An Evaluation Of The Decisions Taken About Psychological Counseling And Guidance In The Turkish National Education Councils (1939-2010)

Abstract

Extented Abstract The Purpose of the Research Numerous decisions regarding the psychological counseling and guidance (PCG) services were taken during the Turkish National Education Councils (T.N.E.Council), which convened eighteen times between 1939 and 2010. The present study evaluates the decisions made about the PCG services addressed in the T.N.E.Councils held between 1939 and 2010. Method The study employed the case study design among qualitative research designs. Case study is an empirical research method that studies a contemporary phenomenon in its own real-life circumstances and makes a multidirectional, systematic, and in-depth examination of cases (Büyüköztürk, K?l?ç-Çakmak, Akgün, Karadeniz ve Demirel, 2009). The study universe consists of the Turkish National Education Councils held between 1939 and 2010. No sampling was performed since the entire universe was available. The study employed the embedded single-case design (type 2) among the case study designs. Written document analysis was used as the data collection method and the obtained data were analyzed through descriptive analysis. Furthermore, the data obtained from the documents are also presented in quantitative form. For this purpose, the “yes or no method” and the “covered area method” were used and frequency and percentage distributions are provided. Findings The results of the research show that the 7th T.N.E.Council (1962) was the first education council that addressed PCG. Since the 7th T.N.E.Council up to the present, PCG services have been discussed and various related decisions were taken in all education councils. An examination of the agenda items for the decisions about PCG services reveals that PCG first appeared as an agenda item in the 18th T.N.E.Council (2010). .9% (f=1) of the decisions concerning PCG were taken during the 7th T.N.E.Council; 5.5 % (f=6) were taken in the 8th T.N.E.Council; 6.4 % (f=7) were taken in the 9th T.N.E.Council; .9 % (f=1) were taken in the 10th T.N.E.Council; 4.5 % (f=5) were taken in the 11th T.N.E.Council; 4 % (f=4) were taken in the 12th T.N.E.Council; .9 % (f=1) were taken in the 13th T.N.E.Council; 4.5 % (f=5) were taken in the 14th T.N.E.Council; 18.4 % (f=20) were taken in the 15th T.N.E.Council; 9.1 % (f=10) were taken in the 16th T.N.E.Council; 11 % (f=12) were taken in the 17th T.N.E.Council and 33.9 % (f=37) in the 18th T.N.E.Council. The results revealed that 51.6 % (f=24) of the decisions made about PCG concerned educational PCG; 34.04 % (f=16) pertained to professional PCG; 6.38 % (f=3) were about personal PCG; and 8.52 % (f=4) were related to developmental PCG. The results also demonstrated that no title was used during the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, and 14th T.N.E.Councils (1962-1993) to refer to psychological counselors. Phrases such as “guidance activities”, “guidance services”, “guidance service”, and “guidance association” were used when formulating the decisions about PCG services. The 11th T.N.E.Council (1982), used the title of “school counselor”, while the 13th N.E. Council (1990), and 17th N.E. Councils (2006) employed the title of “guidance teacher”. The 15th T.N.E.Council (1996) separately referred to “guidance worker”, “guidance teacher”, and “psychological counselor”. The expression of “those in charge of guidance” was used to formulate the decisions made in the 16th T.N.E.Council (1999). The 18th T.N.E.Council (2010) made use of the title of guidance teacher/psychological counselor. Results and Suggestions An overall evaluation of the study’s results show that various decisions were taken in the Turkish National Education Councils about PCG. The 7th T.N.E.Council (1962) was the first education council that addressed PCG. Since the 7th T.N.E.Council up to the present, PCG services have been discussed and various related decisions were taken in all education councils. In general, as shown by a historical overview of the attempts made to offer PCG services in educational institutions, these attempts mostly concentrated on professional and educational guidance services. The councils made very limited mention of personal PCG services, while developmental PCG notion was only introduced in the 18th T.N.E.Council held in 2010. It was also during the 18th T.N.E.Council that PCG services were treated as an agenda item on its own. A greater number of PCG-related decisions were taken in this council. Apparently, the problems and conceptual confusion regarding school psychological counselors still reign in National Education Councils. The following suggestions are made in the light of the study results: 1. The upcoming councils should treat PCG as a separate agenda item, about which various decisions should be made. 2. The title of “school psychological counselor” should be used instead of “guidance teacher” for experts offering PCG services in counsils. 3. To abandon the use of “guidance teacher” for “psychological counselors”, PCG professional law should be enacted and our professional field should be legally defined in public staff list nr 190. 4. Developmental PCG program should be applied at all educational levels starting from preschool education.