In brief
This doctoral study asks how school principals and deputy principals in Turkey are prepared for their role and how they are selected. Drawing on the history of the appointment system, on practice in four other countries and on interviews with 38 teachers, school administrators and academics, the author concludes that school leadership in Turkey has grown out of teaching rather than developing as a profession of its own, and that participants regard the selection process as insufficiently transparent.
Research problem and aims
The study starts from the observation that, although school principals strongly shape the quality of schooling, Turkey has never established a stable, structured route into school leadership. Its stated aim is to analyse the process by which school administrators are trained and appointed. Two sub-questions guide the work: how the training of school administrators takes place in Turkey, and how their appointment takes place.
Conceptual framework
The thesis draws on the effective schools literature and on research into the leadership roles expected of principals, including instructional, transformational and ethical leadership. It treats preparation and selection as the two levers through which an education system can shape the quality of its school leaders, and it uses international practice as a point of comparison rather than as a model to be copied.
Method
The study uses a qualitative phenomenological design. Data came from three sources. First, the author traced the historical development of training and appointment rules in Turkey, including their treatment in national development plans and National Education Councils. Second, four comparison countries were chosen by ranking countries on the Good Country Index, the Human Development Index and PISA and TIMSS results; Finland, Singapore, Sweden and the Netherlands were examined in detail. Third, semi-structured interviews were held with 38 participants selected by maximum variation sampling during the 2024–25 school year: 12 teachers, 14 deputy principals, 6 principals and 6 university staff in education faculties, working in different regions and school levels. The interview data were analysed by descriptive analysis around two predefined themes, training and appointment, with frequencies reported for the most common views.
Key findings
On preparation, the study finds that school leadership in Turkey has historically been treated as a natural next step for experienced teachers. Some training initiatives were introduced from the 1980s onwards, but they were later abandoned, and at the time of the research there was no compulsory preparation before taking up a post; training consisted mainly of short in-service courses after appointment. Participants felt that this leaves new administrators unprepared. They called for compulsory pre-service training, a probationary period for candidate administrators, cooperation with universities and the National Education Academy, and certified, modular programmes covering leadership, legislation and management skills.
On appointment, the author describes a system that has changed frequently and has generally been shaped by a centralised approach. At the time of data collection, first appointments were based on a written examination, an interview and points for service record, and administrators could serve two four-year terms in the same school before moving. Most participants considered the process not to be merit-based. The interview stage drew the strongest criticism: participants described it as open to favouritism and political influence and suggested that it should either rest on objective criteria or be removed. Participants also argued that seniority requirements hold back capable younger teachers, that eight years in one school is too long, and that reappointment decisions should weigh educational and social competences and feedback from teachers, parents and students, not only administrative performance.
In the comparison countries, the author reports that appointment is tied to defined academic and professional qualifications, for example a master’s degree and a leadership qualification in Finland and a compulsory national training programme in Sweden, and that reappointment depends on performance evaluation.
The thesis closes with 28 recommendations for practice. Among them are an institutionalised preparation programme, a one-year candidate period with mentoring by experienced principals, a dedicated academy for school leadership, multi-stage selection with independent assessors, and a performance evaluation system that includes stakeholder feedback.
Limitations and implications
The author notes that the international comparison is limited to four countries. As a qualitative study based on 38 participants, the findings describe perceptions and experiences rather than measuring how widespread they are, and the interview group was weighted towards deputy principals and teachers in upper secondary and primary schools.
Why it matters internationally
The study offers a clear picture of a centralised system in which school leadership is not yet a distinct profession, a situation that international research on principal preparation has long identified as a weakness. Its timing is also notable. Data were collected in 2024–25, and in January 2026 Turkey adopted a new regulation that removes the interview from first appointments and makes training at the National Education Academy compulsory for new principals and deputies. Several of the reforms the participants asked for have therefore since entered law, which makes this thesis a useful record of the problems the new system set out to solve. Our guide to how school principals are appointed in Turkey describes the current rules.