| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 教育研究所 === 92 === The purpose of this study is to investigate the content and the process of collective negotiation in Taipei public elementary schools. The study is also to explore the circumstances and opinions of collective negotiation from the schools’ organizations. According to the study results, some recommendations are proposed available for future references.
The study methods include the literature review, the questionnaire, and the interview. The questionnaire, “Taipei Public Elementary Schools’ Opinions on Collective Negotiation Questionnaire”, is created based on the initial results from the literature review and the interview. 756 copies of the questionnaire are distributed to randomly-sampled schools. Finally, there are 545 of 590 valid questionnaires are collected. The retrieval rate is 72%.
Nine interviewees are: three principals of Taipei public elementary schools, three presidents of Teachers’ Association, and three presidents of Parents’ Association. Finally, the study makes a conclusion by analyzing the literature review, the questionnaire, and the interview’s results. Some findings and suggestions are described as below:
A. The content of collective negotiation can be categorized into four main areas: “the curriculum and the teaching”, “the personal matters”, “the budget”, and “general school administration”. Temporary events are also included in the content of collective negotiation.
B. In the content of schools’ collective negotiation, some issues currently “should be included”, but “not be included yet” are: “arrangement for school teachers’ teaching hours”, “distribution of school teachers teaching subjects” and “implementations of school teachers’ rewards, punishments and assessments”.
C. Different people and school’s scales should pay attention to different issues.
D. The qualities of Taipei public elementary schools’ collective negotiation are good. However, they still need to improve some places, like personal emotion’s control and thinking models. Schools, having better interactive status, have better quality of collective negotiation than those having worse interactive status.
E. The efficacy of collective negotiation in Taipei public elementary schools is better. However, they need to continue making efforts on its efficiency and the implantation. Parents, administrators and schools, having better interactive status, agree with the efficacy more.
F. In the process of collective negotiation, people most of time take a “agree with a big framework first, and then discuss its parts in detail” strategy. Currently, it is not common to ask a third person to get involved in the process. If choosing a third person to deal with a deadlock is necessary, people most of time choose from the Bureau of Education. When meeting a deadlock, they usually use “adjourn first, and then fix another meeting date” strategy.
G. Representatives of collective negotiation, having “vocational school” degree, prefer to choose “representatives of the public opinion” as their “third person in the process of collective negotiation”. Administrators, teachers, and parents prefer to ask for help from “people who are in the Bureau of Education”, “retired principals, deans, and teachers” or “representatives of the public opinion”.
H. Teachers think that the schools prefer to “listen to people who have decision-making rights” as dealing with a deadlock of collective negotiation. Parents think that schools should “invite a third person to do a fact survey and provide facts for the two sides’ references”. However, schools having bigger scale and good interactive status, not only choose “adjourn first, and then fix another meeting date”, but also prefer to use “invite a third person to mediate” strategy.
I. The power and skill of the negotiation members are more destitute.
J. Taipei public elementary schools agree that “collective negotiation” is model to make a decision. Parents and schools having better interactive status agree with it more.
After the study combines the results, some suggestions are made as follows:
l To schools:
1. Schools should set up good rules of collective negotiation as decision-making model for important issues.
2. The content of collective negotiation can be categorized into four main
areas: “the curriculum and the teaching”, “the personal matters”, “the
budget”, and “general school administration”. However, it is necessary
to pay attention to temporary events that will also become a content of
collective negotiation.
3. The content of schools’ collective negotiation should add three more
events, “arrangement for school teachers’ teaching hours”, “distribution
of school teachers teaching subjects” and “implementations of school
teachers’ rewards, punishments and assessments”.
4. The content of schools’ collective negotiation should consider different needs from different people or schools’ scales.
5. School administrators, teachers and parents should remove personal interests and emotion in the negotiation process.
6. In order to increase the efficiency and efficacy of collective negotiation,
schools should save time, people, and resources.
7. Schools’ collective negotiation can use “agree with a big framework
first, and then discuss its parts in detail” more.
8. If schools’ collective negotiation need others’ assistance, they could ask an appropriate third person for help.
9. If schools meet with a deadlock in the process of collective negotiation,
school members should discard bad habits of autocracy and may
consider to invite a third person to mediate, to do a fact survey and so
on.
10. To execute the system of cognizance from parents.
l To educational administration:
1. Doing a research to deal with negotiation.
2. Building an information platform.
3. Setting up some laws about negotiation.
|
|---|
