FARKLI ÜLKELERİN EĞİTİM DENETİMİ SİSTEMLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR İNCELEME

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 45 - 77, 31.12.2020

Remzi Burçin Çetin , Necdet Konan

https://doi.org/10.31798/ses.815786

Cited By: 2

Öz

Türk eğitim sisteminde uzun yıllardır tartışılan denetim alt sistemin yapılandırılması sorunu halen güncelliğini korumaktadır. Bu anlamda farklı ülkelerde halen uygulanmakta olan modellerin incelenmesi son derece önemlidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı farklı ülkelerde denetim alt sisteminin yapı ve işleyişini karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektir. Araştırma nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden durum çalışması şeklinde desenlenmiştir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu dünya genelinde özellikle eğitim sistemlerinin çeşitli yönleriyle yıldızı parlayan ve PISA, TIMMS gibi uluslararası nitelikte öğrenci değerlendirme girişimlerinde ve insani gelişmişlik göstergelerinde başarı elde etmiş 10 ülke/ekonomi şeklinde belirlenmiştir. Buna göre İngiltere, Estonya, Kanada, Güney Kore, Polonya, Singapur, Finlandiya, Hong Kong, Avustralya ve Norveç eğitim sistemleri incelenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular ışığında bu ülkelerin tamamında denetim sisteminin var olduğu ancak klasik kontrol anlayışından ziyade akreditasyon, öz değerlendirme, memnuniyet anketi, ihtiyaç analizi, performans değerlendirme ve kariyer basamakları gibi daha çağcıl yaklaşımlarla denetim ihtiyacının karşılandığı anlaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

denetim, pisa, timms, performans değerlendirme

Kaynakça

• ATL Education Union, (2013). Teacher appraisal in England, https://www.atl.org.uk/Images/ADV57%20Appraisal%20(June%202013) pdf adresinden 08.06.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Australian Education Act, (2013), https://www.education.gov.au/australian education-act-2013 adresinden 20.05.2019 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Australia Ministerial Council on Education, (2008). Melbourne Declaration on educational goals for young Australians., https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED534449.pdf adresinden 02.05.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Azar, A. (2011). Türkiye’deki öğretmen eğitimi üzerine bir söylem: Nitelik mi, nicelik mi. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 1(1), 36-38.
• Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational setttigs. Buckingham: Open University Press
• Canada Education Act (Kanada Eğitim Yasası), (1990). https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e02 adresinden 20.02.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Coffey, R. ve Perry, L. M. (2014). The role of education agents in Canada’s education systems, Council of Ministers of Education.
• Constitution of Estonia, (1992). https://www.president.ee/en/republic-of estonia/the-constitution/ adresinden 21.03.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Dakowicz-Nawrocka, A. M., (2018). Polonya Eğitim Bakanlığı, Genel Eğitim Müdür Yardımcısı. Kişisel ileti. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/16102dd0615ffd26 adresi üzerinden sağlanan elektronik posta akışı.
• De Grauwe, A. (2007). Transforming school supervision into a tool for quality improvement. International Review of Education/Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft/Revue Internationale de l'Education, 53(5/6), 709-714.
• Department of Education, (2012). Teacher appraisal and capability A model policy for schools, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/282598/Teacher_appraisal_and_capability.pdfadresinden 08.06.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Ebmeier, H., ve Nicklaus, J. (1999). The impact of peer and principal collaborative supervision on teachers' trust commitment, desire for collaboration, and efficacy. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(4), 351.
• Elliott, K. (2015). Teacher performance appraisal: More about performance or development?. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 40(9), 102-118.
• EMB (Education and Manpower Bureae), (2017). School Self-improvement cyclehttp://www.edb.gov.hk/en/sch-admin/sch-qualityassurance/sse/sse. htm#framework adresinden 03.01.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• EP-Nuffic, (2011). Education system Australia, https://www.nuffic.nl/en/publications/find-a-publication/education system-australia.pdf adresinden 02.05.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Estonia Ministry of Education and Research, (2017). https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/the_inspectorate_of_education_20 6_estonia.pdf adresinden 15.04.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Estonya Cumhurbaşkanlığı, (2011) The Constitution of the Republic of Estonia, http://www.president.ee/en/republic-of-estonia/the constitution/index.html adresinden 15.03.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, (2015). Assuring quality in education: policies and approaches to school evaluation in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• Gaertner, H., ve Pant, H. A. (2011). How valid are school inspections? Problems and strategies for validating processes and results. Studies in educational evaluation, 37(2), 85-93.
• Gallie, M. ve Keevy, J. (2014). Standards framework for teachers and school leaders,Consultation Report, http://www.saqa.org.za/ docs/papers/2014/ Standards Framework.pdf adresinden 20.04.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Gönülaçar, Ş. (2010). Kamuda iç denetçiler ile müfettişler arasındaki görev örtüşmesi sorununa bir çözüm önerisi: İngiltere eğitim sisteminde iç denetim ve teftişin rol ve sorumlulukları. Mali Hukuk Dergisi, 148(1), 1-12.
• Gustafsson, J. E., Ehren, M. C. M., Conyngham, G., McNamara, G., Altrichter, H., ve O’Hara, J. (2015). From inspection to quality: Ways in which school inspection influences change in schools. Studies in educational evaluation, 47, 47-57.
• Hall, J. B. (2018). Processes of reforming: The case of the Norwegian state school inspection policy frameworks. Education Inquiry, 9(1), 1-18, DOI: 10.1080/20004508.2017.1416247
• IIEP, UNESCO, (2004). Reforming school supervision for quality improvement, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002159/215931E.pdf adresinden 16.01.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Ingvarson, L. ve Rowe, L. I. K., (2007). Conceptualising and evaluating teacher quality: Substantive and methodological issues. In Proceedings of Workshop on Teacher Quality. Canberra, ACT: Australian National University.
• Janssens, F. J., ve Van Amelsvoort, G. H. (2008). School self-evaluations and school inspections in Europe: An exploratory study. Studies in educational evaluation, 34(1), 15-23.
• Jensen, B., Hull, K.R., Magee, J. ve Ginnivan, L. (2016). Not so elementary: primary school teacher quality in top-performing systems, Report: Washington DC National Center on Education and the Economy.
• Kelleher, J. P., ve Kase, S. (2012). Teacher evaluation systems and multi-cultural commonalities and challenges: England, Mexico, Portugal, Finland, Ireland, and Turkey. American Educational Research Association, 2012 Annual Meeting Final Report, http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi /viewcontent.cgi? article=1240&context=ced_fac adresinden 20.03.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Kelly,K. O., Ang, S.Y.A., Chong, W. L. ve Hu, W. S. (2008) Teacher appraisal and its outcomes in Singapore primary schools, Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 39-54, https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810849808
• Kim, K. T. (2010). Panoptic'accountability: Supervisory leaders and normalizing or resisting professionals. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 7(1), 67-90.
• Korean Educational Development Institute Republic of Korea (2010), Country background report for Korea, OECD Review on Evaluation and Assessment Frameworks for Improving School Outcomes.
• Korkmaz, T. (2009). İngiltere Eğitim Sistemi, Edt. Ada, S., & Baysal, Z. N. Eğitim yapıları ve yönetimleri açısından çeşitli ülkelere bir bakış Ankara: Pegem.
• Mazurkiewicz, G., ve Walczak, B. (2012). Obedience, Sabotage, Autonomy: power games within the educational system. Power and Education, 4(1), 73-82.
• Mazurkiewicz, G., Walczak, B. ve Jewdokimow, M. (2014), Implementation of a new school supervision system in Poland, OECD Education Working Papers.
• McDaid, K. (2010). Professional standards and professional learning: a position paper. Shaping the future of mathematics education: Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 780-787.
• Memduhoğlu, H. B. (2012). Öğretmen, yönetici, denetmen ve öğretim üyelerinin görüşlerine göre Türkiye’de eğitim denetimi sorunsalı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(1), 135-156.
• Ministry of Education, Ontario, (2010). Ontario Teacher Performance Appraisal, Technical Requirements Manual, http://www.edu.gov. on.ca/eng/teacher /pdfs/TPA_Manual_English_september2010l.pdf adresinden 10.04.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Ministry of Education, Ontario, (2017). Teacher Performance AppraisalFrequently Asked Questions,http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teacher/ faq.pdf adresinden 10.04.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Mok, K. (2005) The quest for world class university: Quality assurance and international benchmarking in Hong Kong, Quality Assurance in Education, 13(4), 277-304, https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880510626575
• Nandamuri, P. P. (2014). An Appraisal of the Teacher Appraisal System. ANVESHAK, 3(5), 114-123.
• NASUWT, (2018). Taking Control of your Performance Management, https://www.nasuwt.org.uk/asset/3A24B19A-A047-4798 A088721B8E936A7E/ tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• NDET (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training), (2018). Inspection of kindergartens and education in Norway, http://www.udir.no adresinden 15.01.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• NDET (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training), (2011). OECD review on evaluation and assessment frameworks for ımproving school outcomes country background report for Norway.
• Ng, P. T. (2010). The evolution and nature of school accountability in the Singapore education system. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(4), 275-292.
• Scheerens, J., Ehren, M., Sleegers, P., & de Leeuw, R. (2012). OECD Review on evaluation and assessment frameworks for improving school outcomes. Country background for the Netherlands. Paris: OECD.
• Ng, P. T. ve Chan,D. (2008) A comparative study of Singapore's school excellence model with Hong Kong's school‐based management, International Journal of Educational Management, 22(6), 488-505, https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540810895426
• Ng, P. T., (2008) The phases and paradoxes of educational quality assurance: The case of the Singapore education system, Quality Assurance in Education, 16(2), 112-125, https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880810868402
• Normore, A. H. (2004). Recruitment and selection: meeting the leadership shortage in one large Canadian school district, Canadian Journal Of Educational Administration And Policy, 30, 1-15.
• NSW, Education Standards Authority (NESA), Regulation of teacher accreditation authorities (taa), http://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wp s/port al/nesa /regulation /taas/regulation-taas adresinden 29.04.2018tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• NSW Education Standards Authority, (2014). Australian professional standards for teachers www.educationstandards.nsw.edu.au adresinden 02.05.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Nusche, D., Earl, L., Maxwell, W. ve Shewbridge, C. (2011) OECD reviews ofevaluation and assessment in education, Norway,http://www.oecd.org/norway/oecd reviewsofevaluationand assessmentineducationnorway2011.htm adresinden 12.02.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• OECD (2013)a, Teachers for the 21st century: Using evaluation to improve teaching, OECD Publishing.
• OFSTED,(2017). The Selection Process Ofsted, https://ofstedinspector eoi.ofsted.gov.uk/ adresinden 28.09.2017 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri (Çev. Edt.: Bütün, M. ve Demir, S. B). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• Sağlam, A. Ç., ve Aydoğmuş, M. (2016). Gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkelerin eğitim sistemlerinin denetim yapıları karşılaştırıldığında Türkiye eğitim sisteminin denetimi ne durumdadır?. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 17-37.
• Sahlberg, P. (2011) Developing effective teachers and school leaders in the case of Finland, teacher and leader effectiveness in high-performing education systems, Linda Darling-Hammond and Robert Rothman, eds., Teacher and Leader Effectiveness in High-Performing Education Systems (Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education and Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education, 2011).
• Santiago, P., Levitas, A., Radó, P., & Shewbridge, C. (2016). OECD Reviews ofSchool Resources-Estonia,https://webproxy.io/proxy/dspace.ut.ee/ handle/10062/51762 adresinden 21.03.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Sheppard, B., Galway, G., Brown, J. ve Wiens, J. (2013). School boards matter: Report of the Pan-Canadian study of school district governance, Canadian School Boards Association.
• SICI-Estonia Background, (2017). https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/the_ inspectorate_of_education_20 6_estonia.pdf adresinden 15.04.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• SICI Estonia Country Profile, (2017). http://www.sici inspectorates.eu/ Members/Inspection-Profiles/Estonia adresinden 15.04.2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Steiner, L. (2010). Using competency-based evaluation to drive teacher excellence. A Part of Report Paper in Building an Opportunity Culture for America’s Teachers. Public Impact, www.opportunityculture.org.
• TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, http://www.oecd.org/education/school/talis-2013-results.htm adresinden 16. 01. 2018 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Tan, C., ve Ng, P. T. (2007). Dynamics of change: Centralised centralism of education in Singapore. Journal of Educational Change, 8 (2), 155-168.
• Wolf, I. F., ve Janssens, F. J. (2007). Effects and side effects of inspections and accountability in education: an overview of empirical studies. Oxford Review of education, 33(3), 379-396.
• Yavuz, M., Özkaral, T. ve Yıldız, D. (2015). Uluslararası raporlarda öğretmen yeterlikleri ve öğretmen eğitimi, SDU Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(2), 60-71.
• Yıldırım A. ve Şimşek H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.