International Journal of Progressive Education
ISSN (Print): 2834-7919 - ISSN (Online): 1554-5210

Research article    |    Open Access
International Journal of Progressive Education 2022, Vol. 18(5) 32-58

A Participatory and Democratic Education Administration Model: Local Education Boards

Suphi̇ Turhan & Ahmet Güneyli̇

pp. 32 - 58   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.467.3

Publish Date: October 01, 2022  |   Single/Total View: 295/438   |   Single/Total Download: 629/702

PDF Download

Abstract

This article presents a mixed method study on how to develop a participatory education management model as an alternative to the Turkish education administration system. Consisting of qualitative and quantitative methods, the mixed research method has been adopted to acquire the required data. Qualitative phase the education administration systems applied in OECD member countries, documents and reports available in the literature were evaluated. To reach wider masses, an online survey aiming at collecting the views of teachers and administrators was carried out by using the quantitative phase of the mixed method. This study has laid it bare that the principles of good governance, common sense, transparency, accountability, participation, democracy, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability stand forefront in educational systems that adopt the participatory education boards model. Eventually, a board/commission oriented local education administration model has been designed and developed as an alternative for the Turkish educational administration system.

Keywords: Education Administration, Local Education Boards, Participatory Administration

How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Turhan, S., & Guneyli̇, A. (2022). A Participatory and Democratic Education Administration Model: Local Education Boards. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(5), 32-58. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.467.3

Harvard
Turhan, S. and Guneyli̇, A. (2022). A Participatory and Democratic Education Administration Model: Local Education Boards. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(5), pp. 32-58.

Chicago 16th edition
Turhan, Suphi̇ and Ahmet Guneyli̇ (2022). "A Participatory and Democratic Education Administration Model: Local Education Boards". International Journal of Progressive Education 18 (5):32-58. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.467.3

References
  1. Açıkalın, A. (2014). Okul Yöneticiliği. Ankara: Pegem. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ada, S., & Baysal, N. (2015). Dünden Bugüne Türk Eğitim Sistemi ve Yapısı. Prgem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  3. Altınışık, İ., & Peker, H. S. (2012). The Influence of Education on Economic Development. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Teknik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(4), 1-13. http://sosyoteknik.selcuk.edu.tr/sustad/article/download/23/21 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, D., Melanson, S., & Maly, J. (2007). The Evolution of Corporate Governance: power redistribution brings boards to life. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(5), 780-797. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00608.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Bakioğlu, A. (2014). Karşılaştırmalı Eğitim Yönetimi PISA'da Başarılı Ülkelerin Eğitim Sistemleri. Ankara: Nobel. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bakır, K. (2014). Demokratik Eğitim (john dewey’in eğitim felsefesi üzerine). Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  7. Balcı, A. (2013). Karşılaştırmalı Eğitim Sistemleri 4. Baskı. Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ball, S. J. (2007). Education PLC: Understanding private sector participation in public sector education. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bayramoğlu, S. (2005). Yönetişim Zihniyeti: Türkiye’de Üst Kurullar ve Siyasal İktidarın Dönüşümü. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, (10), 264-273. https://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423868858.pdf [Google Scholar]
  10. Baysal, T. (2017). Transformatıon Of Publıc Admınıstratıon In Neo-Lıberalısm Dıscussıons Frame: Turkey Practıce Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi , 8 (15), 171-195. https://doi.org/10.9775/kauiibfd.2017.009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Bordean, O., Borza, A., & Maier, V. (2011). The involvement of boards in strategy implementation. Review of International Comparative Management, 12(5), 986-992. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.839.278&rep=rep1&type=pdf [Google Scholar]
  12. Bozec, R. (2005). Boards of directors, market discipline and firm performance. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 32(9‐10), 1921-1960. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.0306-686X.2005.00652.x?casa_token=Wohmy3CPy9YAAAAA:sHpJELwRReUH_A51GwxPj-_UGtw6oQYuVCD_58z0Ci-GdpJ3S7hSTLbnE0jkH1w0VOqtqHgFj6KH9A [Google Scholar]
  13. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Anket geliştirme. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 133-151. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/256394 [Google Scholar]
  14. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cemaloğlu, N., & Kılınç, A. Ç. (2012). The Relationship between School Principals’ Ethical Leadership Behaviors and Teachers’ Perceived Organizational Trust and Mobbing. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(165). http://213.14.10.181/index.php/EB/article/download/1053/418 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen, V., Li, J., & Shapiro, D. (2011). Are OECD-prescribed “good corporate governance practices” really good in an emerging economy? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(1), 115-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-010-9206-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Creswell, J. (2019). Karma Yöntem araştırmalarına Giriş. Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  18. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Araştırma Deseni. Eğiten Kitap. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dewey, J. (2014). Deneyim ve eğitim. ODTÜ yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  20. Doğan, K. C. (2016). The problematic of state of positioning in the framework globalization and neo-liberal generations: “from minimal state to regulator state”. Journal of International Social Research, 9(43), 1795-1803. http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=1f822a70-f0fc-4ef1-a07a-2b8212e07e11%40sessionmgr102 [Google Scholar]
  21. Drymiotes, G. (2008). Managerial influencing of boards of directors. . Journal of Management Accounting Research, 20(s1), 19-45. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2008.20.s-1.19 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. Engjellushe, E. (2013). Education for sustainable development. . European journal of sustainable development, 2(4), 227-227. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2013.v2n4p227 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  23. Erginer, A. (2012). Avrupa Birliği eğitim sistemleri. Pegem akademi. [Google Scholar]
  24. Eurydice. (2005). Avrupa Eğitim Bilgi Ağı. Avrupada’ki Eğitim Sistemleri ve Sürdürülmekte Olan Reformlar Üzerine Ulusal Özet Belgeleri. http://maol.meb.gov.tr/html_files/ulkeler/finland%20(TR).doc [Google Scholar]
  25. Fernández-Fernández, J. L. (1999). Ethics and the board of directors in Spain: the Olivencia code of good governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 22(3), 233-247. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:1006290615353.pdf [Google Scholar]
  26. García-Sánchez, I. M., Rodríguez-Domínguez, L., & Frías-Aceituno, J. V. (2015). Board of directors and ethics codes in different corporate governance systems. . Journal of Business Ethics, 131(3), 681-698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2300-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference, 17.0 update. Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gewirtz, S. (2002). The managerial school. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gobby, B., & Niesche, R. (2019). Community empowerment? School autonomy, school boards and depoliticising governance. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46(3), 565-582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00303-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. Göksoy, S., Sagir, M., & Yenipinar, S. (2013). Managerial Effectiveness Levels of Primary School and Secondary School Administrator. Bartin Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 18. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/43561 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gülcan, M. G. (2010). Avrupa birliği ve eğitim. Pegem akademi. [Google Scholar]
  32. Gümüş, E., & Şişman, M. (2014). Eğitim Ekonomisi ve Planlaması. Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  33. Güneş, M., & Beyazıt, E. (2012). Yerel gündem 21'den kent konseylerine. Detay Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hammer, M., & Stanton, S. A. (1998). Değişim Mühendisliği Devrimi, Ne Yapmalı, Ne Yapmamalı .Translating (S. Gül). Sabah Kitapları. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hill, J. B. (2021). Culture and Conversation: Rethinking Brown v. Board of Education a Postponed Commitment to Educational Equality. Journal of Education and Learning, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v10n2p37 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Honingh, M., Ruiter, M., & Thiel, S. V. (2020). Are school boards and educational quality related? Results of an international literature review. Educational Review, 72(2), 157-172. [Google Scholar]
  37. İslamoğlu, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. Beta. [Google Scholar]
  38. Leblebici, D., Kurban, A., & Sadioğlu, U. (2012). Theoretical Arguments on Independent Regulatory Agencies in Turkish Administrative System. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(2), 81-109. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/306029 [Google Scholar]
  39. OECD. (2019). Gross domestic product (GDP). https://data.oecd.org/gdp/gross-domestic-product-gdp.htm [Google Scholar]
  40. Onural, H. (2005). Admınıstratıve Qualıfıcatıons Of Senıor Level Educatıonal Admnıstrators. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 11(1), 69-85. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/108380 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ökmen, M., Baştan, S., & Yılmaz, A. (2004). Kamu Yönetiminde Yeni Yaklaşımlar ve Bir Yönetişim Faktörü Olarak Yerel Yönetimler. Kamu Yönetimi, 23-80. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mustafa_Okmen/publication/296651128_kamu_yonetiminde_yeni_yaklasimlar_ve_bir_yonetisim_faktoru_olarak_yerel_yonetimler/links/56d73e4d08aebe4638af1aaa/kamu-yoenetiminde-yeni-yaklasimlar-ve-bir-yoenetisim-faktoerue-olarak-yerel-yoenetimler [Google Scholar]
  42. Pechersky, A. (2016). Diversity in board of directors: Review of diversity as a factor to enhance board performance. Studia Commercialia Bratislavensia, 9(33), 88-101. https://doi.org/10.1515/stcb-2016-0009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. PISA. (2018). 2018 raporu. http://pisa.meb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/PISA_2018_Turkiye_On_Raporu.pdf [Google Scholar]
  44. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=0UmvRJkREtYC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=Rose,+N.+(1999).+Powers+of+freedom:+Reframing+political+thought.+Cambridge:+Cambridge+University+Press.&ots=BatEFbv07b&sig=e6_duX9T6tcnpYN3G1p9PyCYzUU [Google Scholar]
  45. Saatcioglu, A., Moore, S., Sargut, G., & Bajaj, A. (2011). The role of school board social capital in district governance: Effects on financial and academic outcomes. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(1), 1-42. [Google Scholar]
  46. Serin, M. K., & Buluç, B. (2012). The Relationship between Instructional Leadership and Organizational Commitment in Primary Schools. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 18(3), 435-459. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/108172 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sezen, S. (2003). Türk Kamu Yönetiminde Kurullar. TODAİE Yayını. https://www.academia.edu/download/38237058/turk_kamu_yonetiminde_kurullar_gelenekselyapilanmadan_kopus_seriye_sezen.pdf [Google Scholar]
  48. Stevenson, W. B., & Radin, R. F. (2015). The minds of the board of directors: the effects of formal position and informal networks among board members on influence and decision making. Journal of Management & Governance, 19(2), 421-460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-014-9286-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  49. Summak, M. S., & Özgan, H. (2007). An Analysıs Of The Relatıonshıp Between The Prımary School Prıncıpals’ Emotıonal, Socıal And Spırıtual Qualıtıes And Theır Effıcıency In Manıpulatıng Managerıal Processes. Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 5(2). https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/256347 [Google Scholar]
  50. Şahin, S. (2003). School-Based Management Appllcations. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 9(4), 582-605. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/108423 [Google Scholar]
  51. Şekerci, M., & Aypay, A. (2009). The Relationship between Management Skills and Group Effectiveness of Primary School Principals. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 15(1), 133-160. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/108271 [Google Scholar]
  52. Şimşek, H. (1997). 21. Yüzyilin Esiginde Paradigmalar Savasi Kaostaki Türkiye. Sistem Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  53. Şirin, S., & Vatanartıran, S. (2014). PISA 2012 Değerlendirmesi: Türkiye İçin Veriye Dayalı Eğitim Reformu. TUSİAD yayınları. https://tusiad.org/tr/yayinlar/raporlar/item/download/6496_7c4a64e825187a2fa7ec05d60c5114c7 [Google Scholar]
  54. Şişman, M., & Turan, S. (2003). Decentrallzation And Democratlzation In Education A Conceptual Analysis. Kuram Ve Uygulamalarda Egitim Yönetimi(34), 300-315. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/108442 [Google Scholar]
  55. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2015). Çok Değişkenli İstatistiklerin Kullanımı. (trans: M. BALOĞLU). Nobel. [Google Scholar]
  56. Taymaz, H. (2000). Okul yönetimi. Ankara: Pegema yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  57. Toksöz, F. (2013). Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye’de yerel yönetim. http://projects.sklinternational.se/tuselog/files/2013/07/avrupa-birligi-ve-turkiyede-yerel-yonetim1.pdf [Google Scholar]
  58. Villadsen, K., & Dean, M. (2012). State-Phobia, Civil Society, and a Certain Vitalism. Constellations: an international journal of critical and democratic theory, , 19(3), 401-420. https://doi.org/10.1111/cons.12006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  59. WCED. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf [Google Scholar]
  60. Work, R. (2002). Overview of decentralization worldwide: a stepping stone to improved governance and human development. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. XLVI, Nos. 1- 4.https://k-archive.pssc.org.ph/wp-content/pssc-archives/Philippine%20Journal%20of%20Public%20Administration/2002/06_Overview%20of%20Deentralization%20Worldwide.pdf [Google Scholar]
  61. Yazıcıoğlu, Y., & Erdoğan, S. (2004). Spss uygulamalı bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Detay Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  62. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
Meta
Vol. 18 (5)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 18 Issue 5

October 2022

All Manuscript

International Journal of Progressive Education

Copyright © 2025 International Journal of Progressive Education.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website were created using the BOQ™ - Intelligent Webverse System.