The notion of Charter Schools and Its Feasibility in Turkey

Year 2015, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 1 - 13, 30.08.2015

Ekrem Solak Ayşegül Özaşkın

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.15.08.2.2

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of
Charter School system in Turkey, which was opened firstly in State
of Minnesota of United States and was expanded to approximately
40 states in America today and also, in practice in some countries
such as Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Sweden and
Norway. Charter Schools are educational institutes that can be
opened by signing a contract between a country’s institution
responsible for education and a person or a group who wants to be
responsible for the management of this school. This system was
based on performance and accountability and pursued more
competitive and innovative goals. Moreover, Charter Schools put
emphasis on democracy and equality in education by being free,
addressing to all students living in the region where school was
located and considering individual differences and diversity on
behalf of students. Eight volunteering faculty members were
chosen by criterion sampling who were working in the field of
Educational Sciences of universities in Turkey. Interviews were
conducted with participants who were informed about the structure
and operation of this system in advance. The results of the study
suggested that Charter Schools were advantageous in terms of
individualism, diversity and flexible curriculum though flexible
curriculum, monitoring and audition process could lead to some
problems when it was practiced in Turkey.

Keywords

Charter Schools, public schools, private schools

References

• Al, Hamza. (2014). Eğitim Hizmetlerinin Sunumunda Yönetişim Arayışları: Charter Yöntemi. [A search for governance in educational services]. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 9:1, 127-136.
• Al, Hamza. (2013). Eğitim Yönetiminde Charter Modeli ve Türkiye’de Uygulanabilirliği. [ Charter Model In the Management of Education And its Applicability in Turkey]. Sakarya İktisat Dergisi, 4, 23-40.
• Akyüz, Y. (2013). Türk Eğitim Tarihi: M.Ö. 1000-M.S.2013 [The History of Turkish Education: B.C.1000-A.D.2013]. Pegem Akademi.
• Budde, R. (1988). Education by Charter: Restructuring School Districts. Key to Long-Term Continuing Improvement in American Education. The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvementof the Northeast & Islands. Massachusetts:U.S.A
• Bowles, S. (2014). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. Haymarket Books. U.S.A
• Chen, G. (2014). What is a Charter School? Retrieved from http://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/what-is-a-charter-school
• Gawlik, M. A. (2012). Moving Beyond the Rhetoric: Charter School Reform and Accountability. The Journal of Educational Research, 105:3, 210-219, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2011.559492.
• Hill, P. T., & Lake, R. J. (2004). Charter schools and accountability in public education. Brookings Institution Press.
• Kahlenberg, R. D. (2008). The Charter School Idea Turns 20: A History of Evolution and Role Reversals. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/03/26/29kahlenberg_ep.h27.html
• Kamienski, A. (2011). Competition: Charter and Public Elementary Schools in Chicago. Journal of School Choice: International Research and Reform, 5:2, 161-181, DOI: 10.1080/15582159.2011.576573.
• Kolderie, T. (2008). How the idea of ‘chartering’ schools came about: What role did the Citizens League play? Minnesota Journal. Retrieved from http://www.educationevolving.org/pdf/Origins-of-Chartering-Citizens-LeagueRole.pdf
• Konan, N. (2002). Türkiye Eğitim Sisteminin Yapısı.[The structure of Turkish Education System] Erdal Toprakçı (Ed.), in Eğitim Üzerine (p. 265-290). Ütopya.
• Lee, J. (2014). The Mechanism of State Charter School Policy Adoption: The Case of American States. International Journal of Public Administration, 37, 20-34, doi:10.1080/01900692.2013.809589
• Lubienski, C., Gulosino, C., Weitzel, P. (2009). School Choice and Competitive Incentives: Mapping the Distribution of Educational Opportunities across Local Education Markets. American Journal of Education, 115, 601-647.
• Merriam, S.B. (2013). Nitel Araştırma: Desen ve Uygulama için bir Rehber [Qualitative Research: A guide for design and implementation]. Ankara: NOBEL.
• Minnesota Legislative Reference Library (2014). Resources on Minnesota Issues: Charter Schools. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/issues.aspx?issue=charter
• Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2002). What’s public about charter schools: Lessons learned about choice and accountability. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• No Children Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 2204 (2002).
• Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (p. 238). California: SAGE.
• The Office of the Revisor of the Statues, 1991 Minnesota Session Laws, Chapter 265-H.F.No. 700. Retrieved from https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=265&year=1991&type=0 United Federation of Teachers, UFT History, Albert Shanker. Retrieved from http://www.uft.org/who-we-are/history/albert-shanker
• U.S. Department of Education. Laws & Guidance. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/landing.jhtml?src=rt
• Üstün, A. (2002). Eğitimin Ekonomik Temelleri. [The economic foundations of education]. Erdal Toprakçı (Ed.),in Eğitim Üzerine (p. 241-264). Ütopya.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek. H. (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. [qualitativeresearch techniques in social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin.