School leadership is becoming an increasingly important priority in many countries to increase student success (Pont, Nusche and Moorman, 2008; Robinson, Holepa and Lloyd, 2009) and school success (Branch, Hanushek and Rivkin, 2013).  Many think that school principals contribute to the success of students, albeit indirectly, with their impact on school, organization and climate, especially on teacher and teaching (TALIS, 2013). In other words, it can be said that the school administrators affect the organization, climate, staff and teachers' working conditions.

When the results of TALIS (2013) are examined, it is noteworthy that the school administrators who are in the sampling group have reported that they are well-educated and that the majority of them have completed higher education, and at least three-quarters of the principals say that their program have included the school management, teacher preparation or instructional leadership programs. According to the results of this report, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Estonia and Chile are the first five countries indicating that they have received intensive school leadership training. When we look at the results of these countries in the latest conducted PISA, it can be seen that they are the top five-countries in terms of student success (OECD, 2016). Denmark, Poland, Portugal, Serbia and Croatia are the countries that school adminsitarors working there have stated that they have never received leadership training or have received very little. These countries are also the lowest in the list of academic achievement in PISA. Thus, it is possible to mention the positive effects of the education and the content of this education on the academic success of the students. Another important issue in the selection and training of school administrators is the experience of teaching and management of school administrators. In PISA, although the education managers of successful countries have a lot of teaching experience, their management experience is much less compared to the countries that fail in this comparative evaluation program. In international comparison of OECD countries, Singopore is ranked at the top. When the profile of school heads in Singapore is examined, it is seen that approximately 70% of the managers have a master's or doctoral degree, all of whom are over 35 years old and approximately 95% of them have more than 15 years of professional experience (Singapore in Figures, 2016).

Although it is called with different names, education management is a common phenomenon all over the world. Wherever you go, you can see each school needs one or a few administrators and an administration with which this school is connected (Mundy, Bickmore, Hayhoe, Madden and Madjidi, 2008). In these countries, where the aim in all is almost the same, systems for education management and the names given may differ. For example, when viewed in terms of the names given to school administrators, "school leader" term is used in Finland, while in Turkey it is called "school prinicipal" (Ertürk Kayman, 2017). There are systematic differences as well as naming.

The effect of the preferred practices and the executive characteristics of the selection, appointment and training of the education administrators is clearly seen on the quality of education. Based on this idea, the aim of this study is to describe and analyze the phenomenon of success and differentiation in education management in details by interviewing the school administrators working in the field and have been found successful in this task.Therefore, the research question in this is as follows:

What are the opinions and recommendations of successful school administrators in Turkey about selection, triaining and appointment systems of school administrators?

In this study, qualitative research method has been used to examine the opinions of school administrators on the selection, training and assignment process of school administrators. In qualitative research, the aim is not to verify a predetermined idea, but rather to make discoveries that lead to new understandings. For this reason, phenomonological methods, which are one of the philosophical perspectives that form the basis of qualitative research, are used. This method embodies the experiences of individuals as practical, emotional, spatial, social, linguistic and temporal (Wertz, Charmaz, McMullen, Josselson, Anderson and McSpadden, 2011). In this research, it has been expected that the individuals who have been working as school administrators are able to express their experiences about the school administrator selection, training and assignment process.. In order to analyze the collected data, content analysis will be applied. Once the codes have been determined, they will be asked to re-code the researcher’s codings by an educational management expert. As a result of this comparison, coding compatibility ratio will be examined. In the study, monitoring of this method is also seen as a factor that increases internal consistency (credibility) (Miles and Huberman, 2015). In the study group, there are a total of 111 working at the school in Turkey as school administrators during the fall semester of 2018-2019 academic year from and each one them is from a different province of Turkey (more than one school administrators from metropolitan cities). The school administrators in the sample group are the ones who has got attention with their eye-catching applications in their schools. For this reason, criterion sampling which is one of the purposive sampling methods has been used.

This study has been designed as a guiding resource for the selection, training and assignment program of educational administrators. This study is a multidimensional study and it is expected that it will make a significant contribution to educational policy makers, senior educational administrators, education manager trainers, school administrators, academicians and researchers in related departments of universities. In a more concrete way, it is thought that the most important contribution to this study will be provided to the institutions that train the educational administrators. Some recommendations will be made to the universities’ related departments giving these trainings to educational adminitrators to update their curriculum, qualification definitions and materials and also some suggestions will be given to Ministry of Education in Turkey in order to update their techniques and contents beacuse they give the in-service trainings of the administrators. With this study, it is aimed to establish the infrastructure of the school administrator training program through the undergraduate education and to form an infrastructure for the formation of an effective career management system. It is also thought that this research will provide support to the researchers in the fields of educational administration, school administration, effectiveness of educational administration, success in school, organizational health, organizational culture and organizational behavior.

Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2013). School leaders matter. Education Next, 13(1), 62-69. Ertürk Kayman, E. A. (2017). Türkiye, Finlandiya, İngiltere ve Şili'deki okul yöneticiliğine ilişkin yaklaşımların incelenmesi. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Hacettepe University, Education Faculty, Ankara. Miles, M. B. & Huberman A. M. (2015). Nitel veri analizi. Ankara: Pegem. Mundy, K., Bickmore, K., Hayhoe, R., Madden, M. & Madjidi, K. (2008). Comparative and international education: Issues for teachers. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press. OECD (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership. Practice and policy. In I Congreso Internacional RIAICES. Singapore in Figures. (2016). https://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/publications/publications_and_papers/reference/sif2016.pdf TALIS. (2013). The OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey. Wertz, F. J., Charmaz, K., McMullen, L. M., Josselson, R., Anderson, R., & McSpadden, E. (2011). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.