Research on professional Turkish teacher law based on teachers' rights and freedoms

Abstract

The “Teaching Profession Law” came into force in February 2022 to regulate the professional rights of teachers. The scope and purpose of this law are to regulate the professional development and career steps of teachers. This research aimed to determine the opinions of teachers about the new law of the profession. It is a descriptive study in survey design. Teachers (379 female, 285 male) from all school types, teaching levels, geographical regions, and seniority participated voluntarily in this study. Teachers think that the new professional law will not improve their rights and increase the prestige of the profession. Teachers think that the new law of professional development is not adequately discussed or discussed based on scientific data. According to teachers, the new professional law does not encourage professional development. Teachers stated that though they generally support the need for such a profession law, the new law should be discussed more opportunities that are promising should be offered to teachers.

Keywords

• Professional development
• teacher opinions
• teaching profession
• teaching profession law
• teacher surveys.

References

1. Akyüz, Y. (2001). Başlangıçtan 2001’e Türk eğitim tarihi [Turkish education history from the beginning to 2001]. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
2. Altuntas, Ö. (2017, December 27). PISA direktörü Andreas Schleicher: Türkiye bilgiyi pratiğe geçirmeyi öğrenmeli [Turkey should learn to put knowledge into practice]. BBC Türkçe. Retrived from https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-turkiye-42481321.
3. Archibald, S., Coggshall, J. G., Croft, A., & Goe, L. (2011). High-Quality Professional Development for All Teachers: Effectively Allocating Resources. Research & Policy Brief. New York: New York Comprehensive Center and Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED520732.pdf
4. Atanur Baskan, G., Aydin, A., & Madden, T. (2006). Turkiye’deki ogretmen yetistirme sistemine karsilastirmali bir bakis [A comparative view on the teacher training system in Turkey]. Journal of Cukurova University Institude of Social Sciences, 15 (1), 35-42.
5. Aykaç, N., Kabaran, H., & Bilgin, H. (2014). Türkiye'de ve Bazı Avrupa Birliği Ülkelerindeki Öğretmen Yetiştirme Uygulamalarının Karşılaştırılmalı Olarak İncelenmesi (Almanya, Finlandiya, Fransa, İngiltere ve Türkiye Örneği) [Comparative Analysis of Teacher Training Practices in Turkey and Some European Union Countries]. Electronic Turkish Studies, 9(3).
6. Barber, M. and Mourshed, M. (2007). How The World's Best-Performing School Systems Come Out On Top. New York: McKinsey & Company.
7. Buyukozturk, S., Cokluk, O. & Koklu, N. (2014). Sosyal bilimler icin istatistik [Statistics for social sciences] (14th. Edition). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
8. Can, Ertug. (2015). Qualitative Obstacles in Turkish Education System and Suggestions. Anthropologist, 20 (1,2) 289-296.

9. Çelikten, M. (2005). Öğretmenlik Mesleği ve Özellikleri [Teaching Profession and Characteristics]. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(19), 207-237.
10. Ceylan, E., Özdoğan Özbal, E., Sever, M. & Boyacı, A. (2020). Türkiye’deki Öğretmen ve Okul Yöneticilerinin Görüşleri, Öğretim Koşulları: TALIS 2018 Öğretmen ve Okul Yöneticileri Yanıtları Analizi [Opinions of Teachers and School Administrators in Turkey, Teaching Conditions: Analysis of TALIS 2018 Teachers and School Administrators Responses]. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. Retrived from https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2020_09/10142823_TALIS_RAPORU-.pdf
11. Cohen, D. K. ve Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294–343.
12. Connolly, P. (2007) Quantitative Data Analysis in Education: A critical introduction using SPSS. Routledge, London.
13. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (Vol. 7). Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.
14. Creswell, J. W. (2014). A Concise İntroduction to Mixed Methods Research. SAGE publications.
15. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education policy analysis archives, 8, 1-19.
16. Day, C. and Sachs, J. (2004). Professionalism, performativity, and empowerment: Discourses in the politics, policies, and purposes of continuing professional development. In International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers, Day, C and Sachs, J. (Eds.). Maidenhead: Open University Press (pp. 3-32).
17. Demirel, Ö. (1999). Öğretme sanatı [Didactics]. Pegem Yayınları.
18. DeMonte, J. (2013). High-quality professional development for teachers: Supporting teacher training and improving student learning. Centers for American Progress. Retrieved From https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/07/DeMonteLearning4Teachers-1.pdf
19. Desimone, L. M. ve Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers' professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252-263.
20. Education Information Network in the European Community (2009). The education system in Turkey. Eurydice Report. Retrived from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/Eurydice/ByCountryResults?countryCode=TR
21. Education Information Network in the European Community (2018). Teaching Careers in Europe: Access, Continuity and Support. Eurydice Report. Retrived from https://www.avrupa.info.tr/sites/default/files/2019-08/Avrupa%27da%20%C3%96%C4%9Fretmenlik%20Kariyeri%20-%20Eri%C5%9Fim%2C%20Devaml%C4%B1l%C4%B1k%20ve%20Destek.pdf
22. Eğitim Reformu Girişimi (2022, January 27). Arka Plan, Öğretmenlik Meslek Kanunu [Background, Teaching Profession Law]. ERG. Retrived from https://www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/arka-plan-ogretmenlik-meslek-kanunu/
23. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2009). Decoding resistance to change. Harvard business review, 87(4), 99-103.
24. Furst, S. A., & Cable, D. M. (2008). Employee resistance to organizational change: managerial influence tactics and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied psychology, 93(2), 453.
25. Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. International journal of endocrinology and metabolism, 10(2), 486.
26. Göker, S. D. & Gündüz, Y. (2017). Dünya Ölçeğinde Öğretmenlerin Saygınlık Statüsü ve Özlük Hakları [Reputation Status and Personal Rights of Teachers at the World Scale]. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 46(213), 177-196.
27. Gürbüz, M. Ç. & Altun, M. (2019). PISA uygulamalarının tanıtımı [Introduction of PISA applications]. In S. Çepni (Ed.), PISA ve TIMSS mantığını ve sorularını anlama. (2nd ed., pp. 1-16). Pegem Akademi.
28. Hardy, I. (2012). The politics of teacher professional development: Policy, research, and practice. Routledge.
29. Hussey, D. E. (1997). How to Manage Organisational Change [Kurumsal Değişimi Başarmak], (trans. Tülay Savaşer). Rota Yayınları
30. İlğan, A. (2014). Okul müdürünün öğretimsel denetim davranışları ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [The validity and reliability study of the school principal's instructional supervision behavior scale]. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 1-23.
31. İlğan, A. (2021). Öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimi üzerine kavramsal bir çerçeve ve Türk eğitim sistemi için çıkarımlar [A conceptual framework on the professional development of teachers and implications for the Turkish education system]. Yaşadıkça Eğitim, 35(1), 256-280.
32. Jensen, B., & Farmer, J. (2013). School Turnaround in Shanghai: The Empowered-Management Program Approach to Improving School Performance. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ShanghaiReport-INTRO.pdf
33. Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific research method]. Nobel Yayınları.
34. Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221-240.
35. Ministry of National Education (2019). PISA 2018 Turkey Preliminary Report. Training Analysis and Evaluation Reports Series No:10. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (in Turkish). Retrieved from https://www.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2019_12/03105347_PISA_2018_Turkiye_On_Raporu.pdf
36. Ministry of National Education (2006). Teacher Training Systems of Countries. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (in Turkish). Retrieved from https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/StPrg/Ogretmenlik_Meslegi_Genel_Yeterlikleri.pdf
37. Neyişçi, N. , Turabik, T. , Gün, F. & Kısa, N. (2020). Öğretmen Adaylarının Perspektifinden Türk Eğitim Sisteminin Sorunları ve Olası Çözüm Önerileri [Problems of Turkish Education System and Possible Solutions from the Perspective of Pre-Service Teachers]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 28 (6) , 2257-2270 . DOI: 10.24106/kefdergi.833516
38. O'Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 19 https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
39. OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.
40. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): As lifelong learners, teachers, and school leaders. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi:10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.
41. Özkan, U. B. (2019). Matematik ve fen başarısının belirleyicisi olarak öğretmenlerin eğitim düzeyi [Education level of teachers as a determinant of mathematics and science achievement]. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(6), 29-43.
42. Pallant, J. (2017) SPSS Survival Manual [SPSS Kullanma Kılavuzu], (trans. Sibel Balcı & Berat Ahi), Anı Yayıncılık.
43. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284.
44. Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of management review, 25(4), 783-794.
45. RESMI GAZETE (2022). Teaching Profession Law (No: 31750). Resmi Gazete, (in Turkish). Retrieved from https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2022/02/20220214-1.htm
46. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: A conception of teacher knowledge. American Educator, 10(1). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ333816
47. Usak, M. (2009). Preservice Science and Technology Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge on Cell Topics. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 9(4), 2033-2046.
48. Varkey Foundation. (2018). Teacher Status Index. London. Retrived from https://www.varkeyfoundation.org/media/4867/gts-index-13-11-2018.pdf