BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Bureaucratic Problems at Schools

Yıl 2015, Sayı: 7, 99 - 118, 24.01.2015

Öz

The study is a descriptive study since it aims to present an existing situation. Case study, one of the qualitative research techniques, was used in the study to collect data. “Embedded single-case design” was used as a case study design in the study. There may be more than one sub strata or unit in a single case in embedded single-case design. The present study addresses the bureaucratic structure and functioning at schools. Criterion sampling and maximum variation sampling, methods of purposive sampling, were used in the identification of the study sample. The criterion was defined as working at the school as a principal for at least for five years on the permanent staff. This criterion was determined based on the thought that experienced principals would have increased awareness, knowledge and skills regarding the bureaucratic procedures at schools. A study group composed of a total of 18 school principals from each school type (pre-school (4), primary (4), secondary school (3), general high school (3) and vocational high school (4)) was formed in order to provide maximum variety in the study. Based on study findings, in terms of bureaucracy, educational institutions have unique characteristics such as harsh hierarchical structure, immense paperwork, strict rules, slow pace of procedures, workload, slow pace of procedures, quality of personnel and difficulty of assessment. Bureaucracy is experienced at school in the following areas:  student affairs, personnel services, educational services, management affairs and financial affairs.  

Keywords: school, bureaucracy, school principal

Kaynakça

  • Acat, B. (2006). Instructional programs. Ankara: School Administration Development Program, General Directorate of Primary Education, December, 2006.
  • Balcı, A. (2013). Effective schools, school development theory, practice and research. Ankara; Pegem.
  • Buluç, B. (2009). Relationship between bureaucratic school structure in primary schools and leadership styles of the principals. Education and Science, 34, (152).
  • Bursalıoğlu, Z. (1994). New structures and behaviors in school management. Ankara: Pegem.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç, Ç. E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel F. (2012). Scientific research methods. Ankara: Pegem.
  • Cerit, Y. (2012). Relationship between the bureaucratic structure of the school and professional behaviors of classroom teachers. Management of Education in Theory and Practice, 18 (4), 497-521.
  • Gökçe, F. (2005) Force-field analysis technique as a change agent and management of educational change. Management of Education in Theory and Practice. 43, 327-354.
  • Hoy, Wayne K., & Miskel, G. Cecil. (2012). Educational administration, theory, research and practice. Ankara: Nobel.
  • Karaman, K., Yücel C., & Dönder, H. (2008). Relationship between bureaucracy at schools and organizational citizenship based on teacher views. Management of Education in Theory and Practice, 53, 49-74.
  • Lunenburg Fred, C., & Ornstein, Allan C. (2013). Educational administration (Educational Management Translation Editor: G. Arastaman). Ankara: Nobel.
  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). An expanded source¬book qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.
  • Militello,M., Rallis, F., S., & Goldring, B. E. (2013). Araştırma ve aksiyon ile liderlik. (F. Töremen, & A. Ersözlü Trans.). Ankara: Pegem.
  • Robbins, Stephen, P., & Judge, Timoty A. (2012). Organizational behavior. İ. Erdem (Trans.). Ankara: Nobel.
  • Sezgin, F. (2013). School as a social system, management of education in theory and practice. Ankara: Pegem.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2005). Qualitative research methods in social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin.
  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
  • Yüksel, S. (2011). Faculty of arts and sciences instructors’ views on teacher training system. Management of Education in Theory and Practice, 11 (1), 179-198.

Okullarda Bürokratik Sorunlar

Yıl 2015, Sayı: 7, 99 - 118, 24.01.2015

Öz

Araştırma var olan durumu ortaya koymayı amaçladığından betimsel bir araştırmadır. yöntemlerinden durum çalışması temel alınarak yapılandırılmıştır. Araştırmada desen olarak, durum çalışması desenlerinden birisi olan “iç içe geçmiş tek durum” deseni kullanılmıştır. İç içe geçmiş tek durum deseninde, tek bir durum içinde çoğu kez birden fazla alt tabaka veya birim olabilmektedir. Yapılan araştırmada, ele alınan durum, okullardaki bürokratik yapı ve işleyiştir. Araştırmanın örneklem grubunun belirlenmesinde amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden ölçüt örnekleme ve maksimum çeşitlilik örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada okulda asil müdür olmak ve en az beş yıl müdür olarak görev yapmak ölçütleri esas alınmıştır. Araştırmaya katılan okul müdürlerinde aranan asil müdürlük ve en az beş yıl kıdemine sahip olma gerekçesi, bu müdürlerin okullardaki bürokratik iş ve işlemlerde bilgi, beceri, farkındalık düzeylerinin daha fazla olacağı düşüncesinden kaynaklanmaktadır. Araştırmada maksimum çeşitliliği sağlayabilmek için her okul türünü (okulöncesi (4), ilkokul (4), ortaokul (3), genel lise (3), meslek lisesi (4)) toplam 18 okul müdüründen ibaret çalışma grubu oluşturulmuştur. Araştırma sonucunda elde edilen bulgulara göre; eğitim kurumları bürokratik olarak, katı hiyerarşi, kırtasiyecilik, katı kurallar, iş yoğunluğu, işlerin yavaş işlemesi, personel kalitesi ve değerlendirme zorluğu şeklinde kendine özgü özelliklere sahiptirler. Okullarda bürokrasi; öğrenci işleri, personel hizmetleri, eğitimöğretim hizmetleri, yönetim işleri ve mali işler alanlarında yaşanmaktadır

Kaynakça

  • Acat, B. (2006). Instructional programs. Ankara: School Administration Development Program, General Directorate of Primary Education, December, 2006.
  • Balcı, A. (2013). Effective schools, school development theory, practice and research. Ankara; Pegem.
  • Buluç, B. (2009). Relationship between bureaucratic school structure in primary schools and leadership styles of the principals. Education and Science, 34, (152).
  • Bursalıoğlu, Z. (1994). New structures and behaviors in school management. Ankara: Pegem.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç, Ç. E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel F. (2012). Scientific research methods. Ankara: Pegem.
  • Cerit, Y. (2012). Relationship between the bureaucratic structure of the school and professional behaviors of classroom teachers. Management of Education in Theory and Practice, 18 (4), 497-521.
  • Gökçe, F. (2005) Force-field analysis technique as a change agent and management of educational change. Management of Education in Theory and Practice. 43, 327-354.
  • Hoy, Wayne K., & Miskel, G. Cecil. (2012). Educational administration, theory, research and practice. Ankara: Nobel.
  • Karaman, K., Yücel C., & Dönder, H. (2008). Relationship between bureaucracy at schools and organizational citizenship based on teacher views. Management of Education in Theory and Practice, 53, 49-74.
  • Lunenburg Fred, C., & Ornstein, Allan C. (2013). Educational administration (Educational Management Translation Editor: G. Arastaman). Ankara: Nobel.
  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). An expanded source¬book qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.
  • Militello,M., Rallis, F., S., & Goldring, B. E. (2013). Araştırma ve aksiyon ile liderlik. (F. Töremen, & A. Ersözlü Trans.). Ankara: Pegem.
  • Robbins, Stephen, P., & Judge, Timoty A. (2012). Organizational behavior. İ. Erdem (Trans.). Ankara: Nobel.
  • Sezgin, F. (2013). School as a social system, management of education in theory and practice. Ankara: Pegem.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2005). Qualitative research methods in social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin.
  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
  • Yüksel, S. (2011). Faculty of arts and sciences instructors’ views on teacher training system. Management of Education in Theory and Practice, 11 (1), 179-198.
Toplam 17 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil En
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Süleyman Göksoy

Yayımlanma Tarihi 24 Ocak 2015
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2015 Sayı: 7

Kaynak Göster

APA Göksoy, S. (2015). Bureaucratic Problems at Schools. Journal of Education and Future(7), 99-118.
AMA Göksoy S. Bureaucratic Problems at Schools. JEF. Ağustos 2015;(7):99-118.
Chicago Göksoy, Süleyman. “Bureaucratic Problems at Schools”. Journal of Education and Future, sy. 7 (Ağustos 2015): 99-118.
EndNote Göksoy S (01 Ağustos 2015) Bureaucratic Problems at Schools. Journal of Education and Future 7 99–118.
IEEE S. Göksoy, “Bureaucratic Problems at Schools”, JEF, sy. 7, ss. 99–118, Ağustos 2015.
ISNAD Göksoy, Süleyman. “Bureaucratic Problems at Schools”. Journal of Education and Future 7 (Ağustos 2015), 99-118.
JAMA Göksoy S. Bureaucratic Problems at Schools. JEF. 2015;:99–118.
MLA Göksoy, Süleyman. “Bureaucratic Problems at Schools”. Journal of Education and Future, sy. 7, 2015, ss. 99-118.
Vancouver Göksoy S. Bureaucratic Problems at Schools. JEF. 2015(7):99-118.