The Influence of Age and Educational Background on Teachers’ Participation in Decision-Making at Islamic Junior High Schools in Makassar

Rosmiati Rosmiati; Bisyri Abdul Karim; Akhmad Syahid

doi:10.35445/alishlah.v17i3.7417

The Influence of Age and Educational Background on Teachers’ Participation in Decision-Making at Islamic Junior High Schools in Makassar

Rosmiati Rosmiati, Bisyri Abdul Karim, Akhmad Syahid

Abstract

This study examines the influence of teachers’ age and educational background on their participation in decision-making at State Islamic Junior High Schools (Madrasah Tsanawiyah Negeri) in Makassar City. Specifically, it investigates how these two demographic factors (independent variables) affect the level of teacher involvement in institutional decision-making processes (dependent variable). A correlational survey design was employed to explore these relationships. The population comprised 135 teachers from two MTsN schools in Makassar, and a sample of 67 teachers was selected using Arikunto’s (1991) sampling guidelines. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire measuring six indicators of participation—problem identification, problem formulation, development and selection of alternatives, implementation, and evaluation. Descriptive statistics were used to profile respondents by age and educational attainment, while inferential analyses, including partial correlation and multiple regression, were conducted using SPSS. Results show that 28% of respondents were aged 24–30, 36.7% aged 31–37, and the remainder distributed across older age groups; 80% held a bachelor’s degree, with smaller proportions holding diplomas or master’s degrees. Both age and educational level were found to have a positive and statistically significant influence on teacher participation in decision-making. Older and more highly educated teachers demonstrated greater involvement, reflecting higher cognitive maturity and analytical ability. These findings highlight the importance for school leaders and policymakers of considering demographic factors when promoting participatory decision-making. Tailored professional development and inclusive governance structures may enhance teachers’ engagement and improve institutional decision-making quality.

Keywords

age; educational background; teacher participation; decision-making; `Madrasah Tsanawiyah Negeri

Full Text:

PDF

References

Alabdulhadi, A. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of participation in decision-making in public secondary schools in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1481534

Bezzina, C. (2002). Teachers’ voice and participation in school reform: A case study from a Maltese primary school. Teacher Development, 6(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530200200197

Bintarto. (1987). Pengantar administrasi pembangunan. Jakarta: LP3ES.

Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325

Bruckmüller, S., & Branscombe, N. R. (2010). The glass cliff: When and why women are selected as leaders in crisis contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3), 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X466594

Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know? School Leadership & Management, 34(5), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928680

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.

Ingersoll, R. M., & May, H. (2012). The magnitude, destinations, and determinants of mathematics and science teacher turnover. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4), 435–464. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712454326

Kis, V. (2005). Quality teaching in higher education: Student outcomes and the role of institutional policies. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 14. https://doi.org/10.1787/763506064401

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077

MoEC [Ministry of Education and Culture]. (2020). Strategi nasional penguatan manajemen berbasis sekolah. Jakarta: MoEC.

Nguyen, T. D., Springer, M. G., & Crouch, M. (2021). Teacher leadership and school improvement: A review of empirical evidence. Educational Policy, 35(6), 977–1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904821991904

OECD. (2020). Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals: TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en

Pidarta, M. (1997). Perencanaan pendidikan partisipasi. Jakarta: BPFE.

Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic.

Somech, A. (2010). Participative decision making in schools: A mediating-moderating analytical framework for understanding school and teacher outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 174–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509353186

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.

Suryani, A., & Watt, H. M. G. (2022). Navigating leadership practices in Indonesian Islamic schools: Between policy and tradition. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1936982

Torres, C. A., & Weiner, L. (2021). The critical turn in education: From Marxist critique to poststructuralist feminism to critical theories of race. Routledge.

Yahaya, A., Hashim, S., & Boon, Y. (2009). Relationship between teachers’ demographic factors and decision-making styles in Malaysian schools. European Journal of Social Sciences, 11(4), 586–594.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v17i3.7417