OKUL YÖNETİCİLİĞİNİN MESLEKLEŞMESİ

Öz

Eğitim ve okul yöneticiliği Amerika Birleşik Devletlerinde 19. Yüzyılın ikinci yarısında spesifik bir disiplin olarak görülmeye başlanmış; o tarihten bu yana okul yöneticiliği, gelişmesi süreci içinde değişik anlayış ve uygulamalara tabi olsa da son erimde ayrı bir disiplin, ayrı bir uzmanlık, bunların ötesinde de ayrı bir meslek olarak algılanır olmuştur. Bu çerçevede, okul yöneticiliği mesleğinin aday oluşturma (recruitment) aşamasından başlayarak seçilmesi, atanması, yetiştirilmesi ve geliştirilmesi süreçleri belli standartlara bağlanmıştır. Örneğin Eyaletler arası Okul Yöneticiliği Lisans Konsorsiyumu standartları ülke çapında 45’ten fazla eyalette üniversite eğitim yönetimi programlarına temel oluşturmuştur. Öyle ki bu eyaletlerde bu standartları karşılamayan okul yöneticisi adaylarının okul müdürlüğüne başvurması söz konusu bile olmamaktadır. Türk Eğitim Sistemine gelince maalesef son yönetici yetişme yönetmeliğinde bile okul yöneticiliği öğretmenliğe ek ikinci bir görev olarak yer almakta, öğretmenlikten ayrı bir uzmanlık, ayrı bir meslek olarak görülmemektedir. Son yönetmelikte sadece “eğitim yönetimi formasyonuna sahip olmak” ölçütü geç de olsa, arzu edilen içerik ve kazandırılma stratejileri ile alana katkı getirici olarak değerlendirilebilir. Okul yöneticilerinin pek tabii ki ayrı bir meslek olmasının gereği statüleri de genel yönetim hizmetler kapsamında olmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yönetim
• eğitim ve okul yöneticiliği
• meslek
• meslekleşme kriterleri
• meslekleşme süreci

Professionalization of School Management

Öz

Education and school administration began to be seen as a specific discipline in the second half of the 19th century in the United States; Since that date, school administration has been perceived as a separate discipline, a separate specialization and a separate profession beyond these, although it has been subject to different understandings and practices during its development process. In this context, the processes of selection, appointment, training and development of the school management profession, starting from the recruitment stage, are bound to certain standards. For example, standards of the Interstate School Management Undergraduate Consortium have formed the basis for university education management programs in more than 45 states across the country. So much so that in these states, it is not even possible for school principals who do not meet these standards to apply to the school principal. Regarding the Turkish Education System, unfortunately, even in the last Regulation on Training Administrators, school administration takes place as a second additional task to teaching, and it is not seen as a specialization or a profession separate from teaching. In the last Regulation, the criterion of "having an education management formation" can be evaluated as contributing to the field with the desired content and acquisition strategies, even if it is late. Of course, the status of school administrators should be within the scope of general administrative services, as they are a separate profession.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Administration
• education and school administratorship
• profession
• criteria
• professionalization process

Kaynakça

1. Andrews, D. ve Lewis, M. (2004). Building sustainable futures: Emerging understandings of the significant contribution of the professional learning community. Improving Schools, 7(3), 129-150.
2. Armstrong, D. E. (2015). Listening to voices at the educational frontline: new administrators’ experiences of the transition from teacher to vice-principal. Brock Education Journal, 24(2), 109-122.
3. Ball, S. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228.
4. Barrett, D. J. (2010). Leadership communication (Third edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
5. Cooper, B. ve Boyd, W. (1988). The evolution of training for school administrators, in leaders for America’s school. Final Reports and papers of teh National Commusion on Excellence, in Educational administration (pp. 284-304). D.Griffiths etal., Ed. San Firanscisco: Mc Cutchan.
6. Council Of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008: As adopted by the National Policy Board for …educational Administration. Washington, DC: Author. pp 3. Available at: http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Educational_Leadership_ Policy.
7. Council of Chief State School Officier (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders. National Policy Board For Educational Administration. Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr. M. T. ve Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
8. Evers, C. W. ve Lakomski, G. (1991). Knowing educational administration: contemporary methodological contreversies in educational administration research, Oxford, Pergamon.

9. Evers, C. W. ve Lakomski, G. (1996). Exploring educational administration. Pergamon/ Elsevier, Oxford.
10. Evers, C. W. ve Lakomski, G. (2000). Doing educational administration, in Maxcy, S J. (2001). Educational leadership and management of knowing: The aesthetics of coherentism. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(6), 573- 588.
11. Gates, S. M. (2014). A principal role in education. Rand Corperation, Site-wide navigation.
12. Glanz, J., Shulman, V. ve Sullivan, S. (2007). Impact of ınstructional supervision on student achievement: can we make the connection? Online Submission.
13. Greenlee, B. J. ( 2007 ). Building teacher leadership capacity through educational leadership programs. Journal of Research for Educational Leaders, 4(1), 44-74.
14. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis, The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423-451.
15. Hallinger, P. ve Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructioal management behavior of principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247.
16. Hambrick, H. D., Tucker, P. D. ve Young, M. D. (2012). The professional pipeline for educational leadership. A white paper developed to ınform the work of the national policy board for educational administration. University Council for Educational Administration.
17. https://study.com/articles/How_to_Become_an_Education_Administrator_Career_Roadmap.html, 28 Nisan 2020’e indirildi.
18. https://www.alleducationschools.com/teaching-careers/educational-administration/, 13 Mart 2020 tarihinde indirilmiştir.
19. https://greenroomblog.org/.../work-profession-job-vocation-, 25 Nisan 20202’de indirilmiştir.
20. https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-occupation-a..., 13 Temmuz 2020’de indirilmiştir.
21. www.totalprofessions.com/more-about-professions/what-is-a-profession..., 15Ağustos 2020’de indirilmiştir.
22. www.totalprofessions.com/more-about-professions/what-is-a-profession..., 22 Ağustos 2020’de indirilmiştir.
23. Jackson, M. A. ve Bosanac, S. E. (Ed. - 2006). Professionalization of work. Amazon.com.
24. Merle, J. ve Bosanac, S.E. (2006). The professionalization of work. de Sitter Publications.
25. Muijs, D. ve Harris, A. ( 2003). Teacher leadership—improvement through empowerment?: an overview of the literature. Educational Management & Administration, 31(4), 437-448.
26. Lieberman, A., Saxl, E. R. and Miles, M. B. (2000) Teacher leadership: ideology and practice. in The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership (pp. 339- 345). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
27. Leithwood, K., Karen, S. L., Stephen A. ve Kyla W. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: Review of the research. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
28. Available at: http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledgecenter/schoolleadership/keyresearch/Documents/How-Leadership-Infl uences-Student-Learning.
29. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S. ve Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
30. Levine (2005); New Leaders. (2012). Improving principal preparation: A review of current practices and recommendations for state action. New York, NY: Author. Available at: http://issuu.com/newleaders/docs/ 2012.principalpreparation?e=3666103/1267914#search.
31. Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. ve Anderson, S. (2010). Learning from leadership: investigating the links to ımproved student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
32. Macpherson, R. (2010). The professionalization of educational leaders through postgraduate study and professional development opportunities in New Zealand Tertiary Education Institutions. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5(6), 209-247.
33. MEB. (2021). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığına Bağlı Eğitim Kurumlarına Yönetici Seçme ve Görevlendirme Yönetmeliği. Erişim: http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/613.pdf, 10.03.2021.
34. Mtlife (Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.). (2007). MetLife survey of the American Teacher: the homework experience. A survey of students, teachers and parents. MetLife, Inc.
35. Maxcy, S. J. (2001). Educational leadership and management of knowing: The aesthetics of coherentism. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(6), 573-588.
36. Murphy, J. ve Hallinger, P. (1986). The superintendent as instructional leader: findings from effective school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 24(2), 213-236. Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thou-sand Oaks, California: Corwin.
37. Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., Weil, M. ve Witman, A. (1983). Instructional leadership: a conceptual framework. Planning & Changing, 14, 137-149.
38. Murphy, J. ve Louis, K. S. (1999). Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd Edition). Amozon Global Store, UK.
39. Nappi, J. S. (2014). Improving schools by building social capital through shared leadership. Impacts of educational reform. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 29-34.
40. National Association of Secondary School Principals, and National Association of Elementary School Principals (2013). Leadership matters – what research says about the importance of principal leadership (Alexandria, Va.: NASSP & NAESP, 2013).
41. Purkey, S. ve Smith, M. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427-452.
42. Putnam, R. D. (1976). The comparative study of political elites. Englewood Cliffs N. J.: Prentice Hall.
43. Sandra J. Odell (1997) Preparing teachers for teacher leadership, action in teacher education, 19(3), 120-124. doi: 10.1080/01626620.1997.10462884
44. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed ledareship. The Educational Reform, 69(2), 143-150.
45. Sanocki, S.J. (2013). The process of how teachers become teacher leaders and how teacher leadership becomes distributed within a school: A teacher leadership becomes distributed within a school: A grounded theory research study grounded theory research study. Western Michigan University.
46. Suskavcevic M. ve Blake, S. (2004). Educational leadership and students achievement: An examination of the third ınternational math and science study 1999. Paper presented at the International Research Conference, Lefcosia, Cyprus, May 11-13 2004. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://www.iea dpc.org/download/ieahq/IRC2004/Suskavcevic_Blake.pdf.
47. The Wallace Foundation (2011). The school principal as leader: Guidingschools to better teaching and learning.
48. UCEA Convention (2001). Profession in goverment, in Co-hosted with the University of Cincinnati. Leadership and Learning forth Success of All Children. November 2-4, 2001. The Omni Netherland Plaza Cincinnati, Ohio.
49. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (May 2014). ONET: Office of occupational statistics and employment projections. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Occupational Information Included in the OOH, at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/occupational-information-included-in-the-ooh.htm.
50. Van Berkum, D. W., Richardson, M. D. ve Lane, K. E. (1994, August). Professional development in educational administration programs: Where does it exist? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Conference Binbin Jiang, Judith Patterson, Mary Chandler & Tak Cheung Chan 102 of Professors of Educational Administration, Indian Wells, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376 566).
51. Wilkins, A. (2015). Professionalizing school governance: the disciplinary effects of school autonomy and inspection on the changing role of school governors. Journal of Education Policy, 30(2), 182-200.