SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Milli Eğitim Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 54 Sayı: 1 Özel Sayı

Comparison of The Century of Türkiye Education Model with the Educational Models of Some Countries in the Context of Leadership and Sustainable Literacy

Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli'nin Bazı Ülkelerin Eğitim Modelleri ile Liderlik ve Sürdürülebilir Okuryazarlık Bağlamında Karşılaştırılması

Meltem Altundağ(ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0005-6522-0295
Ceyhun Kavrayıcı(ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8878-6102
Pages
1207–1250
Publication Date
2025-12-24
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Accordingly, it is recommended that sustainable development-based job descriptions, performance criteria, and leadership capacity development strategies for school administrators should be implemented to increase the applicability of the model in the field.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to The Century of Türkiye Education Model, which was introduced by the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Turkiye in 2024, in the context of sustainable literacy and educational leadership, and comparatively analyzes it with the education systems of Finland, Sweden, Japan, the Netherlands and Singapore, which stand out in PISA achievements and sustainable development indices.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Accordingly, it is recommended that sustainable development-based job descriptions, performance criteria, and leadership capacity development strategies for school administrators should be implemented to increase the applicability of the model in the field.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study offers a unique perspective that can contribute to Türkiye's education policies in line with global sustainability goals.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli · sürdürülebilir okuryazarlık · eğitim liderliği

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to The Century of Türkiye Education Model, which was introduced by the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Turkiye in 2024, in the context of sustainable literacy and educational leadership, and comparatively analyzes it with the education systems of Finland, Sweden, Japan, the Netherlands and Singapore, which stand out in PISA achievements and sustainable development indices. In the study, document analysis technique, one of the qualitative research methods, was used; official education policy documents of the countries, national and international reports and academic sources were systematically analyzed. The results of the study reveal that The Century of Türkiye Education Model adopts a holistic literacy approach based on environmental, social and ethical foundations. The model aims to equip students not only with knowledge but also with responsibility and ethical values. However, an institutionalized, traceable and sustainable structure in the leadership dimension has not yet been sufficiently developed. In this context, Singapore's systematic and data-driven leadership model and the distributed and participatory leadership approaches of Finland and Sweden can serve as examples for Türkiye. The comparative analysis reveals that despite the strong theoretical background of The Century of Türkiye Education Model, there is room for improvement in terms of sustainable leadership at the implementation level. Accordingly, it is recommended that sustainable development-based job descriptions, performance criteria, and leadership capacity development strategies for school administrators should be implemented to increase the applicability of the model in the field. The study offers a unique perspective that can contribute to Türkiye's education policies in line with global sustainability goals.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı tarafından 2024 yılında tanıtılan Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli’ni (TYMM), sürdürülebilir okuryazarlık ve eğitim liderliği bağlamında incelemek; PISA başarıları ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma endekslerinde öne çıkan Finlandiya, İsveç, Japonya, Hollanda ve Singapur’un eğitim sistemleriyle karşılaştırmalı olarak analiz etmektir. Çalışmada, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden doküman analizi tekniği kullanılmış; ülkelerin resmî eğitim politika belgeleri, ulusal ve uluslararası raporlar ile akademik kaynaklar sistematik olarak incelenmiştir. Bulgulara göre TYMM’nin çevresel, toplumsal ve etik temellere dayanan bütüncül bir okuryazarlık yaklaşımı benimsediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Model, öğrencilerin yalnızca bilgiyle değil; aynı zamanda sorumluluk ve etik değerlerle donatılmasını hedeflemektedir. Ancak liderlik boyutunda kurumsallaşmış, izlenebilir ve sürdürülebilir bir yapı henüz yeterince geliştirilmemiştir. Bu bağlamda Singapur’un sistematik ve veri temelli liderlik modeli, Finlandiya ve İsveç’in dağıtılmış ve katılımcı liderlik yaklaşımları Türkiye için örnek teşkil edebilecek niteliktedir. Karşılaştırmalı analizler sonucunda, TYMM’nin güçlü kuramsal altyapısına karşın uygulama düzeyinde sürdürülebilir liderlik açısından gelişime açık alanlar bulunduğu görülmektedir. Bu doğrultuda modelin sahadaki uygulanabilirliğinin artırılması için okul yöneticilerine yönelik sürdürülebilir kalkınma temelli görev tanımları, performans ölçütleri ve liderlik kapasitesi geliştirme stratejilerinin hayata geçirilmesi önerilmektedir. Çalışma, Türkiye’nin eğitim politikalarına küresel sürdürülebilirlik hedefleri doğrultusunda katkı sağlayabilecek özgün bir perspektif sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Altundağ, M., Kavrayıcı, C. (2025). Comparison of The Century of Türkiye Education Model with the Educational Models of Some Countries in the Context of Leadership and Sustainable Literacy. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 54 Sayı: 1 Özel Sayı, 1207–1250. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1709973

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (89)

  1. Alvunger, D. (2015). Teachers’ curriculum agency in teaching, learning and governance: The case of the Swedish curriculum reform. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1(1), 30103. https://doi.org/10.3402/ nstep.v1.30103
  2. Arastaman, G. (2017). Karşılaştırmalı ve uluslararası eğitim. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  3. Baldwin, C., & King, R. (2018). Social sustainability, climate resilience and community-based urban development: What about the people? Routledge.
  4. Baron, D., P., (2000). Business and its environment (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
  5. Bertalanffy, L. Von. (1950). An outline of general system theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 134–165.
  6. Bertalanffy, L. Von. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller.
  7. Bottery, M., (2004). The challenges of educational leadership: Values in a globalised age. Paul Chapman Publishing.
  8. Bron, J., Haandrikman, M., & Langberg, M. (2009). Leren voor duurzame ontwikkeling: Een praktische leidraad. Stichting Leerplanontwikkeling (SLO). https://www.slo.nl/downloads/2009/leren-voor-duurzameontwikkeling.pdf
  9. Chiu, R. L. H. (2003). Social sustainability, sustainable development and housing development: The experience of Hong Kong. In R. Forrest & J. Lee (Eds.), Housing and social change: East-West perspectives (Vol. 221). (pp. 221-239). Routledge.
  10. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  11. Conway, J. A. (2015). Sustainable leadership in education: Balancing values, vision and practice. Bloomsbury.
  12. Cook, T. (2014). Sustainable school leadership: Nurturing learning communities for the future. Routledge.
  13. Couch J. D., & Towne J. (2018). Dönüştüren eğitim. Solo Yayınları.
  14. Çiçeklioğlu, H. (2022). Sürdürülebilir liderlik. Gazi Kitabevi
  15. Demirel, Ö. (2007). Eğitimde yeni yönelimler (2. baskı). Pegem A Yayınları.
  16. Daft, R. L., Murphy, J., & Willmott, H. (2007). Organization theory and design (9th ed.). Thomson South-Western.
  17. Denkci Akkaş, F., & Aksu, A. (2022). Sürdürülebilir eğitim liderliği: Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi(54), 1480-1497. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1195693
  18. Elkaleh, E., Ali, N., Khurma, O. A., & El Sherif, H. M. (2025). Towards a model for sustainable leadership in educational contexts: A moderated mediated analysis of UAE and Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 100526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2025.100526
  19. Erdoğan, M. (2009). Çevre okuryazarlığı: Kavram, gelişim ve eğitimsel boyutlar. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  20. Ersoy, R. (2021). Sürdürülebilir eğitim politikaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Singapur örneği. Ekonomi İşletme ve Maliye Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.38009/ekimad.839210
  21. Finnish National Agency for Education, (EDUFI). (2016). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. Finnish National Board of Education. https://www.oph.fi/en/education-and qualifications/nationalcore-curriculum-primary-and-lower-secondary-basic-education. https:// www.oph.fi/en/sustainable-future
  22. Finnish National Agency for Education (EDUFI). (2021). A sustainable future: Support material for the promotion of sustainable development in early childhood education and care, pre-primary and basic education. Finnish National Board of Education.
  23. Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Corwin Press.
  24. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action. Corwin Press.
  25. Gerard, L., McMillan, J., & D’Annunzio-Green, N. (2017). Conceptualising sustainable leadership. Industrial and Commercial Training, 49(3), 116– 126. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-10-2016-0073
  26. Global Environmental Education Partnership. (2025). Finland: Country profile. https://thegeep.org/country-profiles/finland
  27. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
  28. Hargreaves, A.,& Fink, D. (2003). The seven principles of sustainable leadership. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 8–13.
  29. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. Jossey-Bass.
  30. Haubrich, H., Reinfried, S., & Schleicher, Y. (2007). Lucerne Declaration on geographical education for sustainable development. International Geographical Union – Commission on Geographical Education.
  31. Häggström, M., & Schmidt, C. (2020). Education for sustainability: A review of international research. Sustainability, 12(11), 4461.
  32. Johnson, R. A., Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1964). Systems theory and management. Management Science, 10(2), 367–384.
  33. Kubow, P. & Fossum, P. R. (2007). Comparative Education: Exploring Issues in International Context. Pearson Merril/ Prentice Hall.
  34. Lantela, L., Korva, S., Purtilo-Nieminen, S., & Lakkala, S. (2023). Teachers as leaders? Finnish student teachers’ perceptions of participation in leadership in school. In S. Pulkkinen, E. A. Kallio, & M. Lehtonen (Eds.), Leadership in educational contexts in Finland (pp. 359–377). Springer.
  35. Maguate, G., (2024). Understanding sustainable leadership: A review and forward outlook. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4873100
  36. McBride, B. B., Brewer, C. A., Berkowitz, A. R., & Borrie, W. T. (2013). Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: What do we mean and how did we get here? Ecosphere, 4(5), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1890/ ES13-00075.1
  37. MEB., (2024a). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli öğretim programları ortak metni. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/kilavuz/okul-yoneticileri-kilavuzu.pdf MEB., (2024b). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli okul yöneticilerinin rolleri ve öğrenme-öğretme süreçlerini izleme ve değerlendirme kılavuzu. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Ortaöğretim Genel Müdürlüğü.
  38. MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology). (2021). Implementation plan for education for sustainable development in Japan. https://www.mext.go.jp/en/content/20211208-mxt_ koktou01-1373244_1.pdf
  39. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
  40. Michaels, S., & O’Connor, M. C. (1990). Literacy as social practice. Routledge.
  41. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), (2021). A guide to promoting education for sustainable development (ESD) in schools. https://www.mext.go.jp/en/unesco/title04/detail04/20220706- mxt_kouhou02-1.pdf
  42. Ministry of Education Singapore, (MOE), (2021a). Learn for life – Equipping ourselves for a changing world: Nurturing stewards of the environment [Press release]. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/20210304- learn-for-life-equipping-ourselves-for-a-changing-world-nurturingstewards-of-the-environment
  43. Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment Singapore, (2021b). Green Plan 2030: MOE’s speech on sustainability in education. https://www. greenplan.gov.sg/news/speeches/2021-03-04-moe
  44. Ministry of Education (MOE), (2021c). Character and citizenship education: Key strategies and frameworks. https://www.moe.gov.sg
  45. Ministry of Education Singapore, (2022). Eco stewardship programme: Empowering students for a sustainable future. https://www.moe.gov. sg/news/press-releases/20220308-strengthening-our-contributionstowards-the-green-economy-and-empowering-the-next-generation-ofsustainability-leaders
  46. Metsämuuronen, J., Kuosa, T., & Laukkanen, R. (2013), “Sustainable leadership and future‐oriented decision making in the educational governance–a Finnish case”, International Journal of Educational Management, 27(4), 402-424. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541311316331
  47. Ng, P. T., (2003). The Singapore school and the School Excellence Model. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 2(1), 27–39. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1024465302953
  48. OECD. (2020a). Curriculum overload: A way forward (Education Policy Perspectives No. 19). OECDPublishing. https://www.oecd.org/ content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2020/11/curriculumoverload_167e276d/3081ceca-en.pdf
  49. OECD. (2020). Education 2030 curriculum content mapping: An analysis of the Netherlands curriculum.,OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/ content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/6-bilateralsupport/E2030_CCM_analysis_NLD_curriculum_proposal.pdf
  50. OECD. (2021). Are Students Ready to Thrive in an Interconnected World? PISA Global Competence Report. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/ education/global-competence-for-an-inclusive-world.htm
  51. OECD.(2020). Education policy outlook: Finland. OECD Publishing. https:// www.oecd.org/education/policy-outlook/
  52. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The state of learning outcomes. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/
  53. Okyay, Ö., Sayın, A., Güneş, Demir, Z., & Özdemir, K. (2022). Ekolojik okuryazarlık eğitiminin okul öncesi çocukların çevreye yönelik farkındalık ve tutumlarına etkisi. Millî Eğitim, 51(236), 2851-2870. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.944271
  54. Özdemir, O. (2022), Sürdürülebilir okuryazarlık ve çevre eğitimi. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  55. Özdemir, O. (2025). Geleceğe doğru yeni bir eğitim paradigması: Sürdürülebilirlik eğitimi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 64, 2525-2540. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1644800
  56. Özdemirkol, M. (2025). Sürdürülebilir çevre eğitimi açısından Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli’nin sunduğu fırsatlar. Dicle Akademi Dergisi, 5(2), 267- 280. https://doi.org/10.61964/dade.1752966
  57. Özer, M. (2021). Türk eğitim sistemi: Yapısal sorunlar ve politika önerileri. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
  58. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
  59. River Valley High School. (n.d.). Home page. https://www.rivervalleyhigh.moe.edu.sg
  60. Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990s. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
  61. Sahlberg, P., (2015). Finnish lessons 2.0 what can the world learn from educatıonal. Teachers College Press.
  62. Sachs, J. D., Lafortune, G., Kroll, C., Fuller, G., & Woelm, F. (2022). From crisis to sustainable development: The SDGs as Roadmap to 2030 and Beyond. Sustainable Development Report 2022. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. https://s3.amazonaws.com/sustainabledevelopment. report/2022/2022-sustainable-development-report-g20-and-largecountries.pdf
  63. Sachs, J. D., Lafortune, G., Kroll, C., & Fuller, G. (2023). Sustainable development report 2023. Cambridge University Press.
  64. SingTeach. (2024). A whole-school approach to sustainability education. 12(87) https://singteach.nie.edu.sg/2024/01/09/education-for-sustainabledevelopment
  65. Skolverket. (2022). Läroplan för grundskolan samt för förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet (Lgr22). https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/ grundskolan/laroplan-och kursplaner Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
  66. Sugimura, M. (2023). Fieldwork with depth: Its implication and future directions of comparative education research in Japan. https://doi.org/10.1108/ S1479-36792023000046A013
  67. Sterling, S. (2011). Transformative learning and sustainability: Sketching the conceptual ground. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 17–33.
  68. Tanrıverdi, B. (2009). Sürdürülebilir çevre eğitimi açısından ilköğretim programlarının değerlendirilmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 34(151), 89-103.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44117425_ Surdurulebilir_Cevre_Egitimi_Acisindan_Ilkogretim_Programlarinin_ Degerlendirilmesi
  69. Tilbury, D. (2011). Education for sustainable development: An expert review of processes and learning. UNESCO.
  70. Tordera, N.,Peiró, J. M., Ayala, Y., Lorente, L., & Montesinos, H. (2020). Sustainable leadership: The role of leadership in building sustainable organizations. Sustainability, 12(6), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062267
  71. UNESCO. (2004). The plurality of literacy and its ımplications for policies and programs. UNESCO.
  72. UNESCO Türkiye Millî Komisyonu (2015). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma 2030 amaçları. T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı. http:// www.surdurulebilirkalkinma.gov.tr
  73. UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/CGBA9153
  74. UNESCO. (2020). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap. https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374802
  75. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2022). Measuring progress on education for sustainable development and global citizenship education. https://uis. unesco.org
  76. UNESCO Associated schools network (ASPnet). (2024). About UNESCO ASPnet. https://www.unesco-school.mext.go.jp/schools/en/about-unesco-aspnet/
  77. UNESCO., (2024). Delegates from 30 countries identify priority actions to transform education in Asia and the Pacific. https://www.unesco.org/ en/articles/delegates-30-countries-identify-priority-actions-transformeducation-asia-and-pacific
  78. Uwasu, M., Yabar, H., Hara, K., Shimoda, Y., & Saijo, T. (2009). Educational initiative of Osaka University in sustainability science: Mobilizing science and technology towards sustainability. Sustainability Science, 4(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-009-0066-4
  79. Qazi Ahmed, W., Kamran, S., & Naeem, S. (2021). Ethics and sustainable leadership in Finnish schools. Al-Azhār, 7(01), 16–24. https://www.alazhaar.org/index.php/alazhar/article/view/61
  80. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
  81. Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6(2), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625- 011-0132-6
  82. Wals, A. E. J. (2009). Review of contexts and structures for education for sustainable development. UNESCO.
  83. Wong, B., Hairon, S., & Ng, P. T. (2019). School leadership and educational change in singapore. Springer Nature.
  84. Yaakob, M. F. M., Shakir, F. M., Hamzah, M. I. M., & Musa, M. (2020). Critical success factors of sustainable leadership: Evidence from highachievement school. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 11(12), 233–247.
  85. Yalçın. A. (2022). 21. yüzyılda sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefleri: Türkiye’de sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretim programının yapısal olarak incelenmesi. Harran Maarif Dergisi, 7(1), 117-149. https://doi.org/10.22596/hej.1103130
  86. Yangil, F. M., (2016). Bilgi toplumunda liderlik: Sürdürülebilir liderlik. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 48, 128–143.
  87. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H., (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  88. Yıldırım, Y., & Çalışkan, A., (2024). Evaluation of the Türkiye Century Education Model in terms of 21st century human profile [Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli’nin 21. yüzyıl insan profili açısından değerlendirilmesi]. Electronic Journal of Education Sciences, 13(26), 204-220. https://doi. org/10.55605/ejedus.1548121
  89. Zulkifli, M., (2019). Towards singapore’s sustainability, key tenets of our approach to sustainable development, Horizons, 2(14), 168-174.