İngiltere, Yeni Zelanda ve Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti’nde Eğitimde Özerklik ve Okul Özerkliğinin Göstergelerinin Kronolojik ve Karşılaştırmalı İncelenmesi

Year 2021, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 370 - 393, 27.12.2021

Orhun Kaptan , Prof. Dr. İbrahim Kocabaş

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı İngiltere, Yeni Zelanda ve Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti ülkelerindeki eğitim sistemlerinde özerkliğin incelenerek okul özerkliğine neden olan etkenlerin ve okul özerkliğinin göstergelerinin tespit edilmesidir. Araştırma nitel araştırma yaklaşımının belgesel tarama deseni ile yürütülmüştür. Bu kapsamda konuya ilişkin 31 makale, 4 bildiri, 14 kitap ve 2 resmi yazı olmak üzere 51 eser incelenmiştir. Elde edilen veriler içerik analizi ile çözümlenmiştir. Araştırmanın başlıca bulgularına göre İngiltere’de okul özerkliği ulusal ve uluslararası düzeyde rekabet ve okul çeşitliliğinin sağlanması amacıyla gerçekleştirilmekteyken Yeni Zelanda ve Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti’nde okul özerkliğine yönelik reformların itici gücü ekonomik buhranlar ile başa çıkabilmedir. Okul özerkliğinin göstergeleri ise okulların kendi müfredatlarını oluşturabilmeleri, merkezden bağımsız olarak kendi hesap verilebilirlik uygulamalarını yürütmeleri, personeli işe alma ve işten çıkarma yetkisi, kendi öğrencisini seçebilme yetkisi, yerel eğitim otoritesinden finansal bağımsızlık ve okul yönetiminde veli, vakıf, dini ya da ticari grupların temsil oranı olarak tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarından yola çıkılarak Türk eğitim sisteminin oldukça fazla merkezi yapısınının hafifletilmesi önerilmektedir. Bununla birlikte özerkliğin kademeli olarak denetim, finansman ve eğitim programları açısından yerel ve bölgesel eğitim otoriteleri ile okul yönetim kurulları arasında paylaşılması gerekmektedir.

Keywords

Okul Özerkliği, Eğitimde Yerelleşme, Eğitimde Hesap verilebilirlik, Eğitim Reformu, Okul Özerkliği Göstergeleri

References

• Adams, M. (2009). Tomorrow’s Schools today: New Zealand’s experiment 20 years on'. George Mason University Mercatus Center Working Paper, 09-01.
• Anderson, B. (1995). Major urges nation to seize opportunity. The Times, 5.
• Arcia, G., Macdonald, K., Patrinos, H. A., & Porta, E. (2011). School autonomy and accountability. System Assessment and Benchmarking for Education Results. World Bank.
• Babadağ, K. (2001). Meslekleşme ve kadın. I.Uluslararası & VIII. Ulusal Hemşirelik Kongresi, 29 Ekim-2 Kasım, Kongre Kitabı, 35-39.
• Barış, Y., & Hasan, A. (2019). Teacher education in China, Japan and Turkey. Educational Research and Reviews, 14(2), 51-55.
• Baş, M. (2017). Farklı ülkelerde okul özerkliği uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesi; Türkiye’de uygulanabilirliği. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(38), 147-169.
• Bradley, S., Crouchley, R., Millington, J., & Taylor, J. (2000). Testing for quasi-market forces in secondary education. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 62(3), 357-90.
• Burgess, S., Wilson, D., & J. Worth (2010). A natural experiment in school accountability: the impact of school performance information on pupil progress and sorting. CMPO Working Paper 10/246.
• Cheng, K. M. (1997). The meaning of decentralization: Looking at the case of China. İçinde W. K. Cummungs, and N. F. McGinn (eds.) International Handbook of Education and Development: Preparing Schools, Students and Nations for the Twenty-first Century. Oxford: Pergammon, ss.393-403.
• Clark, D. (2009). The performance and competitive effects of school autonomy. Journal of political Economy, 117(4), 745-783.
• Court, M., & O’Neill, J. (2011). ‘Tomorrow's Schools’ in New Zealand: from social democracy to market managerialism. Journal of educational administration and history, 43(2), 119-140.
• Edwards, T., Fitz, J., & Whitty, G. (1989). The state and private education: An evaluation of the assisted places scheme. Falmer Press.
• Fan, G., & Zhang, L. (2020). Education Governance and School Autonomy: The Progressive Reform of K–12 School in China. İçinde Handbook of Education Policy Studies (ss. 55-93). Springer, Singapore.
• Fiske, E. B. & Ladd, H. F. (2001) School autonomy and evaluation: self governing schools and accountability in New Zealand. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 31(4), 537 – 552.
• Fitz, J., Halpin, D., & Power, S. (1997). ‘Between a Rock and a Hard Place’: diversity, institutional identity and grant‐maintained schools. Oxford Review of Education, 23(1), 17-30.
• Fitzgerald, T., Youngs, H & Grootenboer, P. (2003). Bureaucratic control or professional autonomy? Performance management in New Zealand schools. School Leadership & Management, 23(1), 91 105.
• Gordon, L. (1992a). Educational reform in New Zealand: Contesting the role of the teacher. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 2(1), 23-42.
• Gordon, L. (1992b). The bulk funding of teachers’ salaries: a case study in education policy, New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 1, 28-58.
• Gordon, L. (1992c). The New Zealand state and educational reforms: ‘competing’ interests. Comparative Education, 28(3), 281-291.
• Gordon, L. (1992d). The state, devolution and educational reform in New Zealand. Journal of Education Policy, 7(2), 187-203.
• Göksoy, S. (2020). Küreselleşme ve Eğitime Yansımaları. Uluslararası Liderlik Eğitimi Dergisi (ULED), 1(1).
• Hanushek, E. A., Link, S., & Woessmann, L. (2011). Does School Autonomy Make Sense Everywhere? Panel Estimates from PISA. NBER Working Paper No. 17591. National Bureau of Economic Research.
• Hawkins, J. N. (2000). Centralization, decentralization, recentralization-Educational reform in China. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 442–55.
• Higham, R., & Earley, P. (2013). School autonomy and government control: School leaders’ views on a changing policy landscape in England. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(6), 701-717.
• Hood, N. (2019). Manifestations of autonomy and control in a devolved schooling system: the case of New Zealand. Journal for Research and Debate, 2 (5).
• Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Nobel.
• Kasser, T. (2011). Capitalism and autonomy. İçinde V. I. Chirkov, R. M. Ryan & K. M. Sheldon (Ed). Human autonomy in cross-cultural context (ss. 191- 206). Springer.
• Keddie, A. (2015). School autonomy, accountability and collaboration: a critical review. Journal of educational administration and history, 47(1), 1-17.
• Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B. (2003). Does competition improve teaching and learning? Evidence from New Zealand. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 25(1), 97-112. Lange, D. (1988). Tomorrow’s Schools: the reform of education administration in New Zealand. Government Printer.
• Levacic, R. (2004). Competition and the Performance of English Secondary Schools: Further Evidence. Education Economics, 12(2), 177-93.
• Machin, S., & Silva, O. (2013). School structure, school autonomy and the tail. Centre for Economic Performance Special Paper No. 29. London School of Economics.
• Macpherson, R. (1993a). Challenging aprovider-captureo with radical changes to educational administration in New Zealand in Martin Y & Macpherson R (Eds), Restructuring Administrative Policy: in public schooling. Detselig Enterprises Ltd.
• Macpherson, R. (1993b). The reconstruction of New Zealand education: a case of `high-politics’ reform? İçinde H. Beare & W.L. Boyd (Ed) Restructuring Schools: an international perspective on the movement to transform the control and the performance of schools, pp. 69- 85. Falmer Press.
• Mak, G. C.L., and Lo, L. N.K. (1996). Education. içinde Y.M. Yeung, and Sung Yun-Wing (eds.) Shanghai: Transformation and Modernization under China’s Open Policy. The Chinese University Press, ss.375- 398.
• Male, T. (2021). School autonomy in England-the impact on democracy. The Institute for Educational Administration & Leadership-Jamaica (IEAL-J).
• Maslowski, R., Scheerens, J., & Luyten, H. (2007). The effect of school autonomy and school internal decentralization on students' reading literacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(3), 303-334.
• Middleton, S. (1990). Women, equality and equity in liberal educational policies 1945-1988. İçinde S. Middleton, J. Codd & A. Jones (eds) New Zealand Education Policy Today. Allen and Unwin, ss. 68-93.
• Milne, B. (1995). The reform of educational administration in New Zealand. The Canadian School Executive, Eylül, 3-9.
• Mok, K. H. (2000). Social and Political Development in Post-reform China. Macmillan Press.
• Neri, L., & Pasini, E. (2020). Heterogeneous Effects of School Autonomy in England (No. 202010). School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews.
• Ngok, K. (2007). Chinese education policy in the context of decentralization and marketization: Evolution and implications. Asia Pacific Education Review 8 (1), 142–57.
• Novlan, J. F. (1998). New Zealand's past and tomorrow's schools: Reasons, reforms and results. School Leadership & Management, 18(1), 7-18.
• Picot, B. (1988). Administering for Excellence: effective administration in education. Government Printer.
• Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2004). An overview of self-determination theory. İçinde R. M. Ryan & E. L. Deci (Ed) A handbook of self-determination research (ss. 3 – 31). University of Rochester Press.
• Spoonley, P., Pearson, D., & Shirley, I. (1994). New Zealand Society. The Dunsmore Press. Wermke, M. & Salokangas, M. (2015). Autonomy in education. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2, 1 – 8.
• White, G., & Wade, R. (1988). Developmental states and markets in East Asia: An introduction. İçinde G. White (ed.), Developmental State in East Asia. Macmillan, ss.1-29.
• Whitty, G. (1999). Creating Quasi-Markets in Education: A Review of Recent Research on Parental Choice and School Autonomy in Three Countries', Review of Research in Education, 12, 219-266.
• Whitty, G., Edwards, T., & Gewirtz, S. (1993). Specialisation and choice in urban educution: The city technology college experiment. Routledge.
• Wong Lai-ngok, J. (2004). School Autonomy in China: A Comparison Between Government and Private Schools Within the Context of Decentralization. International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(3).
• Wylie, C. (2009). Tomorrow’s Schools after 20 years: Can a system of selfmanaging schools live up to its initial aims. The New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 19, 5-29.
• Xia, J., Gao, X., & Shen, J. (2017). School autonomy: A comparison between china and the united states. Chinese Education & Society, 50(3), 284-305.
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin.
• Yılmaz Fındık, L., & Kavak, Y. (2017). PISA sonuçlarına göre yönetici liderliği ve okul özerkliğinin öğrenci başarısına etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32 (4), 939 – 959.
• Yolcu, H. (2010). Neo-liberal dönüşümün yaşandığı ülkelerde yerelleşme ve okul özerkliği uygulamaları. ZKU Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(12), 253 – 273.