BibTex RIS Cite

-

Year 2013, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 91 - 103, 07.08.2013

Engin Şimşek

Abstract

The aim of the study is to determine the frequency rate of the principals of the public schools and institutions of Ministry of National Education in the years between 2001 and 2011. By the study, the average duty periods of the principals of the public schools and institutions are investigated according to the type of educational institutions and additonally the effect of social-economic environment of the schools on the frequency rate of the principals of the public schools and institutions are investigated. The study was performed as a descriptive study. The sampling of the study is the all public formal and non-formal educational institutions of Ministry of National Education in İstanbul. According to the results of the study, between 2011 and the year 2010 when the rotation application started in, the average duty period of the principals of the public schools and institutions in İstanbul between the years 2001-2010 is 4,91 years. The results of the study parallel to the findings of the literature. According to the findings of the study, the principals of the schools which have the most advantageous socio-economic environment have the tendency to work longer in their schools. This study which will provide the data with the “rotation” discussions among the educators will make an important contribution to Turkish educational literature.

Keywords

Rotation of Principals Frequency Rate of Principals Principal Duty Period

References

  • Belt, C. M. (2009). Factors affecting principal turnover: A study of three midwestern cities. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Kansas.
  • Brown, M. C.(1982). Administrative succession and organizational performance: The succession effect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 1-16.
  • Bruggink, P. B. (2001). Principal succession and school effectiveness: The Relationship between the frequency of principal turnover in Florida public schools from 1990-91 to 1998-99 and school performance indicators ın 1998-1999. (Yayımlanmamış tez). The Florida State University, USA.
  • Caldwell, B. J. (1992). The Effects of principal succession on teacher morale. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). South Carolina State University, USA.
  • Carlson, R. O. (1961). Succession and performance among school superintendents. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6(2), 210-227.
  • Clayton, J. K. & Johnson, B. (2011). If ıt ain’t broke, don’t fix ıt: A new principals in town. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership 14(4), 22-30.
  • Cosgrove, D. (1986). The effects of principal succession on elementary schools. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). The University of Utah, USA.
  • Erdoğan, İ. (2010). Milli eğitime dair. Ankara: Nobel.
  • Erdoğan, İ. (2012). Eğitimde değişim yönetimi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Fogo, S. R. (2002). School reform models and their effect on student reading achievement and principal succession. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Bowling Green State University, USA.
  • Garza Jr. E., Murakami-Ramalho, E. & Merchant, B. (2011). Leadership succession and successful leadership: The case of Laura Martinez. Leadership and Policy, 423-443. Gates, S., Ringel, J., Santibanez, L., Guarino, C., Ghosh-Dastidar, B. & Brown, A.(2006). Mobility and turnover among school principals. Economics of Education Review, 25, 289-30
  • Glasspool, T. S. (2006). Socialization of Pennsylvannia high school principal succession. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Pittsburgh, USA.
  • Grusky, O. (1960). Adninistrative succession ın formal organizations. Social Forces, 39(2), 105-115.
  • Grusky, O. (1961). Corporate size, bureaucratization, and managerial succession. The American Journal of Sociology, 67(3), 261-269.
  • Grusky, O. (1963). Managerial succession and organizational effectiveness. The American Journal of Sociology, 69(1), 21-31.
  • Grusky, O. (1969). Succession with an ally. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(2), 155-1
  • Hançerlioğlu, O. (1977). Felsefe sözlüğü. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
  • Hançerlioğlu, O. (1993). Düşünce tarihi. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
  • Hawthorne-Clay, S.A. (2010). A comparative study of principal turnover in union and non-unionized school districst in Ohio. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ashland University Ashland, Ohio.
  • Henrikson, H. A. (2007). The relationship between the use of multiple leadership frames and the meeting of principal succession challenges. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Roosevelt University, Illinois.
  • Hess, F.M. (2000). Why urban school reform doesn’t deliver. http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=14220&terms=hess adresinden elde edildi.
  • Johnson, B. J. (1999). The dynamics of succession - the first months: A qualitative study of principal succession in four elementary schools of the amalgamated catholic school district. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Boston College, USA.
  • Jones, J. C. (2000). Principal succession: A case study. (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). University of Calgary, Canada.
  • Kelly, M. L. (1986). A Study of school principal turnover in North Missouri. (Yayımlanmamış tez). Northeast Missouri State University.
  • Macmillan, R. B., Meyer, M. J., & Northfield, S. (2004). Trust and its role in principal succession: A preliminary examination of a continuum of trust. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(4), 275-294.
  • Mascal, B. & Leithwood, K. (2010). Investing in leadership: The district’s role in managing principal turnover. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 367–383.
  • Meyer, M. J., Macmillan, R. B. & Northfield, S. K. (2009a). Principal succession and its impact on teacher morale. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(2), 171–185.
  • Meyer, M. J., Macmillan, R. B. & Northfield, S. K. (2009b). The use of conscience and discretion as constructs in principals’ difficult or conflicted decision-making dealings during principal succession events. ISEA, 37(3), 20-36.
  • Miskel, C. & Owens, M. (1983, April). Principal succession and changes in school coupling and effectiveness. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
  • Mitchell, M. M. , Bradshaw, C. P. & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Student and teacher perceptions of school climate: A multilevel exploration of patterns of discrepancy. Journal of School Health, 80(6), 271-279.
  • Naman, W. A. (2009). Turnover in FOCUS: An examinatıon of the variables that teachers consider when making decisions to stay in or leave their positions. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Virginia.
  • Noonan, W. (1996). Principal succession and elementary school climate: one year’s experience in an urban school divison. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Oregon, Canada.
  • Oberman, G. L. (1996). A report on principal turnover in the Chicago public schools. Chicago: Department of Research, Evaluation and Planning.
  • Papa, F. Jr. (2007). Why do principals change schools? A multivariate analysis of principal retention. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6, 267-290.
  • Parthlow, M. C. (2007). Contextual factors related to elementary principal turnover. Planning and Changing, 38(1&2), 60-76.
  • Punswick, E. J. (2008). Elementary principals’ backgrounds, stability, moves, and departures: Evidence from Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Kansas.
  • Rigdon, K. L. (2000). Principal succession: Realities encountered by successor principals during the succession process. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Northern Iowa.
  • Sarbit, B. G.(2001). Principal succession: The real story? (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Alberta, Canada.
  • Sheppard, R. R. (2010). Determining Factors that influence high school principal turnover over a five year period. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of North Texas
  • Siesel, A. H. (1997). The Relationship between principal succession and teachers’ readiness to change. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Tulane University.
  • Stoelinga, S. R., Hart, H. & Schalliol, D. (2008). The work of chicago public schools’ principals: Leading in a complex context with high stakes. Chicago: Consortium On Chicago School Research At The University Of Chicago.
  • Tekleselassie, A. A. & Villarreal III, P. (2011). Career mobility and departure ıntentions among school principals in the United States: Incentives and disincentives. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(3), 251-293.
  • Toffler, A. (1971). Future shock. New York: Bantam Books.
  • Tonbul, Y. & Sağıroğlu, S. (2012). Okul müdürlerinin zorunlu yer değiştirme uygulamasına ilişkin bir araştırma. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 18(2), 313-339.
  • Whittall, M. (2002). Principal retention and transition patterns in a cross-section of New Zealand rural schools, may 1990 - may 2000. New Zealand Christchurch Coll. Of Education.
  • Wilson, A. P. & Heim, J. M. (1984, October). Principal turnover by Kansas rural school administrators from 1978-1984. Paper presented at The Annual Rural and Small School Conference, Manhattan.
  • Yılmaz, K., Altınkurt, Y., Karaköse, T. & Erol, E. (2012). Okul Yöneticilerine uygulanan zorunlu yer değiştirme uygulaması hakkında okul yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerin görüşleri. E-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(3), 65-83.

İSTANBUL İLİNDEKİ RESMİ OKUL VE KURUM MÜDÜRLERİNİN 2001-2011 YILLARI ARASINDAKİ YER DEĞİŞTİRME SIKLIKLARI ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Year 2013, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 91 - 103, 07.08.2013

Engin Şimşek

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, İstanbul genelinde resmi örgün ve yaygın eğitim kurum­larında görev yapan okul ve kurum müdürlerinin 2001-2011 yılları arasında eğitim kademelerine göre hangi sıklıkta yer değiştirdiğinin belirlenmesidir. Bu araştırma ile aynı zamanda İstanbul genelinde okul ve kurumların müdürlerinin görev sürele­rinin okulların sosyo-ekonomik çevrelerine göre değişip değişmediğini belirlemek amaçlanmıştır. Tarama modelinde yapılan bu araştırmada örneklem olarak İstanbul ilindeki tüm resmi örgün ve yaygın eğitim kurumları alınmıştır. Araştırmanın bul­gularına göre İstanbul ilinde 2001 yılından rotasyon uygulamasının yapıldığı yıla kadar ortalama müdür görev süresi 4,91 yıldır. Bu süreler eğitim literatüründe yer alan araştırmalarda elde edilen bulgularla uyumludur. Araştırmanın bulgularına göre sosyo-ekonomik çevresi yönüyle en avantajlı okullarda çalışan müdürler daha fazla okullarında yöneticilik yapma eğilimindedirler. Eğitim çalışanları arasında “rotasyon” olarak bilinen okul müdürlerinin beş yılda bir yer değiştirmesi tartış­malarına veri sağlayacak olan bu araştırmanın Türk eğitim literatürüne önemli bir katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

Müdür Rotasyonu Müdürlerin Yer Değiştirme Sıklığı Müdür Görev Süresi

References

  • Belt, C. M. (2009). Factors affecting principal turnover: A study of three midwestern cities. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Kansas.
  • Brown, M. C.(1982). Administrative succession and organizational performance: The succession effect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 1-16.
  • Bruggink, P. B. (2001). Principal succession and school effectiveness: The Relationship between the frequency of principal turnover in Florida public schools from 1990-91 to 1998-99 and school performance indicators ın 1998-1999. (Yayımlanmamış tez). The Florida State University, USA.
  • Caldwell, B. J. (1992). The Effects of principal succession on teacher morale. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). South Carolina State University, USA.
  • Carlson, R. O. (1961). Succession and performance among school superintendents. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6(2), 210-227.
  • Clayton, J. K. & Johnson, B. (2011). If ıt ain’t broke, don’t fix ıt: A new principals in town. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership 14(4), 22-30.
  • Cosgrove, D. (1986). The effects of principal succession on elementary schools. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). The University of Utah, USA.
  • Erdoğan, İ. (2010). Milli eğitime dair. Ankara: Nobel.
  • Erdoğan, İ. (2012). Eğitimde değişim yönetimi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Fogo, S. R. (2002). School reform models and their effect on student reading achievement and principal succession. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Bowling Green State University, USA.
  • Garza Jr. E., Murakami-Ramalho, E. & Merchant, B. (2011). Leadership succession and successful leadership: The case of Laura Martinez. Leadership and Policy, 423-443. Gates, S., Ringel, J., Santibanez, L., Guarino, C., Ghosh-Dastidar, B. & Brown, A.(2006). Mobility and turnover among school principals. Economics of Education Review, 25, 289-30
  • Glasspool, T. S. (2006). Socialization of Pennsylvannia high school principal succession. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Pittsburgh, USA.
  • Grusky, O. (1960). Adninistrative succession ın formal organizations. Social Forces, 39(2), 105-115.
  • Grusky, O. (1961). Corporate size, bureaucratization, and managerial succession. The American Journal of Sociology, 67(3), 261-269.
  • Grusky, O. (1963). Managerial succession and organizational effectiveness. The American Journal of Sociology, 69(1), 21-31.
  • Grusky, O. (1969). Succession with an ally. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(2), 155-1
  • Hançerlioğlu, O. (1977). Felsefe sözlüğü. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
  • Hançerlioğlu, O. (1993). Düşünce tarihi. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
  • Hawthorne-Clay, S.A. (2010). A comparative study of principal turnover in union and non-unionized school districst in Ohio. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ashland University Ashland, Ohio.
  • Henrikson, H. A. (2007). The relationship between the use of multiple leadership frames and the meeting of principal succession challenges. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Roosevelt University, Illinois.
  • Hess, F.M. (2000). Why urban school reform doesn’t deliver. http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=14220&terms=hess adresinden elde edildi.
  • Johnson, B. J. (1999). The dynamics of succession - the first months: A qualitative study of principal succession in four elementary schools of the amalgamated catholic school district. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Boston College, USA.
  • Jones, J. C. (2000). Principal succession: A case study. (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). University of Calgary, Canada.
  • Kelly, M. L. (1986). A Study of school principal turnover in North Missouri. (Yayımlanmamış tez). Northeast Missouri State University.
  • Macmillan, R. B., Meyer, M. J., & Northfield, S. (2004). Trust and its role in principal succession: A preliminary examination of a continuum of trust. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(4), 275-294.
  • Mascal, B. & Leithwood, K. (2010). Investing in leadership: The district’s role in managing principal turnover. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 367–383.
  • Meyer, M. J., Macmillan, R. B. & Northfield, S. K. (2009a). Principal succession and its impact on teacher morale. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(2), 171–185.
  • Meyer, M. J., Macmillan, R. B. & Northfield, S. K. (2009b). The use of conscience and discretion as constructs in principals’ difficult or conflicted decision-making dealings during principal succession events. ISEA, 37(3), 20-36.
  • Miskel, C. & Owens, M. (1983, April). Principal succession and changes in school coupling and effectiveness. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
  • Mitchell, M. M. , Bradshaw, C. P. & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Student and teacher perceptions of school climate: A multilevel exploration of patterns of discrepancy. Journal of School Health, 80(6), 271-279.
  • Naman, W. A. (2009). Turnover in FOCUS: An examinatıon of the variables that teachers consider when making decisions to stay in or leave their positions. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Virginia.
  • Noonan, W. (1996). Principal succession and elementary school climate: one year’s experience in an urban school divison. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Oregon, Canada.
  • Oberman, G. L. (1996). A report on principal turnover in the Chicago public schools. Chicago: Department of Research, Evaluation and Planning.
  • Papa, F. Jr. (2007). Why do principals change schools? A multivariate analysis of principal retention. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6, 267-290.
  • Parthlow, M. C. (2007). Contextual factors related to elementary principal turnover. Planning and Changing, 38(1&2), 60-76.
  • Punswick, E. J. (2008). Elementary principals’ backgrounds, stability, moves, and departures: Evidence from Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Kansas.
  • Rigdon, K. L. (2000). Principal succession: Realities encountered by successor principals during the succession process. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Northern Iowa.
  • Sarbit, B. G.(2001). Principal succession: The real story? (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Alberta, Canada.
  • Sheppard, R. R. (2010). Determining Factors that influence high school principal turnover over a five year period. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of North Texas
  • Siesel, A. H. (1997). The Relationship between principal succession and teachers’ readiness to change. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Tulane University.
  • Stoelinga, S. R., Hart, H. & Schalliol, D. (2008). The work of chicago public schools’ principals: Leading in a complex context with high stakes. Chicago: Consortium On Chicago School Research At The University Of Chicago.
  • Tekleselassie, A. A. & Villarreal III, P. (2011). Career mobility and departure ıntentions among school principals in the United States: Incentives and disincentives. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(3), 251-293.
  • Toffler, A. (1971). Future shock. New York: Bantam Books.
  • Tonbul, Y. & Sağıroğlu, S. (2012). Okul müdürlerinin zorunlu yer değiştirme uygulamasına ilişkin bir araştırma. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 18(2), 313-339.
  • Whittall, M. (2002). Principal retention and transition patterns in a cross-section of New Zealand rural schools, may 1990 - may 2000. New Zealand Christchurch Coll. Of Education.
  • Wilson, A. P. & Heim, J. M. (1984, October). Principal turnover by Kansas rural school administrators from 1978-1984. Paper presented at The Annual Rural and Small School Conference, Manhattan.
  • Yılmaz, K., Altınkurt, Y., Karaköse, T. & Erol, E. (2012). Okul Yöneticilerine uygulanan zorunlu yer değiştirme uygulaması hakkında okul yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerin görüşleri. E-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(3), 65-83.

Year 2013, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 91 - 103, 07.08.2013

Engin Şimşek

Abstract

References

  • Belt, C. M. (2009). Factors affecting principal turnover: A study of three midwestern cities. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Kansas.
  • Brown, M. C.(1982). Administrative succession and organizational performance: The succession effect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 1-16.
  • Bruggink, P. B. (2001). Principal succession and school effectiveness: The Relationship between the frequency of principal turnover in Florida public schools from 1990-91 to 1998-99 and school performance indicators ın 1998-1999. (Yayımlanmamış tez). The Florida State University, USA.
  • Caldwell, B. J. (1992). The Effects of principal succession on teacher morale. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). South Carolina State University, USA.
  • Carlson, R. O. (1961). Succession and performance among school superintendents. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6(2), 210-227.
  • Clayton, J. K. & Johnson, B. (2011). If ıt ain’t broke, don’t fix ıt: A new principals in town. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership 14(4), 22-30.
  • Cosgrove, D. (1986). The effects of principal succession on elementary schools. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). The University of Utah, USA.
  • Erdoğan, İ. (2010). Milli eğitime dair. Ankara: Nobel.
  • Erdoğan, İ. (2012). Eğitimde değişim yönetimi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Fogo, S. R. (2002). School reform models and their effect on student reading achievement and principal succession. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Bowling Green State University, USA.
  • Garza Jr. E., Murakami-Ramalho, E. & Merchant, B. (2011). Leadership succession and successful leadership: The case of Laura Martinez. Leadership and Policy, 423-443. Gates, S., Ringel, J., Santibanez, L., Guarino, C., Ghosh-Dastidar, B. & Brown, A.(2006). Mobility and turnover among school principals. Economics of Education Review, 25, 289-30
  • Glasspool, T. S. (2006). Socialization of Pennsylvannia high school principal succession. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Pittsburgh, USA.
  • Grusky, O. (1960). Adninistrative succession ın formal organizations. Social Forces, 39(2), 105-115.
  • Grusky, O. (1961). Corporate size, bureaucratization, and managerial succession. The American Journal of Sociology, 67(3), 261-269.
  • Grusky, O. (1963). Managerial succession and organizational effectiveness. The American Journal of Sociology, 69(1), 21-31.
  • Grusky, O. (1969). Succession with an ally. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(2), 155-1
  • Hançerlioğlu, O. (1977). Felsefe sözlüğü. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
  • Hançerlioğlu, O. (1993). Düşünce tarihi. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
  • Hawthorne-Clay, S.A. (2010). A comparative study of principal turnover in union and non-unionized school districst in Ohio. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ashland University Ashland, Ohio.
  • Henrikson, H. A. (2007). The relationship between the use of multiple leadership frames and the meeting of principal succession challenges. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Roosevelt University, Illinois.
  • Hess, F.M. (2000). Why urban school reform doesn’t deliver. http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=14220&terms=hess adresinden elde edildi.
  • Johnson, B. J. (1999). The dynamics of succession - the first months: A qualitative study of principal succession in four elementary schools of the amalgamated catholic school district. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Boston College, USA.
  • Jones, J. C. (2000). Principal succession: A case study. (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). University of Calgary, Canada.
  • Kelly, M. L. (1986). A Study of school principal turnover in North Missouri. (Yayımlanmamış tez). Northeast Missouri State University.
  • Macmillan, R. B., Meyer, M. J., & Northfield, S. (2004). Trust and its role in principal succession: A preliminary examination of a continuum of trust. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(4), 275-294.
  • Mascal, B. & Leithwood, K. (2010). Investing in leadership: The district’s role in managing principal turnover. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 367–383.
  • Meyer, M. J., Macmillan, R. B. & Northfield, S. K. (2009a). Principal succession and its impact on teacher morale. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(2), 171–185.
  • Meyer, M. J., Macmillan, R. B. & Northfield, S. K. (2009b). The use of conscience and discretion as constructs in principals’ difficult or conflicted decision-making dealings during principal succession events. ISEA, 37(3), 20-36.
  • Miskel, C. & Owens, M. (1983, April). Principal succession and changes in school coupling and effectiveness. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
  • Mitchell, M. M. , Bradshaw, C. P. & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Student and teacher perceptions of school climate: A multilevel exploration of patterns of discrepancy. Journal of School Health, 80(6), 271-279.
  • Naman, W. A. (2009). Turnover in FOCUS: An examinatıon of the variables that teachers consider when making decisions to stay in or leave their positions. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Virginia.
  • Noonan, W. (1996). Principal succession and elementary school climate: one year’s experience in an urban school divison. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Oregon, Canada.
  • Oberman, G. L. (1996). A report on principal turnover in the Chicago public schools. Chicago: Department of Research, Evaluation and Planning.
  • Papa, F. Jr. (2007). Why do principals change schools? A multivariate analysis of principal retention. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6, 267-290.
  • Parthlow, M. C. (2007). Contextual factors related to elementary principal turnover. Planning and Changing, 38(1&2), 60-76.
  • Punswick, E. J. (2008). Elementary principals’ backgrounds, stability, moves, and departures: Evidence from Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Kansas.
  • Rigdon, K. L. (2000). Principal succession: Realities encountered by successor principals during the succession process. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Northern Iowa.
  • Sarbit, B. G.(2001). Principal succession: The real story? (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Alberta, Canada.
  • Sheppard, R. R. (2010). Determining Factors that influence high school principal turnover over a five year period. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of North Texas
  • Siesel, A. H. (1997). The Relationship between principal succession and teachers’ readiness to change. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Tulane University.
  • Stoelinga, S. R., Hart, H. & Schalliol, D. (2008). The work of chicago public schools’ principals: Leading in a complex context with high stakes. Chicago: Consortium On Chicago School Research At The University Of Chicago.
  • Tekleselassie, A. A. & Villarreal III, P. (2011). Career mobility and departure ıntentions among school principals in the United States: Incentives and disincentives. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(3), 251-293.
  • Toffler, A. (1971). Future shock. New York: Bantam Books.
  • Tonbul, Y. & Sağıroğlu, S. (2012). Okul müdürlerinin zorunlu yer değiştirme uygulamasına ilişkin bir araştırma. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 18(2), 313-339.
  • Whittall, M. (2002). Principal retention and transition patterns in a cross-section of New Zealand rural schools, may 1990 - may 2000. New Zealand Christchurch Coll. Of Education.
  • Wilson, A. P. & Heim, J. M. (1984, October). Principal turnover by Kansas rural school administrators from 1978-1984. Paper presented at The Annual Rural and Small School Conference, Manhattan.
  • Yılmaz, K., Altınkurt, Y., Karaköse, T. & Erol, E. (2012). Okul Yöneticilerine uygulanan zorunlu yer değiştirme uygulaması hakkında okul yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerin görüşleri. E-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(3), 65-83.
There are 47 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Engin Şimşek This is me

Publication Date August 7, 2013
Published in Issue Year 2013 Volume: 10 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Şimşek, E. (2013). İSTANBUL İLİNDEKİ RESMİ OKUL VE KURUM MÜDÜRLERİNİN 2001-2011 YILLARI ARASINDAKİ YER DEĞİŞTİRME SIKLIKLARI ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. HAYEF Journal of Education, 10(1), 91-103.
AMA Şimşek E. İSTANBUL İLİNDEKİ RESMİ OKUL VE KURUM MÜDÜRLERİNİN 2001-2011 YILLARI ARASINDAKİ YER DEĞİŞTİRME SIKLIKLARI ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. HAYEF Journal of Education. August 2013;10(1):91-103.
Chicago Şimşek, Engin. “İSTANBUL İLİNDEKİ RESMİ OKUL VE KURUM MÜDÜRLERİNİN 2001-2011 YILLARI ARASINDAKİ YER DEĞİŞTİRME SIKLIKLARI ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA”. HAYEF Journal of Education 10, no. 1 (August 2013): 91-103.
EndNote Şimşek E (August 1, 2013) İSTANBUL İLİNDEKİ RESMİ OKUL VE KURUM MÜDÜRLERİNİN 2001-2011 YILLARI ARASINDAKİ YER DEĞİŞTİRME SIKLIKLARI ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. HAYEF Journal of Education 10 1 91–103.
IEEE E. Şimşek, “İSTANBUL İLİNDEKİ RESMİ OKUL VE KURUM MÜDÜRLERİNİN 2001-2011 YILLARI ARASINDAKİ YER DEĞİŞTİRME SIKLIKLARI ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA”, HAYEF Journal of Education, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 91–103, 2013.
ISNAD Şimşek, Engin. “İSTANBUL İLİNDEKİ RESMİ OKUL VE KURUM MÜDÜRLERİNİN 2001-2011 YILLARI ARASINDAKİ YER DEĞİŞTİRME SIKLIKLARI ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA”. HAYEF Journal of Education 10/1 (August 2013), 91-103.
JAMA Şimşek E. İSTANBUL İLİNDEKİ RESMİ OKUL VE KURUM MÜDÜRLERİNİN 2001-2011 YILLARI ARASINDAKİ YER DEĞİŞTİRME SIKLIKLARI ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. HAYEF Journal of Education. 2013;10:91–103.
MLA Şimşek, Engin. “İSTANBUL İLİNDEKİ RESMİ OKUL VE KURUM MÜDÜRLERİNİN 2001-2011 YILLARI ARASINDAKİ YER DEĞİŞTİRME SIKLIKLARI ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA”. HAYEF Journal of Education, vol. 10, no. 1, 2013, pp. 91-103.
Vancouver Şimşek E. İSTANBUL İLİNDEKİ RESMİ OKUL VE KURUM MÜDÜRLERİNİN 2001-2011 YILLARI ARASINDAKİ YER DEĞİŞTİRME SIKLIKLARI ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. HAYEF Journal of Education. 2013;10(1):91-103.
 Download Cover Image