By: Ronald Lindahl and Robert Beach
ABSTRACT: With the International Society for Educational Planning (ISEP) commemorating its 40th anniversary this year, the editor of ISEP’s journal, Educational Planning, invited us to write a retrospective essay on the content of ISEP’s publications throughout its history. Over the past four decades, ISEP’s publications have presented a balanced mix of theory and practice, both in preK-12 education and in higher education. The initial ISEP publication was a rudimentary newsletter, which began in 1970 or 1971. Under the leadership of Cicely Watson, Chair of the Educational Planning department at the Ontario Institute for Educational Studies (OISE) in Toronto, however, this newsletter became a journal. In 1974, Cicely and her colleague, Saeed Quazi, arranged to fund the journal through several major funded projects they were directing and arranged for its printing through a friend of Saeed’s. Cicely’s husband designed the journal’s cover. It was published from Volume 1(1) May through Volume 4(2). In October, 1977, when Cicely was called upon to serve on the Minister of Education’s Commission on Declining Enrollment and as a fellow in India with the Indo-Canadian Institute, the journal ceased being issued. Without her leadership, the journal then returned to being merely a newsletter, last published in Burlington, Vermont, under the guidance of Robert Carlson. This newsletter was unrelated to the current and interesting electronic newsletter currently produced by Mark Yulich; the Vermont newsletter was on mimeograph paper in green ink (go Cats). In the spring of 1984, the newsletter took on a more similar appearance to the current Educational Planning and had the title ISEP. This was a direct precursor to the present journal and was run for about a year, with two volumes, the spring and winter editions for 1994. The cover design was done by Dan Kilgo, president of Craftsmen Printers in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Following the newsletter, the board approved the resurrection for the following summer of Educational Planning with Volume 4(4). There may be lost issues and former members have not found a Volume 4(3). In all, the journal spans about 40 years, and its authors’ works refl ect the changing ideas and themes in planning. We chose to take a qualitative approach to the analysis, utilizing thematic analysis. As with all qualitative analyses, all categorization is highly subjective, with the knowledge and experience of the reviewers serving as the biased lens through which all information is fi ltered. Other reviewers may well discern different themes with equal validity. The interpretative comments regarding each theme also represent the subjective opinions of the authors of this essay; these interpretations also are subject to equally valid other interpretations. This is in keeping with the culture of ISEP over the past 40 years, where differences of interpretation and experiences are welcomed in a professional, yet highly convivial manner.
By: Emine Babaoglan
ABSTRACT: This study was designed to examine the educational needs of Turkish students living as emigrants with their families in other European nations. In particular, the study uses a qualitative research model to examine the extent to which various social, political, and economic conditions in these European nations impact the quality of education that the Turkish students receive. Furthermore, based upon the interviews of Turkish émigrés living in Europe, suggested strategies are presented to help the educational leaders from the European nations and Turkey to effectively plan to meet the needs of these students. The results of the research strongly suggest that everyone involved in this situation–the government of Turkey, the governments of the involved European nations, and the families themselves–needs to collaborate and develop workable plans to make the educational experiences for the Turkish students more productive.
By: Sakir Cinkir
ABSTRACT: Decentralization has had a significant impact on education systems, in particular, on the organization of schools and management. In the last four decades, decentralization of administration in education has become a worldwide trend. In the last two decades, Turkish educational planners and policy makers have been struggling with the debate over centralization and decentralization. Turkey has highly centralized education systems compared to Europe and Central Asia as well when compared to other OECD and EU countries. In recent years, there have been numerous political and administrative reform initiatives in Turkey regarding education, including decentralization. The purpose of this study was to examine the decentralization of educational decision-making processes as perceived by educational planners, school principals, and educational stakeholders in Turkey, utilizing the Decision Making in Education Questionnaire (DMEQ) with 410 participants. Results revealed the participants felt the provinces should have a majority of the power by controlling the outcome of 17 of the 32 decisions queried. Respondents indicated that the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) should have control over 10 of the 32 decisions and school principals should have a minor stake with control over only five of the 32 decisions. It is expected that this study could contribute to the debates over the decentralization of education in Turkey. Namely, strategic approaches and consensus should be developed between the educational planners and policy makers before rethinking the decentralization decision making regarding education.
By: C. Kenneth Tanner
ABSTRACT: Thomas R. Dye (2005) stated, “public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do” (p. 1). While there are many other defi nitions, this popular characterization of governmental policy in the United States is more than adequate to consider the rules, regulations, and actions of people surrounding the complicated issues related to building public schools. This defi nition, according to Dye, indicates that public policy regulates confl ict within a society, organizes society to carry on confl ict with other societies; distributes symbolic rewards, materials, and services to members of society; and extracts money. Consequently, public policies may regulate behavior, organize bureaucracies, distribute benefi ts, or extract taxes–singularly or all at once (Dye, 2005, p.1). This article considers policies that guide the various stages of educational facilities planning. Analogous to Dye’s definition, policies regulate the behavior of the educational bureaucracy and distribute benefits and services, including the extracted taxes, to build schools. In particular, the emphasis in this commentary is on which policies describe and explain the divide between what the public wants its school buildings to be, what it pays for, and what it fi nally gets when construction is fi nished. One conclusion from this review of planning activities is that stakeholders are rarely included in the development and design of schools in the United States. Another conclusion is that federal, state, and local governments have allowed for-profi t business to dictate school design, regardless of whether it facilitates the curriculum or not. Frequently, school buildings from the for-profit sector, where stakeholders are ignored, result in simple, bland prototypes; they do not reflect community values, and their form does not follow functions to be achieved within the educational system.