Education is seen as the main actor for the development of societies and directing the future in the 21st century as the information age. One of the most important factors in achieving these aims is the school administrators. In the contemporary discussions about educational administration, school is seen as the center of change and the position of the school manager as a teaching and change leader in the school as a learning organization gains importance (Turan & Şişman, 2000). Sustainable effectiveness in education organizations depends on the efficiency, the ability of the school administrators to continuously improve themselves, to follow scientific developments and to conduct scientific models and management (Leithwood & Louis, 1998; cited in Hoy & Miskel, 2010). It is important that the principal should be trained in a way that will enable him/her to play these roles so that s/he can play him/her expected roles (Memduhoğlu, 2007). Hence, how to prepare and select right school administrators have been debated in the field for a long time.  

Examining practices in different countries, the most commonly used selection criteria of school administrator selection are management and/or leadership experience (Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Israel, Portugal, Spain), academic or other qualifications (Austria, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Spain), interpersonal and personal skills (Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Northern Ireland), the vision/values ​​of school leadership (Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Israel) and promises for school (Austria, Denmark, Ireland) (Pont, Nusche & Moorman, 2008; cited in Sezer, 2015).

Various studies in Turkey underline that the problems experienced in the training, selection, and appointment of the school administrators and the implementation of the appointment regulation constitute a significant problem. (Memduhoğlu, 2007; Süngü, 2012, Özdemir, 2009). There is a widespread belief that there is no school for administration in Turkey (Balcı & Çınkır, 2002). Policy in Turkey has not settled on a scientific basis and there is no effective coordination between the universities and the MoNE in training administrators (Çelik, 2002).

The literature review shows that the regulations have been changed frequently, but a convincing practice that meets the expectations of stakeholders has not yet been established. At this point, the development and implementation of a new and sustainable model for the selection, training, and appointment of school administrators in accordance with the suggestions of all stakeholders is now more important than ever in Turkey (Aydın Baş & Şentürk, 2017). In Turkey, school administrators can be appointed without any in-service training certificate or postgraduate diploma. Compared to other countries, school administrators do not undergo any training related to management before they start working, but their own learning is only through their own efforts (Süngü, 2012). This shows that education management is not perceived as a profession that requires different qualifications from teaching (Özdemir, 2009). The MoNE’s very recent efforts to promote education administration as a profession and to develop a training and assignment model that can be accepted by all stakeholders have brought the issue back to the agenda. Thereby the question of what should be the criteria for the appointment of education administrators has started to be discussed in Turkey again.

The main purpose of this study is to determine the ideal criteria for appointment to the school management according to the views of education managers, school administrators, academicians, and teachers. In the context of this main objective, the following questions will be answered:

1. Which factors do participants separate into according to their views on appointment criteria of education administrators?
2. What are the consensus items among participants on appointment criteria of education administrators?
3. What are the divergence items among participants on appointment criteria of education administrators?

Aiming to reveal opinions on attainment of education administrators this study is designed as a survey. Data collection and analysis will be operated with Q methodology which is a type of analysis used to measure the attitudes and perceptions of individuals. Q methodology first developed in psychiatry but started to be used by social scientists in time (Demir & Kul, 2011). Q Method can be used to reveal the typologies of organizations, as well as to determine the points of consensus of the members of the organization in a given subject area (Koçak, 2010). According to Adams and Proops (2000), in contrast to the R method, the Q Method leaves the participant to consider other sentences while classifying a judgment sentence assigned to him, and in this respect, the Method Q follows a more reliable way of explaining human behavior and views on a subject. The basic approach of the Q Method is to align the participants in a negative and positive range on a scale. The Q method analyses are based on factor analysis of the collected data and the separation of the participants into factors. Their views are considered to be similar to the views of the participants gathered under the same factor, and this affinity is related to the proximity or distance of the statements that appear with the order of judicial statements (Danielson, 2009). In addition, the judiciary sentences, which are considered to be the most important / most accurate by each factor, are also revealed in this way. The participants of the research will be selected among the field experts and educators who are interested in the subject with snowball technique. Maximum diversity principle will be taken into account for the selection of the sample. The survey will be conducted through face-to-face interviews. At data collection stage, firstly a questionnaire will be developed by the researchers as a result of literature reviews and expert opinion. Then each item will be printed on a separate card and will be displayed to the participants. The participants will be asked to separate the cards into three groups as positive negative and neutral. Then, they will be asked to read the sentences again and place each in Q Sort according to their degree of agreement/disagreement. Finally, item numbers will be recorded for the analysis. The collected data will be analyzed with the help of PQ Method program.

Based on the analysis it is thought that this research will reveal some common criteria for appointment of education administrators in Turkey. Q methodology will help to understand what kind of consensus and divergence there is among shareholders. Eventually, the study will contribute to the continuing debate of appointment of education administrators in Turkey.

Addams, H. ve Proops, J. L. (2000). Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology. Edward Elgar Publishing. Aydın Baş, E., ve Şentürk, İ. (2017). Eğitim Kurumları Yöneticilerinin Görevlendirilmelerine İlişkin Yönetmelik Hakkında Okul Yöneticilerinin Görüşleri. Ondokuzmayis University Journal of Education, 36(2). Balcı, A. ve Çınkır, Ş. (2002, Mayıs). Türkiye’de Eğitim Yöneticilerinin Yetiştirilmesi. 21. Yüzyılın Eşiğinde Türk Eğitim Sistemi Ulusal Sempozyumu’nda sunulan bildiri, Ankara. Çelik, V. (2002). Eğitim Yöneticisi Yetiştirme Politikasına Yön Veren Temel Eğilimler. 21. Yüzyıl Eğitim Yöneticilerinin Yetiştirilmesi Sempozyumu Bildirileri. (Edt: C. Elma ve Ş. Çınkır). Danielson, S. (2009). Q method and surveys: Three ways to combine Q and R. Field Methods, 21(3), 219-237. Demir, F. ve Kul, M. (2011). Modern bir araştırma yöntemi: Q Metodu. Ankara: Adalet Yayınları. Koçak, M. (2010). The application of Q methodology to generate a functional typology of terrorist organizations in Turkey. Kent State University. Unpublished dissertation. Hoy, W. K. ve Miskel, C. G. (2010). Eğitim yönetimi: Teori, araştırma ve uygulama. (S. Turan, Çev.). Ankara: Nobel yayınları. Memduhoğlu, H. B. (2007). Türk eğitim sisteminde okulların yönetimi ve okul yöneticilerinin yetiştirilmesi sorunsalı. Mili Eğitim Dergisi, 176, 86-97. Onural, H. (2005). Üst düzey yöneticilerin eğitim yönetimi alanındaki yeterlik sorunu ve nedenleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetim Dergisi, 11(41), 69-85. Özdemir, M. (2009). Okul yöneticiliğinin hukuksal temelleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 42(2), 279-300. Sezer, S. (2016). School Administrators' Opinions on Frequently Changing Regulations Related to Appointments and Relocation: A New Model Proposal. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 335-356. Süngü, H. (2012). Türkiye, Almanya, Fransa ve İngiltere’de okul müdürlerinin atanması ve yetiştirilmesi. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 2(1), 33-48. Turan, S., & Şişman, M. (2000). Okul yöneticileri için standartlar: Eğitim yöneticilerinin bilgi temelleri üzerine düşünceler. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(4), 68-87.