What Teachers Think About Power the Main Outcomes of the Project

1

Pirjo Nuutinen

What teachers think about power – the main outcomes of the project

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Hamburg, 17-20 September 2003

Pirjo Nuutinen

University of Joensuu

Savonlinna Department of Teacher Education

P.O. Box 55

57101 Savonlinna

Finland

Email:

What teachers think about power - the main outcomes of the project

1Backgrounds and aims of the project

Power is one of the permanent problems of social philosophy and social sciences, both in conceptual and in the real, historical sense (Organski 1968, p. 415; Richter 1987; Nuutinen 1997). As a concept, it is like a historical artefacts which are developed to satisfy human needs and reconstructed following the social changes implying consequences to the power positions of citizens. Education like all other social phenomena can be analysed from the power perspective, but also vice versa, all phenomena, implying power can be analysed from the perspective of education in its broad meaning. It is possible to ask how power appears in education and how power phenomena explain education, but also, how education appears in and explains power phenomena (like ideologies, power behaviour, etc.). In the study of teacherhood both perspectives are relevant. .

When the project "What teachers think about power" was started up, it seemed that in the public discourse the image of teachers as power holders was quite monolithic and stereotypic and the lack of empirical study of teachers´ own power thinking was obvious although a lot was written about professional power, empowerment and authority. The main aim of the project was to give an opportunity to teachers themselves to tell what they thought about power in their work. In addition to that, theoretical aims were implied too: to clarify at the conceptual level how power appears in teacherhood and to develop further the earlier concept analysis which was mainly based on politological and sociological power theories (Nuutinen 1994; 1997), and in which four aspects of power significant for education were made explicit: :power

- as part of life control and human existential needs,

- as a basic element of social relations,

- as a formative factor of subjectivity and

- in action (see the brief presentation in Nuutinen 1997)

The main themes of the current study were:

-teachers’ dispositions to power in the general meaning, as a social phenomenon and as an aspect of human personality

-teachers’ relationships with power partners assessed with regard to their expertise in education, to teachers´ possibility to have an influence on them, to trustworthiness and to the suitability of the degree of their power

-teachers as users of power in education (sharing power, discipline and the development of the students as power subjects).

11 Mixed empirical methodology

The current project was focused on the teachers working in kindergartens and in comprehensive school (class and subject teachers). The project was carried out with mixed methodology. A lot of the material was collected and analysed with different problem settings and methods during the project. The main study of kindergarten and comprehensive school teachers´ power thinking was carried out with

-qualitative semi-structured interviews1996 (24 teacher cases)

-three surveys with questionnaires with different techniques of posing questions (1996, n= 363, 1997n=, 359, 1999 n = 364)

-six depth interviews

In addition to that, a few master´s thesis studies about teacher authority, power conflicts and discipline and development of power relations between pupils beginning primary school were carried out by teacher students using ethnography, surveys with questionnaires and case studies with partly structured interviews.

A few central results about teachers’ power thinking will be presented in the following..

3Positive, relativistic-uncertain and negative dispositions to power

Teachers´ attitudes towards power in its general, abstract meaning were measured in surveys with the semantic differential (Osgood 1969), which is a quantitative scale technique using opposite attributes describing the object of attitude ( see Appendix 1; also Nuutinen 2001). In order to typify teachers, a sum variable based on the 14 items of the semantic differential was constructed and further, the respondents were classified into three types reflecting their attitudes towards power (Nuutinen 2001). The types are

1) teachers with positive attitudes (Type 1)

2) relativistic/uncertain teachers (Type 2) and

3) teachers with negative attitudes (Type 3) towards power.

1

The three surveys consistently show that a majority of Finnish teachers are disposed to power in a relativistic-uncertain (Table 1) way implying that power is a good or a bad thing depending on who uses it, on the users morality, and on the consequences of its use (Nuutinen 1997; 2001) . Comparisons of the teacher types by background variables (between male and female teachers, between kindergarten, class and subject teachers and between age groups) did not show any statistically significant differences. However, among the head teachers a positive disposition to power was more general (27.4% ) than among ordinary teachers (16.3%).

Chi-Square 5,945sig .203

The positively disposed teachers (Type 1) are not a homogenous group, but on the whole they are slightly less inclined than the other two types, to criticize politicians, and they see fewer conflicts between their morality and school work. They are also more inclined to feel that they are autonomous decision makers, more willing to share power with parents and accept strict discipline, than the other two types.

The relativistic-uncertain teachers (Type 2) are not a homogenous group either, yet, a few traits typical of them could be found at group level. Type 2 teachers tend , more than the other types,

- to believe in the necessity of power

- to emphasise professional power and power conflicts in relation to homes (however, there are significant differences between kindergarten and comprehensive school Type 2 teachers;)

-not to believe in human solidarity and good will, in freedom and equality, and in children’s altruism and submissiveness ( Nuutinen 2001).

The negatively disposed teachers (Type 3) are, at group level, more critical towards politicians, experience more moral conflicts in their work, express stronger feelings of powerlessness, and complain that self-discipline is not stressed enough in education.

4 High consensus in assessing power partners

The other problem area in which the three surveys showed quite consistent results dealt with the assessment of power partners. As many as 14 power partners were assessed with regard to their expertise in educational issues, teachers’ possibility to have influence on them, their trustworthiness and degree of power. Despite different dispositions to power in general, only a few differences between respondents to different surveys appeared in this problem area. The permanent trend was that politicians and administrators were assessed very negatively in the all surveys, while partners at the grass-root level,

(* Spearman rho : politicians at municipal level .327**; politicians at state level .336**)

excluding parents, were assessed very positively. The assessments of parents were quite polarised. Only a few statistically significant, but very marginal, differences appeared in the comparison of the surveys of 1996, 1997 and 1999:

Expertise:

Three statistically significant but marginal differences were found: The expertise of the heads and colleagues was assessed even slightly more positively in 1999 than in the earlier surveys, and the expertise of the state level politicians slightly more negatively.

Possibility to influence:

Two statistically significant but marginal differences were found: possibility to have influence on state level politicians was assessed even slightly more negatively in the survey of 1999 than in the earlier surveys. Also the proportion of the positive assessments of the head teachers, who in general were assessed very positively, decreased a little. .

Trustworthiness and honesty:

One statistically significant but marginal difference was found: the state level politicians were slightly more trusted in 1997, and, still a little bit more in the 1999 survey than in the survey of 1996.

A noteworthy result is that the proportion of those who demanded politicians´ and administrators' power to be reduced is notably smaller than that of teachers who criticise politicians for their lack of expertise and willingness to be influenced on; in other words, the latter group tends to demand better quality from these partners rather than changes in power positions.

5Comparisons by sex, age and teacher category

Comparisons by sex showed very few statistically significant differences between groups. Male teachers were a little bit more likely to give a positive assessment about higher decision makers, to emphasise their own authority over parents and children, and to experience more conflicts between power and morality in their work, than female teachers. The analysis of the 1996 survey data, in which the female and male heads and ordinary teachers of both sexes were compared, pointed out that most often ordinary male teachers and female heads disagreed on power issues (Nuutinen 1996).

Differences between age groups appeared on a few issues, but these differences were also quite marginal. Younger teachers assessed colleagues, children and parents as power partners slightly more positively than older teachers, while the oldest group assessed administrators and colleagues at the other school levels slightly more positively . The older teachers also demanded more rarely the politicians´ power to be reduced than the younger age group (below 35 years 66.8%, 35 - 50 years 51.1%, over 50 years 49.2%). They were also a little more likely to believe that humans are indolent and want to be governed (below 35 years 36%, 35 - 50 years 42.2% and over 50 years 48%).

As was said before, differences between the sexes and the age groups were quite small. On the other hand comparisons by teacher category showed a lot of statistically significant, and not only marginal differences between kindergarten, class and subject teachers.

Kindergarten teachers assessed parents and children as power partners more positively than comprehensive school teachers, and clearly more positively than subject teachers (for example, the proportions of positive assessments of parents: expertise: 60.5% - 47.1% - 24.7%; parents’ being easy to have influence on: 85.8% - 77.4% - 47.3%; trustworthiness: 75.1% - 59.5% - 43.7% ) and, in general, they emphasised their authority less and were more willing to share their power than comprehensive school teachers, let alone subject teachers. On the other hand, kindergarten teachers were more critical towards politicians and administrators than class and subject teachers and they also assessed more negatively their colleagues outside kindergarten (negative assessments: kindergarten 30.4%; class teachers 10.8%, subject teachers 9.0%).

Of all teachers 57.8% demanded more power ( no statistically significant differences between teacher groups) and 67.5% of them all thought that they lack the means to solve the problems which they encounter in their work. In the latter case kindergarten teachers assessed their competencies ("power to") more positively than comprehensive school teachers (kindergarten teachers: 51.1%, class teachers 70.6% and subject teachers 80.8%).

6Polarised views about using power

A very great majority of teachers (90%) thought that it is not possible for humans to avoid power in their lives. Smaller majorities believed that it is impossible to avoid power in teacher´s work (64.2%) and that without power social life would collapse into chaos (56%). In all the surveys about 70% of teachers complained that self discipline was not stressed enough in education.

In the 1996 survey, 69% of the teachers found that the Finnish educational tradition favoured submission (n=273). Most of them said that children in general were made to submit, but quite often they also specified a student's standing out from the others (difference, see Crespi 1992) as a factor here: those who were submitted were different in general, or weak, of the wrong gender, strong, creative, energetic or over energetic, lively, original or deviant. A teacher wrote that the Finnish educational tradition subjugates both sensitive teachers and children and another maintained that the Finnish tradition favours submission less than, for example, the French tradition.

The results of the 1999 survey show (Table 3) that the teachers´ conceptions of human beings in regard to power implies diverse, even conflicting ideas. A majority of the respondents do not seem to believe in inborn submissiveness of the humans or human children and a vast majority agree with the idea that to become autonomous is a basic need of the children. However, there were also quite large disagreeing minorities and, therefore it is not surprising that teachers disagreed about the suitable ways of using their power over children, as well as of its consequences. When teachers commented the use of coercive methods

(in the 1996 survey), the proponents of these methods said that if children feel safe and become aware of the suitable limits of behaviour, they will become conforming (which was seen as a positive trait), orderly, independent, harmonious, strong, co-operative, successful, good citizens, easy to tackle with, able to distinguish between right and wrong, etc. The opponents mentioned several negative consequences; children become depressed, passive, conforming, withdrawing, shy, unproductive, uncreative, they are easily manipulated, show cowardice and lack of self-respect and initiative.

In the 1999 survey teachers expressed their opinions about the use of coercive methods too. Of all the respondents 10.5% accepted coercion without restrictions, 54.8% accepted it with reservations and 36.4% did not accept it at all. As is shown in Table 4, the proportion of those who condemned coercive methods was largest among kindergarten teachers, while the proportion of those who accepted coercion was roughly the same in all teacher categories.

(Chi square 14.308; sig. .006)

Airaksinen points out that coercion, which can imply open or hidden threats (e.g. threat of punishment in educational contexts), often appears in excess and in unexpected situations (1988, p. 107). Many of the teachers mentioned this point, but comments about a more continuos and systematic use of coercion appeared too.

A comparison between the supporters and the opponents of coercion showed an interesting, qualitative difference between the groups. The supporters put an emphasis on safety, physical welfare, order, fluency of proceeding, active climate, demands of the curriculum of the compulsory education, benefits for children in general or for "special cases " . They did not specify the consequences of coercive methods on learning and the mental health of the children, while the opponents did. The opponents said that coercive methods are not helpful in reaching the goals of learning but weaken activity, motivation and the development of responsibility, cause emotional conflicts, frustration and anxiety, destroy trust and dispositions to co-operation between the parties and enhance defiance and counter-power in children. The usefulness of the coercive methods for order was also denied. The opponents also questioned coercive methods on ethical grounds - coercion of children was seen as ethically wrong.

Both the supporters and the opponents considered coercive methods from a professional point of view. Both saw coercion as an extreme method ("the last method"; "the most miserable method") which is used when the teacher does not have choice or is not skilled enough to use better options. A few supporters mentioned that teachers have to know how to coerce successfully (on the sly, considerately, or appealing to reason or making deals with students) while the opponents thought that skilled teachers never degrade themselves by using such methods, which one teacher found “disgusting” and another suspected leading into “teacher burnout”.

Chi-Square 7.583; sig. .023

An interesting detail is shown in Table 2, in which a comparison is made between younger (below 35 years of age) and older teachers with regard to acceptance of coercive methods. The proportion of the supporters of coercion is double among younger - and less experienced - teachers than among older

teachers. The result of the comparison supports the idea of the opponents that the disposition to coercion is related to teacher skills.

7Additional observations and comments on the empirical results

On the grounds of various analyses carried out in the project but not thoroughly reported here, one can suppose that a majority of teachers is not committed to any coherent conception of power despite certain preferences, but most of them are well aware of the ambiguities of power phenomena as was shown in chapter 3. One can also suppose that when they reflect or calculate solutions for power problems, they can adjust their own principles to emerging situational demands, although moral conflicts may arise.

As was noticed previously, differences of ideas about power between male and female teachers and between age groups were quite marginal. These differences seem to be mainly related to the school level and teacher category and to appear especially between kindergarten and subject teachers. Kindergarten teachers were more satisfied with their own competence to solve problems in daily work and their grass-root partners and less satisfied with the decision makers than subjects teachers, who complain about their lack of competence and, rely on parents and students less than the other teachers. However, all teacher groups were similar in demanding more power to teachers in decision making in their work places.