-

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether school climate-teacher morale, instructional management and instructional supervision subdimensions of instructional leadership and accountable management and bureaucratic management subdimensions of administrative leadership correctly classify three groups into which 19 countries were categorized depending on their approaches to training of prospective school principals (pre-appointment training, post-appointment training and appointment without any training or preparation). Correlational survey model was used in this research as the researchers attempted to analyze correlations between variables and the level of correlations. Data were extracted from TALIS 2008 Principal Questionnaire (Teaching and Learning International Survey). Discriminant analysis was employed to examine correct classification levels of countries by the variables included in this study. Results indicated that school principals were correctly classified into three different groups at a rate of 51% in terms of school climate (teacher morale), instructional management, instructional supervision, accountable management and bureaucratic management. The findings of the research demonstrated that the most effective independent variables in classifying the countries into groups correctly were instructional management, school climate and instructional supervision, respectively. Based on the findings, it may be suggested that instructional leadership and school climate, specifically, must be included in the trainings organized for school principal positions

Keywords

• School principal appointment approaches, training for school principal, TALIS 2008, discriminant analysis

OKUL İKLİMİ, ÖĞRETİMSEL LİDERLİK VE YÖNETSEL LİDERLİK DEĞİŞKENLERİNİN OKUL YÖNETİCİLİĞİNE ATAMA YAKLAŞIMLARI AÇISINDAN AYIRT EDİCİLİK DÜZEYİ

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı; okul iklimi-öğretmen morali, öğretimsel liderliğinin alt boyutları olan öğretimsel yönetim ve öğretimsel denetim ile yönetsel liderliğin alt boyutları olan hesapverebilir yönetim ve bürokratik yönetim değişkenlerinin okul müdürü olabilmek için yöneticilik eğitimine yer verme biçimleri açısından üç gruba (atama öncesi eğitim veren, atama sonrası eğitim veren ve eğitim vermeden yöneticilik görevine atayan) ayrılan 19 ülkenin yer aldıkları grupları doğru sınıflandırma düzeyini belirlemektir. Araştırmada değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler ve ilişki dereceleri analiz edilmesinden dolayı, araştırma ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın verileri, TALIS (Uluslararası Öğretme ve Öğrenme Anketi) 2008 okul müdürü anketinden derlenerek elde edilmiştir. Araştırmada ele alınan değişkenlerin ülkeleri doğru sınıflandırma düzeyleri diskriminant analizi ile belirlenmiştir. Sınıflandırma sonuçlarına göre, üç farklı grupta yer alan ülkelerdeki okul yöneticileri; okul iklimi (öğretmen morali), öğretimsel yönetim, öğretimsel denetim, hesapverebilir yönetim ve bürokratik yönetim değişkenlerine göre ayrıldığında herhangi bir yöneticinin yer aldığı grubun doğru sınıflandırılma değeri % 51’dir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, ülkeleri doğru sınıflandırmada en fazla katkısı bulunan bağımsız değişkenler sırasıyla öğretimsel yönetim, okul iklimi ve öğretimsel denetimdir. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına dayalı olarak; okul yöneticiliğine atamada kullanılan yöneticilik eğitimlerinde özellikle öğretimsel liderlik ve okul iklimi konularına yer verilmesi önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• Okul yöneticisi atama yaklaşımları, okul yöneticiliği eğitimi, TALIS 2008, diskriminant analizi

References

1. Aslanargun, E. ve Bozkurt, S. (2012). Okul müdürlerinin okul yönetiminde karşılaştığı sorunlar. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(2), 349-368.
2. Avrupa Komisyonu [European Commission] (2013). Avrupa’da öğretmenler ve okul liderlerine ilişkin temel veriler. Eurydice Raporu. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/151TR.pdf (23.02.2014).
3. Barber, M. E. (2006). Leadership preparation programs and principal instructional and transformational leadership practice: The influence of preparation on practice and leader outcomes. Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.
4. Behbahani, A. (2011). Educational leaders and role of education on the efficiency of schools principals. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 9-11.
5. Black, S. (2001). Morale matters: When teachers feel good about their work, research shows, student achievement rises. American School Board Journal, 188(1), 40-43.
6. Blasé J. and Blasé, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 130-141.
7. Bolívar-Botía, A. and Bolívar-Ruano, R. (2011). School principals in Spain: From manager to leader. International Journal of Education, 3(1),1-18.
8. Bowers A. J. and White, B. R. (2014). Do principal preparation and teacher qualifications influence different types of school growth trajectories in Illinois?. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 705-736.

9. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S. and Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303-333.
10. Brauckmann, S. and Pashiardis, P. (2011). A validation study of the leadership styles of a holistic leadership theoretical framework. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 11-32.
11. Brazer, S. D. and Bauer, S. C. (2013). Preparing instructional leaders: A model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(4), 645-684.
12. Brundrett, M., Fitzgerald, T. and Sommefeldt, D. (2006). The creation of national programmes of school leadership development in England and New Zealand: A comparative study. International Studies in Educational Administration, 34(1): 89–105.
13. Bush, T. (2008). Leadership and management development in education, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
14. Bush, T. (2009). Leadership development and school improvement: Contemporary issues in leadership development, Educational Review, 61(4), 375-389.
15. Bush, T. (2013). Preparing headteachers in England: Professional certification, not academic learning, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(4), 453–465.
16. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akbaba-Altun, S., ve Yıldırım, K. (2010). Uluslararası öğretme ve öğrenme araştırması Türkiye ulusal raporu. Ankara: MEB.
17. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
18. Çalık, T., Sezgin, F., Kavgacı, H. ve Kılınç, A. C. (2012). Okul müdürlerinin öğretim liderliği davranışları ile öğretmen öz yeterliği ve kolektif öğretmen yeterliği arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(4), 2487-2504.
19. Coelli, M. and Green, D. A. (2012). Leadership effects: School principals and student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 31(1), 92-109.
20. Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M. and Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 180–213.
21. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
22. Darling-Hammond, L., Meyerson, D., LaPointe, M. and Orr, M. T. (2010). Preparing principals for a changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership programs, San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
23. Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., Brown, E., Ahtaridou, E., and Kington A. (2009). The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes. Nottingham: The National College for School Leadership.
24. Demirtaş, H. ve Özer, N. (2014). Okul müdürlerinin bakış açısıyla okul müdürlüğü. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 22(1),1-24.
25. Donahoo, S. and Stokes, M. (2007). Educational research and reform: The preparation of school administrators. Teaching leaders to lead teachers: Educational administration in the era of constant crisis, advances in educational administration, Vol. 10, pp. 251–260, Elsevier Ltd.
26. Eacott, S. and Asuga, G. N. (2014). School leadership preparation and development in Africa: A critical insight, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–16, , DOI: 10.1177/1741143214523013.
27. Evans, L .(1997). Understanding teacher morale and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education. 13(8), 831-845.
28. Firestone, W. A. and Riehl, C. (Eds.) (2005). A new agenda for research in educational leadership. New York: Teachers College Press.
29. Fuller, E., Young, M. and Baker, B. D. (2011). Do principal preparation programs ınfluence student achievement through the building of teacher-team qualifications by the principal? An exploratory analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 173-216.
30. Garcia-Garduno J. M., Slater, C. L. and Lopez-Gorosave, G. (2011). Beginning elementary principals around the world. Management in Education, 25(3), 100-105.
31. Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S. and Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433-444.
32. Gümüş, S. and Akçaoğlu, M. (2013). Instructional leadership in Turkish primary schools: An analysis of teachers’ perceptions and current policy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(3), 289-302.
33. Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239.
34. Hallinger, P., Leithwood, K. and Heck, R. H. (2010). Instructional leadership. In Penelope Peterson, Eva Baker and Barry Mcgaw (Eds.). International encyclopedia of education, (3rd Ed.), Vol. 5, Oxford: Academic Press.
35. Heck, R. H. and Hallinger, P. (2010). Testing a longitudinal model of distributed leadership effects on school improvement. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 867-885.
36. Hilbe, J. (1992). Regression based dichotomous
37. discriminant analysis. Stata Technical Bulletin, STB-5, January, 13-17. http://www.stata.com/products/stb/journals/stb5.pdf.
38. Horng, E., and Loeb, S. (2010). New thinking about instructional leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 66-69.
39. Horton, T. (2013). The relationship between teachers’ sense of efficacy and perceptions of principal instructional leadership behaviors in high poverty schools. Doctoral dissertation, the University of Texas at Arlington.
40. Ilgan, A., Parylo, O. and Sungu, H. (2015): Predicting teacher job satisfaction based on principals' instructional supervision behaviours: a study of Turkish teachers, Irish Educational Studies, DOI: 10.1080/03323315.2015.1005393.
41. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.
42. Işık, H. (2003). From policy into practice: The effects of principal preparation programs on principal behavior. International Journal of Educational Reform, 12 (4), 260-274.
43. Jacobson, S. (2011). Leadership effects on student achievement and sustained school success. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 33-44.
44. Kalaycı, Ş. (2006). Ayırma (discriminant) analizi. İçinde; Kalaycı, Şeref (Ed.), SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri (ss.335-345). Asil Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara.
45. Klecka, W.R. (1980). Discriminant analysis. Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Sage University Paper, 19, USA.
46. Leithwood, K., Harris, A. and Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27-42.
47. Lynch, M. (2012). A guide to effective school leadership theories. New York, NY: Routledge.
48. Madden, A. C. (2008). Preparation of the assistant principal for the role of principle: An examination of real tasks as compared to the perceived ideal tasks.
49. (Unpublished Dissertation), Georgia State University, http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/eps_diss/20.
50. McLachlan, G.J. (2004). Discriminant analysis and statistical pattern recognition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
51. McQuarrie, F. O., Jr., and Wood, F. H. (1991). Supervision, staff development, and evaluation connections. Theory into Practice, 30 (2), 91-96.
52. MEB. (2013). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Ortaöğretim Kurumları Yönetmeliği. (12.03.2015). http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/ortaogrkurumyon_0/ortaogrkuryon_1.html.
53. Mitgang, L., and Gill, J. (2012). The making of the principal: Five lessons in leadership training. Wallace Foundation website: www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/effective-principal-leadership/Documents/The-Making-of-the-Principal-Five-Lessons-in-Leadership-Training.pdf (24.03.2015).
54. Moolenaar, N. M., Sleegers, P. J.C. and Daly, A. J. (2012). Teaming up: Linking collaboration networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 251-262.
55. Muijs, D. (2011). Leadership and organisational performance: From research to prescription?”. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 45-60.
56. Nettles, S. M. and Herrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724-736.
57. Neumerski, C. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here?” Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310-347.
58. O'Donnell, R. J. and White, G. P. (2005). Within the accountability era: Principals' instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89 (645), 56-71.
59. OECD (2007a). Improving school leadership- Country background report for Slovenia.
60. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/38561414.pdf.
61. OECD (2007b). Improving school leadership- Country background report for Portugal. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/40710632.pdf.
62. OECD (2007c). Improving school leadership- Country background report for Austria. http://www.oecd.org/austria/38570494.pdf.
63. OECD (2007d). Improving school leadership, National background report, Denmark. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/38574860.pdf.
64. -
65. OECD (2007e). Improving school leadership - OECD review background report for the Netherlands. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/38639469.pdf.
66. OECD (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/43023606.pdf (24.02.2014).
67. Oplatka, I. (2012). Towards a conceptualization of the early career stage of principalship: Current research, idiosyncrasies and future directions, International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 129-151.
68. Ovando, M. N. (2005). Building instructional leaders’ capacity to deliver constructive feedback to teachers. J Pers Eval Educ, 18: 171-183.
69. Pont, B., Nusche, D. and Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership, Vol. 1: Policy and practice, Paris: OECD Publishing.
70. Ponticell, J. A. ve Zepeda, S. J. (2004). Confronting well-learned lessons in supervision and evaluation. NAASP Bulletin, 88(639), 43–59.
71. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A. and Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
72. Şahin, S. (2011). Öğretimsel liderlik ve okul kültürü arasındaki ilişki (İzmir ili örneği). Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11(4), 1909-1928.
73. Sebastian, J. and Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626-663.
74. Sergiovanni, T. J., ve Starratt, R. J. (2007). Supervision: A redefinition (8th Edition). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
75. Shatzer, R. H., Caldarella, P., Hallam, P. R. and Brown, B. L. (2013). Comparing the effects of instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement: Implications for practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, pp. 1-15, DOI: 10.1177/1741143213502192.
76. Shulman, V., Sullivan, S. and Glanz, J. (2008). The New York City school reform: Consequences for supervision of instruction, International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 11(4), 407-425.
77. Stronge, J. H., Richard, H. B. and Catano, N. (2008). Qualities of effective principals. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
78. Sungu, H., Ilgan, A., Parylo, O. and Erdem, M. (2014). Examining teacher job satisfaction and principals’ instructional supervision behaviours: A comparative study of Turkish private and public school teachers. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 60(1), 98-118.
79. Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P. and May, H. (2010). How principals and peers ınfluence teaching and learning”. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31-56.
80. Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S. and Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357-385.
81. The Trade Union Committee for Education (2012). School leadership in Europe: Issues, challenges and opportunities, ETUCE School Leadership Survey Report. Brussels. http://www.csee-etuce.org/images/attachments/SchoolLeadershipsurveyEN.pdf (20.01.2015).
82. The Wallace Foundation (2012). The Making of the Principal: Five Lessons in Leadership Training.(10.01.2015).
83. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/effective-principal-leadership/Documents/The-Making-of-the-Principal-Five-Lessons-in-Leadership-Training.pdf.
84. Thoonen, E. E. J., Sleegers, P. J. C., Oort, F. J. and Peetsma, T. T. D. (2012). Building school-wide capacity for improvement: The role of leadership, school organizational conditions, and teacher factors. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 23(4), 441-460.
85. Walker, A. and Qian, H. (2006). Beginning principals: Balancing at the top of the greasy pole, Journal of Educational Administration, 44(4), 297-309.
86. Waters, T., Marzano, R. J. and McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement (Working Paper). Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory.
87. Zachariou, A., Kadji-Beltran, C. and Manoli C. C. (2013). School principals’ professional development in the framework of sustainable schools in Cyprus: A matter of refocusing. Professional Development in Education, 39(5), 712-731.
88. Zullig, K. J., Koopman, T. M., Patton, J. M. ve Ubbes, V. A. (2010). School climate: Historical review, instrument development, and school assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(2), 139–152.