Perceptions of Educational Stakeholders About Decentralizing Educational Decision-Making in Turkey by Şakir Çınkır

Perceptions of Educational Stakeholders About Decentralizing Educational Decision-Making in Turkey by Şakir Çınkır.

1. Conceptual and Policy Context The chapter opens by situating decentralization within global educational reform trends. Over the past four decades, decentralization has been a major component of public-sector modernization. It shifts responsibilities from central ministries to local authorities and schools. In the Turkish context, however, education has remained one of the most centralized systems among OECD countries, with the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) controlling nearly all functions of educational governance. The author reviews theoretical concepts of decentralization, drawing on seminal classifications such as deconcentration, delegation, and devolution (Rondinelli; Winkler) and international comparative research examining how countries allocate decision-making authority across governance levels. This framework highlights that no country operates with decision-making located entirely at one level, and that the balance of authority varies by domain (curriculum, human resources, finance, assessment, etc.).

2. Turkish Educational Administration The chapter emphasizes Turkey’s long-standing struggle with decentralization debates. Despite repeated calls for administrative reform since the 1960s, local authorities still have extremely limited power. All major decisions—ranging from personnel salaries to curriculum design—are financed and directed centrally. Studies cited indicate persistent concerns within MoNE about how decentralization might affect national unity, standardization, and equality..

3. Methodology A purposeful sample of 410 participants was used, including teachers, school administrators, provincial education administrators, ministry-level officials, academics, and NGO representatives. The research instrument, the Decision-Making in Education Questionnaire (DMEQ), was designed based on OECD’s taxonomy of educational decision-making. It captured stakeholder preferences across 32 types of decisions grouped into six domains: Governing Organizing schools Managing human resources Organization of instruction Assessment and evaluation Resource allocation and use Respondents indicated at which level decisions should be made: Ministry, Province, Town, or School. The chapter also analyzed open-ended responses regarding advantages and disadvantages of decentralization..

سلسلة 1 Provinces ministry Schools 50.6 سلسلة 2 Provinces ministry Schools 34 سلسلة 3 Provinces ministry Schools 15.4.

4.2 Domain-Specific PerceptionsGoverning decisions: Respondents wanted MoNE to retain authority over overall educational policies and system organization, but implementation should be provincial. Journal Educational PlanningOrganization of schools:Provinces should oversee school establishment/closures and the school calendar; schools should determine vision, mission, and registration rules. Journal Educational PlanningHuman resources management:Stakeholders leaned heavily toward MoNE and provinces, reflecting concerns about political pressure, favoritism, and lack of capacity at lower levels.Assessment and evaluation / curriculum:Respondents wanted these to remain mostly centralized, underscoring the desire for national standardization..

5. Qualitative Findings Open-ended responses reveal perceived advantages and disadvantages.Advantages of DecentralizationRespondents identified several benefits (Table 2), including: Better alignment with local needs Reduced bureaucratic obstacles Greater participation in decision-making More efficient resource use Stronger local support for schools Improved education quality The most frequently cited advantage was meeting regional and local requirements effectively. Disadvantages of Decentralization Respondents also recognized substantial challenges (Table 3): Threats to national unity and educational uniformity Lack of qualified staff at local levels Increased political, ideological, or local pressure Risks of favoritism or nepotism Insufficient financial resources Most serious concern was the potential for political and local interference in the education system..

6. Interpretation and Discussion The chapter argues that stakeholders generally support decentralization in principle, but express deep reservations about the readiness of local institutions to assume such responsibilities. There is a perceived contradiction between the ideal of decentralization and the practical capacity of provincial, municipal, and school-level authorities. The study notes that Turkish administrators may lack adequate training and information on decentralized governance, which leads to reluctance in transferring authority. This aligns with findings from OECD countries showing that decentralization succeeds only when local actors possess sufficient administrative and professional expertise. 7. Implications for Educational Planning The chapter concludes by urging policymakers to develop strategic, consensus-based approaches to decentralization. Stakeholders emphasized the need for: Capacity-building for local administrators Clear delineation of responsibilities Balanced power-sharing between MoNE and provinces Continuous monitoring and evaluation Broad stakeholder engagement in reform processes The author stresses that decentralization should not be approached as a universal solution but as a context-dependent process that requires careful planning..

Conclusion and Implications for Policy The chapter concludes with several key insights: 1. No Single-Level Control Is Appropriate Stakeholders reject both extreme centralization and extreme decentralization. Instead, they support a distributed governance model where authority is shared based on function. 2. Provinces Should Play a Larger Role Provinces are seen as the most competent and balanced level for many decisions. This suggests a potential shift toward regional educational governance. 3. Schools Should Have Limited but Specific Autonomy Despite global trends toward school-based management, Turkish stakeholders do not support giving schools extensive authority, except in internal operational matters..

4. The Ministry Should Retain Control Over Core Educational Domains These include: curriculum assessment national standards evaluation strategic planning 5. Significant Challenges Must Be Addressed Before Decentralizing These include: capacity building training of local personnel financial restructuring clear legal frameworks accountability mechanisms political neutrality 6. Decentralization Requires Strategic Planning and Broad Consensus The author emphasizes that decentralization should not be rushed. Instead, it must be carefully designed with strong coordination between policymakers, administrators, educators, and local communities..

Conclusion Chapter 3 presents educational decentralization as a multifaceted reform strategy with significant implications for governance and planning. It outlines how decentralization can enhance responsiveness, reduce bureaucracy, and accommodate local needs, while also acknowledging potential challenges related to uneven capacity and coordination. The chapter demonstrates that effective decentralization requires a balanced distribution of authority, adequate support for local actors, and strong mechanisms to ensure equity and accountability across the education system..

Thank you for your attention Summarized by: Saba’a Hasan.