.3... mask .. n.9,...fi3 .... .. v. . a... ....4 69.. 99:90:13» ...}:xuflhmnkfi: (iLrst P. . A . . . .. ...lv .9. . .VflIpqflMvoA? L4....9..\VA,. 59995.62. 3 . .mxx: . u. .swcrx.lurr .ut... .. .9 . . . . .. . B.mh.qLWmuWJn\. o... . .... 5. 93am... «WWW 9... L. .....n .. . In I. . . , “”5 . . Ht... «mafia: 2N . IA9‘.I.- "9!! . 1.5.31.1. i..v.:r 9\1x¢h:9. .4 I. ..Uf5.599 .5...le Lat... 115.11 #51... II....L.4(.I.L.\1.)71.5..I9E .. :(flWuuui. ...I...II. ‘9. 91.1.. . 7 2 'Su) ‘ LA. m. w. m u m m ‘ "9999.5. 9999.. ...-99.4.... 5 ’y“‘."""'""unvoquul‘ ... ...Iu'.| - .9II.. . B. .991. 1...... nil... . 3 . 43. 9.95....“ ..nw‘V‘9... .H. .94. HIIIII IIIIIII 3 1293 300797 4409 . us ‘5 .~. I. J ...L 5 ...; - 3‘ “9’1; .2 ..7‘ ”2‘1 1wI 9:“ L12 ‘1 .5? {7 6“; é'fvwg‘mV‘Sqfi‘q- «(a-mas- ‘3 This is to certify that the thesis entitled .AN ANALYSIS OF THE DIRECTORATES OF EDUCATION IN TURKEY: A STUDY OF ROLES presented by Kama] GUconl has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Department of Secondary Education _/ i. ,1 ”3’15- Major professor Date 30 Sept. 1974 0-7639 «3‘34; l ‘u’ 7" i ~ BINDING BY HMB&SMS I w 80:: " BNBtRI INC I III U,— “H; amoens I spngusrom ulcmnauj ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF THE DIRECTORATES OF EDUCATION IN TURKEY: A STUDY OF ROLES By Kemal GUconl This study deals with three groups of subjects in the provincial organization of education in Turkey. These groups are the Governors, Directors, and the Assistant Directors of Education in twenty-eight selected provinces. These provinces were selected according to the geographical regions and the Developmental Index of the Turkish State Planning Organization. DATA were gathered and analyzed by using graphs, one way ANOVA and Schefée techniques, using the facilities of the Planning, Research and Coordination Office of the Ministry of Education in Turkey. The role perceptions (present duties, as how they are perceived) and expectations (ideal duties, as how they should be) of participants themselves, and for the others, and some of the problems, their im- portance, and suggestions concerning the improvement of provincial organization were examined. Governors seemed most satisfied and Assistant Directors seemed least satisfied with the status quo in provincial organizations. All groups perceived eleven key problems as ”very important" or ”important", but Assistants had higher frequencies of "very important" answers. Kemai GUcifioi The higher the office which the respondents heid the iess important the problems were seen. Probiems 10 and 11 were seen as ”very important" by all groups. In addition, differences in seeing the problems in terms of their importance have seemed significant between groups only at the .05 levei. AN ANALYSIS OF THE DIRECTORATES OF EDUCATION IN TURKEY: A STUDY OF ROLES By Kema] GUCIUOI A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partia] fulfiiiment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education I974 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Republic of Turkey is a young one, but if one thinks of her reforms, which happened in a considerably brief period of time, he becomes aware of the speed and importance of these reforms in modern Turkey‘s history and her development. After the tiresome and difficult years of the First World War, it may not be wrong to state that this country has recently started many things. As some economists may easily put it, the “taking off point” was still a long way away for Turkey at the beginning of this century. 1f we think only of the new alphabet adapted in Turkey, we can easily imagine the situation. At the time of this adaptation, there was practically no literate person. But after so few years, Turkey has already climbed up and passed by the "taking off point". For this reason the problems of Turkey are different in nature and kind from those problems which existed during the first years of her establishment. Traditionally, education in Turkey has been considered as a key to improvement, and improvement in this country, at least for the last sixty years, has meant westernization and, of course, modernization. This study is intended to be only a very small piece, or a small drop of rain among many, toward modernization, by way of being an exploratory work in education. ii In order to follow this intention, the author would like to men- tion first that he received help from Mr. Karcioglu, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Education in Turkey. As the Head of Research, Planning and Coordination Office at that time he initiated and en- couraged the NERP Project. Otherwise, this and similar studies could not have been carried out. For this reason I would like to thank Mr. Karcioglu. Later my professors at Michigan State University, as my teachers and committee members, were the ones who never tired of assisting me in many ways. Dr. Carl H. Gross, as the chairman of my committee, and Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover, Dr. Maryellen McSweeney and Dr. Cole S. Brembeck are the ones to whom I would like to express my appreciation and thanks. Dr. McSweeney was an especially important member of my committee. Dr. Bohnhorst helped me through my project in several ways, especially with its English, and Dr. Neff helped me with his sugges- tions, especially in sampling. Later, Dr. Karagozoglu, Dr. Karasar, Dr. Bfilbfil, and Mr. Coker travelled through twenty-eight provinces in Turkey as the team leaders of research groups. Dr. Arici and Mr. Baykul were the ones who discussed and worked with me for many hours on statistical items. In addition, Dr. Fidan has helped me with all resources of his office. I am also very thankful to my wife Gfingor and son Kenan for their encouragement and help. --Kemal GUconl iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page -J 1. DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM ................ Introduction ...................... l 1. Organizational Development of Turkish Education: An Historical Perspective ............. I II. Provincial Directorates of Education . . . . . . . 8 III. The Problem and Its Description .......... ll IV. Objectives of the Study ............ . . 28 V. Summary .................... . . 29 II. RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH ............. 31 Introduction ...................... 3T I. Role Theory .................... 32 11. Turkish Studies .................. 42 III. Summary ...................... 46 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY ................... 49 I. Preliminary Research Activities .......... 49 II. Construction of the Instrument .......... 50 III. Sampling Procedure ................ 52 IV. Data Collection .................. 57 V. The Nature of Data .............. . . 59 VI. Processing the Data ................ 61 VII. Summary ...................... 62 iv 'TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued CHAPTER Page IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA .................... 63 I. Introduction .................... 63 II. Analysis of Data .................. 63 III. Summary ...................... 190 V. CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS ............... l9l 1. Conclusions .................... l9l II. Implications of the Study ............. l96 III. Limitations of the Study .............. 202 IV. Summary ...................... 204 APPENDICES III. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH PROJECT OF THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION ............... 206 III - I. First Questionnaire ................. 206 III - 2. Preliminary Questionnaire .............. 2l3 III - 3. Main Questionnaire (Turkish Form) .......... 2l8 III - 4. Main Questionnaire (English Form) .......... 238 III - 5. Provinces in Samples ................. 257 III - 6. Index Table of the Provinces (l963-l967) ....... 259 IV. ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMS ACCORDING TO THEIR IMPORTANCE . . . 262 IV - l. Time Spent in Current Position ............ 263 IV - 2. Kinds and Numbers of the Places of Work ....... 264 IV - 3. Importance of Problems by Governors (All Provinces) . 265 IV - 4. Importance of Problems by Directors (All Provinces) . 265 APPENDICES IV - 5. IV - 6. IV - 7 IV - 8 IV - 9. IV- 10. IV- I]. IV-IZ. IV-VIB. IV-I4. IV-IS. IV-l6. IV- I7. IV-18. IV-19. IV-20. IV-ZI. IV-22. Importance of Provinces). . Importance of Provinces). . . Importance of TABLE OF CONTENTS-vcontinued Problems by Assistant Directors (All Problems-—Total of Groups (All oooooooooooooooooooo Problems--ANOVA for Total of Groups (All Provinces) ................... . Importance of Importance of Provinces). . Problems Between Groups (All Provinces) Problems--ANOVA for Between Groups (All S Table for Between Groups (All Provinces) ...... Importance of Importance of Importance of Over) . . . . Importance of Importance of Over) Importance of (40 and Over) Importance of (40 and Over) Importance of Importance of (40 and Over) Importance of (40 and Over) Importance of Importance of Problems by Governors (40 and Over) . . Problems by Directors (40 and Over) . . Problems by Assistant Directors (40 and Problems--Total of Groups (40 and Over) Problems--ANOVA for Directors (40 and Problems Between Groups (40 and Over) . Problems--ANOVA for Between Groups Problems by Governors (45 and Over) . . Problems by Directors (45 and Over) . . vi Page 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued APPENDICES IV - IV - 24. IV - 25. IV - 26. IV - 27. IV - 28. IV - 29. IV - 30. IV - 31. IV - 32. IV - 33. IV - 34. IV - 35. IV - 36. IV - 37. IV - 38. IV - 39. 23. Importance of Problems by Assistant Directors (45 and Over) Importance of Over) . . . . Importance of Over) . . . . Importance of Over) . . . . Importance of Directors (45 Importance of (45 and Over) Importance of Importance of (45 and Over) Importance of (45 and Over) Importance of Importance of Importance of (50 and Over) Importance of Importance of Over) . . . . Importance of Over) . . . . Importance of Directors (50 Importance of (50 and Over) Problems-—Total of Groups (45 and Problems--ANOVA for Governors (45 and Problems--ANOVA for Directors (45 and Problems-~ANOVA for Assistant and Over) .............. Problems--ANOVA for Total of Group Problems Between Groups (45 and Over) Problems—-ANOVA for Between Groups OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Problems by Governors (50 and Over) . Problems by Directors (50 and Over) . Problems by Assistant Directors Problems--Total of Groups ...... Problems--ANOVA for Governors (50 and Problems--ANOVA for Directors (50 and Problems--ANOVA for Assistant and Over) .............. Problems--ANOVA for Total of Groups vii Page 283 284 285 285 286 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 294 295 295 TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued APPENDICES IV - 40. Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Governors (First Group of Provinces). ......... IV - 4l. Importance of Problems by Directors (First Group of Provinces) ..................... IV - 42. Importance of Problems by Assistant Directors (First Group of Provinces) .......... IV - 43. Importance of Problems--Total of Groups (First Group of Provinces) ............. IV - 44. Importance of Problems Between Groups (First Group of Provinces) ................ . IV - 45. Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Between Groups (First Group of Provinces) ............ Iv - 46. Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Governors (First Group of Provinces) ............. IV - 47. Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Directors (First Group of Provinces) ............. IV - 48. Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Assistant Directors (First Group of Provinces) ....... IV - 49. Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Total (First Group of Provinces) ............. IV - 50. Importance of Problems by Governors (Second Group of Provinces) ................... IV - 5l. Importance of Problems by Directors (Second Group of Provinces) ................. IV - 52. Importance of Problems by Assistant Directors (Second Group of Provinces) ............ IV - 53. Importance of Problems--Total of Groups (Second Group of Provinces) ................ IV - 54. Importance of Problems——ANOVA Table for Governors (Second Group of Provinces) .......... viii Page 296 297 298 299 300 301 301 302 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued APPENDICES IV - 55. IV - 56. IV - 57. IV - 58. IV - 59. IV - 60. IV - 6l. IV - 62. IV - 63. IV - 64. IV - 65. IV - 66. IV - 67. IV - 68. IV - 69. Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Directors (Second Group of Provinces) ............ Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Assistant Directors (Second Group of Provinces) ....... Importance of Problems-~ANOVA Table for Total (Second Group of Provinces) ........ . Importance of Problems Between Groups ....... Importance of Problems—-ANOVA for Between Groups (Second Group of Provinces) ............ Importance of Problems--S Table for Between Groups (Second Group of Provinces) ............ Importance of Problems by Governors (Third Group of Provinces) ..................... Importance of Problems by Directors (Third Group of Provinces) ..................... Importance of Problems by Assistant Directors (Third Group of Provinces) ............. Importance of Problems--Total of Groups (Third Group of Provinces) ................ Importance of Problems Between Groups ....... Importance of Problems-~ANOVA for Between Groups (Third Group of Provinces) ............. Importance of Problems--S Table for Between Groups (Third Group of Provinces) ............. Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Governors (Third Group of Provinces) ............. Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Directors (Third Group of Provinces) ............. ix Page 308 309 309 310 311 312 313 314 3T5 3l6 317 318 319 320 320 TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued APPENDICES IV - 70. IV - 71. IV - 72. Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Assistant Directors (Third Group of Provinces) ......... Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Total Groups (Third Group of Provinces) .............. Importance of Problems by Governors (Fourth Group of Provinces) ...................... IV - 73. Importance of Problems by Directors (Fourth Group of Provinces) ...................... IV - 74. Importance of Problems by Assistant Directors (Fourth Group of Provinces) ............. IV - 75. Importance of Problems--Total of Groups (Fourth Group of Provinces) ................... . IV - 76. Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Governors (Fourth Group of Provinces) ............. IV - 77. Importance of Problems—-ANOVA Table for Directors (Fourth Group of Provinces) ............. IV - 78. Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Assistant Directors (Fourth Group of Provinces) ........ IV - 79. Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Total Groups (Fourth Group of Provinces) ............. IV - 80. Importance of Problems Between Groups (Fourth Group of Provinces) .................... IV - 81. Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Between Groups (Fourth Group of Provinces) ............. IV - 82. Importance of Problems by Graduates of Institutes of Education (Directors and Assistant Directors) (Fourth Group of Provinces) .......... IV - 83. Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Graduates of Insti- tutes of Education .................. BIBLIOGRAPHY ....... ................... Page 321 321 322 323 324 325 326 326 327 327 328 329 330 331 332 TABLE ##5## «h b-b-b-bb-b h-b-b-b-§ .10. .11. .12. .13. .14. .15. .16. .17. .18. LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Ages (f and %). . . . ......... Major Academic Branches of Three Groups ......... Duration of Active Participation in Civil Service . . . . Governors--Previous Duties and Their Durations (f and %). Directors--Previous Duties and Their Durations (f and %). Assistant Directors--Previous Duties and Their Duration (f and %) ........................ Knowledge of Foreign Language (f and %) ......... Believe in Professional Advancement (f and %) ...... Perceptions and Expectations of the Three Groups ..... Evaluation Table for Duty Distribution .......... Comparison Values of the Questions about Duties and the Ranks of the Questions .................. Summary Table of Comparisons ............... Importance of Problems for Governors (All Provinces). . . Importance of Problems for Directors (All Provinces). . . Importance of Problems for Assistant Directors (All Provinces) ........................ S Table Between Groups (All Provinces) ......... S Table Between Groups (40 and Older) .......... 5 Table Between Groups (45 Years of Age and Older). . . . xi Page 64 68 71 77 79 81 84 87 91 95 97 99 116 118 119 123 133 141 LIST OF TABLES--continued TABLE Page 4.l9. S Table Between Groups (Second Group of Provinces). . . . l62 4.20. S Table Between Groups (Third Group of Provinces) . . . . I69 4.2l. Criteria for the Selection of Provincial Administrators of the Ministry of Education (f) ............ . l8l LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1. Place of the educational directorate ........... 1.2. Organization of Ministry of National Education. . . . l.3. Divisions and duties of Directorate of Education. . . 1.4. Organization of Directorate of Education in Ankara. . 1.5. The place of the Directorate of Education in its organi- zational setting ..................... 1.6. The place of the Directorate of Education in organiza- tional setting ...................... l.7. Administrative Division of the Directorate of Education . 1.8. Personnel of the Directorate of Education . ...... 1.9. Relations of the Director of Education in financial matters ......................... 3.1. Regions and the number of provinces . . . . ...... . 3.2. Four stratified grouping for the sample of provinces. . 3.3. "Developed" and "Less Developed" provinces ..... 4.1. Knowledge in foreign language ............. 4.2 Knowledge in foreign language (types and degrees) . . . 4.3. Believe in advancement .................. 4.4 Comparisons of perceptions and expectations . . . 4.5. Importance of problems-~tota1 of three groups (all provinces) ........................ 4.6. Importance of problems for Governors (All Governors 40 years of age and older, or Graduates of the Faculty of Political Science) .................... xiii Page 10 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 54 55 56 85 85 89 100 121 126 LIST OF FIGURES--continued FIGURE 4.7. 4.8. Importance of problems by Directors (40 years of age or older .......................... Importance of problems by Assistant Directors (40 years of age or older) ..................... Importance of problems--to+a1 of three groups (40 years of age or older) ................. . . . . . Importance of problems by Governors (45 and older). . . . . Importance of problems by Directors (45 years of age and older) .......................... . Importance of problems by Assistant Directors (45 years of age and older) .................... . Importance of problems--total of groups (45 years of age and older) ........................ . Importance of problems by Governors (50 years of age and older) .......................... . Importance of problems by Directors (50 years of age and older) .......................... . Importance of problems by Assistant Directors (50 years of age and older) .................... . Importance of problems--total of groups (50 years of age and older) ........................ . Importance of problems by Governors (first group of provinces) ....................... . Importance of problems by Directors (first group of provinces) ........................ . Importance of problems by Assistant Directors (first group of provinces) ................... . Importance of problems--total of groups (first group of provinces) ........................ xiv Page 128 129 130 134 136 137 139 142 144 145 146 149 151 152 154 LIST OF FIGURES--continued FIGURE 4.22. 4.23. 4.24. 4.25. 4.26. 4.27. 4.28. 4.29. 4.30. 4.31. 4.32. 4.33. 4.34. 4.35. 4.36. 4.37. Importance of problems by Governors (second group of provinces) ........................ Importance of problems by Directors (second group of provinces) ........................ Importance of problems by Assistant Directors (second group of provinces) ................. Importance of problems--tota1 of groups (second group of provinces) ........................ Importance of problems by Governors (third group of provinces) ........................ Importance of problems by Directors (third group of provinces) ........................ Importance of problems by Assistant Directors (third group of provinces) ................... Importance of problems--tota1 of groups (third group of provinces) ........................ Importance of problems by Governors (fourth group of provinces) ...................... Importance of problems by Directors (fourth group of provinces) ........................ Importance of problems by Assistant Directors (fourth group of provinces) ................... Importance of problems--total of groups (fourth group of provinces) ........................ Importance of problems by graduates of Institutes of Education (Directors and Assistant Directors) ...... Suggestions of total groups (Yes—No Answers). . ..... ”Yes" answers to suggestions ............. "No" answers to suggestions ............... XV Page 156 157 158 160 163 164 166 167 170 172 173 174 179 184 186 187 CHAPTER I DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM Introduction The educational system in Turkey is highly centralized. This makes the central organization very important and quite powerful. But, since the provincial and local organizations are the ones which carry out most of the jobs, they are also important. This chapter first presents a short historical perspective of organizational development of Turkish Education, and the place of Provincial Direc- torates of Education. The chapter ends with an explanation of the problem with which this study is concerned and the objectives of the study in general. 1. Organizational Development of Turkish Education: An Historical Perspective During the times of the Ottoman Empire, when a governor or a high military official was appointed to a job in a city, one of the first things he did was build a mosque. Around these mosques there was usually an educational complex that consisted of a dormitory and a library. In addition, it was also quite common to build other buildings, such as hans (hotels), baths and stores. A non-profit, semi-govern- mental organization, which is called "Evkaf", was in charge of these buildings. The rent which came from these "Evkaf-Buildings" was used in financing the mosques, the educational complexes, and similar public institutions. Education was thus a concern of the local communities, especially at the elementary level. For instance, ”Mahalle Mektebi”, a school which was usually at the elementary level and whose teachers were basically religious leaders of the community, was run mainly by the local people. The most knowledgeable “khoca” (the religious leader) in the com- munity was usually in charge of ”schooling”, and the community Used to support both the school and its teacher. This system worked very well during the successful period of the Empire, because first of all it met the needs of the time, and secondly, it fitted the level of scientific and economic development and the social conditions of the Empire. Later on, as the Empire started weakening, the ”Evkaf" and other institutions became dysfunctional. These were the times (1839-1908) during which several Sultans and the leaders of the Ottoman Empire began to feel a need for modernization. We must remember, however, that those people were the rulers of a huge empire, and they were also the religious and political leaders of the world of Islam. For this reason, their job of modernizing the Empire was a very big undertaking. On the other hand, several new ideas had been spreading within the Empire since the French Revolution, such as liberty, equality and fraternity for all. The idea of nationalism had become the most important of all. In addition, there were external activities for the separation of different nationalities from the Empire. During the nineteenth century, all attempts at keeping the Empire united and holding the different nationalities together had been based on the idea of trying to create an "0ttomanism". The idea was that all people within the Empire were Ottomans, rather than different kinds of nationals, and all were equal under the same laws. The declaration of the ”Gulhane Hatti Humaynnu" in 1839 and the Declaration of the First Constitutional Monarchy in 1876 were the most famous and sig- nificant among the attempts for modernization and re-unification of the Ottoman Empire. Several authors agree that Turkey has been experiencing signifi- cant cultural change for at least 150 years.1 The approach in general was toward modernizing the army. Many had felt that this was the key in order to re-establish the old glorious Empire. The Engineering School of the Army (1795), the school of Medicine (1827), and the School of Artillery (1834) were established as a result of this approach, and in turn these activities affected the educational system as a whole.2 During the same period, the Rustiye (2 year high school after completing 4-years of primary school), Idadi (secondary school, the second cycle), and Sultani (academic secondary schools) were opened, and they were all public schools. It is especially the Rustiye which is 1Resat Nalbantoglu, "Economic Development and Cultural Change", an unpublished paper prepared for the RCDA Conference in 1968, Cento, Ankara, p. 10. 2Nafi Atuf, Turkiye Maarif Taribi, Muallim Ahmet Halit Kitaphanesi, Istanbul, 1939, pp. 46-55. regarded as the first European kind of school. The educational insti— tutions, as well as other organizations within the Empire, were divided into three categories, on the basis of syllabus, aims, and educational systems:3 a. Religious educational institutions; b. Academic and vocational schools (secondary schools, schools of medicine, War Academy, teachers schools, etc.); c. Foreign schools. 4 states that in 1869 there were four different adminis- Nafi Atuf trative bodies concerned with education within the Empire, which were as follows: a. Religious posts; b. Ministries (Ministry of Education and the other ministries); c. Association and churches of non-Moslem citizens; d. Foreign governments, foreign churches and organizations. If we separate the other ministries from the Ministry of Education and separate the foreign governments from the churches which are shown together above, we shall have six different authorities and organiza- tions which were directing the "educational systems" of the Empire. There were: a. Religious posts; 3Serafettin Turan, "The Unification of Education", An unpublished paper prepared for the RCDA Conference in 1968. Cento, Ankara, p. 2. 4Nafi Atuf, 09. cit., p. 144. b. Ministry of Education; c. The other ministries; d. Associations and churches of nonvMoslem citizens; e. Foreign churches and organizations; f. Foreign governments. Each of these six elements simultaneously had its own separate organization and authority system. The year 1869 is an important year in the history of Turkish education, and especially in educational administration. It was thought at this time that it would be beneficial to establish a new organiza— tion for the whole Empire. Between 1867 and 1869 the French educational system was examined as a possible model. The different rules and regulations which had been accepted at various times within the educa— tional system of the Ottoman Empire were consolidated. Then a "Maarifi Umumiye Nizamnamesi“ (Regulations of Public Education) was prepared. The central organization of education at this time was called the “Meclis-i-Kebir-i Maarif" (Higher Commission of Education), and it was divided into two main divisions. "Ilmi" (scientific), and Idari“ (Administrative). The first division was to carry out the academic parts of the educational activities. At the Central level, the second division was the administrative division in education. Two different people were placed at the top in charge of these two divisions. In addition, the sub-divisions or the branches of the central organization were established in the provinces.5 51bid.. pp. 129 and 137. The Reform of 1869 was an attempt to establish a unified, func- tional educational system within the Empire. The regulations of 1869 served the country for at least fifty years, but under that system neither lasting unity nor desired educational improvements were possi- ble, since the six different authorities and organizations mentioned above also continued to function into the twentieth century. Some of the reasons why the Reforms of 1869 failed were as follows: First, the empire had been weakening for decades, and it was losing its place among the big powers of the world. Second, attempts at reform in education, industry, and trade were being hindered or made impossible by the big powers of Europe. European nations were blocking Turkey's development by exercising control and power through the “capitulations” (capitulations were special economic rights and privileges which were given to European government, at various times). The European powers were concerned about their own welfare, and they had reason to discourage the attempts of the Ottoman Empire to unify her minority groups and become a "real Empire" again. Thus the process of reorganization and improvement in education failed adequately to take into consideration other social, political, economic and psychological aspects of the country and its people. An educational system is only one part of its larger social system. When we are dealing with the educational system or any part of it, the whole system and other sub-systems of society, with all of their factors and forces, have to be taken into account accordingly. The later stages of the Ottoman Empire witnessed other changes in educational organization and administration. For instance, during the Young Turks period in 1913, a new law was passed in order to improve primary schools. It was the “Tedrisati Iptidaiye Kanunu“ (Provisory Primary Education Law).6 But with the onset of World War I, the law of 1913 could not be enforced; nevertheless, as Hostler7 8 and Karpat pointed out, the period of the Young Turks was somewhat of a transition on the way to the Kemalist Revolution and reforms. For Robinson9 too, the emergence of modern Turkey had at least some of its roots in the Young Turk pre-Kemalist period. For instance, Ziya Gokalp at this time formulated a systematic and unified theory of education, as well as a systematic theory of Turkish nationalism. There is, in short, consider- able evidence that: l) the modernization process in Turkish history goes back at least to the beginning of the nineteenth century, and 2) the pre-Kemalist period represents somewhat of a period of transi- tion and emergence toward the modern Turkey of today. 6Milli Egitim Bakanligi, Milli Egitimle Ilglil Kanunlar, Milli Egitim Basimevi, Ankara, 1953, pp. 931-52. 7Charles Warren Hostler, Turkism and the Soviets: The Turks of tne World and Their Political Objectives, George Allen and Unwin, Ltd. London, 1957, p. 101. 8Kemal H. Karpat, Turkey's Politics: The Transition of a Multi— Party System, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1967, p. 25. 9Richard Robinson, The First Turkish Republic: A Case Study_in National Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1963, p. 5. II. Provincial Directorates of Education When the new Republic of Turkey was proclaimed, the First Consti- tution put the whole educational system under the supervision and control of the State (1924). Then the "Tevhid-i Tedrisat Kanunu" (Law of Unification of Instruction) was prepared (1924), and basically the National Ministry of Education became the sole organization in charge of all educational institutions, with the exceptions of the universities and of certain educational institutions which are run by the other ministries, including schools for health technicians and schools of agriculture. In 1926, Law No. 789 set forth the structure and functions of the central and local authorities in education. During this period, there were twelve regions in Turkey and each of them had at least one province. Education in each of these regions was under the direction of the "Maarif Emini" (Superintendent of Educa- tion). He had the right to appoint, discipline and remove the personnel in primary education, and he was responsible for financing the primary schools. The basic source of funds was the special provincial budget for primary education. The "Maarif Emini" also had some control over the secondary schools by cooperating with the local boards. In general, primary education has had a fairly consistent history of regional and local involvement in the Turkish educational system. In 1931, provinces became the basic political and educational units instead of regions. The central organization was given the authority for appointment and removal of all secondary and primary school teachers and principals. The educational budget became a part of the general budget as a whole, but the “II Ozel Idare Butcesi‘I (Special Budget of the Provinces) has also remained as a second type of budget and financial source for activities concerned with primary education. This dual budgetary system, however, has also entailed, through the years,some administrative problems in the provinces. Since 1949, each ministry has had a branch in each of the provinces. In general, it is a directorate, with the exception of the regional organizations for State irrigational work and for highway construction. The "Vali" (Governor of the provinces) is the chief government official above all of these directorates. The Governor is appointed by the Ministry of Interior in the central government, and he is the executive of the province. He is aided by a number of assistant governors, by the provincial directors of the different ministries, and by a council consisting of elected members of the political parties from different parts of the province (see Figure 1.1 below). One of the branches of the central ministries in the province is the "Maarif Mudurlugu", or "Milli Egitim Mudurlug", which are different names for the provincial directorate of education. The Director of Education is selected from among secondary school teachers and princi- pals, or from inspectors of primary education who have graduated from higher teacher training institutions or a university. The assistant directors of education are also selected from the same groups. mmv 07 an. MINIS'YIIV hr rn um. (w rcmnvn II. or “.35: . .. / ‘ \ \ (TNT!!! 71m \ Immu'I Ann \ lulu-r" \ nun or \ Ann-r m. \ \ l marina. J mum!” - cum ”I LIMAIV I I'IVIVATI If‘ll'fil. L+ Il‘l'nl'MR I “It kl"!!! a ' IN" 7 I or :HM " ClAi'lvam'l Figure 1.1. \ '11“ rumurrmur or. rn ‘ " _‘ ,/ . / /4’ \ _. -_ \ "NH ' A ~ mv _ a. mm. """" AFN“. II?“ n r nu hlll N c IIII'AIIV k ‘ 1111mm '1 I [f l L. 'l "11"“ 'T‘I'N'll \‘mn vnu, .-.- .v V‘ III II \' .1 . [I'llTll hlfll‘l'Tl'l I‘lN'l‘TUT r‘VN‘iT" I'll" '4"I"lll'l ... ‘ llm/ul'.‘ I ‘ M'Wflufl | { "Hi/\rflt ' Illlu||l"«' In lIAn, c l1 Hill! 1’5? '3'“) 1...“- 1 "NA"?! ‘l 11"511" \ I Y [HA I‘1 'I Place of the educational directorate. "INLET: 1711:." 7 'll'V\‘lN(vAl lirl'h‘l‘f‘V AHMN, l'lllk‘" ..J 11 III. The Problem and Its Description As indicated above, Turkey has a long history of attempts to improve education. The most significant and drastic changes in educa- tion and in the organization of education took place following the Turkish Revolution after the First World War. But it is also true that the modern educational system in Turkey displays several aspects in- herited from the nineteenth century. The inherited characteristics are most apparent within the areas of educational organization and adminis- tration. There have been several studies or reports in Turkish educational literature to illustrate needs for reorganization or improvement of the Ministry of Education. Among the important studies are reports of the National Education Commission in 1959, the Seventh Convention of the National Education Council in 1962, and the Mediterranean Regional Project in 1965. Also some of the suggestions in the 1967 and 1968 Budget Reports of the Ministry of Education concerned the organization and organizational law of the Ministry. The 1967 Budget Report suggested that: The organizational Law of the Ministry should be reviewed accord- ing to scientific principles and a new draft should be prepared, and it shggld be sent to the Grand National Assembly as soon as possible. The 1968 Report suggested: IOMilli Egitim Bakanligi, Milli Egitim Bakanligi, 1967 Yili Butce Gerekcesi Hakkinda Rapor, Milli Egitim Basimevi, Ankara, 1967, p. 97. 12 It is obvious that it is impossible to carry out today's serv- ices with a law which was passed 34 years ago, on July 10, 1933. This law almost a half century old should be changed by another law which is prepared according to today's needs and condi- tions.11 Yet there has been no systematic policy for reorganization nor any implementation of the suggestions of the above reports and similar studies. Also, it is interesting and important to note that almost none of these reports and studies has stressed seriously the necessity for provincial and local organizational adjustments in education. Only the First Five Year Plan and the Second Five Year Plan pointed out the need for organizational improvement as pertaining to different areas of the governmental services. For instance, the Second Five Year Plan12 refers to the need for "reorganization of the central and local administrative units" and "making them fit the needs of today in terms of structure and organization." The Ministry of Education in Turkey is highly centralized, and it is the axis of the educational system (see Figure 1.2 below). All regulations and rules are fixed and ordered by the central ministry. But of course all of the orders and practices are to be carried out at the provincial and local levels. Moreover, while the numbers of general directorates and other divisions and branches have increased within the central organization, lIMilli Egitim Bakanlig, Milli Egitim Bakanlig, 1968 Yili Butce Gerekcesi Hakkinda Rapor, Milli Egitim Basimevi, Ankara, 1968, p. 44. lzTurkiye Is Bankasi, Kalkinma Plani, Ikinci Bes v11 (1968-1972): Ozet, Dogue Limited Sirketi Matbaasi, Ankara, 1969, p. 345. 13 .coppmuaum .mcoppmz .o Agum.:.z mo :o.um~.cmm.o .N. . mgzmwm 31F:a.§1».£ .5..1,1.._. .u %‘ Oat-E. .33 ...”.‘Oé £5! 31‘ EH ...-“Ll“. .§._MI..1.1h4lhfl1nvP—M ...-“H32 {how .6...“ - Ew. «.E<.I.......h< .Iiu jui:§Ifl 3380!: graffiti lung «int-"1} fl 14 I zo..een able to keep up with changes to meet the increasing needs and de— ITIaHdS for educational services. According to the Second Five Year Plan, formal education in ‘T‘urkey is analyzed in terms of four categories. These categories are E3asic Education (pre—school and primary levels), Secondary Education (:first cycle), Secondary Education (second cycle), and Higher Education.13 According to the Law of Provincial Administration and Item One of t:he regulations concerning directors of education, the Director is the 1166d of the provincial education branch of the central government (specifically, he is the head of the provincial organization of the Ministry of Education). Thus, the Directorates of Education in Turkey's 67 provinces are sub-organizations and representative agent of the Ministry of Education. The regulations mentioned above also state that, "excluding the higher schools and those institutions which are con- nected directly with the Ministry of Education," all educational activi— ties are under the administration and supervision of the Director of Education.14 This means in practice that among the four educational 13Turkiye Is Bankasi, Kalkinma Plani: Ozet, Ankara, 1969, P- 75° 14 Muazzez Yucel, Muhlis Yucel, Milli Egitimle Ilgili Yonet- melikler, Cilt 2, Matbaa Temnisyenleri Basimevi, Istanbul, 1963, p. 140. 15 ‘levels only primary education is the main responsibility of the pro« \Iincial Directorates of Education. According to the regulations, the main divisions of the Direc- t:orate of Education are the cultural (having to do with academic and czultural matters), personnel, and finance divisions (see Figure 1.3 t>elow). One assistant director is in charge of each division, but his (juties, rights, and responsibilities are not specifically stated. 15 {\ssistant directors do "what the directors want them to do". The riumbers of divisions and sub-divisions and the numbers of assistant (jirectors can be increased according to the needs.16 For instance, vvhile in the province of Corum the Directorate of Education has two ciivisions and two assistant directors, at the Directorate of Education in Ankara there are 17 divisions (see Figure 1.4 below). In addition to the Assistant Directors, there are supervisors of elementary education, heads of adult education, and other technical personnel to carry out jobs which are given by the Director according to the regulations (Items 2 and 8 of the Regulations). Often, however, the head of adult education in the provinces has a somewhat different position. Though he is considered as one of the assistant directors in his rank and status, he works under a different set of regulations. In some cases he has additional facilities, such as a separate office building and additional equipment, which tend to give him more power than the other assistant directors. In some instances, he may have even 15Yuce1, ibid., p. 140. I6Yuce1, ibid., p. 141. ...... .MWMW. .-.... lll‘I A883. DIV YO” 16 ‘111N-1 AKH -1I"111 ‘ n! “'1 ”1111 31111.1.1 in l I'l't .\1111‘ 11111 P 1'1 111,\'I‘1:n1 Plum/11111111 L. 1..) SDI’CATW AND "ammo NEASIIIEMW {THINBTFATM LL ...... i ...... 4 F- 1-1 ADULT ID. 110cm?» IIIAL‘NI um mow H. PM. to J {atom-1011111.. mu 1 {111 “since so, SUPERVIS'ON ] F FBOIAWII 31.8“. SD WITH?“ 0011111111311" 1m. I (...... .... l L—mewsnm % OFFICFC . WHIIK J Figure 1.3. ‘ - w—n- ...-u...» av“. vfl "-—_ J FM 1'!) Hl‘l'!-."Vl'5()"5 ____) numm: or A313. 0111,7011 1111111.? no 11111130111131. ~— can!" run 111mm I'INSONNBI "'—' neconna )M "‘ mach Ct M 1111111111011 unm- as“. 11111 . r011 accum rmAth. _,mvum1vrnu .4 AP mnem- Po #— momenta bun—i4 TRANSFERS "lung-'- 1.... mellow-1m __ “1.111111 F "WWW!" row 11:111.? ....1 cacao ..l nun. um- I - P loncrrlomu. mamas row LIAVl-t r—f CONSTWCTION nuuncn ”m ‘ T 01110. cum. NIPA Inn-1011 ] PTYI'CHABIOO I GENERAL 301001. J EXPENSCS TIN-3 OTlll-‘J' EXPPNM‘S l-‘IWNITIOIOH AV!" ' 1-‘Ix'r11111-‘s THANSAF, . kl”! I Divisions and duties of Directorate of Education. TH” 4"(1ANILA'I'I'N I'IIAII'I‘ HY lllIll I‘Wl' A I'll Ill l‘|||'(‘A I‘IlN 'N ANKAI'A 6| 1 mm" ”‘12 1 11111131011. savanna |-—— 1%. Figure 1.4. Organization of Directorate of Education in Ankara. 18 rnc>re power than the director, because adult education has, for the last ten years, tended sometimes to occupy a special position--peculiar in terms of both its organization and methods. Organizationally adult ezchJcation has become a part of two different ministries, the Ministry c11F' Village Affairs and the Ministry of Education, and it functions \réa:r~iously either as a part of several different departments or of a specific department within the Ministry of Education. Mainly, however, adult education at the provincial level has remained within the pro- v'i rwcial Directorate of Education. After examining the rules and regulations concerning the author- i‘tgy and responsibilities of the Director of Education, we see that the D'il"ector of Education is under the General Directorate of Personnel of ‘tIWGB Ministry of Education, and he is also under the General Directorate (3f: l’rimary Education; but he also serves--at least in terms of daily ‘"(>Lrtine and in terms of nearly all aspects of education--all other General Directorates. At the same time the Director is responsible, fri r‘st and foremost, to the Governor of the province, who is under the 14; riistry of Interior (see Figure 1.5). MOE: Ministry of Education MOI: Ministry of Interior G: Governor DE: Director of Education Flgure 1.5. The place of the Directorate of Education in its organiza- tional setting. 19 Two other facts should be mentioned here. One is the situation (31’ the MOYS (Ministry of Youth and Sport), and the other is the situa- t;i on of the UOCA (Undersecretariat of Cultural Affairs), concerning 1:!1eeir working relations with the provincial Directorate of Education. F’i rst of all, though there was not any evidence gathered or study made wlrl'ich established the necessity of separating the Ministry of Youth exrwcd Sport and the Undersecretariate of Cultural Affairs from the Pli rjistry of Education, nevertheless various responsibilities and author- i t;)/ were transferred from the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of ‘!c>L1th and Sport (1969) and to the Ministry of Cultural Affairs (1970), aarici the Ministry of Cultural Affairs became the undersecretariat of (Ital tural Affairs (1972) under the Prime Minister. More important for (3L‘Y‘ purpose is the fact that the main responsibilities and duties which these new organizations (MOYS and UOCA) carry out at the provincial 1eVel remain even so in the hands of the Directors of Education. But i"5‘53"“ concerning the types of duties and responsibilities for sport, 'yc’LITZh, and cultural affairs are stated in the regulations of the MOYS a'1(1 UOCA (see Figure 1.6). MOE: Ministry of Education MOI: Ministry of Interior UOCA: Undersecretariate of Cultural Affairs MOYS: Ministry of Youth and Sports G: Governor DE: Directorate of Education F1gure 1.6. The place of the Directorate of Education in organizational setting. 20 When we think of the present working situation, the answer seems t:c> be ”yes", but when we consider organizational and legal aspects, tzfme answer may very well be "no". This situation illustrates that the F>r~ovincia1 organization of education may in reality be responsible to :3 t; least three or four ministries at one and the same time. However, ss'i nce several organizational questions cannot at this point be con- ss‘icdered very clear, we shall withhold further comment on the above cletestion until later in the study. Figure 1.7 below illustrates the three official administrative di visions within the Directorates. However, when we check Figure 1.8, c>r1 the following page, which was prepared by putting together Items 2 -8, and 14 from the Regulations of the Directorates of Education, we $98 that the division of labor in these organizations does not neces- ESEir‘ily fit the administrative divisions' names or functions. ‘53 DE: Directorate of Education CD: Cultural Division PO: Personnel Division FD: Finance Division ®@@ F iQure 1.7. Administrative Division of the Directorate of Education. 21 DE: Director of Education AD: Assistant Directors SEE: Supervisors of Elementary Education HAE: Head of Adult Education IHE: Inspector of Health in Education TP: Technical Personnel (Construction Technicians and others) PCP: Permanent Council of Province (Consists of elected members of the General Council of the FT'i gure 1.8. Personnel of the province and the division Directorate of directors.) Education. It is clear that there is at least an important task of coordina- t;i<3n for the Director, and because of his having quite limited antrthority, his having very little flexibility, and his having a very ‘liir“ge number of tasks to accomplish, one may wonder if and how his task (3f: coordination may be done, or if it can be done at all. A comparison of Figure 1.7 with Figure 1.8 also shows that new "Eifiads have appeared and that some new jobs and personnel are needed. Eillt: it is not true that organizational structures or administrative me1thods of doing things have correspondingly been altered, improved, or e"Gan examined. For instance, in 1966 there were 1,536 new primary s":hools added to the existing ones. Additions of new primary schools “Ere continued, and in 1971, for instanCe, the number of additions was 1(368. Yet it is very doubtful that the directorates have been made COrrespondingly stronger or more efficient in order to carry out their increasing number of tasks. When we add the increasing numbers of Other institutions, educational services, and activities such as 22 £3)rates of Education in our provinces with a view to seeing how their c>r>erations may be made more effective. This analysis needs to be done 23'] so because, in addition to elementary education, the Directorates Fiza‘ve to do several bureaucratic tasks for the secondary educational i r1:stitutions. In fact, as we shall see, the major part of the direc- tors' time is occupied by these kinds of regulatory and routine jobs. T’rwea need exists even if we do not take into account the amount of work t:f1£3y do for other ministries, such as the Ministry of Youth and Sport airmcj the Undersecretariat of Cultural Affairs. If one attempts to diagram the financial responsibilities of the Dilcector (see Figure 1.9, on the following page), it is clear that the Director has ties with several different officers and institutions, but urIderthe existing regulations, he does not have enough flexibility to EiCITL effectively. Even if he were granted more flexibility, still he "Tifiaht not be able to operationalize his ideas, since there is also a ShOrtage of construction technicians and a lack of modern office equip- rneirlt and skilled office personnel, and even if there were construction It‘3<;hnicians or engineers available, they would probably be located a"Ilrninistratively in the Construction Branch of the provincial govern- r“ent. It is quite difficult to get such trained personnel for the D1 rector of Education. Educational Directorates are vital organs in terms of carrying Out the educational services of the country, but they seem to be mainly functioning as bureaucratic channels of communication for the central 23 I I \ ’ ,l I \ I I >/’ / ’ I / / \ / , 2‘ I ” I \ ‘\ I I I [‘1‘ I I \ I \ I I 1’ 3‘\ I . ’ < I I \ I - ’ ) I ‘I‘F’ I I I ‘\ , I I ‘f‘ o I I ‘ -..--- --\ I a MOE : Ministry of Education 00 : Other Organizations F’(3 : Provincial Council D M: Municipality 14:;E3 : Director of the Special Administration Budget of the Province Ii: Ministry of Interior (5 : Governor nggtz : Director of Education F=EE : Assistant Directors of Education E): Financial Directorate [3‘3 : Directorate of Construction 3(3) : Schools Other educational institutions and activities. Figure 1.9. Relations of the Director of Education in financial matters. 0"Qal'iization. This appears to result from efforts to meet the necessi- ties of the present Public Law No. 5442. According to this law, all Qt““Inunication between the central, provincial, and local organizations 24 has to flow through the governor's office. This means the governor is the person who has the final decision-making power and authority in the province. Planning activities in education also tend to reach the provinces via much bureaucratic filling out of forms. Moreover, reports from the provinces tend to be only reworked versions of reports. They do r1c>t often reflect functional changes or innovative improvements in facilities and methods. Obviously it takes time to achieve organizational changes. Fur damental changes involve the human element as well as structural i terns and customary ways of doing things. For instance, procedures for appointment of a Director of Education, procedures for providing admi nistrative training, and procedures for dismissal are different in T”Y‘key from many parts of the world. Any secondary school teacher, or any primary school supervisor, or any secondary school principal may be appointed a Director of Education by the Ministry of Education. He has to have a diploma from a higher teacher training school with the necessary teaching certificate; but in connection with the appoint- ment of a Director of Education, there is a widely accepted notion amohg Turkish teachers and administrators that it is the experience wh‘i Ch “makes" the administrators in education.17 This means adminis- tra tors learn their jobs by trial and error. The educators usually say, \ Ed 17Ziya Bursalioglu, "The Need for Reorganization in the Turkish ,1 Ll(lational System". £11: The Turkish Administrator, A Cultural Survey, QY‘Y‘y R. Hopper and Richard I. Levin, eds., USAID, Ankara, l968, p. 252. 25 fiyou don't learn to be a good administrator from books" and, in ggeneral, they talk about and rely on "their years of experience".18 15¢) the Directors of Education in Turkey learn their jobs while they zirce working as Directors. In many cases, they may have had some previ- C)lJS experiences in some kind of educational administration, such as a F>r~incipalship or assistant directorate, but it is also possible for c>r1e to be appointed as a Director without any administrative experience. ll‘1:so, in terms of the transfer or dismissal of a Director, the authority r“€2:sts in the hands of the Ministry of Education. Directors do not have ;i<)t: security, as teachers or primary education supervisors do. Success in the process of improvement in education cannot be aChieved without working on questions of administrative and organization- 31 improvement.” We should also keep in mind that the needs of any (3C>l1rwtry cannot be met by having institutional changes alone, especially i‘1: ()ur goal is to create functional institutions. There is, and has to t)‘3 s a human concern. Then there are the developmental conditions, .IE3\I£als, and requirements of the country to which education as a whole shQuld be adjusted continuously. The structure and other aspects of edlltzation should be compatible with the needs of the country and its 162Veal and speed of development. As Coombs20 pointed out, these aspects \ i 18Arif Payaslioglu, "Some Common Misconceptions on Administration r1 1‘urkey", in Hopper and Lewin, ibid., p. 291. ‘1 19UNESCO, Economic Commission for Latin America, Education, Human ~T§E§£1urces and Development in Latin America, United Nations, New York, 968. p. 203. A 20Philip H. Coombs, The World Educational Crisis, A System “Bl sis, Oxford Press, New York, 1968, p. lZl.> 26 usually have adjusted very slowly to the other events and improvements around them. In addition, there is an inertia within education itself, especially in the managerial arrangements in education, which are very often inadequate. Coombs adds that: Unless educational systems are well equipped with appropriately trained modern managers the transition of education from its semi—handicraft state to a modern conditions is not likely to happen.21 On the other hand, the managerial or organizational adjustments cannot be functional if they do not take local units into consideration. Adjustments is not a job only for the central body. As Byrnezz sug- ge$ted, in translating any law or regulation into practice in education, local school authorities are the vital agents, and only when we treat the districts in a mature fashion will the results be a mature outcome. Broad general goals become operational goals at lower levels or in the sUbdivisions of the organization.23 Under these circumstances, the Governor, the Director and his ass ‘i stants are the main wheels on which the organizational machinery of the Directorate of Education operates and on which the functions are Carried out. One should be curious as to how these three key elements De”Form and how they see their roles in this organizational setting. \ 211bid., p. l68. G. 22T. C. Byrne, "Trends and Issues in Canadian Education." _ Agoijge Baron, Dan H. Cooper, and William G. Walker (eds.), Educational Wistration: International Perspectives, Ran McNally, Chicago, 69, pp. 33 and 51. 23Daniel Katz and Roberts L. Khan, The Social Psychology of 0\‘r‘sanizations, John Wiley and Sons, New York, l966, p. 267. In: 27 In addition, one wonders how the Governor, the Director, and his assis- 'tants perceive each other's roles, and it should be beneficial to learn vuhich problems they perceive in their jobs. An organization, simple c>r complex, has always been "an impersonal system of coordinated human efforts".24 Most of the events in an education system cannot be under- s; tood and dealt with separately from their organizations and power structures.25 Actually the need for a reorganization in the central, provincial éir1Ci local organization of education has already been felt, and plans ’TEi\Ie been projected in the Strategy of National Education Reform, 6 and i TI the program of reforms of the Ministry of Education.27 The present Study aims to examine the existing roles of these three key elements: tlfita~ Governors, the Directors, and the Assistant Directors of the organi- iiiifitzion of education in the provinces of Turkey. The research aims to C1C>I1'tribute an important service to the development of education in TLIll"key. \ 24A. R. Crane, "Innovation and Strategies of Changes for the Prep— €;"i3>tion of Educational Administrators--An Application to Australia", in a"‘on, Cooper, and Walker, op. cit., p. 250. I 25William G. Scott, Human Relations in Management, Richard D. "VViru Inc., Homewood, Ill., 1962, p. 104. 1. 26Milli Egitim Bakanlig, Milli Egitim Reformu Stratejisi, Talim ve E3"‘biye Dairesi Baskanligi, Ankara, Eylul, 1972, pp. IX-X and 26. . 27Milli Egitim Bakanligi, Reformu Subcommittees: A Summary Report $E:;.;[heir Activities and Terms of Reference, Planlama Arastirma ve OOPdinasyon Dairesi, Ankara, 1971 (published in mimeograph form), pp. 6~8o 28 IV. Objectives of the Study This study will try to focus on answering the following ques- tions: l. 3. 4. What are the characteristics of the Governors, Directors and Assistant Directors of education, in terms of age, academic background (type of institution from which they graduated, type of education they have, their skill in using a foreign language), experience in administration, and salary? . What are the role perceptions and expectations of the Govern- ors, Directors and Assistant Directors of education, for themselves and for members of the other two sampling groups? (a) What do they think that their own duties and the duties of the other two groups are at present (perception)? (b) What do they think that their own duties and the duties of the other two groups ought to be (expectations)? (c) What are the convergences and divergences between and among the three groups of research subjects, in terms of role perceptions and expectations, for themselves and for the others? What are some of the important problems perceived by Governors, Directors and Assistant Directors of education in their work? What suggestions are made by the sampling groups of Governors, Directors and Assistant Directors of education for improving the organizational structure of education in the provinces? 29 V. Summary Since 1848, there have been various organizational changes in 1Furkish Education. But the most drastic ones have taken place after izhe establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923. For instance, in 1931 the provinces became the basic political zirxleducational units; and since 1949 each ministry has had a branch i rieach of the provinces. Now, “Milli Egitim Mudurlugu“ (The Direc- 1:<)rate of Education) is the representative unit of the Ministry of EEciucation in the province. The Director of Education is the head of t:f1e2 Directorate, but the Governor is the chief executive of the F>r‘<)vince, with authority given by Public Law No. 5442. The Directorate of Education basically has cultural, personnel Eir1<3 finance divisions, but the number may vary according to the needs of: the province. The various studies and reports concerning organizational de— "€3‘1<3pment in Turkish education have dealt almost exclusively with the (:EE'W‘tral organization of the Ministry of Education, rather than pro- Vi rIcial and local organizations. This study is an exploratory work wh‘ich deals with the roles and problems of the Governors, Directors Ei"<1 Assistant Directors of Education, in 28 provinces of Turkey. The "‘Ei‘iri objectives of this study are as follows: 1) To find out some of the characteristics of the Governors, Directors, and Assistant Directors of Education. 2) To find out the role perceptions and expectations of these three sampling groups and point out the convergences and divergences between and within the groups. 3O 3) To find out some of the problems of the Governors, Directors, and Assistant Directors in their work. 4) To get suggestions from these three groups for improving the educational structure of education in the provinces. CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH I ntroduction There has been a considerable amount of research in the business domain concerning organizational analysis, role concepts, and role COnflict. Education, however, has only relatively recently begun to conduct its own studies similar to studies in business, industry, and SOC. iology. This may be a matter of survival for education. If educa- tor‘s do not carry out their own research, people from other disciplines 0U tside of education may begin doing something about the organizational as pects of education. First of all, it has taken a considerable amount of time for educators to accept educational organizations as "organizations", in a Sense similar to other social institutions. The last decade has Ni tnessed the beginnings of work on educational institutions. There are many tools and methods which education can usefully borrow from the other disciplines. Industry and business administration, sociology, and social psychology have made considerable contributions to organiza- tional analysis. During recent Years, personnel performance, percep- tiOl'is, and role expectations have occupied much attention. 3T 32 I. Role Theory Scott considers role as a “set of social pressures which direct 1 and support an individual in the action he takes in an organizat1on.” For Coutu also, it is "a socially prescribed way of behaving in particu- lar situations for any person occupying a given social position or status."2 Gerard3 points out that role is a highly personalized matter because an individual evaluates his role according to his expectations. Levinson,4 on the other hand, adds that the thoughts and actions of the indi vidual are influenced by the society with its socially patterned demand on the role concept. This point of view especially stresses the P81 ationship between the individual and his role expectations. A role, Se] znick5 points out, is a set of behaviors, and one is expected to act according to it in a particular situation; and therefore the role sets a 1 imit on the types of expressions in any given situation. Others also have illustrated the importance of role-theory and the influence of any activity of others in one's job, or in his da1ly \‘_ I 1William G. Scott, Human Relations in Management, Richard D. “Win, Inc., Homewood, Ill., 1962, p. 104. 2Walter Coutu, "Role Playing Versus Role Taking: An Appeal for ' 1951, p. 180. C] arification," American Sociological Review, April, G 3Harold B. Gerard, "Some Effects of Status, Role Clarity, and Group Goal Clarity Upon the Individual' 5 Relations to Group Process,“ &rna1 of Personality (22), 1956- 1957. 4Daniel J. Levinson, "Role, Personality, and Social Structure in 1he Organizational Setting,“ Journal of Abnormal Psychology, March, 959. pp. 105 and 170. 5Philip Selznick, Leadership in Administration, Row, Peterson, Evanston, Ill. ..1957 p. 4. 33 life. For this reason each role requires different types of behavior. All activities of managers and employees are guided by their perceptions of role. Research illustrates that, “where there is wide variance in a rnanagers' role perception of his job, there tends to be poor motiva- ti<)n and inefficiency."6 According to Goffman, in any organization, thee “actors may formally carry out their roles, but there is possibly 7 antatflier set of roles performed backstage." One's role may not be only Uni?» but multiple. One's "obvious" role which he is performing is ca] led a “manifest role", and the other roles are called the ”latent r0195". Owens established a vocabulary concerning role theory. He defines the main items as follows: 1. Role: The various offices or positions in any organization which carry with them certain expectations of behavior held by both onlookers and by the person occupying the role. 2. Role description: This refers to the actual behavior of an individual performing a role, or more accurately, to a report stemming from one individual's perception of that behavior. 3. Role prescription: This is the relatively abstract idea of what the general form in the culture is for the role. 4. Role expectation: This refers to the expectation that one person has of the role behavior of another. 5. Role perception: This is used to describe the perception that one has of the role expectation that another person holds for him. \L\\\\\4Ai 14:: 6Keith Davis, Human Relations at Work, McGraw-Hill Series in h‘agement, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1962, pp. 40-42, I) 7Ervihg Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, C"Jbleday and Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1959, p. 58. 8Robert G. Owens, Organizational Behavior in Schools, Prentice- Hal], Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1970, p. 71. 34 Jacobson and his associates have also dealt with the concept of role. For them: 1. Role: A set of expectations which others share of the behavior an individual will exhibit as an occupant of a position, or status category. 2. Role behavior: A pattern of behavior exhibited by an indi« vidual as the occupant of a position or status category.9 These expectations and behaviors for them have two components. These are social and personal roles 1. Social role: A set of expectations which others share of the behavior associated with a position, without respect to the characteristics of the person who occupies the position. 2. Personal role: A set of expectations which others share of an individual's behavior in a position, without respect to the social role. Davis10 states that role is the social position which an indi— Vi dual occupies in any activity involving others. Of course a person Funcrtions in roles both on the job and away from the job. In addition, each role calls for different behaviors and two roles may come into Conflict. Gross and his associates defined role as a set of expectations, (3" ia.set of evaluative standards applied to an incumbent of a particular Dc)S‘n’tion. They also established a set of definitions pertaining to "(Vie behaviors their attributes and their sectors. \ “Th 9Eugene Jacobson, W. W. Charters Jr. and Seymour Lieberman. 1. e Use of the Role Concept in the Study of Complex Organizations," \h\eJournal of Social Issues, 7, 3, 1951, p. 19. 10Davis, op. cit., p. 35. 35 1. A role behavior is an actual performance of an incumbent of a position which can be referred to an expectation for an incumbent of that position. 2. A role attribute is an actual quality of an incumbent of a position which can be referred to an expectation for an incumbent of that position. 3. A role behavior sector is a set of actual behaviors which can be referred to a set of expectations for behaviors applied to the relationship of a focal position to a single counter position. 4. A role attribute sector is a set of actual attributes which can be referred to a set of expectations for behavior applied to the relationship of a focal position to a single counter position.H Gross and his associates12 identified different degrees of con— SGNSUS within samples of school board members and superintendents on di 12ferent role segments and their items. In addition, homogeneity of a s(:hool board on attitudes about educational progressivism had no effecfi on the consensus within the board on role definition. 13 state that the concepts of status and Brookover and Gottlieb r‘o]e are not separable in social phenomena. For this reason, they used th'Sise two concepts as one: status-role. Expectations may also apply ‘t(3 ‘the person occupying that position. In addition, Brookover and Golltlieb pointed out the relationships among the concepts of role, role De3““ception, actor, status, office, and self-involvement. According to T“-~__ E: nNeal Gross, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander W. McEachen, 733$£119rations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendency ‘~53;15§, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1966, pp. 60-64. 121pm.. pp. 161 and 185. S 13Wilbur B. Brookover and D. Gottlieb, A Sociology of Education, eCond Edition, American Book Company, 1964, pp. 322—323. 36 them, the concept of role may be divided into seven elements as follows: 1. Actor's personality brought to situation (previous experience, needs, and so on). . Self-involvement--actor's image of the ends anticipated from participation in the status. . Actor's perception of what he thinks others expect of him in a specific role. . Behavior in interaction with others in which perception and role are continually redefined. . Role--other's expectations of actor's personality, the in- cumbent in a specific position. . Office--other's expectations of any actor in a particular situation. . Other's expectation of any actor in a broadly defined posi- tion. It is quite possible that different persons or groups may have di 1:f‘erent or incompatible expectations for an actor or actors. When the expectations of the actor are incompatible with the expectations of 'Significant others," Brookover and Gottlieb 14 call this situation . r‘O‘le conflict". Brookover again pointed out later that "a role occupant acquires a Self concept relevant to the particular role through interaction with he 1 evant others. \ \ "15 14Ibid., p. 344. —— ‘5Wilbur B. Brookover, "Student Role and Academic Concept." i: rDinar in Sociology of Education at Michigan State University, East rlsing, Michigan, 1970. (Seminar notes reproduced in mimeograph form, ~ 10.) 37 16 also noted the importance of status and role. For him, Scott Every status has a role, status and role have an inseparable nature. and every role has a status. The concept of role is a complex and personalized one. It is based on how the individual sees what the role expuacts of him and on the individual's evaluation of his actions in terTns of these expectations. In any case, as Gross and his associates17 pointed out, most of the differences in the definitions above are semantic differences. Tr"? same concepts are often given different names. For instance, Liticiton's and Newcomb's idea of "role" is used as ”status" by Davis; 3r": [Davis's role definition becomes role behavior for Newcomb, and the same concept of role behavior is used as role enactment by Sarbin. Gross and his associates also add that there are some other elements ”“1 Ch are necessary to include in theoretical explanations of role a(“alysis These elements are social locations, expectation, and be- haV‘i or, and they are quite common in different definitions of role. According to Hall, Johnson and Haas: 1. When people change to new positions, the attitudes and per- ceptions they operate with are in part a "carry-over” from their old role. 2. People's experience in earlier positions provides a frame of reference for their adapting to new role expectations.18 \ 16Scott, op. cit., p. 104. 17Gross it al., op. cit., pp. 12-18. uc) 18Richard H. Hall, Norman J. Johnson, and J. Eugene Haas, V‘ganizational Size, Complexity, and Formalization," American Socio- W, 32, 6 (December 1967), p. 911. 38 Khan and Wolf19 are also concerned with "role conflict" in organi- zations. They showed several factors which are involved in this con- flict, including tension, dissatisfaction with the job, distrust and or disrespect into their relations with the others on the job, and lack of corrfidence in the organization. They also support the idea that any granp which stays together for a certain time develops some "conflict triiFJS" in which all new problems may fall. But they also added that, If! [)ractice, "the cropping up ... of these unsolved conflicts" should not be feared, because they may help with solving the problems. Caplow maintained that every conflict in organizations involves SOme external goal, and when two sides become aware of each other's 9X1. Stence some degree of hostility develops between them. Along this l‘i'TEE, he offered some "propositions" as follows: 1. Rules are ordinarily promulgated by one group to control the behavior of another group in the presence of a conflict of interests. 2. Rules cannot be enforced unless they have been accepted by the subjects. 3. Acceptance of new rules depends to a large extent on how they have been formulated and introduced, and particularly on whether or not the subjects participated in the formulation. 4. Any set of rules that requires enforcement by outsiders pro- vokes systematic evasion. 5. The routine enforcement of rules consists of maintaining an existing level of partial compliance. \ 19Robert L. Khan and Elise Boulding (Eds. ), Power and Conflict in %~E£lanizations, Basic Books Inc. , Publishers, New York, 1964, pp. 147 156. \1 20Theodore Caplow, Principles of Organization, Harcourt, Brace and erd, Inc., New York, 1964, pp. 250 and 318. 39 Dalton'sZ] research in three different industrial plants showed that different functioning groups were in a general conflict system, and that the struggles between line and staff organizations were related to: 1. Functional differences between the two groups. 2. Differences in formal education, potential occupational limits, and status group affiliations of the members in two groups. 3. The staff group's need to justify its existence. 4. Fear of the line group of the research activities of the staff group. 5. Gaining a higher office for the staff only by the approval of influential line executives. 6. When rule evasion has been systematized, there will ordinarily be collaboration between those charged with enforcement of the role and those responsible for its evasion, in an effort to maintain the status quo. Dalton22 also pointed out that dealing with rules and conflicts ”"EEY‘e very important items in identifying personality. He called those executives weak who were very much rule-bound, and those executives Siili‘ong if they were rule-creative. He identified some types of indi- \'i ciual executives as flexible-inflexible, rule-bound vs. rule-creative, subniissive-dominant, enterpreneurial-bureaucratic, and compliant-evasive. \ E) 2lMelville Dalton, "Conflict Between Staff and Line Managerial 1:r‘ft‘icers,“ American Sociological Review, 15 (1950) pp. 342-351. 22Dalton, "Managing the Managers", Human Organizations, 14, 3 “an, 1955), pp. 4-10. 40 As Levinston23 put it, no relationship is free of hostility. But the important aspect of it is that when this hostility is rela- tively controlled, it can serve constructive purposes. Of course, exterW1al conditions around the organizations are also important in creai:ing a specific type of organization. Lawrence and Lorsch24 sup- POrt “the idea that different external conditions require, not only diffkarent organizational characteristics, but also different behavior Patterns within the organization. They add that if an organization is mOY‘e'differentiateth is more difficult to resolve conflicts in it. Margl111es and Raia25 believe that the levels of interpersonal support, tI‘LISi: and cooperation in most organizations are lower than necessary. Gross, Mason and McEacherh26 report in their study of the super- intendency role that the main conflicts were caused by outside groups. Thfiiir~ study has been an important contribution to role theory in edu- cat‘ional administration. They limited their study to the public school s3’53tems in one state in the United States; namely, Massachusetts. GFOSS and his associates studied degrees of consensus among the school board members and among superintendents, and between the superintendents \ Iri~ 23Harry Levinston, "A Psychologist Looks at Executive Development." -~~ Lawrence and Greiner Dalton (eds.), Organizational Change and EE%353122922%2 Richard D. Irwin, Inc., and The Dorsey Press, Homewood, 1no1s, 970, p. 267. R‘ 24Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch, Organization and Environment, lshard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois, 1969, pp. 14 and 108. V 25Newton Margulies and Anthony P. Raia, Organizational Development: ~§§§%§s, Process, and Technology, McGraw-Hill Bock Company, New York, , p. 34. 26Gross $511., op. pig, pp. 258-274. 41 and the boards. There was greater agreement among the superintendents than among the members of the boards. They supported the idea that profiassional training of the school superintendents was the main factor whicfi produced this result. The size of the board and the school sys- tem was also related to the interposition consensus of the superinten— dents. Seeman27 showed in his study, of the superintendency, that super- interujents who were less mobile seemed in favor of maintaining the stathS quo. Seeman28 also demonstrated that superintendents were quite 1n favor of hierarchical distance when conflicts arose in relation "It?! the lower echelon. In terms of the relationship between mobility and ‘the status quo, Carlson29 reported similar findings to those of seennaIVs. In addition, both showed that recruitment and other career factors influenced the superintendents' performances. Carlson also d"St‘inguished two career-line characteristics of superintendents as p] aCe-bound and career-bound. Halpin's30 study in Ohio illustrates that among the superinten- dents, school board members, and their staff, perceptions of actual \ 27M. Seeman, "Social Mobility and Administrative Behavior," New Sociological Review, 23 (1958), pp. 633-642. 28Seeman, "Role Conflict and Ambivalence in Leadership," EEESHCjcan Sociological Review, 18 (1953), pp. 373-380. i 29R. O. Carlson, "Succession and Performance Among School Super- r"tendents," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1961, pp. 210--27. R 30A. W. Lapin, in James G. March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, ahd McNally and Company, Chicago, 1965, p. 1002. 42 role behaviors were different from the pattern of expectations, and the findings were correlated with some other characteristics of the school systems, such as size. Getzels3] points out that while the authority of school adminis— trators is fundamentally based on rational-legal bases, teachers and technical staff are recruited on the basis of technical competence. He Suggests this difference in backgrounds between teachers and ad- ministrators causes opposition. Carlson32 reports that the actions of a Superintendent toward his principal, his teachers, and toward his central office staff are distinguishably different from one another. 11. Igrkish Studies In Turkey, until recent years, there has been no research which is directly related either to role theory or any other theory of orga nization in education. In general, studies in this field have been co"itzerned with changes within the central organization of the Ministry of Education, and most of these studies are official reports or sugges- ti CNS of some working groups, rather than research studies. The follow- i . . . ”9 are among the few documents wh1ch make reference to prov1nc1a1 0"Slanization. \ 0f 31d. W. Getzels, "A Psycho-Sociological Framework for the" Study Educational Administration," Harvard Education Review, 22 (1952), pp ~ 235-246. U . 32R. O. Carlson, Executive Succession and Organizational Change, nlversity of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1962, pp. 30-38. 43 "Yonetim Orguut Komitesi Raporu“33 (Report of the Commission for Administrative Organization), dealt only briefly with the Educa- tional Directorates. Another study,34 which was carried out by the Ministry of Education, illustrated some of the characteristics of the manpower in the provincial organization of education, as well as in the central organization. According to this study, an important amount of the personnel (31.15%) in the Educational Directorates were graduates 01‘ the pedagogy branches of the Educational Institutes. The ages of the personnel were mostly between 36 and 45. Some 29.87% of the total Parsonnel were between the ages of 36 and 40; 23.34% between 31 and 35; 1153% between 41 and 45, and the remaining ones were older than 45 years of age. Most recently, one of the reform groups, which were established in 1971 to deal with the reform activities in education, was designated the "Corrmittee for Reorganization of the Central, Pro— VinCi a1 and Local Organization of the Ministry of Education".35 The p"“ESent writer serves on this committee. Its studies were not com- meted by the end of 1972. 35 One of the reports of the State Planning Organization of Turkey \ “ x E . . 33T. C. Milli Egitim Bakanligi, Yonetim Orguut Raporu, VII. Milli g11:1m Suresi Dokumanlari, Milli Egitim Basimeve, Istanbul, 1961, p. 31. In 34Milli Egitim Bakanligi, Bilgesel, Yonetici—Isletmesi ve Teknik w, Test ve Arastirma Burosu, Ankara, 1965, pp. 20-21. B . 351. c. Milli Egitim Bakanligi, Egitim Reformu, Milli Egitim aSlmevi, Ankara, 1971, p. 72. D 36State Planning Organization, Turkish Education, Social Planning eDartment, Ankara, September 1969, p. 14 (unpublished report). 44 and UNESCO's Report for Turkey37 both explain "educational administra- tiori in the provinces" in the following way: Educational administration in the provinces is exercised mainly by the province Governor and the Director of Education who acts both as an adviser and as assistant executive. Because of the Centralized nature of the educational administration, their powers are rather limited, the main power resting with the Ministry of Education. Bursalioglu, in his recent book,38 points out that there is a surpn~ising imbalance between the powers and the responsibilities of the iJirectors of Education. They do not have even the legal security whi<:t1 elementary school teachers have. For instance, transfer or aPpointment of an elementary school teacher is done according to regu- 1ations and rules, but a Director of Education can be transferred or aPPOinted simply by an order. In addition, the Mediterranean Regional Project39 states that t("3 organization of the Ministry of Education seems to suffer from the fc’1‘lowing problems--which problems are also applicable to the provincial organization: 1. Delegation of authority is not clearly defined in practice. It is up to the Minister to decide how much authority shall be delegated to the lower levels. 37UNESCO, Turkey, December, 1969, p. 15 (unpublished report). D 38Doc. Dr. Ziya Bursalioglu, Okul Yonetiminde Yeni Yapi ve ~Yifliranis Ozellikleri, Ankara Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Yeyinlari, en1 Desen Maibaasi, Ankara, 1972, p. 71. 39OECD, The Mediterranean Regional Project, Turkey, OECD, Paris, 1965, pp. 100-101. 45 2. Throughout the system authority is not commensurate with responsibility. 3. Because the organization is heavily centralized, routine work and the decision making process usually take a long time. 4. There are no provisions to employ specialists in education. 5. People at the higher levels of hierarchy merely have the same experience as the people at the lower levels. 6. No serious research has been carried out to study the adminis- trative system and its deficiencies. 40 is the only finished study to date which Karagozoglu's study has (explored the area of role analysis in educational administration 1'1 TlJrkey. He observed that: 1. There is a convergence among supervisors' role expectations and teachers' role expectations. 2. There is a high divergence between teachers' role expectation for supervisors and teachers' perceptions of supervisors' role performance. 3. There is a high level of agreement within the groups of teachers and supervisors about their own roles and the roles of the other group. 4. Both groups were dissatisfied with the supervision system in Turkey. ‘ \ T 40A. Galip Karagozoglu, The Role of Ministry Supervisors in the T€¥1§§h Educational System, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 72. Unpub11shed Ph.D. d1ssertat1on. 46 The present study is another exploratory work in the area of role analysis in educational administration in Turkey. In addition, there 41’42 which were underway but had not yet been All four are two other studies completed in 1972, both of which also employed role analysis. of these studies were outgrowths of the National Education Research and Planning Project in Turkey (1968-1973). III. §ummarx Especially during recent years, there has been a considerable anuaurit of research in various disciplines concerning role theory. Education is also trying to keep up with the development. There is enough evidence that people, the "actors”, play different COltes in different situations; and most of the time, some of the Characteristics in their backgrounds, such as age, academic preparation, ""3t>ility of the job, the size and type of organization, and especially tJ‘E‘ perceptions and expectations of the ”significant others“ are closely related to one's behaviors and understanding of his own role and the re] es of the others. Divergences between or among the perceptions and/or expectations 01: V“oles cause role-conflicts, which are qut9 natural phenomena’ and \ 4lMustafa Aydin, Role Performance of Turkish Teacher Training $1301 Principals as Perceived by TTSTs (Turkish Teacher Training School ei‘i’dchers). TTSPs (Principals of these schools), and Ministry Inspectors3 MiChigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan (Research in progress . T 42Husnu Cila, Role Conflict of Elementary School Supervisors in urke , Teachers College, Columbia University, New York (Research in prOgress). 47 these conflicts can be used beneficially in various ways in organiza— tional development. The terminology in role theory varies among the authors, but very ofteri different terms are used for the same concepts. The concepts of statmzs and roles are also used differently. Some authors have dealt with ‘them separately, but others, such as Brookover and his associates, have- treated these two concepts in one inseparable term as status-role. This idea of "status-role" is related to one's interactions with "Sigriificant others." In Turkish literature, studies related to role theory and organi- Zatitanal analysis in education are very few. One of the studies has illidstrated that role perceptions and expectations of teachers regard- inSJ supervisors vary considerably from supervisors' perceptions of theEmselves. The other studies are mostly report-like studies and are concerned with the structure of the central organization of the Ministry of? E5ducation, rather than provincial and local organizations. The pr'eSent study is an exploratory work in analyzing roles of the provin- Ciiil Directorates of Education and the roles of the Governors, Di rectors, and Assistant Directors of Education. One's perceptions of one's own duties and of the duties of others 1" 'these groups are called role perceptions (who is performing a speci- 1 it: duty at present, or which duties are being carried out by whom now); 3r": perceptions of ideal duties, for themselves and others, are called Y“He expectations (who should be doing a specific duty, or which duties ShOuld be carried out by whom ideally). In addition to studying these 48 elements, this research also investigates some of the subjects' per« ceived problems and possible suggestions for the improvement of Educational Directorates. The outcomes of this research are intended for use in analyzing the provincial organization of education. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY 1- plr‘eliminary Research Activities As the first step in this study, the researcher conducted a Ir“5V‘iew of documents prepared by the Ministry of Education during dif- fer‘erit. times dealing with development of administration. These in- c] uded: John Dewey's report of his visit to Turkey as a consultant in 1924-, "Mekez Orgutu Raporu" (Report of the Central Organization, 1961); Suggestions in various staff papers; the work of the Reorganization CC"Tlrnittee of the Central Organization (1971); a survey made by the Method and Organization Bureau about duties transferable from the Cehtral organization of the provincial organization; Budgetary Reports of the Ministry of Education during various years; and the 1970 Seminar RePort of the Directors of Education. Secondly, all legal documents were examined: a) those functions and roles of the Governors, Directors, and Assistant Directors of Educa- ti on; b) the First and Second Development Plans; c) developmental Studies conducted within the Ministry of Interior, such as the Report 01> the Provincial and Local Administrations (1970); and d) other stud- i es, such as the "Mehtap Raporu" (the Research Project for the Organiza- ti on of the Central Government 1964) and the Report of the Higher Reform COmmission (1971). 49 50 Thirdly, the researcher engaged in a number of informal inter- VleWS and "friendly" discussions with people who had worked as pro- vincial administrators and with others who appeared to possess some theoretical knowledge in the field. 11. anstruction of the Instrument Two preliminary questionnaires (Appendix III- 1 and 2) were developed on the bases of information gathered from the above reviews, and these were administered to eight ex-governors in the Central 0r‘Qanization of the Ministry of Interior and to eight ex-Directors and "The Assistant Directors of Education at the Ministry of Education. The questionnaire consisted mainly of open-ended items. There were on Ly minor differences between the form given to the governors and the 1:OV‘WA given to the Directors and Assistant Directors (differences in the names of their former jobs, schools of graduation, etc.). After checking their answers, some further informal discussions we r‘e also held separately with two of the ex-Assistant Directors. These interviews concerned items in the preliminary questionnaires as We]] as problems of the provincial organization of education. 0n the basis of these results, a second preliminary questionnaire was developed. It consisted mainly of forced-choice questions and was reviewed, in teY‘ms of content, language and technique, by two experts from the Minis— try of Education's Planning, Research and Coordination Office, by one expert from the Ministry of Education's Organization and Methods Bureau, and by two professors (one from Ankara University's Faculty of Education a"1d one from Hacettepe University). The second preliminary questionnaire 51 was then administered to two other ex-Governors, three other ex- DlY‘eCtors, and three other ex-Assistant Directors of Education in Ankara. In the light of suggestions obtained from these preliminary trials, the questionnaire was revised again and put in final form. 1" ‘htiis way the final form of the questionnaire (Appendix III- 3 and 4) was developed. The final form is in four parts and consists mainly of forced- Cru31<2e questions. A space is provided at the end for further comments. Each part of the questionnaire contained the following information: Part One Background information on the subjects: (1) Personal and academic characteristics, such as age, last schools of graduation, branches, etc. (2) Professional characteristics in terms of experience, salary, mobility, and confidence for the future. Part Two Table of duties: (1) Which duties belong to which office(s) at present (percep- tions). (2) Which duties should belong to which office(s) ideally (expectations). The subjects among whom these duties are to be distributed are theGovernor, Director and Assistant Director of Education, and I"‘ispector of Elementary Education. 52 Part Three Problems: These are the problems which are reported to exist for Governors, Diremztors, and Assistant Directors of Education when they carry out their~jobs. Part Four Suggestions: (1) Some criteria for choosing the educational administrators at the provincial and local levels. (2) Approving or disapproving some of the suggestions made for changes within the Directorate of Education and within the Directorate of Elementary Education. (3) Approving or disapproving some of the changes in the Directorate of Education which are suggested as ”necessary”. An open space for "further comments" at the end of the main ques- tiOnnaire was provided. In addition, some of the higher administrators Wi thin the Ministry of Education had suggested that they would like to I"five some "practical implications“ added to the end of this research 1F<>lun. Since this study could be carried out only if these administrators S‘Upported it, some of the questions, which were "more practical", were Ei'] so inserted. I-I-I. Sampling Procedure There are 67 provinces in Turkey. Each province has one Governor alld one Director of Education. The numbers of Assistant Directors vary 'Trom province to province. For instance, there are 17 Assistant 53 Di"Ettors of Education in Istanbul, two in Usak, and only one in GiV‘eSum at present. There are three samples in this study: The Governors, Directors 9f Ekiucation and Assistant Directors. Out of 67 provinces, 28 of the RVOVinces are included in the study. All of the Governors, all of the Dir‘ecztors of Education, and 53 of the 105 Assistant Directors in these RY‘OVinces were in our samples. The sampling procedure was as follows: 1. Turkey was divided into six geographical regions. Since many (’5 their characteristics seem very similar, the Eastern and South EaStern Regions, which may be seen as separate regions in some other $1ludies, were considered as one in this study (see Figure 3.1, see a1 80 Appendix III - 5). 2. In each region provinces to be included in this study were ChOsen randomly (see Figure 3.2). 3. Subsequently the provinces were categorized as developed and 1 63:55 developed, and the 28 provinces were stratified into four groups uSing the State Planning Organization's socio—economic development 3 r\dex. As may be seen in Figure 3.2 the highest value of the develop— nnEEnt index is 371 in Istanbul, and the lowest value is 41 for Hakkari (See Appendix III - 5 and 6). 4. The four stratified groupings above were divided into two by c:hoosing, as a dividing line, the average index level for Turkey (the Each of these ']€Evel of 100) at which the province of Usak was located. tl\~o new developed and less developed groupings consisted of 14 provinces (Figure 3.3). 54 .mmu:_>osa mo amass: we» use mcowmmm .F.m deemed mm m a o m e m wsmxxmr mwrp_m cause: segmmswx cm> Essou Lexmnsmxwo sanssm co>m< pmxo» mWNoFM scum: wsmmex xmm: cement» mmcsm Ezsstm mcmu< swcmmwxmm mpmsz camwswo mccwum mm>wm meopc< msmxc< LPECH camEmm ”uncoumH 1. Ne m_nz anz meuz enz ~N_uz o_uz 1111111 $83“ easemtmtem: Essé £5: :83 88.an 225e,. e s E e s E 55 .mmucw>osq we mFQEmm meg so» mcwazosm vmwmwpmspm Lace .N.m mszmwa m_e ssoasag 0e caste ems enmEam _e 2:200 mm tsetse om_ saga: on Ezsswsm Fm :ONnmc» NeF mmssm we camosew oo_ saw: ea_ sweamaxmm .a seaxsax me massm Noe seesaw oom aeaa< ea ea> Fm sasaasasso moe meme: amm caeNH em wepaam am steamssx N__ as_aee< mew asaxee am cease: mm oasoe a_e mane?“ _em _saeaomH m:_m> mucw>oea mzpm> mo:w>osa mspm> mucw>oca mapm> mo=w>osa xmucH xmccH xmucH xmucH >H quota HHH emote HH ajosc H aaosu 56 Province Index Value Rank Province Index Value Rank Istanbul 371 ..... l Trabzon 91 ..... 15 Ankara 279 ..... 2 Burdur 88 ..... 16 IZmi r 234 ..... 3 Tokat 88 ..... l7 Adana 200 ..... 4 Kirsehir 86 ..... 18 Eski sehir 167 ..... 5 0. Bakir 81 ..... 19 Bursa 142 ..... 6 Sivas 79 ..... 20 ”61 tay 136 ..... 7 Giresun 78 ..... 21 Samsun 134 ..... 8 Erzurum 76 ..... 22 Kayseri 118 ..... 9 Corum 71 ..... 23 '51 azig 116 ..... 10 Afyon 70 ..... 24 An talya 112 ..... 11 Mardin 54 ..... 25 ”Ugh 105 ..... 12 Bitlis 53 ..... 26 Ed 1' me 102 ..... 13 Van 47 ..... 27 USak 100 ..... 14 Hakkari 41 ..... 28 \ Figure 3.3. ”Developed“and "Less Developed" provinces. 57 It was assumed that the 28 provinces chosen for the study by the procedure above were representative. In addition, the 28 Governors, 28 Directors of Education, and 53 Assistant Directors in these 28 provinces, all of whom participated in this study, were also considered as adequately representative of their populations. IV. Data Collection The preliminary questionnaires and the informal interviews and discussions were administered solely by this researcher. After complet— ing the organization of the final questionnaire, the sample of provinces was divided into several groups and a team of 12 trained researchers travelled to the various provinces and administered the final question- naires. Official letters were mailed to the provinces in June 1972 by the Planning, Research and Coordination Office, in order to inform the provinces about the research and to make the researchers' visits official. Administration of the questionnaires started in July 1972 and continued until the end of August. The questionnaires were administered personally by the team members. In some cases the teams took more than one day to get their answers in a given province. The questionnaires were pre-coded at the Planning, Research and Coordination Office and all materials were hand-carried by the researchers. In this way the return rate was 100%. The "Governors" who were included in four provinces and the ”Directors" in three provinces were "acting" Governors and Directors; 58 but this situation could not be controlled before or during the visits. In one instance, the subject was on vacation. In another instance, there was an unexpected visit of the Prime Minister in the region and the official Governor was in a long meeting in a neighboring province. In still another instance, the official Director had just been trans- ferred to another place and had left. But in all cases, the "acting” Governors or Directors were officially on duty. One of them had been doing the job for more than two months. In general, first the questionnaires were administered and explan- ations were made if necessary. Some of the observations made during data collection were as follows: 1. The Governors especially would have been too busy to answer this type of questionnaire, had the team members not gone to them personally and administered the questionnaires. . In spite of the intensive preliminary work some explanations during the completing of the questionnaire were nevertheless quite necessary and valuable. . Almost all of the subjects in our samples seemed very eager for "necessary changes" in the provincial organization of education and in education as a whole. . The majority of the Directors and all of the Assistant Directors seemed pleased to be asked about their problems. Some of them pointed out the ”nobody likes to ask them from above, because the higher administrators think that they know 59 what is best.‘I Two of the Directors told the team members that they were surprised to see the questions, and especially the "problems". They asked the team members, "How did you know these were our problems?" 5. Almost all of the subjects in our samples wanted to get some idea about the results and whether this research would have any affect at all in solving their problems and improving the provincial organization. Most of them made it quite clear that they would like to see changes, but they were not very hopeful. 6. In general, all subjects were very cooperative and very re- sponsive to the questions. Some of the Governors and Directors seemed to be indifferent when they first met the members of the team, did not show interest in the research, and wanted to do all the talking. But when they understood that they were aware of the real situation, then those offi- cials also became very cooperative and responsive. 7. All of the researchers agreed that there was real potential among the experienced people in the provinces which should be utilized for organizational development and development of education. V. The Nature of Data The questionnaire provided information about the following aspects: 60 . Background information and characteristics of Governors, Directors, and Assistant Directors of Education in 28 provinces. a) Age. b) Academic background (school of graduation, academic branch, knowledge of foreign language). c) Experience and salary (years of experience, time spent in their present job, former jobs and time spent in them, degree and level of salary). . Role perceptions and expectations concerning themselves and each other from Governors, Directors, and Assistant Directors of Education in 28 provinces (which duties are carried out by one or more personnel at the present time, and how it should be). . Problems faced by provincial administrative personnel in carry- ing out their duties. . Suggestions by elements in the sample groups for improving educational organization in the provinces (the suggestions listed, like the problems, were gathered from different reports, from the preliminary questionnaires, and from legal documents). . Other aspects which the respondents considered important and desired to point out (including items not in the questionnaire, further comments made on various aspects, plus other sugges- tions). 61 VI. Processing the Data The questionnaire was pre-coded, punched, and analyzed at the Planning, Research and Coordination Office. In analyzing the data, analysis of variance was used. In order to illustrate some of the characteristics of the sub- jects (such as their backgrounds, age, school of graduation, experience, salary, etc), tables of frequencies and percentages were used. For Part II of the questionnaire, three tables were developed to show dif- ferences and similarities between and among the perceptions and expec- tations of the research subjects concerning their duties. In order to determine degrees of knowledge of a foreign language, a table of weighted values for the answers of the three groups was developed by giving the following values to the answers: Answers Weights (1) Very good 3 (2) Good 2 (3) Average 1 (4) No answer (none) 0 Another table with weighted total values for the problems was also developed by using values as follows: Answers Weights (1) Very important problem 3 (2) An important problem 2 (3) Not a problem 1 It was recognized that elements of bias might enter into the data. Since the subjects in the three samples were so interrelated 62 with each other in their jobs, and since the members of the teams who administered the questionnaire might be considered to be "Ministry's people", one might have expected the answers could include ratings which were more favorable than the actual situation. It was quite pos- sible for some of the respondents, expecially the Assistant Directors because of their peculiar problems and their place within the organiza- tion, to give biased answers. There was the possibility of ”error of leniency", such as overly favorable rating of the present duties of the Governors; and there was also the possibility of a "halo effect”, caused by the aspect of "being observed" while responding. In order to partly eliminate some of these kinds of effects, the names or signatures of the respondents were not used. In addition, members of the teams were encouraged to try not to act as Ministry men. VII. Summary This study is an exploratory work in analyzing education in the provinces. It included a preliminary search of documents and the preparation of preliminary questionnaires. A final questionnaire was developed and administered by a 12 member team of trained researchers in 28 provinces. Data have provided information on background, role perceptions and expectations, administrative problems, and suggestions of Governors, Directors, and Assistant Directors of Education in 28 provinces of Turkey. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA 1. Introduction In this chapter analysis of data for the three samples of Governors, Directors and Assistant Directors will be presented accord- ing to the parts and questions in the questionnaire. First, the item will be shown and then the related question will be written in parenthe- ses along with its code number in the main questionnaire. Later, data will be illustrated and analyzed accordingly. Following this chapter, conclusions will be drawn according to the results of analysis presented in this chapter. 11. Analysis of Data A. The first part of the main questionnaire consists of items about background information of the sample elements. These items are as follows: (1) Age (2) Present position (3) Major academic field (4) Duration of active participation in civil service (5) Income rate (6) Time spent at present position (7) Previous duties and their duration (8) Knowledge of foreign languages (9) Belief in opportunities for professional advancement. 63 64 B. We assume that the variances are unknown and unequal and that the other assumptions for the test are met. The other assumptions are: (1) Groups are independent from each other (2) The subjects are independently distributed in each group (3) Subjects of each group are distributed normally in the population. 1. (7.1) Ages When we examine Table 4.1 below, we observe that all of the Governors are older than 41, and the largest number of them (42.9%) are between 46 and 50 years of age. There are 4 Governors near or at the age of retirement. Most of the Directors (60.7%) are between the ages of 36 and 45. Another model group of Directors are between 55 and 60 (17.9%). Modes for the Assistant Directors, on the other hand, are first located be- tween the ages of 46 and 50 (25.5%) and then in descending order toward the younger ages: between the ages of 41 and 45 (23.5%), between 36 and 40 (17.6%), and less than 35 (15.7%). Table 4.1. Distribution of Ages (f and %) Ages Groups . A99 Gr°up5 132; No.GOV'% No.01r' % 35?. D'ri (l) 35 or less 33 O 0 l 3.6 8 15.7 (2) 36-40 38 .0 10 35.7 9 17.6 (3) 41-45 43 7 25.0 ' 7 25.0 12 23.5 (4) 46-50 48 12 42.9 3 10.7 13 25.5 (5) 51-54 53 5 17.9 2 7.1 6 11.8 (6) 55-60 58 3 10.7 5 17.9 3 5.9 7) 60 and over 62 l 3.6 O 0.0 O 0.0 Total -- 28 100.0 28 100.0 51 100.0 65 The age distributions of the Governors seem as might have been expected in this study. In general, Governors follow a very regular sequence on the way to governorship. In order to become a Governor, one usually goes through a number of years of subgovernorship, or assistant governorship, or both. This means that it is unusual to see a governor whose age is less than 40. In the cases of Directors of Education and Assistant Directors, the present study at least suggests that Directors do not necessarily have more experience than their Assistants. Of course "experience" here means the time in years spent in the profession, which also corre- lates in general with age. We should remember that while there are more than two hundred Assistant Directors, there are, and can be, only sixty-seven Directors of Education, one each for each of the sixty-seven Turkish provinces. This means that Assistant Directors do not all have equal chances to become a Director. Secondly, we may also observe that all Directors are not necessarily chosen from among Assistant Directors. In any case, there are quite a number of Assistant Directors who are older than the Directors under whom they serve. One implication is that the Office of the Directorate in a given province may be Staffed by older assistants and a newcomer, as a Director, may very well be a much younger man. This, of course, cannot be considered as an unusual or abnormal situation at first. But since appointment of Directors of Education in Turkey, in general, is considered to be "experience-based", appointment of a younger Director to an office where 66 there are older Assistant Directors may very well create some organiza— tional problems. It is, in fact, one of the main complaints which Assistant Directors often stated, saying that, "Directors do not have enough experience when they are appointed, and there are no specific criteria for selecting the Directors." (Of course the same allegations could equally and justifiably be laid against the appointment and selection of Assistant Directors as well.) Another point is that Directors and Assistant Directors are mainly graduates of the pedagogy branches of the educational institutes. Their more usual destinations are to become inspectors of elementary schools or teachers at the normal schools. In any case, working in a Directorate is considered to be a more desirable post, except for extenuating circumstances; such as, being appointed to a better province as a teacher or an inSpector, or preferring not to join a Directorate for some such reason as health, or sending one's children to a more favorably located higher institution, etc. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that each Assistant Director usually desires to become a Director one day. But, as we stated before, the problem is that the Assistant Director is never very sure when, where, or how this goal can be reached. Of course, he generally understands the terms or routes to the goal, such as earning good reports, knowing some higher officials at the Ministry of Education, etc., but when he becomes older, he naturally may lose his hopes and courage, although he still ought to carry out his job as an "experienced" or "old-timer" Assistant Director. 67 As we see in Table 4.1 the largest group of Directors is between the ages of 36 and 40 but the largest group of Assistant Directors is between 46 and 50. Fairly sizeable proportions among all three sample groups fall between the ages of 41 and 45. 2-3. (9 and 10.1)_ Major Academic Field and Name of School which You Last Graduated Administrators in Turkish Education are mainly former teachers of secondary education or former supervisors of primary education. This is the case for administration in all types of secondary schools and provincial Directorates as well as for the National Ministry of Education. Administrators in Turkish Education, then, are predominantly graduates of some type of teachers' college or educational institute. On the other hand, the Governors, in general, come from the area of public administration. Although it is quite possible to have a governor in Turkey who may come from another discipline or area; such as, finance, law, or political science, it is not common to see an educational administrator who comes from an area other than education, and, primarily, they come from teaching positions at the secondary schools or from supervising at the primary level. Our data in Table 4.2 give similar results. We see that most of the Governors (78.6%) come from the area of public administration which means they are the graduates of the Faculty of Political Sciences. In addition, some Governors (7.1%) are from the Faculty of Law. The same percentage (7.1%) is from both Political Sciences and Law. It is not uncommon among the Governors to take some additional courses from the Faculty of Law and to receive the diploma of that Faculty. This means. 68 o.oo_ L m.Fm a.em a a.o a.F 5m._ a m..~ a IIIIIUIII IIIIIII'IAVII||III|.I| I'IDIIII'ILDIDDIII‘I III-III rI'IDnl'nl.1|"|llnl.l m Noe an as P N N mm a _ so» o.oo, ,.ma F.ma o.o o.o o.o o.o a . ---Hw----.----mw-1is1111mm-111eiiinmiiiii.1-11m---1.-1m111i11m1111.----H--- sopumsmo ummOG_ ARV Ace Mme Aav Ame ANV A_v Pouch memspo amo mama mucmwum 3m; sea .ev< a use m mazocw . ssaaapaz .Ea<.a=a .asa J monocmem owemumu< manage mmsse mo mmzucmsm owEmumu< some: .N.e open» 69 later on they may work as lawyers if they leave their jobs for some reason. In our sample, there was also one Governor who had majored in Military Sciences and one in Agriculture. It was observed later that they were actually acting governors. As expected, our data also have illustrated that most of the Directors had majored in the area of pedagogy, a division of the educational Institute which offers a two or three-year higher educa- tion. The rest of the Directors (35.7%) were from other branches; such as, Social Studies and Literature (11%), Geography (7%), Science (3.4%), and Educational Administration (3.4%). Some of them (11%) did not list a major branch. They were actually graduates of normal schools, and they had subsequently taken additional courses in supervision. Among the Directors there were only four who received a four-year higher education. The situation of Assistant Directors is not very different from the Directors. Among the respondents, nearly half (45.1%) reported that they also were from the branch of Pedagogy. Proportions coming from other branches were social studies and literature (21.5%), science and mathematics (12%), and technical and vocational subjects (19%). The remainder (19%) were normal school graduates with some additional intensive courses in supervision, and there was also a graduate of Boys Vocational Institute (a 1ycee level institution) who had some additional courses in technical education As we observe in the same table, among all three groups, there are more graduates of Educational Institutions than graduates of any 70 other institutions. This means that, if we exclude the Governors, most of our respondents have only two years of higher education. These data also illustrate that in practice, administration of education at the provincial directorates is not considered as an area which requires professional preparation in terms of academic courses in the field of educational administration. Rather, service in a directorate is based on prior teaching, supervision and/or practical experience in school administration; such as, a principalship, assis- tant principalship, etc. Both the Directors and their assistants are mainly practitioners and they learn their administrative duties while they are doing their jobs. 4. (11.1) Duration of Active Participation in CTVil Service,_1ncluding Military Service Age, experience and salary schedule in the Turkish civil service, in general, go together. Advancement in any profession, if it is in- volved in civil service, is largely influenced by the amount of experi- ence which one has accumulated. For this reason, when we deal with measures of the duration of participation, we also have some indica- tions about age. Of course, the reverse is also true; examining ages gives some indication of the amount of experience and time which has been spent in civil service. As we see in Table 4.3, on the following page, the minimum years of experience from the Governors was in no case less than 16, and even in the 16-20 years group there was only one Governor. All of the remaining ones had at least 21 years of experience. Seven Governors had experiences between 26 and 30 years, and the remaining seven had 31 years or more experience. 71 Table 4.3. Duration of Active Participation in Civil Service Experience Sample Grou s Time Spent in Assistant Civil Service Governor Director Director (1) 1-5 years 0 o o (2) 6-10 years 0 O 4 (3) 11-15 years 0 2 5 (4) 16-20 years 1 9 6 (5) 21-25 years 13 8 l7 (6) 26-30 years 7 3 10 (7) 31 and over 7 6 8 Total 28 28 50 The Directors, in terms of years of experience, are distributed somewhat differently. There were two Directors who had had experience between 11 and 15 years. The numbers are greater for the 16-20 and the 21-25 year groups (9 and 8, respectively). On the other hand, we observe that only 3 Directors had had experience between 26 and 30 years, and there were 6 Directors with 31 or more years of experience. Among the Assistant Directors, 4 people had had experience between 6 and 10 years. The group of Assistant Directors fell with the greatest frequency within the category of 21 to 25 years of experience. 5. (21.1) Current Civil Service Income Ratings Income in the Turkish system for administrators is established mainly on the basis of years of experience and amount of education. 72 Just recently, Directors have also begun receiving salary differentials according to the province in which they work. Yet Assistant Directors do not receive any additional salary beyond the salary they would receive as teachers in a school. The Governors, on the other hand, receive generally higher salaries than the educational administrators in the first place, and their accumulations of years of experience and the amounts of education they have had are both generally greater than for the educational administrators. When we examine Appendix IV-1, we observe that while 75% of the Governors had reached the first degree of the salary schedule, only 21.4% of the Directors, and 3.9% of the Assistant Directors were at the same level. Of the Assistant Directors, 13.7% stood as low as the ninth degree of the salary table. As we observe here, the amount of monthly salary of a Governor or an educational administrator correlates closely with the age and/or the amount of experience he has. In addition, according to the most recent salary schedule and rule, both Governors and Directors are having some additional salary for their posts. The amount of this money differs according to the province in which they work. It means that if they work in a large province they are paid more. Provinces are categorized accordingly. 6. (13-14) How long have you been working in your current position? Mobility in any occupation is an important factor in terms of one's success, disappointment, health, etc. Here, among our three sample groups, we see that 57.1% of Governors, and 35.7% of Directors, have been working between one and three years in their present jobs 73 (Appendix IV - 1). We also observe that, for Assistant Directors the highest frequency percentage among the duration groupings occurs between four and six years (31.4%). We also note that the percentage of Directors (28.6%) who are most mobile seems higher than for either the Governors (25%) or Assistant Directors (7.8%). Our evidence suggests that the most mobile group here is the group of Governors, Directors come second, and Assistant Directors are the least mobile group. While only about 18% of the Governors had been in their present posts for four or more years, more than 35% of the Directors, and nearly 63% of the Assistant Directors had been in their present jobs at least that long. At this point one may ask if an administrator typically stays no more than one to three years in his job, whether this time constraint influences his success or his satisfaction with his job? It is possible to imagine that moving from one place to another, before getting fully acquainted with the people around him and with the job to be done, may have a negative effect on the administrator. Our research,at this stage, is not able to shed light on this point. Our data only illustrate the existence of a mobility factor. However, even if the effects of working a short time in one place and then moving to another place are not measured here, we may at least add certain impressionistic notes gathered during the course of the present research. One thing has been bothering the members of our sample groups very much--they have no idea when they might be transferred to another place. For this reason, they did not seem very secure in 74 their posts, and this situation obviously seemed to have a negative effect on their working methods and their achievements in their jobs. Especially,this seemed to be the case for the Governors and Directors. On the other hand, the Assistant Directors did not seem to be particularly happy about their remaining for relatively longer periods of time in one position. However, the real sense of this may be that they are not happy at continuing as Assistant Directors. Older Assis- tant Directors, who were approaching their retirements, did seem rela- tively more satisfied with having lesser mobility and with remaining more than five years in one place. Of course, in each instance, there may have been some reasons or rationalizations for the older Assistant Directors' relatively greater contentment. They themselves stated such reasons as being located in a province which suited them, having their children enrolled in a nearby university, etc. Further research needs to be done on the effects of mobility and on the motives lying behind preferences either for remaining in one post or for moving to another. 7. (15-16-17-18) Number of locations where you have served six months or more dur- ing your career In considering mobility, we thought that it might also be helpful to find out the kinds and numbers of different places of previous work. Information about numbers of previous positions, and the types of places in which one previously worked, may have more things to say about the mobility of our sample elements. For this purpose, we developed Appendix IV - 2. Probably because of the characteristics of their occupation as educators, only the Directors and Assistant Directors reported having 75 ever worked at the village level. Their percentages at this level were very close-~15.5% for Directors, and 16.2% for Assistant Directors. As expected, no Governor reported having worked at the village level. Though a Director or an Assistant Director may have started his career as a village teacher, a Governor usually starts his career as head of a sub-district or as a sub-governor in a dis- trict. These data illustrate that our subjects, as a combined group, worked most frequently at the province level (f=382, or 47.8%), and least at the village level (f=85, or 10.6%). Within each group the percentages of province level positions were also large--Directors (f=134, or 57.5%), Assistant Directors (f=132, or 43.7%), and Governors (f=ll6, or 43.9%). The highest frequency and percentage for the Governors' group, however, was in the districts (f=l40, or 53%). 8 and 9. (19 to 27) Previous duties and their duration Generally, governorships as well as directorships and assistant directorships in Turkey require quite a significant amount of previous experience at different levels of administration. For this reason, a Turkish Governor is usually highly respected because of his experience at least, though this reSpect may also be based on his seniority in age (respect for elders is a deep-seated Turkish cultural trait). 0n the other hand, Directors and Assistant Directors of Education cannot aspire to the same status levels as Governors in terms of respect because of experience and age, even though, quite often, the Directors and Assistant Directors of Education are also quite experienced 76 officials in their occupation. The positions themselves carry differ- entials of deference. In any event, there is a quite common belief among Turkish administrative cadre that administrators mostly do learn their jobs by doing them. For this reason, seniority and experience have been the basic elements in advancement up through the administrative strata. In this connection, we gathered further data in order to observe, in more detail, the amounts and types of previous experiences of the elements of our samples: Table 4.4 for the Governors, Table 4.5 for the Directors, and Table 4.6 for the Assistant Directors. As we check Table 4.4, we see that most of the Governors (19 of the 28) had experience in the Directorate of a subdistrict. In addition, most of them (26) served as gubernatorial interns as expected by the system. Neither of these duties were longer than three years, but 27 of the Governors served as Sub-Governors for four years or more. Nearly half of them (13) also worked as Lieutenant Governors. Moreover, as of the time of this research, 23 of the Governors in our sample had had previous experience as Governors in different provinces from their present posts. Four in the sample had served previously as Governors for more than ten years. The sub-governorship is apparently the most important form of previous experience, in that most governors spent very sizeable portions of their professional lives working at this post. Such experience probably gives the Governors valuable insight into matters at provincial and local levels. Their responsibilities would include dealing with all kinds of activities and problems of education. Hence, when they 77 o.ooF o.ooF o.ooF o.ooF o.ooF N aNF mm mF MN mm mm F seFoe 0.0 0.0 0.0 m.N F.m a Fox mg» Fe muFmpao asuchFz N o o o F F F so .mcF cm soF um>smm mmeso 0.0 0.0 o.o o.N F.FF x a o o o F m F Fox on“ :F memepo . . . . . Foz ocu.Fo oFumsuchFeVm o N F F a FF m m F m a Focucwu on» :F Fuse meuo mam oF N F a N F F to aFemsoch>ou Fmspcwu o.oF m.om F.oN N.mF w.aF & MN a e m m a F aFemcocsm>oo o.e o.o m.a o.o 0.0 a N F o F o o F ngezumm Fo maQLOpumLFo o.mF e.mF F.FN m.m 0.0 a mF a N m N o F aFemsoccw>ow pcmcmpszo o.om N.oe e.om 0.0 0.0 & FN VF o F o o F QFgmsocsm>oo-n:m o.o o.o o.o w.mm F.m e mN o o o mN F F aFgmcemucF FmFsoumcsmasw o.o 0.0 0.0 N.m o.mm N mF o o o N FF F uchumFunsm Fo mpmsopumcFo E E E 5 g E FmpoF meoe so meow» meow» meow» Lem» F spam mg» Fe wEoz mamas oF m-e a-a m-F case made huge Fo :oFamezo quo» Fu use FV mcoFgmcao sFmeF ace mmeaa mzoF>msa--meo:em>oc .¢.a anoF 78 become Governors, educational activities should not be entirely strange to them. Along this line, we might note that because of the Gov- ernors' power in the provinces his previous experiences with problems of education should offer more advantages than disadvantages for the Directors and Assistant Directors of Education, in their efforts to be professionally successful. Ideally, the Directors should try to estab- lish cooperative relationships with their Governors in order to provide better educational facilities and practices. 0n the other hand, though the Governors may have some considerable background in dealing with educational matters, the educational administrators, especially the Directors, should be accepted by the Governors as the educational leaders of the provinces. They should be considered and perceived as respected, efficient, and experienced educators by the Governors. Otherwise, since the Governor is the main authority in the province, their mutual relations may be reduced to an ordinary superior-subordi- nate type of relationship in its simplest terms, with the Directors simply carrying out the directions which his superior asks him to follow, without questioning or thinking independently and professionally about them. In such relationships, neither creativity nor innovation is likely to enter into the picture. Both creativity and innovation require questioning and thinking, plus observations, suggestions and recommendations. In summary, there is always a need for mutual exchange and evaluation which is too often lacking in a rigid superior-subordi- nate relationship. Table 4.5 illustrates that most of the Directors had some experi- ence in primary education as teachers or administrators. More than 79 o.ooF o.ooF o.ooF o.ooF o.ooF F MNF oF aF ma mN mF F 4som monoo roFoF e.Fe m.oF m.w o.NF o.oF F :oFuoooom eN m N e m o F Fo souoosFo FoFooF>osa m.m o.o F.FF o.NF F.@ a F.opo .conommmw Fo FmFew .omsFo .pmm< .souomsFo oF F o m m F F .mFeFEUa Foaeom aFaer m.oF m.m F.FF o.mF F.@ F mF N F m a F F sosoooF Fooeom oFoon m.mF m.m F.oN o.oF F.@ F oonoozou oFFozs Fo coo; use :onoosoN mF F F NF a F F Fo .sFo FoFooF>oso peomemm< m.m m.mm m.mF o.mF 0.0 F o o o m .om .EFs soF oF Foch :FFo>osu mF F F F e o F so .om zsoero Fo somF>smoom amoFma< Fa .sFo ..saa NsaEFsm o.o m.mN F.FF o.e F.@ F Fo woosFo .pmm< .coFuoosoo soEFso Fo .sFo .Foonom NF o m m F F F AsoEFso Fo mposopomsFo F.FN w.mF F.FF o.eN F.mN F a NN a m m o a F sosooou Fooeom soero Fss Fms Fae Fms sNo FFo Foqu osoe so msoox msomx msoox sow» F Fuse one Fo mEoz msoox oF m-F m-a m-F coco mood muse Fo :oFFosoc FopoF FF oco Fv mconoszo sFoeF nee maFoso mzoF>oso--msopomsFo .m.¢ mFooF 80 half (22) had teaching experience at the primary level, some of them (4) for as long as ten years or more. Of these, 12 had also had experience in primary school administration, and 19 of the Directors had previously served as primary supervisors. Most of them (19) had previous experience in an Assistant Directorship, half of them having served in this capacity for four years or more. Interestingly, their backgrounds of experience in secondary education appear to have been somewhat less extensive than in primary education (13 had been secon- dary school teachers, of whom 10 had also been secondary school admin- istrators). In terms of total time spent in different previous duties, the greatest amount of experience of the present sample of Directors had been accumulated in previous posts as Directors elsewhere. Twenty- four of the Directors had also been Directors before in other provinces, nine of them having served in this capacity for 10 years or more. Table 4.6 indicates that the Assistant Directors had had previous experiences quite similar to the Directors except that their major accumulation of experience had, of course, been as Assistant Director in previous posts elsewhere. The data in Tables 4.5 and 4.6 are by no means able to confirm that having more experience is itself sufficient for an Assistant Director to become a Director. We do not have a clear picture of the other criteria which apply to being promoted to the directorship. Nevertheless, the following points seem worth considering in discussing the process of selecting Directors. 1. We have evidence that Directors do not appear to have more or less experience than their Assistants. For this reason the common belief of some of the Turkish educators that the Directors are more experienced than the Assistant Directors does not seem supported. 81 o.ooF o.ooF o.ooF o.ooF o.ooF F NwF mm mm aa Fm 5N F seFOF o.N o.o o.N F.m 0.0 F :oFuoso -chFEoo Fmspcmu we“ ooFm m F o F m o F -uzo ups oz» :FFFFz monoa o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o F mo: ago Fo :onosmecFEUo Fospcou o o o o o o F ms» :F oo>som monoo FopoF o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 N.F F :onoozom F o o o o F F Fo souoosFo FoFooF>oso m.oF F.NF N.m F.m m.NF F F.opo .coFoouooo Fo Fost .oosFo .pmm< .souomsFo oF a a a m m s .mFeFEea Fooeom aFeeee m.FF F.NF N.oF m.oF F.oF F aN F a m a a F soeoooF Fooeom oFoon F.mF m.FN m.om m.mF w.0N F coFuoooom oFFoom Fo now; new :onoooom Fo Ne w m mF F m F .sFo FoFocF>osoiwmmumme< m.ON N.FN F.NN w.oF F.oF F o cmeoozoo .ero sOF oF Foch :FFo>osp Fo em N F FF a e F .om zsoero Fo somF>sooom :onooooo FF3o< Fo .sFo :onmoooo Fsoero F.F o.o N.NF F.FN m.NF F Fo .umosFo .pmm< .oonooooo soero Fo .sFo Fooeom ON m o m w m F zsoera Fo oposopooswp o.mN m.FN m.vF F.FN F.FF F mm oF m F m a F socooou Fooeom Asoero Fmv Fae Fmv Foo FFV FFV msoe so msomx msomx wsomz sow» F Foqu msooz oF 01F m-a m-F :osu mood monoo Fuse Fo :oFuosoo FoFoF _ FF oco Fv mzonoszo sFosF oco monoo mooF>ossiimsouoosFo poomemm< .o.v oFooF 82 2. It may be that the Directors are selected because of their exceptional success among their colleagues, especially from among the current staff of Assistant Directors I. Our re- search did not deal directly with the selection process, but the researcher observed that both the Assistant Directors, the principals of different types of schools, and most of the governors did not seem to be satisfied with current prac- tices in the selection, appointment and transfer procedures for Directors. No doubt there are several elements involved here, and it might be fruitful if future research could question and examine this process in more detail. 3. Except for the Governors, other administrators in the pro- vincial directorates are not required to have any type of professional or academic training in administration specif- ically. Of course the point here is that if they may have learned from experience the correct things to do, and if they regularly do those things correctly, there is no basis for worry or concern; but the question is whether they may have learned things incorrectly or improperly for dynamic, develop- ing programs of education. Current problems may become even more intense as persons selected as Directors, who may not have any idea about recent developments in administration, are appointed to these increasingly important posts. 4. When the Ministry of Education goes about appointing a Director, the Governor of the province is asked whether he wants the candidate or not. But the Director does not have a similar voice in the selection of any of his future staff. He is never consulted even about his own new assistants when a vacancy occurs in the staff of his own directorate. 5. Competition for directorships among candidates, especially among the Assistant Directors, did not seem to be an "open contest type," as the researcher observed during his visits among the provinces. There were several Assistant Directors who had excellent records of success for years, while some of the Directors, even though they may have been giving quite excellent performances, were, nevertheless, clearly neophytes in their posts. Naturally, the questions which the Assistant Directors were asking were how the Directors had been selected and what the criteria really were? 10. (28 to 31) Knowledge of a Foreign Language Knowing a foreign language for an administrator may not be a very significant characteristic in all cases; but it is probably correct to differentiate in some cases. For this reason it was thought that it 83 would be valuable to find out the types, amount and degrees of our samples subjects' knowledge of foreign languages. In order to do this, the subjects were asked to name the foreign languages they knew, and the degree of their knowledge, in the following way: a) Please indicate "very good" if you can use the foreign language in oral or written academic work easily (in general, without using a dictionary). b) Please indicate "good" if you can use the foreign language in oral and written work with use of a dictionary when needed. c) Please indicate "fair" if you can use the foreign language only for daily conversation. As illustrated in Table 4.7 below, within the entire group of our three samples, more than half of our subjects (57%) reported knowl- edge of a foreign language as "fair" (or average), one-fourth (25%) reported "none“, 11.2% reported "good" knowledge, and the others (6.5%) reported their knowledge of a foreign language as "very good". Most of the Governors reported that they had at least some knowl- edge of a foreign language, the majority of them (60.7%) indicating they knew a foreign language "fairly" well, and quite an appreciable percentage (17.9%) indicating their knowledge was "very good". A simi- lar percentage also said that their foreign language knowledge was "good". Directors seemed less competent in using a foreign language than the Governors and slightly less than Assistant Directors. Half of the Directors indicated their knowledge of a foreign language as "fair", some of them (7.1%) reported "good" knowledge, and only a few (3.6%) claimed "very good" knowledge. More than one-fourth (39.3%) of the Directors did not know any foreign language. 84 Table 4.7. Knowledge of Foreign Language (f and %) Groups Degree of Knowled e in Foreign Langua e Very Good Good Fair None Total Governor -f-~-----§----------§----«--lz----F---l-----.--gg--- % l7 9 17 9 60.7 3 6 100 0 Director FdeFFFFFI ...... F-FFgFFF-m--15-___0--11-__-_.--gg--- % 3.6 7.1 50.0 39.3 100.0 Asst. Director -f-~---—-l----------§----4--§9----t--1§-----.--§l-_- % 2 O 9 8 58.8 29 4 100 0 TOTAL -f-.-----Z-_---- .--l?----. --§.l----..--§Z ..... .-192--- % 6 5 11 2 57.0 25 2 100 0 The Assistant Directors, on the other hand, reported that more than half knew a foreign language "fairly" well, one-fifth (20%) indi- cated their foreign language knowledge as "very good", and one in ten (9.8%) as "good". Like the Directors, more than one-fourth of the Assistant Directors (29.4%) did not know any foreign language. The degrees and types of foreign languages known are illustrated in Appendices IV-2-2 and 4; and in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 below. The figures illustrate the types of the foreign languages known and degrees of competence in using them for the three sample groups as a whole (Figure 4.1), and separately (Figure 4.2). These data confirm that the Governors know a foreign language most and best among the three groups, according to their self-evalua- tions. They listed French with the highest frequency, secondly English. and German third. 85 $ w 4 50 .' 40 f f GOVERNOR 5 —--— DIRECTOR -' Ass. DIRECTOR 30 : {I 20 :" 1 :" :1 y .1, 10 .3", J". -4 0:3”, 0 1r _ n o r I Figure 4.1. Knowledge in foreign language. 3 D o l , —ENGLISH 1 --- FRENCH , 50 ; «on-GERMAN ‘ , VG. VERY GOOD I G. GOOD I ‘F‘. FAIR 1 4° I 1 I 1 .' n . ' I j I I 20 I I 1 41' ' 10‘ ’,.L ‘z—T—/ 4 I, i ”"5. 1"". ...-u L"... ” o r‘ .... Directors Asst. Directors Governors Knowledge in foreign language (types and degrees). Figure 442; 86 More Directors reported that they knew English in general report- ing as "fair", and a few reporting as "very good". Secondly, they listed French and lastly German. This pattern was about the same for the Assistant Directors as well. We observed that the Governors had the highest percentages among the three groups in knowing a foreign language in each of the various degrees. Some Governors reported that they knew two foreign languages, English and French, but their numbers did not seem significant and the better known foreign language was accepted and evaluated as the one recorded. 11. (33.1) Do you believe that yourypresent position offersyyou an gpportunity for professional advancement? To examine reactions of the subjects in our sample groups on how much they believe their present positions provide chances for profes— sional advancement has been another goal of this study. It is assumed as highly likely that one's belief in one's own professional future makes a difference, both in one's work performance and one's relations with others. People in an office who do not believe that their present job leads to any future advancement tend to have an effect on the social climate of that office, and probably this effect will be a nega- tive one. It tends easily to generate a tone of pessimism within a group and makes it difficult to maintain even minimally necessary levels of optimism. We asked if our respondents believed they had opportunities for professional advancement in terms of the choices of "fully", "partially", "only slightly", and "undecided and none". In this way, we organized Table 4.8 on the following page. 87 Table 4.8. Believe in Professional Advancement (f and %) Only Undecided Fully Partially Slightly and None Total Governor -f-F-lfl—FFFFFFF§FFFFFF.F-FFQ FFFFFFFFFFF §FFFFFFFFFgZFFF % 51 9 18 5 0.0 29 6 100 0 Director -f.--lg__-.----§ ...... aFFFF§-_F_F.F-FFF§ ...... L-Fgg-F- 42 9 l7 9 28.6 10 7 100 O Asst.0irector 1108525 --------- 59--- % 20 4 16 3 12.2 51 0 100 0 Total -fu—-§§-——u—-—l§ ...... +-_-19 ..... q—-——§§—-——-—p-lg§—-_ % 34 6 l7 3 13.5 34 6 100 0 According to the table, half of the Governors (51.9%), nearly half of the Directors (42.9%), but only one-fifth of the Assistant Directors (20.4%), indicated that they believe "fully" that their present positions will help them with their professional advancement. For the answer of "partially", the frequencies and differences in per- centages are slight. 0n the other hand, there is no Governor who marked the choice of "only slightly", but quite an important number of the Directors (28.6%), and some Assistant Directors (12.2%), chose this item. The biggest difference among the sample groups seems to be with the answer of undecided and none. While quite a few Governors (29.6%) were undecided or did not believe in professional advancement as a result of their present posts, and some Directors (10.7%), more than half of the Assistant Directors (51.7%) responded in this way. 88 Of course we should keep in mind that a respondent being close to retirement could have a dampening effect on the choices at this point. As one Governor put it, "They just hope for another, even minor, improvement in their salary schedule while they wait for the completion of their official papers to be retired." We also observed that working in a large city, such as in Ankara, Istanbul, etc., seemed to have a marked dampening effect on the answers, and especial- ly on the answers of the Assistant Directors. In addition, near retirement status and working in a large city seemed to be correlated with each other. The older officials appeared to have become somewhat permanent fixtures in the larger cities. For these Assistant Directors, to be appointed to another city, even as a Director might not be con- sidered by them as an "advancement". It appeared that mostly older Assistant Directors tended to be assigned in the large cities and the Directors who are assigned there, and who do not have any control over staff assignments, just have to work with them as best they can. This tendency raises a question as to whether the organization in the large cities might not, therefore, be lacking in power and creativity. When we deal with all groups together (see Figure 4.3, on the following page), and compare them, we observe that an important portion of all group members (34.6%) is located at each extreme answer. The same number of subjects (34.6%) marked the choice of "fully" on one side, as marked the choice of "undecided and none" on the other side. We also observe in Figure 4.3 that on the positive side the Assistant Directors seem to stand well below both the Governors and Directors. They tend to believe very little or not at all in their prospects for professional advancement. 89 .pcwemocm>nm cw m>mwpmm .m.¢ mcamwm .. ma .. mm .v OM. .r mm acmwpmm : m a .m n ‘1 p L n . m ..S .. ma .1ON .wmm ...Om -.mm grow A_muopv unsatu __< -.me -fiom mac: so umvwomuca . 2 »_b;mw_m - m ..nm »__awucaa - a m appau : m .cwo .pmm< ....... gopumgwo l-l---- soccm>oo 90 12. (34 to 54),For the Duty Distribution Table below, please indicate present duty,holder(s) in Column 1, and, in your opinion, the proper duty holder(S) in Column II. Drawing upon some of the answers received from our research subjects in our preliminary work, and also drawing upon relevant items from the laws, rules and regulations, 23 kinds of duties were identi- fied, concerning the main educational activities for the administrators in the provinces. These duties are also shown in the "Table of Per- ceptions and Expectations of the Three Groups" below. The first group of answers in this table indicate the duties and the "present duty holder(s)" which we refer to in this part as "perceptions", and the second group of answers are about the duties again, but also indicate the "proper duty holder(s)". We called the second part "expectations“, in that respondents supposedly were going to indicate the "ideal“ situation which they think. While the first group, the group of per- ceptions, indicate the situation "as it is"; the second one, the group of expectations is about "how it should be". After processing the data and developing the related table below (Table 4.4) we also added another group to the table. We called this group the group of "comparisons", which was organized by subtract- ing expectation values in terms of frequencies from the values of perceptions of the respondents. For instance, if we examine the first duty in the table we see that 23 Governors believe that "determination of provincial educational plan targets" is one of the duties of the Governor at present. But 19 of them point out that it is a duty of the Director. Only one Governor perceives this duty as a duty for Assistant Directors, and one 91 Table 4.9. Perceptions and Expectations of the Three Groups Pvt, Pores tions Ebrpectations Comparison Nu ”m“ GD.LDITGDADITGDADIT Determination of G 2119 1 1 44 25 20 3 3 49 O -1 .2 -2 -5 ( provincial Educa- n 10 23 1 o 34 4 28 4 5 41 6 -5 -3 -5 -7 3:22:31” 111 20 35 12 3 7o 11 42 21 15 89 9 -7 --9 -1 -19 I 55 77 14 4 148 38 9o 28 23 179 15 -13 -14 -19 -31 o 3 24314264 448-1-L-1-2 i zfimmsgw nmaa 05246 37444-34 tional plan An 15 40 13 4 72 6 46 20 '14 86 9 -6 -7 -1c -14 '1' 38 87 19 6 150 22 98 3o 21 171 16 ~11 --11 -1, -21 013192847112148442-230 3 23mmfifleasswvwe9wwee-z 3 108 to law no. 222 AD 0 29 9 11 69 24- 23 15 15 754 6 -6 -2 " -6 ’1‘ 39 70 19 25 153 42 59 27 30 158 -3 11 -8 '5 '5 3:633:81; Pianiggm o 19 22 2 3 46 18 23 2 3 46 1 -1 o o o priateness of prim.) D 15 20 1 1 37 6 27 6 5 9 -7 -5 .4 -7 1! :fl‘i‘fifif 39:33,“ 43.212 11 4 64L12 3 22 14 87' 5 .1 .1 -1 -23 M 1 51 74 14 8 147r36 8 3o 22 177] 15 -15-16 ~14 -3o Detrmitionof o 528 8 546152 8 845Io4o-3 1 a na 5 educational needs '1) 5 27 5 5 5d 5 27 9 3 47] 0 0"“ '5 '9 of the province m a!) 16 6 1d J 40 27 19 93F2 341.11 -13 .23 J. 1 29 141 r15 9144 3518 -2_z_~12;2_1 -31 Securing that edu- G 1.]. 2,8 _3 1 43 13 26 5 4 :2 2 1.2 -5 .5 , .cational personnel . ' ,- - 6 are utilized pro- D 10 21 3 2 3 4 2 6 5 ~64 ('3 ‘3 .4 ductively and in 1» 15 39 7 2 6: 7 3 25 9 7 8 1118-7 -16 balance 1' 36 88 13 5 142 24 89? 36 18 16 12 -1«-23 1-15 -25 , Carrying corre- .c 2 9 24 J 40 3 1d 24 7 441-1-1 o -4 spondence collec- s 7’cimmdevum_ n 11 16 1 1 1317 3 34] 2-2‘1. 2 -3 tion of statistics AD 0 2° 37 3 1 2 39 12 75L:- "1“2 ‘9 ”15 °f ”bf “"13“" 5 4o 77 9 1 so 22 1511 o -4 43 ~13 ~20 51 64365554722717534141-2-2 1 ecur as proper ‘ . 8 per“ cc of n 21 6 10 4d 2 1910 10 41] 7 2 o 5 teachers 11) 6 29 6 26 61 2 39 20 34 95] 4 -1o-14 -8 -28 1: 23 76 17 5116111 M137 61181124420 -1 -22 Table 4.9--continued 92 1% mu“ Perceptions “Expectations Comparison 4 g, IJAD I; r o. 1) AD :I a! G 1) AD :1 r G 22 1 12 20 1 )- 2 0 ~1 Evaluation of 3 5 9 5) 5 9 54 3 9 educational D 2 16 S j. 43 O 17 12 14 #3 2 -1 -3 2 0 activities ‘1) 5 28 8 31 75 3 51 21 35 90 3 ~3 ~13 --4 -17 '1' 17 66 20 66169 15 68 36 681.87 ~2 ~16 -2 ~18 Evaluation of activi- G 12 24 3 11 50 13 25 3 12 53 -1 ~1 O -1 ~3 " ties of Primary and D 10 25 4 45 2 25 6 8 41 8 o -2 -2 4 0 Secondary teachers and administrators AD 12 42 8 1 76 10 44 28 16 98 2 -2 ~20 ~2 ~22 r 34 91 15 31171 25 99 37 36992 9 -3 -22 -5< -21 Realization °f Pro- e 10 19 13 1 43 1o 22 13 4149 o -3 0 e3 ~6 posals to the MOE .. - _ 1' concerning educatio - D 12 19 1° 2 43 8 16 15 44 4 5 “6 1 a1 measures of the LD 2 31 2 . 2 62 19 38 21 89 3 ~7 ~14 ~22 Pmince :- 44 69 30 5148 37 76 50 1 77 7 -7 1-20 -9 ~29 G 27 15 o o 42 22 18 o o 40 5 —3 0 Lo 2 Promotion of pro- . .. _ _ u posals to HOE on D 19 15 O 0 34 10 25 2 11 38 9 10 2 1 4 educ. measures AD 36 26 1 q 63 20 4o 10 ~ A 72 16 -14 —9 -2 -9 r 82 56 1 0139 52 83 12 - 3150 30 -27 -11 -fi -11 Selection of the (G 2 25 3 O 30 0 25 7 1 31 2 2 " '1 ' exam. board members 1) 1 21 9 2 33 o 20 119 3 37 1 - 1 1.5 - .4 for primary and # secondary schools ‘1) 39 17 0 5? 2. 28 37 3 7° '1 11 ‘20 'i '15 T 85 29 2 120 2 71 58 7 138 2 14 ~29 ~ ~18 Preparation of sy1-,. G 1 24 j 0 30 0 JJ 13 O 30 1 '7 0 O labus of secondary _ _ _ 1" schools with the D O 19 9 O 28 0 15 14- 1 3O 0 4 5 1 2 cooperation of AD 0 31 25 0 54 2 20 38 0 60 F2 11 15 0 '6 school directors 1' 1 74 37 o 112 2 52 65 1 [20 1-1 22-28 -1 -8 Signing the primary .0 j 26 5 l 35 2 17 11 3 33 1 9 -6 ~2' 2 or secondary school D O 23) 7 0 3O 0 18 13 2 33 O 5 L'16 -2 -3 (5 diplomas . 4 AD 0 38 13 1 52 3 24 33 1 61 -3 14' #20 O -9 '1' 3 87 25 2 11? 5 59 57 6 12? b2 28 ~32 41 ~10 Controlling applica- G 21 2° 2 7 5° 24 22 2 6 54 ”3 "'2 0 1 4 ) “in; if th: 8:118:31 n 20 22 2 8 .52 9 28 7 8 52 use .5 o 0 p0 c as o t e E ' fi tin educational pro- AD 32 27 2 1‘ 75 26 39 15 18 98 6 “12 13 "I .23 “‘3“ r 73 69 6 29 177 59 89 24 32 F04 1420 18 -3] ~27 Table 4.9--c0ntinued 93 hf Perceptions geoteti one .-. Comparison ‘Nm- ‘““” g_ n 1 0 11 19 1: '1 0111 L0 I 1 Securing coordina- G 20 15 1 2 39 19__2_0l__0 1 40 ..-- ~9- ,,1 1 -1 :3“ "1‘: ”he—‘1 n 17 18 0 37 13 19 5 o 37 :1 :3 C 0 ts an organ ~ '7 zations of the AD 51 1- .1 55 2 23 12 3 67 :2 -§ - ~12 province 1 53 3 7 3 131 61 62 17 4 144 7 ~9 ~10 ~1 ~13 C°°itallinfi ”£911" 0 16 11 2 3 32 1 13 2 3 34 o ~2 0 -2 cat on o ut es . '3 of the related . D 20 12 3 1 36 1 15 4 1 .34 ~3 ~1 C 2 :rsns- 331°fféce: AD 3;, 19 2 5 57 28 24 12 8 72 ~5 ~10 ~3 -15 n prov ng un s, - , materials I 67 42 7 9 IZSJ 52 18 12 140 9 ~10 ~11 -3 1 Heading the educa_ G 8 21 O O 2 25 O D 31 0 :2 O 0 "’2 tional “113111181353" D 11 20 O O 3]. 2, 28 1 O 31 9 -8 -1 0 0 ’3 giggiziethe AD 22 25 0 9 47 15' 36 3 1 55 7 '11 -3 "1 ‘3 T 41 66 O O 107 25) 87 4 1 117 16 ~21 ~4- -1 ~10 Administering and 0 2a, 24 3 12 6o 1 24 6 14 .60615 0 ~3 -2 0 controlling all - ’ 42 11 ~ .1 1 6 educational organi- D 15 2 5 7 48 4 26 6 6 5 province; '2 55 M 10 50 174 3., 95 31 33 1 15 .9 .2 .5 .15 o ‘3 15 5 c1 4 .15 2 4. 0 tuJ4.~5 1. 0 0 39;”? °i1°fff n 2 1 5 0 42 1:12,,~ 6 0 43113 ~13 ~1 0 -1 a e uca ona . 2' correspondence AD 58 1 3 O 55 2" 13 0 7 11 ‘20 ’19 0 '19 A r 86 41 13 0 14c‘58 79 23 0 1 28 ~38 ~1c 0 ~20 G 1 1 1 1 3E 12 22 3 2 39"} f3 -2 ~1 ~3 Headins tge n 4 7 3 a 54 7 23 5 0 55 lar-16 '2 0 1 Primary E uca- . -» - - - #2 tion Council AD 1 17 2 1 51 15 33 18 A. 70 16-16 ~16. 5 . 19 2 43 6 2 121 34 78 26 6 144 38-35 -20 4 -23 Following up on G 1 19 13 9 42 2 16 17 9 M ~1 3 4‘ O -2 the application of .. - 1 2 the nutrition pro- D 13 15 15 491 1 12 18 17 48 0 6 5 2 -15 granofche n 2818216912230 3284085 -111 ,. province I ‘ ‘ 65 46 ‘5 16d 5 4d 65 53 175 -1 17 -1 -11) ~16 94 Governor perceives it as a duty for the Inspector of Primary Education. We have to keep in mind, of course, that an individual respondent here may mark any duty as the duty of only one administrator or official; or he may also perceive a duty as a duty which belongs to more than one person. Following the table again, when we compare these frequency values of "perceptions" and the "expectation" values for duty number 1, we see in the comparison group that there is no difference between the perceptions and expectations of Governors in believing that this duty is one of the duties of the Governor, either at present or ideally. But comparison values of perceptions and expectations for Directors, Assistant Directors, Inspectors and total values of frequency are not the same. As we observe here, most of the comparison values are negative. It means that most of the expectation values were higher than perception values. Further, it implies that most of the respondents tend to see themselves as being able to carry out more duties than they have at present. Of course, this is not simply a matter of their wanting more duties, but rather that our respondents would also like to have more to say and a much stronger voice in educational matters at the provincial level. Another table was developed for evaluating the duty distribution table. This evaluation table (Table 4.l0, on the following page) illus- trates the total frequency values in the previous table, which are simply the differences between frequencies in perceptions and expecta- tions. A plus frequency value indicates that a specific sample group, 95 Table 4.l0. Evaluation Table for Duty Distribution . . Assistant Evaluation Governor Director Director Inspector Total Higher Percep- tions + +75 +29 +3 0 +l07 (1) No Differences 0 3 l 3 3 10 (2) Higher Percep- tions - ~10 ~59 -ll3 —ll0 -292 (3) Difference (l-3) +65 -30 -llO -ll0 -l85 such as, the sample of Governors, perceived themselves as performing a duty with a higher frequency than they should perform, among the 23 duties which are stated in the study. This means, in another sense, that perceptions of that group have a higher value than its expecta- tions, in terms of frequencies. 0n the other hand, a zero shows no difference, and a minus shows a difference toward higher expectations. As we see in Table 4.l0, only the Governors have a positive fre- quency value (+65) in terms of differences between their perceptions and expectations of duties. Directors have -30; Assistant Directors -ll0, and Inspectors also have -ll0 as scores for total differences. 96 These data indicate that the perceptions of Governors are higher than their expectations. This may mean that Governors do not expect that they should have more duties, concerning the educational matters, than they already have. Yet, as indicated in other parts of this study, they do want more rights and additional power in carrying out their present duties. Expectations of Directors seem slightly higher, while expecta- tions of Assistant Directors and Inspectors of Primary Education are markedly different from their perception values. Assistant Directors and Inspectors both want their duties to be increased in number and changed in nature. The Assistant Directors seem to want their positions to be different sorts of jobs than they are at present, in terms of the duties which they are presently carrying out. When we check the comparison values for each of the 23 duties, as we have done in Table 4.ll, on the following page, we observe that the values spread between -l and -3l. These values are the sum total frequency values of answers given to each question by all respondents. For instance, the first and fifth items each have total values of -3l. Table 4.ll shows that values for l6 duties out of 23 fall between -l5 and -3l, while values for the remaining 7 fall between -l and -l3. With the exceptions of items 18, 3, and l4, all the other items have comparison values of -l0 or higher. This may very well mean that over- all our respondents have seen their own duties, and the duties of the others in the sample groups, as being performed at present differently from the ideal--or expected--distribution of duties. 97 Table 4.11. Comparison Values of the Questions about Duties and the Ranks of the Questions Differences between frequency values of Question numbers "perceptions" and for each of "expectations" Ranks 23 duties (All negative) 1 1,5 31 2 4 30 3 ll 29 4 16 27 5 6 25 6 22 23 7 8 22 8 2,10 21 9 7,21 20 10 9,13 18 ll 23 16 12 20 15 13 17 13 14 12 ll 15 15,19 10 16 14 8 l7 3 5 18 18 l 98 In the following table and figure (Table 4.12, Figure 4.4) we see the compared frequency values of perceptions and expectations of duties. These figures were prepared by using the comparison values in the table of "Perceptions and Expectations of the Three Groups" (Table 4.9). The values on the vertical axis in Figure 4.4 are the comparisons of Table 4.9 by numbered duties. It is interesting to notice in Table 4.12 that almost all nega- tive values for the duties of Governors are the results of the answers of Governors and Assistant Directors, but almost all of the positive values recorded for the Assistant Directors are results of the Governors' answers. This may indicate, to some extent, that Governors, in general, do not desire to have Assistant Directors carrying out very different duties than they do at present. 0n the other hand, an important number of Assistant Directors would like the Govenors to have different duties than they do at present. Generally, values for both the Directors and Inspectors appear on the negative side of the 23 graphs in Figure 4.4. It means that they see themselves as groups which "should have different duties than they do now". The Assistant Directors among all the groups were the ones that most definitely indicated they would like to have different duties than they do at the present time. The comparison values found by simply counting the (+)s and (-)s were almost the reverse for the Assistant Directors (14 pluses, 55 minuses) in comparison with the Governors (54 pluses, 15 minuses--see the total values at the bottom of Table 4.12). 99 Table 4.12. Surrmary Table of Comparisons but“. onoups fi Gov. (#0: Duty number in the Questionnaire) 100 .mcowpmpumaxm uca mcowunmucmq co mcomwcmqsoo .cmpa Pacoppmozvm meu=w>oca ea cowumgmqmca ANV .110. '1' I 0---. . cv+€+ni£10 We 1?. .. 33W.“ .4‘M‘ "II- .lll 1.1.3.. ..... can- 401 c... MI 1:1 ~n| .dl 'Ir-tM «{oV‘J v } .4.4 813621 .mummtmu cmpq pecopumuzum meocw>ota mo comumcwstmumo AFV H 3. PM“) 4 1|. . 132.3 . $11! .14 $10.1..9 . - Lo£070¢ .. W n 1.... m ’0 A ,. v“. \ .q'. 101 .mcowuwcum 226;» to mmcwu_w:n _oo;um co_umo=vm .Ewta mo mmmcmumwtaotaam ecu mews?“ mo newccm—a mcwczomm Avv 1H1” a 1;", 0 1343.... l 2....” - / c3834 @331 i toastup u .SG‘SIG ..II‘ 50“ .31 L... ..ui em: umzcwuzouvoe.e unamwm .NNN .o: zap o» mcvvnoooe mpoogum tom veep mo cowm_>oea.dmv n16 .... ...FWQ 4 0 deg! :fl ... -’ toquli ....3‘11..l m . x .1. . . Lxuvwfi...i. , .3 tor3)owu.lll . - ..(u 102 .1.) - P n 1 'b 16 :1 F 3. 81 8* 1 7» H {p c ‘1 5 4+ (11 31 t: 31 1 ,, 1 P O 0 .ll -4 1 -Zr -21 '31 '31 -42 1 -5r ' -g, 4, 1 2g) \ -;, .3 0‘ h -7. . r -3. 1 / -9+ . /, .IoT \ -3 V 1 7’ . ~10“ \ ./ -419 a\ \ x .H J» V (5) Determination of educational (6) Securing that educational needs of the province. personnel are utilized productively and in balance. Figure 4.4--continued 103 (I o- ’l J 1 V4“ (7) Carrying correspondence collec— (8) Securing proper performance tion and evaluation of statis- of teachers. tics of the division. Figure 4.4--continued II» 104 1‘1 12‘ (9) Evaluation of educational (10) Evaluation of activities of activities. primary and secondary teachers and administrators. Figure 4.4--continued -1..’ (11) Realization of proposals to the MOE concerning educa- tional measures of the province. Figure 4.4--continued 105 v '— ’T‘P‘ o 3 1'19 mesL foot 3 ’,4 F- .f (12) Promotion of proposals to the ministry of education concern- ing educational measures of the province. 106 34.1 a. +fi s: .4 16+ :5- '6: .1. I“: a» ,L‘,‘ A. 3» ’ \ . / '. . I .1. l s- ,/ ‘\ fl 3' I/ 1 2r ' 61- a \ RD 1. j ‘ ' "I .5 . .41. .5 _ .‘P 3}. -? -3 - -b, .11 - .13 43 _ -IA' 45 . .u, -n - -w .13: «0’1» 4.9L 4: -a _ -22.. -llp (l3) Selection of the exam. board (14) Preparation of the members for primary and syllabus of secondary secondary schools. schools with the co- operation of school directors. Figure 4.4--continued 707 (l5) Signin second 9 the primary or (l6) Controlling application of the any school diplomas general poli cies of the MOE in educational processes. Figure 4.4--continued I“ It" '04 M __f 108 '“4 4! . -10 (l7) Securing coordination with (18) Controlling application other units and organizations of duties of the related of the province. organizations or offices in providing funds, materials. Figure 4.4--continued 109 to ‘ 19" c? ' (It I“ l‘ ' r6 ' Ia ‘ ' F at L Y " P It) ' ‘\ ‘ \ 2* \ 9” \ 5 P \\ 5 ‘ \\ ‘ i' ,\ g L L F \‘X l L \\ O W ” ) 0 H \\ ///./ l t l' b ‘\ ///. '11 r ’ b \\\ / I “H- ‘ // ./ 5T \‘V / Hr \ ,' .40} \/ «OJ» \ I. t ' «Li' \ / If} at,“ \‘ j/ \ . {In 4‘ p ~¢ 3’; -I’ 4% 401.. -ZIL .414» L (19) Heading the educational adminis- (20) Administering and control- tration of the province. ling all educational organizations in the province. Figure 4.4--continued 110 {0‘ J I! i" g u ’6 ‘ ii I‘ 0 m‘ \l ~l It‘ '1 \l 'l 3' ~ \r. 1 I ‘ 1* K ‘ ’ l 9‘ ~ g . 1 “ 3 w \‘l 9 v t : P .5 G ' 0 I?” / I t -l ‘0 .1 g I -¢ l (l ‘ I, I lg -11: “ r // / ‘p' -?f ‘ / L/ "f -19. ‘ I, / / I ‘ltf .1; l \ / / -... M i l/ / ‘4' ..t‘ L. _._/ ‘0' -l’o -to- ‘Zi’1 -q. t (21) Approval of official educa- (22) Heading the primary educa- tional correspondence. tion council. Figure 4.4--continued ll] 1w in- IN MR u’ Mi ii A 5 //\.\ (23) Following up on the application of the nutrition program of the province. Figure 4.4-~continued 112 Our data, so far, indicate quite clearly that our subjects in the three groups have expectations of duties which are quite different from their perceptions about their own duties and the duties of the other groups with whom they are supposed to work toward common goals. These differences become greater as the rank or level of the official becomes lower. We believe the graphs in Figure 4.4 offer a useful way of study- ing group perceptions of duties, when they are laid alongside the data in Table 4.ll. Thus, for example, with respect to Duty No. 1, "Determination of provincial educational plan targets": (a) the_ Governors perceive this duty as being carried out primarily by them- selves and the Directors--therefore, their comparison differences are small, and their line in Graph l in Figure 4.4 is relatively level and close to the "0" base line--that is, the Governors perceive the duty as being carried out as it should be. (b) the Directors, on the other hand, perceive that this duty is being carried out by the Governors to a considerable extent, but they more frequently perceive the duty as being performed by themselves. Moreover, they expect the Governors should be even 1§§§_involved than they perceive them in fact to be. Instead they expect the Assistant Directors and the Inspectors should be somewhat more involved, though only slightly more, and that this job should primarily be their own, even moreso than at present. Hence, the Directors' line in Graph (l) starts above the base line over the Governors' point and falls below the line with respect to their own and the other two offices. (c) the Assistant Directors, meanwhile, though perceiving themselves to be somewhat more involved presently in ll3 planning than the others do, also perceive the job as being presently performed primarily by the Governors and Directors. They agree with the Directors that the Governors should be somewhat less involved and the Directors more involved. But, at the same time, they much more frequently expect that they themselves and the Inspectors, too, both should be mugh_more involved in planning than they are at present. Hence, the Assistant Directors' line in Graph (l) falls well below the base line with respect to their own and the Inspectors' offices. Thus, the graphs might be used with the data in Table 4.l3 to work out similar interpretations for each duty. We may observe generally in the graphs: (a) the Governors' lines tend to be less variable than the others and tend to fall closer to the base line, suggesting that in the Governors' view: duties are presently distributed more nearly as they should be than in the others views; (b) the Directors' and Assistant Directors' lines tend generally to follow similar configurations, which suggests that they tend to look upon the matter of duty distributions in similar lights, though their configura- tions are often quite different from the Governors' views; (c) the Assistant Directors' lines, however, are the most variable, and their lines consistently register the 19wg§t_points on all the graphs, frequently with respect to their own offices, which suggests that they most clearly perceive distributions of duties to be different from what they should be and they themselves should be more frequently involved. 114 13. (55 to 65)Pleasegrade the followingiproblems relating to your duties according to their importance to you. From our various preliminary data we identified eleven problems. These problems appeared to be generally accepted as important ones by the general public and by educational administrators at large as well as at the provincial level. Therefore, we thought that it would be valuable to find out if differences in perceiving these problems by our three groups were sig- nificant, and to find out where the meaningful differences, if any, seemed to be located. For these purposes we have examined the problems according to our three groups. The problems which we included are listed below. The respondents marked them as "very important", "important" or "not a problem". (Direction: Please grade the following problems relating to your duties according to their importance to you.) 1. Political pressure by the political members of the permanent committee for provincial administrative decisions, for appointment and transfer of primary school teachers and administrators, contrary to legal regulations. 2. Authority of councils, encompassing persons outside of the profession, dealing with the disciplinary matters of the primary school teachers. 3. Political pressure by the political members of the permanent committee for provincial administrative decisions, for con- struction of school buildings, contrary to the plan and program targets within their areas. 115 4. Insufficiency of decision making power, delegated by the Provincial Administrative Law, relating to educational services. 5. Not practicing specific criteria in appointments and trans- fers of the personnel in the Directorate of Education. 6. Insufficiency of salaries. 7. Insufficiency of delegation of authority concerning the supervision and control of teachers and administrators. 8. Lack of organization in the Directorate of provincial education concerning the proper and clear distribution of duties. 9. Time consuming bureaucratic operations. 10. Unrelated and conflicting orders, often requiring conflict— ing actions on the same matters, coming from different offices of the Ministry of Education. ll. Imbalance between duties and rights resulting from the magnitude of duties and insufficiency of rights. 1. Analysis of Problems According to Three Groups a. Governors In general, at least half of the Governors in our sample have felt that the eleven problems stated here were either "important" or "very important". Especially, problems 10 and ll were considered as "very important" by more than 57 percent of the Governors. Nobody has stated that problem ll was "not a problem" (Table 4.13). Only the first problem was not considered as a problem by half 116 o.oop o.oo_ o.oop 0.00” o.oo_ o.oo. o.oo_ o.ooP o.oop o.oo_ o.oop a Fmpoh mm mm mw mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm m o.o F.n ¢.FN m.ep F.Nm e._m F.FF ¢.- m.mm n.mm 0.0m a Empnoca m poz o N m a m m m m FF op «F d m.~¢ n.mm F.Nm «.me m.mm e.o¢ 0.5m m.mm n.mm m.mm ¢.¢~ a pcmpcoasa NF op m mF FF mp op mp op PF 0 d P.~m _.~m ¢.m¢ m.mm o.mm F.Nm m.pm o.mm o.m~ o.m~ o.mm n pcmpgoqu acm> mp mp mp PP m 0 ch 5 n m m u a F _ S a m A c m a m N _ w awmmwmmmum Ammucm>oca PFow com mew—ace; mo mucmpgoaeH .mp.¢ mpnmh 117 of the Governors, and problems 2, 3, and 7 were not considered as problems by more than 30 percent of the Governors. On one hand, our data illustrate that Governors, in general, have considered the eleven problems rather important ones, but on the otherhand, we are not able to say, at this point, that the Governors have seen the problems significantly different. b. Directors Directors have tended to see all of the problems as "very important“ ones, more so than "important". Percentages of Directors who have not seen the problems as "problems" were not more than twenty- five as a maximum. But again, all problems have been considered either as "important" or “very important" by the Directors. Especially, problems 11 (85.7%), 8 and 10 (more than 71%), and 3 (67%) were con- sidered as "very important" problems by the majority of the Directors. In addition, all problems except problem l, were considered as “very important" by more than half of the Directors (Table 4.14). When we compare the responses of the Directors with the responses of the Governors, we see that the Directors tended to see the problems as more important than the Governors did. c. Assistant Directors Assistant Directors have mostly pointed out that these problems are "very important“. The smallest percentage of Assistant Directors who have marked the problems as "very important" was for problem 4 (43%) (see Table 4.15). The problems 6 (80%), 1 and 11 (77%), and 4 (75%) received more "very important" answers than the others, but in any case, Assistant 118 o.oo_ o.oo_ o.oop o.oop o.oo~ o.oop o.oo~ o.oo~ o.oo_ o.oo~ o.oop a Pmuoh mN wN mN mN mN mN mN wN mN mN mN m o.o ~.N N.ep N.op N.op N.¢P F.N N.op w.N~ N.op o.mN x Empnocm m #02 o N e m m e N m m m N u N.ep ¢.FN m.mN N.NF N.mm F.Nm N.mm F.Nm N.¢P m.mN N.Nv a ucmpcoaeH e o m m FF m op m e m NF m N.mm v.pn F.Nm N.FN w.Pm m.mm F.Nm F.Nm w.Nm N.om F.Nm a pcmucanH >gm> eN 0N mF ON cp mp op m_ m_ N_ m m a _P o_ m m N o m e m N P W awumwmmmmM Amwocw>oca _F am mm mN mN mN Fa mm mm mm mm mm m u a : S m N N o m e m N P w acumwmmhm Ammucw>oga FFoga F—mV mazogm wags» mo PuuoulsmEmpnogq yo mocmusoqsm .m.e ms:m_m HA” OH 0 m .n mw m .¢ m mw H b b L ‘ r t p . . . L msmanonm .l H. I N. 1 .M0 I .3. u m. f w. 1 B. r w. nuanoum m 992.!!! . uawuuogaH II! .. m Hanan—03H bfl>l . AV.H 122 of eleven problems have seemed significant, we have used one way ANOVA, and developed the related tables (Appendices IV-3, 4, 5, and 7). We have observed in these tables that since the F10,22 (.95) value of 2.30 is greater than the F ratio we observed for Governors, Directors, Assistant Directors in all provinces, and all members of these three groups, none of the mean differences in these groups in perceiving our eleven problems appeared significant at the .05 level. e. Between Groups We have also analyzed the differences in perceiving the problems among our three groups. For this purpose, we developed an input matrix of weighted means and measured them (Appendix IV-8). Then, we used one way ANOVA, and found out that between the means of Governors, Directors and Assistant Directors the differences seemed significant at the .05 level (Appendix IV- 9). In order to follow-up where the significant differences are located, we have used Scheffée technique and developed an 5 table (Appendix IV-10), and marked the significantly differing pairs (Table 4.16, on the following page). As we observed in this table, problems 11 and 10 appear as the ones which are paired most often in terms of having significant dif- ferences. The places of differences in paired problems among the groups are indicated below. Differences in Pairs (a = .05) (paired problems)p 1 - 6,10,11 6 - 7,9,11 2 - 10,11 7 - 10,11 3 10,11 8 - 11 4 - 5,6,10,11 9 - 10,11 5 - ll 123 op x x m x m x x N x m x m x x x x e x x m x x z/ N x x x p Np op o m e m N _ Ammucw>ogm NNoc NNoo Loy mampnoga No mocmucoaeu sew». hwh¢nd~ ‘ P b b u p n n L .3. 8.53“. gozocm 80.395 m uoz l unauuomBH II... 23.395 mum; I I ~ . “I I I O '0‘?" I 0 I 0 f czmfixo O ‘ ur- \° d a 127 Problem 11 was the one which was seen as "important" by the highest percentage of the respondents (more than 80%). In addition, more than 20 percent have reported that problems 1 and 3 would not be considered as "problems". Again, the general trend here was similar to the one which is seen in different groups of Directors and Governors in terms of seeing the problems (Figure 4.7 and Appendix IV-12). c. Assistant Directors (40 Years Old and Over) With the exception of problem 4, all of the eleven problems have been considered as ”very important" by 50 percent or more of the Assistant Directors who are forty or over forty years old. Not more than a maximum 15 percent of respondents have marked the problems as "not problems". In general, all problems have been marked as either "important", or "very important" (Figure 4.8 and Appendix IV-13). Again, problem 11 was the one that all respondents marked either "important" or as a "very important" one; but most (nearly 80%) of the Assistant Directors considered it a "very important" problem. d. Total of Gropps (Persons More Than 40 Years of Age) As we observe in Figure 4.9 nearly all problems have been reported as "very important" by nearly 50 percent of our total research subjects who are more than 40 years of age. Around 20 percent of our subjects believed that problems 2, 3, and 7, and more than 25 percent of them believed that problem 1 was "not a problem". But none of the other problems were reported as "not a problem" even by 20 percent of the respondents. In addition, 128 .Ngmupo Lo mam No memo» ocv mcopumgwo ma mswpnogn mo mucmpgoasH .N.¢ mczm_m NN o§ .m. NW N. .M Nm 2w n. at N WEONQOLQ ... _ ~~ co r. O O O 000 no oo \ o N o - o . .. z . ... , . lo a 9 Q. o W 00 Q CIIII.’ .Q O IN 000‘. . f. ... no I w. 1 N. 1 mo .. m. .53on m uoz ll . oi £83095 1!! “Ewan—095 .39» II a“ < 129 .Ncmvpo so man we memo» oev mcopuogwo penumwmm< Na msmpaoga No mucopgoaem .w.e mesmwu NN oN v SQ «~0an 86.3on m uoz .ll. uamuuoafiH II! ucmuuomaH 53> I mwNHNhtan b r b p - 130 .Ncmupo go one No memo» oev mazogm muggy No Nmuouu-msmpnoca No mucmugoasH .m.e mgzmwm .: ox m" .n .r .0 .m 4. n An b b aoHnoum a uoz.!!! uamuuomaH III uamuuomaw mum; I sf ‘9. 131 problem 11 was considered as a "very important" one by more than 70 ~ percent, and none of the persons in this group reported the same problem as "not a problem". The second highest support "very important" was given to problem 10, and this was consistent up to this point with both problems 11 and 10. In order to check if there were some differences which seem significant in terms of perceiving our eleven problems by our three groups, which are re-categorized according to their ages, as Governors, Directors, Assistant Directors, and total group members who were forty years old and over, we developed ANOVA tables for Governors (Appendix IV-3), Directors (Appendix IV-15), Assistant Directors IV- 16), and for the members of all three groups (Appendix IV-l7). We have observed in these tables that there seemed no significant dif- ferences in these four groups between the mean ages of the research subjects and their perceptions of our eleven problems categorized as "very important“, "important", and "not a problem", at the .05 level of significance. e. Between Grppps (Persons More Than 40 Years of Age) Since we have observed no significant differences between the mean ages of our four previous groups, we tried to find out the situ- ation of "between groups" which were three groups consisting of, forty years old and older, Governors, Directors, and Assistant Directors in this study. 132 For this reason, we have developed an input matrix of weighted means for analysis of variance (Appendix IV-l8), and an ANOVA table (Appendix IV-l9). As we seen in this table there seems some sig- nificant differences between the mean ages of our three groups, which consisted of forty years old and older Governors, Directors, and Assistant Directors in this study, and their perceptions of eleven problems, at the .05 level of significance. Since we have observed some significant differences here we have also developed an S table (Appendix IV-20) by using Scheffée technique. Later, we show where the significant areas of differences between three groups are located (Table 4.17). Again, problems 11 and 10 were matched more frequently with various other problems as being signifi- cantly different at the .05 level. f. Governors (45 Years of Age and Older) In this group, nearly 50 percent of the Governors believed that problems 5 and 9; and around 60 percent believed that problem 11; and more than 65 percent believed that problem 10 were "very important", but more than 50 percent of the Governors who were over 45 years old have pointed out that problem 1 was "not a problem" at all (Figure 4.10). In addition, the support in this group for the eleven problems, in general, was not very very strong in terms of seeing them as "important" or "very important", as we compare it with some other figures; such as, the support of Directors and Assistant Directors for the same problems. Again, the situation seems quite consistent for problems 11 and 10. Problem 11 was not given any "not a problem" response, and both problems had high percentages of "very important" answers (see also Appendix IV-21). 133 op FF op Ngmupo uca oev mazoco cmmzumm mpnmh m .N—.¢ mpnmh 134 .Ncmvpo uca mev mgocgm>oo a8 mampaoga No mucmugoaeH .o_.e mesmwm ....GNNNNGNNNN.‘ p b h h L b n$\€o\nw aoanoum m uoz.lll unmuuoqam 1!! 2.89395 .Co> II ki'qifiwfi‘f .15” nice I °. 135 g. Directors (45 Years of Age and Older) Figure 4.11 (also Appendix IV-22) illustrates that more than 50 percent of the Directors, who are over 45, have reported all prob- lems as "very important" except problems 1 and 9. The other portion is divided quite closely between the alterna- tives of seeing the problems as "important" or "not a problem". But, for some problems, one or the other alternatives between these two is selected by more respondents. It was very clear that this group of Directors saw the problems, in general, as "more important" ones. h. Assistant Directors (45 Years oprge and Older)—' With the exception of problem 4, all problems were considered as "very important" by at least 45 percent of the Assistant Directors in this group. Especially, problem 1 (over 90%), problems 3, 6, and 11 (more than 75%, or near 75%) were among the ones which a considerable portion of the Assistant Directors observed as "very important“ problems. Percentages of not seeing the 11 problems here as problems have never reached 20 percent (Figure 4.12), and Appendix IV-23). As we observed here, again, Assistant Directors in this group have tended to see the problems more important than the other two groups (Governors and Directors). i. Total of Groupsp(Persons More than 45 Years of Age) In this study, except for problems 2, 4, and 9, all other problems have been considered as "very important" by at least 50 per— cent of our respondents who were over 45 years of age. 136 .Ncmcpo uca mam No meow» mev mcopumc_o x; mempaosa mo mocmuganH .__.¢ «gnaw; :2 «MNN me n N... L p b néxnw ONQ . .’ ..’ ‘. O " ... o. O ‘ \ O " aoanoum m uoz 1.1 ucMuHomaH III uamuuomaH >Ho> I r0.— 137 . .Ngwupo uca man we mgmm» mvv mgopuwgpo ucmumwmm< An msmpaoga mo mocmpgoasfi d om m "(0 N”... b P 1 . . meoanonq b .24. 953... fioamoum a uoz l unuuuogau II! ”ZBPKKEHNEEPIII .nV.H 138 Problems 11 and 10 were, again, seen as “very important“ by the greatest percentage (around 80%) in this group. In addition, all respondents have seen problem 11 either "very important" or "important", and it was the same problem again which received the highest per- centage (30%) of "not a problem" answer among all problems (Figure 4.13 and Appendix IV-24). In addition, we have searched the differences between all persons in the total sample, more than 45 years of age, and their perceptions of problems. So far, we have explored, in this section of our study, the situation of our sample groups in terms of their perceptions of problems; namely, seeing the problems as "very important", "important", or not considering them as problems at all by marking as "not a problem". Also, we have tried to illustrate the ideas of our research subjects here by using the percentages of the answers given to each alternative and by developing some figures. Of course, our figures have not illustrated exactly the degrees or places of differences in related groups. For this reason, we have followed up the results a little further for each group as we have done previously. We have searched if differences between the members of these groups of Governors, Directors, and Assistant Directors, who are forty-five years of age and older, and all persons in these three groups and mean values of their answers in terms of their perceptions of problems, seemed sig- nificant at the .05 level. Our data have illustrated that these differences are not significant (Appendices IV-25, 26, 27 and 28). 139 .NgmuNo new man No mgmm» may mazogm No Napoauumsmpnogn No mucmugoasa .m_.¢ mg=m_l NN 0‘ m N N! $ M *4 M .6. b b n n b aoanoum m uoz Ill ucmuuoaaH In! uamuuoaBH muo> III N 140 j. Between Gropps (Persons 45 Years of Age and Older) We have found that the differences between three groups of sub— jects, in this study, forty-five years of age and older, and their perceptions of problems, in terms of importance, have seemed signifi— cant at the .05 level (Appendices IV-29 and 30). When we follow up further (Appendix IV - 31) we see that problems 11 and 10 seem to pair more times with the other problems in terms of being significantly different (Table 4.18). k. Governors (50 Years of Age and Older) Governors, in general, are located in this group. For this reason, it is quite safe to point out that our data may be considered more representative of Governors. As we observed here (Figure 4.14 and Appendix IV-32), 55 per- cent of the Governors, who are over 50, reported problems 5 and 11; more than 75 percent of them have considered problem 10 as "very important“. The rest of the problems are marked either as "important" problems, or "not a problem" by similar numbers of the respondents. Problem 11 was supported as "important" or "very important" by all members of this group. 1. Directors (50 Years of Age and Older) At least 55 percent of the Directors considered the problems as "very important", except for problems 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9. The per- centage of answers "not a problem“ was more than the answers of being "important“. 141 op pp OF Ngmupo use mm< No mcmm> mvv masocu cmmzumm m_nmN m .m~.v mpnmh 142 .Ngmupo so one No meow» omv mgocgm>ow an mempnoga we mucmpgoasH .¢_.¢ mesmwa : o. m M .5 w m. a N. 3.. N fi§0\©0knm\ r \ . .. , .. s N. N .. N .. .m. N ,1 ~ I so . Q 0 Q v ‘V O. OOOQQ r Ins umJ. t h o r M» v W. 83595 m uoz III . 04 uawuuons III uamuuonaH muo> III 143 In addition, almost an equal percentage of Directors, over 50, have reported problems 1, 2, 3 and 9 as "very important" and at the same time as "not a problem", but none of the respondents reported problems 11 and 10 as "not a problem" (Figure 4.15 and Appendix IV-33). m. Assistant Directors (50 Years of Age and Older) Assistant Directors who were more than 50 years of age tended to report that the eleven problems were either "very important" or "important". Not more than 11 percent of them reported that one or more of these problems were "not a problem" (Figure 4.16 and Appendix IV-34). Nearly 90 percent pointed out that problem 1 was "very important". Second highest percentage, in believing the problems as "very important", were located with problems 6 and 11 (66%). Only about 10 percent responded that problems 5, 7, 9, and 10 did not seem "problems" to them. There was no one reporting that any of the other 7 problems were not considered as problems. As we have seen in previous sections, especially in the groups of over forty-year-old members, Assistant Directors also saw the problems as more important than the others (Governors and Directors). n. Total of Groups (Persons 50 Years of Age and Olden) Our respondents over 50 years of age have strongly reported that problems 11 (about 80%); 10 (about 75%); and 5 (about 65%) were "very important" (Figure 4.17 and Appendix IV-35). Problem 9 was considered by more respondents (about 50%) as "important" than it was considered 144 .Ngmcpo use can mo mama» omv mcopumcwo an mempnoga No mucmpgonsH .m_.¢ atamwa N. oN n .n N. v .m N. m N. N A p) P L h * r b p P P giantm. . N. .. .. .... va a . m. .... u m! v v. .N-o . N. v m. r O. Boanoum m uoz.lll unauuomau II! unnuuomaH mum> I 145 .Ncmupo uca mom mo mcmw» omv weepumcwo pcmpmwmm< >3 mempnocm No mucmugoqu .. o. mm N .N o .m N. .m Boanoum m uoz.lll acouuomaH In! ucmuquEH >uo> .Il. .o_.¢ atsmwa 146 .Ngmvpo uca man No mcmmz omv masocm No Papa»--mempnogg mo mucmucoasw .N_.¢ mgamwm .. o. .m b N. w N. N. M N. N n h p b p )- aoanoum m uoz.!!! . . acouuoaaH II! o. uqmuuonaH .33, III ...\ 4 147 as "very important" (about 30%). But problems 1 and 3 (both 28%) were seen more as "not a problem" in this group than they were seen as "important". The last one, problem 11 had the highest percentage value (nearly 80%) in being marked as a ”very important" problem. In addi- tion, no one reported it as "not a problem". In general, the values in this figure seemed similar to those in figures related to the reSponses of Governors and Directors in the other age groups. We have observed in the related data (Appendices IV-36, 37, 38, and 39), that neither differences between Governors, Directors, Assistant Directors and their perceptions of eleven problems, nor be- tween the total members of all three groups and their perceptions of eleven problems have seemed significant at the .05 level. 3. Analysis of Problems According to the Provinces Since we have received information about chief public and educa— tional administrators from provinces with different levels of develop- ment, we thought that it would be useful to find out if there were any differences between the perceptions of our subjects on the basis of provincial location. People who work in a more developed province may perceive matters differently from those whose province of work is less developed. For instance, it may be that if one works in a place which is quite developed, he may not complain about anything. 0n the other hand, because of his work load, he may complain about everything. Or it may be that a less developed province may have more problems to deal with in terms of educational or other types or aspects of 148 development, and here the problems might be differently perceived. We have used the same groupings of provinces here which we identi- fied in selecting our samples. The provinces are categorized according to their levels of development. The first group is the most developed and the fourth group is the least developed. The measures used here are the ones accepted by the Turkish State Planning Organization in its "Developmental Index of the Provinces". Following previous procedures, we first deal with each of our sample groups, and then with the total group. a. Governors (First Group of Provinces) A considerable number of Governors who worked in the first group of provinces felt that problems 1 and 3 were not problems at all (55% and more). On the other hand, all governors in this group pointed out that problems 5, 9, 10, and 11 were either "very important“, or "important" (Figure 4.18 and Appendix IV-40). In addition, 55 percent believed that problem 7 was also a "very important" one. The ideas about the other problems were different among the group members. But, as we observed in the same figure, Governors in the first group of provinces did not seem to react to the problems in the same way; rather, their reactions were divided. b. Directors (First Group of Provinces) Between 55 and 90 percent of all Directors in the first group of provinces reported that all problems but problems 1, 3, 6, and 7 were "very important". Only problems 8 and 11 were considered "important" or I'very important", but they were not reported as ”not a problem" .waucp>oga No azocm pmgwmv mgocgm>ow Na msmpnoca mo mucmpcoaeH .w_.e mcsmwm 149 \\ ON I nE9\& ONAW :83on m uoz Ill namuuomaH II! ucmuuoaaH .3»; I 4s PW m .r b m .‘3 1" 150 (Figure 4.19 and Appendix IV-4l). Over 65 percent reported problems 2, 8, 10, and 11 as “very important". Problem 11 received the highest percentage (about 90%), and problem 8 received the second highest percentage (more than 75%) in being "very important". c. Assistant Directors (First Group of Provinces) In general, Assistant Directors, in the first group of provinces, saw the problems either as "very important" or "important". For instance, with the exceptions of problems 4 and 9, 50 percent or more of the Assistant Directors saw the problems as "very important". Most of the time these percentages were over 60 (problems 2 and 3); over 70 (problems 11); and over 75 (problem 6). Only problem 7 was not considered as a problem by 25 percent of the research subjects, but the same percentage considered it as "important", and half of the subjects saw it as a "very important" problem (Figure 4.20, Appendix IV -42). Again, problem 11 was reported either as "very important" or as an "important" one by all subjects. The trend in this group seemed the same; namely, Assistant Directors, in general, have tended to see our eleven problems more "important" than the other two groups (Governors and Directors). d. Total of Groups (First Group_of Provinces) In general, members of all three groups felt that all of the 11 problems were either "very important" or "important". Over 50 percent reported that--with the exception of problems 4 and 9--all problems were "very important". Over 75 percent believed problem 11, and more 151 2 1 . N ..r k. .w a, u§0\¢0k&.\ ’ - aoanoum m uoz 11.. unnuuogaH III uamuuomaH .935 ll . T .Nmmucw>oca No qzocm pmcwwv mcopumgwo an meopaogq No mucmugoasa .m_.¢ atzmwa l. .N.) 152 .Nmmucw>oga mo azocm umcwmv mcopumcvo ucmumwmm< Np mempnoca mo mucmpcoasm .ON.¢ mczmwm 2 o\ m w N. n» h. t m N . nsxONoVognw 36.30.; m uoz ll uamuuoaaH III ucmuuomaH muo> II.- 153 than 65 percent reported that problem 10 were "very important". Again, it was a general trend in most of our figures in this study, that slightly more than 30 percent of the group members reported that problem 1 would not be considered as a problem. In addition, all members saw problem 11 as "important" or “very important"; no one reported it as “not a problem" (Figure 4.21 and Appendix IV-43). e. Between Gropps (First Group_of Provinces) We checked data about the answers of the three different groups (Appendix IV-44), and we observed that since F (.95) = 3.32 > 1.246, 2,30 there seemed no significant differences among the means for problems in terms of their degrees of importance (Appendix IV-45). In addition, we followed the same procedure for the groups of Governors (Appendix IV-46); Directors (Appendix IV-47); and Assistant Directors (Appendix IV-48), who worked in the first group of provinces, and for the total members of these groups (Appendix IV-49). As we see in the ANOVA tables mentioned, differences between the means of the responses of the members of these four groups separately, and their perceptions of problems did not seem significant at the .05 level, in terms of degrees of importance of our eleven problems. f. Governors (Second Gropp of Provinces) In this group, there was a tendency to support the idea that problems 8 and 11 were considered either as "very important" or "important". Nearly 60 percent of the Governors felt that these prob- lems were "important", while nearly 45 percent marked problem 11, and 30 percent marked problem 8, as "very important". For the other problems, the responses vary and were seen not necessarily in one or 154 .Nmmucw>oga mo anocm umchv masocm we Napopuumsmpaoca mo mucmuganH .NN.¢ mesmwm .. o. m“ m N. w .m N. e N“ p b r 2.013393“ 88.30.; m uoz III 1 Q4 ucmuuomaH ..I... o t uamufiomaH mum> II \o 155 or another specific direction (Figure 4.22, and Appendix IV-50). At this point, we are able to say that Governors, in general, and especially in this group, do not necessarily support one or another alternative among the three; namely, seeing the problems as "very important, "important", or as "not a problem". 9. Directors (Second Group of Provinces) Contrary to the Governors, Directors in this group again seemed to accept all problems as "very important" or "important". Problem 3 was seen either as "very important" or "not a problem"; problem 7, on the other hand, was seen mostly as an "important" one. But no one marked problems 5 and 7 as "not a problem". Overall, as we clearly see, not more than 1.5 percent of the Directors marked the eleven problems as "not a problem" (Figure 4.23, and Appendix IV-51). In addition, the percentage of Directors who responded "very important" for the problems were more than the percentage of Directors who responded "important" or "not a problem”. The percentage of the responses of "not a problem" was the least of all. h. Assistant Directors (Second Group of Provinces)' A minimum of 50 percent of the group members here marked all 11 problems as "very important“. More than 60 percent marked problem 9; over 70 percent marked problem 6; over 85 percent marked problems 1, 5, 7 and 10; and all of the respondents marked problems 2, 3, and 11 as "very important" (Figure 4.24, and Appendix IV-52). The responses of "not a problem" for all problems never seemed to reach 15 percent. But again, the most responses were in the direction 156 .Nmmucw>oca No asocm accommv mcoccm>ow x3 mew—nocq No mucmacoaeH .NN.¢ meamwm : 0N m. e N. 5 m. s Aw N. N b h h h I y- p ‘ > p p - w§6\nw Oknu“ IIII'III'I" auanoum a uoz.||! ucmuuoaaH II... ....A‘ unnuuoaaH >uo> I . 157 .Nmmuc_>oga mo azosm ncoummv mcopomcwo An msmpnoca mo mucmugoasa NH nah 0 MW N m m .N .mN.e atszN ‘) P b m mamanonm . n . . 8.3on a uoz I) unauuomfiH ll! unmuuonaH 30> '- 158 .Nmmucw>oca No azocm scoummv mNONUmeo pcepmvmm< >5 mewpnoca No mucmucanH .eN.¢ mcsmmu mEmNnoca .04 awanoum m uoz .11. o\a¢ unmuuomBH all uamuuoaaH huo> II- 159 of being "very important". In addition, the situation of problem 11 was the same; everyone considering it either as "very important", or "important". The general trend seemed to continue here, for the Assistant Directors of the second group of provinces, by having most support for the ideas of problems being considered either "very important" or "important" among the three groups. Directors were in second place and the Governors were last in terms of seeing the problems as more important. i. Total of Groups (Second Group of Provinces) In general, all members, in the second group of provinces, pointed out that all eleven problems were "very important". Only problems 4, 7, and 8 were reported as "very important" problems by about 40 and 45 percent of the respondents, but all other problems were considered as "very important" by a minimum 55 percent of all subjects (Figure 4.25). Problem 11 was reported as either an "important" or "very important“ one. When we followed up and used one-way ANOVA for Governors (Appendix IV- 54); Directors (Appendix IV-55); Assistant Directors (Appendix Iv- 56); and for the total of the three groups (Appendix IV-57); in the second group of provinces, we observed that there seemed no sig- nificant differences between the means of the answers of these groups in terms of perceiving the eleven problems as "very important", "important", or "not a problem". 160 .Nmmucw>oca No azocm uncommv masocm No Page“--mem_noca No mucmucoaefi .mN.¢ mczmwu NN .uN m .n n. e m r m .N _ ‘) h N N N p p . a. EU\«VOL& r- 8930.5 .6 uoz I! 10.? uamuuomEH Ill uamuuoaaH >um>I Q... 6 161 j. Between Groups (Second Groupiof Provinces) After checking out the three groups differently, and the total of groups, we observed the situation between the three groups. First, we see that F2,30 (.95) = 3.32 < 43.902 in our related tables (Appendix IV- 58 and 59). We concluded then that there seems some significant differences among the means of the three groups in terms of perceiving the problems according to their importance. Later, we used Scheffée technique (Appendix IV-60). As we see in the S Table (Table 4.19), only problem 11 seemed pairing with three other problems as being significantly different at the .05 level. k. Governors (Third Gropp of Provinces) Fifty percent or more, of the Governors in this group of provinces, marked problems 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 as "important", and problem 11 as "very important". At least 50 percent believed that problems 1, 2, and 3 would not be considered problems at all. On the other hand, all Governors in this group marked problems 4, 5, 10, and ll either as "important" or "very important" (Figure 4.26, and Appendix IV-6l). In general, Governors marked the problems as "important” more than "very important". Also, a considerable number of responses were given in the direction of problems as "not a problem" at all. 1. Directors (Third Group of Provinces) At least 60 percent of the Directors, in this group of provinces, believed that all problems were "very important". More respondents marked the problems as "very important"than marked them as "important" or did not consider them as problems at all (Figure 4.27, and Appendix IV-62). 162 op Pp op Ammucw>oca mo angw ucoummv masocw cmmzpmm mpnmh m .mp.¢ mpnmp 163 .Nmmocw>ocn mo .oN.¢ mgamwu. )- azocm ucwguv mcoccm>om an mempnocg No mucmucoasm m m H S 3 m m N. o m a mameoHH . . .1 o. r H. . N. 6‘ a Q‘.‘ I m .. .. m u... \Qoooooo - .3 ‘IIIO.§ O.” on. u m. .. N. .. .. a u . .. . mw. a... 5..- ’o 0%". m. wx ...... 9' ~ . B. . .. / ... ...... A .m. a t we .AV.H ... Edda—cum u uoz l anon—hog 111 yawn-nomad” 30> III 164 .Ammucm>oga we qzogm vgwgpv mgouumgwo an mampnogq mo mucmugonEH .mm.e mgsmwu : o. m m N. u m t m. N. P L 4II||T b r . h V WS\¢05Q 0". ‘ l o o. \ av N. coo ' Q. ” U N o O .Q 0 "I. 'CII--I'.|II.‘III'/ I m u '00 {I .. u t E. w w. rN\ T w. vm\ '0; 8.30.5 m uoz ll Ne uGMuHOQn—H III unauuoaaH hum; '- 165 m. Assistant Directors (Third Group of Provinces)_ All Assistant Directors, in the third group of provinces, marked the problems as "very important". Only problems 2, 3, 5, and 9 were not marked as "problems" (less than 10%). All of the other problems were considered as "important", or "very important" (Figure 4.28, and Appendix IV-63). Again, we observe that, in general, the Assistant Directors in different groupings; such as, in different age groups and in different provinces, tended to see the problems as more important than the other groups; namely, Governors and Directors. n. Total of Groups (Third Group Of Provinces) When we deal with the total members of the three groups in the third group of provinces, we observe that all problems, in general, were marked either as "very important" or "important" by the research subjects. With the exceptions of problems 2 and 4, all problems were marked as “very important" by more than 50 percent. This proportion was higher for a number of problems. For instance, problems 6 and 9 (over 60%); problem 8 (70%), and problem ll (over 85%) were among the problems which were marked as "very important" (Figure 4.29, and Appendix IV-64). 0. Between Groups (Third Group_of Provinces), By following the same procedure, we tried to find out if there were any differences between the mean values of the three groups and their perceptions of the eleven problems. We observed that the differences found seemed significant between groups in the third group of provinces (Appendices IV-65 and 66). l66 .Ammocw>oga we asoem newspv mgopumgwo accumwmm< x3 msmpnoga yo mocaugoaeH .m~.¢ mgamwu Av) es \‘ 0‘ mu w A. w .m _¢ ws\wou&.\ aoanoum m uoz.lll unduuonau III £39395 huo> II- 167 .Ammucw>oga we azogm versuv masogm mo FMpou--msanogq mo moccaeoasH \. A: . m m . r ..U he» seas.»e amfinoum m uoz ll unnuuoaaH II: uawuuoan: mum> Ilv .mm.¢ wgamwm l68 Further, in order to determine where these differences were located, we used the Scheffée technique (Appendix IV-67) and found, again, that only problem ll seemed paired with the problems 1, 2, 3, and 7 as being significantly different (Table 4.20). On the other hand, when we checked the situation further for the Governors (Appendix IV-68); Directors (Appendix IV-69); Assistant Directors (Appendix IV-70); and for the total members of groups (Appendix IV-7l) one by one, by using one-way ANOVA, again we observed no significant difference between the mean values of the responses of these group members and their perceptions of problems in terms of their importance, at the .05 level. p. Governors(£ourth Groupiof Provinces) Governors in this group of provinces seem to have been responding quite differently. First of all, with the exception of problem 1, all Governors marked the problems either as "important" or "very important". For instance, problems 9 and l0 received 100 percent "very important", and problem 7 again received lOO percent of the "important” answers. Also, the other problems were supported by quite the same pro- portions in the direction of "important" or "very important" choices, rather than "not a problem" (Figure 4.30, and Appendix IV-72). q. Directors (Fourth Group of Provinces) In general, Directors in the fourth group of provinces reported all problems as "very important" (more than 50%). Especially, problems 3, 7, l0, and ll were accepted by all Directors as "very important". Problems 2, 6, and 9 were reported as "very important" by half of the l69 op PP op Ameecw>eee we aseew newchv meaegw cmmzumm mpeeh m .om.¢ mFth 170 .Ameecp>eee Ge eeeem gueeeev meecee>ew xe msepeege we mecepeegsH .om.¢ meemwm : o‘ m M h u h t m a... Esta .. ... m .. .~ .. ... .. O I B! ... g .. . . . w u .. . ... e 63995 e uoz .Il m uamuuomaH III fio _ uguuoaaH 55> ll. ..\ d. l7l Directors, and as "important" by the other half. Problems 5 and 8 were also reported either as "important" or "very important" (Figure 4.3], and Appendix IV-73). Directors in this group of provinces tended to see the eleven problems as more important than the Governors. r. Assistant Directors (Fourth Group of Provinces) Assistant Directors in this group tended to see the eleven problems either as "important" or "very important" ones. But they also reported some as "not a problem" (problems 2, 5, 8, and 9). In addition, the last five problems received less "very important” responses than "important" (Figure 4.32, and Appendix IV-74). With the exception of having higher percentages of "important" answers to the last five problems, perceptions of Assistant Directors for the eleven problems seemed quite similar. 5. Total of Groups (Fourth Group of Provinces) As we pointed out in the previous subsections, members of the three groups who worked in the fourth group of provinces tended to believe that our eleven problems were either "important" or "very important". When we checked the situation for the total members of the groups we observed a similar trend (Figure 4.33, and Appendix IV-75). For instance, at least 50 percent of the total members reported the problems, with the exceptions of problems 7, 8, and 9, as "very important". Even the situation of these three problems were not seen very differently. Because these problems were marked "important" by at least 35 percent of the respondents. 172 .Ameecv>ega we esegm cugeemv meeueegwa he msepeege we eecepgeeefi .pm.¢ egzm_u .AHl.. . mamanonm auanoum m uoz.lll pawn—095” huo> Ill d l73 .Ameeew>ege we ezeem .Nm.¢ meaewa cueseev meeueee_o ucepmwmm< xe meepeege we eeeeugeeeH . t 0‘ m % «5Q waknm ‘ e- .2 I4 .. e u n u ...r... .. .. ..... ...I. . a o oo K e .1. a. 53695 m uoz l.l. uamuuomaH III undue—omen 58> III I t ege we ezeem geezewv meaegm we Pepe»--m5e_eeee we moceeeeeEH .mm.¢ ewemww .. .ow m .b K. v .m .w m .u . «Skokk .w. -Na .m. is. .0. .¢I .k. 1%. .m. 86.30.; m uoz II 1.... acetone; III . unauuomaH %uo>' 6 .0 o\ 175 Only problem 8 received 21 percent of the "not a problem" answer. But, again, it was seen as "important" by 36 percent, and as "very important" by 43 percent of the respondents. t. Between Groups (Fourth Group of Provinces) When we examine the answers of our research subjects dealing with the importance of the eleven problems, in different groups separately in the fourth group of provinces, we observe that the respondents, in general, tended to see the problems either as "important" or "very important". Even the Governors in this group responded differently from the Governors of the other groups of provinces. Namely, Governors of the fourth group of provinces also seemed to support the idea that the eleven problems stated, in this study, were either "important" or "very important". 0n the other hand, when we check the situation further by developing ANOVA tables, we observe no significant differences between the mean values of the answers of the Governors (Appendix IV-76); Directors (Appendix IV-77); Assistant Directors (Appendix IV-78); and all members of the three groups (Appendix IV-79) and their perceptions of the eleven problems. Contrary to the findings in the other "Between Groups" (for example, as was the case for Governors, Directors, Assistant Directors, and for the total members of the fourth group of provinces--since F2,30 (.95) = 3.32 > 2.066-), we do not observe any significant differ- ences among the means of the members of the three groups (Between groups), in perceiving the eleven problems in terms of importance of these problems (Appendices IV-80 and Bl). 176 4. Analysis of Problems According to SchoOls of Graduation We thought that types of schools from which our subjects graduated might also affect perceptions of educational problems. Having different academic preparations at different schools might change the perception of given topics for different members of our group. At this point we were in effect breaking down the group of Governors, since they were the only ones mainly to have graduated from Political Science or Law; the other two groups--Directors and Assistant Directors--were mainly graduates of Educational Institutes. This means that actually our three groups are from two institu- tions and, for this reason, we can deal with them only according to these two types of schools. Even Governors who had a background in law were originally graduates of the Faculty of Political Science. In practice, being a graduate of the Law Faculty does not give a Governor any professional advantage in his profession. But holding a ' diploma of the Faculty of Law does give its holder a right to practice law. This means that if a Governor leaves his job for some reason, practicing law is a type of guaranteed alternative occupation for him. For this reason we have seen at the end that Governors who had the same types of education were the same with the group of total Governors in all provinces of this study. It is also the same with the group of total members of Governors over forty years of age, because no Governor in this study was under forty. Since most of the Directors were graduates of an Educational Institute, and especially graduates of the Pedagogy Branch, we put all 177 Directors under one group as “Graduates of Institutes of Education or Other". Actually, "the others" include those who are holding certifi- cates roughly equivalent to the diploma of the Pedagogy Branch. At different times, according to the needs of the Ministry of Education, some of the primary school teachers are selected and given some additional training in educational subjects, especially in super- vision. Those who complete the courses and pass the tests are given some type of certificate which gives its holder almost all the rights equivalent to the diploma of the Pedagogy Branch of the Educational Institutes. The numbers of Directors who have this type of certificate are very insignificant; for instance, one or two among 28 Directors hold this type of certificate. All Assistant Directors are also graduates of the same institu- tions, Institutes of Education from which Directors are also graduated. For this reason, when we deal with the groups of total numbers of Governors, Directors and Assistant Directors, it means that we have also dealt with the study groups of Governors, Directors and Assistant Directors in terms of their schools of graduation. The findings for the groups of Governors (over forty years of age) and total numbers of Governors, Directors, and Assistant Directors in all provinces (this means, of course, not only the total numbers of Governors, Directors and Assistant Directors, in this study, but in their own groups separately) are the same with our new three groups of Governors, Directors and Assistant Directors, organized according to schools of graduation. 178 In addition, when we put the two groups, Directors and Assistant Directors together' (Figure 4.34, and Appendix IV-82) we observe a similar trend which is consistent throughout this study; namely, our research subjects, in general, marked eleven problems either as "very important" or "important". Nearly 50 percent of the graduates of Institutes here, which means all Directors and Assistant Directors in our study, have pointed out that, with the exceptions of problems 4 and 9, all problems were “very important". In addition, over 65 percent of them reported problems 3, 6, l0, and ll as "very important". Consistently, problem ll was reported either as an "important“ or a "very important" one by all subjects. The mean differences of answers in perceiving the eleven problems seem significant only between three groups of Governors, Directors and Assistant Directors (Table 4.16), but not for the group of graduates of Institutes of Education, namely for the group of all Directors and Assistant Directors in this study (Appendix IV-83). 14. (66-69) Criteria for Selection of Provincial Administrators of Education It was observed, during our preliminary studies, that selection of educational administrators at the provincial level was one of the problems which concerned most of our subjects. For instance, the pe0ple involved in our preliminary studies all agreed that there should be some basic criteria for selection of educational administrators. 179 .Amceueeewo peepmwmm< ece mweueecwov :ewpeesem we mepepwpmcH we wepezeeem an meeweewe we meeeueeaeH .em.e ecemww : n: geese aoaeeum e uez.III unauueaaH III uamuuoasH hams Ill me. home e «C u h p p p p h .5: «Vat 180 Various sets of suggestions were developed from the findings of our preliminary studies, and these suggestions were checked by members of our sample elements. Their responses were put together, and the data are tabulated in Table 4.2l below. Among the respondents, a majority of Directors (57.4%) and Assistant Directors (60.78%) believe that persons who are going to be Directors of Education should have at least two years of higher educa- tion and three years experience in educational administration. But the others indicated that Directors should have at least a foureyear higher education (42.85% of the Directors and 39.21% of the Assistant Directors), and at least a three-month training period in educational administration beyond a four-year higher education. Governors, on the other hand, mostly believe that a Director should have at least four-years of higher education. In addition, more than half of the Governors (67.85%) pointed out that a Director should have a minimum of three years of experience beyond higher education or a three months in-service training in educational administration (53.6%). Responses for selecting Assistant Directors followed a similar pattern among the respondents. An average of only four respondents shifted their preference from the requirement of a four-year higher education to a two-year higher education. But there is a shift in preference regarding the criteria for experience, in this case to the three months of training in administration from a requirement of three years of experience in educational administration. Almost 50% of the elements in the sample of Governors, and over 50% of the Assistant Directors, believed that Directors of Primary 181 o.mN ¢.Fm m.FF F.mm F.mF F.mF ¢.F~ o.mm o.eF w.F F.oF m.w~ m.NF m.wF o.mF m.¢m x cewueeeem we wepewwwo pewwp Fm eF m OF om F e F mF e m m mu mm Fm e_ w -mwo emmoa0ta ¢.NN m.mm F.oF o.wm m.m m.m I F.0F w.~ m.m I I o.~m m.mo F.Fm F.Fm a cereeaem Fweewcm we Lee em mF m m o m I m m m I I Fe mm oF oF w Ieegwo pcmmmga F.Ne m.mm e.me m.mm m.FN m.FN m.FF o.mN o.me e.Fm m.mmfim.Fo ~.em o.mo o.mm m.mm & cewpeueew we weuemewo me Fm mF mF mm FF m F we 0F FF mF mm mm mF w w penumwmm< e.Fm ¢.mm m.mm m.mm F.Fe m.oo m.mm m.wm m.om N.mm m.m¢ o.mF F.Fe m.oo F.Fm m.¢F a :ewueeaem ow mF oF mF Fm Fm FF mF em om NF mm Fm Fm mF v w we cepeewwo F o< o a F o< o c F o< o o F o< o w N\w .em we; F: use» .em Le; F: ecex cewpeuaem cewueoaem Fess Ime mcLF.Ee<.em we Iee .exm.se<.eu memwc we mgemx Lmzmwz we meme» any we maez mes omen» umewFiu<, we meme» meLFF, gzew “memF,u<. e3» “weer pg ewcmpwgu .va cowemuaem we Feemwcwz any we meeuegumwcFEe< FeFecF>eLa we :eromFem we» Lew ewcmuwcu .Fm.¢ anMF 182 Education should have, at least, two years of higher education. Only some of the respondents (28.57% of Governors, 10.71% of Directors, and 25.49% of Assistant Directors) pointed out that they would prefer Directors of Primary Education with only three months of training in educational administration beyond higher education. At present, Directors of Primary Education have only normal school training. With regard to proposed District Educational Directorates, the respondents mainly believe that a Director of Education in the dis- trict--who is suggested to be responsible for all levels of education, instead of only primary education, as it is now--shou1d have at least a two-year higher education (64.28% of Governors, 75% of Directors, and 76.47% of Assistant Directors). Neither a requirement of a four—year higher education nor three years of experience were supported for the proposed Educational Directorates of Districts. Only 28.57% of Governors, 10.71% of Directors, and 7.84% of Assistant Directors responded that a Director of Education in a District should have a minimum of four years of higher education. These percentages for the requirement of three years of experience were 25% for Governors, 21.42% for Directors, and 13.72% for Assistant Directors. In case of a three month period of training in educational administration, the percentages are slightly higher than they are for the previous two items: 35.71% for the Governors, 17.85% for the Directors, and 31.37% for the Assistant Directors. As our data illustrate here, Governors, in general, support the idea of selecting Directors and Assistant Directors from among indi- viduals with more academic preparation than the present ones. 183 On the other hand, Directors and Assistant Directors do not sup- port the same criteria as much as Governors do. More than 50% of the Directors and Assistant Directors supported a criteria of only two- years of higher education for themselves. The other two criteria of having a minimum of three-years of administrative experience beyond higher education and having a three months course in educational admin- istration were supported more by the Governors than by either the Directors or Assistant Directors. But Assistant Directors seemed more in favor of these two criteria than the Directors. In addition, a majority of our subjects supported the criteria of having a minimum of two years of higher education, both for the present Directors of Primary Education and the proposed Directors of Education of the Districts. The criterion of a three month course beyond higher education for these two types of Directors also received some support--between a minimum 10.71% and a maximum 35.71%. 15. (70.1 to 27.1) Please indicate whether or not you agree with the following proposals. Proposals which were accepted by the members of the three groups are illustrated in Figure 4.35 below. Since the maximum percentage for each "yes" or "no" answers in each choice could be 100 percent, we have organized the figure by accepting 100 percent as the total possible for each "yes" or "no" answer. Hence, we have counted only the "yes" answers in Figure 4.35. Thus, if one choice is marked as 40 percent in this figure--since all respondents have marked all of the choices--it means that the additional °/.. ofves” 184 Below average Abqve average u-O o" no a d M “0 ° “ ‘ ”” 3~§~3u~5328 Figure 4.35. Suggestions of total groups (Yes-No Answers). 185 60 percent did not agree on that item, and this portion illustrates the percentage of "no" answers. Our figures illustrate that suggestions from 1 to 15 (including 15), plus suggestion 29, were not supported by the research subjects. But, in general, the suggestions between 16 and 28 were supported by the subjects, in that these last ones received a majority of "yes" answers. The area in Figure 4.35 between the lines of 45 and 55 percent levels can be considered somewhat a central area, and it separates the non-supported area below and supported area above. In addition, Figures 4.36 and 4.37 further illustrate the "yes" and "no" answers of the members of the three respective groups and their totals in percentages. Of course we have to point out that having more ”yes" answers; namely, "supporting the suggestions", means being generally in favor of the present system of education at the provincial level with its organi- zational structure, basic regulations (including personnel policy), distribution of duties, responsibilities and power. Nevertheless, our data illustrate that more than 60% of all subjects, in this study, seem to be in favor of changing the following items: 1) The structure (establishment, divisions) of the Directorate of provincial education administration, 2) Required qualifications of the Director of present provincial Education and Assistant Director of provincial education, 3) Present number of personnel (excluding clerical and custodial workers) in the Directorate of provincial education, 186 .mceFummmmsw e» mgezmce =me>= .om.¢ mwzmww .mceFumemmem ea mgezmce =ez= .Fm.¢ ewemww .a o~ Fw e~ nu cm mm «N F“ on an a» FF nu ma v" an a» «a on m e F e n v n w a 4) 5) 6) 7) 10) ll) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 188 Present distribution of the duties in the Directorate of provincial education, Present duties of the Director of provincial education, Present educational duties of the Governors, Present duties of the Assistant Director of education, Present structure of the district center and district direc- torates of primary education, Required qualifications of the Directors of Primary Education at present, Present number of personnel (excluding the clerical and custodial employees) in the Directorate of Primary Education, Present distribution of duties (Sub-Governor, Director of Primary Education and Assistant Director of Primary Education) in the Directorate of Primary Education, Present duties of the Director of Primary Education, Present educational duties of sub—governors, Present educational duties of Directors of education for sub-districts, Present educational duties of village heads, Emphasis given to educational matters in the Directorate of Education, Members of the Permanent Commission in the Provincial Disciplin- ary Council, Participation in the resolution of conflicts and inspection of the Institutions of secondary and higher education of the Directorate of Education, 189 19) Situation of Director for Adult Education as not being an Assistant Director of Education, 20) Opinion of the Directors of Education in the appointment of Assistant Directors, 21) Functions and work of the Councils and Commissions which are assigned by the Law 222. 22) Power of provincial government on the personnel matters (ap- pointment, promotion, and others) of the primary and secondary school teachers and administrators, 23) Construction of educational institutions at all levels by the Ministry of Public Works, and the functions of the Ministry of Education in construction. 24) Provincial Administrative Law, 25) Provincial Administrative Law, in terms of not delegating enough authority to Directors of Education in educational matters, administration, and planning, 26) The situation of present Assistant Directors (their functions, statuses and roles). In addition, nearly 50% of our subjects believed that the follow- ing characteristics also should be changed: 1) The Administrative Law of the Provinces, not delegating enough authority to the provinces in terms of administration and planning of education, 2) Not establishing regions encompassing provinces with similar socio-economic and cultural problems and in these regions, hav- ing a head Directorate of Education for these related provinces. 190 3) Not arranging the distribution of duties among Assistant Directors of Education, according to the regional specifica- tions, in place of levels of education, and having each Assistant Director to be responsible for all educational matters of his region. When we examine Figures 4.35 and 4.37 we see that the ”no" answers show a similar trend. The first 15 questions, in the question- naire, received more "no" answers from all three groups, but the Assistant Directors gave the most "no" answers, both to the first 15 questions and to the rest, with the exceptions of suggestions 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, and 28, where percentages of Governors who gave no answers were slightly higher. The Directors rank second, and Governors third in giving "no" answers to the first 15 suggestions. The ones who least supported the present system seemed to be the Assistant Directors. III. Summary This chapter has presented data, tables, figures and analyses of the responses of Turkish Governors, Provincial Directors of Education, and Assistant Directors of Education, as gathered by the questionnaire instruments included in Appendix III. A summary of conclusions from these findings, along with their implications and limitations, is pre— sented in Chapter V. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. Conclusions This study has dealt with the provincial administration of education in Turkey. Three of the key elements; namely, Governors, Directors and Assistant Directors were the people whose views on various educational matters were received. A summary of findings presented in this chapter may be categorized in the following way: a. Background Information b. Perceptions and Expectations on Duties c. Views on Educational Problems d. Suggestions for Upgrading Provincial Directorates of Education. a. Background Information l. A majority of the Governors are between the ages of 41 and 60, and most of them are between the ages of 46 and 50. Nearly half of the Assistant Directors are between the ages of 41 and 50. Most of the Directors, however, are between the ages of 36 and 45, and the majority of this group are between the ages of 36 and 40. In terms of age, the Directors are the youngest group. There is also evidence here that Governors are older than both Directors and Assistant Directors. 191 192 2. In terms of pre-professional academic training, Governors are mostly, as expected, graduates of the Faculty of Political Sciences. There are only a few Governors who are acting Governors, and from some other school, but all Governors have at least a four-year higher educa- tion. Directors are mainly the graduates of Educational Institutes, which give them a two or three year higher education. But some of the Directors and Assistant Directors are graduates from normal schools and have taken some additional courses, mainly in primary school supervision, but their numbers are very small. We observe here that the schools from which Directors and Assis- tant Directors graduated did not offer administration courses in educa- tion, especially courses concerned with the activities at the provincial level. People who become educational administrators learn their jobs mainly by doing. 3. In terms of experience, a plurality of our subjects in the three groups are located in the range between 21-25 years of experience (35.5% of the total groups). However, a majority of the Governors have at least 21 years of experience; whereas, 32.1% of the Directors have between 16 and 20 years of experience. 4. In terms of salary, the Governors' monthly salaries seem sig- nificantly above both the monthly salaries of Directors and of Assistant Directors. In addition, Assistant Directors did not seem satisfied with the salaries they receive. 193 5. With respect to time spent in current positions, Governors and Directors seem more mobile than Assistant Directors. However, 57.1% of the Governors and 35.7% of the Directors reported that they had been working in their present province and posts between one and three years, in contrast to 31.4% of the Assistant Directors who had held their current positions between 4 to 6 years. 6. As expected, the kinds and numbers of places of work in which subjects worked six months or more were quite different among the members of the three groups. For instance, 15.5% of the Directors, and 16.2% of the Assistant Directors--but none of the Governors--had worked in villages. On the other hand, the percentage of frequencies of work in the provincial centers for Directors was more (57.5%) than either for Governors (43.9%) or for Assistant Directors (43.7%). When the situation was checked in terms of districts, it was found that Governors had worked in more districts (53%) than either Directors (21.9%) or Assistant Directors (37.1%). 7. More than half of the Governors (63%) had experience in Directorates of subdistricts and they had also served as Gubernatorial interns. These were duties mainly for less than three years. Almost all Governors served as sub-governors for four years or more, and nearly 50% of them worked as Lieutenant Governors for at least two years. Around 15% of them worked at the Central Government. The sub- governorship seems the most frequent post in which all Governors spent most of their time. Directors and Assistant Directors spent similar amounts of time in supervision of primary education which was comparable 194 to that spent by Governors in sub-governorship. Otherwise Directors and Assistant Directors had quite similar previous experiences, but the amount of experience which Assistant Directors had in teaching—- either at primary or secondary levels--was somewhat more than the Directors' experiences. In general, Assistant Directors seem to have had more experience and to have stayed longer in each of their previous and present jobs than did the Directors. 8. Governors seem more competent in using a foreign language than either the Directors or Assistant Directors. English is the most frequent and French the second most frequent foreign language known among the three groups. 9. Governors and Directors generally believe that their present jobs may help them with advancement in their professions. But more than half of the Assistant Directors (51.7%) are undecided, or they do not believe any advancement in their professions will result from their present jobs. However, these differences did not prove to be statis— tically significant. b. Role Perceptions and Expectations Governors in general feel that a Governor should be doing what he has been doing. However, the educational administrators in the provinces believe that they should be given more responsibilities. This trend is strongest in the answers of the Assistant Directors. c. Educational Problems The problem of imbalance between duties and rights (Problem 11) is the most frequent one in paired comparisons which was found to differ significantly. The problem of conflicting orders from the 195 Ministry of Education (Problem 10) was the second most frequently significant problem. But these significances were observed only between groups, rather than in groups separately. Problem 11 is the one which was graded most as "very important". While the level of development of provinces, or the importance of the posts of research subjects increased, importance given to the problems seemed to decrease. d. Suggestions for UpgradinguProvincial Directorates of Education More than half of the Directors (57.14%) and Assistant Directors (60.78%) suggest that Directors of Education should at least have two years of higher education and three years of experience. But 42.55% of the Directors and 39.21% of the Assistant Directors suggest that the Directors should have a four-year higher education and at least three months of training in administration. Governors. mostly (67.85%), believe that Directors should have at least four years of higher education and three years of experience. In connection with the proposed District Educational Director, respondents favored their having at least two years of higher education. In addition, the idea of having a three-month training in administration for the Directors of Districts was also supported. A majority of the members of the three groups supported some sug- gestions for changes within the provincial Directorate of Education. For 17 out of 29 suggestions, however, support was not very strong. Governors seem less eager to see suggestions for change go through than Directors do and much less eager than Assistant Directors. 196 II. Implications of the Study 1. This is the first study of its kind dealing directly with the provincial Directorates of Education in Turkey. In general, changes and developmental studies in the Turkish Educational system have, to date, come from the National Ministry of Education. A centralized system has advantages as well as disadvantages. One important impli— cation of the present study appears to be that we should take into consideration the system as a whole if we undertake to make any organi- zational change or any change in terms of distribution of duties or assignment of new responsibilities. We have to think of the system as a whole. For this reason, when we think of any improvement or change in educational organization, including changes in the process of educa- tion, we should take into account also the provincial and local organi- zations as well as the central organization and its units. During this study we observed that there is a real desire and potential in the provincial organizations for introducing improvements in the educational directorates. Most of our respondents were self- critical. In addition, they complained that the higher officials would not even ask their opinions regarding necessary changes in their organi- zations. These and similar evidences show clearly that strategy in educational development should be altered toward more planned joint involvement of officials in central, provincial and local organizations. 2. Duties, rights and responsibilities for education of Governors, Directors, and Assistant Directors might well be reconsidered in the following ways: 197 a) Because of their legal and traditional positions, and because of the necessity of coordination in such matters as finance, security, etc., the Governor should still be involved in educational matters, but his.rights and responsibilities in this field need to be made clearer. He need not be held responsible for all functions of educa- tion, even to the signing of all papers and documents. b) The Director should be given more rights and some additional power. He should not have all duties and responsibilities without concomitant authority. c) The evidence indicates that Assistant Directors do not feel they are in a desirable situation in terms of having clear-cut duties, rignts and responsibilities. If we classify them as administrators in the provincial Directorates of Education, their rights, duties and responsibilities should also be defined in such a way that we would not be able to say to them that their jobs could have been done by any of the clerks or secretaries in the Directorate. d) Directorships and Assistantships are both considered superior posts in the Turkish Educational system among a large number of educa- tors. However, in point of fact, they should be given higher status than they now enjoy--including higher salaries. e) Instead of feeling a necessity for being a "yes-man“ for the Governor, the Director has to be the real educational administrator who is responsible for and has rights over all matters at all levels of education in the province. But, of course, Directors, as well as Assistant Directors, should be well prepared for the job academically or otherwise. 198 3. Further study of the Directorates of Education in more detail should be undertaken, and these provincial organizations, as well as local organizations of education, should be reorganized in terms of their structure, personnel and distributions of rights, duties and responsibilities. 4. One critical question appears to be the question of political influence throughout this study. Almost all of the subjects were con- cerned that they had at least some difficulties with the politicians at the provincial level. This problem was most prominent in planning activities and personnel affairs. In addition, none of the subjects firmly believe that specific criteria for the selection and transfer of Directors and Assistant Directors are being used properly by the Ministry of Education. For this reason we suggest that: a) Criteria in selecting, promoting and transferring provincial administrators of education have to be set and followed. Both academic background and successful experience should be considered. b) Necessary changes in regulations should be instituted and a balance between the rights, duties and responsibilities of Directors and Assistant Directors should be established. Along the same line, the Special Law for the Provinces should be re-examined so that the complaints of educational administrators might at least be reduced. 5. At the provincial organization level, we have enough evidence that there is a lack of staff service. To be sure, specialists and assistant specialists are assigned to directorates or at the Research and Guidance Centers in various provinces. But the evidence is clear, with some minor exceptions, that these personnel in either of these 199 organizations do not now function efficiently or effectively. In both locations, technical personnel are not competent enough to carry out needed technical and advisory services; such as, conducting proper research in education. Secondly, there are not enough people to per- form needed services or enough equipment to carry out these services. Both the National Ministry of Education and the Directorates need effective technical services to be carried out at provincial levels, as well as in the central organization. In order to do this, new technical divisions as organs of the organizational bodies at the provincial level should be created, and existing personnel should be up-graded and up-dated. 6. The system of construction of new educational facilities should be reconsidered in the following ways: Those provinces which have fewer facilities in terms of technical personnel in construction and equipment, and those which have more facilities, should be dealt with separately. Our data illustrate that for some provinces it would be better, at the present time, to leave the construction jobs almost entirely in the hands of the central government's construction branch in the province, but more power nevertheless should be given to the Directors of Education than they presently have. Since they have local facilities to use, for some provinces it would be better to give more authority directly to the Directors in deciding and carrying out construction jobs. Our study suggests that a single arbitrary rule; such as, saying "All types of constructions in education have to be carried out by the 200 Directorates, may not be the best solution for all provinces. In any case, we also suggest that the Ministry of Education itself should have some sort of coordinating office, with necessary supporting serv- ices, in order to carry out the overall national policy in school construction. Otherwise today's problems in school construction cannot be solved by the provinces alone. 7. High mobility of Directors seems quite significant at present. They do not usually stay in a province longer than an average of three years. Moreover, their appointments, transfer or promotions to another job, probably in another place, do not seem to have any definite time occurrence or criteria, or at least the Directors themselves think that this is the case. Accordingly, it could easily be that they may be constrained in their jobs. They may very well be under the influence of a fear that they may be transferred tomorrow. In addition, though the appointment of a Director is made only after asking the Opinion of the Governor, Directors have never been asked whether they would like to work with either the Governor or the Assistant Directors. Especially, since the Director and the Assistant Director are to be the closest colleagues, they both should be willing to work together. Secondly, for the Directors part, he, as an administrator at least, should be asked for his opinion--if not his approval--on the selection of his assistant. 8. Most of the directorates have three divisions as stated in the regulations--some have different divisions and some have more divisions. There has been no criteria for setting up the many different divisions within a directorate. However, as our data suggest, whether there are three or seventeen divisions, and whether there is so and so many people 201 working in a directorate, these factors alone do not solve the prob- lems of overlap, conflict, and confusion. For instance, there are now established both a Ministry of Youth and Sport and an Undersecre- tariate for Cultural Affairs. Nevertheless, carried over from their former duties, directorates still usually carry out the provincial functions of the Youth and Sport Ministry as well as those for the Undersecretariate for Cultural Affairs. For this reason, the question of where the directorates stand, what their rights and responsibilities are, and to what extent and to whom they are responsible, all of these things need to be cleared up and stated definitely. 9. Our data also give enough evidence that communications between directorates and different departments of the National Ministry of Education are quite slow and confusing. It is also clear that unless coordination and communications systems within the central organization itself and among its departments are improved, then some similar forms of communications problems are likely to persist in the provincial directorates. 10. This study indicates that the administrators who were involved really desire changes and improvements in the provincial and local organizations of education. They have also shed some light on possible directions for some vital changes. These feelings and attitudes can and should be utilized and taken into consideration, and it should be an accepted principle that people working in the provincial and local levels in education may also have various valuable ideas to contribute to organizational development. 202 11. As our research has indicated, at present provincial organi- zations do not seem ready or capable to carry out even some of the most basic duties; such as, managing the distribution of personnel in secondary education, or involving themselves more in planning and budgeting activities, or doing proper research in education. Hence, various vital changes have to be made both in terms of organization as well as in personnel strength and in management tech- niques. To proceed with these changes will require some additional and different types of research, especially in the areas of organizational development and administration of education. As a result any changes in provincial and local organizations of education should be made only on the basis of necessary preparations and further studies. III. Limitations of the Study It has always been difficult to interpret "what other people may think or say about some other thing". This is even more difficult if the topic involves the other peoples' jobs or personal lives. For this reason, the intention of this study has been to exploratory work in the field. We simply believe that identifying some aspects of the task and gathering points of view of the people concerned, on related items, might provide something of benefit to those who are ready and willing to improve educational practices in Turkish provinces, and in a form that would be appr0priate to dealing with the organizational problems. 203 In several ways, the study happily has been carried out free of restrictions. For instance, this was the case in terms of the support of higher officials within the National Ministry of Education. They all encouraged and supported the project without reservation. The chief limitation was that this study itself was not able to create a perfect or even any definite specific model for the Provincial Director- ate of Education in Turkey. Hopefully, however, we may have been able to raise some new and useful questions, in addition to those that educators in Turkey have already been asking for so many years. In addition, we also looked for possible answers to our questions by discussing them directly with the people who are the actual practi- tioners in the field. Therefore, this study may be accepted as a start- ing project for other more intensive studies in dealing with the organizational development of the provincial and local directorates. In fact, this researcher has already been appointed as coordinator- member of such a follow-up study group. Our present study has, therefore, already served at least to create a further project along these same lines. In this further study, we intend to use all of the 67 provinces instead of only 28. We also intend to cross-check answers of respondents in some of the provinces against experience in some of the other prov- inces out of our 28 provinces. Of course the built-in limitations of role studies will still remain as they have in the present study; such as, questions as to whether the respondents did or could answer correctly what their roles were, and were they able to see and judge 204 others without any biases which may largely affect their perceptions of others. No organization is entirely free and separate from other organi- zations. Even if, in some cases, we may be forced to create an imaginary, separate organization, and call it "the existing organization", but, nevertheless, this organization too would necessarily be an organic part of some larger system. Thus, legally and traditionally, the provincial educational directorate in Turkey has been a branch of the provincial government under the Governor. For this reason, it would have been misleading to eliminate the Governor from the study, so he was included as one of three key members of the organization we undertook to examine. In the last analysis, our study is limited to the three points of view herein analyzed. As we stated earlier, the present study has been intended only to be an exploratory and a pioneering work in its area. In spite of several limitations, we tried to do our best along the way, and hope we may have helped to uncover some promising avenues for improvement, development, and reform. IV. Summary This chapter presents a summary of conclusions which appear to be justified on the basis of the findings presented in Chapter IV. It seems to add up to a desire for improvement and change on the part of the provincial educational administrators in Turkey. In particular, the Directors and Assistant Directors appear to want to have more 205 authority in managing provincial educational activities; this is especially true of the Assistant Directors. Some of the major implications of this study are listed above, and, in conclusion, some of its limitations too are cited. APPENDICES APPENDIX III - 1 FIRST QUESTIONNAIRE PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH PROJECT OF THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION Form I 206 207 APPENDIX III - 1 ML}. Governorships The questionnaire below has been prepared to benefit from your opinions and experiences in provincial administration for this research projects of the Ministry of National Education. 1. Name and last name: 2. How old are you? Please circle the most appropriate one. a) 35 or less b) between 36-40 c) between 41-45 d) between 46-50 e) between 51-55 f) between 56-60 9) Above 60 3. What is your present position? a) Governorship b) Acting governor c) Assistant governor 4. Name of school from which you last graduated? a) Faculty of Political Science b) Faculty of Law c) Other (please specify) 5. Major academic field in school from which graduated: a) Public administration b) Law 208 c) Finance d) Other (please specify) 6. Duration of active participation in the Civil Service including Military Training: a) 1-5 years b) 6-10 years c) ll-15 years d) 16-20 years e) 21-25 years f) 26-30 years 9) 31 years and over 7. Current Civil Service Income Rating: 929:3; £31611. 8. How long have you been working in your current position? a) less than one year b) between 1-3 years c) between 4-6 years d) between 7-4 years e) 10 years and over 9. Number of locations where you have served 6 months or more during your career: (example: If you worked in three towns or one province for periods of 6 months or more please put 3 and 1 respectively in the space provided below). Type of Place Number Village Subdistrict District Province 209 10. Previous Duties and Their Duration Name of the Duty less than one year Total Duration of Duty 0-3 years 4-6 years 7-9 years 10 years or more . Directorate of sub-district . Gubernatorial Internship . Sub-governorship . Lieutenant Governorship . Directorate of Security . Governorship . Central Governor- ship or another duty in the central administration of the Ministry of the Interior . Other duties in the Ministry of the Interior outside of central administra- tion . Duties served for an Ins. or Ministry out- side of the Ministry of the Interior 210 11. Do you know any foreign language? a) yes b) no 12. Knowledge of Foreign Languages: a) Please indicate ver ood if you can use the foreign language in academic oral anfi written work. b) Please in indicate ood if you can use the foreign language in oral and written wor with use of a dictionary when needed. c) Please indicate fair if you can use the foreign language only for daily conversation. Name of foreign language(s) spoken Degree of competence English very good good fair French German Other (please specify) The table presented below lists some criteria for the qualifications for the organization of the Director of Provincial Education and Director of Primary Education. Please indicate your opinion by placing an (x) under the items numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4. Agree (1) No opinion (2) Disagree (3) 211 Director of Provincial Director of Primary Education Education Unde- Not on the Unde- Not on the Same cided same idea Same cided same idea The structure (estab- lishment, divisions) should remain the same The qualifications of the personnel (educa- tion level and experi- ence) should have the came characteristics. Present number of person— nel should remain the same Present distribution of the duties of the organi- zation (governor, Director of Primary Education, and Asst. Dir. of P. Edu. should remain the same Present duties of the organization should re- main the same 14. The table presented below lists some criteria for the qualifications of the Director of Provincial Education, Assistant Director of Provincial Education and Director of Primary Education. Please indicate your opinion by placing an (x) under the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 Agree (1) No opinion (2) Disagree (3) 212 Name of the Duty CRITERIA (D WI (DI .C | U" LCD LCD 44 I‘D I C CCU (DU Cf—Q) UW’P “- 0): Q): 06) :‘F’C "- >~.'U >,-o Ec-I— 'CC-I— >5 0) Q) 04-, OJ'f-m “C (r m M'PCU ES— WES L SF 445— ‘F—‘CH S. 4J0) +40) 4404405 0‘0 00" ‘11—: (I): WUWC Q) S"- mm mm (USN-ol- LP) +9 QJ'I- m-r- QJUCC QJIU‘I— CG) u—Lc v—SC r—Q)°I--r- 44:44 3- C 0 ECU MOO (DO) uq—or— wHFII— «I-HF'os. ro-I-S— -C-C (04-, (0+9 (CM-'4 2“)“ 1““ 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Directorate of Education Assistant Director- ate of Education Present Primary Education Directorate Proposed District Education Direc- torate to be responsible for the education institutions of the district APPENDIX III - 2 PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE PROVINCIAL DIRECTORATES OF EDUCATION Form II 213 214 APPENDIX III - 2 February 7, 1972 Dear Colleague, Activities concerning the provincial administration research project of the Ministry of Education has been started in order to be helpful in fulfilling the services of the Ministry of Education in a more efficient way. With this purpose in mind it will be useful to benefit from your knowledge and experiences. Please complete the following items without indicating or sign- ing your name. Thank you for your contribution. Sincerely yours, Kemal Gucluol Head of the provincial administration research project of the Ministry of Education 215 1. Place of birth and date of birth: 2. The name of the school you graduated: 3. The name of, branch, faculty, or group of subjects you graduated: 4. How long and what kind of duties you have served? Please indicate on the list below. The period of the duty The name of the duty year month a) Primary school teacher b) Secondary school teacher c) Teaching at a teacher training school d) Teaching at other kind of professional and technical teacher training school e) Lecturer (teaching in a higher institu« tion rather than a university) f) Assistant director 9) School Director h) Director of Primary School Education i) Assistant director of the Provincial Education directorate J) Any duty server in the Ministry of Education k) Other duties 5. Do you know any foreign languages? a) Yes, I know one foreign language. b) Yes, I know more than one foreign language. c) No, I do not know a foreign language 10. 11. 12. 216 . Which foreign language(s) do you know? Please indicate. a) English c) German b) French d) Others--Please indicate the name of the foreign language(s). . If you know a foreign language(s), can you communicate comfortably verbally or write in any language, including academic topics? a) Yes, I do b) I can communicate if I can sometimes use a dictionary. c) No, I do not communicate. Indicate exact number of places you have served for 6 months or more. Example: Please indicate (4) if you have worked more than 6 months in 4 districts. Countny center District center Province center Village Other Please answer the following questions on the empty pages provided at the end. . In your opinion, what is the most important duty of the governor related to education? What are the main problems that the governors face as they try to do these tasks? In your opinion what are the main duties of the following personnel? a) Provincial Director of National Education b) Assistant Director of Provincial Education What are the difficulties that directors of Provincial National Education and Assistant Directors face as they are performing their duties? Please answer the following questions on the reserved places. If you have more to add continue on the empty pages. Depending on your previous experiences, how do you evaluate the work of provincial National Education Directors as the representatives of the Ministry of Education? a) very good b) good c) fair d) poor e) very poor 13. 14. 15. 16. 217 Why have you answered the twelfth question this way? Will you please give a short explanation about your reasons. 00 you think any changes within Directorates of provincial National Education are necessary? a) Yes b) No If your answer to question 14 is yes, what do you think the changes should be? In the seventh National Education Convention, the following three proposals were passed. Below each proposal please indicate the following items. (1) Are you in agreement with this proposal? (2) If you have any other ideas about this subject or have something else to add please indicate. A. First proposal: Current local administration law interfere with the proper functioning of Provincial National Education Directorates. This law must be examined and revised as soon as possible. a) I agree b) I do not agree 8. Second proposal: Provincial National Education Directors must be the sole responsible for their districts. For this purpose they must be provided with authority and financial resources. a) I agree b) I do not agree If you have any other ideas about this subject, or have some- thing else to add, please indicate. C. Third proposal: Distribution of duties among National Education Assistant Direc- tors must be according to districts not educational levels. Each Assistant Director must be responsible for the educational activities at all levels in his own district. a) I agree b) I do not agree 17. Do you have any other ideas or suggestions on how provincial National Education Directors can perform their duties better? APPENDIX III - 3 MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE (Turkish Form) 218 AN L1 61 RGDTU TASRA 0 ~ 5 219 ARASTIRMASI Q ~e 9 LI EGITIM BAK MIL ”I .mWWflflWMWAN. . mm". 220 I111! Egitim Bakan1131 Taera Orgfitfi Araetlrmael Agag1daki aorular Milli Egitim Bakanllgl Taera Orgfi- t8 Aragt1rma81nda aizin do fikir ve tecrfibelerinizden tayda- lanmak fizore ha21r1anm13t1r. Vereceginiz cavaplar ioin 51n- diden teeekkfir ederiz. Lfitfen her aoruda uygun buldugunuz karenin icine (x) iqareti koyunuz. Gbrevli Bulundugunuz Ilin Ad1 : Ya§1n12 x 7.1 E] 35 yaelndan kfigfik 2 C] 56-40 yaqlar area: 3 [141-45 II II 4 CI 46-50 I II 5 C] 51-54 .. .. 6 CI 55-60 .. .. 7 [161 ve daha biiyiik Bugfinkfi gBreviniz : (Dir gBreve vekalet edenler aalf gfirevlt gibi iearet edeceklerdir.) 8.1 E] Vali 2 C] Van Muavini 5 D Mini Egitim Miidiirii 221 4 E] 15.11! Baum Iiidiir Yard1mc191 5 D Ilkbgretin flfitettiai 6 C] Ilkiigretin uuauru 7 U Okul lliidilrii (okulunuzun ad1) En Son Mezun Olduggguz Okulun Ad1 I 9.1 D Biyeaal. 31131131: Fakijltesi 2 [1 Hum: Fakiilteai 5U Biyaaa]. Bilgiler Felt. + Hukuk Fakiiltesi (Park) 4 D Harp 01:qu 5 1:] Emma Enatitiiaii 6 D Digerleri (Mitten adnn yaumz) En Son Mezun 0162333112. Okuldaki Esau Bran§1mz I 10.1 C] Idare 2 C] Hukuk 3 D Laliye 4 [j Aakerlik s C] Pedagoji 6 D Digerleri (Liitfen achm. ynzmu) Aakerlik Dahil Devlet Hizmetlerinde P1111 ___________j—_—_—————-———-—-— Olarak gahgna Biireniz : 11.1 Cl 1-5 n1 2 [3 6-10 111 3 C] 11—15 111 4 C] 15-20 111 222 5 [321-25 111 6 D26-3O 111 '7 D 31 111 vs daha fazla Btugiin Fiilen Almakta Oldugunuz M8811!) Dereoe ve Kademee__:_ Dereceai Kademe 12.1 D Birinci Derece 15.1 [:1 Birinci kadene 2 C] Ikinci II 2 D Ikinci " 3 D Ugiincii " 3 D qulncij " 4 D Dardfincfi " 4 D Db’rdiincii " 5 [3 30911101 .. 5 Cl Beelnci ve daha 6 D Alt-mo]. .. yukara. kadeneler 7 D Iodinci " 8 U Sekizinci " 9 U Dokuzuncu ve deha ages). dereceler 223 Bugfinkfi gdrev yerinizde, Helen yapmakta oldugunuzggdrevde geQirdiglniz efire : 14.1 [J l ylldan 32 2 C] I ~ 3 y1l ara81 3 E] 4 - 6 v11 ara81 4 E] 7 - 9 y1l ara51 5 D 10 yll ve daha fazla Meslek hayatlnlzda altl qy ve daha fazla gbrevuyaptlglnlz yerlerin saylsl : (Meselé fig ilqede, bir ilde altlgar ay veya daha fazla bir zaman igin gal1§m1§sanlz, tabloda, ilge merkezinin altlna 3 ve il merkezinin altlna l say131 ya21lacakt1r.) Gerev Yerleri Yablosu Altl Ay ve Daha Fazla Callst1g1nlz Yerlegme Merkezinin 9331131 (15) (l6)__ (17) (18) Koy (Muhtar11k) Bucak Mer. 1190 Her. 11 Her. SAYISI 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26‘ 27 224 Iqigleri Bakanl1g1 ,Merkez Tegkilfitznda bagka gdrevler ('1 5 BU new SADECE VALI ve VALI MUAvIrIi TARAFINDAN DOLDURULACAKTIR 1 Helen gallamakta oldugunuz gbrevden Onceki fibrevleriniz ve toplam aurelggi Toplam Gbrev SUrelcri 10 Y1l u “ l ylldan 1-3 Y11 4-6 Y11 7—9 Yll v0 D84 GORLVIN ADI 32 ha fez. (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) t." I:- ~ . Nahiye Mildiirliigu 7;" I . ”coo-0.0 no... Maiyet Memurlug'u / we“? ”2' ”vs-'— e.. ”W ‘Frtpefi I—O a“ 0-0 Kaymakamllk 6 6 7‘... .II" ” U ".7 I .1 a. Vali IIIuavInligi g Q 2.. “I.- O Emniyet muaurlugu 2.. .1 H a... ru- 0 .' . 0 e 0 17811111: : 4]" 6 if Markez Valiligi veya 0 . .--- ' e Igigleri Bakanllg1 hizmetinde, merkez tegkilfit1 dlglnda diger gdrevler Igieleri Bakan11g1ndan bagka bir kurum veya bakanllk hizmetinde gegen gdrevler (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) 225 BU 303011 VALILER.VE VALI MUAVINLERI DIsINDAxt GOREVLILER CEVAP VERECEKTIR Helen gellemekte oldugunuz gdrevden Onceki gbrevleriniz ve toplem eureleri Toplum Gdrev SOrolerl GOREVIN ADI 1 y11den (1) 1-3 y11 (2) 4-6 y11 (3) 7-9 y11 (4) 10 yll ve dehe fezle(5) Ilkokul bgretmenligi Hulk Egiximi Mfldflr. I1koku1-Muaur1ugu Ilkdgretim MUdUrlugu veya Yard1mc1llg1 Ilkdgretim MUfettig. Denetmenlik veye Gezici Basbkretmenli Milli Egitim mua.1ra. ve Hulk Egitim Beakan. Drte Dereceli Okul Ogretmenligi Orte dereceli okul Iderecilgi (uuaur. MDdOr’Yerd., Egitim 59:1131 v.b.) u1111 Egitim unaurmgu u1111 Egitim Bekenp 1131 Markez Orgfltuns dekl gbrevler tap. I.Eg. Beken11g1 biz-I metinde, Merkez 6r— gfltu d191ndaki diger gdrevler 28 29 .30 31 226 Yabanc1 dil bilginiz : Bu maddeyi cevapland1r1rken : (a) Bir yabanc1 6111 36210 ve yaz111 olarak, akademik konularda rahatga kullanabiliyoreanlz "gok iyi“I (b) Bir yabanc: dili zaman zaman adzlfik kullanmak euretiyle edzlu ve yaz1l1 olarak kullanabiliyorean1z "121 N (o) Bir yaban01 dill ancak gunluk hayatta anlagabilecek kadar biliyoraan1z ”orta" dereceyi learetleyiniz. Bildiginiz Yabanc1 Dilin Yabanc: D11 Bilginizin.Dereceai (veya Dillarin) Ad1 on iyi Iyi Orta (l) (2) (3) Ingillzce Frane1zca Almanca Diger Yabano1 Diller (Belirtiniz) Halon bulundugunuz gdrevde, meeleginizde yukaelme ybnunden, sizin igin daha 1y1 bir ietikbal bulunduguna inan1yor musunuz ? 33. 1 D Tamamen 1nan1yorgm Oldukga 1nan1yorum Biraz inanzyorum Karare121m UUUD H19 inanmlyorum 34735 33-39 43.-£3 46-47 50-51 54-55 227 nunde gdaterilen gbrevlerin,gevcut duruma an: gdrevi oldu u I. Bdlumde; size gdre, - 3 - Agag1daki tabloda (Gdrev Dagil1m1 Tabloeu), 'Gdrevler" autu- dre kimin ve a kimlerin ‘illerde'bu”gdrevler1n k kinin veya kimlerin ana gdrevi olmee1 gerektigini II.Bdlumde igaretleyiniz. GOREV DAGILIHI TABLOSU duruma gdre (kimin veya k1 lerin ana-gdreJ vidir ? ) 1.861um nevoutJ- a1n1 diledigi durum: gbre (Kimin veya ki - lerin ans gdre ihtiyaglarim. teepit etuek . . vi olnalidir?) F—fi 1 . ' ' . ,. :5 g g Gdrevler .4 3. g on 1 no I.ng.g 1 I: 0" I b a; a. . H , e "e . 5 I I E 1'” a 3.1.5.1“ 11 mill! agitim planinin hedefle- _ rini teepit etmek 36-31 11 mill! egitim plan1n1 haz1rlanafi 40~41 222 Sayili Kanuna gdre okullere arse ve arazi aaglmk “45 Ozelliklo ilkdgretim alaninda, ye- niden inga edilecek Okul bins ve eklerinin yapimmn unmade ve M49 iaabetle plenlanmaaini eaglamak Ilia egitin ve ogretinle 115111 5243 Egitim ve ogretimle 113111 butun peroonelin en faydali ve dengeli bir gekilde ietihdenini eaglenak 56-91 228 - 9 - GOREV DAGILII TABLOSU (Devem) , I. Dblun nev- II.BdlUm olme- cut durum: gb— e1n1 diledigi- re (kimin veye niz durume gar kimlerin ena (Kimin veye gflrevidir ?) Gdrevler kimlertn en: gdL . . re‘VdoLmelidirY) * g 33 .. g- 5.3" I.‘ 3.361;; 7.‘ 3 .I*:°.: Gdrevli bulundugu bUIUmle 113111 8 yeziemaleri yurutmek, ietetietik 5 I59 ,toplamek ve degerlendirmek . 50,51 Ogretmenlerin duzenli bir eekil— 62'63 de gbrev yepmalarini eaglamak 64,65 Egitim Ve Ogretin feeliyetlerini 66'57 degerlendirmek 68.59 11k ve orte derece11 okullerin 70,71 Ogretmen ve ydneticilerin'gelig— 72 73 melar1n1 degerlendirmek ’ ' - 11 eeviyeeinde hulk egitimi qali 74,75 malarial gergekleetirmek 76.77 Ilin mill! egitim igleriyle 11- 7,3 3111 tedbirler hakkinde u1111 9 1° egIIIm Bekenligine tekliflerde ' bulunmak 11k ve orte dereceli okullerda .11,12 imtihan komieyonu uyelerini eeg- 13 14 mek ve oneylemak ' Orte dereceli okullerin dera 15,16 d331t1m gizelgelerini mfldflrleriyw 17 18 1e birlikte dflzenlemek ' 11k ve orte dereceli Okul diplo— melerini imzelemnk 229 GOREV DAGILIMI TABLOSU (Devem) - 10 I. Bdlum mevcut duruma gdre (kimin veya kimlerin ana gdrevidir ? ) “er“: 11k.Og. lflf. u.3g.xa. Veli I.E. II.Bdlum olme— s1n1 diledigi- niz durum: gdre (Kimin veye kima lerin ena gfirevi olmallg1r ?) Gdrevler .Yerd. §ve11 Enema. 11k.0t. lfif. 23,24 Egitim ve dgretimin M111! Egitim Bakanlig1n1n genel politikaeina uygun yurutulup yflrutUlmediéini denetlemek 15. J 21.28 Ildeki diger unite ve kuru1ug1ar+ la koordinaeyon eaglemak 31I32 Odenek ve are; eaglanmaei hueu- eunde ilgiliikurul ve dairelerin gdrevlerini yerine getirnelerini denetlemek” 35e35 8111! egitin 11 tegkilétinin begkanligini yepnak 39.40 43.44 47.48 51.52 Ildeki butun egitin ve agretin kurumlerinin ydnetil ve denoti- nini yapmnk I111! egitimle 113111 her turlu ream! yazieneyi onaylenak Ilkdgretiu kuruluna bagkan11k etnek Ilde beelenne egitimi programin- rinin uygulanmaeini yakindan islemek 25.26 29.30 33.34 37.38 41.42 45.46 49950 53.54 230 - 11 - Aeegideki husuelarin eize gfire garevinizle 113111 bir problem olup olmedigini, 6nemli gdrfiyoreaniz "90k 6nemli, veye ”6nem1i” olerek 6nem dereceeini belirtiniz. Il Deimi Encfimenindeki pertili fiyelerin, ilkokul dgret- meni ve ydneticilerinin teyin ve nakillerinde yonetmeliklere eyk1r1 uygulameye gidilmeei icin yeptikleri zorlemeler 55.1 C] Cok bnemli bir problemdir 2 E] Onemli bir problemdir 3 E] Bir problem degildir Ilkokul Ogretmenlerinin dieiplin ieleriyle ilgili karer- larda meelekten olmeyen kimeelerin bulundugu kurullarin yetkili olueu 56.1 E] Cok anemli bir problemdir 2 C] Onemli bir problemdir BIC] Bir problem degildir Il Deimi Encfimenindeki pertili fiyelerin okul yepiminde, plan ve program hedeflerine uymadigi helde, kendi eeqim bélgele- rine 6nce11k taninmeei iqin besk1 yapmeler1 57.1.[3 co- finemli bir problemdir 2 E3 Onemli bir problemdir 3 C3 Bir problem degildir Iller Idareei Kennnu'nun, milli egitim hizmetleriyle 11- 3111 olerak verdigi yetkilerin yetereiz olueu 58.1.[3 cok anemli b1r problemdir 2 E] Onemli bir problemdir 3 E] Bir prdblem degildir n111I Egitim Mfidfirlfigfinde g6revli idarecilerin etanme ve yer degietirmelerinde belli kietealarin uygulenmayiei 231 - 12 - 59.1 D Col: 6nemli bir problemdir 2 [j Onemli bir problemdir 3 U Bir problem degildir Meee yetereizligi 60.1 (:1 Col: 6nemli bir problemdir 2 C] Onemli bir problemdir BIC] Bir problem degildir Ogretmen ve 1darecilerin1n denetimi 113 113111 yetki- lerin yetereiz olueu 61.1 [:1 Col: 6nemli bir problemdir 2 D onemn bir problemdir 3 D 1311- problem degildir I]. milli' egitim miidiirliigiiniin garevlerin e911: ve aegik olarek belli oldugu bir organizeeyone eahip olmeq1e1 62.1 D Go}: anemn bir problemdir 2 D Onemli bir problemdir 3 C] Bir problem degildir Evrak havaleei ve imza ielerinin colt semen alien. 63.1 [3 Gel: anenu bir problemdir 2 D Onemli bir problemdir 3 U 1311- problem dezildir Hill! Egitim Bakanligi'nin qeeitli deirelerinden, 31k 31k, eym. konuda, birbirinden hebereiz ve degieik uyguleme iete- yen 1e ve emirlerin gelmeei 64.1 D Gel: 6nem11 bir problemdir 2. D Onemli bir problemdir 5 [:1 Bir problem degildir Gbrev ve eorumluluklarln 90k, yetkilerin einirli oluqu ve bunun 19121 de gdrev, yetki ve eorumluluklar erae1nde bir dengeeizligin bulunueu 65.1 [1 col: “(inemli b1r problemdir 2 C] Onemli bir problemdir 3 15"? Bir problem degildir Ian-J 66 67 68 69 232 '15~ Aeeg1deki tebloda lilli Egitim‘uuduru, Yerd1m01ei ve Ilkbg- retim uuaurunun nitelikleriyle 113111 bani k1eteeler bulunmektadir. LMtfen 113111 haneye (I) ieereti koyerek fikrinizi belir- t 1H1! e 11.3.3. Ilgili Bezi Kieteelar Teera Orgutu Ybneticilerinin Segimi Ile Gbrevin Adi Kieteelar En ea Iki Eu 3: d8rt YOkeek eg- Yukaek eg- y1111k yillik retim Uze— retim uze— yukeek eg— yukeek rine up rine en 32 retim Ogretim yil egitim 3 ey Egiti idereciligi Idereei m1 Kureu M1111 Egitim Muaunugu M1111 Egitim MUdUr Yardimcilig .1 Bugunku haliyle Ilkbgretim uuaur1ugu Ilgenin butun 'egitim ve bgretim kurumlar1nden aorumlu yeni bir ”Ilge M1111 Egi- I tim muaur1ugu . 11 233 - 14 - Aeegideki Onerilere ketilip ket11med131n1z1 belirtinie. 11 E itim.Mfidfirlfi 8 ile il 11 6ner11er I AP.I111! Egitim Mfidfirlfigfi argfitfi yepi (kurulue, bdlfimlere myri- r. 119) bakiminden bugfinkfi eekliyle eynen devam etmelidir 70.1 C] Evet 2 [:lfleyir I111! Egitim.ufidfirfi ve yerdimcilerinin.nitelikleri yeterlidir. 71.1.E] Evet 2 C] Haylr Hill! Egitim.MfidfirlfigDnde garevli pereonel eey131 (memur, duk- tilo ve hizmetliler herie) bugflnkfi helinde birakilmelidir. 72e 1 0 Eve: 2 [3 qu1r I111! Egitim.Mfidfirlfigflndeki igbfilfimfi (Yell - I.Eg.ld. ve yer- dimcileri erasindeki) bugfinkfl heliyle devem etmelidir . 73.1 [J Evet 2 [J Heyir Milli Egitim Mfidfirfinun.yepmekte oldugu gfirevler eynen deve- etmelidir . 74.1 [J Eret 2 C] Heyir velilerin, egitim-Bgretimle 113111 g6rev1er1 eynen dove: et- melidir . 75.1 C] Evet 2 [J Heyir .Iilli Egitim.lfidfir8 yerdimeilerinin garevleri aynen devem etmelidir . 76.1 E] EVet 2 I:IHEy1r 234 ’ 15 ‘ (Ierkez Ilge ve Ilge) Ilkagretim Miidiirliigii ile 115111 Sneriler I A- Yapi (kurulue) bekuunden bugiinkii eekliyle men devem etme- lidir. 77.1 D Evet 2 D Hagar B— Ilkfigretim Miidiirlerinin nitelikleri yeterlidir. 7.1 D Evet 2 1:1 Hwir O— Ilk6gretim Mfidfirlfigfinde g6revli pereonel eeyiei (memur, dek- tilo ve hizmetliler heriq) bugfinkfi helinde birekilmelidir. 8.1 D Evet 2 0 Knit 1)- Ilkiigretim Mijdiirliirgiindeki ieb61iimil (kmakem-ilkiigretim miidiirii ve yardimciei areeindaki) bugiinkii heliyle devem etmelidir. 9.1 D Evet 2 U H1711: E- Ilkanretim Miidiiril icin bugiin teepit edilmie bulunen giirevler men devam etmelidir. 10.1 C] Evet 2C] Hayir P- Emekemlerin egitim-agretimle 113111 g6rev1eri men devem etmelidir. 11.1 D Evet 2 D Hair G— Ducal: Ilfldiirlerinin egitim-iigretimle 113111 gfirevleri men devem etmelidir. 12.1 D Evet 2 U 11%er B- K6y luhtarlerinin egitim-iigretimle ilgili giirevleri men devam etmelidir. 13.1 C] Evet 2 D Rwu‘ 235 - 15 - Bundan‘bir maddet Bnce eekiden.va1111k, M111! E31t1I.Ifi- dfirlfigfl ve M1111 Egit1I.Ifidfir yard1nc111c1 gfirevlerinde bulunp lug b1: grube uygulenan b1r ankette, "Iillfi Egitim.Ifidfir1fik1e£;gr de mntlaka deg1§me81n1 letediginiz hnauslar verse bunlar neler olnal1d1r 7, aoruauna verilen cevaplar1n‘b1r k1am1 neag1dad1r. Lfitfen bu fikirlere knt111p ketzlned1g1n1z1 bel1rt1n1z 7 19 I111! Eg1t1n Ifidfirlfiklerinde'Egit1n-égret1n 1e1er1ne daha 90k a31r11k verilmelidir. 14.1 C] Evet 2 [J Haylr B— 11 D181p11n Kurulundaki de1n1 konieyon fiyeei 91ker1lnel1d1r. 15.1 C] Evet 2 [:Ifley1r 0- I111! Egitim Ifidfirlfigfi orta ve yfikeek dereceli okullardaki tert1q ve 91kacak nnleqnazl1k1ar1n g6zfimfine ket11ne11d1r. 16.1 D Evat 2 C] Hey1r D— 11 Idareai Kanunu deg1et1r11erek valilere 111n e31t1n 1daree1 ve p1an1anan1 a1an1ar1ndn bugfinkflnden daha genie yetki veril- l. lidir o 17.1 [3 Evet 2 [j Heyu‘ E- Hulk Eg1t1n1 Beekan11k1ar1 ka1d1r11mal1, hulk eg1t1n1n1 yflrfl- tecek nfldfir yard1nc111klar1 kurulnal1d1r. 18.1 E] Evet 22E] 83:1: Pb I111! Egitin.Ifidfir’yard1nc11ar1n1n eeqininde nfidfirfin de £1kr1 e11nne11d1r. 190 1 D 370: 2[:] Bay1r 236 - 17 - G- 222 Bay111 Kanunle bircok problemler1n qazfimfl kurul ve homin- yonlare‘birak11n1et1r. Kurul ve Komieyonlar iee yevee 93119- nektechr. Bu durum degiet1r11me11d1r. 20.1 [J EVet 2 [j Haylr B— 111: ve orte dereceli okullardeki égretmen ve 1derec11er1n twin, tern ve diger 6z1i1k 131er1 111ere b1rak11na11d1r. 21.1 D Evet 2 D Haylr I— Boayel, ekonomik ve kfiltflrel aorunlar1 ayn1 clan 111er1 kap- eeyan bfilgeler aaptenma11, bu.b815e1erde I111! E31t1n Bag Ifidfirlfikleri kurulma11d1r. 22.1 D Evet 2[:] Hay1r J- Her derecedeki e21t1n kurumlar1n1n 1nqaet1 Bay1nd1r11k Bakenp Ilglndan allnarak M1111 Egitim Ifidflrlfiklerine devred11me11d1r. Bu 1e1n organized ve Koordinaayonu 1q1n Bakenhk nerkez1nde bir inaaat genel mijdfirlfigfi kuru1ma11d1r. 23.1 E] Evet 2C] Hgnr K- 11 Idareai Kanunu de313t1r11me11d1r. 24.1[:] Evet 2[:] Hay1r Ip.n111£ Eg1t1m.Ifidfir’yard1nc11ar1 arae1ndak1 1gb61fimu agrot1n kedeneler1ne gfire degil, binge eaauna gBre yap11me11 ve her niidiir yerd1mc181 kend1 b613e1er1ndek1 her derece11 Serena 191er1nden eorumlu olme11d1r. 25.1 E] Evet 208W 237 - 18 - I— 11 Ideree1 Kannnu deg1§t1r11erek I111! Eg1t1m.Ifldflr1er1ne 111n egit1n, 6gret1m, egitin 1darea1 ve p1an1anmae1 alanp 1er1nda, bugfinkfinden daha gen1e yetk1 ver11mel1d1r. 26.1.EJ Evet 2'E] Heylr 3; I111! egitim nfidfir yard1nc111g1 mfieaeeeeei bugfinkfl haliyle devam etmekted1r. 27.1[:] Evet 2 C] Hay1r I111! Eg1t1m1n121n 11, 119e, bucak ve kayde argat- lenmeaiyle 115111 diger t1k1r ve 6ner11er1n1z varaa, lfitfen be11rt1n1z. APPENDIX III - 4 MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE (English Form) 238 239 PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH PROJECT OF THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION Who questionnaire below has been prepared to benefit from your opinions and experiences in provincial administration for this research project of the Ministry of National Education. Please, put an (x) in the most appropriate square for each item. Name of the province in which you work: Your age: 7.1. [:1 35 or less 2 Cl ‘ between 36-40 3 D " 41-45 A U " 46.-so 5 U " 51-54 6 D " 55-60 7 U Above so Your present position: (Indicate.current position; even if temporary) 8.1 Governor Lievtenant governor DUB Provincial Director of Education 9.1 10.1 N CIEJEICIDE'J 0‘0!qu 11.1 N #0) DUI] DUE! E] DUE] DUDE! 240 -9- Assistant Provincial Director of Education Primary Education Supervisor Director of Primary Education Director of a school (name of school) Name of School from which you last graduated: Faculty of Political Science Faculty of Law Both faculties of Political Science and Law Military Academy Pedagogical Institute Other (please , specify) 00.00000000000000000000 Major academic field in school from which graduated: Administration Law Finance .Military Pedagogy Other (please , specify) Duration of Active Participation in the Civil Service including Military Training: 1-5 year: 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 5!] GD 12.10 2!] 3C] 4E] 5C! 6U 7C] 8E! .9E] 24] -3- 2l-25 years 26-30 years 3l years.and over Current Civil Service Income Rating: 293123. L£!£_. First degree 13.1 B First level Second " 2 D Second " Third " 3 D Third " Forth " l. D Forth \ " Fifth " 5 U Fifth or higher Sixth " Seventh “ Eighth " Nine th or lower 242 1% How 10m; have you been working; in your current position: 14.1 C] less than one year 2 U between 1-3 years 3 D between 4-6 years a D between 7-9 years 5 D 10 years and over Number of locations where you have served 6 months or‘noIg during yoqenrrier: (example: If you worked in three towns or one province for periods of 6 months or more please put 3 and 1 respectively in the space provided below} Table of LocatiOn of Positions Number of Locations Served for 6 Months or More TYPE U1" PLACE (15) L (16) (171 (18) Village I Subd is tric t | Dis trict I Province J N U! [BER 19 2O 21 22 23. 24 25 26 27 243 TABLE TO BE C(MPLETED BY GOVERNOR AND LIEVTENANT GOVEJU-IOR Previous Duties and their Duration NAME OF THE DUTY Total Duration of Duty less than 1 year ‘(1) l-3Syears (2) 4-6 years (3) 7-9 years (4) Directorate of sub- district. GubernstOrial Internship Sub Governorship Lievtenant Governorship Directorate of Security Governorship 1 Central Governorship ? bop-any other duty in the central administration of the Ministry of the Inte- .212: Other duties in the Ministry of the Interior outside of central Admi- nistration Duties serVed for an Ins. or Ministry outside of the Ministry of the Interior (19) (20) (21) ' (22) .123) (25) (23) (26) (27) 244 TIDE! T0*ll COMPLETED BY PERSONNEL GEES! THAN 13! GOVERNOR ~6- AID TH! LIIVTIIAIT’GOVIRIGI 8 Previous Duties and Their Duration MIMI 0! In! DDT! Total Duration of Duty 10” “Ii-3 years I»: years 7-9 years 10 1““ ona year or more Prisary school taachar (n m m «a 1M Directorate of Primary School, Dir.oi primary sducation,Asst.Dirsc. oi primary*sdu..Dir.si Adult Odo. Supervisor of primary Id. or traveling principle for pri.sd. Assistant provincial dir. of Education and hand of Public lduca. Middle School Thachot Middle school adadnis. (Director. Asst. dirao chief of education etc Provincial Director of Education Total duties served in the central adminisq tration 0‘ the 11.0.3. Duties within the 11.0. . outside the central administration. 245 Lnowledge of l"Dreign Lanruaqe : rlcase, note (a),(b) CH" (C) below in answering this item a) Please, indicate very 399d_if you can use the fornifin language in academic oral and written work b) Please, indicate oood if you can use the foreign lanqvaqn H.— in oral and written work with use of a dictionary when nuvdud. 0) Please, indicate fair if you can use the foreign language only for daily conversation. Degree of competence Namdshf foreign language( 3) which ou know y very good Good Fair 28 29 3O 31 English French German i Other (please, specify) J Do you believe your present position offers you opportunity for professional advancement? 33.1 D only 2 D Partially 3 Cl Only slightly 4 C] Undecided s [:1 Not at all 34-35 38-39 42-43 66-67 50-51 54-55 2415 ,For the duty distribution table below, please, indicate present duty holder(s) in Column 1. and, in your opinion, the proper duty holder(s) in Column 11. DUTY DISTRIBUTION TABLE Column I present~ ly who is respon1 sible for the following duties olumn II in yalr pinion who then reperly be res- onsibls for the allowing duties a ‘ .... o no u E; : ¢’°36 8 3m 3538 “is H‘Hhfllwul UOflOH' 0 DO vIO-HO .a GOGSzV‘ E 556 Ci§3 3'3 DUTIES o #00 .nu p > bis th1 CL g h»: u. :u4 .3 5 Determination of provincial educational plan targets Preparation of Provincial educational plan Provision of land for schools according to law No:222 Securing planning of timing and approp- riateness of primary education school buildings or their additions Determination of educational needs of the prevince - ' Securing that educational personnel' are utilized productively and in balance . -3. 36-37 40-41 44-45 48-69 32-53 56-57 247' Column 11 in Column I 131?.)ch> your opinion ‘9“ ly who is res- who should pro- ponsible for th perly be res-I following duties ponsible for th following dutle" 58-59 62-63 66-67 70-71 7h-75 7-8 ll-lZ 15-16 19-20 bovernor Provincial Direc.of Ed. hsst.Direc of Educa. Supervisor of pri.£d. 'DUTIES Governor, ,sst.Direc. Of Educa. trovincial Supervisor of pri.Ed. Carrying correspondence, collection and evaluation of statistics of the division 1 Securing proper performance of teachers. Evaluation of educatibnal activiti- es Evaluation of activities of primary nnd'eecondary school teachers and administrators. Realization of adult education ac- tivities at the provincial level Promotion of proposals to the mini- stry of education concerning educa- tional measures of the province Selection of the examination board members for primary and secondary schools. A Preparation of syllabus at secon- dary schools with the cooperation of school directors F.“ —_ r1 Signing the primary or secondary school diplomas. ' 60-61 64-65 68-69 72-73 76-77 0-10 \ 13-14 17-18 21-22 248 11;: hm“ was .... y o res- ponsible (or the hould preporly ‘ following duties 03:30:32“ uties -' J . a? J a a J § 3. z :3 5 3 3 3E E 8° 3 a i . out o “a 0 J o S n §§ 52% ”u” gggyfigg m Controlling application of the go- . neral palicies of the Kin. of Id. . 13 2‘ in educational processes 25 2‘ Securing coordination with other 37"” units and organisations of the ”"30 13W 93:2 Controuing application of duties J 31.3: of the related organisations or . l l } 33.31. ‘ offices in providing funds nets- rials Boading the educational edninis- 35'“ tration of the province ”"33 . Aidninistering and controlling ”"0 all educational organiutions of ‘01-’02 the province ‘3.“ :pprozel of official educational ‘5.“ . Beading the sis-q ldncation 4,9. 7.“ Council 50 Following up on the application of ' ”~32 the nutrician progr- o! the ”'5‘ ' province -11.. 249 Please, grade the following possible problems relating to your duties according to their importance to you. Political pressure by the political members of the Permanent committee for provincial Administrative Decisions for appointment and transfer of primary school teachers and administrators outside of legal regulations. H 55.1 ,4; Very important problem 2 U Important problem 3 D Not, a problem Authority of councils encompassing persons outside of the profession dealing with the disciplinary matters of the primary school teachers.’ 56.1 D Very moi-mac problem 2 Important problem 3 0 Not a problem Political pressure by the political members of the Permanent comm. for provincial Administrative Decisions for construction of school buildings outside the plan and program targets within their areas. 57.1 [3 Very important problem 2 [3 Important problem 3 D Nota problem In sufficiency of decisions delegated by the Provincial Administrative law relating educational services. 58.1 Very important problem 2 D Important problem 3 Not_ a problem In sufficiency of decisions delegated by the Provincial Administrative law relating educational services. 250 59 .l D Very important problem 2 [3 Important problem 3 D Not a problem Insufficcncy of Salaries 60.1 D Very important prOblem 2 D Important problem 3 C] Not a problem Insufficiency of delegation of authority concerning the super~ vision and control of- teachers and administrators. 61.1 D Very important problem 2 D Important problem 3 D Not a problem 'Lack of organization in the Directorate of provincial educstlon concerning the proper and clear distribution of duties 62.1 D Very important problem 2 D Important problem 3 CI Note problem. Time' consuming bureaucratic operations 63.1 D Very important problem 2 D Important problem 3 D 'Not a'problem Unrelated and conflicting orders often requiring conflicting action on same matters coming from different offices of. the Ministry of Ed. 64.1 D Very important problem 2 D Important problem 3 D Note problem Imbalance between duties and rights resulting from the great- ness of duties and insufficiency of rights 65.1 D Very important problem 2 D Important problem 3 Not. a 'prOblem 66 67 68 69 251 Criteria for the selection of provincial administrators of the Ministry of Education -1'}- Te Criteria NAME OF THE DUTY At least 2 years higher edu- cation At least 3 years of 4 years education ,of higher admr. expe- education rience beyond higher edu. At least 3 man the of ad. admin. training beyond high- or education Directorate of Edu. Asst. Direc.of Edv. Present, primary ed. Directorate Proposed district cdu. directorate to be responsible for the eduea.institu- tions of the distric ‘oll‘- 252 Please, indicate whether or not you agree with the following preposals: Proposals concerning_the Directorate of provincial Education 3 A. B. D. E n F. The structure (establishment, divisions) of the Directorate of provincial education administration should remain the same. 70.1 D Yes I! [:1 No The qualifications of the director of provincial Education and Asst. Director of provincia Education are sufficient 71s]. YOS 2 [:3 No Present number of personnel (excluding clerical and costodial workers) in the Directorate of provincial education should remain the same. 72el [:1 Yha 2 [:1 No Present distribution of the duties (governor, D.of P.ed., and, asst. D.ofP.ed.) in the Directorate of Provincial Education should remain the same 73.1 D Yes 2 [:l No Present duties of the Director of provincial education should remain the same 74.1 D Yes 2 [:1 No Present educational duties of the provincial Governors should remain the same 75.1 D Yes 2 [:1 No Present duties of the Assistant Director of Education should remain the 76st D Yes 2 [:1 No 8 1‘ me 253 "" Proposals concerning the District Center and District Directorate of prisary education 8 a. to Present structure oi the District center and district directorates of prisary education should resain the ease 2 [:3 No the qualifications of the Directors of Prinary Education are sufficient 7.1 [:3 Yes zUso Present nunher of personnel (excluding the clerical and costodial enployees) in the Directorate ot Priaary lducation 0.1 D Yes 2 (::I No Present distribution of the duties‘(sub-gouernor, Director of Prisary Education and assistant Director of Prinary education) in the Directo- rate of'prieary education. 9.1 I::] Pie 2 [::I No Present duties of the Director of prinary Education should rennin the sane Present Educational duties of sub-governors should rennin the sane 2 [:1 lo Present educational duties of Directors of education for sub-districts» should renain the sees 12.! D Yes 2.0:» Present Educational duties of village beads should remain the seen 130 l D ‘0. 2D» 254 '16' Below presented sons answers given to a questionnaire which was distributed anong those persons who served previously as a Governor, Direc- tor of Education, Assistant Director of Education Concerning the Urgent changes they night propose for Directorate of provincial Education A. Please, indicate whether or not you agree with these opinions? Greater anphasis should be given to educational matters in the Directo- rate of Provincial Education 14.: [2] re: 2 [I] No B. Members of the pemanent comission in the provincial Disciplinary 0; D. F. council should be removed lSe‘ D Ye. 2 [:3 No The directorate of Provincial Education should participate in the resolu- tion of conflicts and inspection o£.the Institution of secondary and higher ed. l6el D Y6. 2 [:3 No The adninistrative law of provinces should be changed delegating a greater degree of authority in the administration and planning of the provincial ed. 17.1 D Y6. 2 [:3 No Directorates for Adult Education should be replaced by assistant Directo- rates of Adult Education. 18.1 D Yes 2. [:J Nb Opinions of the Directors of provincial Education should be considered in the Appointment of Assistant Director of Education ‘90! D Y3. 2 |::] No G. I. J. K. L. 255 Law 222 assigns several councils and commissions for the resolution of many problems. These councils and commissions function very slowly. This situation should be changed. 20s 1 D YB. 2 [:3 lo Personnel matters (appointment, promotion, and other) of the primary and secondary school teachers and administrators should be given to the provincial government. 21.1 [:3 is. 2 [:2] no Regions should be established encompassing provinces with similar socio~ economic and cultural problems-and in these regions, a head Directorate of education for these related provinces should be established. 22.1 [I] Yes 2 [:2] so Construction of educational institutions at all levels by the Ministry of Public works should be transfered to Directorates of Provincial Education. In addition. for the Coordination andifidministretton of such dutiesa General Directorate for Construction should be established in the Central Administration of the Ministry at Education 23.1 l::) the 2 [I] No Provincial administrative law should be changed 26.1 [I] Yes 2 [:3 no The distribution of duties among Assistant Directors of Education should be arranged according to regional specifications in place of levels of edu- cation and each‘Assistant Director should be responsible for all educati- onal matters of his region. 2 l::) No 256 "3' ll. The provincial administrative law should be changed delegating greater authority to directors of Provincial Education in educational matters. administration and planning. 26.1 [I] re- EDlo l. The present Assistant Directorates of Education should remain the s-e Zulu Please indicate in the space provided below all other opinions and proposals you might have concerning educational Ahiaistrator of provinces. district centers. districts. sub-districts. and villages. APPENDIX III - 5 PROVINCES IN SAMPLES 257 258 "Hates—l “ 5.. fl \4. ...“... 60m .60» 106.6% (Sn-didojnddé in" udvuci APPENDIX III - 6 INDEX TABLE OF THE PROVINCES (1963-1967) 259 260 Aooe u amxcse com omwcw>< “wpozv mm hegow>mz ow anew ww anew we peemo>ez er xawo ww seem ew seem ow eeweqm: we memeeccoo we weuoem ow eewefio ew Eugene ww seam 2. 323 Q 233% ooe ea: ww eeweco: ww Become ow eenecoo :. eeciccao ooe oeaexocoo mm . woo: ew esteem ew woo: we memos eoe condone ow oemewccoo ww ammo ww ‘ memos we negmo>oz woe ecueom ow osteow ww oeexeccoo ow condone we meoeeeoe woe menu» ww .eewos ow sense ow esteem we «oncome woe goose ww canoe ww eecow mw weuoem we. eeuecoo woe memos eoe owmcew ow mcocexoo ww mooeexoe we eeonoexcem woe mcoeexaw.moe moecewoe ow meadow ew mwwca< we oceeom wee cwecpc< woe owemece eoe cemoxeeom ow canoe ew cwocao nee eemcoexeew woe wewoea eoe cwecpc< ow camaom ww comacw wee weomew oee eeoeeeeeew woe wewmew ww eemoeeeew ww eeomwee wee omega: eee nemoeeeow woe ecmmeow ow oweooc< ww cemoeeemm wee cemoeeeow wee eummwmm woe eeoemeweee ew eeoeeeeeew ww canoe wee eemmwow wee «mecca woe omega: woe «mecca ow oweopc< ewe omecmewoo wee ooeccewoo woe omecceuao woe eeooemx ww oopccewco ewe comaow wee csmacw wee someww woe woos: ww owueeem wwe eceow ewe ceuoemw ewe oeuoeow woe meccxcw ww wood: wwe oecexaw ewe woos: wwe wooow woe ooocoeueo ww «mecca wwe meexmwe wwe meemmbo wwe meewmbo oee weewmwe ooe meexmpa woe wmcsm wwe omesm wwe omnsw oee wooeswcow woe «meow wme eooe ooe eooe wwe eooe wwe amnsw wee eeoeswcow owe neoew ewe newww ooe newwo owe eooe wee decoweemm ewe geomoeemw ewe negoweemm woe uenmwewmw wwe neeowexmm ewe eooe wee wooeswcow woe woweowcow wme eeoeswcow ewe ceow< ewe eeocoow awe eemeoow ewe cameo ewe cameo pee eeocoow wwe neoww oow cceo< ewe eemooow wwe eemcoow wwee ucoow ewe cocoa oww cease mww peace wew peace owe peace wwe cease wew «cameo oew whoec< www ouexc< oww neeec< wow oueec< Pom HancuemH wmm esnadpmH mom esncnpmH men Honsnpmw hwm Hsnndpmw home mmma mmme. wmma mmma 261 mm ewwcem ww ewwcew we ewwcem ww ewwcew ww ewwcem ee eemxeew we eeeeeam ww eeexeew ww euuxxe: ow ecexxew ee enme_we euwe we eeoocsa ww eeeocse ww new we eeoocse we eeoocsw oe acme ww Heme we eeeocse we ce> ee was ee ce> ww ce> ew eeme we damage. we oc> 3 on: mm 3.33 mm. as: ow we: we ceamweoe ee ceaeweee ee caseweoe ww meeeew ow endoweeao we onenwwaoo we ecenwoaoo we ocegwwaoo ww caseweee ww meeeew we neeeew we sewed: ee we: ww ocenwwaoo ew sewed: ww neeems we meeeem ee neoeex ww sewed: ww eewuoe ww wewuo» we eewuoe we eeweow ee eewuoe ew anew ww enema ww mane ww are: ee anew ew more ew ewes ww «who ww women we wanna ww wanes ww were: ww heocew ew eeeecoo we «who ww oocew ww eueecoo ow were: ww «who we eeexceo ow eeeecoo ww oocew ew ecexqeo ww wanes ow oocew ow canoe ww cowee ww cowwe ww aspoo ow asuoo ew aseoo ww cacao ww escoo ww cowwe ew cowwe Q. «5.383 max mm incandpmdx mm 45.5869me mm «5.336qu mm «acadumdM ww memez aw sonsncw ww me>ew ww me>ew ww nexepeeeeo ww eonswuw ww wwwez ww memez ow epeem ww sausage ww sheen ww hexenuuwea ww ce>en< ow nexepucweq ww eeeew ww ceppue_ww ce>eu< ww geeenuaweo ww sausage ww au>ew ww :smoeeo ww ae>ew ww camoueo ew oeseweew ww oomez ww me>ew ew peeew ww eueew ew ne>eue ew anew ow zero ww osmoceo ww asesuew ww mowez ew peaeoeex ew nexepcmweo ww :oeo ww causewom ww camoueo ew ce>ee< ww cesewEew ew ewneeox ww coco ww cooceuem ww ewecpou ww eeooeew ww useusm ww «annexe ww ouem ww coho ww ewneeow ww eenoweee ww eenowuex ow coho ww neoceuum ww pexoe ww xeooeew ww coupons ew ewseeow ww company ww usensm ew neoceupm ww xeooeew ww gouache ww eeooeem ew coupons ww seepage ow eschew ew pexow ww aseoeeo ww eweeema ww pexoe ew waxes ew xeoeeem ww seem ww neocenpw ww ewpeeea ww negow>mz ww eweeees ww eexoe ew anew ww peeow>ez ww «women: ww seem ow usensw wwwe wwwe wwwe ewwe wwwe umzcwucouuuo u HHH x~ozmmm< APPENDIX IV ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMS ACCORDING TO THEIR IMPORTANCE 262 263 APPENDIX IV - 1 Time Spent in Current Position Sample Year Spent Groups Less 1-3 4-6 T7ig 10 and Tota1 than 1 over (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) f 7 16 2 1’ 2 28 Governor % 25 57.1 7.1 3.6 7.1 100 f 8 10 7 2 1 28 Director % 28.6 35.7 25 7.1 3.6 100 Assistant f 4 12 16 13 3 51 Director % 7.8 25.5 31.4 25.5 5.9 100 f 19 39 25 16 5 107 Tota1 % 17.8 36.4 23.4 15 5.6 100 N n=19 n=39 n=25 n=16 n=6 264 APPENDIX IV - 2 Kinds and Numbers of the Places of Work Sample Places of Work Groups Sab- Village District District Province Tota1 f 0 8 140 116 264 Governor % 0 3 53. 43.9 100.0 f 36 12 51 134 233 Director % 15.5 5.2 21. 57.5 100.0 Assistant f 49 9 112 132 302 D‘"e°t°r % 16.2 3.0 37. 43.7 100.0 f 85 29 303 382 799 Total % 10.5 3.6 37. 47.8 100.0 265 APPENDIX IV - 3 Importance of Problems by Governors (All Provinces) #*#****##*********#***********************************# *SOURCE 0F* SUM OF *DEG. flF* MEAN * * *VARIATION* SQUARES *FRFFDDM* SOUARF *F-RATID * ******************************************************* *PETHEEN * t * * * * GROUPS* 178.30* 10 * 17.83* .079* #**************#**#*******#***************#*********#** *HITHIN * * * * * * GRUUPS* 4946.66* 77 # 224.84# * *********##******************************************** $#*************************#*********#***************** *TOTALS * 5124.97* 32 R * * t************************$****************#**#********* *3***¢****#**#************************************#**** APPENDIX IV - 4 Importance of Problems by Directors (All Provinces) t#******#*******************#*****#******************#* *SOURCE 0F* SUM or #055. oF* MEAN * * *VARIATION* SQUARES *FREFDDM* SQUARE *F-RATID * ***************#**********************************#*#** *FETNEEN * * * * * * GROUPS* 96.84* 10 a 9.68* .014* ********#*******#***##*********#***********#*******#*** *WITHIN * a * * * A GROUPS* 14928.66* 27 * 678.57* * #e*#*******#*#*************************************eeee nre*ececsnsevsseeetassccea*eee******#****************** #TDTALS * 15025.51* 32 * * * ******#*******##*********#***********#***************s* ea***********e**e#**eeeeesseeeeeceseeae*ceeeeeceecseeea 266 APPENDIX IV - 5 Importance of Problems by Assistant Directors (All Provinces) ##*fi#**#********************#****#***##**************** *SOURCE 0F* SUM OF *DEG. DF* MEAN * * *VARIATIDN* SQUARES *FREFDDM* SQUARE *F-RATIO * **************************#**************************** *PETHFEN * * * s e * GROUPS* $29.51* 10 * 52.95* .021* ********#****#*#****#**********#***********#*********** *HITHIN * * * * * * GROUPS* 55446.01* 22 * 2520.27# * ***#********#********#****************************#**** #*************#****#*****#******************#*#*******# *TOTALS * 55975.52* 32 * * * #********##*#**#***#********#**Q$*¥**#****#************ **********************#*****#**#*#********************* 267 .ooe .ooe «ooe .ooe .ooe .ooe .ooe .ooe .ooe .ooe. - woe woe woew woe woe woe woe .woe woe woe woe .w. o.oo w.wo w.we w.ee w.we w.oe .wo o.ee w.we w.we e.ww MW a.de;aee;_ o w. we we we ee oe we ow we ew a , . HGN m.mm m.mm ,m.mm m..mm m.wm w.mm m.m¢ eta H.~.m «.mw Jew. :mle V .. . . ww we we we we ee we we ew ww .ww m. wew e.ew w.we ewe. w.we w.ow wew owe w.wm eam w.we. we... - .- seesaw 1 2. mm mm mm Hm mm mm me em mm mm ... ee oe w w w w w e w w e w. .es.eeu Ammu=e>oea eeev masocw we eouow--meeenosw we oucoucoese m u >H x~ozmmm< 268 APPENDIX IV - 7 Importance of Problems-~ANOVA for Total of Groups (All Provinces) $***##*********#*****#************#***************#**** *SOURCE 0F* SUM OF *nFG. QF* MEAN * * *VARIATIDN* SQUARES *FREFDDM* SQUARE *F—RATIO * ******************************************************* *PETWEFN * a n * a * GROUPS* 741.38* 10 * 74.13* .009* t**#**********#*******#**************=***************** *wITHIN * * * * * # cRQURs* 166342.6°* 72 * 7561.03* * #*************#******#******************#********** *** ***#*****************#********#***********************4 *TOTALS * 167084.07* 22 * * t****#******#****************************************** ****#************************************************** i. 'X- 269 mw.m mm.m mm.m m¢.N om.~ om.~ m¢.~ mN.N e¢.m wm.m wm.~ mqseeo we peach coueeewo ow.m om.~ Fm.m me.~ m¢.~ mw.~ me.m Pm.~ oo.~ om.~ ow.~ ucepwwww< mw.N eo.~ N¢.N ow.~ mm.~ mm.m om.N m¢.~ om.~ om.~ wo.~ gouumeo wm.~ om.~ mN.N mm.~ om.w ow.~ oe.w mo.~ mm.— am.p mw.w Loccm>eu we ow m w w m m e m N w cameo; we cowewmoa mocewce> we wwwweec< cow meme: emwgwwez we chpez peace emeucw>oea eeev wooocw :eezuww memeeoew we eoceecoeee m u >H x~ozume< 270 APPENDIX IV - 9 Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Between Groups (All Provinces) it*mttttttottsttttts**s********#***#***tittittttt$¢$t¢t *SDURCE 0F* SUM OF toes. OF* MEAN * * *VARIATION* SQUARES *FREEDDM* SQUARE *F-RATID * t***#**##*****#**#*t******************#***#*****##***** *BETHEEN * t t t t w GROUPS* 1.17* 2 t .53: 14.570: **************#****#**********************#************ 'twlTHIN e . e s a , e * GROUPS: 1.21: 30 t .04: t t*#****#*#**********#*#******************#********#**#* **********it*****#*********************************#**# *TOTALS t 2.39: 32 t t t **************************t*********************#*****# 3****************************************************** 271 ooww.e e4. mw.m woe meo¢.¢ om. mw.m wad md. m>.N FDA I’ o¢>~.m Nm. mw.N fied om¢m.o cm. mw.N Nod NowN.o ¢¢e mh.N Nod ohmo 2 AH meow.m| 00.0 mw.m woe Nume.m cm. wm.m on mmmo.l m~. mm.~ woe waw.m ww. ww.w woe wwmc.ml 0. mm.« woe OZ momm.Hl mfi. mm.~ BOA Ill m~o¢.¢ Om. mm.~ woe ’ cho. we. mm.~ hoe h. mm~¢.~ Hm. mm.~ Nod 1 00¢~.¢ 0N. mm.m woe .wmo 2 0H mcm—.m cm. mm.m wce meow.w1 cc.0 mm.m wcw mmoo.ml we. mm.m wee mm.N wo— mcom.cn do. mm.m woe ammo.ml 00. Nm.N woe cmmo.¢l m0. Nm.N he” oom~.¢l mo. mm.m hon .mc Z o wwwe.| we. me.m wee MNCC.NI He. m¢.m ”CH oecw.ml 00.0 m¢.m wee mm~m.~l my. m¢.m woe cwcm.ml wc. moor FCH oowc.ml m0. m¢.m bod Nmmo.l we. mc.w wee mwwc.ml NO. m¢.m we“ Neew.m| wc. mc.~ wee owwo.l ca. m¢.m wce .wmo 2 . m wwcw.m N.NO m“. cm.m wce wmwc.e em. mw¢o.l me. Cr.m wee oNCC.N| ea. c«.m woe 400m.ml we. om.N NCH HCN¢.mI H0. om.~ wee .wm0 7 h hhwo.ul KC. Cm.w bee ocum . we. 0m.m wcH doom.ml N0. om.m wee cmwo.e cm. Cm.~ Pee o~o>.ul CC.¢ Cm.w wee cwmo.¢l mo. Cm.m wcn ewmw.e mm. cm.m wee omwo.w| 00. 0m.~ wcH mme.—I me. 0m.~ wce mm~¢.~ em. om.~ wee .wmc 7 o \ oowo.ml «c. we.“ con mwoe.1 me. we.“ can cwwo.eu mc. ueeu CLm oecw.m1 00.0 mo.“ 00— wewo. be. we.“ con CmOm.¢l #0. we.“ no. e¢m0.m1 ac. me.“ ooe mocm.1 we. mo.“ 00— .me z Awee=w>oce eeH x~ozmam< coo: m~o¢.q Om. mu.m PR m¢mu_¢l cc. mu.m POT wwwe.- .we. ww.w wen wwwo.xl N0. mu.~ hex mew£ NN. come. we. mu.m wax o~o>.ml oc.a mu.m hex mwem.n1 Me. mw.~ wax 0mwo.ml 00. mm.m wax eo~¢.m1 do. wm.~ wax ohmo z e “wee. we. ee.w woe omaw.w1 we. me.“ wex He.“ won omma.wl on. hcm O we w 0&0m.¢l on. no.“ how ccnm.ml Me. w¢.w we! o~c>.ml 0a.0 Tim >0. mdom.¢l en. n¢.w hex 00cc.nl Ne. no.“ #9 .hmc Z wmo maaogm "zzazmw mmnc.n em. w.“ .w won cmmo..~l mo. NW .N be» w~n>.ml 00. hm.m hex @00moml >0. hm .w hon wmemonl m“. ww.w hex nowm 0.ml m0. Fm .m h c.“ ommo.wl 00. hm.w hon m¢wm.¢l do. wmom hon 0~05.ml 00.0 hm.~ hex hbm o..1 00. wm.~ hex .weo z w Heeoz 0e Q, If. 0 \ V ‘s 9: hate m AM.“ woe .‘ 0m.“ New. w m¢.u 0w.“ so.“ how. m hm.“ hoe N om.“ Fax- m .wxfi z .02 z D a 3 m G 272 225 e... o: mceccewew e3 use—wean. we 35285 E. .. >H xazmag ..ooe .ooe .ooe .ooe .ooe .oo .ooe 5 hm hm hm hm. 5 mm 0.00 an“? .3” 0.3.. m.mm o e w e w w.oe e.ww w.we e.ee e.we ee oe w we oe I) I w.ww w.ww e.we w.oe w.ww we we we ee w ee oe w w w 273 Aee>o one cow wceueecwo we mseeeeca we eeeeueeese NP 1 >~ xnazmmm< 274 .ooe o.oowo.ooeo.ooe o.ooho.ooew.ooew.ooeo.ooe w.ooe o.ooe em em w en. en en en en em en en en o.oo w.wo w.ee w.wo w.ee w.wo w.wo w.ee w.wo w.wo w.wo o w e . w w e w w. w w w w m.0m e.ww N.mm N.mm meow m.oN w.wm H.¢¢ m.om m.mN w.wo .ww .11- w w we we w w we we Aw w . w 0N MN EH ON mm mm 0H ea em mm mm we . . . . .. . . e.ee ,w.ow .ww w.ww mm. 1111:; ewwwwwoowwww wewewwwww w .23; a mm ee oe w_ w w w w e , m w a. .esaeee erw>o ewe wew mceeeecww pceuwwmm< we useeeecw we eueeuceese me n >~ xuozmmm< 275 ooe Onfim ooe ooe ooe ooe ooe ooe ooe ww ww ww ww ww ww ww ww ww i w a w w o w I ‘1 00 m6 w.we e.ee m ON 0 me _ m. m. m we mmm 0 mm as. _ . H:.Je:a..2‘ o m we w we oe w we. we em a s . w.ww e.om w.oe w.ew w.oe o.mm w.wm o.ee e.ew w.we mm 3.5.5 we Eyewiwemzeee we eoeeueeeee Aee>o one oev v— u >H xmozmma< 276 APPENDIX IV - 15 Importance of Problems-~ANOVA for Directors (40 and Over) t#****#********#*********¢**#*#*********************#** *SOURCE 0F* SUM QE *DEG. OF* MEAN * * *VARIATION* SQUARES *FREFDDH* SQUARE *F-RATID * *****#***********************************************## *EETNEEN * t t 2 * * GROUPS* 29.63* 10 t 2.96* .011* t****#***#*#**#***********#**********************##***# *HITHIN * a * * * * GROUPS* 5525.33* 22 a 251.15* * **#***#*****#******************#***##*#********#******* t*##*#******##*****##**********#****#***###******##**** *TOTALS * 5554.97* 32 t t * t**#******##********#***#**#**#***********#**#**#*#***# antaaannew3*eneaaaataeataetn********xntten******a******‘ APPENDIX IV - 16 Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Assistant Directors (40 and Over) t******#*#********##$******************#*******#******* *SDURCE 0F* SUM OF 'toec. 0E2 MEAN * * *VARIATIQN* SQUARES *FREEDOM* SQUARE *F-RATID * *****************##*************#************#*****#**t *BETNEEN * * * 2 t * GROUPS* 96.18* 10 * 9.61* .008* t***#*##*#**************#**#*********#****#******#***#* *NITHIN * * * t * * GROUPS* 26229.33* 22 * 1192.24¢ * ***#*******#***********#*******#*#*#***********##**##*# Q*********##**#****##***#**********#*****#****#***#**** *TDTALS * 26325.51* 32 * * a t********#*##**********##**#*********#**#****#*#**#*##* *****************#***********************##*#********** 277 APPENDIX IV - I7 Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Total of Groups (40 and Over) #******#*#****#***#**********************************#* *SOURCE 0F* SUM OF *DEG. OF* MEAN * * *VARIATION* SQUARES *FREFDOM* SQUARE *F-RATIO * **#**********#***#********#********#******************* *BETHEEN * * e e * * GROUPS* 428.90* 10 * 42.89* .011* #*********#*****#*#***#*#******#*#*********##*****#**#* *HITHIN * t * * ‘ * # GROUPS* 83755.35* 22 * 3807.06* * *******#********************************#********#***** t***********##****#***#*****#*******#****************** *TOTALS * 84184.25* ' 32 * * * t***#*#**##*******#**************#********************# **#*#*****#*****#**#***#***##************************** 278 Nw.m wm.~ mm.m mv.m mm.~ ev.m mv.m em.m om.~ em.m wN.N maaogw we wepow eoeeeeww mw.~ ww.m mm.m mm.m om.m mw.~ om.m om.m ww.m mm.m mw.~ ucwuwwmm< mm.N mm.m mm.~ ew.~ Pv.~ mm.~ w¢.N mm.~ F¢.N mm.~ we.~ wepumgwo wm.m om.m mm.~ mN.N ww.p oe.m oe.~ mo.~ mm.p mm.w mw.p eocgm>ow we ow m m w w m e m N e cemcma wo cowuwwoa wocowcw> wo wwwweec< cow wceez oeuzwwez we cheez peace Ace>o ece oev wooocw cwwzumw wsweeoce we ooceecoeee me n >H x~ozm¢e< 279 APPENDIX IV - 19 Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Between Groups (40 and Over) it***¥**#******¥*******************#**¥***#******#***** *SUURCE QE*~SUM or #066. OF* MEAN * # *VARIATION* SQUARES *FREEDOM* SQUARE *E-RATIo * *****************$*********#**¥*******************##*** *BETHEEN * * * * * * . GROUPS* 1.08* 2 t .54: 12.535* ***t*#**#*********#*1*****¥#**********¥**************** *HITHIN * * t * * * cRoupss 1.29* 30 t .04* t t****************************#*******************#***** fit*#**#*#t***************¥*************************¥*** *TOTALS . 2.38* 22 * t * ti*ttt******¥**¥**********¥***#*******#******##*#*****# ¢****t********************fitt¢¢¢****#*************#**** 280 wwew.n ee. Nw.m mw m>.ml OC.O chow 0N t cmcm.H cm. omow ON AwoN' He ow 17) 1M Nr-l om. m-¢.m hm. on.m ow 00mm.~1 me. (m.m 0w N¢¢>.NI GM. em.“ on Idllllu mmmo.m mm. cm.N 05 I1 HOC~.N cm. cm.N Oh { “dam. NN. 0m.m Oh ll mw~o.m om. {fiom ow .wmc 4 Le Ill mem.~ cm. mm.m ow O~o ece oev wezocw ceezuow cow eweew m--wseeeocw we eocepeoese om a >H xmozmem< (¢MNewl 0e. ou.m 0h wmmw.4l «c. on .m ow .wac 2 m ocm.w 0N. Cm.“ OP dean..l NA. Cw.w OF ohmm.ml ma. Amen OF wo.¢.ml F. o—l er 0m.“ 0w \ 8. a, . P1 ‘\ H ‘31 (a "1 ~10 I Cw t\ (I 1‘ I 1‘ 0 mmdo.ml ca. Cm.“ or weww.w- w..w cw.“ ow cnmm.¢l de. Cm.“ on Emma.¢l ma. Cm!“ or .wmc z I D wwwe ”aware "zwwwww ”mom. NN. cm .w ow ceme.ml N0. cm.“ ow wemc.wn ee. cm.m ow um¢w.¢l m0. dw.m on wwee.m| we. cm.w ow o~o>.w1 00.0 cm .w ow mmce.m| wc. cm.m ow .wmo 2 v .\ ”eeoz em.“ ow ce (\ l‘. O \\ O .‘ O m¢.u 0p a no.“ on 0 cc.” ww m ¢ l‘l O U" .\ K .war 2 .djr a 2 a _ a L 281 Ane>o one wev mnennewec we maeeeenn we eoneuneese —N . >~ x~azmmn< 282 OOH OOH ,OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH” I! . . . ..II A . OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH - o.o o.ow o.oe o.oe o.oe wwoe o.ow. o.oe. 0.0H 0.0m 0.0¢ 0.0H o.oo o.om 0.0# o.om eae>o ewe wew 2309.5 .3 memenenn we euneeneeea NN . >H xuozmmn< 283 Ane>o one wev mneuueewn uneuwwmw< we useeeecn we eoneeneeee mm 1 >H x~nzmnn< .ooe. .ooe .ooe .ooe .ooe .ooe .ooe .ooe .ooe .ooe .ooe. .ww, .-.,,. .33. ww ww ww . ww ww ww ww ww ww ww ww. a. . . L7 , . I _ O O o e o .e 0 H. H m. 0 Como me o $ . ooofi woeweweo ewe weoowo w e. e7l..wwt.e¢ o w e e e e w e e w e ... w.ww w.ww w.wm w.ww e.we w.ww w w w w e w w.ww, e.ww e.we e.ww w.ww w.ww we we oe we ee we w ee oe 284 ooe, ooe ooe ooe ooe mm mm H mm mm mm ii oo w.w w.we w.ee w.ww o, e oe w we w.ww w.ew w.we w.we e.wwjm.ww we we we we ee w.ewnw.ww w.we w.ww w.ow we we ew ww ww eaw>o we. wew 3:95 we 337-323.... we eeneunense om . 3 x32??? 285 APPENDIX IV - 25 Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Governors (45 and Over) ***********#**#**##*#***************#****************** *SOURCE OF* SUM QE *DFG. 0F$ MEAN * * *VARIATIDN* SQUARES *FRFFDOM* SQUARE *F-RATID * ******#************************************************ *PETNFEN * * * E ' E * GROUPS* 103.87* 10 2 10.39* .072* ¢***##*******##**************************************** *HITHIN * * * E * 2 GROUPS* 2136.00* 22 a 142.54* * ***********************************************$******* t***********#***#****************#********************* *TOTALS * 3239.87* 32 * 2 * ********#***************#******#*********************** *******#*********#*********** ************************* APPENDIX IV'- 26 Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Directors (45 and Over) t*#****#*******###*******#**********#****************** *SOURCE OF* SUM QE *DFG. OF* MEAN * * #VARIATION* SQUARES *FREFDHM* SQUARE *F-RATIO * 3**##*****#******#*************#*********************** *PETHEEN * * * ' * * * GROUPS* 19.39* 10 E 1.93* .0222 t#**##*******#**#*****#**#*##*#***************#******#* *HITHIN * * E *v * 2 GROUPS* 1897.33* 22 * 86.24* * ##***#****###*#*##*##*****#**************************** t####****#***#******#***#*********#*#*****##*********## *TDTALS * 1916.72* .32 * * * t****#*****#*#********#**************#***#*##********** at#*****##***##*3#**taaenaeanneaeanenaatee**a********** 286 APPENDIX IV - 27 Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Assistant Directors (45 and Over) t***##**##*************#****************************** *SOURCE OF* SUM OF 2086. OF2 MEAN 2 2 2VARIATIQN2 SQUARES 2EREEQnM2 SQUARE 2E-RATIQ 2 22222222222222222222222222222222222222222*2222222222222 *FETHFFN 2 2 2 2 2 * GROUPS* 145.33* 10 * 14.522 .029* 422*222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 *NITHIN 2 2 2 2 2 2 GROUPS2 10902.002 2? 2 495.542 2 *#***************************************************'* #**#***#*****##****************#********#*******#****** *TOTALS * 11047.33* 32 * * * 222222222222222222222222222222222222222222*222222222222 2**22222neneenneenn************#*************#****##2## APPENDIX IV - 28 Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Total of Group (45 and Over) *##**#*******#************#**************************** 2SQURCE 0E2 SUM nE 20Ec. 0E2 MEAN 2 2 2VARIATIQN2 SQUARES 2EREEQnM2 SQUARE *F—RATID 2 *********#*****************#*********#***************** 2EETUEEN 2 2 2 2 2 2 GRQURS2 628.842 10 2 62.88* .0402 #****#*#**************#******************************** 2w1TH1N 2 2 2 2 2 2 GROUPS* 34580.662 22 2 1571.842 2 ********************#*#*****#************$************* *#**#***#*******###*****#****************************** *TOTALS 2 35209.51* 32 2 2 2 *##*****##*******#******#*#***#*****************#****** **#**#************************#************************ 287 ww.N om.~ w~.~ Fo.m mm.m wm.m No.N mp.m mN.N om.~ ww.~ Peach noeoonwn ww.~ mm.~ wm.m om.~ mo.w mm.~ oo.N pm.~ Nw.m mm.m ww.~ pnepmwmm< om.~ ow.~ ow.~ om.~ oo.m om.~ om.~ oo.~ oe.~ om.~ oo.~ nepumnwo wm.~ wm.~ wN.~ mm.~ oo.~ mo.~ oo.~ oo.N om.~ om.p mw.e nonwm>ou we ow m w w w m o m N w nomnmn no cowewwow wonewne> we wwwween< new mneez omenwwoz we anuez «none Ane>o one wev wnnonw nmezwew memenonn we ouneunonee mm 1 >H xHozmnn< 288 APPENDIX IV -230 Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Between Groups (45 and Over) **************#*#*************#*******#**************** 2SUURCE 0E2 SUM OF 20E0. 0E2 MEAN 2 2 *VARIATION* SQUARES 2EREE00M2 SQUARE *F-RATI1 2 ###***#***********#****#**###$#**#*****#**#*********#** 28ETwEEN 2 2 2 2 2 2 GRQURS2 .842 2 2 .422 6.554* ****#**********##**************#**#******************** *HITHIN 2 2 2 2 2 2 8R0U2S2 1.942 30 2 .062 2 t***#******#*****#****##**####**********###********#**# **********#*t*************#*##***********#****#**##**** *TOTALS 2 2.792 22 2 2 2 *#*************************##*#*******#**************** t#*#*****#*#******************#*#*******#**#**###**#*** 289 mmmm.ml 07:3“: cow“; NOHOJI new». .oooo.~l momdowl comuom mink. common ,Z. co.c ¢m. OH. mm. mm. mg. ¢¢o mm. . em. H>.N mm oo.~ mm UN.~ mm A¢.~ mm mm.~ mm pm.~ mm we.“ um 0H.~ mm mm.“ mm ow.~ mm co)“ mm oH momm.m oomA.A oHo~.m- mAN~.N- momm.mu mwmm.-- memm.wu o¢m>.mu mowm.mn oHo~.mu me. em. oc.o mA. No. HA. cA. 0H. NH. cc.o Hp.m mm oo.~ mm cm.m mm A¢.N mm ¢N.N mm >m.~ Am “2.“ “m 0H.~ mm mm.“ mm cm.~ mm on.“ mm o amAm. pvo.A- mA~>.N- oHc~.mu ocNA.mu HAmo.eu moom.mn meeo.- oouH.m- mH~>.u- om. oA. mA. co.o mH. «o. Ac. mm. mH. mH. H~.m mm o¢.~ mm om.m mm H¢.~ mm mm.~ mm hm.m Au we.“ “m oH.~ mm an.“ mm ow.~ mm He.“ mm m Ii ammo.~ New”. memm.m- ocmA.m- oAcw.m- opmo.-u ppmo.wu comm.w- o.o».ms momm.mu me. mm. No. mA. cc.o oo. ¢A. NA. cA.A No. H~.~ mm oo.~ mm om.~ mm A2.“ mm xm.~ mm >m.~ mm we.“ mm oH.~ m mm.“ mm cm.“ W aw.w mm A ooNH.H oooo.Hu mmmm.mu HAmo.¢u (pmo.m- oHo~.mu mmm~.¢u mmom.H- enmo.mn u mm.mu em. mm. AA. 4:. oo. cc.c mc. Am. 02. HA. H>.N mm oo.~ mm o~.~ mm A¢.m mu mm.~ mm >m.~ we “2.“ Am 0H.m mm mm.“ mm ow.w mm pm.“ mm o All Hmmc. memA.~u memm.~- Ncem.mu ppmo.~u mmm~.¢n oAc>.ms opHm.n hpmo.wu memm.mu am. mA. cA. Hc. 2A. mo. co.c om. «H. OH. HAHN mm cc.m mm om.m mm Tin mu. xm.m mp. rm...” mu “2.“ mm .310. mm mm.“ mm («1w mm m¢.w mm m mlexm..n («aim 04m>.«I mqoo... «ammoma mmcmowl cram... ofifluml CONN-ml 0.3.... .mt mm. .12. .2. mm. NA. HN. 0N. oooa «a. 9-. fist“ mm oo.N mm owom mm Ti.“ mm mm.m mm hm.N mm w¢ou mm 0... cm mm mm...“ m on.“ ...m 2 cu mm .w .Ilholllv ammo.m meme. mcmm.m- oAmA.m- oHo>.mu osmo.-u hemo.wu comm.ma oHo~.mn momm.mu me. mm. Nc. mH. oo.o oo. SH. NA. co.o we. Hp.~ mm co.~ mm em.“ mm He.“ mm q~.~ mm hm.~ mm we.“ mm cA.N mm e .u mm ow.m mm m“.u mm m It: Ih‘ momm.m comA.H oAA~.mu mHm~.mu memm.m- -mm.w: memm.w- o¢m>.m- mcum.mn oHo».ms m¢. 4m. oc.c uH. No. HA. {H. OH. NH. o¢.c H~.~ mn oe.~ mm ow.“ mm A4.“ rm Am.m mm >m.m mm “e.“ um oH.N mm mm.“ mm em.m mm cw.“ «. w .l..l Illnul. worm.m ooNH.H oAA~.m- ¢A-.n- «omm.mu mmmm.mn m¢mm.u- o¢m>.m- mcmm.mu oHo>.mu me. em. oo.c UH. we. AA. (H. OH. . NH. oo.¢ A».N mm cc.~ mm cm.m m. A2.“ mm mm.m mm pm.m mm me.“ A AH.~ mm mm.“ mm ww.~ m on.“ mm A .51. z .55 z .55 ..A .52.. z .5» ... .Zt 7 ..E... 7. ..Eo 2 .pac z. .hxo 2 35.0.2 .cz HA CA a m . p c A e m w z 2 a z a c Agm>o uca mev maaogw :mmzumm gem mpnah muumsmpaogg yo mocmpgoasH pm : >H x~ozmaa< 290 1 4.88.03 4.84 0.88.098.840.026.03. .4. 414mm .4 m ..m m m m m m ... . N.NN m.mm m.mm.H.HH +.mm 4.44 4.44 44.44 ANA , w .: Jap:_.Aaz o H m N m m H m . 4 m 4 m . 4.44. H44 man 4.44 m.mm 5mm N.NN 4.44 N.NN nan N.NN fl». 4 H m 4 m m N 4 N m Mm m.m4 4.44 n.4m m.m$m.mm m.mm m.mm N.NN m.mm m.mm m 4 m m m m m N m m 44 oH_ m m 4 m m 4 .m N H.44o 4:4 any 20522. .3 2822.. .8 3:33qu «m a 3 szmn—AE 291 OOH. OOH OOH _OOH OOH OOH OOH 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A4 . OO OO.O.NN O.NN w.wN O.mem.4H O O N N N N H Am.4H N.N4 N.N4 n.4H w.wc OO n.4H H m m H N O H 4.4m H.4m O.mN H.4m N.N4 4.H4 4.H4 O 4 N 4 m m 4 HH OH 4 m 4 O m Ago>o uca omv mgONUOLPO an mampnogm 4O mucougonsH mm s >~ xuozmmm< mXuH nXuH MwHH nXuH Caz” ,H.HH H .. H.HH l—‘l nXu 292 I\'\ a N\ N'\ M m a N\ N\ M H.HH m.mm .. m.mm OH Agm>o uca omv mgcuumg4a «caum4mm< 4n msmpnoga mo mucmugoqu wm - >~ x~ozmam< 293 _OOH O.OOHO OOH O.OOH O.OOHO.OOH O.OOHO.OOHO.OOH O.OOH O.OOA m» .Hmmm— ON ON ON A ON ON ON 4O ON ON ON ON .4. . . a . _ II. 0.00 O.OO O.4N O.OH O.4N O.ON O.NH 0.0H O.ON O.ON O.ON 44 ... JOp:.4Aoz O N O 4 O m m 4 4 O 4 4 O.Nm O.ON O.O4 0.0m c.Om O.4N 0.0N O.O4 O.4N O.Nm O.OH mm .n.. l . _ O 4. NH” O O O O OH“ O O a 4 4 1+ . . 4 . . . .O. .- .N O.44.O.O4 O.O4 O.Om mm - OOO O4OOONOO4 O 4OOO O O . .455, 4H OH 4 NH OH 4H OH HH NH NH 4H h. \ Jr ”malllfll HH OH“ O O 4 O m 4 4 N H 4 _.e O HAO>O 4:4 OOV manage me Hmuo4u-msmHnoga 4O mucapgoasH mm u >4 x~ozm¢m< 294 APPENDIX IV - 36 Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Governors (50 and Over) t*##*****#*#****#*****************#*********$********** *SOURCF nF2 SUM 02 2050. 0:2 MEAN 2 2 2VARIAT10N2 SQUARES *FRFFDOM* souARF 2F-RATIn 2 **#**********#******#********************************** *FETHEEN 2 2 2 2 2 2 GR0UPS2 22.062 10 2 2.202 .0752 $**********************#*****************#************* *WITHIN 2 2 4 4 ’ $ 2 GROUPS* 644.002 22 2 29.272 2 **#*******************#******************************** #******#****************************###**************** 2T0TALS 2 666.062 32 2 2 2 ***#**************************************************- ******#*********************#************************** APPENDIX IV - 37 Importance of Prob]ems--ANOVA for Directors (50 and Over) **************#***********#*****#********************** 2SOURCE 0F2 SUM OF 2050. nF2 MEAN 2 2 *VARIATION* SOUARFS 2FREanM2 SQUARE 2F-RAT10 2 *********#****#****************#*********************** *PETWEEN 2 2 2 2 2 2 GROUPS* 15.212 10 2 1.522 .0412 2***#**#**********#*##**#**************************#*** *HITHIN 2 2 2 2 2 2 GROUPS* 814.662 22 2 37.032 2 **********#********************#*********************** *********************#***#**********#****************** 2T0TALS 2 829.87* 32 2 2 2 #*****************************************************# ***#****#*********************************#******#***** 295 APPENDIX IV - 38 Importance of Prob]ems--ANOVA for Assistant Directors (50 and Over) 22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 2 2SOURCE 0F* SUM nF 2OFG. nE2 MEAN 4 * 2VARIATIQN2 SQUARES 2EREEQQM2 SQUARE 2E-RATIn 2 **********#********************************* '*****>°**** *PETWEFN * * * * * * GROUPS* 1?. 96* In * 1. 29* .017* ’#********#******************““***«4 ******** ********4* *WITHIN * * $ * * 2 GRQUPS2 1626. 662 22 2 73. 932 * *****************#**************************k******“**$ *******#******************************i***#******** *x!* *TOTALS * 1639. 63* 22 * * * 2*********** ***********2 ****#2*****2**2*2***. ** #2222222 2*#2322222***#**2**************************** *** ******* APPENDIX IV - 39 Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Total of Groups (50 and Over) t****************#****#******************************** *SOURCE 0E2 SUM 0E *DFG. 0E2 MEAN 2 2 2VARIATIQN2 SQUARES 2EREEnnM2 SQUARE 2E-RATIn 2. **********************#*#*****************$ *******o.* 2<.~ *BETHEEN 2 2 2 2 2 2 GROUPS* 66.302 10 2 6.63* .0192 ##************#*************** .** ** *o.****************** 2wITHIN 2 2 2 2 2 2 GROUPS2 7429.332 22 2 337.692 2 *********************************##******************** ***#*************************************************** 2r07ALS 2 7495.632 32 2 2 2 ******************************************************* ********#**********************#*********************** 296 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .ooe .03 .03 .03 .ooa N». ..mlsm m m m m m m N m m m .m N. . . o.oo o.oe mam N.NN mam MAM o.oo mam 93 o o. m N m m o m m m.mm H.HH N.NN m.mm H.HH N.NN N.NN m.mm N.NN m H N m a N N m N 6.6.6 9%. 2.3. 2.: 6.3 T: 6.8% QMMWNNN m N e 2 .... ¢ 6 m N S S m m N. m m A. m mcocgm>oo com <>ozoga mo aaogu umL2uv oe u >H x~ozmma< 297 OCH OCH OCH 00H OCH OCH 8H 03 00H 00Hgfl . . 33.. m o A o o o m o m, o o u. . . J7. \ . . x H. . a H . III H HH M MM 00 Q r0 m mu 0 W0 H HH .3 3.3 0 or 14H #3 o§ I,..._.t§z H m o m m m H ¢ m ¢ ... .28 wxd mfi. i3 mrmm «gm. 2?“ w.oe H.HH QR ..- ... H.H.__H__ m m . m ¢ m m m a H m m. 5mm 3;} ii Qmm HR. :13 mfim «.mm 5.8 00 «N . .ae_>as, m ¢ u m m é m m m o h. 3 o m n m m ¢ m m H m. .9235 Ammucw>oga mo ascgu umgmmv mgouuwsvo an mswpnogm mo mucmuganH Hv u >H x~ozmam< .ooHnéS .8H 99: 0.8.8.86608692 O.OOH oncogfi. JEMH Hm Hm Hm Hm Hm Hm Hm Hm Hm Hm m. . o.oo m.mo 93 mdo 9mm H.Ho msmo w.om HQH m.mH 1%. ... I 43:8: 0 m. H m m H m m m H m h. % I- 2 Hém 5mm 0.0m de Ham“ mdm V.HH m.mH 9mm mém w.om Ho m... l . . H m «H HH m m cH HH m m 1 mg: mdm 59m m.mH 0.8 of. 0.0m mam 5mm 9mm 98 H. g S HHA m HH NH mH NH m mH mH ...... HH 0H m m. H. m m H m H w .9535 «mmucw>oga mo qaogw pmgwmv mgopomgpa uconHmm< x: msmHaoga mo mucmugoqu Nv a >~ x~ozmmm< 299 ooH O.OOH UdOHAYOOH 0.8363 0.88.8863 c.8863 ..fl QM. . -... - NH NH NH NH NH NH HH NH NH .NH NH u. . o.oo H.Ho N.NN m.mo H.HN H.HH m.mo H.HN m.mN H.HN m.0m ANA .8EH32 o m OH H HH N H m NH m MH HM .:} . H.HN H.HN c.am o.mm H.HN N.NN N.mm H.CH N.N HH HH NH mH HH 0H mH pH oH f N.NF H.HH o.mm N.Nm H.HH m.om N.Nm c.am H.HH Hm NN HH NN ON mN NN NH oN HH CH m H m ML m m H m Ammu=H>OL¢ Ho aaogu umsvmv quogo mo Hmuohu-mempnosa Ho mucmugoasH m¢ n >H x~ozmaq< 300 NN.N mm.N H_.N NH.N HN.N NH.N NH.N 0H.N mH.N mm.N _H.N HHHOH Lopumgwo OH.N om.N HH.N HN.N mN.N ON.N HH.N N_.N om.N mH.N Hm.N “cmpm_mm< NN.N mm.N _H.N HN.N H_.N oo.N NN.N HH.N NN.H HH.N mm.H LOHUNL_Q HH.N NN.N __.N NN.N NN.N __.N mH.N oo.N 00.. oo.N mm.H Locgm>ou HP 0— m N H H m H m N _ cowgma Ho cowpwmoa mucmwgm> Ho mHmzpmc< Lo» mcwmz umucmwmz Ho xmgum: psqu AmmucH>OLQ Ho aaogo ngwmv masogo cmmzumm mENHnoga Ho mucmaganH vq u >H xHozmaq< 301 APPENDIX IV - 45 Importance of Prob]ems--ANOVA for Between Groups (First Group of Provinces) ***#*#*************#******#***#************************ *SDURCE oet SUM OF #056. DF* MEAN * * *VARIATION* SQUARES *F1EEDOMt SQUARE *F-RATP) * ***$***********#*************#****#**###***#****#**#*** *BETHEEN * * t * * * GROUPS* .30* 2 t .15* 1.240* *****************************#***#***#**#************** *HITHIN * * t t * * GROUPS* 3.71* 30 * .12* t t********#******************#*#*******#*#*******##***** ***********#************************#****************#* *TOTALS # 4.02* 22 * * * ***#********#****#*#****##**#**#********#***#*##**#***# t****#***##***************#*##*****#*#*****#*******#*** APPENDIX IV - 46 Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Governors (First Group of Provinces) *#*************************#*************$************* *SOURCE 0F* SUM OF #096. op* MEAN * * *VARIATION* SQUARES *FREEDDM* SQUARE *F-RATIn * ***#**************#*********************$*********#*** *BETWEEN * * * * * * -GROUPS* ‘ 41.57* 10 * 4.15* .091* #***#***************#************************#********* *WITHIN * * * . * * * GROUPS* 1002.66* :7 * 45.57* * **#*******#*#*#********#********#********************** #****#**************#*#****************************#*** *TOTALS * 1044.24* 32 * * * ##*************#**#**#**#*********#**#****************# ***#****************************************#********** 302 APPENDIX IV - 47 Importance of Prob]ems--ANOVA TabIe for Directors (First Group of Provinces) **********#********************************* **$**** *** *SOURCE 0F* SUM OF *nec. 0F* MEAN * * *VARIATIDN* SQUARFS *FREFDDM* soUARF *F—RATID * *********#****************************************~**** *PETNEEN * * * * * * GROUPS* 42.24* 10 * 4. 22* .074* $*********#***************#*****************# ********** *HITHIN * * * * * t GROUPS* 1252. 66* 22 * 56.93* * ********#********#**************** ********************95 $***************************** ********** ****#******Ys*** *TOTALS * 1294.90* 32 * * * #***************************#*************************# *****************************#************************* APPENDIX IV - 48 Importance of ProbIems--ANOVA Table for Assistant Directors (First Group of Provinces) #***#*******#****************$************** ****:2*** ** *SOURCE 0F* SUM OF *DEG. QF* MEAN * v *VARIATIDN* SQUARES *FRFFDOM* SQUARF *F- RATIO ****#***************************** ******************** 1. ii- *EETWEFN * * * * * * GROUPS* 72.18* 10 * 7. 21* .017* r****************************************************** mvlTHIN * * * ‘ * * # GROUPS* 9014. 00* 22 * 409. 72* * ******#**********##************* ********************** t##**#***********#****#**********#****#****##*********# *TOTALS * 9086.18* 32 * * * ¢##********$**#*********#********************#********# **#*#*#*****************#**********z******#****$*****x* 303 APPENDIX IV - 49 Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Total (First Group of Provinces) w##1##**#**¥¥***#*****#***************************xr*** *SOURCE UF* SUM QE *DFG. 0F* MEAN * *VARIATION* SOUARFS *FREFDDM* SQUARE *F-RATID * ******************************************************$ *PETWEEN * * * * ~ * GROUPS* 233.61* 10 * 23.35* .023* ***********#******#****************$******************* *WITHIN * * * * H t GROUPS* 22190.00* 22 * 1008.63* * *******************#**********#******************** *** 1" of Of t*********************************W***$**************** ¢ 4" *TOTALS * 22423.51* ‘3? ’3‘ * “' fl§ ****#**************************#*****************/***** '\ ‘r fi‘ 0“ ******************************************************* 304 .03 .8H .8H .8H .8H .8H .8H .8H .8H .8H .0on NE a E E E E E E E E E E E -... . . o.oo m.mN m.wN N.¢H moN¢ mowm o N N H H N H.bm w.N¢ w.N¢ H.Pm m.N¢ w.N¢ H H H H H H H.HN H.HN H.HN H.HN N.HH H.HN m N N N H N .HH AVH m w h m Ammu=E>oEN Eo naogo accommv mgocgm>oo Ha mempnosm mo mucmugoasH om u >H x~ozmam< 305 .8H. .8H .8H .8H .8 .8H .8H .8H .8H .8H .8H.HE. QM. E EAH E . E E E E E E E E -N. . . o.oo N.HH N.HH N.HH o.oo N.HH o.oo N.HH N.HH N.HH .HH HEN . I Hing... o H H H o H o H H H H ... N.NH H.HN H.HN H.HN H.HE H.HN H.EH N.NH o.oo H.HN N.NH NE» NH. .1 . . H N N N m N H H o N H H. . 1 H.EH H.EH. H.EH. H.EH H.HN H.EH H.NH1H.NH E.HH H.EHu N.NH mm H H H H N H H H H H H ...... HHlH 0H m N E H H. H H N H m. .9535 AmmucE>ogq Eo azoso accommv Hm: >~ x~ozmmm< mgouomLEa Ha memenoga mo mucnugoasH 306 Ammocw>oga Eo asogo accommv Ngouumgpo HNNNNHNN< an NENHnogN Eo oucmugoasH mm n >~ x~ozmmm< 8H 8H 8H 8H ocH OCH 8H 8H. 8H 8H 8H. NEE II: . .15. N N N N N N N N N N N .... . TNT . , I». oo co m NH N.NH cc co co N.NH oo .oo 00 .E, .I it“: o o H H o o o H o o o ... 8 .NH N.NN QEH ..NH o.NN N.NH N.E oo oo N.NH ...N. .....- I. .9... o H N m H N H m o o H m. . .11: 0.3 H.EN N.NN o.om H.EN N.NE H..EN 6.0m 0.0H o.oH H.EN .E ill! ...—5:; N E m H E N E H N N E N HH 3 H. N E N m H H N H m an. 307 .ooH.o.ooH .ooHe.ooH N.NNH o.oo¢o.ooH O.OOHo.ooHN.ooH o.oonmH ..n:: -. -33; NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN A. N.No N.HH H.NH N.HH N.NH N.HH N.HH E.N-- N.NH N.HH N.NH HM .azau.2‘ o H H H H H H N . H H H Hm ..- . N.HH N.EN N.HH N.NH N.NH N.HH N.ENJN.oH N.HH E.NN N.HH ..- .Nm . . 2 .u E N E N N E N N H N E N H.NN N.HH o.om H.NH H.NH H.HN N.HH H.NH E.NE N.HN H.HN mm .33; NH NH HH. OH NH NH NH N NH HH NH N n \ MN ..IIIIIII.|! HH NH N N E N u H H N HEN“. Nara a Ammu=E>oga Eo azogo acoummv manage me ENHoEuumemHnoEN Eo mucaugoasH mm u >H x~ozmma< 308 APPENDIX IV - 54 Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Governors (Second Group of Provinces) t****************#**************************#*******#*# *SOURCE 0F* SUM 0F *DEG. QEE MEAN * * *VARIATIDN* SQUARES *FREFDOM* SQUARE *F-RATIn * **#***********************#**************************#* *PETNFEN * E * * * * GROUPS* 14.72* 10 E 1.47* .1s7* #****************#*##***#****************************** *WITHIN * * * E * * GROUPS* 20s.33* 22 * 9.32E * **#***********#************************************#*** $**********************#*******#* ***#***************** *TOTALS * 220.06* 32 * * * t***#**#**************#*********#********************** ****************************# ** :********************* APPENDIX IV - 55 Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Directors (Second Group of Provinces) r*******#**************************#******$************ *SOURCE OF* SUM OF *DFG. 3F* MEAN * * *VARIATIDN* SQUARFS *FREFDHM* SQUARE *F—RATIn * ******************************************************* *PETNEEN * * * * * * GRUUPS* 6.24* 10 * .62* .017* $**********************#*#***************************## *wITHIN # * * * * * GROUPS* 786.66* 2? * 35.75* * ******************************************************* #************************#****************************1 *TOTALS * 792.90* 32 * * t *****#*#*#*************************************#*****#i *2?! #*************************************2¢***2::k**:2:k***** 309 APPENDIX IV - 56 Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Assistant Directors (Second Group of Provinces) *#**#****************#*******#*****************#******# *SOURCE 0F* SUM OF *DEG. 0F* MEAN * * E *VARIATIONE SOUARFS *FRFFDDME SQUARE *F-RATID EEEEEEEEEE*EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. EEETwEEN E E E E E E GROUPS* 12.84* 10 E 1.25E .oloE $*****************##*********************************** EwITHIN E E E E E E GROUPS* 2635.33* 22 E 119.78E E ***********##****************************#************* t*****#*****#****************************************** *TOTALS E 2647.87* 32 E E E E**************#******#*#****************************** **********t*******#************************************ APPENDIX IV - 57 Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Total (Second Group of Provinces) *#*#*******************************************#******* *SOURCE nEE SUM OF *DFG. 1EE MEAN E E EVARIATIQNE SQUARES EEREEnnME SQUARE EE-RATIn E #***********#**********#***********#***************##** EEETwEEN E E E E E E GRQUPSE 35.21E 10 E 3.52E .o1oE t*#******#****************** ************************** ENITHIN E E E E E E GROUPSE 7079.32E 22 E 321.79* E ****#******************************************#**#**** ****#*************#************************************ *TOTALS E 7114.54E 32 E E E ****************************#************************** ***********#*******************************#**#******tt 310 wo.~ me.m Hm.~ Hm.m Hm.N o<.N mv.m mH.~ mm.m om.~ ov.~ Hmuop LoEUNEEN oo.m Em.N om.N Em.m Em.m mE.N Em.m Em.m oo.m oo.m Ew.m pcmumEmm< E¢.~ N¢.~ N¢.m NH.N mm.~ ~¢.~ N¢.N wN.N HE.N N¢.N mm.~ LepumLEo N¢.N oo.~ oo.m NH.N HE.H oo.m oo.N HE.H oo.~ oo.~ oo.~ Eocgm>oo PH OH m m E o m w m N H cowgma Ho HOEHEHON NucNELN> Eo NEHNHNN< Low Ncmwz cmpngmz Eo xELuNz HNNNH Haaogo,cmwzumm NENENOEN Eo NNNNHENNEH mm n >H x~ozmaa< 311 APPENDIX IV - 59 Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Between Groups (Second Group of Provinces) it***********#***##*#****************##****#*********** EsoURCE oEE SUM oE EoEo. QEE MEAN E E EVARIATIQNE SQUARES EEREEQQME SQUARE *F-RATPl E t#****#********#****************#********************#* *BETNEEN E E E E E E cRoUpSE 3.27E 2 E 1.63* 43.902E 1*****************##******¢********#******************* *HITHIN E E E E E E GROUPS* 1.11E so E .an E **********************#******##*#********************** *******t************************#*****#**t************* EToTALs E 4.38E 22 E E E **************#***********#*##***********#**********#** ###*****#*****************#***#***#******#*******#***** 312 cNHN.Hu NH. NE.N NN «CHHoH 0d. NE.N mm NHmd.l Hm. NE.N NN mme.H H¢. NE.N NN o¢mo.Hl ¢N. NE.N NN COHH.H! Em. Nh.m NN mamm.m E¢. NE.N NN L>¢®.I mm. NE.N NN N.EE.Hu NN. NE.N NN NNHN.- mm.. NE.N mm OHCE.mI 00.0 om.N mm o¢mc.al HN. NN.N NN mNmH.mI ma. om.m NN o~o¢.HI mm. om.~ NN momm.¢l mc. om.N NN mo»m.mt HH. cm.N NN NHm¢.I Hmo. om.m NN dmoc.ml NH. cm.N NN HNHE.Hn No. NN.N NN NNHN.H- NH. NN.N NN .ENc a CH o¢mo.~l ¢N. Nm.N NN 0HOE.ml cc.c mm.m mm m¢HN.¢I oo. mm.N NN oowm.ml Ho. mm.N NN oOHo.MI 0H. mm.m NN ¢0Nm.ml ma. mm.N mm Nmmm.¢l 5c. Nm.N mm ¢moc.ms NH. mm.m mm Loco.ml ma. mm.m mm Noam.dl mo. mm.m mm .Emo. 2 o mmm~.ml ma. H¢.m NN m¢~m.¢l 0c. H¢.N NN o~c>.ml cc.o ~¢.N NN mm¢o.¢l CH. H¢.N NN NNmm.HI EC. HH.N NN fidEc.ml Hc. H¢.~ mm och.mI NH. H<.m mm oo¢m.wl mc. H¢.m mm qum.¢l 0c. H¢.m «n 00am.wl Hc. H¢.m EN .FNP 2 m o 0Nc¢.Hl mN. Hm.N NN oumm.ml Ho. Hm.N NN mm¢o.¢l OH. Hm.N NN odoh.ml 00.0 ~m.~ NN emmw.~| EH. Hm.N NN m¢mm.ml «H. Hm.N NN HCm>.¢I co. Hm.m mm acmm.ml NH. Hm.N mm quq.ml 0H. H«.m Em non.ql oc. Hm.N mm .ENP 7 F Ncmm..ml oo.c m¢.N mm 00¢N.m0 mo. m¢.~ mu moom.HI mm. m¢.N um H¢E0.mn ¢o. NH.~ mm omH¢.mu mo. NH.N Eu Ncmm.q| mo. mq.N nu OPEC _r O coHo.ml OH. mN.N Nu ~0m>.¢l co. mm.m mm moowonl mm. mm.~ mm >N~m.wa ON. mm.m mm oHoE.m| OO.H mm.N Nu E¢0¢.wl 0H. NH.» NN AmmucE>oLE Eo azogw ucoowmv Nazogw :NNZHNN ENE NHNNE m--msmpnogg Eo mocmugoasH on u >H xHozmma< «Noc.mn EH. ¢¢.N mu ¢moc.mt NH. ¢¢.m NN oe¢w.ml Mn. ¢¢.N mu «omm.ml mH. ¢¢.w mm Hi. 0. ml #0. ¢¢.N NW 00mm.ml Hm. ¢¢.N Nu E¢o¢.wl 0H. ¢¢.m mm @«Choml Cn.n .Ewc z HHMN.¢I oo. omom um cocoowt m¢HN.¢I oo. om.N ww h¢o¢.wl an. om.m mm owH¢.mI No. om.N «N am 00:1. mo. om.m “n omo¢.~I mN. om.w w“ nnM>.¢l oé. Cm.w ww 0H0fi.m| 00.0 om. w“ mN¢O.¢I OH. Om.m “w .Emc z u .HHN NNNH NN o .H.E, HH.N.NN N HN.N NN E 09PM m¢.u w“ m MH.fi mm.“ mm H EHuN \\ n-a c¢.w N "'l --- D- OA—vmr z .— Z L a D a p 313 o.oo;oo.o im.NH m.NH m.>m m.NH 0.00 0.00 0.0m o. o a H m H o o N N.EH N.HE o.oH o.oN N.EH N.HE E.NN N.EN N.EH H N H H H N H E H N.HN N.EH N.EH N.EH N.NN H.NH N.EH H.NH H.NH N N H H N H H H H HH NH N N E N H H H VI AmmucE>ogN Ea qzogu ugEgEv Ngocgm>o¢ an msmHnoLN Eo mocmugoaeH no u >H xHazmaa< 314 .03 .8H .8H .8H .8H .03 ..II .....E. N N N N N N o.oo N.NH N.NH o.oo o.oo o.oo _ 4332.. o H H o o o o.oo o.NN E.NN H.NH N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.EH N.EH NE. -....- .9:— o H N N N N m. 33 o.NE_o.NE N.NE N.NE N.NN N.NE N.NE N.NNN.EH HE» l.l- .- .23; N N H. N N N h. HH N E N N H .N Nazca l.l.. Ngopunga Ea msmHnogN Eo ouzmagoNsH AmmucE>oLN Eo nzogc ugEsEv mm . >H xHozmmm< 315 00H ooH ooH ooH ooH 00H 00H ooH 00H ooH ooH HH NH NH. HH NH NH NH HH NH HH HH oo oo E.E oo oo . co E.E oo EHE E.E oo 0 C) r4 0 O C) E4 0 E4 E4 0 L\ L\ 1-1 h’\ C‘ I d' U\ r-i D C\ U\ m r N <." L.’\ H U\ Q L'\ m N.NH H.HN N.NN H.NH H H N\ (\J H L!\ N U\ KO H.NN N.NE N.NE H.NN N.HN N.HN N.HN N.HN N.NN N.HN N.HN NH OH OH NH w HH 5 h m 5 HH .HH AuH a m m m m 4H m N H AmwucE>ogN Eo qsogo usEgEv NgogumEEo ENNHNENN< Ha msmpnoga Eo mucmpgoNsH me n >H x~nzmaa< 316 .00H .03 .8H .8H .8H .00H .8H .8H .8H .8H .8H .-..» 1!... -. .2...» mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm m o.oo o.oo N.No N.No N.NH N.No N.No o.oo N.NH N.om H.HN MN. iii.-- .2523 o o m N N H H o N N N. ... N.NH w.wm N.Nm w.om N.Nm N.Nm N.HN N.HN N.Nm N.Nm N.0m .w. :I :: .aE. N HH N N OH OH NH NH N NH .N .u. N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NF N.HN o.mN H.NN N.NN H.NN N.NN H.NN mm -....Q; . .E a Nm NH NH Hm NH NH NH NH NH NH NH .... fl .l.l.... HH 0H N N N N N H N m H h. E.NN Ammucw>oga No asogw ngwskv mnzogu mo Hmuop--memHaoga mo mocmuganH we I >H x~ozmam< 317 NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N _N.N NN.N NN.N HN.N HN.N Page» Lopumgwo NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N HN.N NN.N NN.N mN.N HN.N NN.N HN.N pampmwmm< oo.N NN.N NN.N NN.N ON.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N N_.N Nopumg_o NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.H oo.N NN.N N_.N NN._ ON.H NN.H Nocgm>0N __ OH N N N N N H N N H cowgmN No cowu_moa mucmwgm> No NNNNHmc< Low Ncmmz umugmwmz we xwgpmz paacH Nazogw cmmzumm NEmHnoLa No mucmpganH mm n >H xHszaa< 318 APPENDIX IV - 66 Importance of Prob]ems--ANOVA for Between Groups (Third Group of Provinces) **#**#**##************#*#*¥****************#******#**** *SOURCE 0F* SUM OF *DEG. OF* MEAN * * *VARIATION* SQUARES *FaEEDnM* SQUARE *F-RATI) * #******#********#**#**##**#*#****#***#**#*****#***#**** *BETHEEN * * * * * * GROUPS* 2.86* 2 * 1.43* 21.637* #*#******#****#*************##****#******#*###********* *HITHIN * * a * * * GROUPS* 1.98* 30 * .06* t t****#******#*#*******#*#****#*****************#******* #****#**#*#****#***#******#************#****#********** *TOTALS * 4.85* 22 ¢ * * *****#************************************************# ****$******i*******##*****#***#*#*#****#************#** quu.ml oHNr.wI qth.wI nwnw.ml «LCH.n| qhhA.uI eduH..ql Hmoc.mn 0HN~.u1 camb.¢1 Noem.ql Amo(.u| dmop.l Lm. ac. CC.C NC. Hm. cc.r 50. CA. Am. ¢m. Nr.m 3w. mam 0m 3N. On. No)“ On. ...n..m on am.m pm Hr...” .ww a¢.~ on Nun.“ o“ (.AI COmN.QI C(H>.ml {wa.wl “HK0.HI mom“. Hm. mc. NC. rc.c m. NC. NA. NA. mm. H¢. LL.N om No.m om om.m 9N fic.N on >«.N om mm.m uu Au.“ 0” m4.~ wu hm.“ ow dw.w .u mo.“ 0“ a 'II‘ , mrmm.A omcH.ml Hm0¢.wl waL.HI 0AN~.m| Amec.ul coH~.w| Q¢mA.qI OH¢>.mI “mow.wn $4. mm. An. «N. cc.c AN. NA. AA. an.n_ mA. Nm.m om no.m om cm.“ on mc.n on Nm.m om mm.m cu Hm.“ on 1¢.m am em.“ 0“ cm.“ on pm.“ a“ w ncsc.Al QPNA.nI @Ao>.ml co«~.4I Hm0¢.ml UHeh.uI Cwm>.¢l «OOm.qs Hm0(.ul ¢mo>.l rm. qc. cc.c Nc. Hm. co.r 50. GA. Hm. ¢m. o¢.m om wo.m om mm.m 0N mo.w 0n hm.n on um.m Nu Au.“ um qq.m an hm.“ 0w cw.“ 0w cm.“ on N msqc.l «qu.¢I com>.¢l CNH~.mI CNHN.MI 00n~..mI woAm.Hl mm. AH. NC. ¢A. 4H. no. Cc.c mc. ¢H. Fm. :m.m mu wo.m 7m mm.m om ne.w um 5n.n om um.m u“ Aw.” an u¢.m a“ pm.“ on 4w.w wm Am.w on m kwam.| 3cH>.m1 «can.N| (whn.wl equH.¢| NCCm.¢mm.wa 2m. ¢A. OH. NH. AH. CA. we. oc.A HA. ¢m. ow.~ @N No.m 0m mm.~ om mc.m om hm.~ om mm.~ Um Am.“ 0“ q¢.~ am pm.“ ow ¢m.w ow me.“ on q ‘1 NNoN.H NNcH.N- HNNN.N- NcNN.H- CNNN.N- HNoN.N- CNHN.N- N.NH.4. oHN>.N- NNNN.N- m¢. mm. Hm. cm. 50.0 Am. NH. AA. NH.H mH. NL.N 0m mN.m om um.m om no.« em hu.m om am.m um Hm.“ u q¢.m u“ >m.w ow qw.w an pm.“ on « mmom.l amon.l mono. mNNm.mI ¢«@~.I mon.HI w¢mm.un umcm.ml oHoh.m| am. ¢m. A4. mH. ¢m. hm. ¢~. mA. 00.0 0w.m em mc.m om mm.m 0m no.m on hm.m 0m mm.~ ou Hm.“ 0w m¢.~ 0w hm.“ Ow qw.w Om dw.w on m I mmwm.m wAmN.AI mNHa.AI qwob.l Hmzu.¢l meHm.HI nomm.nl «www.ml Hmaa.¢| comh.¢l mm. Am. pm. 4m. (c. hm. Cm. NA. NH. so. cm.m ow mo.~ om wm.m om mo.n om ~m.m 0N mm.m Nu Au.” a“ m¢.m um hm.“ Ow «w.w 0w Am.w on H .56 7. .55 z .55 z .56.. 2 .5; 7. .5c ... .2... z .Ec z .53 z .55 2 .SF. 2 .H AH CA 0 m h c m ¢ m w z z a H.a w AmmucH>oLa No azogo Ngwgpv mazogu cmmzumm Low NANNH m--NEmHnoLN mo mucmpgoasH no u >A xHozmma< 320 APPENDIX IV - 68 Importance of Prob]ems--ANOVA Tabie for Governors (Third Group of Provinces) **************#$**********#***********qo*’*’*****‘?*‘** *SOURCE 0F* SUM OF *nsc. n:* MEAN * * *VARIATIDN* SQUARES *FRFFDDM* SQUARE *F-RATIn * ******************* ***2*******+ ******>**** **+*++~*W*w~* *PETNEFN * * * * * * GRUUPS* 26. 84* - 10 * 2.68* .113* rt*********r*«***4******+***4*: ******* *************** *WITHIN * * * * * * GROUPS* $21.33* P? * 7?. 60* * ******************************** ***** *****'****fi***f* t****************#*******************************XW *9=** *TOTALS * $48.18* 32 * * * t*****************************$ **$*$*#****** .******** ****************#*************2 **********'***‘** ***95** APPENDIX IV - 69 Importance of Prob]ems--ANOVA Tabie for Directors (Third Group of Provinces) t***************$***************************** ******** ** *SOURCE 0F* SUM OF #056. o:* MFAN * * *VARIATION* SQUARES *FREFDON* SQUARF *F-RATIn x #****************************************************** *PETWEEN * * * * x * GROUPS* 10.18* 10 * 1.01* .011* ************************************No****************% *WITHIN * * * * * * GROUPS* 1885.33* 22 * 85.69* : ****#************************************************** t**************#********#************** **************## *TOTALS * 1395.51* 32 * * * t*****************************************************$ ********#**********#*********** *********** ************* 321 APPENDIX IV - 70 Importance of Prob]ems--ANOVA Tab1e for Assistant Directors (Third Group of Provinces) #***********#*#****#*****#****************#************ *SOURCE OF* SUM nE *DEG. 0F* MEAN * A *VARIATION* SQUARES *FREFDOM* SQUARE *F-RATIn * *******#*****************************#***************** *FETWEFN * * A A * * GROUPS* 16.96* 10 * 1.69* .007* t#t#********#***#*****#*#*************$********$******* *WITHIN * * A * A * GROUPS* 5242.oo* 72 * 238127* A **********#*******************#**********#************* ******************************************z************ *TOTALS * 5258.96* 22 A # * t******#*****************************************#***** ****#*************#************************************ APPENDIX IV -71 Importance of Prob]ems--ANOVA Tab1e for Tota1 Groups (Third Group of Provinces) t**#*************************************************** *SOURCE OF* SUM OF #056. 0F* MEAN * * *VARIATIDN* soUARES *FREFDOM* SQUARE *F—RATID A ***********##*********#******************************** '*PETWEEN * * ‘ * * A * GROUPS* 88.54* 10 * 8.85* .012* *************#*****#****#*********#*******##**********# *WITHIN * * * a * A GROUPS* 15526.00* 72 * 7os.72* # *##********#**************#**************************** ‘***********#****#*************************************# *TOTALS * 15614.54* 32 * * * *****#*********#**************#***********************$ *********************#************#***ttkk************* 322 .7 A . .NOH .ooH .oOH .OOH .ooH .OOH .NOH .OOH .OOH .OOH H N H H H H H H H H o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo .oo o.oo o.oo 0.8.0.8 o.NN fly I ..8:.§. o o o o o .o o o o o H ... -. . N.NN o.oo 0.8198 0.3 0.8 98 0.8 9% N.NLNNN N.» .i. I ..e; N o o N N N N N N N. H m. _ l i. 0.8 0.0H O.OJ o.oN o.oo 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 N.NN 0.8 N. ill. . .23; N H H N o N N N N H N n. HH 0H N N N N N H N N H w 2.35. II! .[ AmmucH>osa mo aaogo gagaomv Ngocgw>ow an msmHaoga mo mucupgoneH Nu u >A onzmam< 32‘3 .03 .00H .00H .03 .00H .00H .03 .00H .03. .00H .03.. ...w 1.... . A ., h H H H H H H H H H H H -N. ...N 00.0 00.0 0.00 0.NN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.NN 0.00 0.00 0.00 HNITIII .I Jeans: 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 ... A . 0.00 0.00 0.0N 0.00 0.00 0.0N 0.NN 0.NN 0.00 0.0N 0.NN fl. -....- .9:— 0 0 N 0 0 N H H 0 N .H m. . 0.10.3 0.0N 0.NN 0.HH 0.0N 0.NN 0.0N 0.0H 0.0N 0.NN AH... Elam.» . . H H N N H N N N H N N h. HH _ 0H N N N N N H H N H “A... 3:90 Ammucw>ogm mo nacho gugaomv mgouumgHo an meoHnoLN mo wucmugoaeH mu . >H anzmmm< 324 _IloooHdaqddadfldlooH 000 000H 00H .00H 0.00HH.000H00.00 N N N N N N N N N N N A 00 00 N.NH N.NN 00 00 N.NN 00 00 N.NH 00 0 0 H m 0 0 N 0 0 H 0 %.NN N.NN N.NN 0.0N N.NN 00 N.NN .0N 00 00 N.NH ..w. . .... “a. H H N N H o N N o o H m. . N.NN N.NN 00 N.NH N.NN 000H N.NN 0N H.00H N.NN N.NN H.» “9.2; N N 0 H N N N N N N N N. , a 0 N I. N H M fill... HH 0H N N H R ...F :00 Ammucp>oga mo aaogm zugzomv mgouomch acouNHNN< H0 mstnogm mo mucmugoaeH en . >H anzmmm< 325 00H. 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H...w. . u . . . .30». HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH A. . 00 00 H.N H.HN 00 00 N.HH H.N 00 H.N H.N Hm. «..02¢..2‘ 0 0 H N 0 0 N H 0 H H N - . .NH N.NN 0.0N N.NN H.NN N.NN N.NN .NH N.HH N.NN H.HN .ww 1: I .9... N H N N N H N N N N N ... . H.NN H.HN N6... 3.... N.NH H.HN 0.0N 0.0N N.NN H.NN H.HN. ..N .. H2=N3> N 0H N N N 0H N N NH N .u HH 0H 0 N N N N H N N Am I! k Ammu=H>oga mo naogw zugaomv manage mo Hana»--msoHnosN No mucougoasH mm A >H xHozmmm< 326 APPENDIX IV - 76 Importance of Prob]ems--ANOVA Tab1e for Governors (Fourth Group of Provinces) ##*******##**********#****#**##*#********************** *SOURCF 0F* SUM oF *nee. 0F* MEAN * * *VARIATIDN* SQUARES *FREFDDM* SQUARF *F-RATIO * *****#************************************************* *PETWEEN * N * t N * GROUPS* 2.72* 10 * .27* .022* t**#*************************************************** *NITHIN * * z * $ * GROUPS* 272.oo* :2 * 12.36* * ******************************************************* ¢**#*********#**************************************** *TOTALS * 274.72* 32 * * t**********$************* **************N************** **a**************************************************** I '3: *- APPENDIX IV - 77 Importance of Prob1ems--ANOVA Table for Directors (Fourth Group of Provinces) t****************##*************#*************#*****#*# *SOURCE 0F* SUM OF *nec. nF* MEAN * * *VARIATION* SQUARES *FREFDDM* SOUARF *F—RATIn * ******************************************************* *PETHFEN * N * N * * GROUPS* 4.84* 10 * .48* .028* *##*********************#**************************#*** *WITHIN * * t z N # GROUPS* 378.66* 72 * 17.21* * *****************#****************************##******* *****************************************************#* *TOTALS * 383.61* 32 # * * *#***********#**************#************#***********#* ***************************************************#*** 327 APPENDIX IV - 78 Importance of Problems--ANOVA Table for Assistant Directors (Fourth Group of Provinces) Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean F. Variation Squares Freedom Square Ratio Between Groups 21 10 2.157 .055 Nithin Groups 928 22 42.221 Totals 950 32 APPENDIX IV - 79 Importance of Prob]ems--ANOVA Table for Tota1 Groups (Fourth Group of Provinces) ‘ a*#********#*#*#***************************#*********** *SOURCE OF* SUM OF *DEG. QF* MQAN * * a“VARIATIUN'F SQUARES *FREFPnM* SQUARE *F-RATIn * ******************************************************* *PETHEEN * * * * * * GRUUPS* 36.30* 10 * 3.63* .021* #*#*#****#*******#*#****###****************#********##* *HITHIN * * * * $ * GROUPS* 3746.66* 7? * 170.30* * 33* ****************************#************************ *********************#*********#********* *#**#********* *TOTALS * 3782.96* 32 * * * I?##*****#********************************M*#**#******* ** ******************#***************************** ***** 328 um.~ _N.N mm.m HN.N Nv.m HN.N mm.m Nv.m mm.m om.m Nm.m HNpOF copumcwo mm.m mm.N mm.H mw.p mm.m oo.m oo.N om.N oo.m mm.m mm.~ accumwmm< oo.m oo.m om.m om.m oo.m om.m mN.N mN.N oo.m om.~ mn.m Nouomgwo om.~ oo.m oo.m om.N oo.m om.m om.N om.~ om.m mN.N mN.N Locgm>ow PP op m m N o m N m N F comgma No NNNNNNNN NNNNNLN> m0 NNNNHN0< L0; mcmmz wmucmwmz m0 xNLpNz pzacH Nazogo cmmzumm NEN_00LN N0 NucmucoasH AN000N>0LN N0 aaocw cpgaomv om . >H xHozmaa< 329 APPENDIX IV - 8] Importance of Problems--ANOVA for Between Groups (Fourth Group of Provinces) ****************#******************#******#************ *SOURCE 0F* SUM OF *DEG. 0E: MEAN * * *VARIATIDN* SQUARES #E2E500M* SQUARE *F-RAT11 * t#***#*###*#*####***#*****#***##***#****#*#****#*****#* *BETHEEN * * t a * * GROUPS* .46* 2 * . .23* 2.066* #****#************#****#*#*#******#*******##*********** *HITHIN * t # * t # GROUPS* 3.40* 30 t .11* * t#***#****#**************#*****************##**#******* *************#****#***********************##*****#***** *TOTALS * 3.37: P? * * * *****#*#***#****#***8***#*#*******#**#*****#*#**#****** t###*********#*#******###*#*#*#**#*********##***#****#* 330 .00H .00H .00H .00H .00H .00H .00HA .00HN.00H .00H .00H.MN “mam 0N 0N of 0N 0N 0N 0N 0N 0N 0N 0N N. ‘. . 0.00 N.No 0.NH 0.0H N.HH N.No N.No N.HH N.HH N.HH N.NH Hm. tschz 0 N. NH N N N N m N N 0H HM . A N.HN N.NN N.NN 0.0N 0.NN N.NN 0.NN N.HN N.NH N.NN N.NN .ww in 1. Ne. NH mm mm NN NN NH NN mm NH NH Hm .N N.NN N.NN N.NN 0.0N N.NN 0.0N N.NN N.NN N.HN N.NNNNHN HN. : .. .- AE=NCN> mm mm mm NN MN Nm NN Nm Nm mm mN N HH 0H N N N N N N N N H w ......zod, lull Ammucw>oga N0 azogo sugzomv Amgopumgpa ucwumpmm< can Ngouumgwov mm u >H x~azmma< cowumuzum mo mmuapppmcH mo Nmumaumgu an Newpnoga m0 mocwugoNsH 331 APPENDIX IV - 83 Importance of Prob]ems--ANOVA for Graduates of Institutes of Education NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NSOURCE DF* SUM oF *DEG. OF* MEAN N N NVARIATIUNN .SoUARES NEREFonMN soUARE NE-RATIn N #*******#********************************************** NBETNEEN N N N N N N GRUUPS* 355.87N 10 N 35.58* .ooeN $****************************************************** #WITHIN * * * # * N GROUPS* 12?212.6R* 77 N 5600.57* N ***************************************************** t****************************************************** NroTALS N 123568.55* 22 N N N ******************************************************* **#***************************************~* ********* BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Don and Robert M. Bjork. Education in Developing Areas. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., l969. Amidon, Edmund J. and John B. Hough (eds.). Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research and Application. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, l967. Anonymous. Turkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasasi, Basbakanlik Basimevi, Ankara, l963. Atuf, Nafi. Turkiye Maarif Tarihi. Istanbul: Muallim Ahmet Halit Kitaphanesi, l930. Aydin, Mustafa. Role Performance of Turkish Teacher Training School Principals as Perceivedgby TTSTS, TTSPS, and Ministry Inspectors. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, l973. (Research in progress) Backstrom, Charles H., and Gerald D. Hursh. Survey Research. Northwestern University Press, 1963. Baron, George, Dan Cooper and William G. Walter (Eds.). Educational Administration: International Perspectives. Chicago: Rand McNally, Educational Administration Series, l969. Bell, Gerld (Ed.). Organization and Human Behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, l967. Bennis, Warren G. Organizational Development: Its Nature, Origins, and Prospects. Reading, MaSSachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, l969. Borg, Walter R. Educational Research, An Introduction. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1963. Brookover, Wilbur B. and Edsel L. Erickson. Society, Schools and Learning. Boston: The Allyn and Bacon Series, Foundations of Education, l969. Caplow, Theodore, Principles of Organization. New York: Harcourt Brace and World, Inc., l964. 332 333 Carlson, R. 0. Executive Succession and Organizational'Change. Chicago: University of Chicago, l962. Carver, Fred 0., and Thomas J. Sergiovanni. Organizations and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, l969. Cila, Husnu. Role Conflict of Elementary School Supervision in Turkey. Research in Progress. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, l973. Coleman, James C. Psychology and Effective Behavior. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Company, l969. Coombs, Philip H. The World Educational Crises, System Analysis. New York: Oxford Press, l968. Coser, Lewis. The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: A Free Press Paperback, Collier-Macmillian Company, l956. Cummings, L. L., and W. E. Scott. Readings in Organizational Behavior and Human Behavior. Homewood, Illinois: RiChard D. Irwin, Inc. and the Dorsey Press, l969. Curle, Adam. Educational Strategy for Developing Societies. New York: TavistockFPublications, l963. Davis, Keith. Human Relations at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Edwards, Allen L. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957. Etzioni, Amitai. A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., l969. Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., l964. Gill, Richard T. Economic Development: Past and Present. Second Edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1959. Griffiths, Clark, and Iannaconne Wynn. Organizing Schools for Effective Education. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Pub- lishers, Inc., l962. Gross, Neal, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander McEachern. Explorations in Role Analysis, Studies of the School Superintendency Role. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., l958. 334 Hays, William L. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, l963. Hopper, Jerry R., and Richard Levin. The Turkish Administrator, a Cultural Survey. Ankara: USAIDiPublic Administration Division, l967. Hostler, Charles Warren. Turkism and the Soviets: The Turks of the World and Their Political Objectives. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., l957. Karagozoglu, Galip A. The Role of Ministry Supervisors in Turkish Educational System, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University. l972. Karpat, Kemal H. Turkeyfs politics: The Transition to a Multieparty System. Princeton: Princeton University Press, l959. Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Khan. The Social Psychology of Organiza- tions. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966. Kazamias, Andreas M. Education and the Guest for Modernity in Turkey, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, l966. Keith, Davis. Human Relations at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill, l962. Kerhinger, Fred N. Foundation of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Khan, Robert L., and Elize Boulding (Eds.). Power and Conflict in Organizations. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1964. Lawrence, Paul R., and Greiner Dalton. Organizational Change and Develop- ment. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., and The Dorsey Press, l970. Lawrence, Paul R., and Jay W. Lorsh. Organization and Environment. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin Inc., 1969. Leavitt, Harold J. Managerial Psychology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, l964. March, James (ed.). Handbook of Organizations. New York: Rand McNally, 1965. Massie, Joseph L. Essentials of Management. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., l964. Mednick, Martha, and Sarnoff A. Mednic (Eds.). Research in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964. 335 Milli Egitim Bakanligi. Bilgesel, Ynnetici - Isletmesi ve Teknik Insangucu. Ankara: MEB, Test ve Arastirma Burosu, l965. Milli Egitim Bakanligi. Milli Egitim Bakanligi l968 Yili Butce Gerekcesi Hakkinda Rapor. Ankara: Milli Egitim Basimevi, l968. Milli Egitim Bekanligi. Milli Egitim Bakanligi4_l967 Yili Butce Gerekcesi Hakkinda Rapor. Ankara: Milli Egitim Basimevi, l967. Milli Egitim Bakanligi. Milli Egitimle Ilgili Kanunlar. Ankara: Milli Egitim Basimevi, l953. Milli Egitim Bakanligi. Milli Egitim Reform Stratejisi. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Dairesi Baskanligi, Eylul, l972. Milli Egitim Bakanligi. Reform Subcommittees, A Summary Report of Their Activities and Terms of Reference. Published in Mimeograph forms. Ankara: M.E.B., Planlama, Arastirma ve Koordinasyon Dairesi, l972. Milli Egitim Bakanligi. Yonetim Orgutu Raporu, VII. Milli Egitim Surasi Dokumanlari. Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basimevi, l96l. Moore, Wilbert E. Social Change. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., l963. Nalbantoglu, Resat. "Economical DevelOpment and Cultural Change." An unpublished paper prepared for the RCD conference. Ankara: Cento, l968. OECD, The Mediterranean Regional Project, Turkey. Paris: OECD, l965. Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire Design_and Attitude Measurement. New York: Basic BoOks, Inc., PUblishers, l966. Owens, Robert G. Organizational Behavior in Schools. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., l970. Oymen, Hifzirrahman Rasit. Turkiyenin Ana Egitim Problemleri. Ankara: Ajans-Turk Matnaasi, l965. Patchen, Martin. Participation, Achievement and Involvement on the Job. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., l970. Pfiffner, John M., and Robert Presthus. Public Administration. New York: The Ronald Press Company, l967. Presthus. Robert. The Organizational Society; An Analysis and a Theory. New York: Vintage Books, A Division of Random House, l962. Robinson, Richard. The First Turkish Republic: A Case Study in National Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, l963. 336 Rubenstein, Albert , and Albert Haberstroh, Some Theories of Organization. New York: Irwin-Dorsey, 1966. Scott, William G. Human Relations in Management. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1962. Selznick, Philip. Leadership in Administration. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson, 1957. Simon, Herbart A. Administrative Behavior. New York: A Free Press Paperback, The Macmillan Company, 1957. Slonim, Morris James. Sampling. New York: An Essander Paperback, Simon and Schuster, 1960. State Planning Organization. Turkish Education, Unpublished Report. Ankara: Social Planning Department, September, 1969. Stern, George G. People in Context. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970. Turan, Serafettin. "The Unification of Education," An unpublished paper prepared for the RCD Conference. Ankara: Cento, 1968. T. C. Basbakanlik DPT. Turkiye'de iller itibariyle Sosyol-Ekonomik Gelismislik Endeksi’(l963-l967). Ankara: DPT Arastirma Subesi, Yayin No. DPT. 900-SPD: 207, Haziran, 1970. Turkiye Is Bankasi. Kalkinma Plani,,Ikinci Bes Y1 (1968-1972),;ozet. Ankara: Dogus Ltd. Sti. Matbaasi, 1969. UNESCO. Economic Commission for Latin America, Education, Human Resources and Development in Latin America. New York: United Nations, 1968. UNESCO. Turkey. An unpublished report, Paris: UNESCO, December, 1969. Yucel, Muazzes and Muhlis Yucel. Milli Egitimle Ilgili Yonetmelikler,. Cilt:2. Istanbul: Matbaa Teknisyenleri Basimevi, l963. Periodicals Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 1957; 6, 1961. American Sociological Review, 15, 1950; 18, 1953; 24, 1955; 23, 1958; 32, 1967. 337 Berkley Journal of Sociology, 6, 1961. Harvard Education Review, 22, 1952. Human Organizations, 14, 1955. Journal of Personality, 22, 1956-1957. Journal of Social Issues, 7, 3, 1951. Social Forces, 27, 1949; 30, 1951. "lllllllllllllllls ._-_-_-_-_-_-_