The qualities and competences of teachers are highly important to educate students, which can be fully exercised when the status and rights of teachers are secured. However, the occurrence of teacher’s authority violation recently increases in the f...
The qualities and competences of teachers are highly important to educate students, which can be fully exercised when the status and rights of teachers are secured. However, the occurrence of teacher’s authority violation recently increases in the fields of education, and the awareness of the importance of teacher’s authority decreases. As guaranteed in a variety of laws, teacher’s authority is a critical element to instruct educational activities of students and perform their duties. Above all, given that special education teachers can provide high-quality education only when their educational status and rights are secured, analyzing the current situations of teacher’s authority violation experience and their influences on special education teachers and offering necessary support related to their needs is required.
Thus, this study attempted to explore the associated situations, their influences, and the needs with respect to special education teachers of high schools in Seoul. Complete enumeration survey was performed targeting special education classes in Seoul. 244 questionnaires were distributed in 84 schools and 169 questionnaires were collected (69.26%). Except for 9 questionnaires that defied analysis, total 160 questionnaires were statistically analyzed. The analysis on frequency, percentage, average, standard deviation was conducted depending on the items. And in terms of the differences of the awareness level and the demand of prevention and support for teacher’s authority violation according to teachers’ variables, cross-analysis was conducted. The findings of this study are as follows.
First, 70% (112 teachers) of the teachers of high school special class in Seoul perceived that the level of teacher’s authority violation in high school was more than the average figure. It was found that 51.9% (83 teachers) experienced teacher’s authority violation. And 48.1% (77 respondents) teachers most frequently selected their school managers as the settlement subject when the violation occurred. As their acquainted organization for the violation issue, the answer of Teacher’s Right Support Center in Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education had the highest rate (43.1%, 69 respondents including overlapped responses). It was found that most of the respondents thought that the violation of teacher’s authority seemed to be derived from lacking the understanding of special education (61.4%, 51). The most frequently answered subject of the violation was parents (85.5%, 71). The type of the violation was the interference of student education and violent language, insulting, threatening (54.2%, 45). The place and time of the violation was classroom (57.8%, 48) and private working hours of teacher (56.1%, 46). Among 83 teachers, only 5 teachers (6%) went through the violation-related process. 78 teachers who did not take action answered that they felt no necessity (28.2%, 22). All of the 5 teachers who went through the process felt uncomfortable during the process, which showed higher average on the self-esteem damage (2.40) and the resistance or disturb of the subject of the violation (2.40) during the process. Moreover, regarding the satisfaction level, two (40.0%) answered ‘usual’, two (40.0%) answered ‘highly unsatisfied’, and one (20.0%) answered ‘satisfied’. Their managers and surrounding people generally helped them in an active way (80.0%, 4). In terms of reacting and processing the violation, the majority of the respondents requested their school managers for the settlement (100.0%, 5). In terms of the measure for the violation subject, participating in specific education and program (40.0%, 2) and formal apology and agreement (40.0%, 2) was most frequent. According to the cross-analysis on the experience of teacher’s authority violation according to teacher’s background variables of high school special class in Seoul, it was revealed that the difference depending on the working career in high school special class was the only significant factor. In other words, teachers with more working career experienced teacher’s authority violation more than teachers with less working career. Furthermore, there was significant difference among the awareness levels of teacher’s authority violation of high school special class in Seoul in accordance with the experience of the violation. It could be interpreted that teachers with the experience of the violation had more serious awareness on the level of the violation than teachers without the experience of the violation in the educational fields.
Second, regarding the influences of the violation experience on special education teachers of high school classes in Seoul, the collected questionnaires for 83 teachers who experienced the violation were statistically analyzed with affiliation average due to missing values. The findings revealed that skepticism was the highest among the influences of the violation on teaching job (2.39 on average). As the physical and emotional influences, excessive sensitivity, rapid fatigue, constant pressure was the highest (2.41 on average). Regarding the relevant coping efforts, examining coping strategies with colleague teachers was the highest (2.03 on average).
Third, regarding the support needs, 80.6% of the total participants of the study answered that they were not aware of the 2015 Master Plan for Teacher’s Authority provided by Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education. For the preventing requirement of the violation, strengthening legal and institutional methods were most frequently responded (2.73 on average). 91.9% of the total participants responded that the training for teacher’s authority is necessary. 147 teachers who felt the necessity of the training answered that the types and methods they wanted were teacher training including qualification training and job training (53.1%, 78) and Education Office-conducting training (58.5%, 86). The priority for the protection requirement for the violation was put on the information of prevention, occurrence, coping method of the violation (57.5%, 92). The supporting needs in the action process were investigated into three categories: effective processing method, required support, required support-providing subject. 51.3% (82) of the total respondents showed high respond rate in dealing with the issue through school committee for teacher’s authority. Legal advice provision (27.5%, 44) for the required support, Education Office for the required support-providing subject (63.3%) was highly ranked. According to the results from the cross-analysis of support needs in the process of preventing and dealing with the violation and its experience, there was no statistical difference.
The study confirmed the current situations of teacher’s authority violation and their influences and the needs for the prevention and support for special education classes in high schools in Seoul, which can be utilized as a basic material for the relevant policies.