Advertisement

The Urban Review

, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 400–419 | Cite as

Differentiated Function of School in Socio-Culturally Disadvantaged Context: A Constructivist Grounded Theory Study from Turkey

  • Zuhal Zeybekoglu Caliskan
  • Hasan Simsek
  • Yasar Kondakci
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study analyses the functioning of a school as a social system in an atypical context with the purpose of generating propositions to tackle educational problems confronted by socially and economically disadvantaged groups attending these schools. Adopting the constructivist grounded theory, the analysis suggests that there is a kind of “vicious cycle” in the functioning of this atypical school, which adversely affects the school system. Breaking the vicious cycle involves five basic propositions: (1) making school a better place than students’ homes, (2) overcoming the enduring difficulties of working in an atypical school, (3) multiplying learning opportunities, (4) prompting parents to assume more responsibility, (5) locating leadership that makes a difference. These propositions clarify the significance of informal subsystems, school community and the wider environment along with their enabling and blocking effects on a disadvantaged school system. Parallel to other studies on disadvantaged schools, the study highlights the need to refine the orthodox view of the concept of formal education and school, as well as the role of school principal, teachers and parents affiliated with atypical schools.

Keywords

Roma students Atypical school Social justice Disadvantaged school Turkey 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aksu, M. (2003). Türkiye’de çingene olmak. [Being gypsy in Turkey]. Istanbul: Ozan Publisher.Google Scholar
  2. Arayıcı, A. (1999). Çingeneler. [Gypsies]. Istanbul: Ceylan Publisher.Google Scholar
  3. Ballantine, J. H., & Spade, J. Z. (2008). Getting started: understanding education through sociological theory. In J. H. Ballantine & J. Z. Spade (Eds.), Schools and society. a sociological approach to education (pp. 5–19). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Banathy, B. H. (1992). A systems view of education: Concepts and principles for effective practice. Educational technology publications. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, S. M. (2007). Understanding achievement: a grounded theory study of how adult behaviors lead to high student achievement in high-poverty high-minority schools. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Capella University, USA Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAT 3262860).Google Scholar
  6. Chance, P. L., & Chance, E. W. (2002). Introduction to educational leadership and organizational behavior: Theory into practice. New York: Eye on Education.Google Scholar
  7. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Cookson, P. W., & Sadovnik, A. R. (2001). Functionalist theories of education. In D. L. Levinson, P. W. Cookson, & A. R. Sadovnik (Eds.), Education and sociology. An encyclopedia (pp. 267–273). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Getzel, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1957). Social behavior and the administration process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Giles, C. (2006). Transformational leadership in challenging urban elementary schools: A role for parent involvement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(3), 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glaser, G. B., & Strauss, L. A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publication.Google Scholar
  13. Glickman, N. J., & Scally, C. P. (2008). Can community and education organizing improve inner-city schools? Journal of Urban Affairs, 30(5), 557–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goddard, J. T., & Bohac-Clarke, V. (2007). The cycles of school change: Toward an integrated developmental model. The Journal of Educational Thought, 41(2), 105–123.Google Scholar
  15. Gomes, A. M. (1999). Gypsy children and Italian education system: a closer look. European Journal of Intercultural Studies, 10(2), 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hallinan, M. (2004). School as a social system. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 13563–13567). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  17. Halverson, A. L., Lee, V. E., & Andrade, F. H. (2009). A mixed-method study of teachers’ attitudes about teaching in urban and low-income schools. Urban Education, 44(2), 181–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris, A. (2002). Effective leadership in schools facing challenging contexts. School Leadership and Management, 22(1), 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Howey, K. R. (1999). Preparing teachers for inner city school. Theory into Practice, 38(1), 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2008). Educational administration: theory, research, and practice. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Hurn, C. J. (2002). Conflict theory. In D. L. Levinson, P. W. Cookson, & A. R. Sadovnik (Eds.), Education and sociology. An encyclopedia (pp. 111–115). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  22. Kolukırık, S. (2009). Dünden bugüne çingeneler. Kültür-kimlik-dil-tarih. [Gypsies in the Past and Present: Culture-Identity-Language-History]. Istanbul: Ozan Publisher.Google Scholar
  23. Kolukirik, S., & Toktas, S. (2007). Turkey’s Roma: Political participation and organization. Middle Eastern Studies, 43(5), 761–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kyuchukov, H. (2000). Transformative education for Roma (Gypsy) children: An insider’s view. Intercultural Education, 11(3), 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liégeois, J. P. (2007). Roma education and public policy. A European perspective. European Education, 39(1), 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNaughton, S., & Lai, M. K. (2009). A model of school change for culturally and linguistically diverse students in New Zealand: A summary and evidence from systematic replication. Teaching Education, 20(1), 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Owens, G. R. (2004). Organizational behavior in education: Adaptive leadership and school reform (8th ed.). US: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Reynolds, D., Teddlie, C., Stringfield, S., & Creemers, B. (2002). World class schools. International perspectives on school effectiveness. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  30. Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: building a world of new understandings (pp. 3–14). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  31. Simsek, H. (2008). Eğitim ve toplumsal değişme [Education and social change]. In A. Boyaci (Ed.), Eğitim sosyolojisi ve felsefesi [Educational sociology and philosophy] (pp. 53–76). Eskisehir: Anadolu University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Strand, S., & Winston, J. (2008). Educational aspirations in inner city schools. Educational Studies, 34(4), 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Toprak, Z., Ozmen, O. N. T., & Tenikler, G. (2007). Izmir Büyükkent bütününde Romalar [Romas in the Grand Municipality of Izmir]. Ankara: Nobel Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Vadeboncoeur, J. A. (1997). Child development and the purpose of education: A historical context for constructivism in teacher education. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings (pp. 15–37). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  35. White-Smith, K. A. (2004). Principals’ perceptions of teacher quality in high performing, low-income, minority elementary schools. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California, USA, Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAT 3155497).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zuhal Zeybekoglu Caliskan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hasan Simsek
    • 3
  • Yasar Kondakci
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational SciencesMiddle East Technical UniversityCankaya, AnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Koc UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Istanbul Kultur UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options