| The purpose of this study was to determine the balance of faculty and management control over academic and administrative policies as specified in the collective bargaining contracts of Illinois Public Community Colleges.;The findings show that the balance of faculty and management control for nine contract clauses was related to one or more of the demographic and institutional variables. Colleges bargaining initial faculty contracts after H.B. 1530 became law negotiated contracts that are more management oriented with respect to non-renewal, mid-term bargaining, appointment, and class size clauses than colleges that had bargained previous to the implementation of H.B. 1530.;This study should be of considerable assistance to faculty and management in planning bargaining strategies, evaluating the balance of faculty and management control of individual clauses, and in helping judge the appropriateness of agreeing to specific contract language. Faculty and management, who want to evaluate their effectiveness in bargaining, may want to analyze their contracts and determine the balance of faculty and management control for their college.;Faculty collective bargaining agreements for thirty-three Illinois Public Community Colleges were analyzed to determine the balance of faculty and management control over specific administrative and academic policies. Contract clauses studied include non-renewal, tenure, evaluation, association-administrative meetings, personnel records, mid-term bargaining, maintenance of standards, appointment, reduction-in-force, academic freedom, class size, sabbatical leave, and academic calendar. The independent variables include colleges that bargained prior to House Bill 1530 compared to colleges that negotiated initial faculty contracts under the provisions of House Bill 1530; faculty size; AFT, NEA, or independent bargaining agents; years of bargaining experience; and contracts negotiated with inside, outside, or mixed chief negotiators. Each contract clause was analyzed by assigning a numerical rank order value of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 from an applicable rating scale. The rating scales were all patterned after those utilized by Margaret Chandler and Daniel Julius (1979). |
