THE DIFFERENTIATION OF PARENTAL SATISFACTION WITH THE SPATIAL FEATURES OF PUBLIC PRIMARY SCHOOLS: THE CASE OF PENDIK, ISTANBUL
The present study aims to examine the change of parents' satisfaction with the spatial features of public primary schools according to personal, residential, school, and neighbourhood characteristics and to measure to what extent the spatial features explain the overall satisfaction with primary schools.
Firstly, the study area was divided into 4 clusters by hierarchical clustering method. In proportion to the number of students in each cluster, an online survey was conducted with 807 parents in 19 public primary schools in Pendik between 5-27 May 2020. Personal and residential characteristics obtained from the survey results and school and neighbourhood characteristics obtained from secondary sources were cross-tabulated with the levels of satisfaction on 19 spatial characteristics of the schools. Later, these 19 spatial features were reduced to two basic dimensions with the principal component analysis, and the level of explanation of these dimensions on the overall school satisfaction was revealed by multiple regression analysis.
The level of satisfaction of parents with the spatial characteristics of primary schools differs significantly according to personal (15 out of 19), residential (5 out of 19), school (14 out of 19), and neighbourhood (10 out of 19) characteristics. In addition, the parents' satisfaction regarding the spatial adequacies of the primary school has a determinant effect on the overall satisfaction of the parents with the primary school. The most effective factors in the overall satisfaction of parents from primary school are "size of sports fields" and "size of activity spaces".
Similar studies in different cases (both in rural and urban areas), different time periods, and for different education levels should be repeated to compare the results.
This research indicates that spatial characteristics should be taken into account in determining the priority improvements starting from the sports fields and activity spaces of schools.
The present study evaluates the spatial adequacies of public primary schools and associates it with urbanization and urban planning. It is expected to contribute to the studies to increase the quality of spatial dimensions of primary schools, and consequently urban life quality.
Ahmetoğlu, E., & Acar, İ. H. (2017). Parents'satısfactıon Wıth Theır Chıldren's Educatıonal Experıences in Early Chıldhood Period. Electronic Turkish Studies, 12(6), 1-14.
Alpakut, S. (2017). Öğrenci Velilerinin Özel Okullardan Memnuniyet Düzeylerinin Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli ile Değerlendirilmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(2), 355-368.
Atik, A., Taçoral, E., & Altunkasa, M. F. (2014). Kent Halkının Kentsel Yaşam Memnuniyeti Üzerinde Etkili Sosyo-Demografik Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma: Kemaliye Örneği. İnönü Üniversitesi Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 4(9), 21-33.
Aydoğan, İ. (2012). Okul Binalarının Özellikleri ve Öğrenciler Üzerine Etkileri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 42(193), 29-43.
Bakioğlu, A., & Bahçeci, M. (2010). Velilerin okul imajına ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi. 31, 25-55.
Berryman, A. (2015). Modeling Public Satisfaction with School Quality: A Test of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Model. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/eps_diss/117
Bognar, G. (2005). The concept of quality of life. Social theory and practice, 31(4), 561-580.
Boylu, A. A., & Paçacıoğlu, B. (2016). Yaşam kalitesi ve göstergeleri. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 8(15), 137-150.
Bozyiğit, S. (2017). Özel Okulların Eğitim Hizmetlerine İlişkin Veli Beklentisi ve Algısı: Nitel Bir Araştırma. ICPESS (International Congress on Politic, Economic and Social Studies),
Brown, K., & Coulter, P. B. (1983). Subjective and objective measures of police service delivery. Public Administration Review, 43(1), 50-58.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. Russell Sage Foundation.
Cevher, E. (2015). Yükseköğretimde Hizmet Kalitesi ve Kalite Algısının Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Journal of International Social Research, 8(39), 804-814.
Charbonneau, E., Van, R., & Gregg, G. (2012). Performance measures and parental satisfaction with New York City schools. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(1), 54-65.
Çamlıca, C. (2016). Kktc İlkokullarında Okul-Veli Memnuniyeti (Yedidalga Örneği). International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education (IJTASE), 5(3), 40-49.
Ekinci, C. E., & Burgaz, B. (2007). Hacettepe üniversitesi öğrencilerinin bazı akademik hizmetlere ilişkin beklenti ve memnuniyet düzeyleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(33), 120-134.
Epstein, J. L. (1985). A question of merit: Principals' and parents' evaluations of teachers. Educational Researcher, 14(7), 3-10.
Fantuzzo, J., Perry, M. A., & Childs, S. (2006). Parent satisfaction with educational experiences scale: A multivariate examination of parent satisfaction with early childhood education programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(2), 142-152.
Favero, N., & Meier, K. J. (2013). Evaluating Urban Public Schools: Parents, Teachers, and State Assessments. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 401-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12022
Friedman, B. A., Bobrowski, P. E., & Geraci, J. (2006). Parents' school satisfaction: ethnic similarities and differences. Journal of Educational Administration, 471-486.
Friedman, B. A., Bobrowski, P. E., & Markow, D. (2007). Predictors of parents' satisfaction with their children's school. Journal of Educational Administration, 278-288.
Galster, G. (1987). Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction: An empirical critique. Environment and Behavior, 19(5), 539-568.
Gibbons, S., & Machin, S. (2008). Valuing school quality, better transport, and lower crime: evidence from house prices. oxford review of Economic Policy, 24(1), 99-119.
Gibbons, S., & Silva, O. (2011). School quality, child wellbeing and parents’ satisfaction. Economics of Education Review, 30(2), 312-331.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ, 730.
Hastings, J. S., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2005). Parental preferences and school competition: Evidence from a public school choice program (0898-2937). https://www.nber.org/papers/w11805
Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2007). What do parents value in education? An empirical investigation of parents' revealed preferences for teachers. The quarterly journal of economics, 122(4), 1603-1637.
James, O. (2009). Evaluating the expectations disconfirmation and expectations anchoring approaches to citizen satisfaction with local public services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 107-123.
Karadağ, E. (2010). İlköğretim okullarında hizmet kalitesi: Veli algılarına dayalı bir araştırma. Eğitim Ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori Ve Uygulama(1), 19-52.
Karagöz, Y. (2010). Nonparametrik tekniklerin güç ve etkinlikleri. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(33), 18-40.
Karaküçük, S. A. (2008). Okul Öncesi Eğitim Kurumlarında Fiziksel/Mekansal Koşulların İncelenmesi: Sivas İli Örneğİ. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi/Journal of Social Sciences, 32(2), 307-320.
Kelly, J. M. (2003). Citizen satisfaction and administrative performance measures: is there really a link? Urban Affairs Review, 38(6), 855-866.
Kerce, E. W. (1992). Quality Of Life: Meaning, Measurement, And Models.
Mahallem. (2016). Mahallem İstanbul. Retrieved 13.03.2020 from http://www.mahallemistanbul.com/MahallemSEGE_/
Marans, R. W. (2007). Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesinin Ölçülmesi. Mimarlık Dergisi, 335, 28-35.
Marans, R. W., & Rodgers, W. L. (1975). Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. Metropolitan America in contemporary perspective, 299-352.
Massam, B. H. (2002). Quality of life: public planning and private living. Progress in planning, 58(3), 141-227.
ME. (2019). Ministry of Education Construction and Real Estate Department.Spatial data of primary schools. Retrieved 15.06.2020 from
ME. (2020). Ministry of Education Retrieved 15.06.2020 from http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=396
Morgeson, F. V. (2012). Expectations, disconfirmation, and citizen satisfaction with the US federal government: Testing and expanding the model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 289-305.
Nartgün, Ş., & Kaya, A. (2016). Özel Okul Velilerinin Beklentileri Doğrultusunda Okul İmajı Oluşturma. 5(2), 153-167.
Neal, Z. P., & Watling Neal, J. (2012). The Public School as a Public Good: Direct and Indirect Pathways to Community Satisfaction. Journal of Urban Affairs, 34(5), 469-486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2011.00595.x
Okumuş, A., & Duygun, A. (2008). Eğitim Hizmetlerinin Pazarlanmasında Hizmet Kalitesinin Ölçümü Ve Algılanan Hizmet Kalitesi İle N Öğrenci Memnuniyeti Arasındaki İlişki. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 17-38.
Özbaş, M. (2014). İlköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin aile memnuniyetini karşılama düzeyine ilişkin veli görüşleri. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 243-258.
Parks, R. B. (1984). Linking objective and subjective measures of performance. Public Administration Review, 44(2), 118-127.
Pendik-Municipality. (2020). Total surface area of neighbourhoods. Retrieved 17.07.2020 from https://www.pendik.bel.tr/sayfa/mahalle
Rothstein, J. M. (2006). Good principals or good peers? Parental valuation of school characteristics, Tiebout equilibrium, and the incentive effects of competition among jurisdictions. American Economic Review, 96(4), 1333-1350.
Salihoğlu, T., & Türkoğlu, H. (2019). Konut Çevresi ve Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesi. Megaron, 14, 203-217.
Stipak, B. (1979). Citizen satisfaction with urban services: Potential misuse as a performance indicator. Public Administration Review, 46-52.
Stipak, B. (1980). Local governments' use of citizen surveys. Public Administration Review, 40(5), 521-525.
Şahin, G. G. (2011). Üniversite düzeyinde turizm eğitiminde hizmet kalitesi beklenti ve algısına yönelik Ankara’da bir araştırma. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(4), 49-65.
Şensoy, A., & Sağsöz, A. (2015). Öğrenci Başarısının Sınıfların Fiziksel Koşulları ile İlişkisi. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 16(3), 87-104.
Tayyar, N., & Dilşeker, F. (2013). Devlet ve vakif üniversitelerinde hizmet kalitesi ve imajin öğrenci memnuniyetine etkisi. SOSYAL VE BEŞERİ BİLİMLER ARAŞTIRMALARI DERGİSİ(28), 184-204.
Thompson, G. L. (2003). Predicting African American Parents' and Guardians' Satisfaction With Teachers and Public Schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(5), 277-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309597640
TURKSTAT. (2019). Turkish Statistic Institute 2019 Census Data (Address Based Population Recording System). Retrieved 21.06.2020 from https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=95&locale=tr
Van Ryzin, G. G. (2004). Expectations, performance, and citizen satisfaction with urban services. Journal of policy analysis and management, 23(3), 433-448.
Van Ryzin, G. G. (2006). Testing the expectancy disconfirmation model of citizen satisfaction with local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(4), 599-611.
Vural, R. A., & Sadık, F. (2003). İlköğretim okul binalarının fiziksel açıdan değerlendirilmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 28(130), 16-23.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.
2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.
The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.
If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.
The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues.
The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs.
3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles.
4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material.
5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name.6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.