Antea Čilić, PhD, Sonja Kovačević, PhD Examination of Differences in Perception of the “Good” School from the Teachers’ Perspective Prejeto 19.12.2020 / Sprejeto 26.02.2021 Znanstveni članek UDK 373: 005.336.3 KLJUČNE BESEDE: kakovostna šola, učitelj, dosež- ki učencev, ocenjevanje šol POVZETEK – “Dobra” (kakovostna, učinkovita, uspe- šna) šola kot raziskovalno področje je znana že od šest- desetih let prejšnjega stoletja. Ključni cilj raziskovalcev tega problema je prepoznati dejavnike takšnih šol, torej ugotoviti, katerim merilom morajo šole ustrezati, da bi bile učinkovite. Glavni namen te raziskave je preuči- ti razlike v dojemanju “dobre” šole z vidika učitelja. Rezultati so pokazali, da čeprav obstajajo statistično pomembne razlike med posameznimi segmenti, na splošno značilnosti učiteljev po vseh preučenih meri- lih ne igrajo pomembne vloge pri dojemanju kakovosti šole. Učitelji bi morali kot eni od ključnih akterjev s postopkom ocenjevanja in samoevalvacije ugotoviti, ali je njihova šola “dobra”, in delovati na podlagi tega spoznanja tako, da bi stanje ohranjali ali ga poskušali spremeniti s ciljem izboljšanja v dobro vseh. Received 19.12.2020 / Accepted 26.02.2021 Scientific paper UDC 373: 005.336.3 KEYWORDS: quality school, teacher, pupil achieve- ment, evaluation of schools ABSTRACT – The “good” (quality, effective, success- ful) school has been established as a research area in the 1960s. The key aim of those researching this problem is to identify the factors of such schools, that is, to under - stand which criteria the school has to meet in order to be effective. The main purpose of this research is to exam- ine the differences in perception of the “good” school from the teachers’ perspective. Results have shown that, even though there are statistically significant differences between individual segments, generally speaking, the teachers’ characteristics do not play an important role in the perception of the school’ s quality, according to all the examined criteria. Teachers, as one of the key partic- ipants, should be able to recognize, through the process of evaluation and self-evaluation, whether their school is good, and act on the basis of that realization – i.e. ei- ther to keep it as such or to act with the aim of improving and enhancing it, for the benefit of all! 1 Introduction A school is an educational organization composed of all stakeholders in the educa- tional process, namely pupils, teachers, principals, parents, expert associates, and other employees. The basic objective of the school as such is the acquisition and development of basic competencies, and the attainment of the best pupil achievement levels, which is reflected in the overall quality of the school. Speaking of the concept of evaluation, what stands out is its function of enhancing the quality of education. The basic goal of school evaluation is assessment, and on the basis of that assessment the improvement and enhancement of the educational process in the school as an educational organization. The definition of the good (quality, effective, successful) school is one of the key issues in institutional education. The term education is here used in the narrow sense of institutional education. Our understanding of what quality education is has changed 67 Čilić, PhD, Kovačević, PhD: Examination of Differences in Perception of the “Good”... over time. According to Pigozzi (2006, as cited in Pastuović, 2010), we can draw a line between the traditional and the modern understanding of the quality of education. In the traditional sense, a high-quality school is a school with substantial resources, high pedagogical standards, an intensive process, and higher educational achievements. In the modern sense, the focus is on the cognitive and affective educational achievements. As stated by Čilić et al. (2015), a quality teacher should, through the improvement of his or her work, act to improve the overall quality of the school so that the school is not only a place of acquiring and reproducing knowledge, but also a place of interaction, communication, tolerance, freedom of expression and critical thinking. Downer (1991) writes that the most acceptable definition of effective schools is the one that also includes the concept of academic achievement, i.e. the majority of school effectiveness research defines effectiveness in terms of pupils’ achievements measured using standardized achievement tests. Reynolds (2000) states that empirical research of school effectiveness in the USA was initiated in 1970, in Great Britain in 1980, while in western European countries a more intensive study of this research area started sometime thereafter. The school effectiveness research was the subject of major criticism, especially in the UK. It was criticized primarily for weaknesses in the theoretical approach and because of disagre- ements about its very purpose, which led to disagreements about the outcomes of edu- cation (Sammons, 2011). According to Scheerens (1992), school effectiveness research is a complex type of study that can always be subjected to some form of criticism. It is important to mention criticism because of a paucity of studies on ineffective schools. Reynolds (1991, as cited in Stoll & Fink, 1996) writes that attempts to improve ineffec- tive schools using the factors of effective schools proved to be unsuccessful. It follows that it is not enough to define the factors of effective schools and assume that ineffective schools are characterized by the opposite factors (Stoll & Fink, 1996), but that it is ne- cessary to define the characteristics of ineffective schools and find ways in which such schools could become effective. In Croatia, more systematic research of school effectiveness is relatively new (Ša- kić et al., 2006; Burušić & Babarović, 2007; Burušić et al., 2008), and is especially related to the external evaluation of academic achievements in primary schools. Rese- arch results (Burušić et al., 2009) emphasize the characteristic of school status as the most important determinant of effectiveness, with the exception of factors that point to certain aspects of leadership which did not prove to be a significant determinant of effectiveness. School evaluation and self-evaluation point the way towards excellence and quality. Pedagogical standards and quality indicators are guidelines that assist in the monitoring, assessment, self-assessment and evaluation of the effects of education (Buljubašić-Kuz- manović & Kretić Majer, 2008). Speaking of evaluation, which includes an assessment of different segments in the educational process, it is important to mention that the exa- mination of the quality of schools is certainly one way of evaluating schools. Besides the fact that evaluation primarily implies an assessment of educational outcomes, teaching plans and programmes, of the application of acquired knowledge, and the like, it also relates to an assessment of the improvement in quality, starting from the assessment of the organization of school leadership to the quality of parental involvement in school life. 68 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2021) “More modern approaches to school effectiveness research suggest that the school should be viewed as a complex system that operates on multiple levels. Educational out- comes are the results of dynamic interrelationships at the level of pupils, classrooms, at the level of the entire school, including the system that manages schools, as well as the broader context in which the school exists and operates.” (Creemers, 1996; Creemers & Kyriakides, 2006, as cited in Bezinović, 2010, p. 27). Numerous studies were conducted with the goal of examining the quality of schools, according to various determinants and with different groups of respondents. In the study conducted in 2008, Buljubašić-Kuzmanović and Kretić Majer examined the perception of today’s school and the quality of the educational process defined by 25 indicators di- vided into 5 groups: individualization and overall pupil development; teaching climate and environment; teaching and learning strategies; evaluation and self-evaluation; pu- pils’ and teachers’ cooperation with parents. The results have shown that the perception of today’s school is mostly traditional. Teachers claim that their teaching is modern and of high quality; that they take individualization and the overall pupil development into account; they have a positive perception of the teaching climate and school envi- ronment. They also point out learning and teaching strategies, as well as evaluation and self-evaluation, as important determinants of teaching quality, while they rate their co- operation with parents as good. Pupils emphasize an uninteresting and unclear learning process, not being able to actively participate in the teaching process or express their opinions. Cooperation with parents is shown to be the weakest link in today’s schools. There are visible disagreements in teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions, while teachers’ responses suggest a higher level of quality of the educational process as well as of the school itself, according to all the stated characteristics. More specifically, the aim of the study conducted by Kapac (2008) was to examine teachers’ attitudes toward knowledge assessment, as one of the determinants of quality. The results have shown that in school practice there is no sufficiently defined system that would facilitate equal conditions and evaluation criteria. The author points out that it is necessary to encourage the professional training of teachers in using new methods of monitoring and evaluation, i.e. training in the field of pedagogical-psychological and didactic-methodical knowledge. It should be pointed out that, according to Čilić et al. (2015), a competent teacher should affect the overall improvement of the school’s quality, so that it would not only be a place of acquisition and reproduction of knowledge, but also a place of interaction, communication, tolerance, freedom of expression and critical thinking. Studies of school quality should contribute to our understanding of the school pro- cess and the influence of that process on different measurements of pupils’ educational outcomes. Such studies require stronger empirical evidence that could help in the pro- cess of the development, evaluation and criticism of teaching and educational policy. 69 Čilić, PhD, Kovačević, PhD: Examination of Differences in Perception of the “Good”... 2 Methods Roughly half a century of research in education has been focused on the definition and examination of effective schools. School effectiveness, as an area of research, whi- ch is very topical today, represents a dynamic process that is constantly trying to find ways of improving and enhancing its methodology (Čilić, 2017). Before we continue to the empirical part of the paper, it is important to point out that the presented results are part of a more extensive scientific research on the ef- fectiveness of primary schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina, conducted on a sample of teachers, pupils and parents. The paper contains some scientific information relating to determining the differences in the perception of a quality school with regard to different characteristics of teachers. The research problem has been identified through an analysis of literature and pre- vious studies, and it reads: Are there differences in the perception of the quality of schools relative to the different characteristics of teachers? After defining the problem, the research goal is established: to examine the diffe- rences in the perception of the quality of schools relative to the different characteristics of teachers. Descriptive and correlation research methods were used in the research conducted. The survey procedure was used for the purpose of data collection, i.e. one part of the questionnaire was used as an instrument (Čilić, 2017, according to the DOES model), in which respondents assessed the quality of the school in four dimensions: leadership, school climate, monitoring and assessment of pupils’ progress, and parental involvement. Čilić (2017) points out that, according to the teachers’ assessments, the most impor- tant factor that explains the level of school effectiveness is school climate – the higher the levels of school climate quality, the higher the school effectiveness. The factor with the smallest contribution, but still a considerably high (> 0.3) factorial saturation, is the quality of the monitoring and assessment of pupils’ progress which, in relation to the remaining three factors, makes a somewhat smaller positive contribution to school effectiveness. Sample of respondents The study included a total of 91 respondents. Most of them were between the ages of 35 and 50 (53.1 %). Equally represented in the sample were those with less than 10, between 10 and 20, and more than 20 years of seniority. Slightly less than two thirds (60.2 %) of the teachers in the sample were subject teachers. 70 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2021) Table 1 Characteristics of the examined teacher sample (n=91) Variables Gender Age Years of seniority Teaching Level F M < 35 35–50 > 50 < 10 10–20 > 20 Subject Class % 78.6 21.1 25.2 53.1 21.4 33.7 34.7 31.3 60.2 39.5 3 Results 3.1 Determination of differences concerning the quality of schools relative to teachers’ gender By applying the Student’s t-test for independent samples, statistically significant differences were found between the attitudes of male and female teachers in relation to the level of parental involvement (p < 0.05). Male teachers consider parental invol- vement to be lower than do the female teachers (Table 2), but this attitude is mildly to moderately positive in both groups. Because of the differences in the ratio of male to female teachers and the fact that the condition of homogeneity of variance between gro- ups is not fulfilled because of this imbalance, it is possible that this significant differen- ce is the result of an increased measurement error and should not be considered further. Differences in attitudes between female and male teachers concerning the dimensi- ons of leadership, school climate, and monitoring and assessing pupils’ progress were not determined (p > 0.05). Table 2 Determination of differences in dimensions of school effectiveness relative to teachers’ gender Dimension of effectiveness Gender M SD DF T Leadership Women 4.03 0.77 291 0.764 Men 3.96 0.56 School climate Women 3.85 0.63 291 1.847 Men 3.69 0.59 POUN Women 3.32 0.82 118 0.275 Men 3.21 0.65 Parental involvement Women 4.00 0.60 291 2.356* Men 3.80 0.63 Remarks: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 71 Čilić, PhD, Kovačević, PhD: Examination of Differences in Perception of the “Good”... Unlike the obtained results which show that there were no significant differences in teachers’ attitudes towards the dimension of monitoring and assessment, and taking into consideration all the stated characteristics, the results of the research conducted by Buljubašić-Kuzmanović et al. (2010) showed that there were similarities in attitudes regarding assessment and the application of the type of assessment relative to teachers’ gender and seniority, but also that there were differences in attitudes between subject and class teachers. Therefore, there are differences in the attitudes of class teachers and subject teachers relative to this dimension. 3.2 Determination of differences concerning the quality of schools relative to teachers’ age By applying a one-way analysis of variance for independent samples to determine differences in attitudes towards school effectiveness relative to the teachers’ age, no statistically significant differences were found in any of the analysed dimensions of effectiveness (p > 0.05; Table 3). Table 3 Determination of differences in the dimensions of school effectiveness relative to teachers’ age Dimension of effectiveness Age M SD DF F Leadership < 35 3.94 0.78 2 / 290 1.342 35–50 4.02 0.77 > 50 4.14 0.54 School climate < 35 3.84 0.55 2 / 290 0.238 35–50 3.79 0.60 > 50 3.85 0.77 POUN < 35 3.91 0.54 2 / 290 .413 35–50 3.98 0.64 > 50 3.95 0.62 Parental involvement < 35 3.16 0.85 2 / 290 1.748 35–50 3.31 0.77 > 50 3.40 0.75 Remarks: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01, † < 0.05 between “< 35” and “35–50”; ‡ < 0.05 bet- ween “< 35” and “> 50”; ≈ < 0.05 between “35–50” and “> 50” 72 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2021) 3.3 Determination of differences concerning the quality of schools relative to teachers’ seniority By testing the differences in attitudes towards school effectiveness relative to tea- chers’ seniority, no statistically significant differences were found in any of the analysed dimensions of effectiveness (p > 0.05; Table 4). Table 4 Determination of differences in the dimensions of school effectiveness relative to teachers’ seniority Dimension of effectiveness Seniority M SD DF F Leadership < 10 3.92 0.77 2 / 290 1.632 10–20 4.11 0.69 > 20 4.04 0.73 School climate < 10 3.81 0.53 2 / 290 0.178 10–20 3.85 0.61 > 20 3.79 0.74 POUN < 10 3.94 0.59 2 / 290 0.999 10–20 4.02 0.62 > 20 3.90 0.62 Parental involvement < 10 3.20 0.81 2 / 290 0.966 10–20 3.35 0.80 > 20 3.32 0.75 Remarks: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01, † < 0.05 between “< 10” and “10–20”; ‡ < 0.05 bet- ween “< 10” and “> 20”; ≈ < 0.05 between “10–20” and “> 20” On the basis of the cited research results, we could say that there are statistically significant differences in the perception of certain segments of quality, relative to some of the examined characteristics. In relation to the results obtained, the study conducted by Blažević (2014) found that there are differences between teachers, relative to age and seniority, in the perception of school leadership, namely that younger teachers with less seniority consider principals less flexible in relation to older teachers. Furthermore, Ba- barović et al. (2009, as cited in Čilić, 2017) write that teachers’ professional experience, i.e. length of service, is mostly positively correlated to pupils’ success. Inexperienced teachers with less than five years of service achieve worse educational results. When it comes to older teachers, there is even a slight decrease in success, which is probably caused by fatigue and burnout. It was also found that younger teachers with a higher level of education could make up for their inexperience and achieve significantly better results than beginners with a lower level of education, and even be as successful as the more experienced teachers. Research conducted by Baranović et al. in 2006 attemp- ted to determine how teachers perceived school climate, if there were differences in perception relative to place of work and seniority, and whether there were differences 73 Čilić, PhD, Kovačević, PhD: Examination of Differences in Perception of the “Good”... between schools. The results have shown that class teachers rated school climate higher than subject teachers. The respondents positively rated the organizational climate in all dimensions (an encouraging work environment, autonomy, and openness to change) and said that primary schools in Croatia have a stimulating institutional atmosphere for the work of class and subject teachers. 3.4 Determination of differences concerning the quality of schools relative to teachers’ place of work (subject or class teaching) Statistically significant differences were found for the dimensions of leadership and parental involvement (p < 0.05). Class teachers consider school leadership to be of higher quality than do the subject teachers. Likewise, a more positive attitude of class teachers is expressed also with regard to the dimension of parental involvement. For the dimensions of school climate, and the monitoring and assessment of pupils’ progress, no differences in assessments were found with these two groups of teachers. Table 5 Determination of differences in the attitudes towards the dimensions of school effectiveness between class and subject teachers Dimension of effectiveness Teacher M SD DF T Leadership Class 4.19 0.59 286 3.406** Subject 3.91 0.79 School climate Class 3.89 0.62 291 1.545 Subject 3.77 0.63 POUN Class 4.00 0.69 291 0.970 Subject 3.92 0.55 Parental involvement Class 3.44 0.73 291 2.540* Subject 3.20 0.81 Remarks: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 Regarding the dimension of school climate as a separate factor of school efficiency, the research conducted by Baranović et al. in 2006 attempted to determine how teachers perceive the school climate and whether there are differences in perception with re- gard to the workplace and length of service, and whether there are differences between schools. The results show that the assessments of class teachers are more positive than the assessments of subject teachers. The respondents positively assess the organizatio- nal climate in all dimensions (a stimulating work environment, autonomy, and openness to change) and state that primary schools in Croatia have a stimulating institutional atmosphere for the work of teachers. In addition, the results of the research conducted by Milenovic et al. (2011) show that there is a statistically significant difference in the attitudes and opinions of primary school teachers regarding assessment depending on their post, whereby class teachers, 74 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2021) to a significantly higher degree than subject teachers, think that assessment in primary schools should be modernized. It was determined that there is an important positive cor- relation between the attitudes and opinions of primary school teachers in Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina regarding assessment. A high level of understanding about assessment among primary school teachers in Croatia is followed by a high level of understanding about assessment in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. 4 Discussion In light of the circumstances and the time we are living in, it is necessary to think, react and act “quickly”. A school can achieve high quality and be able to maintain it only if its stakeholders are of high quality, competent, and ready to adapt and be creati- ve, innovative and flexible. The fundamental findings of this paper are: □ Statistically significant differences were found between the attitudes of male and female teachers in relation to the level of parental involvement. □ Differences in attitudes between female and male teachers concerning the dimen- sions of leadership, school climate, and monitoring and assessing pupils’ progress were not determined. □ In terms of differences in attitudes towards school effectiveness relative to teachers’ age, no statistically significant differences were found in any of the analysed dimen- sions of effectiveness. □ By examining the differences in attitudes towards school effectiveness relative to teachers’ seniority, no statistically significant differences were found in any of the analysed dimensions of effectiveness. □ Statistically significant differences were found for the dimensions of leadership and parental involvement. □ Statistically significant differences were found for the dimensions of leadership and parental involvement relative to the teachers’ place of work (subject or class teaching). □ Class teachers consider school leadership to be of higher quality than do the subject teachers. Likewise, a more positive attitude of class teachers is expressed also with regard to the dimension of parental involvement. □ For the dimensions of school climate, and the monitoring and assessment of pupils’ progress, no differences in assessments were found with these two groups of tea- chers. In accordance with the results obtained, we could say that, although there are stati- stically significant differences in individual segments, generally speaking, it can be con- cluded that the teachers’ characteristics do not play an important role in the perception of the school’s quality, according to all the dimensions examined. In conclusion, teachers, as one of the key participants, should be able to recognize whether their school is good, and act on the basis of that realization – either to keep it as such or to act with the aim of improving and enhancing it, for the benefit of all! 75 Čilić, PhD, Kovačević, PhD: Examination of Differences in Perception of the “Good”... Dr. Antea Čilić, dr. Sonja Kovačević Preučevanje razlik v dojemanju “dobre” šole z vidika učiteljev Šola je vzgojno-izobraževalna organizacija, sestavljena iz interesnih skupin vzgoj- no-izobraževalnega procesa, ki jih sestavljajo učenci, učitelji, ravnatelji, starši, stro- kovni sodelavci in drugi zaposleni. Osnovni cilj šole kot take je pridobivanje in razvoj temeljnih kompetenc ter doseganje čim boljših dosežkov učencev, kar se odraža na splo- šni kakovosti šole. Opredelitev pojma “dobre” (kakovostne, učinkovite, uspešne) šole je eno ključnih vprašanj institucionalnega izobraževanja. Pojem izobraževanja je tu uporabljen v ožjem pomenu institucionalnega izobraževanja. Razumevanje, kaj je to, kakovostno izobraževa- nje, se je skozi čas spreminjalo. Po Pigozziju (2006, v Pastuović, 2010) lahko potegnemo mejo med tradicionalnim in sodobnim razumevanjem kakovosti samega izobraževanja. V tradicionalnem smislu je kakovostna šola šola z visoko stopnjo virov, visokimi pedagoški- mi standardi in intenzivnim procesom ter višjimi izobraževalnimi dosežki. Kozel, Cotič in Žakelj (2020, str. 4) ugotavljajo, da je treba za “doseganje zahtevanih ciljev sodobnega šo - lanja transmisijski (behavioristični) model pouka dopolniti s sodobnim transformacijskim modelom pouka”. V sodobnem smislu je poudarek na kognitivnih in afektivnih izobraže- valnih dosežkih. Reynolds (2000) navaja, da so se empirične raziskave o učinkovitosti šol v ZDA začele leta 1970, v Veliki Britaniji leta 1980, medtem ko so v zahodnoevropskih državah to področje raziskovanja začeli intenzivneje raziskovati nekoliko kasneje. Razi- skave o učinkovitosti šol so bile predmet številnih kritik, zlasti v Veliki Britaniji. Očitali so jim najprej pomanjkljivosti v teoretičnem pristopu in neenotnost glede samega namena, kar vodi do netočnosti v šolskih rezultatih (Sammons, 2011). Po Scheerensu (1992) so raziskave šolske uspešnosti kompleksne. Na Hrvaškem so sistematične raziskave o učin- kovitosti šol novejšega datuma (Šakić in sod., 2006; Burušić in Babarović, 2007; Burušić in sod., 2008) in se večinoma nanašajo na zunanje vrednotenje izobraževalnih dosežkov v osnovnih šolah. Rezultati raziskave (Burušić in sod., 2009) kot najpomembnejše dejavnike učinkovitosti izpostavljajo statusne značilnosti šole, z izjemo značilnosti, ki kažejo na ne - katere vidike vodenja, ki se niso izkazali kot pomemben dejavnik učinkovitosti. Izvedene so bile številne raziskave s ciljem preveriti kakovost šol glede na različne determinante in z vidika različnih skupin anketirancev. V študiji, izvedeni leta 2008, sta Buljubašić-Kuzmanović in Kretić Majer preučila dojemanje današnje šole in kakovost vzgojno-izobraževalnega procesa, opredeljeno s 25 kazalniki, razdeljenimi v 5 skupin: individualizacija in splošen razvoj učencev, učna klima in vzdušje, strategija poučeva- nja in učenja, vrednotenje in samoevalvacija, sodelovanje s starši, s strani učencev in učiteljev. Rezultati kažejo, da je slika današnje šole večinoma tradicionalna. Učitelji trdijo, da je njihovo poučevanje sodobno in kakovostno, da upoštevajo individualizacijo in celosten razvoj učencev, učiteljsko klimo in šolsko vzdušje pa dojemajo pozitivno. Kot pomembne dejavnike kakovosti poučevanja izpostavljajo tudi strategije učenja in pou- čevanja ter vrednotenje in samoevalvacijo, sodelovanje s starši pa ocenjujejo kot dobro. Učenci opozarjajo na nezanimiv in nejasen učni proces brez dane možnosti aktivnega sodelovanja pri poučevanju in izražanja svojih stališč. Izkazalo se je, da je sodelovanje s starši najšibkejši člen današnje šole. V dojemanju učiteljev in učencev so vidne razli- 76 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2021) ke, saj odgovori učiteljev kažejo na višjo raven kakovosti tako samega učnega procesa kot tudi same šole glede na vse zgoraj navedene značilnosti. Treba je poudariti, da bi moral kompetenten učitelj vplivati na izboljšanje splošne kakovosti šole, da ne bi bila le kraj pridobivanja in reproduciranja znanja, temveč tudi prostor interakcije, komunika- cije, strpnosti in svobode izražanja ter kritičnega mišljenja. Posebej bi želeli izpostaviti, da pri odgovorih ne navajajo različnih modelov pouka in didaktičnih teorij, kot so konstruktivistične teorije znanja, ki “temeljijo na predpo- stavki, da posameznik oblikuje svoje znanje z lastnim izgrajevanjem znanja, s problem- skim učenjem, ki je usmerjeno k odkrivanju, je povezano z vsakdanjim življenjem, osno- vano na primerih, notranje motivirano ter socialno” (Kozel, Cotič, Žakelj, 2020, str. 3). Raziskave o kakovosti šol bi morale prispevati k našemu razumevanju šolskega pro- cesa in vpliva tega procesa na različne meritve učnih rezultatov učencev. Takšne raziskave potrebujejo močnejše empirične dokaze, ki lahko pomagajo v procesu razvoja, vrednote- nja in kritike politike poučevanja in izobraževanja. Skoraj več kot pol stoletja so raziskave v izobraževanju poudarjale določanje in preučevanje učinkovitih šol. Šolska učinkovitost kot področje raziskovanja, ki je v veliki meri aktualna v današnjem času, predstavlja di - namičen proces, ki nenehno išče načine za izboljšanje svoje metodologije (Čilić, 2017). Predmet te raziskave je dojemanje kakovosti šol z vidika učiteljev ob upoštevanju različnih dejavnikov, ki vplivajo na samo kakovost. Analiza literature in predhodne raz- iskave so opredelile raziskovalni problem, ki se glasi: “Ali obstajajo razlike v dojema- nju kakovosti šol glede na različne značilnosti učiteljev?” Iz opredeljenega problema je zastavljen cilj raziskave: preučiti razlike v dojemanju kakovosti šol glede na različne značilnosti učiteljev. Pri izvedeni raziskavi so bile uporabljene deskriptivne in kore- lacijske raziskovalne metode. Za namen zbiranja podatkov je bil uporabljen postopek anketiranja oziroma del anketnega vprašalnika je bil uporabljen kot instrument (Čilić, 2017, po DOES), kjer so anketiranci ocenjevali kakovost šol v štirih razsežnostih: vode- nje, šolska klima, spremljanje in vrednotenje napredka učencev in vključenost staršev. Čilić (2017) poudarja, da je po mnenju učiteljev najpomembnejši dejavnik, ki pojasnju- je raven šolske učinkovitosti, šolska klima – višja kot je raven kakovosti šolske klime, večja je šolska učinkovitost. Dejavnik z najmanjšim prispevkom, a še vedno znatno viso- kim (> 0,3), je kakovost spremljanja in vrednotenja napredka učencev, ki v primerjavi z ostalimi tremi dejavniki nekoliko manj pozitivno prispeva k učinkovitosti šole. V raziskavo je bilo vključenih 91 anketirancev. Največji je delež oseb, ki so stare med 35 in 50 let (53,1 %). V vzorcu so enako zastopani anketiranci, ki imajo manj kot 10, med 10 in 20 in več kot 20 let delovnih izkušenj. Nekaj manj kot dve tretjini (60,2 %) učiteljev v vzorcu predstavljata učitelje predmetnega pouka. Z uporabo Student t-testa za neodvisne vzorce so ugotovljene statistično pomembne razlike v odnosu učiteljev in učiteljic do stopnje vključenosti staršev (p < 0,05). Učitelji v primerjavi z učiteljicami menijo, da je vključenost staršev nižja, vendar je ta odnos v obeh skupinah blag do zmerno pozitiven. Razlike v stališčih učiteljic in učiteljev v raz- sežnostih vodenja, šolske klime ter spremljanja in vrednotenja napredka učencev niso ugotovljene (p > 0,05). Z uporabo enosmerne analize variance za neodvisne vzorce za določitev razlik v odnosu šolske učinkovitosti glede na starost učiteljev niso ugotovljene statistično pomembne razlike v nobeni od analiziranih dimenzij učinkovitosti. 77 Čilić, PhD, Kovačević, PhD: Examination of Differences in Perception of the “Good”... S preizkušanjem razlik v odnosu do učinkovitosti šole glede na delovne izkušnje uči- teljev niso ugotovljene statistično pomembne razlike v nobeni od analiziranih dimenzij učinkovitosti. Ugotovljene so bile statistično pomembne razlike v dimenzijah vodenja in uključenosti staršev (p < 0,05). Učitelji razrednega pouka bolje ocenjujejo kakovost vodenja šole kot učitelji predmetnega pouka. Prav tako se odraža pozitivnejši odnos učiteljev razrednega pouka tudi v dimenziji vključenosti staršev. Za dimenzijo šolske klime ter za spremljanje in ocenjevanje napredka učencev v teh dveh skupinah učiteljev niso ugotovili razlik v ocenjevanju. Na podlagi predstavljenih rezultatov raziskav lahko rečemo, da obstajajo statistič- no pomembne razlike v zaznavanju posameznih segmentov kakovosti glede pri neka- terih preučenih značilnostih. Glede na pridobljene rezultate raziskave, ki jo je izvedla Blaževićeva (2014, v Čilić, 2017), kaže, da obstajajo razlike med učitelji glede na sta- rost in delovno dobo v dojemanju šolskega vodstva, saj mlajši učitelji s krajšo delovno dobo ravnatelje štejejo za manj prilagodljive v primerjavi s starejšimi učitelji. Poleg tega Babarović in sod. (2009, v Čilić, 2017) pravijo, da so poklicne izkušnje, torej dol- žina pridobivanja delovnih izkušenj, večinoma pozitivno povezane z uspehom študentov. Neizkušeni učitelji, ki imajo manj kot pet let delovne dobe, dosegajo slabše izobraže- valne rezultate, pri starejših učiteljih je celo majhen upad uspešnosti, ki je verjetno posledica utrujenosti in nezanimanja. Izkazalo se je tudi, da lahko mladi učitelji z višjo stopnjo izobrazbe nadomestijo svojo neizkušenost in dosežejo bistveno boljše rezultate kot začetniki z nižjo stopnjo izobrazbe in so celo enako uspešni kot bolj izkušeni učitelji. V raziskavi, ki so jo izvedli Baranović in sod. leta 2006, so si prizadevali ugotoviti, kako učitelji dojemajo šolsko klimo in ali obstajajo razlike v dojemanju glede na delovno mesto in delovno dobo ter ali obstajajo razlike med šolami. Rezultati kažejo, da so vre- dnotenja učiteljev razrednega pouka višja od vrednotenja učiteljev predmetnega pouka. Anketiranci pozitivno ocenjujejo organizacijsko klimo v vseh razsežnostih (spodbudno delovno okolje, avtonomija in odprtost do sprememb) in dejstvo, da v osnovnih šolah na Hrvaškem vlada spodbudno institucionalno ozračje za delo učiteljev. V nasprotju s pridobljenimi rezultati, ki kažejo, da glede na zgoraj navedene zna- čilnosti v odnosu učiteljev do dimenzije spremljanja in ocenjevanja ni bistvenih razlik, rezultati raziskav, ki so jih izvedli Buljubašić-Kuzmanović in sod. (2010), kažejo, da obstaja podobnost v stališčih pri ocenjevanju in uporabi metod ocenjevanja glede na spol in delovno dobo učiteljev, a tudi, da obstajajo razlike v stališčih med učitelji pred- metnega pouka in učitelji razrednega pouka. Torej, obstajajo razlike v stališčih učiteljev predmetnega in razrednega pouka glede na to dimenzijo. Tudi rezultati raziskave, ki so jo opravili Milenović in sod. (2011), kažejo, da obsta- ja statistično pomembna razlika v stališčih in mnenjih učiteljev osnovne šole o ocenje- vanju glede na njihov poklic, pri čemer učitelji razrednega pouka bistveno bolj kot uči- telji predmetnega pouka poudarjajo, da je ocenjevanje v osnovni šoli treba posodobiti. Ugotovljeno je bilo, da obstaja pomembna pozitivna povezava med stališči in mnenji učiteljev osnovnih šol o ocenjevanju na Hrvaškem, v Srbiji ter Bosni in Hercegovini. Visoke vrednosti ravni razumevanja ocenjevanja učiteljev osnovnih šol na Hrvaškem spremlja visoka stopnja razumevanja ocenjevanja v Srbiji ter Bosni in Hercegovini. V skladu s pridobljenimi rezultati, čeprav obstajajo statistično pomembne razlike v posameznih segmentih, je na splošno mogoče sklepati, da značilnosti učiteljev ne igrajo bistvene vloge pri dojemanju kakovosti šole glede na vse preučene dimenzije. 78 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2021) LITERATURE 1. Bezinović, P. (2010). Samovrednovanje škola. Prva iskustva u osnovnim školama. Zagreb: Agencija za odgoj i obrazovanje / Institut za društvena istraživanja. 2. Blažević, I. (2014) Rukovodeća uloga ravnatelja u školi. Školski vjesnik, 63, 7–21 3. Buljubašić-Kuzmanović, V . in Kretić Majer, J. (2008). Vrednovanje i samovrednovanje u funk- ciji istraživanja i unapređivanja kvalitete škole. Pedagogijska istraživanja, 5, 139–151. 4. Burušić, J., Babarović, T. in Šakić, M. (2008). Vanjsko vrednovanje obrazovnih postignuća u osnovnim školama Republike Hrvatske: Učenici 8. razreda, školska godina 2007/2008, istraži- vački izvještaj. Zagreb: Nacionalni centar za vanjsko vrednovanje obrazovanja/Institut društve- nih znanosti Ivo Pilar. 5. Burušić, J., Babarović, T. in Šakić, M. (2009). Odrednice uspješnosti osnovnih škola U Republi- ci Hrvatskoj: rezultati empirijske provjere. Društvena istraživanja, 18(4–5), 605–624. 6. Čilić, A., Klapan, A. in Prnić M. (2015). Teachers' competences for educational work. Epiphany Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies. (e-ISSN 1840-3719; p-ISSN 2303-6850), 219–226. 7. Čilić, A. (2017). Čimbenici učinkovitosti škola. Acta Iadertina, 14(2). 8. Downer, D.F. (1991). Review of research on effective schools. McGill journal of Education, 26(3), 323–329. 9. Kapac, V . (2008). Znanja i stavovi nastavnika o školskom ocjenjivanju. Život i škola, 56(2), 163–172. 10. Kozel, L., Cotič, M. in Žakelj, A. (2020). Kognitivno-konstruktivistični model pouka matema- tike v 1. triletju. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 35(2), 3–22. 11. Milenović, Ž., Lapat, G. in Jeftović, M. (2011). Ocenjivanje u Srbiji, Hrvatskoj i Republici Srpskoj. Zbornik radova Učiteljskog fakulteta, Užice, (13), 43–58. 12. Pastuović, N. (2010). Kvaliteta predtercijarnog obrazovanja u Hrvatskoj s posebnim osvrtom na strukturu obveznog obrazovanja kao čimbenika njegove kvalitete. Sociologija i prostor, 51(3), 449–470. 13. Reynolds, D. (2000). Creating World Class Schools: What have we Learned? In: Reynolds, D., Creemers, B., Stringfi (Eds). World Class Schools: International Perspectives on School Effec- tiveness. RoutledgeFalmer: London. 14. Scheerens, J. (1992). Process Indicators of School Functioning. In: The OECD International Education Indicators: A Framework for Analysis. Paris: OECD. 15. Stoll, L. in Fink, D. (1996). Changing our Schools: Linking School effectiveness and School Improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press. 16. Šakić, V ., Rimac, I., Spajić-Vrkaš, V . idr. (2006). Vrednovanje eksperimentalne provedbe ele- menata Hrvatskog nacionalnog obrazovnog standarda (HNOS). Zagreb: Institut društvenih zna- nosti Ivo Pilar. Antea Čilić, PhD (1986), Assistant Professor, Department of Pedagogy, Faculty of Science and Edu- cation, University of Mostar. Address: Čeljevo bb, 88307 Višići, Čapljina, Bosnia and Herzegovina Telephone: (+387) 063 411 690 E-mail: antea.cilic@fpmoz.sum.ba Sonja Kovačević, PhD (1963), Full Professor, Department of Teacher Education, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split. Address: Generala Blage Zadre 22, 21000 Split, Croatia Telephone: (+385) 091 253 77 12 E-mail: sonja@ffst.hr