1

Teachers views of students in Estonian schools1

E.-S. Sarv, M Leino, L. Ots, L Pallas 2008

Summary The general question posed by this research was: How do factors directly controlled by teachers and the school influence the well being of students and support their development? The main sub hypothesis is: Teachers personal perceptions of their students and their perception of a supportive school-culture as a factor for student development influence a students capacity for learning and academic achievement. The main aims of the research were to find patterns of teacher perceptions of students and school-culture and to find preventive solutions and intervention strategies at an individual, group and school level. In this paper a model of teacher attitudes to students and student support by teacher and school is described and developed.

Introduction
During the last decades in Estonia society, including its teachers and students, has experienced great political and economic change. In the field of education there have been changes in government policy, organisation and the curriculum. An increase of schooltruancy and school dropout in compulsory statutory schools (that teach children up to grade 9, aged from 7 years to 15-16 years) has developed against this background and has become a worrying nationwide trend . In poor nations the main reason for many children failing to receive sufficient formal education is economic, but, in developed nations children leave school or neglect formal learning for more complex reasons. Similar factors in different countries can play their role in keeping children in school or pushing them away. Thus, a comprehensive research of the school-environment, including emotional and cultural environment, becomes important. This research looks at school-culture as seen through the eyes of teachers in Estonia. The research relies both on universal theories and on local truth, local knowledge (Lyotard, 1984). The topic presented in this paper appears as a sub theme in the research project School as a developmental environment and students coping at school (2003-2007, project leader Prof M Veisson, Tallinn University). The general research question of this research is: How do
1

The initial version: Sarv, Ene-Silvia; Leino, Mare; Ots, Loone; Pallas, Linda. (2008). Teachers Views of Students in Estonian Schools. The International Journal of Learning, Vol 15(Issue 9), 169 - 182.

2 factors directly controlled by teachers and the school influence the well being of students and support their development? The related sub-hypothesis presented in this paper is: Teachers personal perceptions of their students and their perception of a supportive school-culture as a factor for student development influence a students capacity for learning and academic achievement. The main aims of the research were to find patterns of teacher perceptions of students and school-culture and to find solutions for preventive and intervention strategies at an individual, group and school level.

Research background, research questions and methodology

The theoretical bases of the research are conceptions and theories of the development and coping mechanisms of different players in the school-context (students, parents, teachers, school managers) and the school as an organisation. The methodological bases of the research are ecological and systemic concepts of human community and organisation that posit that an individual or collective actor can be understood only in a relationship to and interaction with, his or her environment i.e., interconnectedness. This ecological, soft systems view (Checkland, Churchman, Bertanalaffy, Argyris, Schn, Senge) focuses on an ongoing process of mutual building and transaction between the individual and the environment (family, peer group, organisation). Thus the general analysis focuses on the interaction between the agents in the school with a focus on teachers awareness of students and the support they give to them as individuals and as part of a school community. Bronfenbrenner has demonstrated that the most influential factor for an individual is the immediate environment the micro environment. (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). In a childs environment, he or she is a school student and the teacher is the major agent who forms the school social, pedagogical, and academic climate or culture. The combined influence of teachers, school managers and students, as well as some cultural aspects from inside and outside school (such as a traditional view of learning and assessment) form the school climate and developmental environment. Individual and collective players can perceive and understand the same phenomena or process differently, learn and re-assess them the system (individuals, groups, organisation and their interconnections, relationships) is dynamic and flexible. The conceptual framework for this study is part of the wider School as a developmental environment and students academic coping (Ruus 2006, Ruus, Veisson etc 2005) and of School as a knowledge creating learning organisation (Senge 1990, 2001, Sarv 2005a). A school teacher has three tasks in the context of the school environment student development (a large part of a teachers responsibility), self-development (as an individual, a professional or a group member) and participation in organisational development (managing and sustaining a high standard of education in the school).

3 Previous research by E Krull has shown that Estonian teachers views on aspects of teaching, such as discipline, are somewhat specific and differ from aspects of the Berliner model. (Krull 2001, 2002). E-S Sarv has studied Estonian teachers according to 1) their views on learning (Sarv 2000, 2002a, c) and 2) to their skills/knowledge of general competencies for the classroom. (Sarv 2002b) Sarv shows that 64% teachers found motivation from external factors to be the usual stimulus for their own learning but they did not mind this. 70% of teachers rather liked learning new tasks. Only around 13%, however, considered learning to be fun and creative work to be done for its own sake. At the other end of the spectrum, only 7% considered learning forced upon them by external factors. The research concluded that teachers see learning in quite a narrow way and understand their own personal learning needs differently than that of students. The meaning of they learn was very strongly seen as students listening, reading and memorising and rarely as cooperation, discussion, enquiry and they learn was almost never applied to adults. (Sarv 2002b) Both researchers demonstrate great differences amongst teachers from an open-minded, deep understanding of learning (inner-motivated learning as creative, playful and joyful selfdevelopment) for competence related aspects of the curriculum for one group (ca 13-20% of respondents) to a subject centred and authoritarian view of student learning and learning in general (externally motivated, forced, related only to work-demands and salary/assessment) for another group (ca 10- 15%). S Kera has shown that around one third of teachers need external stimuli to make changes in thier professional life (e.g., curriculum, school-organisation) and around 14% are socially rigid (Kera, 1998). These differences show the diversity of teacher professionals and the need for here and now research to address local differences and find a means and strategies for better standard good practice for teachers in all of Estonia. Students and teachers personal coping strategies (adaptive/positive, reactionary/negative) in relationship to school-values have been researched and presented in Estonian student and teacher coping patterns in the academic domain (Veisson, Ruus, Ots 2005). From this research it became clear that there are correlative connections between certain school-climate characteristics such as student-teacher relationships, teacher behaviour (e.g., strictness) and professional values and qualities. A positive relationship between students and teachers gave the strongest correlation with positive coping strategies of students. In general the teachers coping mechanisms were more adaptive and constructive than those of students, and a good relationship between them supported the student most. How do teachers perceive students, how do they see their roles and how does the schoolculture, in particular it supportive aspects, form pedagogical behaviour and direct education? As Skinner and Wellborn have shown, student academic coping depends on esteem, opinions of school demands, stress caused by tests, marks, grades and fears of classroom situations. (Skinner, Wellborn 1997: 387 - 392). How, in particular, do teachers in Estonia perceive and

4 take into account students demands, stresses, their own support needs, other teachers, the school as a whole and a need for student participation and enjoyment of school? To answer these question we must apply a systemic view of teachers and students in the organisation that takes in organisational development factors such as shared vision, personal skills, attitudes, team-learning, systemic thinking, circulation of knowledge and knowledge creation (Nonaka&Takeuchi 1995, Senge 1990, 2001, Fullan, Hargreaves 1996, Sarv 200b). In this article we consider some aspects of teachers personal mastery and mental modes namely the perception of students and the support teachers give to student development in broad sense. Personal mastery in the context of this research refers to knowledge, skills and coping strategies e.g., choices of support or punishment, ability to minimize fears, influence of economic differences between students, skills for self-development. Mental models refers to attitudes, values, motivation, readiness for responsibility, cooperation with students and cooperation, shared values, trust in colleagues, parents. It is important to follow a proscribed direction in personal interactions and the holisitc culture of school-life. This direction is derived from the official vision of Estonia as a learning, sustainable nation. (Loogma et al 1998) The main points of the current analysis derive from the researchers position, from historical and future factors and from general concepts of research: inclusiveness vs exclusiveness; education (personal development) vs instruction/teaching (subject centeredness); cooperation vs individualism (in pedagogical work and in the classroom); long term vs short term perspectives in education - eg working on the school curriculum and development plan; preparation of students for future scenarios; sensitivity vs nonsensitivity in child-observation and problem-solving eg awareness about childrens problems including possible stress-factors, knowledge of and inquiry into individual differences. The main issues are examined using diagnostic questions about trust, support, values. The main categories of questions and of mapping were divided into 3 layers. The first layer (categories 1 4) included; teachers knowledge/sense of students joys, fears, concerns; view on students participation and possible role in the educational process and school-life; view of students stress-factors. The second layer of mapping includes views of support-system by the teacher (category 5): what the teacher believes s/he can do about students; how the teacher gets information and what s/he knows about the students; how and how strongly s/he supports students. The third layer (categories 6, 7) of teachers views addresses common understandings of the school development plan, curricula and supportive aspects of schoolculture (e.g., teachers cooperation, trust among teachers). Seven aggregated categories and 23 indicators were developed and statistical calculation (correlation analysis, validity) was used to analyse the results of a survey of 87 questions using The seven aggregated categories are

5 1. The teacher`s view of students in the school and perception of students as humans: Student pleasure and sources of enjoyment (good relationships with peers and teachers, interesting lessons and extra-curricular work); fear of exams; opinions of assessment (objectivity and appropriateness to students knowledge); happiness, determination, strength (nature); goodwill. 2. Students participation and significance in school-life: Student-teacher partnership (in planning of lessons and in choice of classroom methodology); students self government - role in school. 3. Reasons for student stress: Student stress-factors teacher; ranking, marks; health, personal problems; physical environment. 4. Teachers level of awareness of students problems: Teacher awareness of students economic problems; student fear of other students and teachers (physical abuse, assault, taunting) 5. Teachers support for student development: Teacher as educator; teacher`s educational, pedagogical conversations with students; teacher enabled conditions for specific student development in his/her classroom; guidance for student development; teachers, school use of support versus punishment. 6. Future dimensions in teaching (national development, changes in work-world, globalisation etc): School, teachers consideration of future developments in career and teaching profession. 7. Self-confidence and cooperation of teachers in the collective and the school: Possibilities for the uses of school information and property; collective belief in the possibility of ensuring a high quality of education; collective self-confidence in the teaching profession; practice of joint problem solving and encouragement of parents. The research methodology makes mixed use of quantitative and qualitative methods to outline the main relationships among the categories and groups of teachers and schools (categorisation, clustering). The features of teacher knowledge and perception of students were analysed by gender, qualification, age and other aspects and compared with the same topics from student questionnaires. Issues related to school-culture were compared to parents and school managers questionnaires and to school-typology according to a knowledgecreating learning organisation model (Sarv 2005a, b) Categorisation of questions, analysis of frequencies, weight-analysis were applied to a cross-Estonian grouping of teachers in named categories and dimensions. In the next phase of analysis the representation of different groups of teachers in specialised schools was studied. The basic data was gathered in 2004 using self-completion questionnaires issued to 623 teachers and school-managers (the same method used for parents and students) from 67 compulsory and schools of further education - 10% of Estonian schools in all. The schools in the sample are a fair representation taking into consideration geography, working language (Estonian or Russian), results of state exams during the last 3 years (best and worst results in their county or city) and by participation in innovative processes. Teachers questionnaire included the following units:

6 Teacher evaluation of the school as an organisation cooperation, leadership, communication, information, goals, relationships in the organisation, (with reference to values, participation in decision-making, motivation to learn, innovativeness); Evaluation of the practicalities of professional work (available technology, accommodation); How teachers see and evaluate themselves (including teaching, professional and cultural development); Relationship to students and evaluation of the characteristics of students; Relationships to parents, evaluation of parent-school cooperation; Questions about coping strategies (Skinner, Wellborn); Personal data. Numbers of questions, by category, from the teachers questionnaire: Teacher image of students: students joys, fears, concerns - 36 view of student participation and role in educational process and school-life - 5 view of student stress-factors - 22 Aspects of school support-system: what teachers believe they can do for students; - 2 how teachers get to know about student problems and concerns; - 3 how teachers support students -19 the future of students - 10 Knowledge and views of the general aspects of the school development plan and curricula, common understanding about these among teachers - 5 Critical /diagnostic questions -10.

Some results
1. Teacher`s views and perceptions of students Students pleasure, enjoyment of school and sources of joy (e.g., good relationships with peers and teachers, interesting lessons and extra-curricular work) Teachers attitudes toward school enjoyment differ sharply. Within the same school some teachers thought that students have mostly pleasant, good experiences at school while others thought that school brought mostly worry. Overall one third of teachers thought that school brought mostly worry and only 12% strongly agreed that school-joy prevails over worry. Teachers see students relationships with peers as the main source of satisfaction and joy. This corresponds to students replies more than 90% of them found that friends are the main reason to attend school. Good relationships with teachers and interesting class work as a source of enjoyment were much higher in teachers perception of students than the students themselves reported.

7 Around 25% of teachers found that student fears (state exams - 17-25%, tests, marks, teacher behaviour - 20%, too much homework - a resounding 74%) is a reason for truancy. State exams are seen as too difficult by 35% of compulsory school teachers and by 56% of teachers from schools of further education (in Russian-language schools 46% and 72% respectively). Around a third of teachers hold the view that students do not believe in the fairness of test and exam grades awarded in relation to their actual knowledge. 30-40% teachers thought that good grades and interesting class work were a source of enjoyment for most students. Most teachers (87%) agree that there are more and more problematic children in the school, even if the total picture of students is more positive (65%) than negative. A majority of teachers (64%) see more than half of their students as caring and happy (55%). In the country 16% of teachers found only a small percentage of calm and balanced children. Several country teachers see about 25% of students being unhappy most of time. Almost 20% of teachers did not answer all or some of this category of questions. The reason for the avoidance of questions on child development, mood and satisfaction can be found in table 1. The majority (57.7%) of teachers evaluated the effectiveness of teaching according to formal outcomes state exams and tests. Table 1. On assessment of teacher work (% of answers) To assess our work we use Results of state tests and state exams A system of observation and model of child-development Questionnaires for self-analysis Monitoring Do not Rather do not Agree more Agree agree agree or less 3,8 7,7 30,8 57,7 43,5 20,0 14,3 30,4 24,0 47,6 21,7 40,0 28,6 4,3 16,0 9,5

2. Students participation and significance in school-life Most teachers find student-teacher partnership (in planning of lessons and in choice of classroom methodology) to be satisfactory. Nearly half of them see a need to involve students more. Student self government is a way that students can influence decision-making, have a voice in school and learn democracy but just half of teachers thought that student self government has a role in school. The difference between schools was quite significant and even in the same school teachers had opposing views on the subject. 3. Reasons for student stress

Worry, unfairness, physical discomfort lead to stress. 22 possible student stress-factors were presented to teachers. Teachers could choose from 1) this reason for stress is important for most, 2) around half, 3) a quarter, 4) just for some of students, 5) for no one. Four main groupings of reasons for stress were selected: 1) teacher behaviour and classroom work, including the curriculum; 2) ranking, marks and lack of success; 3) health, personal problems; 4) physical environment. Additional stress factors named by teachers were: poverty at home, alcohol, social problems, lack of support and understanding, inappropriate teaching methods; problems in teacher community in the school. The main stress factors for more than 25% of students fears (tests, exams, bad grades), noise, teachers, are presented in table 2 Table 2. Student stress factors in the opinion of teachers (% of answers) Stress-factor For quarter to For most of Total % for factors half of students students influencing most of students Overloaded 66,1% 13,3% 79,4% curriculum/syllabus subject Fear of tests and exams 60,8% 16,3% 77,1% Fear of poor, bad marks 59,4% Monotony of studies, 43,1% classroom work Noisy school breaks 41,7% 6,1% 47,8% Bad relationships among 39,1% students Continuous lack of 38, 6% 2,9% 41,5% success Disorder in the classroom 35,0% Health problems 28,8% Poor equipment in school 29,8% Uncomfortable school27,7% furniture Inappropriate teaching 25,9% methods 4. Teachers level of awareness of students` problems Teachers found that, in most classrooms, a students social and economic status influences her/his position. This shows a weak application of the principal of equality. 20% of teachers found that abusive teacher and other student behaviour (threats, assault, taunting) causes truancy in their school.

5. Teachers support for students` development Most teachers (more than 80%) see themselves as educators, not just teachers of a subject. But, closely examined, actions such as conversation, an individualised approach and concrete knowledge about a specific student, are weak and vary much among teachers, e.g., around 20% of teachers rarely or never talk to students on non-subject matters. Thus, imagined levels of teacher support and the reality in classrooms differ. There is a strong group (ca 30%), however, who do have a student development-centred approach but this is not strong in many schools as such and is often weak in those schools who get the best results in 12th grade state exams. Table 3 shows, as perceived by teachers, support to problematic students. 30% of teachers thought that punishment for difficult students is often preferred in their school to supportive measures. This indicates a weakness of understanding and use of progressive support mechanisms in school and quite a strong punishment-culture. Table 3. Student with problems in learning or behaviour is rather punished than supported (% of answers) . is rather punished than Do not agree, rather Rather agree, supported do not agree agree Student with learning problems 75,0% 25,0% Student with behavioural 62,3% 37,7% problems . Students questionnaires revealed a low level of trust towards teachers. Around 32% of students said there was no teacher in school that they could trust with a personal problem and a mere 6% said they trusted all the teachers. There was a high level of students (49%) who sensed animosity and injustice from one or more teachers. Even when we know that studentrespondents were mainly 14-16 year olds with an immature world-view the situation seems worrying from a pedagogical point of view. 6. Futures dimensions in teaching (national developments, changes in work-world, globalisation etc) Teachers think about the future possible new directions of work, opportunities for employment, developments in technology, environment, culture, the impact of national and EU policy changes. Teachers in Russian-language schools, it is worth noting, are keener to deal with these issues than teachers in Estonian-language schools, and male teachers much less than women. The strongest issues in relation to the future in classrooms are the sustainability of Estonian culture and changes in technology. 7. Self-confidence, cooperation of teachers and the school collective Most children have some kind of difficulties at school. We, as parents and as citizens, expect

10 the school as an institution and teachers as professional community to find appropriate ways for every child to develop and help them cope with problems. This means that teachers themselves have to be convinced that they are able to help every child in some way. A third of teachers, however, found, that their school is not able to help students with severe difficulties. There is big difference among schools (table 4). Table 4. Teachers and schools belief in the schools ability to help students with severe difficulties In our school we are able to find help even for Number of students with severe difficulties schools* All teachers who answered the questionnaire were sure of 8 this (Agree, rather agree) Up to 10% teachers rather do not or do not agree 8 11-49% teachers rather do not or do not agree 30 50-99% teachers rather do not or do not agree 14 No one teacher who answered the questionnaire agreed 1 * Schools where less than 4 teachers answered were not taken into account. More than 80% of teachers reported, that in their school it is part of the culture to discuss the problems of a child or a class together with all teachers who teach the child or class. But in most schools there were some teachers who did not agree. 44% of teachers say that there is some kind of team in their school who supervise student learning but there are teachers who know about this kind of team and others who do not. So it appears that a common understanding and the level of information in most schools is low, even if teachers said that they can get appropriate information when it is needed. We could not detect direction and a problem solving policy. Co-operation of colleagues and parents depends on school size and was found more or less well by 75-77% of teachers. Teachers consider that parents get mostly positive messages and help from the school. Shared values and optimism on the quality of education and learning outcomes were considered by most teachers to be guaranteed by teachers and the school community even if external support to schools (e.g., from the Ministry of Education) was weak. This shows that, despite differences inside the school, and a hard and long period of change, teachers feel themselves and the school as an institution to be strong enough to cope.

11

Some aspects of teacher mapping according to their perception of students and student support in the school
In the first instance we see two groups of teachers with opposite views of students. . Let us call them 1) teachers having a positive image of students and 2) teachers having a pessimistic image of students. For group 1 positive aspects are clearly visible inclusiveness, sensitivity, a belief in a positive school experience and a developmental perspective. For group 2 negative dimensions prevail exclusiveness, selectivity, and denial of positive school-experiences, one-sided stress on formal academic success as a sign of development. Positive image of students children have more enjoyment than worry at school, the school is a place students want to be, students have reliable teachers to whom they turn and share their problems, students have a good frame of mind and are balanced, caring, helpful, Students are mostly happy, an angry, stubborn , teasing or unhappy child is rare exception, students school-experience is mostly good because of caring and attentive teachers, good relationships with teachers, interesting classroom work, good marks/grades, involvement in interest-groups in school after lessons (choir, sports, arts ) and other extra-curricular work has an important role in enjoyment of school, students have good peer-relationship, students believe that exams and tests reflect their learning objectively and fairly, fear of bad results in tests and exams is not a significant reason for school truancy, students participate actively in decision-making on classroom and school level. Pessimistic image of students: children have more worry than enjoyment of school, school is not the place students want to be, students have no reliable teacher to turn to and share their problems, students are not in a good frame of mind and are unbalanced, uncaring and unhelpful, Students are mostly unhappy, an angry, stubborn, teasing or unhappy child is usual in the school, students school-experience is not enjoyable because of complicated or bad relationships with teachers, uninteresting classroom work and bad marks/grades, there is no satisfaction from involvement in interest-groups in school after lessons (choir, sports, arts) and other extra-curricular work or, these possibilities are missing in the school, there is a lot of student bullying and other bad peer-group relationships, students do not believe that exams and tests reflect their learning objectively and fairly, fear of bad results in tests and exams is an important reason for school truancy,

12 students do not have the chance and do not want to participate in decision making

According to the results of the research the number of group 1 teachers with a positive image of students is not prevalent. They are mainly older, experienced teachers and form about 15% of the respondents. The pessimistic image of students is mostly characteristic of young teachers and of some most highly qualified teachers (highest category specialists in methodology). But neither are the rules. We now present some diagrams of teacher mapping. There are 23 indicators in the diagram and their explanation in detail is far too long for this paper. Fig 1 gives a helpful qualitative overview. Clock-wise gives the main categories of student images and support- systems: teachers perception of students school experience and personal characteristics; Students participation in school-life; teachers on student stress-factors; teachers on student problems and fears; teacher support for student development; school support for student development. Diagrams are drawn on the basis of scores and so show the difference between chosen groups.

School support for student development

Student joys, worries, characteristics Student participation in school-life Teacher on student stressfactors Teachers on students` problems and fears

Teacher support for student development

Figure 1. Diagram of teachers views.

13 Teachers of compulsory and high schools

Joint problem solving and positive m essage for parents School`s self-confidence School`s belief in high quality of teaching 0,0 Sch - use of inform ation and room s -0,1 -0,2 -0,3 St goodwill Students` pleasure at school St fears of exam s St beliefs in assessm ent 0,1 St happiness, fortitude

Sch - tch consideration of futures

St-tch partnership in planning

Sch - support versus punishm ent

St selfgovernm - role in school ent

T - direction of st developm ch ent Tch - conditions for st developm ent T pedagogical conversations with ch students T eacher as educator T eachers` awareness of students` fears

Students` stress-factor - teacher St stress-factor - grades, m arks St stress-factor - health, personal problem s St stress-factor - physical environm ent T awareness of econom problem ch ical s

school (grade 1 - 12)

com prehensive school (grades 1-9 )

Joint problem solving and positive m essage for parents School`s self-confidence School`s belief in high quality of teaching

Students` pleasure at school St fears of exam s 0,1 0,0 St beliefs in assessm ent St happiness, fortitude St goodwill

Sch - use of inform ation and room s

-0,1 -0,2 -0,3

Sch - tch consideration of futures

St-tch partnership in planning

Sch - support versus punishm ent

St selfgovernm - role in school ent

Tch - direction of st developm ent Tch - conditions for st developm ent Tch pedagogical conversations with students Teacher as educator Teachers` awareness of students` fears

Students` stress-factor - teacher St stress-factor - grades, m arks St stress-factor - health, personal problem s St stress-factor - physical environm ent Tch awareness of econom problem ical s

com prehensive school (grades 1-9 )

school (grade 1 - 12)

Figure 2. Differences in the perception of students and their support system by compulsory schoolteachers and further education school teachers. As seen in figure 2, teachers from compulsory schools are more supportive towards student development both as individual teachers and as a community in comparison to further education schoolteachers. (1 12 grades). Compulsory schoolteachers do not feel that teachers stress students, by negative marks (numerical assessment) or personal problems.

14 Social and economic circumstances are acknowledged as an influence on student positions and success in school. In general, according to the teachers, support for student development in compulsory schools is much stronger and students have more positive, good and less fearful school experiences and a better developmental environment than in further education schools. Teacher views by age

Joint problem solving and positive message for parents Schools self-confidence Schools belief in high quality of teaching

Students` pleasure at school 0,40 St fears of exams 0,30 0,20 0,10 St beliefs in assessment St happiness, fortitude

Sch - use of information and rooms

0,00 -0,10

St goodwill

Sch - tch consideration of futures

-0,20 -0,30 -0,40

St-tch partnership in planning

Sch - support versus punishment

St self-government - role in school Students` stress-factor - teacher

Tch - direction of st development

Tch - conditions for st development Tch pedagogical conversations with students Teacher as educator Teachers` awareness of students` fears

St stress-factor - grades, marks St stress-factor - health, personal problems St stress-factor - physical environment Tch awareness of economical problems

31-40 years

41-50 y.

51-60 y.

Over 60 y.

Up to 30 years

Figure 3. Differences in the perception of students and their support system by teachers in different age groups (30 - 60+ years old). Figure 3 shows that younger teachers are much more negative about student school experiences and students characters, and that they are unsure of their own and the schools ability to create a good developmental environment. They see the teacher as the main cause of student stress. The oldest teachers, on the contrary, are positive about students as well as school support for student development. At the same time they sense a high level of inequality in classrooms because of students socio-economic factors.

15 Teachers views by gender

Students` pleasure at school Joint problemsolving and positive message 0,3 St fears of exams for parents School`s self-confidence St beliefs in assessment 0,2 School`s belief in high quality of teaching Sch - use of information and rooms 0,1 0,0 -0,1 -0,2 -0,3 -0,4 St goodw ill St happiness, fortitude

Sch - tch consideration of futures

St-tch partnership in planning

Sch - support versus punishment

St selfgovernment - role in school

Tch - direction of st development Tch - conditions for st development Tch pedagogical conversations w ith students Teacher as educator Teachers` aw areness of students` fears Female

Students` stress-factor - teacher St stress-factor - grades, marks St stress-factor - health, personal problems St stress-factor - physical environment Tch aw areness of economical problems Male

Figure 4. Differences in the perception of students and their support system by female and male teachers. Male teachers (8% of respondents, a figure that reflects the mean rate of male teachers in Estonian schools) are more individualistic and subject centred than female teachers. They are critical of colleagues causing stress to students; they believe that students consider exams objective and a fair reflection of their learning and that marks/grades awarded to students are objective and do not result in stress. At the same time male teachers are more aware of socioeconomic inequalities in school and fear of peers or teachers behaviour.

16

Teachers views in Estonian-language and Russian-language schools

Students` pleasure at school Joint problemsolving and positive message for 0,6 St fears of exams parents School`s self-confidence St beliefs in assessment 0,4 School`s belief in high quality of teaching 0,2 0,0 Sch - use of information and rooms -0,2 -0,4 Sch - tch consideration of futures -0,6 -0,8 Sch - support versus punishment -1,0 St selfgovernment - role in school St-tch partnership in planning St goodw ill St happiness, fortitude

Tch - direction of st development

Students` stress-factor - teacher

Tch - conditions for st development Tch pedagogical conversations w ith students Teacher as educator Teachers` aw areness of students` fears Estonian and Russian

St stress-factor - grades, marks St stress-factor - health, personal problems St stress-factor - physical environment Tch aw areness of economical problems Russian Estonian

Figure 5. Differences in the perception of students and their support system in Estonian and Russian-language schools. In contrast to Estonian-language schools, Russian-language schools have a much stronger individual and community support for student development, a stronger sense of confidence in the school and the high quality of teaching even where external support sufficient is somewhat lacking. At the same time, teachers in Russian-language schools are a little more worried about students stress from grades (numerical assessment) and personal problems (including health). The diagrams illustrate big differences among teacher perception of students. It must be mentioned, that further research distinguished four unequal clusters/groups of teachers by their professional mastery and mentality (perception of students and students support in their school), namely 1. 2. 3. 4. pessimists or risk-group (4%) stress-sensitive group (48%) self critical group (18%) optimistic, co-working positive group (30%).

A description of these groups and a deeper analysis will be presented later in 2007.

17

Conclusion
It is clear that the pattern of teachers views on students does not depend on teachers personality and professional history alone but from the school where the teacher works. We found several patterns of teacher perceptions of students and school-culture. The question of teacher age and the effect this has on students is an issue in Estonia. The modern media usually portrays old teachers as conservative, tired and strict rather than supportive and caring. The young ones are portrayed as child-centred, happy and interested in classroom work. In his research E. Krull found, however, that older teachers, some with experience of more than 25 years, cope better with students who have problems or who are unmotivated than younger teachers even though teachers with short experience ( 4-6 years) did not think so and assessed their own coping higher (Krull 2002: 121, 130). As we have seen, the experience of older teachers allows them to see students more positively and work better on student development than less experienced teachers. It seems that contemporary teacher-training addresses subject teaching only and does not allow for the development needs of classroom-work in a wider sense. This is one of reasons why young teachers overestimate their success and have quite a pessimist picture of students, of their colleagues and abilities of the school to support student development. Differences in the views of compulsory schools (classes 1-9) and schools of further education (classes 1-12) about education (in the sense of holistic development of a child as a personality, as a citizen and not just as a receiver of academic knowledge) show compulsory schools as a more developmentally supportive environment. But there is another important issue. Students and teachers recognise that peers and friends are the major factor for positive school-experience for students. Thus the widely discussed and often popular view that compulsory schools (1-9 class) and schools of further education (10 -12 class) should be separated to ensure a high quality academic discipline, becomes onesided. There is no research in Estonia on the issue of students relationship to and feelings about a change of school. Could it be that we think that 16 year olds are not ready to take part in discussion? Along with teachers perception that student self-government and representation has no real influence on decision-making in most schools, this can be seen as a sign of authoritarianism endemic in educational institutions at both state and county level and as sign of exclusiveness in society. On the other hand, it could be argued, continuity and stability of a school-environment over 9-12 years enables a fine-tuning of student support and management systems, where the child-student is at the centre of a complex interplay of processes, procedures, challenges and pressures which, taken together, facilitate or generate a high degree of motivation and a positive school-experience in and outside the classroom. If the school class remains together, with normal minor change of membership a class culture will develop with the peer-children

18 and their teachers and class membership can encourage a sense of solidarity, inclusiveness, and mutuality. Whether learning and classroom interaction is the reason for school success or for failure depends on the whole school-culture and an individual teachers behaviour, mastery and mindset. Our study of teachers suggested that a broader approach via differences in teachers mental models and school cultures might be useful in gaining an understanding of obstacles and possibilities for wider and better learning in school, so that school failure becomes not the rule but an exception. There were some unexpected and worrying results: the pattern of teachers views on students does not depend on teachers personality and history alone, but also on the school-culture as whole. The school-development plan has to be designed in a way that positive changes can appear not only at meso level (school as whole) but at the level of individual teachers; there are strong signs of mistrust, fear and a lack of belief in fairness between teachers and students in most school communities. This is a sign of growing alienation, exclusiveness, individualism and insensitivity and needs special work with values and behavioural patterns primarily in the teaching community; a lack of cooperation at the level of the classroom (students with peers and teachers) and on the level of the school as whole (students participation in decision making). This lack of democracy is not good practice or adequate preparation for adult participation in society and a workplace community. This is a sign of prevailing short-time educational perspectives and poor understanding of future needs; a lack in most schools of appropriate systems for holistic monitoring either of the development of children or teachers. This results in a conservative and one dimensional approach towards success in school. Success is mainly judged by numerical marks in everyday work - the highest measure of success rests in the results of state-tests and exams. But those tests are not highly regarded by students and teachers (because of their content, difficulty and other factors) and both students and teachers see them as devices to manipulate, not motivate. This needs really intensive inquiry and probably the redesign of state exams and state-testing systems as a whole. The lack of appropriate childobservation and teacher self-analysis systems injects doubt into the validity of recently introduced practices such as conversations with parents and school self-management. As ideas, both are highly appreciated, but as the data show, there is great deficit of knowledge and progressive professional skill in schools.

A school, through its culture, prepares its students to be human capital in a sustainable society that is organized to respond to and manage risk. The way a teacher and a school as a whole perceives students and the role they play in the formation of adult citizens for such a risk society is of great importance. This paper illuminates some good and some worrying aspects of Estonian schools and our teachers attitudes to our children the students of our compulsory schools and schools of further education.

19 References Argyris, C., Schn, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society. London, Sage. Bertanalaffy, L. (1968). General System Theory. New York: Braziller Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental Ecology Through Space and Time: A Future Perspective. In P. Moen, G.H. Elder, Jr., K. Lscher (Eds.), Examining Lives in context. American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, pp. 619-647. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley. Checkland, P. Schores, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: Wiley Churchman, C. W. (1971). The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Fullan, M. Hargreaves, A. (1996). Whats worth fighting in your school? New York: Teacher College Press. Hargreaves, D. H. (1999). The Knowledge Creating School. British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol 47, No 2, 122 144. Indre, K, Karu, K. (1997). Eneseanals ja refleksioon petajate koolituses. (Self-analyses and reflection in teacher education) Raamatus: Vimalus ja paratamatus olla petaja. Koostaja U Kala. Tallinn: TP kirjastus, 211 220. Kallasmaa, T. (2003). Isiksus ja kohanemine. (Personality and adaptation) Isiksusepshholoogia. Koost Allik, J, Realo, A, Konstabel, K. Tartu: T Kirjastus, 139 168. Kera, S. (1998). petaja sotsiaalne valmidus kasvatuse eeldusena. (Teacher social preparedness as prerquisit of education). Tallinna Pedagoogikalikooli toimetised Humaniora A9, Tallinn, 110-125. Kraav, I. (2005). piedutus ja koolist vljalangemine kui sotsiaalse trjutuse eeldus ja tagajrg. piedutuse tekkephjused phikoolis pilaste, petajate ja lapsevanemate arvamuste phjal. Eesti pedagoogika ja kool LVI. Koost I Kraav. Tartu: EV THM, PUI, 7 22. Krull, E. (2002). Eesti petaja pedagoogilised arusaamad, arvamused ja hoiakud millenniumivahetusel. (Pedagogical understandings, beliefs and attitudes of Estonian teachers at the change of millennia). Tartu: T Kirjastus. Krull, E. (2001). Teacher Professional Development in Estonia: theory and practice. Journal of Teachers Education, Volume 24 Number 2, pp 99 114 Loogma, K.; Ruubel, R.; Ruus, V.; Sarv, E.-S.; Vilu, R. (1998). Estonia's Education Scenarios 2015.Tallinn, HM. Lyotard, J F. (1989). The Post-modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press. Maslow, A. H. (1977). The Farther Researches of Human Nature. New York: Penguin Books, Nonaka, I, Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Ruus, V-R, Veisson, M, Sarv, E-S, Leino, M, Lukk, K. (2005). Kool kui arengukeskkond ja pilaste toimetulek. (School as developmental environment and stuents coping) Haridus muutuste ja traditsioonide keerises. Toim: I Kraav, U Kala, T Pedastsaar. Tartu: Eesti Akadeemiline Pedagoogika Selts, J Kisi Selts, 109 120.

20 Sarv, E-S. (2005a). Eripalgeline ja arenev Eesti kool. - Riigikogu Toimetised RiTo 11/2005, 76 85, 256 (in English) - http://www.riigikogu.ee/rva/toimetised/rito11/artiklid/15sarv.htm Sarv, E-S. (2005b). petaja: pilane ja pilase arengu toetamine. (Teacher: on student and support of students development) Haridus muutuste ja traditsioonide keerises. I Kraav, U Kala, T Pedastsaar (Toim). Tartu: Eesti Akadeemiline Pedagoogika Selts, J Kisi Selts, 26 36. Sarv, E-S. (2004). Teachers as developers of general competences in classroom. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003371.htm Sarv, E.-S. (2002a). On structure, content and typology of school development plans in Estonia. In Priimgi, S, Sarv, E-S (Eds). The opening world: changing educational environment and teacher training. Tallinn: TP, 78 105. Sarv, E.-S. (2002b). Learning as understood by teachers (and teacher-students) in Estonia and as part of their professional development. - The opening world: changing educational environment and teacher training. Priimgi, S, Sarv, E-S (Eds). Tallinn: TP, 134 154. Sarv, E.-S. (2002c). Triangulatsiooni kasutamine petaja pdevusksituste uurimisel ja arendamisel. - Sotsiaal- ja kasvatusteaduste dialoog ja hishuvid. Sotsiaal- ja kasvatusteaduste doktorantide I konverents 18.-19. apr. 2002. Lepik, A, Poom-Valickis, K. (Koost.). Tallinn: TP kirjastus, 99 126. Sarv, E-S. (2000). ppimine kui diskursus Eesti petaja vaatekohalt. (Learning as discource from the point of wiew of Estonian teachers). Raamatus Knelev ja kneldav inimene: Eesti erinevate eluvaldkondade diskursus. Artiklite kogumik. Koostaja : V-R Ruus, Toimetaja: HM Kadajas. Tallinn: TP kirjastus, 169 182. Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., Kleiner, A. 2001. Schools that Learn. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Skinner, E. A., & Wellborn, J. G. (1997). Childrens coping in the academic domain. In S. A. Wolchik & I. N. Sandler (Eds.).Handbook of childrens coping with common stressors: Linking theory and intervention New York: Plenum, pp. 387422. Veisson,M, Ruus,V.-R., & Ots, L. (2005). The Estonian students and teachers' coping patterns in the academic domain. <http://www/>.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents.

21

Kokkuvte Uuringu phiksimus: kuidas petajate ja kooli otsese kontrolli all olevad faktorid mjutavad pilaste heaolu ja toetavad nende arengut? Kesolevas uuringu osas on pstitatud alahpotees: petajate personaalne taju oma pilastest ja oma kooli-kultuurist kui pilaste arengut toetavast faktorist mjutab pilaste pivimet ja akadeemilisi saavutusi. Uuringu phieesmrkideks oli leida petajate pilas- ja koolikutuuritaju mustrid. Kokkuvtteks vib petajaskonna jaotuse phjal tdeda, et Eestis on eristuvad petajate seas need, kes eristuvad teataval mral polaarselt: on positiivse pilaspildiga (lapsed on ldiselt head, hoolivad ja koolist on neil rmu) vi negatiivse pilaspildiga (lapsed on ise pahad, kiuslikud ja koolirmu neil ka pole) ning kikuva pilaspildiga; hindavad stressifaktoritest ohustatud laste hulka (v stressifaktoreid) suhteliselt krgeks vi suhteliselt vikeseks. (Selle erisuse heks phjuseks on petajate erinev tundlikkus, rksus pilaste suhtes); hindavad enese loodavat tugissteemi krgeks ja kooli ldist kekskkonda ja tegevust madalaks; hindavad nii enese loodud kui ka kooli (st kolleegide ja kogu koolikultuuri poolt loodavat) tugissteemi krgeks. Kuna koolikultuuri kujundamisel osalevad kik need petajate rhmad, on limalt oluline teadvustada iga kooli kultuuri kujundav sisemine vaadete- ja tegevusviiside vli, seda nii petajate kui pilaste poolt nhtuna. kski haridusotsustus, mis mjutab enamikku pilasipetajaid ei tohiks jtta hindamata otsuse mju ksikpilasele ning sama thtsana peaks vimaldama erinevat rakendusdisaini erinevates koolikultuurides.