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?