PISA 2022 Sonuçlarına Göre Okul Özerkliği ve Okul İkliminin İncelenmesi: Türkiye ve Litvanya Örneği

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 64, 2006 - 2023, 30.06.2025

İlayda Köklücan , Yasemin Sezer

https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1606806

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, özerk ve merkeziyetçi yapıya sahip eğitim sistemlerini okul ikliminde ele alınabilecek okul, öğretmen ve öğrenci değişkenleri açısından karşılaştırmaktır. Okul özerkliği, yönetsel karar alma süreçlerinde okullara tanınan yetki düzeyiyle ilişkilidir. Okulların yönetim yapısının, okul içi ilişkiler ve karar alma süreçleri aracılığıyla okul iklimine yansıyacağı düşünülmektedir. Bu noktadan hareketle, bu araştırmada eğitim sistemlerinin yönetsel yapıları farklılık gösteren Türkiye ve Litvanya’da okullardaki okul iklimine dair değişkenler belirlenmiş ve karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınmıştır. Araştırmada, 2022 yılına ait PISA Türkiye ve Litvanya veri setleri kullanılmıştır. Her iki ülkeye ait veri setlerinden elde edilen yönetici ve öğrenci anketlerinde yer alan okul iklimiyle ilişkili indeksler analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmada, 19 indeks bağımlı değişken olarak ele alınmış ve okul iklimi değişkenleri, okul, öğretmen ve öğrenci temelli olmak üzere üç boyutta incelenmiştir. Verilerin analizinde çok değişkenli varyans analizi (MANOVA) yapılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre okul özerkliği olan bir eğitim sisteminde, öğrencinin kendini daha güvende hissettiği, işbirliği ve uzlaşının hakim olduğu, okulun öğretmene sağladığı destek hizmetlerinin olduğu, öğrenmeyi sağlayan okul aktiviteleri bulunduğu ve öğretmenle ilişkili olumlu faktörlerin daha fazla olduğu bir okul iklimi bulunmaktadır. Karşılaştırılan iki eğitim sistemi göz önüne alındığında, merkeziyetçi yapı içinde belirli faktörlerin kontrol edilmesiyle okul ikliminin iyileştirilebileceği ve bunun eğitim sisteminin niteliğini artırmaya katkı sağlayabileceği önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

PISA , okul özerkliği , okul iklimi , merkeziyetçi yapı

Examining School Autonomy and School Climate According to PISA 2022 Results: Turkey and Lithuania

Öz

This study aims to compare education systems with autonomous and centralized structures in terms of school-based, teacher-based, and student-based variables that can be addressed within the school climate. School autonomy refers to the degree of authority granted to schools in administrative decision-making processes. It is thought that the administrative structure of schools is reflected in the school climate through intra-school relationships and decision-making processes. In this context, a causal-comparative study was conducted by identifying the variables related to the school climate that differ between Turkey and Lithuania, whose educational systems vary in terms of administrative structure. The PISA 2022 datasets for Turkey and Lithuania were used in this study. School climate-related indices from the principal and student surveys, obtained separately from the datasets of both countries, were utilized. A total of 19 indices constituted the dependent variables of the research. The variables related to the school climate were examined in three dimensions: school-based, teacher-based, and student-based. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was employed for data analysis. The findings indicate that in a system characterized by school autonomy, there is a school climate where students experience a greater sense of safety. This environment fosters cooperation and consensus, supports teachers with various services, promotes engaging school activities that facilitate learning, and there are more positive factors related to the teacher. Based on the comparison of the two systems, it is recommended that controlling specific factors within the centralized structure could enhance the school climate and improve the overall quality of the education system.

Anahtar Kelimeler

PISA , school autonomy , school climate , centralized system

Kaynakça

• Ağaoğlu, E., Altınkurt, Y., Yılmaz, K. ve Karaköse, T. (2012). Okul yöneticilerinin yeterliklerine ilişkin okul yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerin görüşleri (Kütahya ili). Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164), 159–173.
• Akdemir, A. S. (2013). Türkiye'de öğretmen yetiştirme programlarının tarihçesi ve sorunları. Electronic Turkish Studies, 8(12), 15-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.5706
• Arcia, G., Macdonald, K., Patrinos, H. A. ve Porta, E. (2011). School autonomy and accountability. World Bank, Washington DC.
• Arifin, A., Suryaningsih, S. S. ve Arifudin, O. (2024). The relationship between classroom environment, teacher professional development, and student academic performance in secondary education. International Education Trend Issues, 2(2), 151-159.
• Briggs, K. L. ve Wohlstetter, P. (2003). Key elements of a successful school-based management strategy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(3), 351–372. https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.14.3.351.15840
• Brookover, W.B., Schweitzer, J.H., Schneider, J.M., Beady, C.H., Flood, P.K. ve Wisenbaker, J.M. (1978) Elementary school social climate and school achievement, American Educational Research Journal, 15, 301–318. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312015002301
• Bulach, C., Malone, B. ve Castleman, C. (1995) An investigation of variables related to student achievement, Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 8(2), 23–29.
• Bylaitė-Šalavėjienė, D. (2020). Professional Development Activities: Meeting the Challenges of COVID-19. Socialinis ugdymas, 53(1), 124-126. https://doi.org/10.15823/su.2020.53
• Cheng, Y. C., Ko, J. ve Lee, T. T. H. (2016). School autonomy, leadership and learning: a reconceptualisation. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(2), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2015-0108
• Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M. ve Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers college record, 111(1), 180-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100108
• DeAngelis, K. J. ve Presley, J. B. (2011). Teacher qualifications and school climate: Examining their Interrelationship for School Improvement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(1), 84–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700761003660642
• Dou, D., Devos, G. ve Valcke, M. (2017). The relationships between school autonomy gap, principal leadership, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(6), 959-977. https://doi.org/10.1177/174114321665397
• Dönmez, B. (2001). Okul güvenliği sorunu ve okul yöneticisinin rolü. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 25(25), 63-74.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E. ve Hyun, H. H. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
• Galiani, S., Schargrodsky, E., Hanushek, E. A. ve Tommasi, M. (2002). Evaluating the impact of school decentralization on educational quality. Economia, 2(2), 275-314.
• Gawlik, M. (2008). Breaking loose: Principal autonomy in charter and public schools. Educational Policy, 22(6), 783-804.
• Güven, D. (2010). Profesyonel bir meslek olarak Türkiye’de öğretmenlik. Bogazici University Journal of Education, 27(2), 13-21.
• Hatzopoulos, P., Kollias, A. ve Kikis-Papadakis, K. (2015). School leadership for equity and learning and the question of school autonomy. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri, 3(1), 65-79. https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2015.3.1.03b
• Heck, R. H. (2007). Examining the relationship between teacher quality as an organizational property of schools and students’ achievement and growth rates. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(4), 399–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07306452
• Hoşgörür, V. ve Orhan, A. (2017). Okulda zorbalık ve şiddetin nedenleri ve önlenmesinin yönetimi (Muğla merkez ilçe örneği). Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(24), 859-880.
• Hoy, W. K. (1990). Organizational climate and culture: A conceptual analysis of the school workplace. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(2), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc0102_4
• Kaptan, O. ve Kocabaş, İ. (2021). İngiltere, Yeni Zelanda ve Çin Halk cumhuriyeti’nde eğitimde özerklik ve okul özerkliğinin göstergelerinin kronolojik ve karşılaştırmalı incelenmesi. Türkiye Eğitim Dergisi, 6(2), 370-393.
• Klanienė, I. ve Šmitienė, G. (2014). Schoolchildren view of safety at school as a precondition of quality (self-) education. Education in a Changing Society, 1, 58-66.
• Kouhsari, M., Huang, X. ve Wang, C. (2024). The impact of school climate on teacher enthusiasm: The mediating effect of collective efficacy and teacher self-efficacy. Cambridge Journal of Education, 54(2), 143-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2023.2255565
• Kraft, M. A., Marinell, W. H. ve Shen-Wei Yee, D. (2016). School organizational contexts, teacher turnover, and student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Educational Research Journal, 53(5), 1411-1449. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216667478
• Kurt, T. (2006). Eğitim yönetiminde yerelleşme eğilimi. Kastamonu Education Journal, 14(1), 61-72.
• Lionton, L.B. ve Lashway, L. (1997). Shared-Decision Making. S. C. Smith ve P. K. Piele (Ed.), School Leadership: Handbook for Excellence (3. Baskı, s. 226-250) içinde. University of Oregon.
• Mažgon, J., Kalin, J., Kaminskienė, L., Gedvilienė, G., Tūtlys, V. ve Ermenc, K. S. (2021). Coping with challenges of the COVID-19 lockdown in public education of Lithuania and Slovenia: views of school heads. Pedagogika/Pedagogy, 143(3), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.15823/p.2021.143.1
• Nofelia, L. ve Jasrial. (2024). The impacts of school climate and teacher’ teaching experience on the social competency of state junior high school teachers. Indonesian Research Journal in Education, 8(2), 853–865. https://doi.org/10.22437/irje.v8i2.31670
• OECD (2011), “School Autonomy and Accountability: Are They Related to Student Performance?”, PISA in Focus, No. 9, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k9h362kcx9w-en.
• OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.
• OECD (2020), PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ca768d40-en.
• OECD (2023a), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.
• OECD (2023b), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
• OECD (2024), PISA 2022 Technical Report, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/01820d6d-en.
• Paletta, A. (2014). Improving Students’ Learning Through School Autonomy: Evidence From the International Civic and Citizenship Survey. Journal of School Choice, 8(3), 381–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2014.942173
• Premat, C. (2006). Autonomy as a balance of freedom and equality. International Social Science Journal, 58(190), 681–695. https://doi:10.1111/j.1468-2451.2008.00662.x
• Steinberg, M. P. ve Cox, A. B. (2017). School autonomy and district support: How principals respond to a tiered autonomy initiative in Philadelphia public schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16(1), 130-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2016.1197278
• Stevens, J. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5. baskı). Routledge.
• Şendağ, S. ve Gedik, N. (2015). Yükseköğretim dönüşümünün eşiğinde Türkiye’de öğretmen yetiştirme sorunları: Bir model önerisi. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 5(1), 70-91.
• Şişman, M. ve Turan, S. (2003). Eğitimde yerelleşme ve demokratikleşme çabaları. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 34(34), 300-315.
• Taguiri, R. (1968). The concept of organizational climate. R. Tagiuri ve G. H. Litwin (Ed.), Organizational climate: exploration of a concept (s. 11-32) içinde. Harvard University Press.
• Taşkın, P. ve Nayır, K. F. (2015). Okulların tüzel kişiliği var mıdır? Olmalı mıdır?. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(4), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbusos.84833
• Tomaszewski, W., Xiang, N. ve Huang, Y. (2024). School climate, student engagement and academic achievement across school sectors in Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 51(2), 667-695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-023-00618-8
• Woessmann, L. (2016). The importance of school systems: Evidence from international differences in student achievement. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 3-32. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.3.3
• Wöbmann, L., Ludemann, E., Schutz, G. ve West, M. R. (2007). School Accountability, Autonomy, Choice, and the Level of Student Achievement: International Evidence from PISA 2003. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 13, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/246402531617
• Yılmaz Fındık, L. ve Kavak, Y. (2017). PISA 2012 sonuçlarina göre yönetici liderliği ve okul özerkliğinin öğrenci başarısınaa etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(4), 939-959. https://doi.org/10.16986/huje.2016019330