Abstract:
The objective of this study was to study conflicts in educational institutions. Under the Office of Chiang Rai Primary Educational Service Area 3 and to study the conflict management of school administrators. Under the Office of Chiang Rai Primary Educational Service Area 3 The sample groups used in this research were education institution administrators and teachers in educational institutes. Under the Office of Chiang Rai Primary Educational Service Area 3, Academnic Year 2020, totaling 438 people, separated into 103 school administrators and 335 teachers in educational institutes. By the sampling method stratified by district The research instruments were divided into 3 parts, consisting of part 1: questionnaire information of the respondents. It is the Check List, part 2, it is a questionnaire about conflicts in educational institutions. Under the Office of Chiang Rai Primary Educational Service Area 3 and Part 3, it was a questionnaire on conflict management among school administrators. Under the Office of Chiang Rai Primary Educational Service Area 3.The statistics used for data analysis were frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation. The results of the study found that 1) The conflict in educational institutions under Chiang Rai Primary Education Service Area Office 3, overall, was at a high level. When considering each aspect, it was found that all of them had opinions at a high level. Where the side with the highest mean is Role conflicting aspects And the side of the conflict of goals, followed by the normative conflict and the side with the lowest mean was Personality conflicts 2) Conflict management among school administrators Under the Office of Chiang Rai Primary Educational Service Area 3, the overall level was at a high level. When considered individually, it was found that the side that had a high level of opinion was overcoming. Cooperation Compromise Side of avoidance Tolerance side And confrontation And the side with moderate opinions Including withdrawal And the use of power Where the side with the highest mean is The side of cooperation was followed by the side with compromise and the side with the lowest mean was power