Introduction and purpose

How schools prepare students’ to become active and participating citizens in changing contexts of democracies is an area of study that has received increased attention in the literature recent years (Mathé & Elstad, 2018; Schulz et al., 2018; Trujillo, Møller, Jensen, Kissell, & Larsen, 2021). The role of schools in promoting democracy is accentuated by social and political events, especially accelerating polarization in Western democracies. The professional community in schools hold a key role in the provision of civic skills, citizenship education, and promoting democratic schools in different contexts worldwide (Apple & Beane, 1995; Møller, 2006).

Educational contexts differ worldwide, and studies have emphasized tensions between promoting democratic schools that depends on professional standards on the one hand, and increasing managerial demands such as monitoring of performance data from central and district levels, on the other (Camphuijsen, Møller, & Skedsmo, 2020; Larsen, Møller, & Jensen, 2020). Also, the perceived support and care that teachers receive from the leadership, as well as their possibilities for taking part in processes of decision-making are important factors in a functioning democratic school (Apple & Beane, 1995; Woods, 2005). Previous research has highlighted the significance of contextual conditions in schools’ promotion of democracy and social justice (Trujillo et al., 2021). Specifically, high-stakes as opposed to low-stakes testing contexts may create obstacles for promoting democratic schools amongst school principals (Trujillo et al., 2021), though less is known about how teachers perceive different contexts’ role in promoting democratic schools. Previous research on teachers’ perceptions indicate that school climate correlate with effective teaching (e.g. Oder & Eisenschmidt, 2018). Also, perceptions of active engagement as part of citizenship norms are associated with active teaching styles (Sampermans, Reichert, & Claes, 2021). Although previous studies have focused on perceptions of principals (Trujillo et al, 2021) students’ perceptions (Mathé & Elstad, 2018), and teachers’ perceptions of school climate and citizenship norms, we know less about how teachers perceive the state of democracy in their schools. Knowledge about this topic is important in order to develop what conceptualizations of a school democracy means in practice.

On this basis, we aim at contributing to the knowledge base on democratic processes in schools by examining how teachers perceive the state of democracy in their schools in a low-stakes accountability context.

We do this through a multiple regression analysis based on survey data to map possible predictors of teachers’ perceptions of their schools’ democratic character. We illustrate this issue drawing from Norway as an example of a low-stakes accountability context (Camphuijsen et al., 2020).

Theoretical perspectives

In interpreting our findings, we draw from theories on teacher leadership and democratic professionalism. First, we distinguish between two perspectives of educational leadership; leaders in formal roles and leadership as practices. We use the latter as a point of departure, which entails practices that are distributed (Lingard, Hayes, & Mills, 2003). We assume that key constituents of democratic schools are teachers partaking in leadership through distributed practice (de Villiers & Pretorius, 2011) and are included in processes of decision-making (Woods, 2005). As it is reasonable to believe that distributed practice and inclusion in decision-making are related to teachers’ perceptions of the state of democracy in schools, we created variables in accordance with these theoretical perspectives.

Second, we draw from theory on democratic professionalism (Anderson & Cohen, 2018). This approach involves resistance to focusing on performance audits, and entails inclusion, advocacy and activism. In involves culturally responsive and democratic teaching, while viewing the principal as an allied with the community. This professionalism encompasses notions of democratic leadership, especially the inclusion of teachers in decision-making (cf. Woods, 2005).

We collected quantitative data through a paper-and-pencil questionnaire distributed in person at five lower-secondary schools in Eastern Norway. The sample included a total of 206 teachers (63,6 % women and 33 % men, with 3,4 % missing values). We ensured compliance with the ethical standards required by the National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (2016) and obtained approval from the Norwegian centre for research data. The variables are each based on 2–5 items developed by the researchers and colleagues (see the Appendix). All the measures included in this study were scored on 5- or 7-point Likert scales with a middle neutral value. Therefore, all the variables are assumed to be at an approximate interval level. The variables are as follows: • Teachers’ perceptions of the state of democracy in their school (dependent variable) • Teachers’ perceptions of the importance of engaging students’ active citizenship • Schools’ opportunities to support students that do not receive necessary support from home • Teachers’ perceptions of leadership support with inclusion in decision-making • Teachers’ perceptions of the conditions for teacher collaboration • Teachers’ perceptions of the importance of teaching democracy • Teachers’ years of experience • Gender We tested the hypothesised model by linear multiple regression analysis in SPSS. We based the assessment of the regression models on the adjusted R2, a modified fraction of the sample variance of the dependent variable that is explained by the regressors. The aim of the analysis was to assess the strength and significance of the relationships between the independent and dependent variables (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2017). We tested the regression model but found no indication of multicollinearity being a problem in the analysis (variance inflation factor values under 2). Below, we present and discuss this study’s findings in light of previous research. While this article is based on recent quantitative data from lower-secondary school teachers, there are some limitations concerning validity. First, we do not claim causality. Second, we make no claims to external validity, or generalizability, due to sample limitations (Johnson & Christensen, 2017).

The regression analysis presented in Table 1 shows each variable’s unique contribution to explaining the dependent variable. Table 1 presents the unstandardised (B) and standardised (ß) coefficients of the regression with teachers’ perceptions of the state of democracy in their school as a dependent variable, as well as the standard error of the regression (SE (B)). The results reveal that leadership support with inclusion in decision-making, and teaching democracy are both significantly associated with teachers’ perceptions of the state of democracy in their schools at significance level < 0.01. Additionally, teacher collaboration is significantly associated with teachers’ perceptions of the state of democracy in their schools with a significance level of < 0.05. The results of the analysis offer three new insights into democratic processes in schools with relevance for other low-stakes accountability contexts in Europe. First, findings lend support for our hypothesis that leadership support and inclusion in decision-making was an important possible predictor of a democratic school. This finding suggests that teachers perceive there is room for inclusion in decision-making as a constituent of democratic schools despite influences of test-based accountability. This suggests the presence of teacher leadership, and formal leadership grants space for teachers’ involvement in decision-making (e.g. Woods, 2005). Second, teaching democracy might be a significant predictor of teachers’ perceptions of a school democracy. This suggests the presence of democratic professionalism, in particular democratically responsive teaching (Anderson & Cohen, 2018). Third, findings revealed that teacher collaboration may be a significant predictor of teachers’ perceptions of the state of democracy in their schools, which points to the importance of collegiality and empowerment of a democratic community (cf. Woods, 2005). A key contribution is that teachers’ inclusion in decision-making in an empowering democratic community is an important ingredient in a school democracy a low-stakes accountability context.

Anderson, G., & Cohen, M. I. (2018). The new democratic professional in education. New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press. Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (1995). Democratic Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Camphuijsen, M. K., Møller, J., & Skedsmo, G. (2020). Test-based accountability in the Norwegian context: exploring drivers, expectations and strategies. Journal of Education Policy, 1–19. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research Methods in Education. Routledge. de Villiers, E., & Pretorius, S. G. (fanie). (2011). Democracy in schools: are educators ready for teacher leadership? South African Journal of Education, 31(4), 574–589. Johnson, R.B. & Christensen, L. (2017). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Larsen, E., Møller, J., & Jensen, R. (2020). Constructions of professionalism and the democratic mandate in education A discourse analysis of Norwegian public policy documents. Journal of Education Policy, 1–20. Lingard, B., Hayes, D., & Mills, M. (2003). Leading Learning: Making Hope Practical In Schools: Making Hope Practical in Schools. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Mathé, N. E. H., & Elstad, E. (2018). Students’ perceptions of citizenship preparation in Social Studies: The role of instruction and students’ interests. JSSE-Journal of Social Science Education, 17(3), 75–87. Møller, J. (2006). Democratic Schooling in Norway: Implications for Leadership in Practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(1), 53–69. National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities. (2016). Guidelines for research ethics in the social sciences, humanities, law and theology. Retrieved from https://www.etikkom.no/globalassets/documents/english-publications/60127_fek_guidelines_nesh_digital_corr.pdf Oder, T., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions of school climate as an indicator of their beliefs of effective teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(1), 3–20. Sampermans, D., Reichert, F., & Claes, E. (2021). Teachers’ concepts of good citizenship and associations with their teaching styles. Cambridge Journal of Education, 1–18. Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., Agrusti, G., & Friedman, T. (2018). Becoming Citizens in a Changing World: IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 International Report. Springer, Cham. Trujillo, T., Møller, J., Jensen, R., Kissell, R.-E., & Larsen, E. (2021). Images of educational leadership: How principals make sense of democracy and social justice in two distinct policy contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly. doi:10.1177/0013161X20981148 Woods, P. (2005). Democratic leadership in education. Christchurch, New Zealand: Paul Chapman Educational Publishing.