Sexual Culture
and Politics in Contemporary Russia By Igor S. Kon, Paper presented at the International Social Science Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, June 12-16, 2001 www.csun.edu/~sr2022/events/SIT2001.html.
As a consequence of recent changes in adolescent sexual behavior, similar to
the Western sexual revolution of the 1960s
but compounded by the
breakdown of state medical services and the general criminalization of
the country, some dangerous
trends now exist in Russian sexual life – including the spread of STDs and HIV. The only
reasonable answer to this challenge
is sex education. But since 1997 all efforts in this direction have been
blocked by a powerful anti-sexual crusade, organized by Russian Communist Party
and the Russian Orthodox Church, and
supported by "Pro Life." Its
main targets are sex education, women's reproductive rights and freedom of sexuality-related
information. The campaign is openly
nationalistic, xenophobic, homophobic and anti-semitic . And it has disastrous public health
consequences. 1.
Post-Soviet sexuality
In the former Soviet Union sexuality was a taboo topic, as though it were virtually non-existent. After 1987 the taboo was broken, and sex became a fashionable subject for both private and public discourse ( Kon, 1995, 1997a, 1999a, 1999b). Despite the official silence, general trends in Russian sexual behavior have been similar to what occurred in the Western countries. The liberalization of sexual morality began long before perestroika, back in the 1960s and 1970s (Bocharova, 1994, Kon, 1997, Haavio-Mannila and Rotkirch, 1997). According to Sergey Golod’s surveys in Leningrad-St.Petersburg, in 1965 only 5.3 % of sexually experienced university students reported having first had intercourse before the age of 16; in 1972 this figure was 8 % and in 1995 it had risen to 12 % (Golod, 1996, p. 59). According to our 1993, 1995
and 1997 surveys[1](Chervyakov and
Kon, 1998, 2000), the sexual
behaviors and attitudes of urban adolescents are changing rapidly. In 1993 25% of
16 years-old girls and 38
% of boys had coital experience; in
1995 the respective figures were already
33% and 50%. Among 17 year-olds, the respective
growth is from 46% to 52% (females)
and from 49% to 57% (males) .
(See Table 1)
Table 1. Proportion of sexually active respondents by age and gender Similar overall changes took place both in secondary and in vocational schools. This suggests that changes in the age of sexual first experiences cannot be treated as an event caused by changes in the sample design. We found further evidence of a dramatic change in sexual behavior between 1993 and 1995 when we analyzed answers to the question about age at first intercourse independently for different age groups within one and the same sample (survey of 1995). Among 16-year-old women, there were twice as many sexually experienced girls than was the case for the 19-year-old respondents when they were 16 (23 % vs. 11 %). The same difference was found between 17-year-old women and 19 year-olds who had been sexually experienced at 17 (45 % versus 24 % respectively) The same tendencies were observed among male students, although the changes were not as great. The absolute figures are not surprising and are quite comparable to US and West European data. But in Russia change is occurring very rapidly, and adolescent sexuality, which is strongly related to social class, is often violent and aggressive. There is also tension between the processes of liberalization and gender equality in sexual values and practices. “In Russia, liberalisation began during the Soviet Union and was speeded up by the free press and the commercialisation of the 1980s and 1990s. In the Nordic countries, liberalisation reached its height in the 1970s. Today, liberalism and permissiveness are sometimes questioned from the perspective of gender equality and/or a new morality. In Russia, on the contrary, liberalism has undermined the arguments for gender equality from the Soviet era” (Haavio-Mannila and Rotkirch, 2001, p.13) Uncivilized and uncontrollable early
sexual activity has serious moral and epidemiological consequences.
Thanks to efforts, by medical personnel, the abortion rate has declined in recent years. According to official figures, in 1990 women aged 15 to 49 reported having 114 abortions for 1000 women, in 1992 -98, and in 1995 - 74. Yet the figure is still very high. Child prostitution and sexual violence are flourishing. For about 10 % of teenage girls their first sexual initiation is associated with some degree of coercion. There is an enormous growth of STDs and AIDS. Between 1990 and 1996 the incidence of syphilis increased fifty-fold in Russia, and 78-fold among young people. In 1996, 265 new cases of syphilis were diagnosed per 100.000 of the population. The incidence of HIV has also begun to grow nearly exponentially. In some districts, such as Irkutsk, HIV has already attained epidemic proportions: hence the importance of sex education strategy. 2. Attitudes to sex educationSystematic sex education is long overdue in Russia. It has been discussed in the mass media since 1962. An attempt to introduce a special course in the early 1980s was welcomed by parents, but failed because teachers were not ready to teach it. The idea
that sex education can be done by
parents themselves runs counter to
all of international experience
(Rademakers, 1997 ) In Russian families intergenerational
taboos on sexuality discourse are
very strong. According to the
National Center for Public Opinion Research (VtsIOM) representative national survey in 1990, only 13 % of
parents have ever talked to their children about sexual
matters. According to our 1997 survey,
today’s students have much more information about sexuality at their
disposal than did their parents.
For their parents’ cohort, the main source of information about sexuality was
conversations with peers. Today
printed materials and electronic media are most important, and the main sources
of knowledge on sexuality are
newspapers, books and magazines.
However, this often means merely the replacement of one source of
misinformation by another,
‘virtual’ one. Until 1997, Russian public
opinion was generally in favor of
sex education. In all national public opinion polls conducted by VTsIOM since
1989, the vast majority of adults – between 60 and 90 %, depending upon age and
social background, strongly
supported the idea of systematic sex education in schools. Only 3 to 20 %
were opposed to it (Kon, 1999).
But who will in fact undertake to do this work? And what exactly should be taught?
Teachers thought that parents
should provide sex education for their children. In our 1997 survey, 78 % of the teachers
agreed with this. However, this
same survey showed that the family
cannot take on this responsibility.
Only about one out of five teenagers considered it acceptable to discuss
problems of sexuality with his or her parents. Parents themselves only reluctantly
initiate such topics of conversation with their children. More than half of them never initiated
such talks, another quarter had taken the initiative only once or twice, and
only one in five mothers had such conversations with their children several
times (the fathers did not do so at all). The primary inhibiting factors
were a lack of psychological and educational readiness. More than three-quarters
of the parents said they needed special books explaining what should be
told to children, and how this
should be done. About two-thirds of
the parents think it would be useful to have seminars for parents about sex education in the schools their
children attend. But the school is also incapable of doing this. Three-quarters of the teachers were convinced that form teachers (persons who are primarily responsible for social and moral education) should discuss issues of gender and sexual relations with their students. However, 65 % of teachers reported never having done this, and another 15 % had done so only once or twice. It is clear why this is the case: only 11.5 % of teachers feel that they are well prepared for this task. Eighty five per cent were in favor of special courses on the fundamentals of sexology in pedagogical universities. In general, respondents in the
1997 survey were unanimous that sex education courses in schools must be
launched. It might be expected that
such courses would become one of the favorite curriculum subjects for
students. 61 % of seventh-grade
students and 73 % of the
ninth-graders said that they were eager to attend such classes. Only 5 % of students would prefer to
avoid them. There were much more serious disagreements among the interested
groups, however, with respect to the content of sex education. Teachers would like to offer a detailed
treatment of anatomy, physiology and ethics, whereas students are more interested in practical issues and
in sexual pleasure. (Table
2).
Table 2. Students’ preferences regarding topics for a course in sex education (those who indicated a topic as ‘very necessary’, %), 1997 survey At the request of the Russian Ministry of Education, the United Nations Population Fund
(UNFPA) in collaboration with UNESCO in 1996 awarded a 3-year grant for experimental work in 16 selected
schools, to develop a workable
curriculum and textbooks “for classes 7, 8 and 9, considering the importance of
the fact that young people should
be able to make informed and responsible decisions before reaching the age for
potentially starting sexual activities”.
There was no cultural imperialism or any attempt to invent something uniform and compulsory for the entire country. The introduction to
the project emphasized that “to ensure cultural acceptability, the curricula and
text-books will be developed by Russian experts, making use of knowledge and
experience from other countries,
and with the input of technical assistance from foreign
experts”. From the very beginning sexual freedom has been used by communists and nationalists as a political scapegoat. The first massive campaign, in the form of an anti-pornography crusade, was initiated by the Communist Party in 1991. In provoking moral panic, the Communist Party was pursuing very clear political goals. The anti-pornography campaign was aimed at diverting popular attention from pressing political issues and the government's economic failures. In defending morality and the family, the Party was deflecting blame from itself for the weakening and destruction of morals and the family. Communist leaders were trying to cement the developing alliance between themselves and conservative religious and nationalist organizations. Anti-pornography slogans enabled them to control and channel popular frenzy by branding the democratic mass media as a Jewish-Masonic conspiracy bent on corrupting the morals of young people, destroying traditional values, etc. But despite all efforts, the campaign failed, since people did not swallow the bait (see Kon, 1995, 1997a) The second round, which is aimed at sex education, has been much more successful. The “UNESCO project” was formally initiated in October, 1996. Its first step was sociological monitoring, an attempt to assess sexual values, attitudes and information levels of children, parents and teachers of a few pilot schools, on a strictly voluntary basis. Similar monitoring was also planned for the next stages of the experiment. Unfortunately, without consulting the experts, Ministry of Education officials announced the commencement of such a sensitive undertaking without any political and psychological preparation. Even worse, the Ministry sent to 30.000 schools a package of 5 self-made, sloppily edited and unrealistic (some of them required more than 300 class hours “alternative sex education programs”, which had never been tested in the classrooms. Though these programs had nothing to do with the “UNESCO project,” they were perceived as being a part of it. Before it was even born, the project came under fire and was labeled as a “Western ideological plot against
Russian children”. An
aggressive group of Pro-Life
activists filed a complaint with
the communist-dominated Parliament’s
National security committee.
In some Moscow district
towns people were asked in the
streets: “Do you want children to
be taught in school how to engage
in sex? If not, please, sign the
petition to ban this demonic project”.
Priests and activists
told their audiences that
all bad things in Western life were rooted in sex education, that Western
governments are now trying to ban or eliminate it, and that only the corrupt Russian government, at the instigation of the “World sexological-industrial
complex”, was acting against the best interests of the country. All this was supported by pseudoscientific data ( for example, that in England boys begin to masturbate at 9 years of age, and at 11 they are
already completely impotent) and other lies. The idea of any sex education was strongly and formally denounced by the Russian
Orthodox Church. At
an important round-table in
the Russian Academy of Education on March 6, 1997, influential priests declared that
Russia does not need any sex education whatever in the schools, because this had always been
successfully done by the
Church: up to 80% of the time during the sacrament of
confession is dedicated to sexual matters.
Some prominent members of the Academy ( Antonina Khripkova, Valeria
Mukhina, Nikolai Nikandrov, Irina Dubrovina and others) also attacked the so-called “Western” spirit.
As Professor Khripkova put it, “we don’t need the Netherlands’
experience; we have our own
traditional wisdom”. The President of
the Academy Dr. Arthur Petrovsky strongly dissociated himself from this
nationalist position as well as
from the suggestions for re-introducing moral censorship. But the general decision was to freeze
the UNESCO project, and instead of
“sexuality education”
to improve moral education
“with some elements of sex education” (this opportunistic formula was used in
1962). Prof. Dmitry Kolessov proclaimed that instead of children’s “right to know” educators should defend their “right not to know” (pravo
na neznanie). After lengthy debates a special academic
commission for the preparation of a new program was formed (in which I refused to take part), but the new, openly conservative project was
equally unacceptable to the clergy,
and nothing came of it. In
the Academy’s recent program statements on
children’s health sexuality
or sex education are not even
mentioned. The Ministry of
Education formally cancelled its
previously approved programs. Now
it is very dangerous for Russian school principals on their own initiative to introduce any elements of sex education even at the
local level (this had been done in a few schools since the 1970s) .
In 2000, there was even a trial in St.
Petersburg: teachers who used a Netherlands- made educational videofilm were sentenced for “propaganda of
masturbation”, which, according to
the accusers, is a very dangerous
habit (I have not seen this film and therefore cannot evaluate it) During the 1999 parliamentary elections
the Communist Party of Russian
Federation (CPRF) presented this
“anti-sex-education” campaign as
its most important political victory.
The official position of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is trying to
put itself in the shoes of the former Agitprop, is the same. For some Russian newspapers
anything which smacks of sex
education is like waving a red flag
before a bull. Militant sexophobia is raging not only in the communist, fascist and clerical mass media but also
in much of the liberal and official («Rossiiskay gazeta”) media .
One of their main targets is the Russian Planned
Parenthood Association. Since 1991
this was the only organization
which in fact had taken
action to reduce the rate of abortion and to promote sexual and contraceptive knowledge. Now
it is being denounced by Christian
fundamentalists as a “satanic
institution”, propagating abortion
and depopulation. The official
slogan of RPPA “The birth of
healthy and wanted children,
responsible parenthood” was
presented in communist “Pravda” and in religious newspapers
as “One child per family”. The booklet “Your friend the condom”, which was published for
young adults and teens, was described
as if it were addressed to first-grade children. Since there is no sex education in Russian
schools or even in universities, the anti-sexual crusaders
created another target –so-called valeology (from Latin “valeo”
– a good health). I do not know if
such a discipline has ever been
institutionalized anywhere in the
West. Russian valeology looks like a
hybrid of social hygiene
and preventive medicine, along with
some strange and even exotic ideas.
Serious criticism and discussion of it
would certainly be useful. But for
the fundamentalists, any “science of health” which is not
approved by the Church is anathema.
Like their U.S. allies, they are
absolutely indifferent to real
issues of public health, social hygiene, STD or HIV prevention. They claim that “valeology” is simply another name for “sex education” and violently attack it for being a) Western, b)non-Orthodox and c) prosexual. Even the medical profession is split. In 1997 the Ministry of Health and
leading experts in gynecology,
pediatrics and other medical disciplines strongly supported the need for family planning, contraception and sex education. But scholars and state officials are worried about their moral and political
reputations. In January,
1999 “Meditsinskaya gazeta” (a
professional newspaper for medical
doctors) published an open letter
to the Minister of Education, signed by 130 medical experts,
clergymen, teachers and writers, against
valeology and sex
education. The dominant values of
the Editor-in-chief, Andrei Poltorak, are clearly expressed in the title of his
recent interview: “Honor the doctor…
since it was God who created him” (Poltorak, 2000) (why not: “Don’t kill the viruses, since it was God who created them”?)
The anti-sexual crusade is openly
nationalistic, xenophobic,
sexist, misogynist and homophobic. Everything Russian is presented as pure,
spiritual and moral, and everything
Western – as dirty and vile. Sex
education is treated as the most serious attempt possible to undermine Russia’s national security, more dangerous then HIV
( Soviet
propaganda in the 1980s
attributed HIV to the
Pentagon) . “Rossiiskaya gazeta”’s deputy editor-in-chief Victoria Molodtsova quotes a phrase from an unnamed educational
program stating that “ to become a
real man, the male must not only be
brave and courageous but also acquire
some traditionally “feminine” qualities…” (such as sensitivity, compassion and understanding). The journalist’s commentary is: A Vologda peasant male doesn’t need feminization; the educators arguing for the
“feminization” of Russian males are really trying to promote homosexuality, and are being paid for their subversive
activities by Western secret services. The crusade against sex education is extremely
militant and aggressive. At the
clerical site <zhizn'.orthodoxy.ru.htm> there is a slogan:
“Attention!
Danger! Be prepared for the most energetic means of self-defence!” According to this site, the main
danger for Russian children and their parents are not abortions, HIV or syphilis
but the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which expresses the interests of the contraceptive industry, and the United Nations Population Fund,
which is interested in the depopulation of Russia, so that the West can
appropriate its natural resources.
Parents are being taught how to sabotage any attempts to introduce sex
education, even including taking their children out of the schools. They are
told that condoms are inefficient against both HIVor STDS, and also againt
pregnancy.
Moscow Patriarchy published
a special formal address to adolescents, which is formulated in words which
would be more appropriate for the General Staff or State Security than for a Christian
Church:
“Children! The enemies of God, enemies of Russia for hundreds of years have tried to conquer our native
land with the help of fire and the
sword, but each time they were
shamefully defeated and sent to their
graves in the borderless
fields of Russia. Now they have
understood that is impossible to conquer Russia by military
force… Now they want to annihilate our people with the help of depravity,
pornography, drugs, tobacco and vodka – by the same means by which THEIR
forfathers annihilated American Indians”. Militant Orthodox fundamentalism is
not limited to sex education. There
is even a protest movement against the introduction of national social security
code numbers (these codes are named INN, so the movement is called “INN jihad” –
Muslim sacred war). Its radical wing claims that “the idea of a compulsory INN
codes for t total outside control of the population of Russia was born as a
result of joint actions of the US secret services, members of Satanist
organizations and of
international Zionist
(Russian euphemism for Jewish – I.K..) financial groups” (Verkhovsky,
2001). The
anti-sexual crusade is openly
homophobic. Despite the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1993 and its formal “depathologization” in
1999, some leading Russian psychiatrists still believe that
homosexuality is an illness. The
Head of the Laboratory of
Forensic Sexology of the Serbsky National Research Center for Social and
Forensic Psychiatry (earlier it was the
main citadel of Soviet
“repressive psychiatry”) Professor A..A. Tkachenko, in his most recent book “Sexual perversions-paraphilias” , which is advertised as “the first
Russian monograph containing the results of an interdisciplinary study of abnormal
sexual behavior”, writes
that the APA 1973 decision was unscientific and
misleading, and taken in a “extreme
circumstances”. According to
Tkachenko, DSM and the subsequent WHO treatment of homosexuality “partially contradict the fundamental
principles of medical diagnostics as a whole” (Tkachenko, 1999, p. 355).
Public opinion in Russia is still rather homophobic. In May 1998, to the VTsIOM question, “What do you think, is homosexuality basically …”, 33.1 % answered “an illness or a result of psychic
trauma”, 35.1 % - “depravity, bad habit” and only 18.3 % -
“sexual orientation, having an equal right to exist” (13 % didn’t have an
opinion). This is
exploited by the mass-media. It is often claimed that all sex education
programmes are drawn up by
pedophiles and gay men. Very often libelous attacks are personalized. Irina
Medvedeva told the readers of
“Nezavisimaia gazeta” in 1997
that unnamed Western pharmaceutical companies had paid Professor Kon $ 50.000 to support sex education in Russia Victoria Molodtsova in
“Rossiiskaya gazeta” in 1999
discovered that “one rich
foundation” had paid me another $
50.000 for “the defense of
homosexuals’ rights” ( both statements are, unfortunately, wrong). Mass-media provocations may have practical
consequences. 30
January I became a victim of a
fascist attack in the main
lecture hall of the Moscow State
University. I was invited for an open lecture, “Men in a changing
world” (not about sexuality)
The lecture was presided over and introduced by the Rector, Professor
V.A. Sadovnichii Suddenly a group
of about 20-30 bandit-like young men, who had nothing
to do with the University, stood up
and displayed large home-made insulting signs with slogans accusing me of engaging in propaganda
for sexual depravity, homosexuality,
pedophilia and so on, and
made terrible noises. The audience,
which included several prominent
professors, was stunned and
shocked. A piece of cream tart hit me from behind and several smoke
bombs were set off, the smoke being a symbol of Hell. When Rector called the police, the hooligans left the room (one of them was caught)
and I quietly finished my lecture
and answered over 40 questions. This carefully prepared fascist performance
(in which there was nothing spontaneous) was unprecedented in the history of Moscow
University. The following week, while I was working at
home, I was called by the head of
the local police who asked me not
to open my door, since there was a suspicious
object there and the police office
had had an anonymous call that it was
a bomb. On the door and the
wall of my apartment a star of
David and the “satanic” numerals
“666” had been written. A
specially trained police dog discovered that the bomb was a fake. Yet in the next few days I had two
anonymous telephone calls, threatening that I would be brutally murdered, The
story was reported by the popular
Moscow newspaper “Moskovskii komsomolets”
and by the St. Petersburg weekly “Chas pik,” but there was no criminal investigation
(fascist and hate crimes generally
remain unpunished in Russia).
The current
anti-sexual crusade is
only the top of the iceberg. Under the guise of a moral renaissance, Russian Orthodoxy
and its allies are trying to restore censorship and administrative control over
private life.
In the long run, this goal seems to be unattainable. Sexual attitudes and
practices in Russia are already highly diversified by
age, gender, education, cohort,
regional, ethnic, and social background. Any attempts by the state,
Church, or local community to forcibly limit young people’s sexual freedom is doomed to
failure. The militant position of
the Orthodox clergy may even have a
boomerang effect. They seem to have
forgotten an old Soviet joke: “How can you make art flourish and religion decay? - It’s very
easy, you simply disconnect art from the State and make religion compulsory”.
Yet
this crusade is a part of a growing wave of nationalism, xenophobia and militarism.
And it has very dangerous political
and practical consequences. Without sex education it is impossible to solve such urgent public health issues as STD
and HIV prevention. Effective
family planning is equally impossible without sexual knowledge. And, last
but not least, the anti-sexual crusade is widening the already vast and yawning
generation gap.
Notes: Bocharova
О.А., (1994). Seksualnaya svoboda: slova I dela
. Chelovek,
1994, № 5, pp. 98-107;
Chervyakov, V. and Kon, I.. 1998. “Sex education and HIV prevention in the
context of Russian politics”.
In: R. Rosenbrock, ed. Politics behind AIDS Policies.
Case Studies from India, Russia and
South Africa. Berlin.
Chervyakov, V. and Kon, I.., 2000. ”Sexual Revolution in Russia.and the tasks of sex education”. In: AIDS in Europe: new challenges for social sciences. Ed. by Theo Sandford et al. London: Routledge,
pp.119 –134.
Golod, S.
I. 1996. XX vek i
tendentsii seksualnykh otnoshenii v Rossii. St. Petersburg,
Aleteya. Haavio-Mannila E. and Rotkirch, A., 'Generational and gender differences in sexual life in St.
Petersburg and urban Finland'. Yearbook of Population Research in Finland, vol. 34 , 1997.
pp.133-160 Haavio-Mannila E. and Rotkirch, A. Gender Liberalization and Polarisation: Comparing Sexuality in St. Petersburg, Finland and Sweden. 2001. Maniscript Kon, I. S. 1995 The Sexual Revolution in
Russia. From the Age of the Czars to Today. New York: The Free Press. Kon , I. S. 1997a
Seksualnaya kultura v Rossii . Klubnichka na beryozke. (The Sexual
Culture in Russia). Moskva: OG.I. . Kon, I.S. 1997b
"Russia", The
International Encyclopedia of Sexology, ed. by Robert Francoeur. Vol. 2, pp. 1045-1079, New York: Continuum
Press Kon, I.S.
1999b “Sexuality and politics in Russia (1700-2000)”. In: F.X.Eder, L.A., Hall and G. Hekma, eds. Sexual cultures in Europe.
National Histories. Manchester
University Press, pp.197-218 Molodsova, V.
1999 «Seks: razvrashchenie vmesto prosveshchenia”. Rossiiskaya gazeta, 10 June Poltorak,
A. 2000 “Pochitai vracha… ibo Gospod’ sozdal
ego”. Mir za nedeliu, 15 April р.16 Rademakers,
J. 1997 Adolescent sexual
development: a cross-cultural perspective. Sexuality Beyond Boundaries.
International Conference. Amsterdam, 29 July – 4 August
1997 Tkachenko, A..A. 1999 Seksualnye izvrashchenia -
parafilii ( Sexual perversions Paraphilias). Moscow : Triada X
[1]. The first of these took place in 1993
with 1615 secondary school and vocational school students aged 12 to 17 in
Moscow and St. Petersburg. A self-administered questionnaire was used. The
second survey, sponsored by The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,
was conducted in 1995. A
self-administered questionnaire was completed by 2871 respondents aged 16 to 19
in Moscow, Novgorod (a medium-sized city), Borisoglebsk and Yeletz (small
towns). Unmarried girls and boys,
students of secondary and vocational schools, university students and working
adolescents were sampled in equal proportions in each of the four sites. Educational institutions were randomly
sampled within each site. The
questionnaire contained questions about issues such as the context of the first
sexual experience, first and the last partner, number of partners, etc. The
third survey formed part of the project ‘In-school sex education for Russian teenagers’, sponsored by the Ministry of Education
and supported by UNFPA and UNESCO.
Data was collected from seventh to ninth grade students, their parents
and teachers in eight sites throughout Russia (Moscow, the Moscow district, St. Petersburg,
Arkhangelsk, Krasnodar, Krasnoyarsk, Udmurtia and Yaroslavl) in 16 schools which
agreed to take part in the project. Fieldwork was carried out in the first
quarter of 1997. In toto, about 4000 students’ questionnaires, 1300 parents’
questionnaires and 400 teachers’ questionnaires were found suitable for data
processing. |