The Relationship between the Innovative School and the Democratic Leadership Characteristics of Administrators

Öz

The purpose of this study is to determine the level of relationship between the innovative school and the democratic leadership characteristics of administrators. This study is in a descriptive relational survey model. The sample of the study consists of a total of 328 teachers working in official schools in Ankara city center districts in the 2019-2020 academic year. Innovative school scale and democratic leadership scale were used in the study. It was determined that teachers' perceptions about the democratic leadership qualities of innovative school principals are mostly at their level. It has been determined that there is a highly positive and significant relationship between innovative school characteristics and the democratic leadership characteristics of administrators. Collaborative practices can be implemented among all school stakeholders in order to use innovative school and related democratic leadership features in educational activities and life of all school stakeholders.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Innovative School
• Democratic Leadership
• School Administrator

Yenilikçi Okul ile Yöneticilerin Demokratik Liderlik Özellikleri Arasındaki İlişki

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, yenilikçi okul ile yöneticilerin demokratik liderlik özellikleri arasındaki ilişki düzeyini belirlemektir. Bu çalışma, betimsel nitelikte ilişkisel tarama modelindedir. Araştırmanın örneklemini, 2019-2020 eğitim öğretim yılında Ankara il merkezi ilçelerindeki resmi okullarda görevli toplam 328 öğretmen oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada, yenilikçi okul ölçeği ve demokratik liderlik ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Öğretmenlerin, yenilikçi okul okul yöneticilerinin demokratik liderlik özellikleri düzeyine ilişkin algılarının çoğunlukla düzeyinde olduğu belirlenmiştir. Yenilikçi okul özellikleri ile yöneticilerin demokratik liderlik özellikleri arasında yüksek düzeyde pozitif yönlü anlamlı bir ilişkinin olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Yenilikçi okul ve ilişkili olan demokratik liderlik özelliklerinden tüm okul paydaşlarının eğitim etkinliklerinde ve hayatında kullanılması amacıyla tüm okul paydaşları arasında işbirlikçi uygulamalar gerçekleştirilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yenilikçi Okul
• Demokratik Liderlik
• Okul Yöneticisi

Kaynakça

1. Aslan, Hüseyin ve Kesik, Fatma (2016), “Yenilikçi okul ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması”, Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 22(4), 463-482.
2. Beycioğlu, Kadir ve Aslan, Mahire (2010), “Okul gelişiminde temel dinamik olarak değişim ve yenileşme: Okul yöneticileri ve öğretmenlerin rolleri”, Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 153-173.
3. Başaran, İbrahim Ethem (2004), Yönetimde insan ilişkileri, Ankara: Kadıoğlu.
4. Bodur, Elif (2019), Yenilikçi okul ve örgüt iklimine ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri (Bolu ili örneği), Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Bolu.
5. Büyüköztürk, Şener (2013), Veri analizi el kitabı, Ankara: Pegem A.
6. Büyüköztürk, Şener - Çakmak, Ebru Kılıç - Akgün, Özcan Erkan - Karadeniz, Şirin - Demirel, Funda (2012), Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri, Ankara: Pegem A.
7. Cribb, Alan ve Gewirtz, Sharon (2003), “Towards a sociology of just practices: an analysis of plural conceptions of justice”, In: Vincent C (ed) Social Justice Education and Identity, London: RoutledgeFalmer, ss. 15-29.
8. Çelik, Hande (2016), Demokratik liderlik ve örgütsel güven ilişkisi: Balıkesir merkez ilçeleri örneği, Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Balıkesir Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Balıkesir.

9. Day, Christopher ve Gu, Qing (2010), The new lives of teachers, New York: Routledge.
10. Derin, Ramazan (2016), Demokratik liderlik ve örgütsel sinizm ilişkisi: Balıkesir ili merkez ilçeleri örneği, Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Balıkesir Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Balıkesir.
11. Eren, Erol (2012), Örgütsel davranış ve yönetim psikolojisi, İstanbul: Beta.
12. Fullan, Michael (1993), Change Forces: probing the depths of educational reform, London: The Falmer Press.
13. Fullan, Michael (2001), The new meaning of educational change, New York: Routledge.
14. Fullan. Michael G (1992), Successful improvement, Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
15. Gastil, John (2014), “A Definition and illustration of democratic leadership”, Human Relations, 47(8), 953-975.
16. George, Darren ve Mallery, Paul (2010), SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10th ed.), Boston, MA: Pearson.
17. Gravetter, Frederick J ve Wallnau, Larry B (2000), Statistics for the behavioral Sciences (5th ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
18. Gross, Steven Jay (2008), (Re-)Constructing a movement for social justice in our profession, In: Normore AH (Ed.), Leadership for Social Justice: Promoting Equity and Excellence Through Inquiry and Reflective Practice, Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, 257-266.
19. Hair, Joe F - Ringle, Christian M - Sarstedt, Marko (2011), “PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing, The oryand Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
20. Harris, Alma (2008), Distributed leadership, New York: Routledge.
21. Harris, Alma ve Muijs, Daniel (2005), Improving schools through teacher leadership, Berkshire: Open University.
22. Hockley, Andy (2009), Managing innovation in educational organisations, Presentation given at the 9th international conference of QUEST Romania, Iasi, June 2009, http://qualitraining2.ecml.at/ LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=tr54FKZZrO0%3D vetabid=2228 velanguage=en-GB sayfasından erişilmiştir.
23. Karasar, Niyazi (2010), Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler, Ankara: Nobel.
24. Kwan, Paula ve Li, Benjamin Yuet Man (2015), “Empowerment or impediment? School governance in the school-based management era in Hong Kong”, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(3), 319-330.
25. Lindsey, Brenda Coble (2008), “Looking at positive behavior interventions and supports through the lens of innovations diffusion”, The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 13(2).
26. Lunenburg, Fred C (2010), “Forces for and resistance to organizational change”, National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 27(4), 1-10.
27. Lunenburg, Fred C ve Ornstein, Allan C (2013), Eğitim yönetimi (Çev. Ed. G. Arastaman), Ankara: Nobel.
28. MEB (2019), 2018-2019 öğretim yılı eğitim istatistikleri, http://ankara.meb.gov.tr/www/egitim-istatistikleri/icerik/24 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
29. Orchard, Lionel (1998), “Managerialism, economic rationalism and public sector reform in Australia: Connections, divergences, alternatives”, Australian Journal of Public, 57(1), 19-32.
30. Parker, Rachel ve Bradley, Lisa (2000), “Organizational culture in the public sector: Evidence from six organizations”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(2), 125-141.
31. Riehl, Carolyn J (2000), “The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: a review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration”, Review of Educational Research 70(1), 55-81.
32. Robbins, Stephen P ve Coulter Mary (2012), Management (11th Edition), New Jersey: Pearson Education. Inc., Publishing as Prentice Hall.
33. Stiggins, Rick (2002), Where is our assessment future and how can we get there from here?, In Lissitz, R. W. and Schafer, W. D. (Eds.), Assessment In Educational Reform: Both Means and Ends. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
34. Stokes, Geoffrey (2002), Democracy and citizenship, In: Carter A and Stokes G (eds) Democratic Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press.
35. Szeto, Sing Ying Elson (2017), “Equal educational opportunity? Global policy development and local practices in diverse school contexts”, Hong Kong Journal of Special Education 18, 1-13.
36. Szeto, Sing Ying Elson (2019), “School leadership in the reforms of the Hong Kong education system: insights into schoolbased development in policy borrowing and indigenising”, School Leadership ve Management, 1-22. EPub ahead of print 21 May. DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2019.1616172.
37. Szeto, Sing Ying Elson (2020), “How do principals’ practices reflect democratic leadership for inclusion in diverse school settings? A Hong Kong case study”, Educational Management Administration ve Leadership, 1-22.
38. Tengilimoğlu, Dilaver (2005), “Kamu ve özel sektör örgütlerinde liderlik davranışı özelliklerinin belirlenmesine yönelik bir alan çalışması”, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(14), 1-16.
39. Terzi, Ali Rıza (2015), Demokratik liderlik ölçeği, (Yayımlanmamış Ölçek).
40. Theoharis, George (2007), “Social justice educational leaders and resistance: toward a theory of social justice leadership”, Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221-258.
41. Valle, Matthew (1999), “Crisis, culture and charisma: The new leader’s work in public organizations”, Public Personnel Management, 28(2), 245-257.
42. Ward, Sophie C - Bagley, Carl - Lumby, Jacky - Woods, Philip - Hamilton, Tom - Roberts, Amanda (2015), “School leadership for equity: Lessons from the literatüre”, International Journal of Inclusive Education 19(4), 333-346.
43. Watt, Douglas (2002), How innovation occurs in high schools within the network of innovative schools: The four pillars of innovation research Project, http://www.bishops.k12.nf.ca/poster2004/fourpillars.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
44. Winton, Sue (2010), “Character development and critical democratic education in Ontario, Canada”, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(2), 220-237.
45. Woods, Philip A (2004), “Democratic leadership: Drawing distinctions with distributed leadership”, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 3-26.
46. Woods, Philip A ve Woods, Glenys J (2013), “Deepening distributed leadership: a democratic perspective on power, purpose, and the concept of the self”, Leadership in Education, 2, 17-39.
47. Yüner, Berna ve Özdemir, Murat (2020), “Okul yenilikçiliği ile öğretmen yaratıcılığı arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi”, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 50, 162-179.