Introduction. The aim of this study examines the relationship between school bureaucratic structure and classroom teachers professional behaviours. Teachers professional behaviours seem to be associated with the quality of instruction and teachers attitudes. Research revealed that teachers professional behaviors had an effect on decreasing teachersfeeling of burnout, and reducing their desire to leave their workplace and to leave the profession entirely. When professionalism is important in schools, teachers continually research best instructional practices to better serve students. Also, teacher professionalism has been found to be positively correlated with student achievement (Tschannen-Moran, Parish & DiPaola, 2006). It can be said that perform of teachers professional behaviors in schools is important for teachers professionalism have a positive contribution to the effectiveness of schools. One of the factors that are associated with teachers' professional behavior is school bureaucratic structure. Based on both the results of research and the theoretical, it can be suggested that school bureaucratic structure is associated with teachersprofessional behaviors. In literature, research shows that there is the relationship between school bureaucratic structure and classroom teachersprofessional behaviors (Geist, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, 2009). School leaders who adopt a bureaucratic orientation overemphasize to closely monitor teachers in the conduct of their work. Tschannen-Moran (2009) found that in schools that were not managed with a bureaucratic orientation, teachers reported greater professionalism in behaviour. In the study was conducted by Geist (2002) revealed that bureaucratic hierarchy, span of control and formalization had effect on teachers professional behavior and autonomy. Organizational values tend to conflict with professional values. A bureaucratic structure emphasized disciplined compliance and loyalty, while the professional is an expert accustomed to large amount of freedom in which to conduct his work (Geist, 2002). Therefore, in schools with a high level of bureaucratic, it may be said that teachers were less likely to conduct themselves as professionals. In the study conducted by Karaman, Yücel and Dönder (2008), in organizations which are controlled bureaucratic mechanisms is not widespread in professionalism, so that in the schools with high level of bureaucracy, it has been suggested that specialization and professionalism will be minimized. Thus, it can be said that there is a relationship between school bureaucratic structure and classroom teachers professional behaviors. Method. The sample of this study included 260 classroom teachers from 24 elementary schools in Bolu. Data in this study were collected using Enabling School Structure Scale developed by Hoy and Sweetland (2000) and Teacher Professionalism subscale of the School Climate Index by Tschannen-Moran et al. (2006). For the structure validity of the two scales, principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotations was performed. Enabling School Structure Scale has 12 items with loading ranged from .65 to .84. Teacher Professionalism Scale has 8 items with loading ranged from .55 to .90. Internal consistency was measured by using Cronbach s Alpha coefficient and alpha coefficient was .83 for Enabling School Structure Scale, .90 for Teacher Professionalism Scale. SPSS was used in the data analysis. Bivariate Pearson Correlation test was used to determine the relationship between school bureaucratic structure and classroom teachersprofessional behaviors. To assess the effect of school bureaucratic structure on classroom teachers professional behaviors, regression analyses were applied. Findings. The findings of present study show that the level of professional behaviors displayed by classroom teachers was low the midpoint on the scale. The level of enabling bureaucratic school structure was low the midpoint. The results of Pearson correlation analyses indicated that enabling bureaucratic school structure was related to classroom teachersprofessional behaviors. The regression analyses revealed that enabling bureaucratic school structure was significantly predictor of classroom teachers professional behaviors. The results suggest that enabling bureaucratic school structure may enhance classroom teachers professional behaviors. Discussion. In this study, it was found that enabling bureaucratic school structure was related to classroom teachers professional behaviors and was significantly predictor of classroom teachers professional behaviors. There is a discrepancy among the findings of the previous research. The findings are consistent with the results of previous studies which indicate that enabling bureaucratic school structure was related to classroom teachersprofessional behaviors (Geist, 2003; Tschannen-Moran, 2009). Inconsistent with the findings of this study, in the study conducted by Jacob (2003), it found that there is not a relationship between enabling bureaucratic school structure and classroom teachers professional behaviors. Such as all organizations, schools that have bureaucratic structure are inevitable. Hoy and Sweetland (2001) argued that school bureaucratic structure can either hinder or enable the effective operation of schools. The prototype for an enabling structure is a hierarchy of authority and a system of rules and regulations that help rather than hinder the teachinglearning mission of the school. In enabling structures, principals and teachers work cooperatively. Similarly, rules and regulations are flexible guides rather than restraints to problem solving. Both the authority hierarchy and the rules and procedures are mechanisms that support the work of the teachers rather than means to enhance the power of the principal (Hoy, 2003). In contrast, the prototype for a hindering structure is a hierarchy of authority that hinders and a system of rul