The Critics of Modern Educational Administration and Postmodern Educational Administration

Yıl 2007, Cilt: 50 Sayı: 50, 195 - 212, 01.01.2007

Engin Aslanargun

Öz

Summary Educational administration has been manipulated by the approaches generally categorized into modern and traditional. Basic characteristics of modern approach determined by positivism are rooted in the scientific experiments. The objective and exact results of experiments performed in the field of science have begun to influence administration, than educational settings have been affected by this consideration. It is possible to come to conclusion and generalization depending on the exacts results of physical, medical, and mathematical experiments via the scientific approaches; however it is misleading in the field of social sciences since the subject of it is about human and his behavior. Human beings are not only differentiated in terms of feelings, ideas, attitudes, education and manner but also the same person could easily behave uniquely depending on the different situation and time, thus it is impossible for social sciences to reach exact and objective results as it is fact for the experimental sciences. Modern paradigms which interpret the schools in the view of ideology emphasize and values rules and structures more than students, teachers and administrators. The schools are transformed into organizations that are run by rules, strictly stick to curriculum, and aimed to train students in the light of dominant paradigm of positivism. In this point of view, mission of teachers have been constrained to apply the given curriculum and to transmit the defined knowledge, where as the students have been defined as an input whose mission are to be trained by rational education for the sake of the survival of status quo (Birch, 1993; Hoy ve Miskel, 1996; Best ve Kellner, 1998; English, 2001). It is alleged by the scholars that modern educational systems characterized by bureaucracy ignored the sociological and psychological factors that affect the human behaviors in organizations. The classical management theorists had stressed the rights of superiors; but the duties of subordinates. It was prior to managers to get the job done formally more than the satisfaction of the subordinates' psychological and social needs. Educational settings that are organized in the light of modernism and bureaucracy have caused the schools' curriculum planned by central authority; the administrators have been appointed and promoted in a centralized manner; financial and sub structural services have only been performed after the approval of central authorities. The administrators in modern schools have transformed his power and authority into the centralized and bureaucratic power instead of sharing them with teachers and students, and they tend to turn the schools into the organization that is driven by rules and structures. The nature of school administrations which includes homogeneity and standard educational style are opposed to multicultural education and individual difference. In contrast to modern paradigms, it is assumed that school administration which is shaped by postmodern paradigm might have presented the subjective nature of human love, difference, faith etc. Variation is valued as wealth and the mission of administration is to manage the chaos and support the difference as much as possible. Postmodern Educational Administration The drawbacks of modern paradigms which are also stated the emergent causes of postmodernism could be classified in a five headings. These are (Bush, 1995): (1) modern paradigms are goal-oriented, (2) the process of deciding is rational, (3) individualistic expectation in an organization is ignored, (4) the authority is belonged to superiors hierarchically and (5) they are structure based organizations. The emergent paradigms have aimed to fill the gaps of modern paradigms that are bureaucratic, centralized, statuesque based and positivist. Postmodern paradigm has caused some debates in the turn of the 21st century. Paradigm shift that is popularized after positivism have been related to some critical assumptions about the quality of knowledge. These are summarized below (Özden, 1999): - Whether the science should strictly stick to rules or can it be transformed according to individuals? - Should knowledge be loaded or critical thinking be encouraged? - Should the necessary knowledge be loaded or should it better to teach how to learn? - Should knowledge only involve the verbal and numerical intelligence or should it comprise kinesthetic, rhythmic and self development? Culture is another important concept in the process of paradigmatic transformation. Since the individuals are defined as a culture-based identity, the administration should also be culture specific, unique and decentralized. It is evident that there is a transformation towards social and cultural models from rational and bureaucratic models (Balcı, 1988, 422; Şişman, 1995; 1996; 1998). In a postmodern educational and administrational setting it is hoped that common sense and communication could build a bridge between the subjects (Kanpol, 1995). Furthermore, it is necessity to appeal the expectation of the current generation who were brought up in a turbulent educational setting. With these characteristics, postmodern paradigm have criticized the standard and homogenized educational consideration for the sake of flexible and interpretative approaches that is appealing to individual expectation, needs and cultural values (Giroux, 1994). The transformation process as a concept of postmodernism is alleged by the so called scholars where as the pitfalls of postmodernism also stressed. The critisizm of postmodern education have focused on the ambiguity of citizenship, hinderance to democratisation and socialisation in the schools (Terren, 2002, 161). It is assumed that there are no standard rules and centralized curriculum which is prevalent all over the country in postmodern setting because of the decentralization, variance and difference. It is then; school administrators could have accepted the culture of uniquely developed school settings. The school administrations are free to prefer the best suited model for the time and setting, and the expectation of teacher and students could have been met via the more democratic, freer, and participative schools where central and bureaucratic authority are outdated and devalued. The mission of the school is not to emphasize the standard knowledge but to socialize students and lead them to interpret life. It is believed that interpretive, decentralized and individualistic approach have better to be favored and all education staff had better to focus on the needs, expectations and unique nature of the person in contrast to positivist, bureaucratic and modern paradigms. It is proposed that postmodern school administration includes following points: - Cultural and individual differences are valued, rather than menace to status quo and stability. - The administration paradigm that is relativist, situational and time based could be preferred. - Interpersonal, natural and intimate relationship between the leader and follower is valued instead of formality. - It is important to emphasize the meaning of life that manipulates and leads people in the organizational settings. - Subjective, individual, interpretive and quality based approach had better been favored than simply goal oriented and ideological approaches. - The main objective of schools is not to serve economy but to meet the needs and expectations of individuals. - The teacher who aims to teach students how to learn the ways of getting the knowledge is valued than simply transmitting the knowledge; and the school administrator that accepts the leadership vision of sharing the power and authority could be prevalent than gathering the power and authority for the only use of administrators. - It is not the task of the school leaders to maintaining the status quo and stability but to manage the chaotic and turbulent settings. - The administrative style that includes feelings, thoughts and values of person in the organizational setting has become to popularize, and the approach of simply motivating the person to accomplish the organizational goals and to increase the production is devalued. Conclusion The goals of the schools have shaped in a new manner as a result of paradigm shift named postmodernism. First of all there is no single or exact way of getting true knowledge. The purpose of schooling is to provide socialization and to get ready the students for the life. The definition of the school curriculum in the view of any ideology is strongly criticized. Postmodern administrator should tolerate the criticism, be open minded the new and emergent ideas and question the single true consideration. Postmodern educational and school administration signifies the style that is flexible, local and considering the value systems which is opposed to technical and goal-oriented modern paradigm. Modern educational administration approaches that are rational, positivist and centered are incapable of meeting the psycho-social needs and expectations of administrators, teachers and students. In this theoretical study, it is assumed that the discussions of postmodern educational and school administration have greatly transformed the dominant modern school management.

Anahtar Kelimeler

modern educational administration , postmodern educational administration , educational administration

Modern Eğitim Yönetimi Anlayışına Yönelik Eleştiriler ve Postmodern Eğitim Yönetimi

Öz

Eğitim yönetimi alanında uzunca bir zaman egemen olan pozitivist paradigma, okulları ideolojik bir yaklaşımla değerlendirmekte, öğrenci, öğretmen, yönetici ve yardımcı personeli, kurallar ve görev tanımları karşısında edilgen bir konuma itmektedir. Pozitivist düşüncenin ürünü olarak okullar, kurallarla işleyen, belirlenmiş programları uygulayan, hâkim düşünceye göre insan yetiştirmeyi hedefleyen kurumlar olarak düşünülmüştür. Postmodern eğitim ve okul yönetimi, modern paradigmanın etkisinde şekillenen teknik ve amaç eksenli eğitim ve okul yönetimi anlayışlarına karşı esnek, yerel ve değer sistemlerini önemseyen bir eğitim ve okul yönetimi yaklaşımını savunmaktadır. Pozitivist, rasyonel ve merkeziyetçi modern eğitim yönetimi anlayışı okullarda yönetici, öğretmen ve öğrencilerin psiko-sosyal ihtiyaç ve beklentilerine karşılık verememekte, bu yönüyle bazı sorunlara sebep olmaktadır. Bu çalışmada teorik düzeyde, postmodern eğitim ve okul yönetimi tartışmalarının, modern eğitim yönetimi anlayışını önemli ölçüde dönüşüme uğrattığı ileri sürülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

eğitim yönetimi , postmodern okul yönetimi , eğitim yönetimi

Kaynakça

• Aslanargun, E. (2003). Postmodernizm ve Bir İnsan Bilimi Olarak Eğitim Yönetimi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
• Balcı, A. (1988). Eğitim Yönetimi Araştırmalarının Durumu: EAQ’ de 1970-1980 Arasında Yayınlanan Araştırmalar. Eğitim Bilimleri Fak.Der., 21 (1-2), 421-434).
• Bates, R. (1992). The Emerging Culture of Educational Administration and What We Can Do About it, Paper Presented to the National Conference of the Australian Council for Educational Administration, July, Darwin.
• Best, S. ve Kellner, D. (1998). Postmodern Teori. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Birch, A. H. (1993). The Concept and Theories of Modern Democracy. Kent: McK. PLC.
• Bolman, L.G. ve Deal, T.E. (2000). People and Organisation. (59-69), (Derleyen: M. Fullan) Educational Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
• Bush, T. (1995). Theories of Educational Management. London: PCP.
• Çokluk, Ö.(2000). Örgütlerde Tükenmişlik. (Derleyen: C. Elma ve K. Demir), Yönetimde Çağdaş Yaklaşımlar, Ankara: Anı Yayınları.
• Erdemir, E. (2000). Postmodern Yaklaşımın Yönetim ve Örgüt Yapılarına Etkileri. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
• Erdil, O. (1997). Yönetim Kavramında Değişen Anlayış,Yönetim Yerine Yönlendirme. Çerçeve, 5 (19), 110-115.
• English, W.F. (2001).What Paradigm Shift? An Interrogation of Kuhn’s idea of normalcy in the research practice of Educational Administration. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4 (1), 31-39.
• Fritzman, J. M. (1995). From Pragmatism to the Differant. (59-74) (Derleyen: M. Peters), Education and Postmodern Condition, Philadelphia: Open University .
• Gardner, J.W. (2000). The Nature of Leadership, (3-13). (Derleyen: M. Fullan) Educational Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
• Giroux, H. A. (1994). Slacking Off: Border, Youth and Postmodern Education. www.findarticles.com. (site 19 Aralık 2003 tarihinde ziyaret edilmiştir).
• Hanson, E. M. (1975). The Modern Educational Bureaucracy and the Process of Change, Educational Administration Quarterly, 11 (3), 21-36.
• Hoy, W. K., ve Miskel, C. G. (1996) Educational Administration : Theory, research and practice. NY: Mc Graw Hill.
• Kanpol, B. (1995). Is Education at the end of a Sovereign Story or at the Beginning on Another? (147-165).(Derleyen: M. Peters), Education and Postmodern Condition, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
• Lunenberg, F. C. (1995). The Principalship: Concept and Application. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
• Lyotard, J. F. (1996). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. (481- 505) (Derleyen: L. Cahoone). From Modernism to Postmodernism, Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
• Maxcy, S. J. (1994). Afterward: Postmodern Direction in Educational Leadership. (153-159) (Derleyen: Spencer J. Maxcy) Postmodern School Leadership: Meeting The Crisis in Educational Administration, London: CT.
• Nicholson, C. (1995). Postmodern Feminism, (75-86) (Derleyen: M. Peters), Education and Postmodern Condition, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
• Oelkers, J. (2002). Rousseau and the image of “modern education”. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34 (6), 679-698.
• Özden, Y. (1999). Eğitimde Yeni Değerler. Ankara: Pegem A Yayınları.
• Popper, K. R. (1995). Tarihselciliğin Sefaleti. İstanbul: İnsan Yayınları.
• Richmon, M. J. ve Allison, D. J. (2003). Toward a Conceptual Framework for Leadership Inquiry. Educational Management and Administration, 31(1), 31-50.
• Stufflebeam, D. L. (1998). Conflict Between Standarts-Based and Postmodernist Evaluation: Towards Rapprochement. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12 (3), 287-296.
• Şişman, M. (1995) Örgüt Kavramının Kültürel Açıdan Çözümlenmesi ve Eğitim Örgütleri. Eğitim Yönetimi, 1 (1), 79-94.
• Şişman, M. (1996) Postmodernizm Tartışmaları ve Örgüt Kuramındaki Yansımaları Eğitim Yönetimi, 2 (3), 451-464.
• Şişman, M. (1998) Eğitim Yönetiminde Kuram ve Araştırmada Alternatif Paradigma ve Yaklaşımlar. Eğitim Yönetimi, 3 (16), 395-422.
• Şişman, M. ve Turan, S. (2003). Eğitim’de Yerelleşme ve Demokratikleşme Çabaları: Teorik Bir Çözümleme. Eğitim Yönetimi, 9 (34), 300-315.
• Terren, E. (2002). Post-Modern Attitudes: a challenge to democratic education, European Journal of Education, 37 (2), 161-177.
• Turan, S. (1988). Critical Theory and The Field of Educational Administration: Toward a Humane Science. Paper Presented at the 50th National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA),Alaska,USA,3-8 August.