An evaluation of teachers’ views of primary school principals’ practice of democratic values
Main Article Content
The purpose of the study was to evaluate teachers’ views about the level of practice of democratic values by primary school principals. Participants were 300 primary school teachers from four different regions of Turkey. The data were collected through a questionnaire, and analyzed by using t test and ANOVA tests. Results indicate that gender, educational level, and membership of a union make a difference in terms of practicing democratic values. Furthermore, some meaningful differences were noted in the subdimension of the questionnaire depending on the teachers’ professional experience and on the present number of students as variables.
In the late 19th century and in the early 20th century many nations endeavored to practice democracy and others still have that goal. As it is in many countries, the process of being democratic has been continuing in Turkey. However, it is not accurate to say that the level of democratic education is adequate. It is necessary to train individuals who have democratic behaviors in order to see the effects of democracy in every part of society in Turkey, as well as in other countries which have been developing democratic societies. Democratic values can be taught only through a democratic education.
Values can form the behaviors of people. Besides, they are the leading principles for people (Ryckman & Houston, 2003; Schwartz, 1992). It is very difficult to change values, still, education is capable of authorizing values. For this reason, schools have a crucial role in cultivating democracy (Branson, 2004; Goodlad, 1996; Soder, 1996; Wood, 1992). Most authors agree on the idea that democracy can also be taught to the younger generations (Dewey, 1916; Finkel, 2003; Goodlad, 1996; Parker, 1996; Soder, 1996; Wood, 1992). What is more, a great deal of energy has been put into teaching these democratic values in schools in recent years (Finkel, 2003).
The meaning of democracy in education differs from one culture to another in terms of values, rights, system structures, school process, learning content, balance, training and outcomes (Davies, 1999). In addition to this idea, Tarcov (1996) explains democratic education as “actualization of such an understanding of democracy” (p. 1).
Democratic life requires educational environments wherein all students collaborate and are involved in debates and in making decisions (Harwood, 2001; Wile, 2000). School must be, not only the place where the meaning of democracy is taught, but also the place where democracy is applied to real life and where it is taught to the students as a way of life, and this is possible only with education (Barth, 1990). Without an education which is based on democratic values, it is impossible to teach people to regard and apply democracy as a way of living.
For this reason, schools should not only teach democracy, but should also lead students according to the principles of democracy (Barth, 1990). According to Cookson (2001) a democratic education is needed − however, many schools do not have an education system which is democratic. In a study carried out in Turkey by Kıncal (2000) with eighth grade students it was found that primary school teachers do not give the necessary importance to teaching democratic values to students.
However, democracy should form the centre of the processes which are related to school. In democratic societies, the control and safety of schools and preventing their being used for irrelevant aims is possible only with a democratic education (Matusova, 1997; Wood, 1992). For this reason, schools can teach people who have democratic values only with the help of education (Print, Ornstrom, & Nielsen, 2002).
Cassel (1996) states, “a leader in a democratic society must possess certain qualities” (p. 94). This is also a need for school administrators, and some of these qualities can be described as democratic values. “Democratic values are the glue that holds the school together” (Johnson, Johnson, Stevahn, & Hodne, 2002; p. 13).
To be able to play their roles effectively and efficiently, schools must have democratic leadership and in order to be able to offer democratic education in schools, they must be administered according to democratic values and principles (Kincal & Işik, 2005).
Kincal and Işik (2003) analyzed the literature so as to be able to list democratic values. They found eleven democratic values cited most often in the literature, namely, justice, equality, freedom, respect for life, cooperation, self-confidence, honesty, tolerance, sensitivity, pursuit of happiness, and finally, responsibility.
Matusova (1997) also states that four fundamental elements influence the existence of democratic education – namely the theory of education, teacher education, teachers’ qualifications and system of school management. In this study the author concentrated on the final element, the system of school management.
The aim in the study was to evaluate the perceived practice of democratic values by primary school principals according to teachers’ views. Therefore, the following research questions were addressed:
Does the perceived practice of democratic values by primary school principals differ depending on teachers’ gender?
Does the perceived practice of democratic values by primary school principals differ depending on teachers’ school status?
Does the perceived practice of democratic values by primary school principals differ depending on whether or not teachers are members of a union?
Does the perceived practice of democratic values by primary school principals differ depending on teachers’ professional experience?
Does the perceived practice of democratic values by primary school principals differ depending on schools’ student population?
Method
Participants
The participants in the study were teachers working in the primary schools in the cities of Erzurum, Hatay, Kırşehir and Çanakkale which lie in the east, northwest, south and middle of Turkey. The inventory was applied to 400 teachers who volunteered, and who were randomly selected from the primary schools in these cities. The number of participants was reduced to 300 teachers after those who had answered the inventory wrongly and left incomplete answers had been omitted.
The questionnaire was administered to 300 teachers (144 male, 156 female) at 12 elementary state schools, with enrolment sizes ranging between 340 and 2,600. More than half of the teachers were members of a teachers’ union, and 149 of them were teaching grades 1-5 while the rest were teaching grades 6-8. Between 12 and 40 teachers were included in the study from each school, and years of teaching experience were similar. The plan was that equal numbers of experienced teachers were to be included in the study but this was not achieved, due to the voluntary participation policy. Teachers are organized and evaluated according to the same rules and regulations. The return rate of the instrument was 75%.
Instruments
A number of instruments were developed for measuring values (Schwartz, 1992) and democratic values (Kincal & Işik, 2003; Selvi, 2006). A questionnaire developed by Kincal and Işik (2003) was adopted and used for data collection. The aim in this questionnaire is to measure the level at which elementary school principals are perceived to practice democratic values while they are leading their schools, according to teachers. Values can shape the behavior of people (Ryckman & Houston, 2003); for that reason, one can estimate someone’s values by looking at his or her behaviors. For example, if someone has a high level of sensitivity as a democratic value, he or she will likely have a low level of rude behavior. This simple logic is the means for us to reach a conclusion. However, this simplification is also one of the limitations of this study. Also, it is assumed that teachers expressed their ideas freely.
The data were obtained via the inventory developed by Kıncal and Is¸ık (2005). The reliability of the instrument (Cronbach alpha) was determined as 0.92. The inventory was applied to the participants in October, 2005 and the data obtained were analyzed by SPSS program. While analyzing the data, a t test was applied to find out the differences between means and whether or not the level of the perceived practice of democratic values by primary school principals depended on the gender of the teachers, school status and whether or not the teachers were union members. ANOVA tests were used to determine whether or not there was a difference in perceived practice of democratic values by primary school principals depending on teachers’ length of service and schools’ student population, and a Tukey test was applied to designate the difference within the groups.
Results and Discussion
All the findings were divided into five categories and subtopics, which had differences from others, and were carefully interpreted. Only the data in comparison with teachers’ length of service and schools’ student population were interpreted in tables.
Table 1 shows that the views of teachers related to subtopics such as responsibility, sensitivity, and pursuit of happiness included in the inventory differed in terms of the gender factor. The differences in subtopics such as responsibility, sensitivity, and pursuit of happiness were in favor of female teachers. The table shows that the means of the female teachers’ views about the practice level of democratic values by primary school principals were higher than the means of the male teachers’ views. In this sense, it may be concluded that the female teachers had opinions that were more positive than were those of male teachers about the perceived practice level of democratic values by primary school principals in relation to subtopics such as responsibility, sensitivity, and pursuit of happiness.
Table 1. Perceived Practice of Democratic Values by Primary School Principals by Teachers’ Gender
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Findings relating to whether or not the perceived practice of democratic values by primary school principals differs depending on teachers’ school status are shown in Table 2. The views of the primary school teachers differed from those of the second level teachers in all subtopics in the inventory, except the subtopic of honesty. The difference (except honesty) in the practice of democratic values by primary school principals was in primary school teachers’ favor. From this point of view, it can be said that the views of the primary school teachers were more positive than those of the secondary school teachers in relation to the perceived practice of democratic values by primary school principals. Conversely, primary school teachers and secondary school teachers had similar thoughts about honesty among the democratic values. That is to say, teachers had the same opinions about their principals’ behavior of being honest or not.
Table 2. Perceived Practice of Democratic Values by Primary School Principals According to Teachers’ School Level
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Table 3. Perceived Practice of Democratic Values by Primary School Principals According to Membership of the Teachers’ Union
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
There was a significant difference at the level of 0.05 between the perceived practice of the democratic values by primary school principals and being a member of the teachers’ union or not in all subtopics except that of responsibility. When the means were analyzed, it was clear that the means of the nonunion member teachers were higher than those of the union members, except for the subtopic of responsibility. Therefore, it can be alleged that the nonunion member teachers had more constructive opinions than did the union member teachers about the practice of democratic values by primary school principals. About the subtopic of responsibility, nonunion member teachers and union member teachers felt the same. In other words, their thoughts on this topic did not differ.
Table 4. Perceived Practice of Democratic Values by Primary School Principals According to Teachers’ Professional Experience
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
It was found that there was a significant difference at the level of 0.05 between the teachers’ professional experience and the perceived practice of democratic values by primary school principals. According to the results of the Tukey test administered to highlight the differences among groups, teachers who had been working for 11-15 years, 16-20 years and over 21 years had more positive views than did the teachers who had experience of only 6 to 10 years. Those with 11-15 years, 16-20 years and over 21 years experience had more constructive opinions when compared to teachers who had been working for only 6-10 years. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the views of the inexperienced teachers and experienced teachers differ.
Table 5. Perceived Practice of Democratic Values by Primary School Principals by School Size
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Table 5 shows the results of the comparison of whether the perceived practice of democratic values by primary school principals differs depending on school size. Here, the effects of the school size on the perceived practice of democratic values by principals were investigated. It was revealed that there was a significant difference at the level of 0.05 between the population of the school and the perceived practice of democratic values by primary school principals. According to the Tukey test result conducted to discover differences among school populations, small sized schools in terms of student number (1-500) had the most advantage when compared to schools which had 1500-2000 and 2501- 3000 students. When these schools were compared, it was shown that schools with 501-1000 students benefited most and next in the comparison were the schools which had 1001-1500 students and 1501-2000, 2001-2500, and 2501- 3000. Based on these results, it can be said that principals of the small-sized schools were perceived to be more active in the practice of democratic values and the results were more productive. Moreover, it could be concluded that principals declined in perceived practice of democratic values when the number of students increased.
Conclusions
Democratic education appears to be necessary for new generations and it can be gained only through acquiring democratic values. However, it is not possible to learn democracy in an antidemocratic environment. Therefore, the behaviors of principals and teachers should be shaped according to democratic values in an educational environment. At the same time, the principal should embrace democratic values and initiate a democratic educational environment in order to create a democratic school.
In line with the conclusions reached above, as Johnson et al. (2002) mentioned, democratic values can be considered as the key to having systematic and reliable schools. On the other hand, schools require principals who are practicing democratic values and who put those values into action in order to create a positive school climate. Consequently, principals, especially primary school principals, should participate in seminars, panel discussions and so on regarding democratic values in order to eliminate their shortcomings with regard to the topic.
References
Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Branson, M. S. (May 20-21, 2004). Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools. An address to the International Symposium on Democracy Education, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey.
Cassel, R. N. (1996). Cosmic consciousness: An essential element for democratic leadership. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23(2), 93-97.
Cookson, P. W. (2001). Fostering moral democracy. Educational Leadership, 59(2), 42-45.
Davies, L. (1999). Comparing definitions of democracy in education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 29(2), 127-140.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: MacMillan.
Finkel, S. E. (2003). Can democracy be taught? Journal of Democracy, 14(4), 137-151.
Goodlad, J. I. (1996). Democracy, education and community. In R. Soder (Ed.), Democracy, education, and the schools (pp. 87-124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Harwood, D. (2001). The teacher’s role in democratic pedagogies in UK primary and secondary schools: A review of ideas and research. Education, 16(2), 293-319.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Stevahn, L., & Hodne, P. (2002). The three Cs of safe schools. Educational Leadership, 55(2), 8-13.
Kincal, R. Y. (May 10-12, 2000). I˙lkög˘retim ög˘retmen davranıs¸larının demokratiklik düzeyi (Level of democratic behaviors of elementary school teachers). II. Ulusal Ög˘retmen Yetis¸tirme Sempozyumu: Bildiriler (Proceedings of Second Teacher Training Symposium), pp. 432-437. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey.
Kincal, R. Y., & Işik, H. (2003). Demokratik Eg˘itim ve Demokratik Deg˘erler (Democratic education and democratic values). Eg˘itim Aras¸tırmaları Dergisi (Educational Research Journal), 3(11), 54-58.
Kincal, R. Y., & Işik, H. (2005). Elementary school principals’ level of practicing democratic values: Perceptions of teachers. International Journal of Educational Reform, 14(3), 326-333.
Matusova, S. (1997). Democratic values as a challenge for education. European Education, 29(3), 65-76.
Parker, W. C. (1996). Curriculum for democracy. In R. Soder (Ed.), Democracy, education, and the schools (pp. 182-210). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Print, M., Ornstrom, S., & Nielsen, H. S. (2002). Education for democratic processes in schools and classrooms. European Journal of Education, 37(2), 293-210.
Ryckman, R. M., & Houston, D. M. (2003). Value priorities in American and British female and male university students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 14(1), 127-138.
Selvi, K. (2006). Developing a teacher trainees’ democratic values scale: Validity and reliability analyses. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 34(9), 1171-1178.
Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1-65). San Diego: Academic Press.
Soder, R. (1996). Democracy, education, and the schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Tarcov, N. (1996). The meanings of democracy. In R. Soder (Ed.), Democracy, education, and the schools (pp. 1-36). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wile, J. M. (2000). A literacy lesson in democracy education. Social Studies, 91(4), 170-177.
Wood, G. H. (1992). Teaching for democracy. In G. H. Wood & E. Stevens (Eds.), Justice, ideology and education: An introduction to the social foundations of education (pp. 364-368). New York: McGraw Hill.
Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Branson, M. S. (May 20-21, 2004). Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools. An address to the International Symposium on Democracy Education, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey.
Cassel, R. N. (1996). Cosmic consciousness: An essential element for democratic leadership. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23(2), 93-97.
Cookson, P. W. (2001). Fostering moral democracy. Educational Leadership, 59(2), 42-45.
Davies, L. (1999). Comparing definitions of democracy in education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 29(2), 127-140.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: MacMillan.
Finkel, S. E. (2003). Can democracy be taught? Journal of Democracy, 14(4), 137-151.
Goodlad, J. I. (1996). Democracy, education and community. In R. Soder (Ed.), Democracy, education, and the schools (pp. 87-124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Harwood, D. (2001). The teacher’s role in democratic pedagogies in UK primary and secondary schools: A review of ideas and research. Education, 16(2), 293-319.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Stevahn, L., & Hodne, P. (2002). The three Cs of safe schools. Educational Leadership, 55(2), 8-13.
Kincal, R. Y. (May 10-12, 2000). I˙lkög˘retim ög˘retmen davranıs¸larının demokratiklik düzeyi (Level of democratic behaviors of elementary school teachers). II. Ulusal Ög˘retmen Yetis¸tirme Sempozyumu: Bildiriler (Proceedings of Second Teacher Training Symposium), pp. 432-437. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey.
Kincal, R. Y., & Işik, H. (2003). Demokratik Eg˘itim ve Demokratik Deg˘erler (Democratic education and democratic values). Eg˘itim Aras¸tırmaları Dergisi (Educational Research Journal), 3(11), 54-58.
Kincal, R. Y., & Işik, H. (2005). Elementary school principals’ level of practicing democratic values: Perceptions of teachers. International Journal of Educational Reform, 14(3), 326-333.
Matusova, S. (1997). Democratic values as a challenge for education. European Education, 29(3), 65-76.
Parker, W. C. (1996). Curriculum for democracy. In R. Soder (Ed.), Democracy, education, and the schools (pp. 182-210). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Print, M., Ornstrom, S., & Nielsen, H. S. (2002). Education for democratic processes in schools and classrooms. European Journal of Education, 37(2), 293-210.
Ryckman, R. M., & Houston, D. M. (2003). Value priorities in American and British female and male university students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 14(1), 127-138.
Selvi, K. (2006). Developing a teacher trainees’ democratic values scale: Validity and reliability analyses. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 34(9), 1171-1178.
Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1-65). San Diego: Academic Press.
Soder, R. (1996). Democracy, education, and the schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Tarcov, N. (1996). The meanings of democracy. In R. Soder (Ed.), Democracy, education, and the schools (pp. 1-36). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wile, J. M. (2000). A literacy lesson in democracy education. Social Studies, 91(4), 170-177.
Wood, G. H. (1992). Teaching for democracy. In G. H. Wood & E. Stevens (Eds.), Justice, ideology and education: An introduction to the social foundations of education (pp. 364-368). New York: McGraw Hill.
Table 1. Perceived Practice of Democratic Values by Primary School Principals by Teachers’ Gender
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Table 2. Perceived Practice of Democratic Values by Primary School Principals According to Teachers’ School Level
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Table 3. Perceived Practice of Democratic Values by Primary School Principals According to Membership of the Teachers’ Union
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Table 4. Perceived Practice of Democratic Values by Primary School Principals According to Teachers’ Professional Experience
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Table 5. Perceived Practice of Democratic Values by Primary School Principals by School Size
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Appreciation is due to reviewers including
Kiymet Selvi
PhD
Faculty of Education
Anadolu University
Eskisehir 26470
Turkey
Veysel Yilmaz
Statistics Department
Science and Literature Faculty
Osmangazi University
Eskisehir
Salih Zeki Genç, Faculty of Education, Department of Primary Education, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey. Phone: +90 286 212 07 51; Fax: +90 286 213 55 63; Email: [email protected]