İlköğretim Okullarındaki Okul Gelişim Yönetim Ekibi Üyelerinin Görevlerine İlişkin Algıları

Yıl 2011, Sayı: 25, 345 - 358, 01.02.2011

Necmi Gökyer

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, ilköğretim okullarındaki okul gelişim yönetim ekibi üyelerinin görevlerine ilişkin algılarınıbelirlemektir. Tarama modeli kullanılarak yapılan çalışmanın evrenini 2009-2010 eğitim-öğretim yılında, Malatya ili merkez ilçede bulunan 84ilköğretim okulu oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın örneklemi, bu okullardan basit-tesadüfî örnekleme yöntemiyle belirlenen 30 okuldaki okul gelişim yönetim ekibinde görev alan 252 kişiden oluşmaktadır. Araştırma için okul gelişim yönetim ekibinin OGYE kuruluşamacında belirtilen ifadelerden yararlanılarak bir anket hazırlanmışve uzman görüşlerine başvurularak uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler, aritmetik ortalama, standart sapma, t testi ve tek yönlü Varyans Analizi teknikleri ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgulara göre; okul ile aile arasında kurulan iletişimin ve okulun çevresindeki kuruluşlarla olan ilişkisinin yetersiz olduğu, müdürlerin okulda hizmet içi eğitim çalışmalarının organizasyonunu yapmada, rehber öğretmenlerin ve okul aile birliği başkanlarının görevlerini, daha yüksek düzeyde yaptıklarıve genel olarak OGYE’nin etkili ve verimli çalışmadığıortaya çıkmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

stratejik planlama, okul gelişim planı, okul gelişim yönetim ekibi, okul aile birliği başkanı.

The Perceptions Of The School Development Management Team Members On Their Own Tasks

Öz

Introduction: school is education system’s functional part and its primarily production focused concrete organization which determines operational boundaries and perimeter of it Aytaç,1998:1 . ISIP International School Improvement Project which is supported by OECD defines school improvement as “a systematic sustained effort aimed at change in learning conditions and other related internal conditions in one or more schools, with the ultimate aim of accomplishing educational goals more effectively” Van Velzen vd., 1985; Balcı, 2001:54 . School improvement is the work of improving educational change strategies that strengthen school culture and implementation of program reforms Hargreaves ve Hopkins, 1993 . Stages of school improvement are defined as taking up, implementation and institutionalization Miles, 1986; Balcı, 2001 . With respect to necessity of improvement plans and their contributions to education, researches conducted by Haynes, Emmons and Woodruff 1998 determined that implementation of effective school improvement program has positive effects on student learning and school improvement program processes contribute to the development of student outcomes. Researchers such as Midthassel, Bru ve Idsöe 2000 indicated that school reforms are made more frequently today compared to past, programs are reviewed constantly and consequently, changes on new technical equipments and teaching methods have become necessary Balkar,2010:2 . Davies and Ellison 1998 stated that the conventional approaches to school planning cannot serve schools’ changing needs any more. “School improvement plan is an important tool for making school and effective institution. It has the characteristics of a road map to achieve strategic goals and objectives set by the school Ministry of Education, EARGED,2007:9 . Planning is the key element in the process of school improvement actualized in effective schools Mintrop and Maclellan,2002:277 . In the 1990s, the improvement move in education gravitated towards detailed educational objectives and high standards Marzano,R.J. et al,1993 . Ministry of Education implemented “the Improving National Education Project MEGP ” in order to ensure the organizational change in Turkish national education system. The aim of school improvement plan is the development of quality of learning and teaching processes. By this way, more students are got to reach necessary proficiency levels in the basic discipline areas. So, performance indicators relating to this area have to be included in the school improvement report which has to be prepared at the end of each academic year Okul Gelişim Modeli,2007:5 . School Improvement Management Team OGYE is the team created to represent school community and which manages and carries out the planned school improvement. For each academic year, it is responsible for preparing and conducting School Improvement Plan. OGYE, as being the fundamental dynamics of school management, is responsible for preparing school’s strategic plan based on data and school improvement plan belonging to concerning academic year and ensuring the implementation of them at school. Aim: Are there any deficiencies or malfunctions in the application concerning the duties of the School improvement management team members, if any, what can be done for the unit to work more effectively will be put forward. Problem: The problem statement of this research is “what are school improvement management team members’ perceptions of their duties?” Sub problems: 1.what are school improvement management team members’ perceptions of their duties working at primary school? Are there any difference between dimensions? 2. Are school improvement management team members’ perceptions of their duties differ by; duty, gender, educational level variables?Method: This research aiming to determine school improvement management team members’ perceptions of their duties working in Ministry of National Education primary schools is survey model. Survey models aim to describe a situation in the past or in the present as it is Karasar, 1991:77 . Sample of the research: The universe of the research includes 84 primary schools in total being in central district of Malatya province during 2009-2010 education- teaching year. The sample of the research includes 252 people taking part in school improvement management team in 30 schools which were selected by simple random sampling. Data collecting system: The data was collected by questionnaire which was prepared by using the statements indicated in the establishment ojbectives of school improvement management team OGYE in article 99 of the Regulation on Primary Education Institutions and by a study called “Planned School Improvement Model for Strategic Management in Schools” MEB,2007 after resorting to expert opinions. The KMO value of the data is .94, Bartlett’s value 5204,051, df:435, p=.000. 1 item was removed from the scale of which factor load value is under 0.35. after the second factor analysis, factor load values of the items in the scale are between 0.41 and 0.70. Total variance of second factor is 57,95%. The Cronbach Alfa reliability value is .95. When two items measure the same structure was noticed, one of them removed from the scale and 9 items were left. There are 29 items in the scale. Data Analysis: The data was analyzed using the SPSS package program. In the analysis of the research questions, T test and Variance Analysis One-way ANOVA were conducted besides frequency and percentages, arithmetic means and standard deviations to determine school improvement management team members’ perceptions of their duties levels. Findings and comments: Each of School improvement management team members perceive one another’s duties at “mostly” level for determined dimensions. While some of the teachers only hear of school improvement management teams, some state that they do not have any information about their duties even though they are members of this board. Discussion: By the results of the research conducted by Balkar 2010 , it was stated that school-environment relations have to be improved and for that assistance of parents, philanthropists and other organizations is needed. Hopkins and Levin 2000 stated that poor-performing schools may need a high level of external support. The teachers participating in the research conducted by Balkar 2010 indicated that the subjects concerning determination of current physical resources and provision of physical resources needed should be included within the schope of the plan. Cuckle and Broadhead 2003 stated that the improvement planning process is used as a tool to manage the financial changes, which supports this result by Balkar’s research. In his study, Şahin 2006 determined that setting school objectives and preparing school improvement plan were conducted by mostly one or two people. By the results of the research conducted by Balkar 2010 , it was determined that teachers should be informed continuously about the presentation of school improvement plan, content of it and practices. Similarly, Revees 2000 determined that understanding of the processes of change has significant influence on school improvement by improvement planning. In his study, Doğan 2003 obtained the results that teachers need to discuss innovation plans among themselves and share the responsibilities concerning the innovation with each other. Results: It was determined that there are not much work done at school about organizing any activity concerning in-service education, and work about preparing and managing “School Budget” with Parent-Teacher Association is carried out at lower level. It was determined that “school improvement management team” cannot communicate and does not attach required importance to the activities concerning orientation and provision of resources to promote and improve the school. Suggestions: 1. In-service training courses about OGYE work and duties of its members in schools that all members can attend should be planned and organized at the provincial level. 2. “school improvement management team” should be provided with the necessary support in order to communicate effectively and attach required importance to the activities concerning orientation and provision of resources to promote and improve the school. 3. The members should inform enough both parents and surrounding private and public institutions which affect the school ward, municipal, of non-governmental organizations, unions which are thought to increase the effectiveness of school activities, foundations, associations, chambers of commerce and industry about school improvement report.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Strategic Planning, School Development Plan, School Development Management Team, The Head of ParentTeacher Association

Kaynakça

• Açıkalın, A. (1998). Toplumsal, Kurumsal ve Teknik Yönleriyle Okul Yöneticiliği. Ankara: PEGEM.
• Balcı, A. (2001). Etkili Okul ve Okul Geliştirme (Kuram Uygulama ve Araştırma). Ankara: PEGEM Yayıncılık.
• Balcı, Ali (2009). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntem, Teknik ve İlkeler. Pegem Akademi (7.Baskı). Ankara.
• Balkar, B. (2010). Okul Gelişim Planı ve Etkililiğinin Sağlanması Hakkında Öğretmen Görüşleri Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 2010 14 (2): 1-17
• Büyüköztürk, Şener (2009). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. PEGEM Akademi.4.Baskı. Ankara.
• Comenius, Yan A. (1964). Büyük Didaktika. ( H. A. Aytuna, Çev.). Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
• Cuckle, P., & Broadhead, P. (2003). “Developments in Development Planning in English Primary Schools: 1994–2001”. School Leadership & Management, 23(2), 229-240.
• Dağlı, E. (2009). İlköğretim Okullarında Okul Gelişim Yönetim Ekibi Çalışmalarının Yönetici ve Öğretmen Görüşlerine Göre Değerlendirilmesi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Doğan, E. (2003). “İlköğretim Okullarında Yenileşmeyi Besleyen Koşullar”. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Burdur Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(5), 58-81.
• Erkılıç T. A. (2007).Toplam Kalite Yönetimi İlkelerinin Yönetim Yaklaşımları Bağlamında Tartışılması. Eskişehir Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi.
• Hargreaves, D. & Hopkins, D. (1993). School effectiveness, School İmprovement and Development Planning. İn Preedy, M. Managing the Effective School. The Open Unıversity. Paul Chapman Pub. Ltd. (229-240).
• Haynes, N. M., Emmons, C. L., & Woodruff, D. W. (1998). “Research Article: School Development Program Effects: Linking Implementation to Outcomes”. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 3(1), 71-85.
• Hopkins, D., & Levin, B. (2000). “Government Policy and School Development”. School Leadership & Management, 20(1), 15- 30.
• Jones, G.R. (1996). “School Development Planning in Jersey Primary Schools: A Continency Analysis”. School Organisation, 16(3), 281-295.
• Kıngır, S., Karagöz, Y., Yıldız, M.S., Ağraş, S. (2009). Toplam Kalite Yönetimi İle İlgili Çalışmalara Katılım Düzeyinin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 13 (2): 255-278
• Marzano, R. J., Mc Tıghe, J., & Pıckering, D. (1993), Assessing student outcomes. Alexandria:VA Association for supervision and Curriculum Development. USA.
• Karasar, Niyazi (1991). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. Kavramlar, İlkeler, Teknikler (4.Basım).Ankara.
• MEB (2002). Eğitimi Araştırma ve Geliştirme Dairesi Başkanlı, Müfredat Laboratuvar Okulları MLO Modeli (3. Baskı). Ankara: Semih Ofset, s. 53.
• MEB.(1999). Okul Gelişim Modeli, Planlı Okul Gelişimi. Ankara: EARGED
• MEB (1999). Müfredat Lâboratuvar Uygulamalarının Yaygınlaştırılmasına İlişkin Yönerge. Tebliğler Dergisi: 2506.
• MEB (2003). İlköğretim Kurumları Yönetmeliği. R.G. 27.08.2003, 25212- T.D. Eylül 2003, 2552.Değişiklikler,R.G. 10.07.2010, 27637
• Pullant, J. (2001).spss Survival manual. A step-by step guide to data analysesusing spss for Windows. Philadelphia, PA:Open University Press.
• Reeves, J. (2000). “Tracking the Links Between Pupil Attainment and Development Planning.” School Leadership and Management, 20(3), 315–332.
• Şahin, İ. (2006). İlköğretim Müfredat Laboratuvar Okullarının Okul Geliştirme Süreci Açısından İncelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, İzmir Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü
• Tınkılıç, C. (2006). İlköğretim Okullarında Yürütülen Okul Geliştirme Çalışmalarının Karşılaştırmalı Analizi (Ankara ve Stuttgart Şehirleri Örneği). Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Tufan, M., Mızrak, S., Çelik, D. (2009). Mesleki Eğitimde Toplam Kalite Yönetimi ve Model Önerisi. Journal of Azerbaijani Studies, 27-40. http://www.jas-khazar.org/2009. 26/04/2011 tarihinde ulaşılmıştır.