Eğitim Hizmetlerinde Yerel Yönetimlerin Rolü ve İşlevleri: Türkiye ve Küresel Perspektif

Öz

Yerel yönetimlerin eğitimde üstlendikleri veya yasal düzenlemeler nedeniyle üstlenebilecekleri roller temel olarak devletlerin yönetim yaklaşımları ve organizasyonel yapılarıyla yakından ilgilidir. Merkeziyetçi yapıdaki ülkelerde eğitim politikalarının belirlenmesi, okulların yapımı ve fiziksel ihtiyaçlarının karşılanması, öğretmen ve okul yöneticilerinin görevlendirilmesi, öğretim programlarının belirlenmesi, eğitim materyalinin hazırlanması ve seçilmesi gibi birçok sorumluluk, görev ve faaliyet genel olarak merkezi bir kurum tarafından üstlenilmiştir. Bu durum özellikle nüfusu fazla olan, etnik ve kültürel çeşitliliğe sahip, coğrafi açıdan geniş ve çeşitli fiziki zorlukları olan ülkeler için belirgindir. Günümüzde, topluma sunulan eğitim hizmeti sadece merkezi hükümetlerin ve okulların veya öğretmenlerin sorumluluğu olarak görülmemektedir. Eğitimde başarılı olarak kabul edilen ülkelerde farklı kurum ve kuruluşlar da doğrudan veya dolaylı olarak eğitimde önemli roller üstlenmektedir. Yerel yönetimler, sadece altyapı ve kaynak sağlamakla kalmayıp, aynı zamanda eğitim politikalarının belirlenmesinden ve uygulanmasına kadar birçok konuda etkili bir konumda bulunmaktadır. Bu makalede, Türkiye’de yerel yönetimlerin öğrencilere sunulan eğitim hizmetinde üstlendikleri rolleri incelemekte ve geliştirmeye yönelik öneriler sunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Eğitim politikaları
• yerel yönetimler
• belediyeler
• merkeziyetçilik
• yerelleşme.

The Role and Functions of Local Governments in Education Services: The Case of Türkiye

Öz

Due to legal frameworks, the roles that local governments assume or could assume in education are intrinsically linked to the administrative approaches and organizational structures of states. In countries with a central framework, numerous responsibilities, tasks and activities, such as policy formulation, school construction and maintenance, the appointment of teachers and school administrators, curriculum design and the preparation and selection of educational materials are predominantly managed by central authorities. This scenario is particularly pronounced in countries with large populations, significant ethnic and cultural diversity, and extensive geographical areas with various physical challenges. In contemporary contexts, the provision of educational services is no longer regarded solely as the responsibility of central governments, schools and teachers. In countries acknowledged for their educational success, various institutions and organizations also play crucial roles, either directly or indirectly, in the educational sphere. Local governments, in addition to providing infrastructure and resources, are significantly involved in the formulation and implementation of educational policies. This study examines the role of local governments in providing educational services to students in Türkiye and offers recommendations for further enhancement.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Education Policies
• local governments
• municipalities
• centralization
• decentralization

Kaynakça

1. Adams, D. (2012). Urban planning and the development process. Rutledge.
2. Ahmad, M. (2021). Management of facilities and infrastructure in schools. Akademika, 10(1), 93-104.
3. Akçakılın, A. (1998). Teknik ve toplumsal yönleriyle okul yöneticiliği. Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
4. Akyıldız, S. (2000). Eğitim hizmetlerinin yürütülmesinde belediye yönetimlerine yetki verilmesi konusunda il belediye başkanlarının görüşleri. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
5. Altınok, R. (1997). Yerel yönetimler ve eğitim. Türk İdare Dergisi, (415), 45-54.
6. American Planning Association. (2006). Planning and urban design standards. John Wiley & Sons.
7. Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2009). Centralization, organizational strategy, and public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 57-80.
8. Anell, A., Glenngård, A. H., MARKer, S., & World Health Organization. (2012). Sweden: Health system review.

9. Bahan, N. M., Doh, J. P., Wetzel, J. and Taiji, M. (2010). Corporate-NGO collaboration: Co-creating new business models for developing markets. Long-range planning, 43(2-3), 326-342.
10. Başçobanlar, Ö. (2000). Yerel yönetimlerin örgün eğitime ilişkin görevleri. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İnönü Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Malatya.
11. Bekkers, V., Dijkstra, A. Edwards, A., & Fenger, M. (2007). Governance and the democratic deficit: Assessing the democratic legitimacy of governance practices. Ashrae.
12. Bıçak, S. (2001). Türkiye’de il özel idaresi ve toplum kalkınması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
13. Blakely, E. J., & Leigh, N. G. (2013). Planning local economic development: Theory and practice. SAGE Publications.
14. Burke, J. M. Logsdon, W. Mitchell, M. Reiner, M., & Vogel, D. (1986). Corporate community involvement in the San Francisco Bay area. California Management Review, 28(3), 122-141.
15. Bursalıoğlu, Z. (1999). Okul yönetiminde yeni yapı ve davranış. Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
16. Carlson, K., & MacManus, S. A. (2007). Structural homeland security grants: Florida’s local finance officials evaluate the funding process. Public Finance and Management, 7(2), 191-226.
17. Cervero, R. (2001). Efficient urbanization: Economic performance and the shape of the metropolis. Urban Studies, 38(10), 1651-1671.
18. Cheema, G. S., & Rondinelli, D. A. (Eds.). (2007). Decentralization and development: Policy implementation in developing countries. SAGE Publications.
19. Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2007). Transcending new public management: The transformation of public sector reforms. Ashrae.
20. Çınkır, Ş. (2002). Eğitim yönetiminde yerelleşmenin üstünlükleri ve sakıncaları. Eğitim Araştırmaları, (8), 21-30.
21. Çoker, Z. (1995). Merkezden yönetim, il sistemi ve yerel yönetim reforma, is hereby reformed. Yeni Türkiye, (4), 98-107.
22. D. E. Rauch and D. Schleicher (2015). Like Uber, but for local government law: futures of local regulation of the sharing economy. Ohio St. LJ, 76, 901.
23. Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted, a national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the "highly qualified teacher" challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11, 33-33.
24. DeFeo, D. J., & Tran, T. C. (2019). Recruiting, hiring, and training Alaska’s rural teachers: How superintendents practice place-conscious leadership. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 35(2).
25. Denters, B., & Rose, L. E. (2005). Comparing Local Governance: Trends and Developments. Palgrave Macmillan.
26. DPT. (2004). Yedinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı. Erişim: http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/plan/vii/ (Erişim Tarihi: 18.09.2003).
27. Dryfoos, J. G. (1999). The role of school in children’s out-of-school time. The Future of Children, 117-134. Duman, A. (1998a). Eğitimin yerinden yönetimi. Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, 7(2), 55-67.
28. Duman, A. (1998b). Yerel yönetimler yasa taslaklarına eğitimin yerinden yönetimi açısından bir bakış. İller ve Belediyeler, (631), 23-30.
29. Dunn, D. D., & Legge Jr, J. S. (2001). US local government managers and the complexity of responsibility and accountability in democratic governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(1), 73-88.
30. Emiroğlu, H. (2000). Yerel yönetimlerde halkın kültür ve eğitim düzeylerinin yükseltilmesine yönelik faaliyetler ve konuya ilişkin bir araştırma. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
31. Ergun, T. (2005). Infrastructure services in local governments: A case study of Turkish municipalities. Journal of Urban Studies, 22(4), 123-135.
32. Eryılmaz, B. (1995). Kamu yönetimi. İzmir: Akademi Kitabevi.
33. Fasola, O. S. (1998). Review of extended-day and after-school programs and their effectiveness. Report No. 24.
34. Freeman, R., & Moran, M. (2000). Reforming health care in Europe. West European Politics, 23(2), 35-58.
35. Fuente, A. D. L., and Vives, X. (1995). Infrastructure and education as instruments of regional policy: Evidence from Spain. Economic Policy, 10(20), 11-51.
36. García, E. and Weiss, E. (2017). Reducing and averting achievement gaps: Key findings from the report "Education inequalities at the school starting gate" and comprehensive strategies to mitigate early skill gaps. Economic Policy Institute.
37. Gates, B. (1999). Dijital sinir sistemiyle düşünce hızında çalışmak (Çev. Ali Cevat Akkoyunlu). İstanbul: Doğan Kitap.
38. Govender, I. G., & Reddy, P. S. (2014). Monitoring and evaluation in municipalities. Administratio Publica, 22(4), 160-177.
39. Gözlübüyük, Ş. (1989). Yönetim hukuku. Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası.
40. Graham, K.A. and Phillips, S. D. (1998). Citizen engagement: Lessons in participation from local government (No. 22). Institute of Public Administration of Canada.
41. Grant, U., & Devas, N. (2002). Local government decision-making: citizen participation and local government accountability. University of Birmingham: International Development Department, UK.
42. Heikkilä, M. (2021). Finnish teachers’ participation in local curriculum development: A study of processes in five school contexts. Policy Futures in Education, 19(7), 752-769.
43. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Rowman & Littlefield. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233-243.
44. Indarti, E. (2020). Strengthen security and public order: Accountability management in improving the quality of law enforcement. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 9(2), 82-88.
45. Ivanova, E., and Masarova, J. (2013). The importance of road infrastructure in economic development and competitiveness. Economics and Management, 18(2), 263-274.
46. Karasu, M. (2006). Local economic development policies in Türkiye. Economic Development Quarterly, 20(4), 299-314.
47. Kaya, H. (2007). Sustainable urban development and environmental policies in Türkiye. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(6), 807-827.
48. Keleş, R. (2002). Urban transportation policies and sustainability in Türkiye. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 3(3), 159-175.
49. Köksal, K. (1997). Türkiye'de eğitim hizmetlerinin yerelleşmesi - Bir model önerisi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
50. Kuhlmann, S., and Wollmann, H. (2014). Introduction to Comparative Public Administration. Edward Elgar Publishing.
51. Levin, B., & Naylor, N. (2007). Using resources effectively in education. In Intelligent leadership: Constructs for thinking education leaders (pp. 143-158). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
52. McGinn, N. F., and Welsh, T. (1999). Decentralization of education: Why, when, what and how? UNESCO.
53. Nalau, J., Preston, B. L., & Preston, M. C. (2015). Is adaptation a local responsibility?. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 89-98.
54. Nanda, S., and Berruti, F. (2021). Municipal solid waste management and landfilling technologies: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 19(2), 1433-1456.
55. OECD. (2011). Lessons from PISA for the United States: Strong performers and successful reformers in education. OECD Publishing.
56. OECD. (2016). Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.
57. Ojok, J., & Basheka, B. C. (2016). Measuring the effective role of public sector monitoring and evaluation in promoting good governance in Uganda: Implications from the Ministry of Local Government. Africa’s Public Service Delivery and Performance Review, 4(3), 410-439.
58. Osborne, S. P. and Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit transforms the public sector. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 197-200.
59. Özdemir, S. (2009). Urban planning practices in Türkiye: A historical perspective. Planning Perspectives, 24(2), 219-238.
60. Paterson, and S. Perret, S. (2003). Local environmental management: Principles and practice. Environmental Management, 31(4), 517-529.
61. Pierre, J. (2000). Debating governance: Authority, steering, and democracy. Oxford University Press. Pires, A. et al. (2011). Solid waste management in European countries: A review of system analysis techniques. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(4), 1033-1050.
62. Reddy, P. J. (2011). Municipal solid waste management. The Netherlands: CRC Press/Balkema. Retrieved on October 9, 2012.
63. Rondinelli, D. A. (1981). Government decentralization in comparative perspective: Theory and practice in developing countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 47(2), 133-145.
64. Roza, M. (2008). Allocation anatomy: How district policies that deploy resources support (or undermine) district reform strategies. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
65. Sahoo, and R. K. Dash, R. K. (2012). Economic growth in South Asia: Role of infrastructure. The Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 21(2), 217-252.
66. Smillie, I., Helmich, J. Randel, and T. German, T. (2013). Stakeholders: Government-NGO partnerships for international development. Rutledge.
67. Sohail, M., Maunder, D. A. C., & Cavill, S. (2006). Effective regulation of sustainable public transport in developing countries. Transport Policy, 13(3), 177-190.
68. Tanner, M. S., & Green, E. (2007). Principals and secret agents: Central versus local control over policing and obstacles to “rule of law” in China. The China Quarterly, 191, 644-670.
69. Turok, I. (2006). The importance of infrastructure for economic development. Local Economy, 21(3), 276-284.
70. Victorian Stormwater Committee. (1999). Urban stormwater: best-practice environmental management guidelines. CSIRO; 2006.
71. Walker, J., Pearce, C., Boe, K., & Lawson, M. (2019). The power of education to fight inequality: How increasing educational equality and quality is crucial to fighting economic and gender inequality. Oxfam.
72. Watts, R. L. (2008). Comparing federal systems (3rd ed.). McGill-Queen's University Press. World Bank. (2000). Entering the 21st century: World Development Report 1999/2000. Oxford University Press.