Author :
Abstract
Küresel pazardaki değişimler hemen her ülkede kamu kurumlarını etkilemektedir. Devletler, sanayi devrimi ve ikinci dünya savaşının atfettiği özellik ve rollerini terk ederek, kar amacı güden kurumlara benzer yeni bir görünüm kazanmaktadır ve bu da politika yapıcılara küresel dünyanın sert yarışmacı atmosferinde ayakta kalabilmek amacıyla sosyal devletleri şirketler olarak yönetme konusunda rehberlik etmektedir. Artan bireyselleşme ve bireylerin ticari işletmelere dönüşmesi, başlangıçta ortak iyinin hizmetinde kolektif yapılar olarak tasarlanan kamu hizmetlerinin geleneksel duruşunu tehdit etmektedir. Özellikle eğitim kurumlarından, rekabette rakiplerini yenmeleri beklenen bireyleri değerli varlıklara dönüştürme kapasitesine sahip bireysel gelişim araçları olmaları beklense de bu kamu kurumlarının böyle bir dönüşüme ne kadar hazır oldukları şüphelidir. Bu çalışma, neoliberalizmin devlet okullarının kurumsal kimlikleri üzerindeki etkilerini anlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Nitel araştırma yaklaşımının kullanıldığı bu çalışmada Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) tarafından 2021 yılında en aktif kullanılan on devlet okulu web sitesi arasında ilan edilen on devlet okulu müdürüyle görüşmeler yapılmış ve bu sitelerde bulunan 234 haber ve duyuru analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmada kullanılan analiz yöntemleri eleştirel söylem analizi (ESA), içerik analizi ve tematik analizdir. Okullar arasındaki rekabetin, okulları yönetmek için gerekli fonları toplama ihtiyacından kaynaklandığı ve okul yöneticilerinin öğrencileri finans kaynağı olarak görmeye yönlendirildiğisonucuna varılmıştır. Ayrıca yöneticilerin rekabet ortamında ayakta kalma çabalarının okul yöneticilerinin öğretimsel liderlik davranışlarını gölgelediği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.
Keywords
Abstract
Changes in the global market affect public service institutions in almost every country. Abandoning the traits and roles attributed by the industrial revolution and the second world war, states gain a new look similar to that of for-profit institutions, which guides policy makers to manage social states as corporations with the purpose of surviving in the fierce atmosphere of global competition. The increasing individualization and the transformation of individuals into commercial enterprises threaten the conventional stance of public utilities that were originally designed as collective bodies in the service of the common good. Although it is especially expected from educational institutions to become instruments of individual improvement that have the capacity to turn individuals into valuable assets who could beat their opponents in the competition, the levels of readiness of these public institutions for such a transformation are still doubtful. This study aims to understand school leaders’ views about institutional identity which are assumed to be under the influence of neoliberal educational policies. To fulfill this purpose, we designed qualitative research according to which we interviewed ten public school principals whose schools’ websites are declared to be among the ten most actively used public school websites by the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) of Turkey in 2021 and we analyzed 234 news and memorandums in these websites. Our analysis methods were critical discourse analysis (CDA), content analysis, and thematic analysis. We concluded that competition among schools has resulted from a need to raise necessary funds to manage schools, which directs school managers to consider students as sources of finance. We also inferred that the efforts of managers to survive in a competitive atmosphere beclouds the instructional leadership behaviors of school managers.
Keywords
- Adams, M. (2009). Tomorrow’s Schools Today: New Zealand’s Experiment 20 Years on'. George Mason University Mercatus Center Working Paper, 09-01.
- Ateş, H. (2002). Kamu Örgütlerine Yönelik Yönetsel Bilgi ve Siyasa Aktarımı: Eleştirel Bir İnceleme. İ. Ü. Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 0(7), 7–26.
- Bauman, Z. (2004). Identity. Polity Press.
- Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis As A Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27 -40.
- Burgess, S., C. Propper, H. Slater and D. Wilson (2005): Who Wins and Who Loses From School Accountability? The Distribution of Educational Gains in English Secondary Schools. CMPO Working Paper 05/128.
- Castells, M. (2004). The Network Society: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Clark, D. (2009). The Performance and Competitive Effects of School Autonomy. Journal of Political Economy, 117(4), 745-783.
- Cresswell, J. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage Publications.
- Cukier, W., Ngwenyama, O., Bauer, R. and Middleton, C. (2009). A Critical Analysis of Media Discourse On Information Technology: Preliminary Results Of A Proposed Method For Critical Discourse Analysis. Information Systems Journal, 19, 175 – 196.
- Fairclough, N. (2000). Guest Editorial: Language and Neo-Liberalism. Discourse and Society, 11, pp. 147- 8.
- Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis as a Method in Social Scientific Research. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 121 – 138). Sage.
- Fan, G., and Zhang, L. (2020). Education Governance and School Autonomy: The Progressive Reform of K–12 School in China. In Handbook of Education Policy Studies (pp. 55-93). Springer, Singapore.
- Fiske, E. B. and 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., and 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 and Grootenboer, P. (2003). Bureaucratic Control or Professional Autonomy? Performance Management in New Zealand Schools. School Leadership & Management, 23(1), 91
- Galleta, A. (2013). Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and Beyond. New York University Press.
- Goffman, E. (1956). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. University of Edinburg Social Sciences Research Centre.
- Greenwood, M. (2013). Ethical Analyses of HRM: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), 355-366.
- Greenwood, M. R. (2002). Ethics and HRM: A Review and Conceptual Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3), 261-278.
- Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neo-liberalism. Oxford University Press.
- Husserl, E. (2001). Logical Investigations Vol. 1(International Library of Philosophy). Routlegde.
- Jabal, E. (2013). Institutional Identity and School-community Matters: ‘Encapsulated’and ‘Inclusive’ Lessons for Engagement from Two International Schools in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in International Education, 12(1), 3-21.
- Kaptan, O. and Kocabaş, İ. (2021). İngiltere, Yeni Zelanda ve Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti’nde Eğitimde Özerklik ve Okul Özerkliğinin Göstergelerinin Kronolojik ve Karşılaştırmalı İncelenmesi. Türkiye Eğitim Dergisi, 6(2), 370-393.
- Kasser, T. (2011). Capitalism and Autonomy. In V. I. Chirkov, R. M. Ryan & K. M. Sheldon (Ed). Human Autonomy in Cross-cultural Context (pp. 191- 206). Springer.
- Keddie, A. (2015). School Autonomy, Accountability and Collaboration: A Critical Review. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 47(1), 1-17.
- Klikauer, T. (2015). What Is Managerialism? Critical Sociology, 41(7-8), 1103-1119.
- Lynch, K. (2017). New Managerialism in Education: The Organisational Form of Neoliberalism. In Abraham-Hamanoiel, A., Freedman, D., Khiabany, G., Nash, K.(eds.). Liberalism in Neoliberal Times: Dimensions, Contradictions, Limits. Goldsmiths.
- Machin, S., and Silva, O. (2013). School Structure, School Autonomy and The Tail. Centre for Economic Performance Special Paper No. 29. London School of Economics.
- Mueller, F., and Carter, C. (2005). The “HRM project” and Managerialism: Or Why Some Discourses Are More Equal than Others. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(4), 369–382.
- Readings, B. (1996). University in Ruins. Harvard University Press.
- Saldana, J. (2011). Fundamentals of Qualitative Resarch. Oxford University Press.
- Samar, R. G., Kiany, G. R., Akbari, R., & Azimi, H. (2011). Institutional Identity of Teachers: A Determinant of Teacher Efficacy. Teaching English Language, 5, 1-29.
- Townley, B. (2002). Managing with Modernity. Organization, 9(4), 549-573.
- van der Walt, J. L. (2007). Formalizing Institutional Identity: A Workable Idea?. In Values Education and Lifelong Learning (pp. 180-198). Springer, Dordrecht.
- 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).
- World Bank (1995), Development in Practice Priorities and Strategies for Education a World Bank Review. First Printing, A World Bank Publication, USA.
- Xia, J., Gao, X., and Shen, J. (2017). School Autonomy: A Comparison between China and the United States. Chinese Education & Society, 50(3), 284-305.
