters:
32
All legal service in civil matters for theCommonwealth shall be rendered and performed by theAttorney General his discretion may representpersonally or through one of his assistants or anythird impartial panel member appointed to hear ateacher’s grievance pursuant to Section 22.1-312 whoshall be made defendant in any civil action for damagesarising out of any matter connected with his officialduties.
On March 16, 1987, the General Assembly acted to amend
and re-enact Section 22.1-314 of the Code of Virginia,
relating to teacher grievances. The sentence, "The school
board shall reach its decision only after allowing the
school division administration and the grievant opportunity
to present written and oral arguments regarding
grievability." The phrase "The decision as to whether the
arguments shall be written or oral shall be at the
discretion of the school board," was also added. On March
23, 1988 Section 22.2-312 of the Code of Virginia relating
to teachers’ grievance panels was amended. The sentence
"With the agreement of the teacher’s and division
superintendent’s panel members, the impartial panel member
shall have the authority to conduct the hearing and make
recommendations as set forth herein while acting as hearing
officer."
On March 6, 1989, in a letter to Governor Gerald
Balliles, the Virginia School Boards Association (VSBA)
expressed strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 178.
The opinion was expressed:
Additionally, the VSBA view HJR 178 as the mostdamaging occurrence to state governance, in general,and to public education, in particular, that has everbeen passed by the General Assembly. It is worse thancollective bargaining. It is incomprehensible to usthat Virginia, a right-to-work state, would supportenabling legislation for binding arbitration (VSBALetter to Governor Baliles, 1989).
1990 - Present
33
In 1992, educational support personnel gained access to
the grievance procedure. In recent years, Virginia
legislators continue the effort to modify the procedure.
“Defining justice and equity in the educational workplace”
continues to be a concern of the Virginia Education
Association and numerous lawmakers who will not let the
issues of collective bargaining and binding arbitration for
public school teachers fade. The 1993 session of the General
Assembly focused on a bill that would put into the Code of
Virginia the Attorney General's opinion that said employees
do not have the right to collectively bargain contracts and
thus, prohibited collective bargaining. Additionally, it
proposed the concept that school boards did not have to
recognize the representatives of employee groups such as
teacher organizations at their meetings.
Summary
This chapter examined the historical, political, and
legislative events that advanced the development of formal
dispute resolution procedures for teachers in Virginia. The
information formed the basis for the hypotheses and research
questions, which will be presented in Chapter III.
34
CHAPTER III
Methodology
Introduction
This chapter describes the research design and the
methodology used in this study. Included is a discussion of
the process by which the surveys were developed and revised,
a description of the methods used to collect data, and the
identification of the populations used for the study.
Research Design and Procedure
The purpose of this study was to examine the opinions
of neutral chairpersons, school division superintendents or
designees, teacher association leaders and attorneys
regarding the role of the neutral panel member and dispute
resolution procedures utilized by public school teachers in
Virginia and collect demographic information. A mail
questionnaire was developed to gather information and
incorporated methods suggested by Dillman. To collect the
needed information, it was determined that the survey
questionnaire method be utilized (Rea and Parker 1992),
If the researcher needs information that is notavailable elsewhere and if generalization of findings to alarger population is desired, sample survey research is themost appropriate method. Furthermore, survey research canbe considered an appropriate technique when enough generalinformation is known or can be conveniently be obtainedabout the subject matter under investigation to formulatespecific questions (p.3).
A self-administered researcher-designed survey instrument
was necessary because of the unique nature of the subject
being studied: teacher dispute resolution procedures in
Virginia.
Target Population
At the time of the investigation, a statewide list of
persons serving as neutral chairpersons of fact-finding
panels was not available. Through correspondence with David
35
Johnson and other employees of the Virginia Education
Association, it was discovered that the teacher organization
did not maintain a compiled list of persons available to
serve. Thus, the number of individuals in the population
was unknown.
Initially, an informative letter about the study was
mailed to the superintendents or personnel directors of all
Virginia school divisions (136) and all Virginia Education
Association UniServ offices (20) in December of 1994. The
addresses of school divisions were acquired from the
1994-1995 Virginia Educational Directory. The addresses of
the UniServ offices were obtained from the November, 1994
issue of the Virginia Journal of Education. The contents of
the letter requested the names and addresses of neutral
chairpersons previously or currently utilized in the school
division (Appendix B). Correspondence with the American
Arbitration Association in Washington, D.C. provided
additional information about four potential neutral
chairpersons who were members in the organization. To update
the list, letters were sent to school division personnel
directors and UniServ directors who had not responded to the
first letter in June 1997. The compiled list represented
the effort to acquire as many potential respondents as
possible who serve as neutral fact finders in the state.
Superintendents or designees searched through school
archives to gather neutral chairperson names. Teacher
association leaders reviewed grievance and dismissal
records. As a result, a list of 41 names and addresses was
compiled following the correspondence. The exact population
continues to be unknown, and for this study, the sample
acquired was an adequate representation of neutral
chairpersons in the state as determined by the research
committee. The accessible population of neutral
36
chairpersons for the study was identified through the
responses on the first questionnaire (Table 2). For the
second mailing effort in 1997, a letter return deadline of
three weeks determined the number of respondents to be
included in the study. The fourth week, follow-up letters
with the original form were sent to the school divisions and
UniServ directors that did not return the requested
information. Two weeks after the follow-up communication,
late letters were considered unusable and not included in
the project. Six additional names were added as a result of
this mailing. For county school divisions, the rate of
return was 74 percent (Table 2). For city school divisions,
the rate of return was 63 percent (Table 3). The two town
school divisions responded with a return rate of 100 percent
(Table 4). For UniServ directors, the rate of return was 54
percent (Table 5). County school divisions responded with a
better rate of return than the cities.
37
Table 2
Report of Neutral Chairpersons Utilized in School DivisionPanel Hearings (Counties - 74% Return Rate)
School Division(County)
NoReturn
Returned Number ofNeutral
ChairpersonsReported
Accomack X 0Albemarle X
Alleghany Highlands X 0Amelia X 1Amherst X 0Appomatox X 0Arlington X 3Augusta X 0Bath X 1
Bedford X 0Bland X
Botetourt X 0Brunswick X 0Buchanan XBuckingham XCampbell X 0Caroline X 0Carroll X 1
Charles City X 0Charlotte X 1
Chesterfield X 1Clarke X 0Craig X 0
Culpeper XCumberland X 1Dickenson X 0Dinwiddie X 0Essex X 0Fairfax X 13Fauquier XFloyd X 0
Fluvanna X 0Franklin X 0Frederick X 1Giles X 0
Gloucester XGoochland XGrayson X 0Greene X 0
Greensville X
38
School Division(County)
NoReturn
Returned Number ofNeutral
ChairpersonsReported
Halifax X 0Hanover X 0Henrico X 2Henry X
Highland X 0Isle of Wight X 0King George X
King and Queen XKing William XLancaster X 0
Lee X 0Loudoun X 0Louisa X
Lunenburg XMadison XMathews X 0
Mecklenburg X 0Middlesex X 0Montgomery X 3
Nelson X 1New Kent X 0
Northampton X 0Northumberland X
Nottoway X 0Orange X 0Page X
Patrick X 1Pittsylvania X 0Powhatan X 0
Prince Edward X 0Prince George X 0Prince William X 0
Pulaski X 0Rappahannock X 0Richmond X 0Roanoke X 0
Rockbridge X 0Rockingham X 0Russell X 0Scott X 0
Shenandoah X 0Smyth X 2
Southampton X 0
39
School Division(County)
NoReturn
Returned Number ofNeutral
ChairpersonsReported
Spotsylvania X 0Stafford X 0Surry X 0Sussex X 0
Tazewell XWarren X 0
Washington X 0Westmoreland X 0
Wise X 0Wythe XYork X 2TOTAL 19 74 34
40
Table 3Report of Neutral Chairpersons Utilized in School DivisionPanel Hearings (Cities – 63% Return Rate)
School Division(City)
NoReturn
Returned Number ofNeutral
ChairpersonsReported
Alexandria X *Bedford XBristol X 0
Buena Vista X 1Charlottesville X
Chesapeake X 3Colonial Heights X 0
Covington X 0Danville X 0
Emporia/Greensville Cty. XFairfax X
Falls Church X 0Franklin X 1
Fredericksburg X 1Galax X 0Hampton X 1
Harrisonburg X 1Hopewell XLexington X 0Lynchburg X 0Manassas X
Manassas Park X 0Martinsville X 0Newport News X 0
Norfolk XNorton X 0
Petersburg XPoquoson X 0Portsmouth X 1Radford X 0Richmond X 0Roanoke X 0Salem X 1
South Boston XStaunton X 0Suffolk X
Virginia Beach X 7Waynesboro X 1
Williamsburg/ James City Cty. X 1Winchester X 1
41
School Division(City)
NoReturn
Returned Number ofNeutral
ChairpersonsReported
TOTAL 10 30 20
42
Table 4Report of Neutral Chairpersons Utilized in School DivisionPanel Hearings (Towns – 100% Return Rate)
School Division(Town)
NoReturn
Returned Number ofNeutral
ChairpersonsReported
Colonial Beach X 0West Point X 0
TOTAL 0 2 0
* Executive Director of Personnel would not release names ofneutral chairpersons.
43
Table 5Report of Neutral Chairpersons Reported By EducationAssociation Leaders (54% Return Rate)
Uniserv Directors NoReturn
Returned Number ofNeutral
ChairpersonsReported
Blue Ridge UniServ X 1Cenvaserv X 0
Chesapeake Bay EducationAssociation (Hampton)
X 0
Chesterfield/Colonial BeachUniServ
X
Colonial UniServ X 3Commonwealth UniServ Unit A X 2Commonwealth UniServ Unit B X 3Cumberland Mountain UniServ X 0
Dominion UniServ XEduServ X 2
Fairfax Education Association X 0Mountain View Association X 0
New River UniServ X 4Nova UniServ X 4
Piedmont UniServ X 0Prince William Education
AssociationX 0
Richmond EducationAssociation
X 4
Skyline UniServ X 0Southwest VA UniServ X
Valley UniServ X 0TOTAL 3 17 23
44
Development of the Instrument and Validation
The method and process used in developing the survey
followed a review of research, related literature, Section
22.1-306 through Section 22.1-314 of the Code of Virginia,
and historical documents on the topic of teacher dispute
resolution. Personal interviews were conducted with Robert
R. Richards, an experienced neutral chairperson, a human
resource specialist with Virginia Beach City Public Schools,
Eugene Truitt of the Virginia Education Association and
school administrators previously involved with grievance and
dismissal hearings. The information gathered provided a
framework from which the survey questionnaire was developed.
The researcher gained valuable insight into the procedure by
observing a panel hearing convened to hear the case of
dismissal for a tenured teacher in a local school division.
An interview was conducted with an arbitrator employed with
the Better Business Bureau. These experiences assisted the
researcher in developing the research questions and the
domains of experience, training, and procedural issues
regarding the grievance and dismissal procedure and panel
hearing.
Once the sample was identified, a descriptive research
design was utilized. Four survey instruments were developed
to gather demographic and opinion data from the persons
identified as neutral chairpersons, UniServ directors, local
education association presidents, school division
superintendents, and attorneys reported to have represented
either a teacher or a school board during a panel hearing
for grievance or dismissal. Each item on the survey
questionnaire was developed to answer a specific research
question (Borg, 1983).
The first part of the survey sent to the neutral
chairpersons requested data regarding the opinions of the
45
variables relating to the procedural framework of grievance
and dismissal procedures, advisory fact finding,
prerequisite training qualifications of neutral
chairpersons, and the role and function of the fact-finding
panel. A four-point Likert-type scale was utilized with 16
statements included in this section. The second part of the
survey requested opinion data regarding procedural issues,
adequacy of training for the position of chairperson, and
experiences in the field of teacher dispute resolution. The
third part of the survey requested demographic information
regarding independent variables to include the respondent’s
gender, race, age, degrees earned, and current employment.
In an effort to obtain more information and to discuss any
additional attitudes from the perspective of the neutral
chairperson, a space for additional comments was included at
the end of the survey.
A second survey instrument was developed to gather
demographic and opinion data from all UniServ directors and
local education association presidents in the state. The
first part of the survey included the 16 statements with the
four-point Likert type scale. As with the survey for the
neutral chairpersons, included in this section were
variables thought to be associated with teacher dispute
resolution procedures. Statements designed to elicit
opinions about the procedure for adjusting grievances, the
teacher dismissal procedure, advisory fact-finding,
qualifications and training for neutral chairpersons, and
panel hearings were included. Demographic information was
requested regarding only the independent variables of
gender, race, age, law courses or workshops taken, and
degrees earned and other questions related to the procedural
format of the hearing. The surveys requested any additional
comments concerning the topic.
46
A third survey was developed for the school division
superintendents or designees who had indicated in the
affirmative that a panel hearing had occurred in their
division. For smaller state school divisions, the
superintendent may serve as the personnel director and be
knowledgeable about the requested information. For larger
school divisions, the superintendent may designate the
personnel director as the person to complete the survey.
This was indicated in the introductory letter attached to
the survey. The first part of the survey was the same as
for the other populations included in the study. The second
part of the survey requested information concerning the
procedural issues of the panel hearing and performance and
administration competence of the neutral chairperson.
Demographic information and the request for additional
comments were included at the final section of the survey.
A fourth survey was developed for attorneys reported
to have had experience with the panel hearings involving
grievance and dismissal. For th