Dramatis Personae of a Policy Initiative in Turkey: Actors on the Stage

Year 2013, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 19 - 43, 01.05.2013

Filiz Keser Aschenberger

Abstract

Policy formation process can be identified as a drama performed on a stage that is shaped and formed by the interactions of numerous determinants such as setting, scenery, scenario and actors. The principal actors in this drama who are involved in the policy making are crucial to understand the process. Thus, the purpose of this study is to investigate those key actors and their relative influence on the formulation process of educational policies in Turkey through the perceptions of key actors in policy making process and other interest groups in education. A qualitative case study design was employed which analyzed the policy initiative “Career Ladders for Teachers” (CLT) [Öğretmenlik Kariyer Basamakları]. This study focused specifically on the agenda setting and policy formation phases of the policy cycle of CLT. Two main sources of data were utilized in the study: interviews with key actors in policy making process and documents and text produced throughout or after the process. Data analysis revealed that number and the variety of policy actors involved in the design process were limited. The whole process was controlled by only the governmental actors; MoNE units and Ministry of Finance and political and bureaucratic elites from these institutions. Furthermore almost none of the stakeholders, teachers, administrators, NGOs, were included

Keywords

Policy-making, educational policy, higher education

Türkiye'de Eğitimde Politika Oluşturma Sürecine Katılan Aktörler

Abstract

Politika oluşturma süreci, dekor, senaryo ve aktörler gibi çeşitli ogelerin etkileşimi sonucu şekillendirilen bir sahnede ortaya konulan bir dram olarak tanımlanabilir. Bu dramda rol alan, politika oluşturma sürecine birebir katılmış, senaryoyu birebir şekillendirmiş bu baş aktörler, süreci anlamakta kilit öneme sahiptirler. Bu nedenle bu çalışma Türkiye’deki eğitim politikası oluşturma sürecinde yer alan aktörleri ve bu aktörlerin sürece etkilerini yine politika oluşturma sürecinde etkin rol almış kişilerin bakış açısından ve deneyimlerinden faydalanarak incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma nitel durum analizi şeklinde yapılandırılmıştır ve Öğretmenlik Kariyer Basamaklarında Yükselme Yönetmeliği (ÖKBYY) analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmada özellikle politika basamakları modeli içerisinde, gündem belirleme ve politika oluşturma süreçleri analiz edilmiştir. Durum analizi desenine ve araştırmanın amacına uygun olarak; “veri çeşitlemesi” sağlayabilmek için iki temel veri kaynağı kullanılmıştır: derinlemesine görüşme ve doküman analizi. Araştırma bulguları ÖKBYY’ini oluşturan aktörlerin tamamının kamu kurum ve kuruluşlarından gelen politik ve bürokratik elitler olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. ÖKBYY Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı içerisinde sadece bakanlık personelinin katılımı ile oluşturulmuştur, politika oluşturma süreçlerine öğretmen yetiştiren yükseköğretim kurumlarından, sendikalardan, diğer eğitim örgütlerinden veya sivil toplum kuruluşlarından herhangi bir şekilde katılım olmamasıdır. Demokratik ve katılımcı politika oluşturma süreçleri bakımından böyle bir politikada öğretmenlerin ve diğer eğitim örgütlerinin sürece dâhil edilmemesi önemli bir eksikli olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır

Keywords

Politika oluşturma, eğitim politikası, yükseköğretim

References

• Allison, G. T. (1971). The essence of decision. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
• Altan-Olcay, O., & Içduygu, A. (2012). Mapping civil society in the Middle East: The cases of Egypt, Lebanon and Turkey. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 39(2), 157– 179.
• Anbarlı, Ş. (1999). Sivil toplum örgütlerinin siyasi iktidara etkileri (Bergama örneği). (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi - Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Canakkale, Turkey.
• Anderson, J. E. (2006). Public policy making (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
• Birkland, T. A. (2005). An introduction to policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making (2nd ed.). New York: M.E. Sharp.
• Cahn, M. A. (1995). The players: Institutional and noninstitutional actors in the policy process. In S. Z. Theodoulou, & M. A. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: Essential readings (pp. 201-211). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Çarkoğlu, A., & Cenker, C. I. (2011). On the relationship between democratic institutionalization and civil society involvement: New evidence from Turkey. Democratization, 18(3), 751-773.
• Çaylak, A. (2008). Autocratic or democratic? A critical approach to civil society movements in Turkey. Journal of Economic and Social Research, 10(1), 115-151.
• Dye, T., & Pickering, J. W. (1974). Governmental and corporate elites convergence and differentiation. The Journal of Politics, 36(4), 900-925.
• Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. Boston: Pearson.
• Harman, G. (1984). Conceptual and theoretical issues. In J. R. Hough (Ed.). Educational policy: An international survey. (pp. 13-27). London: Croom Helm
• Hedges, E., & Kılıçoglu, S. S. (2009, Spring). Civil society in Turkey: A comparative paper. Retrieved from http://skilical.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/civil-society-in-turkey.pdf
• Heper, M., & Yıldırım, S. (2007). Revisiting civil society with special reference to Turkey. Immigration, Minorities and Multiculturalism in Democracies Conference. Montreal, QC, Canada.
• Heper, M., & Yıldırım, S. (2011). Revisiting civil society in Turkey. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 11(1), 1-18.
• Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Ontario: Oxford University Press.
• Keyman, E. F., & Içduygu, A. (2003). Globalization, civil society and citizenship in Turkey: actors, boundaries and discourses. Citizenship Studies, 7(2), 219-234.
• Lindblom, C. E., & Woodhouse, E. J. (1993). The policy-making process (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Madsen, J. (1994). Educational reform at the state level. Bristol: Falmer Press.
• Marshall, C., Mitchell, D., & Wirt, F. (1985a). Influence, power, and policy making. Peabody Journal of Education, 62(4), 61-89.
• Marshall, C., Mitchell, D., & Wirst, F. (1989). Culture and education policy in the American states. Newyork: Falmer Press.
• Meier, K. J. (1997). Bureaucracy and democracy: The case for more bureaucracy and less democracy. Public Administration Review, 57(3), 192-199.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• OECD. (2005). Basic education in Turkey: Background report. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/preschoolandschool/39642601.pdf
• OECD. (2012). Education at a Glance 2012 Report: OECD indicators. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG%202012_e-book_EN_200912.pdf
• Özen, H., & Özen, S. (2010). Public policies and social movements: The influences of protest movements on mining policy in Turkey. Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 33- 64.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Peters, G. B. (1999). American public policy: Promise and performance (5th ed.). New York: Chatham House Publishers.
• Robins, P. (2009). Public policy making in Turkey: Faltering attempts to generate a national drugs policy. Policy and Politics, 37(02), 289-306.
• Sarpkaya, R. (2006). Eğitim sendikalarından öğretmenlerin beklentileri. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 22, 188-200.
• Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Simon, C. A. (2007). Public policy: Preferences and outcomes. New York: Pearson Longman.
• Toksöz, F. (2004). Assessment of public administration in Turkey. Retrieved from UNPANUnited Nations Public Administration Network: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan015909.pdf
• Top, S. (1999). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı merkez örgütü'nde alınan kararlara eğitim sendikalarının katılımı [Teacher unions participation in the decisions made by Ministry of National Education]. (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Hacettepe Üniversitesi - Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara, Turkey.
• Toprak, B. (1996). Civil society in Turkey. In A. R. Norton (Ed.). Civil society in the Middle East (Vol. 2), Leiden: E.J. Brill. pp. 87-118.
• UNPAN. (2004, February). Republic of Turkey: Public administration country profile. Retrieved from United Nations Public Administration Programme: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan023185.pdf
• World Bank. (2005). Turkey—education sector study: sustainable pathways to an effective, equitable and efficient education system for preschool through secondary school education. Washington, DC. : The World Bank.