KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Research in Educational Administration and Leadership (REAL) / 2026 / Volume: 11 Issue: 3

How Centralized Education Systems Reproduce Inequity: A Multi-Stakeholder Ecological Analysis of the Real–Ideal Gap in Turkish Schooling

Anıl Kadir Eranıl0000-0001-7804-735X
Nihan Demirkasımoğlu0000-0001-8609-9985
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-09-27
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The findings argue for a methodological reorientation in ecological policy research, from describing what each layer contains to diagnosing how layers couple and have implications for centralized education systems beyond the Turkish case, including those in the Middle East, the post-Soviet space, and parts of Latin America and East Asia.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Large, centralized education systems frequently combine ambitious egalitarian commitments at the policy level with persistent inequities at the school level.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The empirical material consists of 32 in-depth interviews with five stakeholder categories, namely classroom teachers, school administrators, mid-level provincial and district administrators, central ministry administrators, and academic experts in educational administration, all focused on the Turkish Education System (TES).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The findings argue for a methodological reorientation in ecological policy research, from describing what each layer contains to diagnosing how layers couple and have implications for centralized education systems beyond the Turkish case, including those in the Middle East, the post-Soviet space, and parts of Latin America and East Asia.
🔬Tür:Research Article
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Turkish education system · Bronfenbrenner · ecological systems theory

Abstract

Large, centralized education systems frequently combine ambitious egalitarian commitments at the policy level with persistent inequities at the school level. Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, this study uses the framework diagnostically rather than cartographically to ask how that gap is produced and sustained. The empirical material consists of 32 in-depth interviews with five stakeholder categories, namely classroom teachers, school administrators, mid-level provincial and district administrators, central ministry administrators, and academic experts in educational administration, all focused on the Turkish Education System (TES). Within each ecological layer, stakeholder accounts of the system as enacted (the real) are juxtaposed with accounts of the system as desired (the ideal); the resulting layer-specific gaps are then read for shared cross-layer structure. The analysis identifies four reproduction mechanisms: decision routines that bypass stakeholder voice, a stratified teacher labor regime that geographically sorts educational quality, donation-dependent school finance that loads the financing gap onto local communities, and the hollowing of supervision into compliance audit at the expense of its developmental function. Each mechanism couples at least two ecological layers; together they explain how a centrally produced policy ambition can leave inequity intact at the school gate. The findings argue for a methodological reorientation in ecological policy research, from describing what each layer contains to diagnosing how layers couple and have implications for centralized education systems beyond the Turkish case, including those in the Middle East, the post-Soviet space, and parts of Latin America and East Asia.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Eranıl, A. K., Demirkasımoğlu, N. (2026). How Centralized Education Systems Reproduce Inequity: A Multi-Stakeholder Ecological Analysis of the Real–Ideal Gap in Turkish Schooling. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership (REAL), Volume: 11 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.30828/real.1908482

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (35)

  1. Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07308739
  2. Alacacı, C., & Erbaş, A. K. (2010). Unpacking the inequality among Turkish schools: Findings from PISA 2006. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(2), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.03.006
  3. Apple, M. W. (2019). Ideology and curriculum (4th ed.). Routledge. (Original work published 1979) https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203241219
  4. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203153185
  5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
  6. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674028845
  7. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2007). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114
  8. Burns, M. K., Warmbold-Brann, K., & Zaslofsky, A. F. (2015). Ecological systems theory in school psychology review. School Psychology Review, 44(3), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-15-0092.1
  9. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
  10. Cross, W. E., Jr. (2017). Ecological factors in human development. Child Development, 88(3), 767–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12784
  11. Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 348–361). Routledge.
  12. Durnalı, M., & Limon, İ. (2018). Çağdaş Türk eğitim denetimi sistemi (Değişimler ve yasal dayanakları. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 26(2), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.389801
  13. Ehren, M. C. M., & Visscher, A. J. (2008). The relationships between school inspections, school characteristics and school improvement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(2), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2008.00400.x
  14. Eranıl, A. K. (2021). Eğitim yönetimi modelinin ekolojik sistemler kuramı bağlamında geliştirilmesi [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University, Ankara.
  15. Eranıl, A. K., & Demirkasımoğlu, N. (2021). Multiple layers of Turkish educational policy through the lens of ecological system theory. Trakya Journal of Education, 11(3), 1105–1129. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.875148
  16. Hawkins, M., & James, C. (2018). Developing a perspective on schools as complex, evolving, loosely linking systems. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(5), 729–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217711192
  17. Honig, M. I. (Ed.). (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. State University of New York Press.
  18. Karataş, İ. H. (2012). Türk eğitim sisteminde toplumsal katılımı sağlamak için bir model önerisi: Yerel eğitim şûraları. Amasya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 151–166.
  19. Ministry of National Education. (2023). Milli Eğitim İstatistikleri: Örgün Eğitim, 2022/’23 [National education statistics: Formal education]. Ministry of National Education.
  20. Niemi, H. (2016). Building partnerships in an educational ecosystem [Editorial]”. CEPS Journal, 6(3), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.62
  21. Onural, H. (2005). Üst düzey eğitim yöneticilerinin eğitim yönetimi alanındaki yeterlik sorunu ve nedenleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 11(41), 69–85.
  22. Oplatka, I., & Arar, K. H. (2016). Leadership for social justice and the characteristics of traditional societies: ponderings on the application of western-grounded models. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(3), 352–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1028464
  23. Özdemir, C. (2016). Equity in the Turkish education system: A multilevel analysis of social background influences on the mathematics performance of 15-year-old students. European Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904115627159
  24. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
  25. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
  26. Reay, D. (2018). Miseducation: Inequality, education and the working classes. Policy Press.
  27. Reay, D. (2020). English education in the time of coronavirus. FORUM, 62(3), 311–322.
  28. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Routledge.
  29. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387
  30. Şahin, S., & Avan, Y. (2020). Değişim yönetimi bağlamında: Türk eğitim denetim sistemindeki değişimlere ilişkin maarif müfettişlerinin görüşleri. Çağdaş Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1), 110–122.
  31. Tosun, F. Ç. (2018). Öğrenci gözüyle geçmişten günümüze Türk eğitim sistemi. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(19), 471–484.
  32. Vélez-Agosto, N. M., Soto-Crespo, J. G., Vizcarrondo-Oppenheimer, M., Vega-Molina, S., & García Coll, C. (2017). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory revision: Moving culture from the macro into the micro. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 900–910. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617704397
  33. Yılmaz, K., & Altınkurt, Y. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının Türk eğitim sisteminin sorunlarına ilişkin görüşleri. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(1), 942–973.
  34. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
  35. Karataş, İ. H. (2012). Türk eğitim sisteminde toplumsal katılımı sağlamak için bir model önerisi: Yerel eğitim şûraları. Amasya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 151–166.