Teacher Dispute Resolution Procedures in Virginia: Demographic … · 2020. 9. 28. · Ardene D. Bunch Committee Chairpersons: M. David Alexander and Robert R. Richards Educational

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


Division Panel Hearings (Cities – 63% Return Rate) ... 40


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


Table 23 Race of Respondents and Perceptions Regarding


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


Training Questions ................................... 99


Training Questions .................................. 100


Respondents and Perceptions Regarding Training Questions

.................................................... 101


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



xiii




Respondents and Perceptions Regarding Experience

Questions ........................................... 112


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


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


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


NeutralChairperson

Superintendents

UniServDirectors


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


NeutralChairperson

Superintendents

UniServDirectors


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


NoReturn



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


NoReturn



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



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



TOTAL 10 30 20

42

Table 4Report of Neutral Chairpersons Utilized in School DivisionPanel Hearings (Towns – 100% Return Rate)

School Division(Town)

NoReturn



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



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

Teacher Dispute Resolution Procedures in Virginia: Demographic … · 2020. 9. 28. · Ardene D. Bunch Committee Chairpersons: M. David Alexander and Robert R. Richards Educational

Documents