Evaluation by the School Managers of Raising Program in Primary Schools (RPIPS)

Year 2019, , 35 - 43, 10.06.2019

Nigar Tuğba Avlukyarı Mehmet Ali Hamedoğlu

https://doi.org/10.32568/jfce.567079

Abstract

This research was conducted to find out how school managers consider Raising Program in Primary
Schools (RPIPS). Within the context of the study, there are 303 students; %29.04 of them are from foreign
countries, %2,97 of them are refugees and refugee students, %1,65 of them are children of nomadic and
seminomadic families, %4,29 of them are children of seasonal agricultural laborers and lastly, %59,08 of
them are consisted of other students. School managers that took part in this student group were listened
for their ideas and final data was analyzed accordingly. Relational Scanning Model is used as a research
model. According to data gained from the research and findings obtained from the ideas of school managers, it was concluded that goals of RPIPS, principles of the program, type and content of the program
and approaches to measurement and evaluation are effective, but it was also found out that program's
special goals are hardly effective.

Keywords

Raising Program, Primary Schools, School managers

References

• Ben-Rabi, D. ve Amiel, S. (2010). After-school educational programs: Goals, work practices and best-practice indicators. Research report RR-567-10. Jerusalem, Israel: Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute.Case, A., Lubotsky, M. ve Paxson, C., (2002), “Economic status and health in childhood: The origins of the gradient. American Economic Review, 92, 1308–1334.Dinçer, M. A. ve Oral, I. (2009). Türkiye’de devlet liselerinde akademik dirençlilik profili PISA 2009 Türkiye verisinin analizi. İstanbul: Eğitim reformu girişimi.Ermisch, J. ve Pronzato, C. (2010). Causal effects of parents' education on children's education. ISER Working Paper Series 2010-16, Institute for Social and Economic Research.Hout, M. ve E. Beller (2006). Intergenerational social mobility in comparative perspective. The Future of Children, 16(2), 19-36.Kazu, İ. Y. (2019). Sosyo-ekonomik açıdan dezavantajlı kişilerin eğitimleri sırasında karşılaştıkları sorunlar. Dicle Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34, 38-47. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14582/DUZGEF.1912Krajcik, J. S. ve Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In K.R., Sawyer (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.MEB, (2015a). Destekleme ve yetiştirme kursları e-kılavuzu.MEB, (2018). İlkokullarda yetiştirme programı uygulama kılavuzu.Nelson, I. A. (2016). Why afterschool matters. Rutgers University Press. https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=KIvADQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT7&ots=34DuM9WZP9&sig=dJs2GSjvtMvqr8QbrU0E_zSfpBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false adresinden 30 Ocak 2019 tarihinde edinilmiştir.OECD, (2010a). PISA 2009 results: What makes a school successful? Resources, policies and practices (Volume IV). OECD.Özbaş, M. (2018). Dezavantajlı sosyolojik tabakalarda zorunlu eğitim sürecini etkileyen değişkenler. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(4).Sarıer, Y. (2010). Ortaöğretime giriş sınavları (OKS-SBS) ve PISA sonuçları ışığında eğitimde fırsat eşitliğinin değerlendirilmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(3), 107-129.Tansel, A. (2004). Education and labor market outcomes in Turke,. Paper commissioned for the Turkey ESS. World Bank: Washington, DC.