Teachers’ Perceptions of the Principle of Democratic Management in School

Leide Patricia Mozini da Costa e Silva; Flávia Pierrotti de Castro

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202603129

Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

Democratic management constitutes a structuring principle of Brazilian education, with normative provision and dependence on the active participation of the school community. The study analyzed the perception of in-service teachers on democratic management in their realities, seeking to contribute to critical reflection on the topic. A qualitative and descriptive approach was adopted, through survey research. Data collection involved 48 teachers, predominantly from the public sector, using an electronic questionnaire with closed and open-ended questions, applied voluntarily and anonymously. The data were treated by descriptive statistical analysis and content analysis. The results revealed that the participants recognized and valued democratic management in their school practices and contexts, identifying participatory structures. However, the implementation of the principle proved to be partial, limited by structural conditions, such as precarious work and lack of time for dialogue. A partial understanding of the teaching role in building democratic management was observed, with teachers perceiving themselves more as subjects to be heard than as co-responsible agents. It was concluded that, despite being widely valued, democratic management is materialized incompletely in daily school life, evidencing a tension between its normative provision, its discursive desirability, and its practical realization.

Keywords: school administration; democracy; teachers; participation.

1. Introduction

The principle of democratic management of public education was inaugurated by the Federal Constitution of 1988 (Brazil, 1988), which established democracy as a structuring pillar of Brazilian society. In this context, education was recognized as an essential element for social order, human development, and the full exercise of citizenship. Subsequently, its regulation occurred through the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education (LDB) – Law No. 9,394/1996 – and its importance was reaffirmed in several national, state, and municipal education plans.

In compliance with constitutional precepts, the LDB (Brazil, 1996) established decentralization mechanisms, allowing States, Municipalities, and the Federal District to define their own democratic management rules. However, the law ensured the participation of education professionals in the elaboration of the Political-Pedagogical Project (PPP) and the participation of school and local communities in collegiate bodies, seeking to operationalize democratic management in daily school life (Esquinsani; Dametto, 2018). Similarly, in the context of redemocratization, the Paulista Teaching Statute (São Paulo, 1985) instituted the teacher’s duty to participate in the School Council and to promote dialogue, cooperation, and participation among school subjects, aiming at the construction of a democratic society.

Despite the normative forecast, the effectiveness of the ideals of democratic management and the uniformity in the meaning of its statements are not guaranteed. The concept of “democratic management” encompasses both the technical and political dimensions (Amaro et al., 2023; Paro, 2016; Lück, 1997). There is a risk that this expression may be reduced to an institutional or politically correct discourse, disconnected from effective practices in daily school life (Cantero, 2007). Furthermore, its normalization has been interpreted in various ways, depending on the local context and the subjects involved (Oliveira, 2015). For democracy to manifest itself as a way of being and acting in the world, democratic values need to be present in individual personalities (Lück, 2013; Paro, 2016), amidst the tensions of contemporary capitalism and the neoliberal logic that shifts the focus from citizen formation to administrative efficiency (Bruno, 2015).

Recent research reinforces this perspective, showing that different conceptions of democratic management influence management practices (Amaro et al., 2023). Teacher participation still faces structural and cultural barriers, indicating the need for greater co-responsibility among education professionals (Zardo-Morescho et al., 2025). Although there have been advances in the normative field, limitations remain regarding the effective participation of teachers in decision-making processes (Rosa et al., 2023). Conceptions of an authoritarian nature can emerge in the development of the pedagogical process, which underscores the importance of internalizing democratic values (Paro, 2016).

The incomplete materialization of democratic management in daily school life, despite its broad appreciation by teachers and its normative provision, reveals a tension between discursive desirability and effective realization in institutional practices. This practical and theoretical gap highlights the importance of investigating educators’ perceptions. The relevance of the principle of democratic management, understood as a historical and multidimensional process that is achieved through decentralization, participation, and collective decision-making (Esquinsani and Dametto, 2018), justifies the investigation of how educators perceive its application. Investigating education requires listening to the voice of the educator and the values that sustain their practice (Giroux, 1987). Thus, the present study aimed to analyze, based on a non-probabilistic convenience sample, how practicing teachers from different contexts perceive the principle of democratic management in their realities, aiming to contribute to critical reflection on the topic.

2. Material and Methods

For this study, a qualitative approach was adopted, following the precepts of Lüdke and André (2013), recognizing its suitability for research in the field of Education. The research was characterized as a survey, following the guidelines of Gil (2002), with the purpose of collecting participants’ viewpoints and perceptions. The delimitation of the object of study and the approach to the research field were based on professional experience in restorative practices projects developed in schools.

The unit of analysis consisted of the perceptions of in-service teachers on the principle of democratic management in their school realities. The sample was composed of active teachers, selected by convenience, in a non-probabilistic manner. Fifty responses were collected, of which two were discarded for not meeting the completion criteria or profile, resulting in forty-eight valid responses for analysis. The participants were predominantly linked to the public education system.

The data collection instrument was an electronic questionnaire, developed on the Google Forms platform. Its design was based on the principles of current educational legislation, such as the Federal Constitution of 1988 (Brazil, 1988) and the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education (Brazil, 1996), in addition to theoretical references on democratic management (Paro, 2016; Lück, 2013; Bruno, 2015). The questionnaire included closed-ended questions, organized on a Likert scale (Likert, 1932) and multiple-choice, and two open-ended questions for further exploration (Creswell, 2009).

The electronic form was structured into four thematic sections, totaling nineteen questions. The sections addressed: (i) teaching profile and self-perception of performance; (ii) existing participatory structures in schools; (iii) perceptions of democratic management; and (iv) challenges and possibilities for its implementation, including open-ended questions. The data collection period extended from January 6 to February 27, 2026.

The questionnaire link was disseminated via email to the Union of Teachers of the Official Education of the State of São Paulo (APEOESP) and to the Center of Professors of São Paulo (CPP). Additionally, the link was shared in instant messaging groups targeted at education professionals, accompanied by an invitation and details of the target audience. Participation in the survey was voluntary, ensuring the anonymity of respondents and the non-collection of identifiable personal or institutional data.

Regarding ethical considerations, the study was not submitted to the Research Ethics Committee (CEP), as it falls under the hypotheses for exemption provided for in the sole paragraph of art. 1 of Resolution of the National Health Council (CNS) No. 510/2016 (Brazil, 2016). Specifically, the study aimed at the theoretical deepening of emerging situations in professional practice, according to item VII of the aforementioned resolution, and the sample was conducted with a guarantee of anonymity, in accordance with item I of the same resolution.

Faculty participation was optional, allowing them to interrupt the form completion at any time or answer only the questions of interest. The only mandatory question concerned the acceptance of the Free and Informed Consent Form (TCLE), which was inserted into the body of the electronic form. The TCLE aimed to present information about the study, the authors’ contacts, and to ensure the free and safe participation of the individuals.

The collected data were treated through simple descriptive statistical analysis, using frequencies and percentages, to identify trends in the perceptions of the faculty. Subsequently, a qualitative content analysis of the open-ended responses was performed, based on the principles of Bardin (2016), aiming at the interpretation of the data in light of the relevant literature. The data were organized to allow the identification of patterns and a deep understanding of the addressed themes.

3. Results and Discussion

The analysis of the collected data, from 48 valid responses from in-service teachers, revealed multifaceted perceptions of democratic management in the school context. The results were organized into thematic axes that addressed the professional profile of the teachers, the existence and effectiveness of participatory structures, conceptions of democratic management, and the challenges and potential for its implementation. This organization allowed for an in-depth understanding of the tension between the normative prediction of the principle, its discursive desirability, and its practical materialization in the daily lives of schools, according to the study’s objective.

Initially, the profile of the participating faculty indicated a predominance of professionals with consolidated experience. The majority age group was between 46 and 55 years old, representing 47.9% of respondents, followed by 22.9% in the 36 to 45 age group and 18.8% between 56 and 65 years old. The lower representation of younger faculty, with 6.3% in the 26 to 35 age group and 4.2% for up to 25 years old, may reflect generational trends in research participation, although it also dialogues with discussions about the attractiveness of the teaching career and the risk of a “teacher shortage” (Bof et al., 2023; Instituto Semesp, 2022).

Regarding academic background, it was found that 50% of the teachers held a bachelor’s degree, while 41.7% had a specialization. Professional practice was concentrated in the areas of Mathematics (19.2%) and Portuguese Language (15.4%), followed by Pedagogy/Generalist (15.4%). The presence of teachers in Geography (9.6%), Art (7.7%), and History (7.7%) was also noted, in addition to other areas with lower incidence. The possibility of indicating more than one area of practice revealed the occurrence of multidisciplinarity, with teachers working in two or three subjects simultaneously, and the presence of generalist teachers, which may indicate a fragmentation of teaching work, as pointed out by Oliveira (2021).

The length of time in education of the participants also demonstrated significant experience, with 44.68% of professionals having more than 20 years of service and 27.66% working between eleven and 20 years. This professional longevity is consistent with the majority age profile of the sample. Regarding the level of education, 57.45% of teachers worked in only one level, but a considerable portion of 42.55% declared working in different areas, such as Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, and High School. The majority of respondents (93.7%) were linked to the public education system, with 56.3% in state schools and 29.2% in municipal schools, which aligns the research with the normative provision of democratic management, which is restricted to public education.

The teachers’ self-perception regarding their performance in relation to the principles of democratic management, such as dialogue, listening, cooperation, and participation, revealed a predominantly optimistic view. The majority of respondents (68.75%) identified their performance as aligned with these values, with 16.7% in “full measure” and 52.08% in “large measure”. However, 20.8% placed their practices at a moderate level, and a minority (10.42%) acknowledged little or no incorporation. This optimistic perception, although positive, should be analyzed with caution, considering the phenomenon of social desirability and response bias, which can lead participants to provide answers aligned with socially desirable values, such as democracy (Almiro, 2017; Paro, 2016).

Regarding the existence of projects focused on peace culture in schools, 66.67% of participants affirmed the presence of such initiatives. However, when comparing this data with the existence of mediation committees or restorative practices nuclei, only 24.5% declared the existence of these formalized structures. This difference suggests that peace culture can be understood more broadly, sometimes detached from structured conflict resolution practices, as proposed by Lederach (2011) and Zehr (2015). It is possible that mediation practices occur in a less formalized way in the school routine, conducted by the management team without the constitution of specific committees.

Participatory structures

The investigation into the participatory structures existing in schools revealed that the School Council and the Class Council were the most cited groups, both with an incidence of 85.7%. The Parents and Teachers Association (APM) was mentioned by 77.6% of respondents, followed by Class Representatives (67.3%) and the Student Council (63.3%). On a smaller scale, 24.5% of participants indicated the Mediation Commission or Restorative Practices Nucleus, and 22.4% pointed to the Management Collegiate Body or Pedagogical Council. Only 12.2% cited the School Community Council, and 4.1% stated that such groups were not active, which indicates the prevalence of formal participation mechanisms traditionally provided for in the institutional structure.

The perception of teachers regarding the effective participation of these groups in the school’s decision-making processes was predominantly positive, with 47.92% of respondents indicating active participation and 43.75% partial participation. Only 2.08% stated that the groups do not participate effectively, and 6.25% did not know. Although the majority perceive the collectives’ involvement in decision-making processes, the full effectiveness of this participation still presents limitations. The research did not allow for measuring the degree of importance of the decisions in which these groups participate, a limitation that Bordenave (2007) already pointed out when discussing the coexistence of real and symbolic participation.

When asked about the possibility of shared management of decisions among all school segments, 46.9% of participants fully agreed and 40.6% partially agreed, totaling 87.5% agreement. There was no total disagreement, and only 12.5% partially disagreed. This result converges with findings from other studies (Instituto Iungo, 2022), which indicate a desire for more democratic and inclusive relationships in schools. The centrality of the theme of democratization in the teaching imaginary is reinforced, evidencing the valorization of the principle of democratic management, even if its implementation faces challenges.

The perception of teachers regarding the listening of the school community revealed that listening is more consistent among internal school actors, such as teachers and students. The categories “frequently” and “always” summed to 54.2% for teachers and 49% for students. This percentage progressively decreased for families (39.1%), staff (44.6%), and, more sharply, for the local community (24.5%). Although the question did not specify whether listening referred to institutionalized collective spaces, the data suggest a greater recognition of listening among subjects directly involved in daily school life, in contrast to the lower perception attributed to the external community. This may signal a more sectoral management, where community participation is seen as occasional support, rather than a constituent pillar of collective decision-making, contradicting Paro’s (2016) view of the school as an open system.

The analysis of pedagogical and structural decision-making indicated that pedagogical decisions are more shared, with 62.5% of responses in the categories “always” and “frequently”. In contrast, structural decisions showed a lower percentage in these same categories (45.8%), with a higher incidence of negative responses, especially in the “never” category (14.6% for structural, versus 2.1% for pedagogical). This scenario suggests that decisions related to teaching and learning are more open to participation than those related to infrastructure, resources, and finances. The seven-fold difference in the incidence of the “never” category between structural and pedagogical decisions highlights a disconnect between these dimensions, which contradicts Lück’s (1997) perspective that school management should be an integrated process between the pedagogical and the administrative.

When evaluating the degree of listening and recognition of their own contributions in pedagogical and administrative decisions, the faculty presented a perception that, although partly positive, revealed limitations. The sum of the categories “frequently” and “always” reached 43.8%, indicating a regular perception of being heard. However, the predominance of the “sometimes” category (33.3%) suggests that this experience is not continuous for everyone, aligning with the findings of Zardo-Morescho et al. (2025) on barriers to faculty participation. Comparing with the general perception of listening (Table 4), there was a significant increase in negative responses when participants evaluated their own experience, with the “never” category rising from 0% to 10.4% and “rarely” from 6.3% to 10.4%. This shift suggests a possible gap between the collective discourse on institutional listening and the individual experience of the subjects.

Perception of the effective presence of the principle of democratic management

The perception regarding the effective presence of the democratic management principle in school practice revealed that 47.9% of respondents consider it present “frequently” or “always”. However, the expressive incidence of the “sometimes” category (33.3%) indicates that this presence still occurs irregularly. Furthermore, 18.8% pointed to low or nonexistent presence (“rarely” and “never”). This diversity of responses, including among private school teachers, who indicated “always”, “frequently”, and “sometimes”, suggests that, although decision-making spaces exist, they are still marked by limitations, corroborating the findings of Rosa et al. (2023) on the partial implementation of democratic management.

Challenges of the effective implementation of the democratic management principle

The main challenges for the effective implementation of democratic management, identified by the 48 participants, are concentrated in structural and organizational conditions. “Lack of time for meetings and listening” was the most cited factor (56.3%), followed by “excessive bureaucracy” (52.7%) and “lack of community interest” (50%). Other relevant factors included “centralization of decisions” (45.8%) and the “business-oriented management model” (41.7%). These results show that the overload of teaching work, the accumulation of administrative tasks, and the intensification of standardized evaluations, frequently mentioned in open-ended responses, limit school autonomy and effective participation, as discussed by Bruno (2015) and Paro (2016).

The “lack of time” as a central factor for participation difficulty can be understood in light of Bauman’s (2007) reflections on the liquidity of contemporary relationships, where acceleration and performance pressure weaken bonds and reduce availability for collective commitment. However, this difficulty is not merely operational, but reflects a school organizational structure that often materially hinders the exercise of democratic management, as pointed out by Paro (2016), Lück (1997), and Bruno (2015), who criticize the bureaucratic, centralizing, and technocratic logics that fragment tasks and rationalize institutional time at the expense of dialogue and participation.

The concern with teachers’ mental health has emerged as a significant psychosocial barrier, with a demand for support professionals, such as psychologists and specialists, to prevent complex situations from falling exclusively on the teacher. This data reveals the growing recurrence of technical-specialized responses as a strategy for coping with school difficulties. Although Patto (2022) warns that an excessive focus on psychological diagnoses can obscure deficiencies in school management, the severe precariousness of teachers’ mental health, characterized by the predominance of anxiety disorders as the main cause of leave (IESS, 2025), gives dramatic contours to this concern.

Facilitators of democratic management

In the participants’ perception, the facilitators of democratic management focus on communicative, political, ethical/relational, and organizational dimensions. The communicative dimension was the most expressive, with 26 out of 43 respondents mentioning dialogue and listening as crucial elements. Participation and cooperation/collectivity were also frequently cited, reinforcing the centrality of the collective construction of decisions. Freire (1987) and Lück (2016) corroborate the importance of dialogue as the foundation of emancipatory educational practice and a structuring element of participatory management, respectively. The appreciation of the effective participation of the school community, which should not “remain only on paper” but be materialized in school practices, was a recurring point.

The ethical and relational dimension highlighted values such as empathy, belonging, and appreciation of professionals, in addition to the importance of good relationships and respect. Transparency and the Political-Pedagogical Project (PPP) were cited in the organizational dimension. The analysis of these responses, organized into dimensions, allows us to understand that democratic management is constituted by the articulation of several interdependent axes. The need for management that is built from the relationships, contexts, and concrete experiences of individuals, overcoming programmed logics that do not always meet the dynamism of school routine, was emphasized, according to Silva (2009).

Role of faculty participation in strengthening democratic management

Teacher participation is perceived as a fundamental element for strengthening democratic management, mainly because the teacher is seen as the holder of knowledge of the “practical reality” of the classroom and the “front line” of the school. Listening to this teacher knowledge is considered essential for decisions to be coherent with the community’s needs, preventing management from making decisions distant from lived reality. This perspective highlights the importance of the teacher as an interlocutor between students, families, and the management team, qualifying school decisions.

Faculty participation is also associated with the strengthening of co-responsibility, the development of a democratic culture of belonging, and greater acceptance of institutional decisions. The need for horizontality in relationships, expressed in terms such as “active voice of the professor” and “protagonism in administrative decisions,” was recurrent, arguing that participation should not depend exclusively on the director’s will. This perception finds resonance in Paro (2016), who argues that participation is intrinsic to democracy and not a mere concession from the administration. Participation is also seen as a mechanism for containing authoritarian practices and decision-making centralization, thus broadening the democratic character of school management.

However, when crossing these data with teachers’ self-perception of their democratic performance, a lower incidence of formulations that positioned them as active agents of institutional transformation (6% to 12%) was observed, registered as punctual postures of otherness and humility. In contrast, references to the teacher as a bearer of knowledge about the school reality or as a subject who should be heard in decision-making processes (87% to 93%) predominated. These results suggest that the understanding of the teaching role as a strengthener of democratic practices is still more associated with the condition of interlocutor or recipient of participation – that is, of the one who should be heard – than with that of a co-responsible agent for the active construction of democratic management.

In summary, the research results indicate that, although democratic management is widely recognized and valued by teachers, its implementation in daily school life is partial and strained. Participatory structures exist, and there is a positive perception about the possibility of shared management, but effective participation and listening to the external community are still limited. The main challenges lie in structural conditions, such as lack of time and excessive bureaucracy, and in an still incomplete understanding of the teacher’s active role in building democratic management, perceiving themselves more as subjects to be heard than as co-responsible agents, which prevents the full realization of the principle.

4. Conclusion

This study sought to analyze the perception of in-service teachers regarding the principle of democratic management in their realities, contributing to critical reflection on the topic. It was found that the teachers recognized and valued democratic management in their school practices and contexts, identifying the presence of participatory structures. However, it was observed that the implementation of this principle manifested partially, strained by structural limitations, such as precarious working conditions, insufficient institutional time for dialogue, and excessive bureaucracy. Furthermore, an incomplete understanding of the teacher’s role in building democratic management was identified, with teachers perceiving themselves more as subjects to be heard than as co-responsible agents for institutional transformation. This analysis highlights the existing tension between the normative provision of democratic management, its discursive desirability, and its practical realization in daily school life.

Despite contributing to the understanding of democratic management dynamics, the study presented some limitations, such as the use of a non-probabilistic convenience sample and the possibility of response bias due to social desirability. Additionally, the research did not allow for measuring the degree of importance of decisions in which participatory groups operate, nor did it specify whether the community’s input referred to institutionalized collective spaces, which restricts more precise inferences. For future studies, it is suggested to investigate the implementation of strategies that promote teacher co-responsibility and the overcoming of identified structural barriers, as well as to analyze the impact of different principal selection models on the effectiveness of democratic management. It is also recommended to deepen research on the articulation between the pedagogical and administrative dimensions of management, seeking models that effectively integrate infrastructure and resources as essential support for learning.

Bibliographic References

Amaro, R.A.; Schunk, L.; D’Angelo, M. 2024. Concepções de gestão escolar democrática: estudo fenomenográfico com diretores de escolas públicas. Educação em Revista 40: e41837.

Brasil. 1988. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 5 out. 1988. Seção 1, p1.

Brasil. 1996. Lei nº 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996. Estabelece as diretrizes e bases da educação nacional. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 23 dez. 1996. Seção 1, p.27833.

Bruno, L. 2015. Poder e administração no capitalismo contemporâneo. In: Oliveira, D.A. (Org.). Gestão democrática da educação: desafios contemporâneos. 11. ed. Petrópolis, RJ, Brasil: Vozes. p.15–42.

Cantero, G. 2007. Para un tiempo inesperado, una educación inesperada. Revista Virtual Trabalho Necessário 5(5). DOI: 10.22409/tn.5i5.p4608.

Esquinsani, R. S. S., & Dametto, J. 2018. 30 anos do princípio de Gestão Democrática do ensino: o que temos para celebrar? Jornal de Políticas Educacionais, 12(17), 1-15. Disponível em: https://revistas.ufpr.br/jpe/article/view/59310. Acesso em: 1 abr. 2026.

Giroux, H. 1987. Escola crítica e política cultural. São Paulo, SP, Brasil: Cortez.

Ludke, M.; André,M.E.D.A.2013. Pesquisa em Educação – Abordagens Qualitativas. 2ª ed. Editora Pedagógica e Universitária – GEN, Rio de Janeiro

Lück, H. 1997. A evolução da gestão educacional a partir de mudança paradigmática. Gestão em Rede (3):13-18. Disponível em: http://cedhap.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ge_GestaoEscolar_02.pdf. Acesso em: 1 abr. 2026.

Lück, H. 2013. Concepções e processos democráticos de gestão educacional. 9. ed. Petrópolis, RJ, Brasil: Vozes. (Série Cadernos de Gestão).

Oliveira, D. A. (org.). 2015. Gestão democrática da educação: desafios contemporâneos. 11. ed. Petrópolis, RJ, Brasil: Vozes. p.9-14.

Paro, V. H. 2016. Gestão democrática da escola pública. 4. ed. São Paulo, SP, Brasil: Cortez.

Rosa, S.B.; Muniz, D.A.Q.; Pereira, M.S.F. 2023. A gestão democrática na rede pública estadual de ensino de São Paulo: o que sinalizam as pesquisas (2016–2023)? Revista Transmutare 8: e17393.

São Paulo (Estado). 1985. Assembleia Legislativa [ALESP]. Lei Complementar nº 444, de 27 de dezembro de 1985. Institui o Estatuto do Magistério Paulista. Diário Oficial Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, 28 dez. 1985. Seção 1. p.1

Zardo-Morescho, S.M.; Esquinsani, R.S.S.; Zilli, J.B. 2025. Gestão escolar democrática: o que dizem as percepções de professores da rede estadual de ensino de Santa Catarina. Educação em Revista [EDUR] 41:e46659.

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in School Management of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform