PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIPS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

Öz

Rapid changes in the world, as well as many areas of life affected the education and school management. As a result of these changes, significant transformations are observed in the school-community relations of public schools. First of all, to achieve and maintain the school-family collaboration efforts have increased. Furthermore, pre-service training is required for assignment as a director of the school in developed countries, whereas in Turkey assignment to this position being a teacher is sufficient. Diversity in school administrators’ education and different programs carried out by different governments have resulted many school administrators appointed to primary schools in different ways. The development of school-community relations is seen as an important part of the school improvement efforts. Studies conducted on this topic shows that developing school-environment relations can contribute to the development of the school improvement. In addition to this, these studies show that the concept of governance has a significant impact on openness of the school to external environment. Governance in public administration requires transparency, accountability and participation in decision making. In this context, the Ministry of National Education has initiated a number of modernization efforts. Whereas some of these efforts have positive effects on education system, some have not achieved initial aims. For example, Total Quality Management in Education, Training Boards Practice and Democracy Practice in Schools, Modification of Teaching Profession General Competences, Parent-Teacher Association Activities, and School-Parent Contract started to contribute to the development of relations between school and community. Some of these applications, however, have not provided a significant contribution to the development of school-community interaction. Purpose and Significance: Undoubtedly, school administrators are one of the important factors that will contribute to the development of school-community relations. Besides being responsible for supervising and managing the schools, school administrators are seen as a leader that regulates school- community relations. In this regard, managerial education that school administrators received can be regarded as an important factor that effect to develop school-community interaction. However, studies conducted on school-community relations in Turkey are limited to school-family relations rather than focusing on the contributions of school administrators’ education on developing school-community interaction. For this reason, this study focused on to what extent school administrators’ managerial education contributes on development of school-community relations. Methods: This study was carried out to determine to what extent managerial education affects the development of school-community relations. Screening model was used in this study. Data were collected by a tool developed within the framework of the Epstein’s model of “School, Family and Community Partnerships”. The analyses of the data include comparison of managerial education receiver and non-receiver school administrators’ opinions about improvement of school-community relations. The population of the study is administrators working in the primary schools in the city center of Samsun. Using stratified sampling method, a total of 75 administrators were randomly selected to represent the population. A total of 68 participants were returned their questionnaires and these were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequency and percentage) and inferential statistics (t-test) methods. Result: More than half of the school administrators were found that they did not received managerial training. Furthermore, the majority of the school administrators stated they received managerial training have only participated in short-term in-service training activities organized by the Ministry of National Education. This shows that managerial training is not considered when appointing school administrators. The analyses of school administrators’ opinions indicate that school administrators have agreed to sub-scales of “learning at home”, “parenting”, “communicating”, “decision-making”, “collaborating with the community”, and “volunteering” from the highest to the least in the school-community relations instrument. According to the results, school administrators expect families to support their children at home to work at the first place. On the other hand, school administrators do not support the involvement of the parents in school activities. In other words, school administrators’ perceptions on school-community relations indicate that school administrators expect that school should do its job and family should do its job. The data also were analyzed to determine whether the managerial training make a difference on school administrators’ opinions. The results indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between opinions of school administrators with managerial training and opinions of school administrators with no training on the “collaborating with the community” subscale. There are, however, no significant differences found on other subscales of the school-community relations instrument. Even receiving a short term “in-service training” differentiates school administrators’ opinions about school-community relations in one subscale. In other words, school administrators with managerial training believe that the importance of “collaborating with the community” in developing the school-community relations. At the same time, “collaborating with the community” was the most neglected sub-dimension in recent studies conducted on the development of school-community relations. The results show that school administrators’ appointment without considering “managerial training” emerges as an important issue in developing the school-community relations. This is just because of that school administration is not considered as a separate profession from teaching. As a consequent of this, school administration cannot be developed as a separate profession. Although, all participants took the “Turkish Education System and School Management” course during their undergraduate education, this course is not sufficient for school administrators who are not specialized on school management to develop school-community relations. Since the Educational Administration Supervision, Planning and Economics Programs are not accepting students to undergraduate levels; it is difficult to receive managerial training before pre-service. For this reason, Ministry of National Education considers the “in-service education” given to teachers before their appointment to school administration positions as pre-service managerial education and appoints these teachers as school administrators. However, in licensing school administrators graduate programs can be helpful. In this regard, Ministry of National Education has important responsibilities. If Ministry of National Education considers the graduate level education on Educational Administration Supervision, Planning and Economics when appointing school administrators, schools would have managed by people who have sufficient education on management. After that, Ministry of National Education fulfills its responsibilities and expects school administrators efficiently develop school-community relations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• School-Environment Relations, Management Training, Community Partnerships and Collaboration

İLKÖĞRETİM OKULU YÖNETİCİLERİNİN OKUL ÇEVRE İLİŞKİLERİNİN GELİŞTİRİLMESİNE YÖNELİK ALGILARI

Öz

Bu araştırmada, ilköğretim okul yöneticilerinin okul-çevre ilişkilerinin geliştirilmesiyle ilgili algıları incelenmiştir. Bunun yanı sıra, okul yöneticilerinin okul-çevre ilişkilerinin geliştirilmesi alt boyutlarına ilişkin algılarının, onların yöneticilik eğitimi alma durumuna göre farklılık gösterip göstermediğine bakılmıştır. Araştırmanın evreni, Samsun il merkezindeki ilköğretim okullarında çalışan yöneticilerdir. Bu okullarda görev yapan 68 yönetici örneklemi oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada kullanılan veri toplama aracı, araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilmiş bir anket formudur. Araştırma bulgularına göre, okul yöneticilerinin okul-çevre ilişkileri alt boyutlarına ilişkin algılarınının yeterli düzeyde olduğu görülmüştür. Okul-çevre ilişkileri alt boyutlarından “toplumla ortaklık ve işbirliği kurma” boyutuna ilişkin yönetici algıları farklılık göstermektedir. Yöneticilik eğitimi almış yöneticiler, almayanlara göre toplumla ortaklık ve işbirliği kurma boyutunu daha önemli bulmuşlardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Okul-Çevre İlişkileri, Yöneticilik Eğitimi, Toplumla Ortaklık ve İşbirliği.

Kaynakça

1. ADELMAN H. ve TAYLOR L.(2001). Developing Collaborative ESMH Programs: Center for Mental Health Assistance
2. (http://eahec.ecu.edu/ smhpdocs/ article/0603.pdf) (12.12.2007). s.2.
3. ASLANERGUN E. (2007) «Okul-Aile İşbirliği ve Öğrenci Başarisi Üzerine Bir Tarama Çalışma», Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı:18 s.119-135.
4. AYDIN İ. (2005). Okul Çevre İlişkileri Eğitim ve Okul Yöneticiliği El Kitabı (2. Baskı), Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
5. AYTAÇ T. (2000). Okul Merkezli Yönetim, Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
6. BALCI A. (1999). «Eğitim Yöneticilerinin Yetiştirilmesi», Eğitimde Yansımalar: V, 21.Yüzyılın Eşiğinde Türk Eğitim Sistemi (Ulusal Sempozyum), Ankara: Tekışık Yayıncılık Web Ofset Tesisleri. s. 208-229
7. BENNIS W., NANUS B. (1985). Leaders: the strategies for taking charge, NY: Harper and Row.
8. CHRISTENSON S.L., SHERIDAN S.M. (2001). School and Families: Creating Essential Connections for Learning, New York: Guildford.

9. ÇELİKTEN M. (2004). “Bir Okul Müdürünün Günlüğü”, Fırat Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, C:14, S:1, ss. 123-135.
10. ÇINKIR Ş., KEPENEKÇİ Y.K. (2003). “Öğrenciler Arası Zorbalık”. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 34, Bahar 2003, Sayı: 34, ss.236-253.
11. DEMİRBULAK D. (2000). “Veli-Öğretmen Görüşmeleri ile İlgili Bir Çalışma”, Milli Eğitim Dergisi, Nisan-Mayıs-Haziran, Sayı:146 53-55
12. DÖNMEZ B., YILDIRIM C. (2008). “Okul Aile İşbirliğine İlişkin Bir Araştırma”, Elektronik Sosyal BilimlerDergisi, C.7 S.23 ss. 98
13. DÖNMEZER T., GÜMÜŞ A., TÜMKAYA S. (2006). “Kötü Muamele ve Etkileri”, 1. Şiddet ve Okul: Okul ve Çevresinde Şiddete Yönelik Alınabilecek Tedbirler Sempozyumu. 28-31 Mart, İstanbul: s.180-200
14. EPSTEIN J.L ve SANDERS M.G. (2000). “Connecting home, school and community: New directions for social research”, (Eds.M.T. Hallinan). Handbook Of The Sociology Of Education. New York, NY: Kluer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
15. GUZMAN D. (2006). “Epstein Model for School, Family and Community Partnerships”, (http://www.fortworthisd.org/boe/_presentations/Epstein%20M odelpdf) (12.09.2006) (30.03.2009) (1-20) s.6.
16. GÜL İ. (2009). Okul Yöneticilerinin Liderlik Yaklaşimlarinin OkulÇevre Ilişkileri Üzerinde Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi, İbra him G Ü L Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
17. GÜMÜŞELİ A.İ. (2004). ”Ailenin Katilim ve Desteğinin Öğrenci Başarisina Etkisi”, Özel Okullar Birliği Bülteni, Eylül, Sayı:2/6, s.14GÜMÜŞELİ A.İ. (2001). ”Çağdaş Okul Müdürünün Liderlik Alanları”, Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, Güz, Sayı: 28, s.531-548.
18. GÜNDÜZ Y. BAYLER A. (2011). ”Okul Müdürlerinin Ögrenme İhtiyaçlarının Belirlenmesi”, Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 4(2), ss. 230-246, www.keg.aku.edu.tr.
19. HARKTI, H. TÖREMEN, F. (2004). ”Eğitim Bölgeleri ve Eğitim Kurullarının Yapısal ve İşleyiş Sorunları ile Etkililik Düzeyi”, Milli Eğitim Dergisi, Yaz, Sayı: 163, s. 169-185
20. HENDERSON A. T., BERLA, N. (1994). A New Generation of Evidence: The Family is Critical to Student Achievement. National Committee for Citizens in Education Columbia, Md
21. IŞIK H. (2004). “Güvenli Okul”, Milli Eğitim Dergisi, S: 164, Güz: 2004, s.1-8.
22. JONNSON L.J., PUGACH, M.C., HAWKINS A. (2004). “SchoolFamily Collaboration: A Partnership Focuson Exceptional Children”, Volume 36, Number 5, January 2004, s.1-12
23. KARİP E., KÖKSAL K. (1999). ”Okul Yöneticilerinin Yetiştirilmesi”, Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, Pegem A Yayıncılık. Yıl:5, Sayı: 18 Bahar, ss.193-207.
24. KAYMAK Ö. (2006). ”İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Maruz Kaldıkları Şiddetin Türleri ve Sıklığı: Kars İli Örneği”,1. Şiddet ve Okul: Okul ve Çevresinde Şiddete Yönelik Alınabilecek Tedbirler Sempozyumu. İstanbul: 28-30 Mart 2006 s. 30-37
25. KARASAR N. (1982). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi, Ankara: Bilim Yayınları.
26. KIZMAZ Z. (2006). ”Okullardaki Şiddet Davranışlarının Kaynakları Üzerine Kurumsal Bir Yaklaşım”, C.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. Mayıs 2006, C.30, N:1, s. 47-70.
27. MEB (2008). Eğitim Kurumları Yöneticileri Yönetmeliği, Ankara: Resmi Gazete: 24.04.2008/ 26856 (md.5-12).
28. MEB (2006a). Demokrasi ve Okul Meclisleri Yönergesi, http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/kultur_sanat/faaliyetler/okulmeclisleri /yonerge.htm, (20.08.2007).
29. MEB (2006b). Demokrasi ve Okul Meclisleri Yönergesi, http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/kultur_sanat/faaliyetler/okulmeclisleri /yonerge.htm, (20.08.2007).
30. MEB (2005). Okul Veli Sözleşmesi, http://www.meb.gov.tr/duyurular/2005/OgrenciOkulVeli/Sozle sme.pdf , (08.2007).
31. MEB (2003). İlköğretim Kurumları Yönetmeliği, Ankara: Resmi Gazete: 27.8.2003/25212 (Md.60).
32. MEB (1999a). Toplam Kalite Yönetimi Uygulama Projesi, Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Yönetimi Değerlendirme ve Geliştirme Dairesi Başkanlığı.
33. MEB (1999b).Eğitim Bölgeleri ve Eğitim Kurulları Yönergesi. Ankara: Yönetimi Değerlendirme ve Geliştirme Dairesi Başkanlığı.
34. MEB (1998). İlk ve Orta Kademe Eğitim Yöneticilerinin Eğitim İhtiyacına İlişkin Araştırma Raporu, Ankara: Yönetimi Değerlendirme ve Geliştirme Dairesi Başkanlığı. memurlar.net (2006). MEB'deki müdür atamaları soru önergesi oldu (3 Şubat 2006), http://www.memurlar.net/haber/38842 (2009). İbra him G Ü L MINKE K.M. ve ANDERSON K.J. (2003). „Restructing Routine Parent-Teacher Conferences: The Family-School Conference Model”, The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 104 (1), 49-69
35. NCSE (2005). National Center for School Engagemen, (www.schoolengagement.org/), October, 2005 (29.03.2009).
36. ÖZDEMİR S. (2005). Örgütsel Yenileşme. Eğitim ve Okul Yöneticiliği El Kitabı (2. Baskı), Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
37. ÖZTÜRK C., DİLEK D. (2002). Hayat ve Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretimi, Ankara, Pegem A Yayıncılık.
38. SEDL (2009). “Emerging Issues in School, Family and Community Family and Community Connections”, Issue 3, http:// www.sedl.org/pubs/fam32/7.html , (2009).
39. STINE D., LOPEZ J. ve BIRCH L. (1997). “A new era in administrative training”, Thrust for Educational leadership, VoL.26, Issue 4, 39-42
40. ŞİŞMAN M., TURAN S. (2003). “Eğitimde Yerelleşme ve Demokratikleşme Çabaları: Teorik Bir Çözümleme”, Eğitim Yönetimi, 8(34), s. 300-305.
41. TİTREK O. (1999). İlköğretim Okullarının Çevre İle ilişkileri, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmaış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
42. TÖREMEN F. (2002). „Eğitim Örgütlerinde Değişimin Engel ve Nedenleri“, Fırat Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, C. 12, S. 1, ss. 185-202.
43. ULUĞ F. (1995). „İlköğretimde Okul Çevre İlikşikileri“, Gazi Üniversitesi, Endüstriyel Sanatlar Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, S.3, Haziran 1995, s. 181-196.
44. YAYLACI A.F. (1999). İlköğretim Okullarında Ailenin Okula Katılım (Ankara İli Örneği), Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi, E