BibTex RIS Cite

Eğitim Denetimi Sürecinde Hesap Verebilirlik ve Şeffaflık Uygulamaları

Year 2017, Volume: 36 Issue: 1, 83 - 93, 26.04.2017

Abstract

Gelişmiş kurumsal yönetimin en önemli özelliklerinden biri olan hesap verebilirlik, çağdaş yönetimin teori ve uygulamasındaki öneminden ötürü eğitim sistemlerinde de anahtar bir kavram haline gelmiştir. Özellikle okul denetiminin ön plana çıktığı ve başarılı bir şekilde uygulandığı ülkelerde, öncelikli hedef, öğrenciler için eğitimsel sonuçların geliştirilmesi olmuştur. Hesap verebilirlik ve okullara destek arasındaki dengeyi sağlayabilen bu ülkeler, hem okullara yeterli kaynak ile nitelikli iş gücü sağlamada hem de hesap verebilirliğin yerindeliğini de kanıtlamış olmaktadırlar. Son yıllarda, e-Devlet uygulamalarının geliştirilmesiyle birlikte, bilgi sistemlerinin kullanılması, karar alma süreci ve ortaya çıkan performansa ilişkin bilgilerin daha kolay erişilebilir olması, hesap verebilirliğe de katkıda bulunacaktır. Bu süreç, hesap verebilirliği eğitim sistemlerine etk in bir şekilde yerleştirmek isteyen ülkeler tarafından kullanılabilmekle birlikte ilgili tüm paydaşların bu erişim için gerekli olanak ve becerilere sahip olması gerekmektedir. Denetim sürecinde hesap verebilirlik ve şeffaflık konusunda dünya ölçeğinde fazla bir araştırmanın olmaması ve denetim raporlarının gerçek paydaşlar ile yeterli düzeyde paylaşılamamasından hareketle, literatür taraması temelinde yapılan bu kuramsal araştırmanın amacı, hesap verebilirliğin eğitim ve denetim sürecine yansımalarını belirlemek ve ilkelerini ortaya çıkarmak, dünyadaki farklı hesap verebilirlik ve şeffaflık uygulamalarını tartışarak, denetsel raporlar ile birlikte denetsel eylemler sonucunda verilen geribildirimlerin eğitim sistemini ve eğitim siyasalarını belirlemedeki rolünü ortaya çıkarmaktır. Bu çalışmada, okulun analiz birimi olarak görüldüğü hesap verebilirlik sistemleri üzerinde durulması uygun bulunmuştur. Okulların hesap verebilirlik sistemleri, aynı zamanda güçlü bir okul kültürünün geliştirilmesine de katkı sağlamaktadır. Okuldan hizmet alan öğrenci ve ebeveynler, hesap verebilirlik sistemi aracılığı ile elde ettikleri verileri değerlendirerek okulun daha etkin hale getirilmesi ve güçlü bir okul kültürü oluşmasına katkı yapabilirler.

 

Anahtar Kelimeler: Hesap verebilirlik, şeffaflık, denetim, eğitim

References

  • ADB (Asian Development Bank). Governance, operations manual, section 54: Issued on 13 January 1997, (http://www.adb.org/Documents/Manuals/ Operations/om54.asp?p=aadb). Son erişim tarihi: 15.02.2015.
  • BALCI, A. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem teknik ve ilkeler. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  • BALL, S. (1999). Labour, learning and the economy? A political sociology perspective, Cambridge Journal of Education 29 (2), 195-206.
  • BİESTA, GERT J.J. (2004). Education, accountability, and the ethical demand: Can the democratic potential of accountability be regained. Educational Theory, 54 (3), 117-126.
  • BLACK, S. (1999). Do better schools matter? Parental valuation of elementary education. Q. J. Econ. 114 (2), 577–599.
  • BURGESS, S., PROPPER, C., SLATER, H. and WİLSON, D. (2005). Who wins and who loses from school accountability? The distribution of educational gain in English secondary schools. University of Bristol.
  • C & K Management Limited (2002). The manage mentor, strategic management, “Accountability for Success of Corporate Governance”, (http://www.themanagementor.com/ kuniverse/ kmailers_ universe/sm_kmailers/SFM_Accountability.htm). Son erişim tarihi: 05.02.2015.
  • CRAMER, J. E. and BROWNE, G.S. (1974). Çağdaş eğitim. Çev: Ferhan Oğuzkan. İstanbul: MEB Yayınları.
  • CURRAN, B. (1999). State accountability issues, challenges, and strategies. Washington, D.C: National Governors Association.
  • DEE, T. and JACOB, B. (2009). The ımpact of no child left behind on student achievement. National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER. 15531.
  • FUHRMAN, S.H. (2002). The new accountability. University Park, PA: Center for Policy Research in Education
  • FENG, L., FİGLİO, D. and SASS, T. (2009). School accountability and teacher mobility. www. econ.wisc.edu/_scholz/Seminar/Figlio.pdf. Son erişim tarihi: 01.02.2015.
  • FİGLİO, D. and KENNY, L.(2009). Public sector performance measurement and stakeholder support. J. Public Econ. 93 (9–10), 1069–1077.
  • FİGLİO, D. and LUCAS, M., (2004). What’s in a grade? School report cards and the housing market. Am. Econ. Rev. 94 (3), 591–604.
  • FİNK, A. (2005). Conducting research literature reviews : From the ınternet to paper, 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
  • GEWİRTZ, S. (2002). The managerial school: post-welfarism and social justice in education, London and New York: Routledge.
  • GOLDHABER, D., GROSS, B. and PLAYER, D. (2007). Are public schools really losing their “best”?: Assessing the career transitions of teachers and their implication for the quality of the teacher workforce. The Urban Institute Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, Working Paper 12.
  • GÖKER, S. D. ve GÜNDÜZ, Y. (2014). Denetime gösterilen tepki ve bu tepkiyi azaltma yolları.
  • Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, 137-139.
  • GÖKER, S. D. (2006). Leading for learning: Reflective management in EFL. Theory into Practice.
  • Spring. 45 (2), 187-196.
  • GÜNDÜZ, Y, ve GÖKER, S. D. (2014). Dünya ölçeğinde eğitim denetmenlerinin iş tanımlarındaki
  • çelişkiler ve rol çatışmaları. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14 (2),
  • -167.
  • HANUSHEK, E.A., KAİN, J., O’BRİEN, D. and RİVKİN, S.G. (2005). The market for teacher quality. National Bureau of Economic Research, Technical Report.
  • HANUSHEK, E.A. and RAYMOND, M. (2003). Lessons about the design of state accountability systems. In: Peterson, P.E., West, M.R. (Eds.), No Child Left Behind: The Politics and Practice of School Accountabilityç Brookings Institution, pp. 127-151.
  • JİN, G.Z. and LESLİE, P. (2003). The effect of information on product quality: Evidence from restaurants hygiene grade cards. Q. J. Econ. 118 (2), 409–451.
  • KNOWLEDGE BRİEF. (2010). World Bank. Europe and Central Asia. (33).561-568.
  • KRUSE, S. D. and LOUİS, K. S. (2009). Building strong school cultures: A guide to leading change.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  • MATHİOS, A.D. (2000). The impact of mandatory disclosure laws on product choices: An analysis of the salad dressing market. J. Law Econ. 43 (2), 651–677.
  • MİZALA, A., ROMAGUERA, P. and URQUİOLA, M. (2007). Socioeconomic status or noise? Tradeoffs in the generation of school quality information. J. Dev. Econ. 84 (1), 61-75.
  • POWER, M. (1997). The audit society: rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • SIGMA. (2002). Definitions of audit and financial control terminology, OECD, s.1. (http://www1.oecd.org/puma/sigmaweb/acts/audit/a_fc_terminology.htm#EEE). Son erişim tarihi: 11.02.2015.
  • SİMS, D. (2009). Going down with the ship? The effect of school accountability on the distribution of teacher experience in California. The Urban Institute.
  • SULLİVAN, S. And GLANZ J. (2000). Supervision that İmproves Teaching: Strategies and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.
  • TOMLİNSON, S. (2002). Education in a post-welfare society. Buckingham: Open University Press, 24-66.
  • TUCKER, M.S. and CLARK, C.S. (1999). The new accountability. The American School Bords Journal, 186, 26-29.
  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (1998), Glossary of key terms. governance for sustainable human development, s.1. (http://magnet.undp.org/policy/glossary.htm). Son erişim tarihi: 05.02.2015.
  • WHİTTY, G., POWER, S. and HALPİN D. (1998). Devolution and choice in education: The school, the state and the market. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Year 2017, Volume: 36 Issue: 1, 83 - 93, 26.04.2017

Abstract

References

  • ADB (Asian Development Bank). Governance, operations manual, section 54: Issued on 13 January 1997, (http://www.adb.org/Documents/Manuals/ Operations/om54.asp?p=aadb). Son erişim tarihi: 15.02.2015.
  • BALCI, A. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem teknik ve ilkeler. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  • BALL, S. (1999). Labour, learning and the economy? A political sociology perspective, Cambridge Journal of Education 29 (2), 195-206.
  • BİESTA, GERT J.J. (2004). Education, accountability, and the ethical demand: Can the democratic potential of accountability be regained. Educational Theory, 54 (3), 117-126.
  • BLACK, S. (1999). Do better schools matter? Parental valuation of elementary education. Q. J. Econ. 114 (2), 577–599.
  • BURGESS, S., PROPPER, C., SLATER, H. and WİLSON, D. (2005). Who wins and who loses from school accountability? The distribution of educational gain in English secondary schools. University of Bristol.
  • C & K Management Limited (2002). The manage mentor, strategic management, “Accountability for Success of Corporate Governance”, (http://www.themanagementor.com/ kuniverse/ kmailers_ universe/sm_kmailers/SFM_Accountability.htm). Son erişim tarihi: 05.02.2015.
  • CRAMER, J. E. and BROWNE, G.S. (1974). Çağdaş eğitim. Çev: Ferhan Oğuzkan. İstanbul: MEB Yayınları.
  • CURRAN, B. (1999). State accountability issues, challenges, and strategies. Washington, D.C: National Governors Association.
  • DEE, T. and JACOB, B. (2009). The ımpact of no child left behind on student achievement. National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER. 15531.
  • FUHRMAN, S.H. (2002). The new accountability. University Park, PA: Center for Policy Research in Education
  • FENG, L., FİGLİO, D. and SASS, T. (2009). School accountability and teacher mobility. www. econ.wisc.edu/_scholz/Seminar/Figlio.pdf. Son erişim tarihi: 01.02.2015.
  • FİGLİO, D. and KENNY, L.(2009). Public sector performance measurement and stakeholder support. J. Public Econ. 93 (9–10), 1069–1077.
  • FİGLİO, D. and LUCAS, M., (2004). What’s in a grade? School report cards and the housing market. Am. Econ. Rev. 94 (3), 591–604.
  • FİNK, A. (2005). Conducting research literature reviews : From the ınternet to paper, 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
  • GEWİRTZ, S. (2002). The managerial school: post-welfarism and social justice in education, London and New York: Routledge.
  • GOLDHABER, D., GROSS, B. and PLAYER, D. (2007). Are public schools really losing their “best”?: Assessing the career transitions of teachers and their implication for the quality of the teacher workforce. The Urban Institute Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, Working Paper 12.
  • GÖKER, S. D. ve GÜNDÜZ, Y. (2014). Denetime gösterilen tepki ve bu tepkiyi azaltma yolları.
  • Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, 137-139.
  • GÖKER, S. D. (2006). Leading for learning: Reflective management in EFL. Theory into Practice.
  • Spring. 45 (2), 187-196.
  • GÜNDÜZ, Y, ve GÖKER, S. D. (2014). Dünya ölçeğinde eğitim denetmenlerinin iş tanımlarındaki
  • çelişkiler ve rol çatışmaları. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14 (2),
  • -167.
  • HANUSHEK, E.A., KAİN, J., O’BRİEN, D. and RİVKİN, S.G. (2005). The market for teacher quality. National Bureau of Economic Research, Technical Report.
  • HANUSHEK, E.A. and RAYMOND, M. (2003). Lessons about the design of state accountability systems. In: Peterson, P.E., West, M.R. (Eds.), No Child Left Behind: The Politics and Practice of School Accountabilityç Brookings Institution, pp. 127-151.
  • JİN, G.Z. and LESLİE, P. (2003). The effect of information on product quality: Evidence from restaurants hygiene grade cards. Q. J. Econ. 118 (2), 409–451.
  • KNOWLEDGE BRİEF. (2010). World Bank. Europe and Central Asia. (33).561-568.
  • KRUSE, S. D. and LOUİS, K. S. (2009). Building strong school cultures: A guide to leading change.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  • MATHİOS, A.D. (2000). The impact of mandatory disclosure laws on product choices: An analysis of the salad dressing market. J. Law Econ. 43 (2), 651–677.
  • MİZALA, A., ROMAGUERA, P. and URQUİOLA, M. (2007). Socioeconomic status or noise? Tradeoffs in the generation of school quality information. J. Dev. Econ. 84 (1), 61-75.
  • POWER, M. (1997). The audit society: rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • SIGMA. (2002). Definitions of audit and financial control terminology, OECD, s.1. (http://www1.oecd.org/puma/sigmaweb/acts/audit/a_fc_terminology.htm#EEE). Son erişim tarihi: 11.02.2015.
  • SİMS, D. (2009). Going down with the ship? The effect of school accountability on the distribution of teacher experience in California. The Urban Institute.
  • SULLİVAN, S. And GLANZ J. (2000). Supervision that İmproves Teaching: Strategies and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.
  • TOMLİNSON, S. (2002). Education in a post-welfare society. Buckingham: Open University Press, 24-66.
  • TUCKER, M.S. and CLARK, C.S. (1999). The new accountability. The American School Bords Journal, 186, 26-29.
  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (1998), Glossary of key terms. governance for sustainable human development, s.1. (http://magnet.undp.org/policy/glossary.htm). Son erişim tarihi: 05.02.2015.
  • WHİTTY, G., POWER, S. and HALPİN D. (1998). Devolution and choice in education: The school, the state and the market. Buckingham: Open University Press.
There are 39 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Articles
Authors

Süleyman Davut Göker

Yüksel Gündüz

Publication Date April 26, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017 Volume: 36 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Göker, S. D., & Gündüz, Y. (2017). Eğitim Denetimi Sürecinde Hesap Verebilirlik ve Şeffaflık Uygulamaları. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 36(1), 83-93. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.327390