Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Putting bureaucratic accountability into a perspective in terms of academic achievement

  • Published:
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research aims to understand the perceptions of a group of secondary school teachers and principals regarding the place of academic achievement within the bureaucratic accountability structure. The research focus is, from the educators’ perspectives, to what extent the Ministry of National Education holds them and their schools accountable for academic achievement. The data were obtained from semi-structured interviews with a group of 30 teachers and school principals from seven secondary schools. The schools are distinguished by their distinctive features in the Turkish education system, which stands out with its bureaucratic character. The findings indicate that the accountability relationship between the upper hierarchical units of the country’s education system and the schools is perceived to be quite weak or even uncertain in terms of academic achievement. The educators seem to think that there is no expectation of achievement and they rigorously criticize existing expectations. They claim that because their achievement status is not monitored, they do not encounter any intervention or sanction in cases of failure. The findings provide a critical perspective of the costs of bureaucratic accountability as well as a query on the ideal type of bureaucracy in practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. E., & Hill, P. T. (2006). Educational accountability in a regulated market. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(1), 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J., & Kirst, M. (1999). New demands and concepts for educational accountability: Striving for results in an era of excellence. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Hand-book of research on educational administration (pp. 463–489). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & Tabellini, G. (2008). Bureaucrats or politicians? Part II: Multiple policy tasks. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 426–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, G. M., Shughart, W. F., & Tollison, R. D. (1991). Educational achievement and the cost of bureaucracy. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 15, 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balıkçı, A. (2016). Bürokratik ve gündelik hayat bağlamında okul müdürlerinin incelenmesi [principals in the context of daily life and bureaucracy] ((Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi)[unpublished doctoral dissertation]). Eskişehir: Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (2003): The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065.

  • Ball, S. J., Vincent, C., & Radnor, H. (1997). Into confusion: LEAs, accountability and democracy. Journal of Education Policy, 12(3), 147–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bohte, J. (2001). School bureaucracy and student performance at the local level. Public Administration Review, 61(1), 92–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. (1990). The ‘third wave’: Education and the ideology of parentocracy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(1), 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1985). Politics, markets and the organization of schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. New Orleans, LA.

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., & Ascher, C. (1991). Creating accountability in big school systems. Urban Diversity Series No 102.

  • Demir-Tümen, S. (2014). Liselerde bürokratikleşme düzeyine ilişkin öğretmen algıları (Bolu İli Örneği) [perception of teachers on the bureaucratization level at high schools (case of Bolu)].(Yüksek Lisans Tezi) [unpublished master thesis]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Bolu.

  • Du’Gay, P. (2005). Bureaucracy and liberty: State, authority and freedom. In P. Du Gay (Ed.), The values of bureaucracy (pp. 41–63). New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, R. F. (2008). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Canada: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdağ, C. (2013). Okullarda hesap verebilirlik politikaları: bir yapısal eşitlik modelleme çalışması [accountability policies at schools: a study of structural equation modeling]. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Eskişehir: Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertan-Kantos, Z. (2010). İlköğretim okulu yönetici ve öğretmenlerinin görüşlerine göre kamu ve özel ilköğretim okulları için bir hesap verebilirlik modeli [an accountability model for public and private primary schools through the perceptions of primary school teachers and administrators] (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi) [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.

  • Finn, C. E. (2002). Real accountability in K-12 education: The marriage of Ted and Alice. In M. W. Evers & H. J. Wahlberg (Eds.), School accountability (pp. 23–46). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.

  • Finnigan, K. S. & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago's low-performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 594–629.

  • Flick, U. (1998). An introduction to qualtitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Forte, E. (2010). Examining the assumptions underlying the NCLB federal accountability policy on school improvement. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J. J., Johnston, M., Robertson, C., Glidewell, L., Entwistle, V., Eccles, M. P., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2010). What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychology and Health, 25(10), 1229–1245. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440903194015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuhrman, S. H. (2003). Redesigning accountability systems for education. CPRE Policy Briefs (CPRE RB-38). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göksoy, S. (2015). Bureaucratic problems at schools. Journal of Education and Future, 7, 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, R. A., & Firestone, W. A. (2013). Educational tug-of-war: Internal and external accountability of principals in vaired contexts. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311311528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, K. J. (2010). The policy behind the problem: how education reform impacts the teaching environment. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Emory University.

  • Hall, R. H. (1963). The concept of bureaucracy: An empirical assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 69(1), 32–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, L., Stecher, B., Marsj, J., McCombs, J., Robyn, A., Russell, J., et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under no child left behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2004). The effect of school accountability systems on the level and distribution of student achievement. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2–3), 406–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoggett, P. (2005). A service to the public: The containment of ethical and moral conflicts by public bureaucracies. In P. Du Gay (Ed.), The values of bureaucracy (pp. 165–191). New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopmann, S. T. (2008). No child, no school, no state left behind: Schooling in the age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(4), 417–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, M. (1987). Education accountability: An analytic overview. British Journal of Educational Studies, 35(3), 282–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, K., & Earl, L. (2000). Educational accountability effects: An international perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. (2010). Street level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. 30th anniversary Expanded Edition. The Russell Sage Foundation: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The post-modern condition: a report on knowledge. (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.) Manchester: Manchester University Press.

  • Maxvwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, K. J., Polinard, J. L., & Wrinkle, R. D. (2000). Bureaucracy and organizational performance: Causality arguments about public schools. American Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 590–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moe, T.M. (2002, June). Politics, control and the future of school accountability. Paper presented at the conference on taking account of accountability, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. ED 477 176 ERIC).

  • Moller, J. (2009). School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between managerial and professional accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 10(37), 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MoNE (2011a). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı’nın teşkilat ve görevleri hakkında kanun [Law on Ministry of National Education’s Organizational Structure and Duties]. http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/73.html. Accessed 10/06/2018.

  • MoNE (2011b). Öğretmen denetim rehberi [Teacher supervision guide]. Retrieved from http://mebk12.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/61/02/319223/dosyalar/2015_04/15014638_ogretmen_denetim_rehberi.pdf. Accessed 20/09/2018.

  • MoNE (2014). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı okul öncesi eğitim ve ilköğretim kurumları yönetmeliği [regulation on Preschool Education and Primary Education Institutions of the Ministry of National Education]. Retrieved from http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/07/20140726-4.htm. Accessed 20/09/2018

  • MoNE (2015a). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı 2015–2019 stratejik planı [2015–2019 strategic plan of the Ministry of National Education]. Retrieved from http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2015_09/10052958_10.09.2015sp17.15imzasz.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2018.

  • MoNE (2015b). Okul öncesi eğitim ve ilköğretim kurumları standartları ve kılavuz kitabı [Directive on the Implementation of Standards for Preschool Education and Primary Education Institutions]. Retrieved from https://tegm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2016_01/27110005_07.04.2015kilavuzktap_gncel.pdf.

  • MoNE (2016). İlkokul/ortaokul rehberlik ve denetim rehberi [Supervision and guidance guide for primary and middle schools]. Retrieved from https://tkb.meb.gov.tr/.../14010033_ilkokul_ortaokul_rehberlik_ve_denetim_rehberi_. Accessed 20 Sept 2018.

  • MoNE (2017a). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Teftiş Kurulu yönetmeliği [Regulation on Inspection Board of the Ministry of National Education]. Retrieved from http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2017/08/20170820-1.htm. Accessed 22 Sept 2018.

  • MoNE (2017b). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı öğretmen performans değerlendirme ve aday öğretmenlik iş ve işlemleri yönetmeliği (Taslak) [regulation on Teacher Performance Assessment and Novice Teachers’ Duties and Processes (draft)]. Retrieved from https://www.memurlar.net/common/news/documents/730414/ogretmen_performans_degerlendirme_ve_aday_ogretmenlik.pdf. Accessed 02/08/2018.

  • Mulgan, R. (2000). ‘Accountability’: An ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78(3), 555–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, L. W. (2007). Social research methods, 6/E. Pearson Education India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Normore, A. H. (2003). The edge of chaos: School administrators and accountability. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410517477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Loughlin, M. G. (1990). What is bureaucratic accountability and how can we measure it? Administration & Society, 22(3), 275–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2011). Education at a glance. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/48631582.pdf. Accessed 03/06/2018.

  • OECD (2012). Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2012-en

  • OECD (2013a). Education policy outlook: Turkey. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/EDUCATION%20POLICY%20OUTLOOK%20TURKEY_EN.pdf. Accessed 02/07/2018.

  • OECD (2013b). What makes schools successful? Resources, policies and practices- Volume IV. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-volume-IV.pdf. Accessed 03/07/2018.

  • OECD (2017). Economic policy reforms 2017: Going for growth. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/Going-for-Growth-Turkey-2017.pdf. Accessed 03/07/2018

  • Ogawa, R. T., & Collom, E. (2000). Using performance indicators to hold schools accountable: Implicit assumptions and inherent tensions. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4), 200–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öztürk, N. (2001). Liselerde bürokratikleşme ve öğretmenlerin stres düzeyleri [bureaucratizaiton and teachers’ stress at high schools]. Doktora tezi [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi: İzmir.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rallis, S. F., & MacMullen, M. M. (2000). Inquiry minded schools: Opening doors for accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, June, 766–773.

  • Rinder, D. E. (2007). The leadership role of the principal in building school capacity and accountability to sustain student academic growth. (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California.

  • Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challanger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahlberg, P. (2006). Education reform for raising economic competitiveness. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 259–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-005-4884-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saltrick, S. (2010). Making sense of accountability: A qualitative exploration of how eight New York City High School principals negotiate the complexity of today’s accountability landscape. (unpublished doctorate dissertation), Columbia University.

  • Shipps, D., & White, M. (2009). A new politics of the principalship? Accountability –driven change in new York City. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 350–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. W. (2004). A mixed relationship: Bureaucracy and school performance. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 728–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. B., & Meier, K. J. (1994). Politics, bureaucrats, and schools. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 551–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SPO (2006). Dokuzuncu Kalkınma Planı (2007–2013) [Ninth development plan (2007–2013)]. Resmi Gazete: Sayı 26215 [Official Gazette No: 26215].

  • Stillman, J. (2011). Teacher learning in an era of high-stakes accountability: Productive tension and critical professional practice. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 133–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabak, H., & Güçlü, N. (2017). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı’nda yeniden yapılanma: Merkez teşkilat yöneticilerine göre bir değerlendirme [reorganizatiın in the ministry of national education: An assessment according to central organization administrators]. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi [Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute], 14, 408–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1947). Bürokrasi ve otorite (the theory of social and economic organization). (H. Bahadır Akın, Trans) (5th ed.). Ankara: Nobel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative science quarterly, 1–19.

  • World Bank (2013). Promoting excellence in Turkey’s schools. Report no: 77722-TR. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/944721468110943381/pdf/777220REVISED00B00PUBLIC00Egitim0EN.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2018.

  • Yavaş, T. (2017). Kamu ve özel okullarda görev yapan öğretmenlerin hesap verebilirlik algılarının çok boyutlu incelenmesi [multi-study research of the perceptions of accountability in teachers working in private and public schools]. (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi) [unpublished master thesis]. Yeditepe Üniversitesi, İstanbul.

  • Yılmaz, A. İ., & Beycioğlu, K. (2017). Okullardaki bürokratik yapıya ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri [teachers’ perceptions regarding bureaucratic structures in schools]. Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. Anadolu University Journal of Faculty of Education, 1(2), S.-1-23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeytin, N. (2008). İlköğretim okullarında bürokratikleşme ve okul kültürü [bureaucratization and school culture at elementary schools] (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi) [unpublished master thesis]. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Sciences, Muş Alparslan University, Faculty of Education, Muş, Turkey

    Dilek Pekince Kardaş

Authors
  1. Dilek Pekince Kardaş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dilek Pekince Kardaş.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pekince Kardaş, D. Putting bureaucratic accountability into a perspective in terms of academic achievement. Educ Asse Eval Acc 31, 349–375 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09304-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09304-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation