638 Debeş, Gülyüz. (2021). Teachers’ perception of crisis management in schools. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(2). 638-652. Received : 20.12.2020 Revised version received : 11.01.2021 Accepted : 12.01.2021 TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF CRISIS MANAGEMENT IN SCHOOLS Gülyüz Debeş https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7894-8174 Affiliation University of Mediterranean Karpasia, Northen Cyprus gulyuzd5@gmail.com gulyuz.debes@akun.edu.tr Biodata(s): She is an Assistant Professor of Educational Sciences at University of Mediterranean Karpasia. She has been supervising and teaching graduate and undergraduate studies. Copyright by Informscope. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of IOJET. mailto:gulyuzd5@gmail.com mailto:gulyuz.debes@akun.edu.tr http://orcid.org/xxxx International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(2), 638-652. 639 TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF CRISIS MANAGEMENT IN SCHOOLS Gülyüz Debeş gulyuzd5@gmail.com Abstract The aim of the study is to determine the crisis preparedness level of teachers in middle schools in North Cyprus Republic. The study provided a comprehensive review of crisis management in school in terms of its effects on middle school teachers, demographic variables and relationship to teachers’ performance and teachers’ crisis intervention abilities. The safety- related types of in-service training needs of teacher was also examined in the study. Based on the aims of the study, “Crisis Intervention Scale” which was developed by Debeş (2020) was used to investigate teachers’ perceptions about crisis management in schools. To analyze the data content and descriptive analysis was conducted. This was both quantitative and qualitative methodology. The interview technique was used in the study and descriptive analysis was also conducted as data analysis techniques. The participants of the study comprised 48 teachers in North Cyprus in 2020-2021 academic years. The questionnaire forms were delivered participants, 27 (%56.3) were female and 21 (%43.8) were male. The sample of the study was randomly selected. According to the arithmetic mean score of teachers’ (2.00 to 2.48) about crisis situations that had few effect on their performance in school. Meanwhile, the arithmetic mean score of teachers’ (2.06 to 2.63) about managing crisis situations with sufficient practice, teachers’ were very good at managing crisis situations with sufficient practice. In addition, the arithmetic mean score of teachers’ (1.92 to 2.92) about safety-related types of in-service training needs teachers’ were very high. Keywords: Crisis management, intervention, middle school, teachers 1. Introduction The factors causing crisis situations in the schools are addressed the subjects of crisis in school are underlined in most probable crisis for schools to face teachers such as bomb warning, sexual abuse, injury and death, hostage-taking, vandalism, poisoning, natural disasters etc. in schools. Crises affect schools negatively by occurring in an unexpected time. Crises plans of schools are used to establish stability to school and enhance schools’ actors’ ability to effectively manage crisis situations. Crisis management is a continuous process in which all phases need to sufficient preparedness level of schools’ actors’ .Failure to prepare for a crisis might result in death and/or serious injury to schools’ actors. With the safety of all the schools’ actors involved in school activities on a daily basis, schools’ actors have to need to sufficient preparedness based on crisis intervention plan of the schools (Kennedy,2004). Crisis management in school regarding crisis intervention; the effectiveness of crisis management depends on crisis team in the schools. Thus, the primary component of the crisis intervention plan have to establish a crisis team in the schools. Based on the literature review an effective crisis intervention plan should consist of (1) effective crisis intervention procedures (2) designated to specific people who can be executed without delay (3) training schools’ actor with sufficient practice to respond to crises and emergencies (4) leading group mailto:gulyuzd5@gmail.com Gebeş 640 communication during and after of a crisis (5) school district’s construction to prevent dealing with emergency and violent situations (Greenbaum, Turner, and Stephens, 1989). Many local education authorities have developed crisis management planning frameworks for schools. However, the schools’ actors have to be trained to deal with such unexpected situations with long term follow-up planning. Thus, professional perspectives of the schools’ actors are mostly important rather than a systematic review of the crisis intervention planning. The school safety is a central component of crisis management because efforts are taken in strong emphasis on prevention using effective strategies to design a time -limited problem- focused intervention and programs which improve school climate. The crisis intervention planning needs to be listed as a priority into job descriptions (Poland, 1994). The potential roles of a crises team may be conceptualized in terms of ‘’liaisons’’ seen figure 1. Fıgure 1. Potential Roles for a Crises Team Since policies, resources and conditions are changed in time conducting drills and establishing a procedure for updating the crisis intervention plan are essential elements to maintain preparedness of crisis management. The crisis preparedness involves planning, training and practice thus schools can improve their crisis management through mandatory aspects of effective planning, training and practice (Pitcher and Poland, 1992). However, a key question sometimes remain unanswered on Does having a plan really produce better outcomes? In relation to implementation of crisis management procedures generally involve the smaller scale crises but advance planning and constantly evolving crisis plans are essential components of crisis management (Eaves, 2001). Crisis management plans for school have been recommended by researchers in relation to components and content of advance crisis management planning (Brock, Sandoval and Lewis, 1993; Kramen, Kelly and Howard, 1999). In addition, researchers in relation to crisis management teams indicated that whether the crisis management team was more effective than others, particular combinations of schools’ actors while crisis emerges were more effective (Poland,1992).Moreover, the qualities of leadership, teamwork and responsibility have influence on successful crisis management (Cornell,1998). First of all, principal is crucial role in crisis management thus, they takes primarily responsibilities for all decision and activities. The importance of maintaining a safe school environment, the principles always carrier responsibility for teachers, students and parents International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(2), 638-652. 641 when unexpected situations emerge in schools. However, the implementing appropriate procedures while crisis emerges, the teachers also carrier more responsibility for students to protect them against of undesirable situations. Students need a guidance when crisis emerges therefore teachers’ role of crisis management is important issues to examine according to such variables. Thus, the study was conducted to determine the crisis preparedness level of teachers in middle schools. In this sense, the study is to examine the following research questions: 1. What safety-related types of in-service training have teachers been involved in middle schools? 2. What safety-related types of in-service training have influence in terms of; (a) gender, (b) working experiences, (c) professional development of crisis management? 3. How do crisis situations effect teachers’ performance in schools? 4. How do crisis situations effect teachers’ performance in schools in terms of; (a) gender, (b) working experiences, (c) professional development of crisis management? 5. Do teachers manage crisis in school sufficiently? 6. How sufficiently do teachers manage crisis in schools in terms of their; (a) gender, (b) working experiences, (c) professional development of crisis management? 7. What safety-related types of in-service training do middle school teachers need? 8. What safety-related types of in-service training do middle school teachers need in terms of their; (a) gender, (b) working experiences, (c) professional development of crisis management? 2. Method Based on the aims of the study, “Crisis Intervention Scale” which was developed by Gülyüz Debeş (2020) was used to investigate teachers’ perceptions about crisis management in schools. To analyses the data content and descriptive analysis was conducted. This was both quantitative and qualitative methodology. The interview technique was used in the study and descriptive analysis was also conducted as data analysis techniques. 2.1. Participants The participants of the study comprised 48 teachers in North Cyprus Republic Semester of 2020-2021 academic years. The questionnaire forms were delivered participants, 27 (%56.3) were female and 21 (%43.8) were male. In terms of work experiences, 34 participants (%64.6) were less than 10 years and 17 participants (%35.4) were more than 10 years. In terms of educational status, 32 participants (%66.7) had graduate degree and 16 participants (%33.3) had undergraduate degree (See table 1). Gebeş 642 Table 1. Demographic Variables Variables N % Gender Female 27 56.3 Male 21 43.8 Age 23-35 23 47.9 36 Up 25 52.1 Education Level Graduate 32 66.7 Under Graduate 16 33.3 Working Experience 1-10 Years 31 64.6 11 Years 17 35.4 Professional Development Yes 12 25.0 No 36 75.0 Total 48 100 In addition, the average age of participants is 37.46’ (SS = 6.91) (See table 2). Table 2. Participants’ average age N SS Min Max. Age 48 37.46 6.91 23 50 2.2. Research Instrument Based on the aims of the study, “Crisis Intervention Scale” which was developed by Gülyüz Debeş (2020) was used to investigate teachers’ perceptions about crisis management in schools. In the first part of the study, the subjects of crisis in school are underlined and the situations that are most probable for schools to face are defined. The second part of the study, the method of the study and findings obtained as results of interviews made with the crisis management in school scale. The scale was consisted of 31 possible crisis situations in school and validated the scale included 31 statements with 3-point likert-scale responses such as; (1) Very good; (2) Good; (3) few. To analyze study’s findings SPSS was used. 3. Findings Findings of the study are given under each related research question as in the following: 3.1. Research Question 1 The research question 1 concerns about what safety-related types of in-service training have they been involved in middle school teachers? According to the arithmetic mean score of teachers’ (2.00 and 2.81) about safety- related types of in-service training is sufficient (See table 3). x International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(2), 638-652. 643 Table 3. The teachers’ perception about safety-related types of in-service training V a ri a b le Crisis Situations in Schools V e ry G o o d G o o d F e w A v e ra g e F % F % F % 1. 2. bomb warning 40 83.3 7 14.6 1 2.1 2.81 2. 28. student with AIDS 40 83.3 7 14.6 1 2.1 2.81 3. 13. sexual abuse to staff 39 81.3 7 14.6 2 4.2 2.77 4. 25. student couple with teacher 39 81.3 6 12.5 3 6.3 2.75 5. 26. injury and death 38 79.2 8 16.7 2 4.2 2.75 6. 1.gun attack 37 77.1 9 18.8 2 4.2 2.73 7. 3. death of student in school 37 77.1 9 18.8 2 4.2 2.73 8. 12. sexual abuse to students 38 79.2 7 14.6 3 6.3 2.73 9. 16. suicide attempt to students 38 79.2 7 14.6 3 6.3 2.73 10. 22. knife attack of students 38 79.2 7 14.6 3 6.3 2.73 11. 29.child abduction 39 81.3 5 10.4 4 8.3 2.73 12. 30. chemical attack 39 81.3 5 10.4 4 8.3 2.73 13. 11. hostage-taking 39 81.3 3 6.3 6 12.5 2.69 14. 15. gun attack around school 38 79.2 5 10.4 5 10.4 2.69 15. 14. poisoning in school 36 75.0 8 16.7 4 8.3 2.67 16. 27. political dispute between students 34 70.8 12 25.0 2 4.2 2.67 17. 31. science lab accident 33 68.8 12 25.0 3 6.3 2.63 18. 6. drug using 32 66.7 13 27.1 3 6.3 2.60 19. 8. fire 35 72.9 7 14.6 6 12.5 2.60 20. 5. death of staff in school 30 62.5 15 31.3 3 6.3 2.56 21. 18. vandalism 28 58.3 19 39.6 1 2.1 2.56 22. 20. school bus traffic accident 30 62.5 15 31.3 3 6.3 2.56 23. 4. death of someone around school 28 58.3 18 37.5 2 4.2 2.54 24. 10. gang attack 30 62.5 14 29.2 4 8.3 2.54 25. 19.bus accident 27 56.3 17 35.4 4 8.3 2.48 26. 21. school trip accident 28 58.3 15 31.3 5 10.4 2.48 27. 33. bullying to students 26 54.2 19 39.6 3 6.3 2.48 28. 17. parents’ threatening and swearing 19 39.6 29 60.4 - - 2.40 29. 24. healthy problem of students 19 39.6 25 52.1 4 8.3 2.31 30. 32. bullying students to students 17 35.4 28 58.3 3 6.3 2.29 31. 9. pandemic 17 35.4 25 52.1 6 12.5 2.23 32. 7. natural disaster 13 27.1 32 66.7 3 6.3 2.21 33. 23. power cut 10 20.8 28 58.3 10 20.8 2.00 Gebeş 644 3.2. Research Question 2 The research question 2 concerns about what safety-related types of in-service training have influence middle school teachers according to (a) gender, (b) working experiences, (c) professional development of crisis management? the results revealed that teachers’ perception about safety-related types of in service training were not differentiated according to teachers’ gender (U(48) =242.000, Z=-941,p>.05), age (U(48) =194.500, Z=-1.347,p>.05), working experiences (U(48) =226.500, Z=-799,p>.05) , and Professional development (U(48) =169.000, Z=-1.121 ,p>.05) (See table 4). Table 4. Mann Whitney-U Test Results according to examine variables Variables Groups Gender Female 27 26.13 705.50 239.500 -.916 .36 Male 21 22.40 470.50 Total 48 Age 25-35 23 22.52 518.00 242.000 -.941 .35 36 Up 25 26.32 658.00 Total 48 Education Level Graduate 32 22.58 722.50 194.500 -1.347 .18 Undergraduate 16 28.34 453.50 Total 48 Working Experience 1-10 Years 31 23.31 722.50 226.500 -.799 .42 11 Years And Up 17 26.68 453.50 Total 48 Professional Development Yes 12 28.42 341.00 169.000 -1.121 .26 No 36 23.19 835.00 Total 48 3.3. Research Question 3 The research question 3 concerns about how crisis situation effect teachers’ performance in school? According to the arithmetic mean score of teachers’ (2.00 to 2.48) about crisis situations that had few effect on their performance in school (See table 5). N sirax  sira U z p International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(2), 638-652. 645 Table 5. Teachers’ perception about crisis situations’ effect on their performance in school V a ri a b le Teachers’ Performance V e ry G o o d G o o d F e w A v e ra g e F % F % F % 1. 28. student with AIDS 33 68.8 5 10.4 10 20.8 2.48 2. 14. poisoning 30 62.5 10 20.8 8 16.7 2.46 3. 8. fire 32 22.9 11 10.4 5 66.7 2.44 4. 31. science lab accident 30 62.5 9 18.8 9 18.8 2.44 5. 22. knife attack 31 64.6 6 12.5 11 22.9 2.42 6. 27. political dispute between students 29 60.4 10 20.8 9 18.8 2.42 7. 29. kidnaping 31 64.6 6 12.5 11 22.9 2.42 8. 15. gun attack around school 31 64.6 5 10.4 12 25.0 2.40 9. 16. suicide 31 64.6 5 10.4 12 25.0 2.40 10. 30. chemical attack 31 64.6 5 10.4 12 25.0 2.40 11. 2. bomb warning 31 64.6 4 8.3 13 27.1 2.38 12. 6. drug using 28 58.3 10 20.8 10 20.8 2.38 13. 11. hostage-taking 31 64.6 4 8.3 13 27.1 2.38 14. 12. rape and sexual abuse 31 64.6 4 8.3 13 27.1 2.38 15. 18. vandalism 24 50.0 18 37.5 6 12.5 2.38 16. 33. bullying 27 18.3 12 25.0 9 56.3 2.38 17. 13. sexual abuse to students 31 64.6 3 6.3 14 29.2 2.35 18. 19.bus accident 23 47.9 19 39.6 6 12.5 2.35 19. 25. student couple with teacher 29 60.4 7 14.6 12 25.0 2.35 20. 3. death of students 30 62.5 4 8.3 14 29.2 2.33 21. 4. death around school 23 47.9 18 37.5 7 14.6 2.33 22. 10. gang attack 25 52.1 14 29.2 9 18.8 2.33 23. 20. school bus accident 23 47.9 18 37.5 7 14.6 2.33 24. 1. gun attack 29 60.4 5 10.4 14 29.2 2.31 25. 26. injury and death 29 60.4 5 10.4 14 29.2 2.31 26. 17.parents’ threatening and swearing 18 37.5 26 54.2 4 8.3 2.29 27. 5. death of staff 24 50 13 27.1 11 22.9 2.27 28. 21. school trip accident 23 47.9 15 31.3 10 47.9 2.27 29. 32. bullying students to students 16 33.3 25 52.1 7 14.6 2.19 30. 24. healthy problem 15 31.3 26 54.2 7 14.6 2.17 31. 23. power cut 13 27.1 26 54.2 9 18.8 2.08 32. 7. natural disaster 11 22.9 28 58.3 9 18.8 2.04 33. 9. pandemic 16 33.3 16 33.3 16 33.3 2.00 Gebeş 646 3.4. Research Question 4 The research question 4 concerns about how crisis situations effect teachers’ performance in school according to (a) gender, (b) working experiences, (c) professional development of crisis management? To analyze data Mann Whitney-U Test was conducted. The results revealed that teachers’ perception about crisis situations’ effect on their performance in school were not differentiated according to teachers’ gender (U(48) =266.000, Z=-.444,p>.05), age ; (U(48) =193.000, Z=-1.379,p>.05), working experiences (U(48) =155.500, Z=-1.454, p>.05), and professional development (U(48) =200.500, Z=-1.360,p>.05). See table 6. Table 6. The teachers’ perception about how crisis situation effect teachers’ performance in school according to variables Variables Group Gender Female 27 24.26 655.00 277.000 -.135 .89 Male 21 24.81 521.00 Total 48 Age 25-35 23 23.57 542.00 266.000 -.444 .66 36 Up 25 25.36 634.00 Total 48 Education Level Graduate 32 22.53 721.00 193.000 -1.379 .17 Undergraduate 16 28.44 455.00 Total 48 Working Experiences 1-10 Years 31 22.47 696.50 200.500 -1.360 .17 11 Up 17 28.21 479.50 Total 48 Professional Development Yes 12 29.58 355.00 155.000 -1.454 .15 No 36 22.81 821.00 Total 48 3.5. Research Question 5 The research question 5 concerns about Do teachers manage crisis in school with sufficient practice to respond to crises and emergencies? The results revealed that According to the arithmetic mean score of teachers’ (2.06 to 2.63) about managing crisis situations with sufficient practice, teachers’ were very good at managing crisis situations with sufficient practice (See table 7). N sirax  sira U z p International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(2), 638-652. 647 Table 7. The teachers’ perception about manage crisis in school with sufficient practice to respond to crises and emergencies V a ri a b le Crisis Management With Sufficient Practice V e ry G o o d G o o d F e w A v e ra g e F % F % F % 1. 11. hostage-taking 35 72.9 8 16.7 5 10.4 2.63 2. 15. gun attack around school 34 70.8 9 18.8 5 10.4 2.60 3. 2. bomb warning 34 70.8 8 16.7 6 12.5 2.58 4. 3. death of students 32 66.7 11 22.9 5 10.4 2.56 5. 12. sexual abuse to students 33 68.8 9 18.8 6 12.5 2.56 6. 13. sexual abuse to staff 32 66.7 11 22.9 5 10.4 2.56 7. 16. suicide attempt 33 68.8 9 18.8 6 12.5 2.56 8. 14. poisoning 32 66.7 11 22.9 5 10.4 2.56 9. 28. student get AIDS 32 66.7 11 22.9 5 10.4 2.56 10. 1. gun attack in school 30 62.5 14 29.2 4 62.5 2.54 11. 26. injury and death 30 62.5 13 27.1 5 10.4 2.52 12. 29. kidnapping 33 68.8 7 14.6 8 16.7 2.52 13. 19. bus accident 24 50.0 18 37.5 6 12.5 2.50 14. 25. student couple with teacher 30 62.5 12 25.0 6 12.5 2.50 15. 30. chemical attack 31 64.6 10 20.8 7 14.6 2.50 16. 22. knife attack 31 64.6 9 18.8 8 16.7 2.48 17. 4. death around the school 25 52.1 20 41.7 3 6.3 2.46 18. 6. drug using 26 54.2 18 37.5 4 8.3 2.46 19. 8. fire 29 60.4 12 25.0 7 14.6 2.46 20. 18. vandalism 27 56.3 16 33.3 5 10.4 2.46 21. 10. gang attack 28 58.3 13 27.1 7 14.6 2.44 22. 27. political dispute between students 28 58.3 13 27.1 7 14.6 2.44 23. 31. science lab accident 30 62.5 8 16.7 10 20.8 2.42 24. 5. death of staff 25 52.1 17 35.4 6 12.5 2.40 25. 21. school trip accident 27 56.3 13 27.1 8 16.7 2.40 26. 33. bullying 26 54.2 15 31.3 7 14.6 2.40 27. 20. school bus accident 25 52.1 15 31.3 8 16.7 2.35 28. 17. parents’ threatening and swearing 18 37.5 26 54.2 4 8.3 2.29 29. 24. healthy problem 15 31.3 28 58.3 5 10.4 2.21 30. 32. bullying teacher to student 16 33.3 25 52.2 7 14.6 2.19 31. 7. natural disaster 15 31.3 26 54.2 7 14.6 2.17 32. 23. power cut 11 22.9 30 62.5 7 14.6 2.08 33. 9. pandemic 15 31.3 21 43.8 15 31.3 2.06 3.6. Research Question 6 The research question 6 concerns about how teachers manage crisis in school with sufficient practice to respond to crises and emergencies according to (a) gender, (b) working experiences, (c) professional development of crisis management? To analyze data Mann Whitney-U Test was conducted. The results revealed that teachers’ perception about managing crisis with sufficient practice were not differentiated according to teachers’ gender (U(48) =519.000, Z=- Gebeş 648 .920,p>.05), age (U(48) =201.500, Z=-1.194,p>.05),working experiences (U(48) =232.500, Z=- .669,p>.05), and professional development (U(48) =193.000, Z=-.583,p>.05) (See table 8). Table 8. The teachers’ perception about how teachers manage crisis in school with sufficient practice to respond to crises and emergencies in school according to variables Variables Groups Gender Female 27 26.50 715.50 229.500 -1.124 .26 Male 21 21.93 460.50 Total 48 Age 25-35 23 22.57 519.00 519.000 -.920 .36 36 Up 25 26.28 657.00 Total 48 Educational Level Graduate 32 22.80 729.50 201.500 -1.194 .23 Undergraduate 16 27.91 446.00 Total 48 Working Experience 1-10 Years 31 23.50 728.50 232.500 -.669 .50 11 Up 17 26.32 447.50 Total 48 Professional Development Yes 12 26.42 317.00 193.000 -.583 .58 No 36 23.86 859.00 Total 48 3.7. Research Question 7 The research question 7 concerns about what safety-related types of in-service training needs of teachers in middle school? The results revealed that According to the arithmetic mean score of teachers’ (1.92 to 2.92) about safety-related types of in-service training needs teachers’ were very high See table 9. N sirax  sira U z p International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(2), 638-652. 649 Table 9. The teachers’ perception about safety-related types of in-service training needs V a ri a b le Safety-Related Types Of In-Service Training Needs V e ry G o o d G o o d F e w A v e ra g e F % F % F % 1. 20. school bus accident 24 50.0 14 29.2 10 20.8 2.92 2. 21. school trip accident 25 52.1 12 25.0 11 22.9 2.92 3. 2. bomb warning 36 75.0 3 6.3 9 18.8 2.56 4. 1. gun attack 33 68.8 7 14.6 8 16.7 2.52 5. 28. student get AIDS 34 70.8 5 10.4 9 18.8 2.52 6. 11. hostage-taking 33 68.8 5 10.4 10 20.8 2.48 7. 15. gun attack around school 33 68.8 5 10.4 10 20.8 2.48 8. 29. kidnaping 34 70.8 3 6.3 11 22.9 2.48 9. 3. death of student 34 70.8 2 4.2 12 25.0 2.46 10. 22. knife attack 33 68.8 4 8.3 11 22.9 2.46 11. 25. student couple with teacher 33 68.8 4 8.3 11 22.9 2.46 12. 16. suicide attempt 32 66.7 4 8.3 12 25.0 2.46 13. 30. chemical attack 33 68.8 4 8.3 11 22.9 2.46 14. 14. poisoning 32 66.7 5 10.4 11 22.9 2.44 15. 27. political dispute between student 29 60.4 11 22.9 8 16.7 2.44 16. 13. sexual abuse to staff 33 68.8 2 4.2 13 27.1 2.42 17. 26. injury and death 32 66.7 4 8.3 12 25.0 2.42 18. 31. science lab accident 30 62.5 10 16.7 8 20.8 2.42 19. 8. fire 32 66.7 3 6.3 13 27.1 2.40 20. 33.bullying 27 56.3 13 27.1 8 20.8 2.40 21. 4. death around school 25 52.1 16 33.3 7 14.6 2.37 22. 12. sexual abuse to student 31 64.6 3 6.3 14 29.2 2.35 23. 5. death of staff 27 56.3 10 20.8 11 22.9 2.33 24. 6. drug using 28 58.3 8 16.7 12 25.0 2.33 25. 10. gang attack 26 54.2 12 25 10 20.8 2.33 26. 18. vandalism 24 50.0 15 31.3 9 18.8 2.31 27. 19. bus accident 24 50.0 15 31.3 9 18.8 2.31 28. 17. parents’ threatening and swearing 24 37.5 18 50.0 6 12.5 2.25 29. 7. natural disaster 13 27.1 23 47.9 12 25.0 2.02 30. 9. pandemic 14 29.2 20 41.7 14 29.2 2.00 31. 32. bullying student to student 11 22.9 25 52.1 12 25.0 1.98 32. 24. healthy problem 10 20.8 25 52.1 13 27.1 1.94 33. 23. power cut 8 16.7 28 58.3 12 25.0 1.92 Gebeş 650 3.8. Research Question 8 The research question 8 concerns about what safety-related types of in-service training needs of teachers in middle school according to (a) gender, (b) working experiences, (c) professional development of crisis management? To analyze data Mann Whitney-U Test was conducted. The results revealed that teachers’ perception safety-related types of in-service training needs were not differentiated according to teachers’ gender ; (U(48) =274.000, Z=- 279,p>.05), age ; (U(48) =220.000, Z=-.799,p>.05), working experiences; (U(48) =240.000, Z=- .497,p>.05) and, Professional development (U(48) =192.000, Z=-.573,p>.05). See table 10. Table 10. The teachers’ perception about safety-related types of in-service training needs in school according to variables Variable Group Gender Female 27 25.50 688.50 256.500 -.562 .57 Male 21 23.21 487.50 Total 48 Age 25-35 23 25.09 577.00 274.000 -.279 .78 36 Up 25 23.96 599.00 Total 48 Educational Level Graduate 32 23.38 748.00 220.000 -.789 .43 Undergraduate 16 26.75 428.00 Total 48 Working Experience 1-10 Years 31 23.76 736.50 240.500 -.497 .62 11 Up 17 25.85 439.50 Total 48 Professional Development Yes 12 26.50 318.00 192.000 -.573 .58 No 36 23.83 858.00 Total 48 4. Discussion and Conclusion The crisis preparedness involves planning, training and practice thus schools can improve their crisis management through mandatory aspects of effective planning, training and practice (Pitcher and Poland, 1992). However, a key question sometimes remain unanswered on Does having a plan really produce better outcomes? In relation to implementation of crisis management procedures generally involve the smaller scale crises but advance planning and constantly evolving crisis plans are essential components of crisis management. Based on the literature review, the researchers were conducted on what works in school- based crisis planning in schools, there is a little evidence to determine best practices in crisis management. Thus, much of current practices have to record for future response of schools’ actors. In addition, the presentation activities for school’s actors in terms of capacity building programs have to be developed some mental health problems of schools’ actors (United States Department of Education, 2019). The preparation phase of crisis management covers social, affective, cognitive, and physical factors therefore widely accepted strategies for crisis preparedness refers interconnection of multiple elements and co-dependency of these elements rather than a systematic accumulation (Ganz, 1999; Brock, 2007). Otherwise, it would seem for schools to continue just only the legal view might be not prepare any crisis intervention plan. Thus, intervention programs could be evaluated on ‘high risk situations’ for future research. N sirax  sira U z p International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(2), 638-652. 651 In addition, the effectiveness of crisis plans are compared whether effective responses are likely when crisis in place. It is important to conduct future researchers with optimal combinations of particular professional roles in the schools’ crisis team. The aim of the study is to determine the crisis preparedness level of teachers in middle schools in North Cyprus Republic. The teachers’ perception about crisis situations in North Cyprus Republic schools had few effect on their performance in schools. Meanwhile, the teacher’s perceptions about managing crisis situations with sufficient practice, teachers were very good at managing crisis situations with sufficient practice. In addition, teachers’ perception about safety-related types of in-service training needs were very high in North Cyprus Republic context. These crisis preparedness level of teachers could be evaluated around different countries. Gebeş 652 References American Medical Association. "White Paper on Adolescent Health." Chicago, Ill.: American Medical Association, 1986 Allen M, Marston S & Lamb S (2001) Crisis intervention publications: a thirty-year overview. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual National Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Washington, DC, and April 2001. Beautrais A L (1998) Risk factors for suicide and attempted suicide amongst young people: a report to the National Health and Medical Research Council. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council, Commonwealth of Australia. Brock S E (2000) Development of a school district crisis intervention policy, California School Psychologist, no 5, pp 53–64, http://www.casponline.org (accessed 1 September 2003). Cornell D G & Sheras P L (1998) Common errors in school crisis response: learning from our mistakes, Psychology in the Schools, vol 35, no 3, pp 297–307. Eaves C (2001) The development and implementation of a crisis response team in a school setting, International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, vol 3, no 1, pp 35–46. Flannery R B Jr & Everly G S Jr (2000) Crisis intervention: a review, International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, vol 2, no 2, pp 199–225. Gillham J E, Reivich K J, Jaycox L H & Seligman M E P (1995) Prevention of depressive symptoms in schoolchildren: two-year follow-up, Psychological Science, no 6, pp 343– 51. Johnson K (2000) Crisis response to schools, International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, vol 2, no 3, pp 173–80. Kramen A J, Kelley R M & Howard W T (1999) Guide for preventing and responding to school violence. Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police, http://www.theiacp.org/documents/pdfs/Publications/schoolviolence2.pdf (accessed 6 October 2003). Newgass S & Schonfeld D J (2000) School crisis intervention, crisis prevention, and crisis response. In A R Roberts (ed) Crisis intervention handbook: assessment, treatment, and research, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 209–28. Poland S (1997) School crisis teams. In A P Goldstein and J C Conoley (eds) School violence intervention: a practical handbook. New York: Guilford Press, pp 127–59. Roberts C, Kane R, Thomson H, Bishop B & Hart B (2003) The prevention of depressive symptoms in rural school children: a randomized controlled trial, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol 71, no 3, pp 622–8. Whitla M (1994) Coping with crises in schools. North Blackburn, Victoria: Collins Dove.