To what extent should schools be autonomous ?

The aim of the research is to present school managers’ viewpoints about “school autonomy” program in our country and accordingly determine the degree of school managers’ autonomy request. The research was made by using scanning method. The research consists of school managers who are working in preschools, elementary schools, secondary schools and high schools in Istanbul center. The sample consists of 374 school managers who were selected by random sampling. The data were collected with the help of survey which was formed by considering budget, material and human resources of schools, which were in “school autonomy” program. This survey was developed by Eurydice European Unit. SPSS package software (frequency, percentage, average, standard deviation) was used in analysing the data. While comparing the quantitative data, t-test was used in order to find out the differece between two groups, One Way Anova Test was used in comparison of parameters between more than two groups and Scheffe Test was used to identify which group was making difference. They were also interpreted.


INTRODUCTION
Decentralized management advocates regard local government as a way to participate in society and provide schools financial support.On the other hand, decentralized management opponents think that giving central authority's power and responsibility to local units will spread the problems of the central to local units.They also indicate that local units with limited knowledge, skill and experience to cope with these problems will make them bigger and unsolvable (Çınkır, 2002, 101).
School is a special atmosphere which is created by educational process systematically.School has 3 different fuctions in social field (Başar, 2003).School runs the environmental resources (program, teacher, technology, etc), mainly student resource with the help of certain subsystems.It presents educational services and educated people as a growth and provides feedbacks.Accordingly, it is an open social system which tries to exist and makes necessary changes after reviewing program processes (Şişman and Turan, 2004).On the other hand, school management is a limited space for implementation of educational management.The boundaries of this space are generally created by aims and structures of educational system (Bursalıoğlu, 1998).
School-based management is a developing school approach which aims to increase the power and responsibilities of school members in areas of budget, personnel, education and training programs (Aytaç, 2000).According to school-based management strategy, it is inevitable to have mistakes and schools should be given power and responsibility in order to remove these problems as soon as possible (Cheng, 1993).Basic hypothesis in this practice is increased organizational democracy with the participation of managed people as a result of managerial decisions (Kepenekçi, 2003).
School autonomy is defined in different names both at home and abroad.School autonomy is the transposition of power to make desicion and responsibility to school and school units.In literature, the concept of school E-mail: goksoys@hotmail.com.Tel: (+90 ) 505 6885093.
autonomy is school-based management, school-based governance, a school that manages itself, creative school, participatory management in school, local school management, decentralization, local management of school, shared decision making, self managing schools, participatory desicion making/management, locally autonomous schools, devolution, restructred school.Although these concepts such as school-based management, school-centred management, self managing school, decentralized schools, participatory desicion making schools include some different meanings, they define more autonomous management based on school, human, material, financial resources and their power and responsibilities according to these resources.Different concepts are also derived from different experiences of countries (Naıdoo and Peggy, 2003;Yalçınkaya, 2005;Özdemir, 1996;Aytaç, 2000;Taymaz, 1995;Yemenici and Bayarak 2001;Özden, 1996;De Grauwe 2004;Aytac 2000).The concept, "Autonomy" will be used in the remaining sections.
The concept of school autonomy is defined in various ways.Autonomy, being independent from external audit in terms of management (Oguzhan 1993), is being able to set target and make desicions without violeting rights of individuals, groups, organizations, regions, states and legal people (Demirtas and Gunes, 2002).Therefore educational institutions can not only make plans and programs to meet their needs but also take any managerial desicion about execution with their wide participation in commitee (Uysal 2003).

The aim of the research
The aim of the research is to show school managers' opinions about "school autonomy" program in our country.Accordingly, pre-school, primary school, secondary school and high school managers' opinions about auto-nomy in schools are studied.
This research tries to addrss the following questions: a) What are the pre-school, primary school, secondary school and high school managers' opinions about "management of human resources" from the fields of autonomy which will be given to schools?b) What are the pre-school, primary school, secondary school and high school managers' opinions about "management of financial resources" from the fields of autonomy which will be given to schools?c) What are the pre-school, primary school, secondary school and high school managers' opinions about "management of teaching-learning process" from the fields of autonomy which will be given to schools?

METHOD OF THE RESEARCH
Method of the research is scanning model for it aims to detect the current situation.Scanning models aim to describe a past or current situation just as it is.Topic of the research, an individual or an object, is defined in its own circumstances (Karasar, 2011)

Structure of the research
Managers, chief and assistant managers who are working in kindergartens, primary schools, secondary schools and high schools connected to Ministry of Education in Istanbul create the structure of the research.

Research universe
The

Study sample
Since it was difficult to reach the whole universe included in the study, sampling was necessary.The characteristics of the universe, distribution of the elements in the universe, their representative competence, costs, time, the features of the study and conditions of data analysis were taken into consideration in identifying the sample size (Kaptan, 1995;Karasar, 1994).
A sample size consisting of 364 administrators was deemed efficient to represent the universe by utilizing the sample size ratio table (Ural and Kılıç, 2005;Yazıcıoğlu and Erdoğan, 2004) proposed by Gay (1996) and Sekaran (2003) regarding the appropriate size of a sample that can represent the universe.However, the sample size was determined to be 400 thinking that some of the questionnaires would be faulty and some losses would occur.Therefore, questionnaires were distributed to a total of 400 administrators and 380 administrator scales were returned.After examining the returned questionnaires, the questionnaires that were not appropriate for the purpose of the study were eliminated and the rest of the 374 questionnaires were evaluated.
During the selection of study sample, it was ensured that administrators participating in the study worked at least one academic year in their place of employment.The individuals participating in the study were all administrators.Personal information about the participants is provided in Table 1.
61 of the participating administrators were females and 313 were males.32 of the participating administrators were in the age range of 21-30, 162 in 31-40, 121 in 41-50 and 59 were in the age range of 51 and higher.158 of the participating administrators were principals, 33 were head assistant principals and 183 were Researcher and two translation experts translated the text into Turkish and the resulting work was examined with an expert to select the items thought to express them best.The Turkish form obtained in this manner was reexamined with 3 educators to discuss the appropriateness of each item in terms of Turkish expressions and necessary adjustments were made.As a last step, the questionnaire was implemented on a group of 45 participants composed of teachers and school administrators to identify intelligibility of the translation and feedback was obtained to finalize the scale.
The Cronbach Alpha coefficient of the scale was established to be .851which points to the reliability of the scale.

Statistical analysis of data
Collected data were analysed by using SPSS program.Descriptive statistical methods (Frequency, average, standard deviation) were used in evaluating data.In quantitative comparisons of the data, ttest was used in order to find the differences between two groups; when there are more than two groups One Way Anova Test was used in order to compare parameters between groups; Scheffe Test was used in order to detect the different groups.

FINDINGS
Findings regarding the views of pre, primary, secondary and high school administrators about the autonomy that will be given to schools "Regarding the management of the resources" Table 2 presents the views of pre, primary, secondary and high school administrators about the extent human resources management should be autonomous.
Examination of Table 2 shows that school administrators "often" believe that autonomy should be provided in all items regarding "the autonomy of human resources management" except item 5 with an arithmetic means that changes between 3.77 and 3.92.Regarding item 5, school administrators expressed that they "rarely" thought autonomy should be provided for "Dismissal/Firing of teachers" with arithmetic means of 2.60.
In line with these findings, school administrators were found to seek autonomy regarding selection of educational administrators, identification of the duties and responsibilities of educational administrators, selection of teachers for available posts, assignment of teachers instead of the ones who do not show up for duty and payment of overtime, extra class fees to teachers; however, they believe schools should not be autonomous in terms of dismissing/firing teachers.This finding may be explained with the possibility that school administrators do not want to shoulder the responsibility of dismissing teachers from duty or firing them and do not want to experience possible conflicts with teachers.

"Regarding financial resources"
Table 3 presents the views of pre, primary, secondary and high school administrators about the extent financial resources management should be autonomous.
Examination of Table 3 shows that school administrators believe that the highest level of autonomy should be provided to "providing information communication tools" in item 4 (4,08 arithmetic means) but they "rarely" think management authority should be provided in terms of "borrowing" (2.23 arithmetic means).
School administrators state that autonomy should be provided in all areas of financial resources management other than borrowing of schools (Item 6, 2.23).School administrators state that they should have a voice in financial matters in school management and their   authority should be increased but they are unwilling in matter such as borrowing.The findings may be interpreted that school administrators think that financial autonomy of the schools should not be unlimited.

"Regarding the teaching-learning process"
Table 4 presents the views of pre, primary, secondary and high school administrators about the extent teachinglearning process management should be autonomous.Examination of Table 4 shows that school administrators "often" believe that autonomy should be provided in all items regarding "the autonomy of teaching-learning process management" with an arithmetic mean that changes between 3.50 and 4.02.Findings may be interpreted that school administrators agree that management of teaching-learning process should be given autonomy.

Findings regarding demographic characteristics
This section analyzes whether there are significant differences between school administrators,' genders, ages, assignments, graduations and professional seniorities including teaching years and their views.

Gender variable
Table 5 presents the results of the t-test undertaken to identify whether there were significant differences between school administrators' views about autonomy and their genders.
Table 5 shows a meaningful difference between the views of female and male pre, primary, secondary and high school administrators regarding autonomy (p<.05).Compared to female administrators (3.08), male administrators (3.66) expressed the need for more autonomy in schools.
It is believed that male administrators' desire for more autonomy in schools or lower levels of autonomy desired by women administrators compared to male administrators may be caused by socio-cultural reasons.

Age variable
Table 6 presents the results of One Way Variance Analysis (ANOVA) undertaken to identify whether there were significant differences between school administrators' views about school autonomy and their ages.
As can be seen in Table 6, results of One Way Variance Analysis (ANOVA) undertaken to identify whether there were significant differences between the sample group of school administrators' views about school autonomy and their ages show that a statistically meaningful difference was found between the arithmetic means of the groups (F=6,267; p<0,05).Below you can find the results of Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis undertaken to identify among which groups the differentiation of scores were observed in terms of age.
As can be seen in Table 7, results of the Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis undertaken to identify among which groups the differentiation of views observed show that the difference of opinion occurred between 20-30 age range and 41-50 age range in favor of the 41-50 age range in p<0,05 level and between 51 years and higher age range and 20-30 age range in favor of the 51 years and higher age range in p<0,05 level.Therefore, compared to administrators in the 31-41 age range, the administrators included in 41-50 age range believed that more autonomy should be given to schools.No statistically significant differences were observed among the arithmetic means of other groups (p>0,05).
Findings can be interpreted in such a way that school administrators want to have more authority and need to use more initiative in school management as they mature; therefore, they believe more autonomy should be provided in school management.

Assignment variable
Table 8 presents the results of One Way Variance Analysis (ANOVA) undertaken to identify whether there were significant differences between school administrators' views about school autonomy and their assignments.
As can be seen in Table 8, results of One Way Variance Analysis (ANOVA) undertaken to identify whether there were significant differences between the sample group of school administrators' views about school autonomy and their assignments show that a statistically meaningful difference was found between the arithmetic means of the groups (F=21,053; p<0,05).Below you can find the results of Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis undertaken to identify among which groups the differentiation of scores were observed in terms of assignment.
As can be seen in Table 9, results of the Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis undertaken to identify among which groups the differentiation of views observed show that the difference of opinion occurred between the group of principals and group of assistant principals in favor of the group of principals in p<0,05 level and between group of head assistant principals and group of assistant principals in favor of group of head assistant principals in p<0,05 level.Therefore, compared to administrators assigned to work as assistant principals, the admini-strators assigned to work as principals and head assistant principals believe that schools should be given more autonomy.
Findings can be interpreted in such a way that school administrators want to have more authority and need to use more initiative in school management as they progress in their careers; therefore, they believe more autonomy should be provided in school management.

Graduation variable
Table 10 presents the results of One Way Variance Analysis (ANOVA) undertaken to identify whether there administrators' views about school autonomy and their graduation.
Results of One Way Variance Analysis (ANOVA) undertaken to identify whether there were significant differences between the sample group of school administrators' views about school autonomy and their graduation does not show a statistically meaningful difference between the arithmetic means of the groups (f=1,361; p>0,05).
Obtained findings show that school and level of graduation do not affect administrators' views.According to these findings, the views of administrators about autonomy of schools are parallel to each other in terms of graduation variable.

Seniority variable
Table 11 presents the results of One Way Variance Analysis (ANOVA) undertaken to identify whether there were significant differences between school administrators' views about school autonomy and their seniority.
As can be seen in Table 11, results of One Way Variance Analysis (ANOVA) undertaken to identify whether there were significant differences between the sample group of school administrators' views about school autonomy and their seniority shows a statistically meaningful difference between the arithmetic means of the groups (F=9,862; p<0,05).Below you can find the results of Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis undertaken to identify among which groups the differentiation of scores were observed in terms of seniority.
As can be seen in Table 12, the Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis was undertaken to identify among which groups the differentiation of views was observed.The different opinions occurred between group of administrators with 6-10 years of seniority and group of administrators with 11-15 years of seniority and group of administrators with 21-25 years of seniority and group of administrators with 26 years.This was in favor of the group of administrators with 11-15 years of seniority, the group of administrators with 21-25 years of seniority and the group of administrators with 26 years and higher seniority in p<0,05 level.Whereas, the difference of opinion that occurred between group of administrators with 16-20byears of seniority and group of administrators with 21-25 years of seniority showed that the results were in favor of the group of administrators with 21-25 years of seniority in p<0,05 level.Therefore, compared to administrators with less seniority (6-10 years), the administrators with more seniority (11-15 years, 21-25 years and 26 years and higher) believe that schools should be given more autonomy.No statistically significant differences were observed among the arithmetic means of other groups (p>0,05).Findings can be interpreted in such a way that school administrators want to have more authority and need to use more initiative in school management as they progress in seniority; therefore they believe more autonomy should be provided in school management.However, administrators with less seniority who are new in administrative duties have more reservations in terms of more autonomy in schools since they may not want to take more responsibility and authority.

DISCUSSION
Following results were reached in the research which aimed to determine the opinions of school managers about how much material and human resources in schools should be autonomous.
According to these findings, school managers think they should be given autonomy in choosing educational managers, determining educational managers' duties and responsibilities, choosing teachers to available quotas, entrusting new teachers in place of the ones who are not coming, determining teachers' duties and responsibilities and giving more work-hour and additional course fee.Findings are coherent with the results of Karadağ (2010) which say that central management structure is not functional enough and attendance of school staff to the process of school managers' desicion making increases the quality of desicions.Managers think that they should not be given autonomy in dismissing teachers.Because they do not want to go into a discussion with teachers and they think that they have not enough knowledge on this issue.
Results are parallel to Turan et al ( 2010)'s research which says that educational managers lack knowledge and create a culture on managing education from the center.School managers think that management of financial resources should be given autonomy in every field except for schools' getting into debt (6.Item, 2,23).These findings are parallel to the results of Karadag's research ( 2010).The research also supports the results of Tasar (2010).It says that funding reserved for education has given worldwide positive results in the use of demand canal and implementation examples will also give positive resutls in Turkey.It also supports the idea that financial resources reserved for education will be used by schoolcentred management.
Managers think that when they are given autonomy financially, they will have more power but they are also reluctant for some schools may get into debt.According to the findings, they think that schools' financial autonomy should not be unlimited.In Uz's research (2009), it is understood that primary school managers have some economical problems and they think positively about school-centred budgeting system.It supposes that government is dominant in creating budget income and school-centred budget process will have positive effect on educational quality and students' success.Male managers (3.66) demanded autonomy more that female managers (3.08) did.It is thought that this situation may have resulted from social and cultural reasons.
According to the findings, it can be said that school managers think that management of schools' teachinglearning process shoud be autonomous.These findings support the research of Kaya (2008) which aimed to get the opinions of teachers about school-centred management system.Similarly, in Yolcu (2010) school autonomy is regarded as one of the best structures of decentralization in educational management.
Findings show that managers who are older and have higher seniority want to have a voice in school management more than younger ones.Because older managers want to use initiative in management but younger ones do not want to take responsibility that much.These findings also support the researches of Summak andRosan (2006), Olmez andTombul (2011).
According to the findings of the research, the following advice is given: a) After material and human resources get ready qualitatively and quantitatively, schools should pass to autonomy implementation step by step.b) Autonomy implementation in school management should be used in pilot schools before spreading it to the whole country, c) School surroundings and school community should be informed about this issue.

Table 1 .
Personal information about the participants.
assistant principals.40 of the participating administrators had completed 2-3 year college, 261 completed a 4-year degree, 69 finished their master degrees and 4 had doctorate degrees.Data collection toolEurydice European Unit developed a questionnaire with the cooperation of Portuguese National Unit and official representatives of Portuguese Directorate of Education (Eurydice 2007) and implemented a control phase in 2008 to ensure that the obtained information represented the national situation fully.Current study developed questionnaire items by making use of the content that formed the budget, capital and human resources dimensions included in the "school autonomy" concept developed by Eurydice European Unit.The process entails translating the text content from English into Turkish during questionnaire development:

Table 2 .
"Administrator views regarding the autonomy of human resources management".

Table 3 .
"Administrator views regarding the autonomy of financial resources management".

Table 4 .
"Administrator views regarding the autonomy teaching-learning process management".

Table 5 .
School administrators' views in terms of gender variable.

Table 6 .
School administrators' views in terms of age variable.

Table 7 .
Results of Scheffe Multiple comparison analysis undertaken to identify among which groups the differentiation of scores was observed regarding "age".

Table 8 .
School administrators' views in terms of assignment variable.

Table 9 .
Results of Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis undertaken to identify among which groups the differentiation of scores was observed regarding "assignment". *p<0,05.

Table 10 .
School administrators' views in terms of graduation variable.

Table 11 .
School administrators' views in terms of seniority variable.

Table 12 .
Results of Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis undertaken to identify among which groups the differentiation of scores were observed regarding "seniority".