Turkey, determined to eventually join the European Union as a full member, has increasingly adopted Western European civilization since the proclamation of the Turkish Republic, while synthesizing this with the different values of the East (Memduho?lu, 2008). In Turkey, a country of 814,578 square kilometers, with a population of 77 million, the per capita income is about 10,000 US dollars. There are about 18 million students and 850,000 teachers in Turkey.

Although the idea of education as having a secular and scientific/rationalistic basis was accepted from the start by the opening of 'Ottoman' Junior High schools and teacher training colleges in the early 'tanzimat reform' era, the notion that education should also take account of inherent customs and traditions, previously demonstrated in the works of various celebrated thinkers (Binba??o?lu, 1995).

The foundations of the current Turkish education system were laid after the proclamation of the republic. Principles such as democracy, secularity, nationalism, 'scientific/rationalistic' approach and, equality of oppor-tunity came to the fore in education. The importance of education being both modern and nationalistic was promoted by following more of a synthesizing approach (Günindi, 2014). Enacted in 1973, the Basic Law of National Education No. 1739 addressed the essential objectives and principles in the regulation of the Turkish education system, including its general structure; teach-ing as a profession; schools, buildings and facilities; educational tools to be used and the responsibility of the state’s education and training schemes to supply the basic provisions for maintaining the integrity of the system.

The successful implementation of the national develop-ment plans and programmes is closely related to the knowledge and skills of managers working at various levels in every part of the society. The success of govern-mental action in all areas relies on social, economic and political development. Developed countries rely for their continued growth on executives and managers who are sufficiently well prepared and trained, while lack of progress in underdeveloped countries can be traced to procedural problems remaining public administration including bureaucratic and other issues (Kaya, 1991).

The main objective of the management of teacher training and schools is to keep educational organizations functioning effectively (Bursal?o?lu, 2002; Kaya, 1991; Taymaz, 2003). The primary role of school principals, and of every other educational manager, is to continually improve and develop the existing institution.

 

The process of selection, training and ?nstatement of school administrators

The selection and empoyment of school managers and  administrators is a problematic area in Turkey. As the motto 'What really matters in this profession is teaching' has been increasingly adopted, school administrators have been selected from amongst teaching staff and increasingly serious attempts have been made in  training them. Nevertheless, political concerns and favoritism seem to have remained at the forefront of administrator selection. In the past, undergraduate programs such as the 'Education Management and Supervisorship' program were used to train administrators and supervisors in some education. As an alternative, attempts were made to extend various graduate programs in this area. However, graduates of these programs were not always appointed to management positions (Demirta?, 2008).

According to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey, the most effective means of social modernization is education. Atatürk saw innovation in education as the foundation of national unity and a secular society. He thought that not only political independence but also economic development was dependent on this innovation (Bursal?o?lu, 2011). Although John Dewey, in his report on the Turkish education system prepared after 1924, gave suggestions regarding courses and programs for training school administrators, these were not taken up in significant ways. No new regulations for the training and placing of school administrators can be observed in this period. In Law No. 789 on the Organization of the Ministry of Education Organization, the article that states 'What really matters in this profession is teaching' indicates that management positions should be filled by teacher candidates (Cemalo?lu, 2005). During the first era of the Republic, its founders led by Atatürk, enacted on March 3, 1924 the Law on the Unity of Education No. 430, in order to develop a unified national education system. Through this law, education facilities and schools operating under different names were united into one system. In 1928, a Pedagogy Department was set up at the Gazi Institute of Education in order to train adminis-trators, supervisors and teachers for the newly-founded educational organizations (Balc?, 2008). For more than 50 years, graduates of the Gazi Institute of Education worked as teachers, administrators and supervisors in mid-level schools (for 12-14 years old pipuls). Graduates of the Gazi Institute of Education constituted most of the people working both centrally in the Ministry of National Education central and in rural management and super-visory positions (Binba??o?lu, 1995). 

The report of the Central Government Organization Research Project (MEHTAP), established by the Council of Ministers’ decision on February 13, 1962, included views that were fundamental to developments in training educational managers in Turkey. According to this report, not only senior executives but also mid-level managers had to go through management training in order to be successful. In the report, it was suggested that Faculties and Departments of Education be opened in higher education facilities to train the education managers needed by the Ministry. This suggestion was implemen-ted two years later with the opening of the Faculty of Education at Ankara University, followed by the opening of the Department of Education  at  Hacettepe  University (Kaya, 1993). 

At the 7th National Education Council, held at the same time that the Central Government Organization Research Project was launch, decisions were taken related to the training of education managers in Turkey. The training of highly qualified experts for specialized aspects of National Education such as management and counseling, and the organizing of Faculties of Education into  'Educational Research Centers' were decided (7th National Education Council, 1962). 

The issue of training education managers was also discussed in various councils after the 7th National Education Council. It was discussed most comprehen-sively at the 14th National Education Council (Kaya, 1993; MOE (MEB), 1993; as cited in ?i?man and Turan, 2004:106). In the preparatory document for the 14th National Education Council, it is stated that: 'Being a teacher is both necessary and sufficient for education and school management'. According to the laws then in force, the management of schools could be carried out by teachers without the necessity for any additional management training. At the 15th National Education Council held on May 12-17, 1996, it was, however, emphasized that education managers should be appointed after having had training. At the 16th National Education Council held on February 23-26, vocational and technical education was discussed independently. Here, issues such as the organization of vocational and technical education, and the training of managers were discussed (Cemalo?lu, 2005). 

In 1998, the 'Regulation Related to the Instatement and Transferral of Managers of Education Institutions Subsidiary to the Ministry of Education' came into effect. With this regulation, management training was required in the selection of administrators, and in it, a legal basis was provided to require administrator candidates’ to undergo management training (Official Gazette, 1998/23472). According to the regulation, those who wanted to become administrators were expected to undergo a two-phase examination. Following the change made to the regulation in 1999, administrator candidates were obliged to take an 'Assessment Exam' and a 'Selection Exam', which aimed at evaluating, selecting and promoting administrators using more reliable and valid criteria (Kay?kç?, 2001; Recepo?lu and K?l?nç, 2014).

On January 10, 2004, the 'Regulation Related to the Instatement and Transferral of Managers of Education Institutions Subsidiary to the Ministry of Education' was repealed, and the 'Regulation Related to the Instatement and Transferral of Managers of Education Institutions within the Ministry of Education' came into effect instead (Official Gazette, 2004/25343). Changes were made to this regulation on various dates (December, 2004; March, 2006; April, 2007). Through these changes, the selection exam for administrators was abolished, the ministry and governorship were made responsible for the instatement of administrators, and professional seniority  was  chosen as the key criterion for the employment of administrators. The regulation dated April 13, 2007 was also repealed on April 24, 2008. On August 13, 2009, the 'Regulation Related to the Instatement and Transferral of Managers of Education Institutions within the Ministry of Education' No. 27318 came into force. According to the articles in the regulation, there existed no necessity for an administrator to have had management training. Having been a teacher for a specific period and attaining a sufficient grade in a specific exam were considered to be sufficient for employment as an administrator (Recepo?lu and K?l?nç, 2014). 

On February 28, 2013, the 'Regulation Related to the Instatement and Transferral of Managers of Education Institutions within the Ministry of Education' came into force (Official Gazette, 2013/28573). This regulation was also soon changed and the 'Regulation Related to the Instatement and Transferral of Managers of Education Institutions within the Ministry of Education' published in the Official Gazette No. 28728 dated August 4, 2013, came into effect. In this regulation, administrator candi-dates were expected to be teachers who graduated from higher education; to be successful in written examina-tions given by the Ministry; to have worked as a Chief Deputy/Deputy Manager for at least one year for the Manager examination; to have worked as a primary teacher for at least two years for the Deputy Manager examination; not to have been dismissed as a result of any judicial or administrative investigation in the last four years prior to the deadline of the application for the written exam; and not to have had any disciplinary penalty such as a cut in salary or a more severe penalty (Official Gazette, 2013/28728).

 

New regulations and current practices for the selection and instatement of school administrators

In the temporary paragraph 8 of Article 10 of the National Education Basic Law and the Law Amending Changes in Certain Laws and Decree Laws published in the Official Gazette No. 28941 dated March 14, 2014, it is stated that: 'The duties of those who are currently working as School or Institution Administrators, Chief Deputy/Deputy Manager and have been working for four or more years at the date this article comes into force is terminated at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year without further notice'; and paragraph 8 of Article 22 of aforementioned law states the following: 'School and Institution Admini-strators are appointed for four years by the Governor on the suggestion of the Provincial Director of National Education; and Chief Deputies/Deputy Administrators are appointed for four years by the Governor on the suggestion of the Provincial Director of National Education and with a formal letter from School or Institution Administrators (Official Gazette, 2014/28941).

The 'Regulation Related to the Instatement of Managers of Education Institutions within the Ministry of Education' came into force on June 10, 2014 (Official Gazette, 2014/29026). In this regulation, which is still in effect, the qualifications required for those appointed as administrators are reorganized.

Administrators are required:

a) to be a graduate of higher education;

b) to be working as a teacher for the Ministry by the application deadline;

c) to be able to be appointed to their prospective institution on the date of appointment;

d) not to have been suspend from administratorship as a result of any judicial or administrative investigation in the last four years at the date of appointment.

The specific conditions required for those to be appointed as principals are:

a) to have previously worked as a principal;

b) to have worked as a Chief Deputy Manager for at least two years;

c) to have worked for at least three years as a founding administrator, Deputy Manager or Vice-Principal separately or as well as Chief Deputy Manager;

d) to have worked as a manager or in higher positions in branches other than Ministry Education Services;

e) to have worked principally as a teacher for at least eight years for the Ministry.

Within the aforementioned regulation, an Evaluation Commission was established for the instatement of administrators. The Evaluation Commission consists of two District Directors of National Education chosen by the Provincial Director of National Education and two branch managers working in the Provincial or District Directorate of National Education under the chairmanship of Provincial Director of the National Education or the Deputy of Provincial Director of the National Education. The Evaluation Commission is responsible for evaluating through an oral exam the candidates, applying to be appointed in an educational institution whether for their first or subsequent times (Official Gazette, 2014, 29026). 

 

Aim of the study

The aim of this study is to evaluate the new regulations and current practices in terms of how they apply to the selection, training and instatement of school administra-tors in Turkey by gathering school administrators’ points of view. In the light of this objective, the answers to the following questions were sought:

1. As an administrator, how do you evaluate the provision that states “The duties of administrators working for four or more years are terminated at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year without further notice”?

2. As an administrator, how do you evaluate the provision that states “School and Institution Administrators are appointed for four years by the Governor on the sugges-tion of the Provincial Director of National Education; and Chief Deputies/Deputy Administrators are appointed for four years by the Governor on the suggestion of the Provincial Director of National Education and with a formal letter from School or Institution Administrators.”

In this study, the qualitative research method of a semi-structured interview was used, and descriptive analysis was used in data analysis. Qualitative research can be defined as research in which qualitative data collection techniques such as observation, interview and document analysis are used; and a qualitative process in which views are expressed in a natural environment in a realistic and holistic manner is followed (Y?ld?r?m and ?im?ek, 2005). The basic feature of qualitative research is that it investigates events, facts, norms and values based on the viewpoints of individuals who are researched (Ekiz, 2003). Qualitative research methods are used to provide an in-depth analysis related to the subject of the study.

 

Participants

The purposive sampling method was used to determine the participants. The essential feature of purposive sampling is to study cases that meet predetermined standards (Y?ld?r?m and ?im?ek, 2005). In this study, the participants were determined based on the criteria of working as an administrator in primary, secondary, high school and nursery grades of the educational system and being directly related to the research problem. The interview form used in the study was presented to the specialists in order to provide content validity. The final version of the interview was designed in the light of the views of specialists in the field. 30 school and institute administrators were interviewed in the study. Of these administrators, 11 worked in high schools, 12 worked in secondary schools, 6 worked in primary schools and 1 worked in a pre-school. Of the school and institute administrators participating in the study, 26 were males and 4 were female; 20 had a bachelor’s degree, 5 had an associate’s degree and 5 had a master’s degree. 12 of the administrators had 1-5 years' experience as administrators, 5 had 5-10 years' experience, 4 had 10-15 years' experience, 4 had 15-20 years' experience, 2 had 20-25 years' experience, 1 had 25-30 years' experience, 1 had 30-35 years' experience, and 1 had 35-40 years' experience.

 

Data collection and analysis

The administrators’ answers were recorded in writing by the researcher. In order to improve the validity and reliability of the study, data were studied and then analyzed by three different researchers. Moreover, in order to increase the validity of the study, the data collected from the participants were summarized and the participants were asked to confirm its accuracy. Descriptive analysis was used to analyze the administrators’ opinions. The data collected were analyzed in a descriptive manner by staying faithfully to its original form as far as possible, and by using direct quotations from the administrators. 

The administrators' answers to the first  question  ("As  an administrator, how do you evaluate the provision that states “The duty of the administrators working for four or more years are terminated at the end of 2013-2014 academic year without further notice”?") were as follows:

Y?BR: “This is a regulation totally serving for the dismissal of former principals, an effort to pretend to be legal while trying to override a certain way of thinking”; Y?BS: “Change is inevitable. This regulation is reasonable for the dismissal of administrators who cannot adapt to change and who are not developing themselves. However, the quality of education could become of secondary importance as the pressure and orientation of the current political situation is sensed.”; Y?BK: “Putting a time limit on a successful administrator could cause a decrease in productivity as it could lead to a loss of investment and no benefit from the accumulation of knowledge.” YEML: “I think the existing administrators’ performance is not good enough as they do not develop themselves.”; YEMS: “This regulation caused upset among administrators as it was a sudden regulation; it was designed without thorough studying, and without asking the opinions of those who would be affected by the change.” YEMT: “It is the correct decision; however, I believe that it is an action designed without being researched and questioned.” YEMU: “I believe it is an ideological action.” YAÖL: “Terminating the duties of existing administrators, the ones who know what to do and how, means all of a suddenterminating the accumulation of knowledge in that institution.” YFID: “I see this as an infringement of rights.” YIGN: “I see this as a positive action in terms of administrators’ continuing to develop themselves.” YMLB: “In the oral assessment and interview for appointing administrators, the pressure of politics and the unions was felt, and it was impossible to stay neutral. This has increased the infringement of rights.”

OYBA: “I think it is a sudden decision. However, I believe it is a correct decision. A transition process of 2 years could have been provided for. I believe that change and innovation are important.” OYBC: “I am against administratorship being continued like a sultanate without any kind of performance criterion or evaluation.” OYBD: “The fact that the time school administrators work is long may lead to boredom. Administrators’ working for a certain limited time would be positive in terms of innovation.” OYBE: “The fact that administratorship, as a vested right, is terminated by an order is totally wrong. A 4 year time limit for an administrator is a worrying situation which may decrease the effectiveness of performance.” OYBG: “The instatement of administrators should be based on competence. As competence is not taken as the basis in Turkey, those who are in favor would be appointed.” OYBH: “Major weaknesses have occurred in management. There is a rule called ‘vested rights’. It takes at least a year for an administrator to get to know the schools and know what things to do. Such a system is meaningless.” OYBI: “I  do  not  think  this  is  a correct procedure. It leads to unfair treatment for successful administrators. Dismissing administrators without any reason damages their ambition to work and trust in the state.” OYSC: “I believe promoting administra-tors like this is absolutely wrong.” OYME: “Change is good. However, four years is such a short time. A year of this passes in getting to know the school and the people and determining the needs of the institution. I think it is difficult for administrators to add positive value to the school in such a short time.” OYEN: “I think this is an infringement of ‘vested rights’ as you have had to pass an examination to be an administrator.”

IMYS: “Why four years? It could have been eight years. It would be better that those who had professional training, rather than existing teachers, become administrators.” ?SYN: “I think it is a decision taken without any background study or necessary planning. The criteria for success and failure are not clear. Such regulations should first be announced, then implemented.” ?SMZ: “In no other country is there a law coming into force to terminate the duties of officials. I do not think a government’s dismissing officials is correct.” ?SKL: “I believe the time period is too short. Objectives may not be accomplished in four years.” ?SBU: “It confirms that schools administration is not thought of as a career by the Ministry of National Education. Are the criteria to terminate administratorship duties objective? It should have been investigated.” YG?P: “The services an administrator has delivered should be evaluated. The duties of those who have contributed to the institution should not be terminated. Moreover, successful administrators should be supported. Efficient public officials should be kept away from political pressure. Unsuccessful administrators who have lost their ambition and become unmotivated should be dismissed.” P?YK: “This is a really great decision for administrators who do not accomplish their duties as required. However, it is a bad and unfair decision for those performing well and properly.” OÖYN: “I do not think it is correct to terminate duties, which are vested rights, with a sudden decision. I also do not think terminating the duties of administrators without looking at their success and previous performance is correct.”

Answers to the second question (“As an administrator, how do you evaluate the provision that states “School and Institution Administrators are appointed for four years by the Governor on the suggestion of the Provincial Director of National Education; and Chief Deputies/ Deputy Administrators are appointed for four years by the Governor on the suggestion of the Provincial Director of National Education and with a formal letter from School or Institution Administrators”?”) were as follows:

Y?BR: “It is the correct action if taken in an unbiased manner. However, the actual state of things has occurred just because of the pressure of a specific union.” Y?BS: “The conduct  of  educational  duties  by  qualified  teams brings success. Career experience and competence should be at the forefront while forming teams. The results would be positive if this situation is taken into consideration. However, the situation in our country is people appointing people who are politically on their side as administrators.” Y?BK: “Continuity in the state is essential. Administratorship should not be terminated and new administrators should not be appointed at someone’s pleasure.” YEML: “I do not find these kind of appointments fair since those who deserve the positions are not appointed and favoritism is in place instead. It would be proper if done in accordance within fair boundaries.” YEMS: “I find it proper if it goes together with competence and if those who deserve it are appointed.” YEMT: “It is a correct procedure. Each administrator should create their own team.” YEMU: “I believe it is an ideological action. I do not believe an objective evaluation can take place in the case of such appointments.” YAÖL: “This act is the end of my career as an administrator. I do not believe the Provincial Director of National Education would offer me a post even if I met all the requirements.” YFID: “I accept it, but those who came to the position by having the best grades and showing competence are being discharged, they are making a World of their own.” Y?GN: “School principals and deputies should be appointed by an objective evaluation, away from all kinds of political pressure.” YMLB: “Administrators appointed by this kind of employment process have to stick to their senior managers’ instructions and orders. The education system will face a new kind of problem.”

OYBA: “I think being appointed for four years is reasonable. Administratorship is a secondary duty. What really matters in this profession is teaching. There are administrators who have been working for forty years and who are not developing themselves in any way.” Other evaluation measurements should be used besides being offered an appointment.” OYBD: “The appointment of those who are not familiar with the school and its environment creates a gap for a while in terms of institutional management.” OYBE: “It is a correct procedure except for the time limitation, as being successful in the examination is not the only criterion for being an administrator.” OYBG: “This regulation will pave the way for those who are in favor.” OYHB: “Administratorship has been completely subject to political thought and its direction in its formation. Those closer to the government can easily find themselves in their desired positions.” OYBI: “I think this will cause administrators not to be committed to their schools.” OYSB: “The selection of deputy managers by school administrators can be effective in the regulation of team work and for efficient coordination in management.” OYSC: “There would not be any problems if the selections were fair enough.” OYME: “Each and every manager has the right to choose their own team. However, are knowledge of the field and skills the only selection criteria? Or  is  it  mentality,  political  views  and relevance to the union?” OYEN: “The fact that the time limit for administratorship is four years is not enough for administrators in terms of their self-development. There needs to be the exam for an objective evaluation of the instatement of administrators.”

?MYS: “Rollback.” ?SYN: “There will be no problem if justice and fairness are provided for in the application process” ?SMZ: “The fact that it is based on the offer of the school principal’s seems positive to me. However I do not think the time limit of 4 years is correct.” ?SKL: “I believe the time period is too short. Objectives may not be accomplished in 4 years” ?SBU: “It is normal for the Director of National Education to choose his own colleagues and create his own team. School administratorship needs to be a profession. With a forced assignment, education and training cannot move forward.” YGIP: “I find this positive. I believe that no profession should be guaranteed for 25 years. Administrators should be appointed without favoritism, with an objective evaluation, and through measurement of productivity rather than for their world view.” P?YK: “This is a really great decision for administrators who are not accomplishing their duties as required. However, it is a bad and unfair decision for those performing well and properly.” OÖYN: “If objective criteria can be applied within the selection process, I believe that can be positive.”

When the findings gathered from the study are evaluated as a whole, administrators described the new regulation and its current application regarding the appointment of school administrators as a right step and the correct action. They did this by pointing out the inevitability of organizational change, and the inability of current administrators to develop their skills, as well as a decrease in their motivation and, enthusiasm and,  consequently in their performance. Administrators’ stating their negative opinions about the aforementioned regulation pointed out that this regulation is used for dismissing former administrators and claimed that this is a kind of infringement of their ‘vested rights’, leading to, unfair treatment of successful administrators. They also stated that in this regulation, criteria for success and failure were not determined clearly and that this issue led to upset and disillusion.

Administrators who declared positive attitudes toward the article that states ‘School and Institution Administra-tors are appointed for four years by the Governor on the suggestion of the Provincial Director of National Education; and Chief Deputies/Deputy Administrators are appointed for four years by the Governor on the suggestion of the Provincial Director of National Education and with a formal letter from School or Institution Administrators’ pointed out that it is a proper procedure in terms of teamwork, and  that  allowing  each senior administrator to choose their own team is a reasonable regulation as it provides accord within the administration. Administrators who are not in favor of the new regulation stated their worries in terms of the fact that not competence but political favor may be the determining factor in the employment of principals, and that bias and favoritism were big concerns.

?t has not been possible to ground the policy of how to train education and school administrators on a scientific basis in Turkey. In training education administrators, it has not been possible to establish effective coordination between universities and the Ministry of National Educa-tion. In training education administrators, no balance has been established between theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge. In graduate programmes, the comprehensive application of theory to practice has not been achieved and the integration of the implementation programs which reflect contemporary developments in the copuntry as a whole has also been achieved (Çelik, 2002). The most significant problem experienced in school management is the fact that administratorship is not widely accepted as a profession. Since adminis-tratorship is not accepted as a profession, no need is seen for specific training of the individuals who will be appointed in this area. But school administratorship is not a profession which can be done by anyone. Indivi-duals who will be appointed to these jobs must be carefully chosen and trained (Demirta?, 2008). Education and school administratorship is a Professional area within the field of education. A Professional area includes knowledge and skills which cannot be gained through personal experiences. This knowledge and these skills have been accumulated as part of general human knowlegde over many centuries. In order to benefit from this accumulation, there is a need to train those individuals who have chosen school administratorship as a profession or who have been chosen to enter it (Ba?aran, 1996).  The continuous training of school administrators is inevitable and necessary because of continued unforeseen and unforeseeable changes and developments in technology, the ‘information explosion’ and challenges in information management, as well as increasing interest in personal and social problems which are gradually acquiring an international dimension (Balc? and Ç?nk?r, 2002). 

The author has not declared any conflict of interests.