Minority Schools in Turkey from Past to Present
Problems Experienced and Proposed Solutions
Press File
September 19th, 2013-Istanbul
1
INTRODUCTION
The History Foundation (Tarih Vakfı) conducts studies in the field of education to strengthen
respect for and sensitivity to human and cultural rights within a culture of democracy. Within
this framework, the Promoting Human Rights in [Primary and Secondary School]
Textbooks I and II projects, carried out in 2007-2008,were followed by a research project
entitled The Role of Education as a Means to Reconciliation in Societies Experiencing
Social and Political Conflicts in 2009-2010. The Promoting Human Rights in [Primary and
Secondary School] Textbooks III project was launched in December 2012, with the aim of
reviewing and reporting, within the framework of human rights criteria, on course books
being used in schools during the 2012-2013 academic year.*
One of the main focuses of the History Foundation is to contribute to the strengthening,
through democratisation, of education in Turkey, particularly in the field of history. As such,
the Minority Schools from Past to the Present: Problems and Solutions project, carried out
between October 2011 and May 2013 with financial support from the Global Dialogue,
presents a study that supports critical thinking on education, unequal practices and violations
of human rights in Turkey.
We wish to express our thanks to Mr Selçuk Akşin Somel, a historian of modernisation in the
Ottoman education system, for his assistance concerning the historical background. Mr Somel
made an invaluable contribution to the project through his article depicting the situation of
Armenian, Greek and Jewish schools in the Ottoman State from the 19th century to the early
20th century, within the framework of the centralisation and modernisation of education. The
first volume of the Project Report entitled “Minority Schools from the Past to the Present:
Problems and Solutions” was published with the subtitle “How did Non-Muslim Schools
become ‘Minority Schools’?” The historical background section of this report summary was
compiled from this material.
The second volume of the report deals mostly with the problems experienced by minority
schools from the early years of the 20th century onwards, particularly in relation to the Law
for the Unification of Education (1924). Researched and written by Nurcan Kaya, this study
examines witness statements, legal regulations and relevant documents in comparison with
actual practices. Facts and findings collected over an 18-month period during the oral history
field study for the projects are given in the second volume of the report. This summary mainly
looks at the problems identified during the project field study and suggested solutions.
We hereby extend our thanks and gratitude for their invaluable contribution to this study to
the authors mentioned above, the members of the Project Advisory Board, the project team,
the many volunteers and to all the brave people who shared their observations with us.
We hope that this study, which highlights the multi-faceted problems of minority schools
from past to present, will prompt further studies on these schools and help to develop an
*
This project is being conducted in collaboration with the Sociology and Educational Studies Unit of Bilgi
University in Istanbul
2
awareness and sensitivity of this issue among politicians, official and private education
institutions and members of civil society throughout Turkey.
This project report summary deals mainly with the problems identified concerning minority
schools and offers suggestions for solutions to these problems. As these schools offer multilanguage education, it was considered appropriate to also publish this summary in those
languages and this report has therefore been prepared by translating the Turkish text into
Armenian, Greek and English.
Gülay Kayacan
Project Coordinator, History Foundation
3
HOW DID NON-MUSLIM SCHOOLS BECOME MINORITY SCHOOLS?
Selçuk Akşin Somel
The Ottoman Empire had a multi-religious and multi-ethnic political structure. As in other
pre-modern states, education in the Ottoman Empire was under the control of religious
officials (scholars and clergies) and religious foundations based in each officially recognised
community (or ‘millet’). The State did not have an education policy for the whole of Ottoman
society until the 19thcentury. The traditional schools of the Greek, Armenian and Jewish
communities were therefore largely autonomous from Bab-ı Ali (Ottoman State) control.
As the schools of each community were associated with, and usually located within or near
the relevant church or synagogue, there was non-Muslim primary education in places where
these communities existed. The number of higher level schools providing training and
education for members of the clergy, however, was limited. Before the 19th century, these
communities did not have today’s secular vocational education institutions.
The Rum (Greek speaking Christians) were the first non-Muslim community to engage with
European modernism. Greek merchants dealing with international trade transported new ideas
to Ottoman lands and, from the middle of 17th century, the notables of these communities
began to send their children to Italy and France for university education. Greeks were soon
followed by the Armenians in this area.
Three ideological factors transformed the system of education in the Greek and Armenian
communities from the late 18thcentury, continuing throughout the 19th century. The first was
the European Enlightenment. In brief, the Enlightenment introduced rationalist criticism of
autocratic rule, and in particular of the arbitrary authority of monarchies, the nobility and the
church. Enlightenment thinkers emphasised the capability of the human being as individuals
who can determine their own future through the exercise of free will and critical thinking.
This posed a challenge to the authority of religious belief and established traditions. The
Greeks were the first Ottoman subjects to address these ideas, which led the replacement, to
some level, of the traditional Orthodox identity with a new secular Hellenistic consciousness.
From the mid-18thcentury, secular and nationalist Hellenistic ideas gained ground within
Greek community schools and began, to some degree, to displace Orthodox Christian
teaching.
The second influence bringing changes to education, especially in the Armenian community
and to a lesser extent in Greek education, was the European Reformation and the rise of
Protestantism. The Reformation was a 16th century religious movement as a reaction to what
pious North European Christians saw as the Spanish corruption of and growing materialism
within Catholic Christianity. The central theological principle of Protestantism was the belief
that the individual can attain direct access to God, an idea that made the position of the

History Department of Sabancı University
4
traditional Catholic clergy problematic. The Reformation encouraged new translations of the
Bible that aimed to draw out its true nature so as to better inform the act of prayer. In some
cases this was associated with the emergence of Millenarian groups who believed that the Day
of Judgement was near and that it was important to convert as many sinners as possible before
this occurred. Some of these groups, based in Europe and America, opened missionary
schools in Ottoman lands in the 19th century. American missionary schools became
particularly active amongst sections of the Armenian community and influenced the education
they provided.
The third factor influencing the development of education in non-Muslim communities was
the policy of Ottomanism that developed in the mid-19thcentury. This project aimed to create
a united Ottoman nation, better able to modernise in the face of growing European influence,
by giving all citizens equal rights, regardless of differences in religion, language and
ethnicity. This called into question the religion-oriented education that the various
communities were then providing. Ottoman policy, as officially declared in the Royal Edict of
Reform (1856), aimed to subvert the power of the clergy and to enable ordinary people to
have a greater say in the administration of their communities. As a result, secularist reforms
were imposed on Greek, Armenian and Jewish communities. This led in part to the freeing of
Armenian and Greek education networks from traditionalism.
The impact of these factors on education in the Greek and Armenian communities was
similar. The first result in these communities was a weakening of the clergy’s influence on
education. As the clergy connected to the patriarchates were essentially faithful to the
Ottoman State, weakening the role of the clergy in education also had the effect of weakening
respect for and loyalty to Ottoman authority. Secondly, the communities began to develop
independent civil and secular education initiatives among themselves. After 1856, cultural
foundations, which had emerged before the Royal Edict of Reform, became increasingly
influential both in Istanbul and in provincial cities. Independent of the patriarchate and
community hierarchies, these foundations led the way in the development and spread of
modern schools. Thirdly, the language of education changed, with the traditional formal
languages of worship being replaced by education in the mother tongue. This proved to be a
major factor in the development of ethnic nationalism among these communities.
The impact of these developments within the Jewish community was more limited. Following
the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, a significant number of Sephardic Jews
migrated to Ottoman territories. The golden age of the Ottoman Jewish community was the
16th century, also the heyday of the Ottoman Empire. As the international power of the
Ottoman State declined, the Jewish community became more withdrawn and isolated. In
contrast to the Greek and Armenian communities, the Jews were less involved with the
growth of international trade and commerce in the 19thcentury, and some became amongst the
poorest subjects of the Empire. As such, they were sometimes looked down upon by the other
non-Muslim communities. Failing to develop a strong and prosperous middle-class, the
Jewish community did not produce the same kind of modernist tendencies in education until
the Alliance Israelite Universelle, the chain of schools established by French Jews, introduced
Ottoman Jews to modern education.
5
An analysis of the policy of the late Ottoman State and of the early Turkish Republic
regarding non-Muslim schools reveals seven distinct phases. The first of these could be
named “decentralisation”. Until the Royal Edict of Reform, the Ottoman government (Bab-ı
Ali–“Sublime Porte”) did not have a systematic policy regarding the schools of the different
Millet communities. The state adopted ad hoc measures following growing complaints from
Greek or Armenian communities in response to the increase in the number of missionary
schools.
The second phase, which could be called the “coherent development phase”, began with the
Royal Edict of Reform and lasted until the end of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. The
Bab-ı Ali attempted to make the different community schools more internally coherent,
through the creation of a legal framework in line with the new policy of Ottomanism. To this
end, the Regulation of Public Education (Maarif-i Umumiye Nizamnamesi) was published in
1869. This regulation determined the syllabuses of non-Muslim schools and the curricula
applicable at different levels in those schools. Although quite extensive, this regulation was
not fully applied until the period of Abdul Hamid II.
The reign of Abdul Hamid II marks the period of “autocracy”; following the suspension of the
constitution and the proroguing of the Parliament of Deputies (Meclis-i Mebusan) in1878, the
palace considered the different community schools to be a threat. An attempt was made to
impose regulatory supervision over them and the different religious communities were now
treated differently. Greek and Jewish schools were treated relatively leniently, but heavy
pressure was imposed on the schools of the Armenian and Bulgarian communities.
The fourth phase began with the restoration of the constitution and the Young Turk
Revolution of 1908, and continued until the outbreak of the Balkan Wars (1912-1913). This
marked a relatively democratic interlude during which the Committee of Union and Progress
(CUP – İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti) briefly welcomed a more pluralist approach to education.
Representatives of non-Muslim communities were able to assert their right to traditional
education in the Parliament of Deputies; and proposals for the supervision of non-Muslim
schools by the Ministry of Education were not implemented.
This situation, however, was soon followed by a military dictatorship beginning with the Babı Ali Raid (1913) by the leaders of the CUP. After this, the brief period of liberal democracy
was replaced with a sustained and oppressive campaign of Turkish-Islamist nationalism. In
this phase, during which the policy could be described as one of “elimination”, the CUP
introduced policies to limit the schools of non-Muslim communities as much as possible,
putting the schools under stricter state supervision and even – as was the case for Armenian
schools –removing them from Anatolia. At the end of the Balkan Wars, these policies were
strengthened with pressure being applied to the Greek-speaking population in the west and the
deportation policy against the Armenian community. With the Regulation of Private Schools
(Özel Mektepler Nizamnamesi) of 1915, non-Muslim schools were downgraded to the status
of minority school. This situation continued until the end of the First World War (1918).
During the “Armistice” period (1918-1922), when the leadership of the CUP fled abroad,
policy briefly became multi-centred. The official Ottoman government continued to rule in
6
Istanbul, while in Anatolia a nationalist movement was developing, gaining influence when
the Greek army invaded in 1919. In this interregnum, non-Muslim schools that had survived
the hostility of the CUP enjoyed a final period of prosperity in the area controlled by the
Allied forces and the Greeks.
A transitional period lasted until the end of the National War of Independence and the
proclamation of the Turkish Republic in 1923. After 1925, formal minority rights were given
to Christian and Jewish subjects in accordance with the Lausanne Treaty. But the Law on
Unity of Education (Tevhid-i Tedrisat Kanunu – 1924, implemented 1925) soon began to
undermine this.
7
MINORITY SCHOOLS AND FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE REPUBLIC
PERIOD
Nurcan Kaya
1. ABOUT MINORITY SCHOOLS
a. Minority schools from the Ottoman Empire to the present day: There were
thousands of minority schools in Anatolia until the 20th century but only 22 of them
survive today
The minority rights that are mostly discussed in relation to the Lausanne Treaty had in reality
been secured under specific regulations during the Ottoman Empire, long before the Treaty
was concluded in 1923. The right of education, including the right of minorities to establish
their own educational institutions, was one of these. There were many schools administered
by the different communities, reflecting the multi-religious and multi-ethnic structure of the
Empire. According to figures from the State Statistics Institution of the Prime Ministry, there
were 6,437 non-Muslim schools in 1894 in Ottoman territories, which benefited from a
comprehensive autonomy. These included schools for Greeks, Gregorian Armenians,
Armenian Catholics, Jews, Bulgarians, Serbians, Wallachians, Catholics, Bulgarian Catholics,
Armenian Protestants, Greek Catholics, Assyrian Orthodox, Chaldeans, Assyrian Catholics,
Chaldean Catholics, Maronites, Samiris and Jacobites.1There were 302 schools for Greeks,
Armenians, Armenian Catholics, Jews and Bulgarians in Istanbul alone, which together
accounted for 29,850 students.2
According to a chart prepared by the Armenian Church in 1901, there were 818 Gregorian
Armenian Schools in that year; but this does not take into account Catholic and Protestant
Armenian schools, central and high schools and private schools.
In the 1913-1914 academic year, the number of schools belonging to the non-Muslim
communities in provinces and independent districts was 2,580. Their distribution was as
follows: 1,245 Greek schools, 1,084 Armenian schools, 131 Jewish schools, 6 Bulgarian
schools, 1 Chaldean school, 29 Assyrian schools, 35 Maronite schools, 2 Protestant schools,
46 Catholic schools, 1 Samiri school.3 According to another source, there were 1,746
Armenian schools in Anatolia in same time period.4
After the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, a new era began for communities that
had been living for thousands of years in the lands of this country whose borders were now
being redrawn. In the new country that was established as a nation state, multilingual,
diversified ethnic and religious identities were considered as threat to the “indivisible integrity
of the nation”. The construction of a new identity on the concept of “Turkishness” created

Turkey Coordinator, Minority Rights Group International (MRG).
Mehmet Ö. Alkan,Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Modernleşme Sürecinde Eğitim İstatistikleri, 1839-1924, Tarihi
İstatistikler Dizisi, TR Prime Ministry, State Statistics Institute, Volume 6, Ankara: 2011, p. 104; Nurcan Kaya,
Forgotten or Assimilated ? Minorities in the Education System of Turkey, MRG, 2009, p. 8.
2
Mehmet Ö. Alkan,Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Modernleşme Sürecinde Eğitim İstatistikleri, 1839-1924, Tarihi
İstatistikler Dizisi,, TR Prime Ministry, State Statistics Institute, Volume 6, Ankara: 2011, p. 65.
3
Alkan, ibid, p. 171-172.
4
Pamela Young, “Knowledge, Nation, and the Curriculum: Ottoman Armenian Education (1853-1915),”
unpublished doctorate thesis, The University of Michigan, Dept. of Education, 2001, s. 97.
1
8
new problems for those non-Muslim groups that had earlier been treated as fellow Ottomans.5
The schools of the religious minorities were the first institutions to face discriminatory
treatment. These minorities were now treated as “foreigners” on lands in which they had lived
for thousands of years.
The right of the minorities to establish and manage their educational institutions were
ostensibly guaranteed by the Lausanne Treaty6 concluded in 1923 between the Government
of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey and the Allied Powers.7 Section III of that treaty,
entitled “Protection of Minorities”, included various regulations aiming to protect the rights of
minorities in the new Turkish Republic. Although, the treaty did not define the particular
minority groups, mentioning only “non-Muslim minorities”; in practice, only Armenians,
Greeks and Jews were covered and other religious minorities were excluded from the security
guaranteed by the Treaty.8 Therefore, the schools founded and managed during the Ottoman
Empire by communities such as the Assyrians and Chaldeans were not protected, and as a
result they closed in the early period of the Republic.
Following the proclamation of the Republic, only the schools of Armenians, Greeks and Jews
in Istanbul, Gökçeada and Bozcaada remained open. In parallel with the decline in the
Armenian, Greek and Jewish population, the number of students attending these schools
diminished every year. One by one, minority schools were closed due to population
displacement but also because of discriminatory treatment, which changed frequently
depending on political and bureaucratic developments and particularly on the changing tides
of Greek-Turkish foreign relations. While there were 138 minority schools in the 1924-1925
academic year,9 this had fallen to just 22 in the 2011-2012 academic year. Of these remaining
schools, all of which are located in Istanbul, 16 are Armenian, 5 are Greek and 1 is Jewish.
b. Basic Characteristics of Minority Schools
Today, there are three types of minority schools in Turkey. In the schools of each community
differences are observed regarding the recruitment of teachers, the development of materials
and the language of education.
Armenian schools:
In Armenian schools, education is given in the Armenian and Turkish languages. Students
also learn English as a foreign language.
Courses are increasingly taught in Turkish for various reasons: university entrance exams are all
given in Turkish and schools encounter difficulties in the recruitment of teachers who are able
to teaching Armenian and in obtaining course materials and books in Armenian and finally
due to the fact that the Armenian language is not widely used in the current economic and
social situation in Turkey.
Teachers of the Armenian language and other courses taught in Armenian are selected by the
schools and recruited under a service contract given after obtaining approval from the
5
Oran, Baskın, ‘Minorities in Turkey: Concepts, Lausanne, Internal Regulations, Case law, Practices,’ TESEV
Yayınları, İstanbul: 2004, p. 111.
6
The Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923 (http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Lausanne).
7
Great Britain (United Kingdom), France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania and the Serbian- Albanian- Slovenian
States
8
For Baskın Oran’s criticisms on this issue see Oran, ibid, pp. 54-55
9
Almanac of Statistics Volume 6, Publication of Statistics U.M: Issue 34, Istanbul: 1932/33, p. 185.
9
Ministry of National Education (MoNE). Teachers’ salaries are paid by the foundations to
which the schools are affiliated; teachers in this category are called “contract teachers”.
The chief deputy heads and teachers of Turkish language and Turkish Culture (Turkish,
Turkish Language and Literature, History, History of Reforms, Sociology and Geography) at
the Armenian schools are appointed by the MoNE and paid by the State.
Greek schools:
Education in the Greek schools is given in Greek and in Turkish. Students also learn English
as a foreign language.
Teachers of the Greek language and the courses taught in Greek are selected by the schools
and recruited after receiving approval from the MoNE. Their salaries are paid by the schools.
These teachers are called “contract teachers”.
The chief deputy heads and teachers of Turkish language and Turkish Culture Courses
(Turkish, Turkish Language and Literature, History, History of Reforms, Sociology and
Geography) in the Greek schools are appointed by the MoNE and paid by the State.
There are also “quota teachers” in Greek schools, who come from Greece within the
framework of the Culture Agreement between Turkey and Greece. The wages of these
teachers are paid by the State of Greece.
Jewish schools
The language of education in the Ulus Private Jewish Schools is Turkish and English. The
Hebrew language is taught at all levels, and Spanish is taught as a foreign language.
Ulus Private Jewish Schools have had a distinct status from other minority schools since
1994. Being the only Jewish school in Turkey today, Ulus Private Jewish Schools were
created in 1974 by combining all of the remaining Jewish schools. In the 1994-1995 academic
year the school obtained the status of “Private High School Delivering Courses in a Foreign
Language” and also the status of Anatolian High School-College.
All teachers working in the Jewish school (including those teaching Turkish Language
courses and other courses taught in Turkish) are paid by the school. As in the other minority
schools, the chief deputy head of the school is appointed and paid by the MoNE; this is the
only position in the school filled by a civil servant.
2. MAIN PROBLEMS FACED BY MINORITY SCHOOLS
The steady decline of the minority population in Turkey since the proclamation of the
Republic, and the series of bureaucratic sanctions and discriminatory treatment suffered by
them have caused a steady growth in the problems faced by these schools. The number of
students has fallen significantly, and many schools have had to close. Below is a brief
overview of the problems faced today by these minority schools and some proposed solutions.
More detailed descriptions and information is given in the full report, along with additional
topics such as the impact of political and social developments. This information is
supplemented with extracts of face-to-face interviews conducted with 29 people.
a. Lack of status
10
Minority schools are neither private schools nor foreign schools; however, they are still
mentioned together with private and foreign schools and are subjected to the legislation
regulating private schools.10Minority schools are therefore compelled to conform to
regulations applied to private schools. This situation prevents them from accepting students
above the quota allocated to them, which imposes major financial burdens. They often have
problems trying to survive on the available budget.
There is a clear need for separate laws and regulations specific to minority schools. A
framework regulation can be developed to cover all minority schools, taking into account the
differing characteristics of schools of each community; or separate regulations can be
prepared for the schools of each community. It is suggested that legislation should be
developed through dialogue to bring a permanent solution to their problems while taking into
consideration the texts drafted by the minority schools concerning possible legislation.
b. The reciprocity principle and minority schools
Even though minority schools are affiliated to foundations managed by citizens of Turkey and
attended by students who are Turkish Citizens, the “reciprocity principle” is imposed in the
development of legislation governing these schools and in defining their rights and
obligations; moreover, standards that apply to Turkish schools in Greece/Western Thrace are
considered as main standards to apply to these schools. This version of the reciprocity
principle undermines minorities as “foreigners”, offends them and forces them to cope with a
great many bureaucratic and political problems. The reciprocity principle has a detrimental
effect not only on Greek schools but also on Armenian and Jewish schools; as any legislative
regulation and step regarding these schools will also cover Greek schools, the status of
Turkish schools in Western Thrace may become the determining factors for responses to the
demands of Armenian and Jewish schools.
It is suggested that the principle of “reciprocity” should be dropped in relation to preparation
of legislation governing minority schools, as well as in supply of teachers and educational
materials . It is further suggested that problems experienced in other countries are not taken
into consideration as standards regarding the reforms needed for minority schools. The only
standards that should be taken into consideration for such reforms are those that focus on the
educational rights of children as referred to in international human rights conventions and the
practices in democratic countries.
c. The administrative context: the role of the (Turkish) chief deputy head of schools:
According to a practice initiated in 1937 (a practice that was abandoned in 1948-1949 but
resumed in 1962), people appointed to the position of chief deputy head of school (formerly
Turkish chief deputy head of school) are appointed by the MoNE. They share responsibility
for the management of the school with the school head. Assigning a chief deputy head of
school to “keep an eye on the minority schools”, which are in any case managed by heads
who can speak Turkish and understand the applicable legislation just as well as any other
school manager in this country, is unnecessary and offensive. It also causes inefficient
dualism in the management of these schools. The chief deputy head of the school is still the
direct superior of teachers of Turkish language and Turkish cultural courses. All outgoing
correspondence requires the approval and signature of the chief deputy head of the school.
Decisions on enrolment applications to minority schools are also decided by the school’s chief
deputy head, who is not familiar with the minorities. The chief deputy head of the school
10
Law No 5580 on Private Education Institutions; Regulation on Private Education Institutions issued by
Ministry of National Education in Official Journal Issue No 28239 of 20 March 2012
11
automatically serves as a deputy to the head teacher in his/her absence; however, only a
teacher of Turkish language or Turkish cultural courses may deputise for the chief deputy
head of the school.
Until 2010, minority schools had no power to determine the candidates who were appointed to
this position. Since 2010, the law states that the school is consulted regarding appointments11
but in practice it appears that this does not happen and the schools’ opinions are not taken into
consideration.
It is suggested that the position of chief deputy head of school in minority schools be
removed.
d. Difficulties in training and recruiting teachers
In Armenian schools:
There is no major for teaching the Armenian Language in the Education Faculty of any
university in Turkey. Teachers giving Armenian language courses therefore have to be
selected from among Armenian speakers who graduated from various faculties and meet the
requirements for working as a teacher. The schools and foundations have to implement onthe-job training courses and internship programmes to develop the teachers’ language
competences. As far as possible, branch courses in Armenian are delivered by branch teachers
who can speak Armenian. Since many Armenian speakers lack formal pedagogical
qualifications they cannot work as teachers in Armenian schools.
In 2010, the Faculty of Letters of Erciyes University (Kayseri) opened the Department of
Armenian Language and Literature; however, this department teaches the Eastern Armenian
dialect spoken in Armenia. Moreover, the department lacks sufficient academic staff and is
not accredited to train teachers of the Armenian language.12
It is suggested that a faculty of education in Istanbul should create a course teaching the
Western Armenian dialect spoken in Turkey that would train teachers to a suitable pedagogic
level. Provisional measures should be adopted such as offering scholarships to students who
are accepted into this department. As a short term measure, it is suggested that university
graduates capable of teaching the Armenian language be appointed as teachers in Armenian
schools without requiring full pedagogical training.
In Greek schools:
Greek language courses can be delivered by teachers who have graduated from various
departments of Greek Language and Literature in Turkey (of which there are six in total),
while the subject courses are delivered by Greek-speaking teachers who have graduated from
various faculties.
Some of the courses are at present delivered by “quota teachers” coming from Greece within
the framework of the 1951 Culture Agreement between Turkey and Greece. As required by
the principle of “reciprocity”, the same number of teachers must be sent from Turkey to the
minority Turkish schools in Greece. This need for reciprocity causes delays. Moreover, it is a
requirement that certain courses are given by quota teachers and as quota teachers in Greek
11
“Regulation for Amending Regulations for Private Education Institutions, Ministry of National Education”
issue in the Official Journal, Issue No. 27786 of 15.12.2010.
12
From aninterview with a headteacher of an Armenian High School, 25 March 2013
12
minority schools are currently only allowed to work in one school, it can be difficult for the
schools to obtain an adequate number of teachers.
It is suggested that teachers should be brought from Greece within the framework of the
Cultural Agreement without subjecting this to the principle of “reciprocity”; Greece should be
able to send the necessary number of teachers needed in Greek schools through an approval
procedure similar to the one applied for contract teachers.
In Jewish schools:
There is no faculty in Turkey for educating teachers of Hebrew. The Department of Hebrew
Language and Literature in the Faculty of Letters of Erciyes University is not accredited to
educate teachers. Teachers of the Hebrew language are therefore graduates from faculties in
Israel. As is the case in other minority schools, the qualifications required for teachers to work
in Jewish schools are the same as those required for teachers in private education institutions.
However, whenever branch teachers are needed in state schools, university students who do
not satisfy the respective requirements may be appointed as teachers. As a result of the
application made by the Jewish schools to MoNE, university graduates lacking formal
pedagogical training have been given the right to work as qualified instructors in minority
schools, provided that they are graduates from a programme abroad offering education in
Hebrew, or that they have received the appropriate training in Hebrew.
It is suggested that a department in a faculty of education in Istanbul be opened to educate
teachers of Hebrew, in order to provide pedagogical training: and also university graduates
with the capacity to teach Hebrew are allowed to work as teachers in Jewish schools without
requiring full pedagogical training. Provisional measures may be offered, such as providing
students with scholarships.
Regulations should be passed to enable teachers working in minority schools to enjoy the
same social and economic rights as other teachers who are civil servants (such as equal rights
in regard to obtaining a “green passport”).
e. Teachers of Turkish language and Turkish cultural courses
As stipulated by Law No. 6581 on Teachers of Turkish Language and Turkish Cultural
Courses enacted in 1955, teachers of Turkish Language, Turkish Language and Literature,
History, Geography, History of Reforms and Sociology courses (collectively called Turkish
and Turkish cultural courses)13, are appointed and paid by the MoNE. Although this is the
case in Armenian and Greek schools, teachers of this category cannot be appointed to Jewish
schools. The primary direct superior and disciplinary administrator of these teachers is the chief
deputy head, while their secondary direct superior and disciplinary administrator is the head teacher
of the school. They are registered staff of the Provincial Directorate of National Education and
are therefore civil servants. They are not obliged to participate in internal activities and
vocational training programmes organised by the school.
Under existing regulations, these teachers are appointed for five years and their term of office
may be extended by the governor of the province for only one further year. 14 This situation
means that teachers have to leave the minority schools after their term is over, even though
13
The course on National Security was included among Turkish and Turkish cultural courses; however, this
course was removed from the general education programme at the beginning of 2012.
14
Regulation on Private Education Institutions issued by the Ministry of National Education in the Official
Journal, Issue No. 28239 of 20 March 2012
13
they may wish to stay and the schools may wish them to continue. It of course takes time to
appoint new teachers in their place. According to the applicable legislation, the teachers of
such courses are appointed under the approval of the governor in response to a request by the
school head; in practice, however, it is said that requests by the school heads are mostly
disregarded. Furthermore, the appointment of such teachers in minority schools often takes
months, with courses unable to run while waiting for appointment to be completed.
It is suggested that minority schools be allowed to directly appoint teachers of Turkish
language, Social Sciences, Turkish Language and Literature, History, Geography, History of
Reforms and Sociology; and that minority schools be allowed to pay the salaries of these
teachers from the budget allocated by the State, and that the limitations on the length of
employment are removed.
In order to enable these lessons to be taught by teachers from the minority communities in the
long term, provisional measures may be taken to encourage the enrolment of minority
students to a faculty in Istanbul offering teacher training for such courses.
f. Supply of textbooks and education materials
There is no public authority or private institution responsible for preparing the textbooks and
education materials needed by the minority schools of the Armenian, Greek and Jewish
communities. All Armenian, Greek and Hebrew textbooks used in these schools must be
translated into Turkish and then authorised by the Board of Education and Training (Talim ve
Terbiye Kurulu). This is an extremely time-consuming and expensive process.
Since the 2009-2010 academic year, books for Turkish language and Turkish cultural courses
have been provided by the MoNE free of charge, as in all other schools in the country.
In 2010, the textbooks for Social Studies and Mathematics taught in first three years of
primary education were translated into Armenian by Armenian schools with their own
sources. The books were then printed by the MoNE. It is interesting to note, however, that all
the names used in these books were Turkish.
The Greek schools are entitled to bring text books from Greece; however, the supply of
textbooks from Greece may take years due to a misapplication of the reciprocity principle.
This is rendered even more bureaucratic and complicated due to incompatibilities between the
curricula of the two countries.
Schools should also be provided with support for the translation and printing of textbooks. It
is suggested that a special unit with a suitable budget and employing an adequate number of
qualified staff that will develop text books and educational materials for minority schools in
Turkey is set up. This unit should be financed by the State and have full authorisation and
budget control for the translation, printing and distribution of textbooks used in minority
schools each year, for developing Armenian, Greek and Hebrew language textbooks and
educational materials in cooperation with the minority schools, and for supplying educational
materials from other countries where needed.
The unit should also employ experts from the different minorities and, if necessary, special
temporary measures should be taken to ensure this.
g. Requirement that students be a member of the same minority and a citizen of
Republic of Turkey
14
Since 1965, only children who are Turkish citizens may attend minority schools. In addition
to Greek children who are Turkish citizens, the children of Greek citizens working in the
Greek Consulate and of quota teachers working in Greek schools and of NATO officials who
are citizens of Greece may also attend the Greek schools.15Despite recent reports in the media
about the rights given to people who are not citizens of the Republic of Turkey to enrol in
minority schools following the recent Regulations on Private Education Institutions, the
limitations have not been removed. This limitation still exists under Law No. 5580 on Private
Education Institutions (Art. 5/c/1) and any limitation defined in law may not be removed
through regulations. In other words, only the children of minorities who are Turkish citizens
may enrol in minority schools unless the related Law is amended.
The current legislation makes it impossible for the children of Armenian and Greek
nationality living in Istanbul to enrol and receive a diploma from local Greek and Armenian
schools. Such students may only enrol in minority schools as guest students, and when
leaving they are provided only with a document describing the courses taken and the grades
achieved, rather than a full diploma. This situation limits the education rights of Armenian
and Greek children living in Turkey and also limits the number of students available to the
minority schools.
Minority schools may only enrol students of that same minority group.16 Since the 2010-2011
academic year, the chief deputy head of a minority school has the authority to judge whether
he/she considers a potential student of the school to be a member of that minority.
It is suggested that limitations related to being a Turkish citizen or a member of the same
minority for enrolment to minority schools should be removed. Decisions on this matter
should be left to the initiative of the school administration. The responsibility for enrolment in
minority schools should be left to the administration of the schools, as is the case in public
and private schools.
h. Lack of funding from the state budget
According to Article 41 of the Lausanne Treaty, a small amount of money was to be allocated
for each student attending a minority school until the 1970s; however, high inflation in the
country meant that this funding fell to nothing more than “bagel money” in terms of
purchasing power. Since then, no share of the state budget has been allocated to minority
schools. Minority schools today do not receive money from other countries. The salaries of
quota teachers coming from Greece is paid by the Greek government while the salaries of
teachers delivering Turkish language and Turkish culture courses are paid by the MoNE;
however, the minority schools cannot receive any other contribution from the state for the
salaries of other (contracted) teachers or school personnel, for building maintenance and
repair costs, electricity, heating, communication, stationery costs, etc.
No enrolment fee is paid at Armenian and Greek schools, and the costs of the schools are
therefore paid entirely from the foundations’ budgets and from donations. The Jewish schools
do collect enrolment fees, although scholarships are awarded to some students. The majority
of the minority schools face considerable difficulties in covering their costs.
In line with the “principle of equality before the law” under the Constitution, it is suggested
that a share from the state budget be allocated to meet the costs of the minority schools, in line
15
Before 1965, children of Greek citizens living in Turkey could attend Greek schools in Istanbul.
Until 1968 for Greek schools and 1971 for other minority schools, students of different ethnic or religious
origin (including Muslims) could attend minority schools.
16
15
with the practice for state schools. A separate budget should be created reflecting the size and
need of each school and it should be ensured that the schools can receive their budget share
without experiencing any bureaucratic problems.
i.
Number of students
All of the problems described above, particularly the steady decline in minority populations,
the increasing number of students from minority backgrounds preferring to study at nonminority schools, and limitations on enrolment to Turkish citizens of the relevant minority
community, have left minority schools lacking in students, to the extent that many have had to
close. A steady level of students seems to have been reached in the surviving Armenian and
Jewish schools, yet the limited number of students remains the single biggest problem for the
Greek schools in Turkey. In the 2012-2013 academic year, there were 3,137 students
attending Armenian schools, including 67 Armenian citizens; 230 students attending Greek
schools (including students of Greek nationality) and 688 students attending Jewish schools.
The number of students attending these schools may be increased and the schools may be
saved from closure if students who are not Turkish citizens or who do not belong to the same
minority are allowed to enrol, provided that the other problems mentioned in this paper are
also addressed.
j. General outlook for minority schools: Prejudices
The ideology of creating a single language and single nation inscribed in the creation of the
Republic of Turkey meant that minorities were considered as a threat. This has fed and
legitimised prejudicial, separatist and discriminatory practices. As a result, the minority
schools, considered to be the “belly of the beast spreading separatist ideologies”, have
suffered throughout the history of the Republic. Numerous academic studies have confirmed
the continued existence of such prejudice.
An example of this negative point of view can be seen in the “Guidelines for Inspecting
Foreign Schools, Minority Schools and International Schools” prepared by the Guidance and
Inspection Department of the MoNE in 2011:
“Minority schools receiving assistance and support of any kind from Western States
during the National Independence Period tried to paralyse the National Independence
Movement through various unfavourable activities, but they were not successful in
their efforts…” (p. 38)17
It is suggested that a circular be sent to all departments and employees of the MoNE to remind
them that minority schools are simply bilingual education institutions and therefore should not
be treated any differently from other schools. It is further suggested that any remaining
negative language concerning minority schools in sources used by the MoNE should be
removed.
Administrative and penal sanctions should be imposed on state officials behaving in a
discriminatory manner against minority schools.
17
http://rdb.meb.gov.tr/yayinlar/Yabanc%C4%B1-Az%C4%B1nl%C4%B1kUluslararas%C4%B1_Okullar_Denetim_Rehberi.pdf
16
Furthermore, the curriculum should be updated to present minorities and diversity in a
positive manner. Such an attitude will, in the long term, help to break down prejudices in
Turkish society against minorities and their schools.
k. Organising activities in schools in the languages of the minorities
Although Armenian and Greek schools in Turkey are bilingual, the contents and Turkish
translation of the texts that they use (songs, poems, plays, etc.) must be sent to the Provincial
Directorate of National Education before organising any event in the language of the
minority.
It is suggested that the organisation of any event in the language of the minority should be left
to the discretion of the school management, with no obligatory permission or approval
procedures other than those applicable to other schools (public or private).
l. Closure/non-closure of minority schools
Under current legislation, minority schools that have had to suspend education for two
successive years due to a lack of students are closed down by the MoNE, despite repeated
requests for the legislation to be altered.18 It is interesting to note that schools that become
non-functional over time cannot be closed down without a justification being provided by the
school’s foundation, even though the legislation includes a regulation for such
circumstances.19
The management of the schools’ foundations should have the authority to determine the fate
of their school, suspending education for justified reasons or closing a non-functional school.
m. Lack of communication between minority schools and other schools
It is observed that more communication is taking place between the different minority schools
and also between minority schools and other schools today than in the past. However,
communication between schools is still insufficient.
It is suggested that joint events are organised in order to develop a better dialogue between the
students of minority schools and other schools and also that incentives are given to increase
the participation of minority schools in existing joint events.
n. Common problems faced in all schools
Some of the problems confronting minority schools are common to all schools in Turkey.
These common problems derive from the education system and affect minority schools
similar to other schools, but sometimes in a different way.
Firstly, the education system in Turkey has a highly centralised structure. There is no
mechanism in place for the inclusion of minorities in the planning or modification of the
education system. Provincial and sub-provincial directorates of the MoNE also have very
limited authority.
18
Existing effective legislation on this issue: Law No. 5580 on Private Education Institutions (Article 7);
Regulation on Private Education Institutions issued by the Ministry of National Education in the Official Journal,
Issue No. 28239 of 20 March 2012 (Article 9)
19
According to an interviewee working in a Greek school, thereason for this may be the reciprocity principle,
since a particular number of Greek schools should remain open and functional in Turkey in order for Turkey to
be able to protect the rights of Turkish schools in Western Thrace.
17
As clearly mentioned in the Basic Law of National Education, the education system in Turkey
has been shaped in line with a particular ideological objective.20
The same curriculum is followed in minority schools as in all other schools. There is no
course in the Turkish education curriculum that provides accurate information about the
history of minorities.
Certain history books containing discriminatory language concerning Armenians and Greeks
are used as textbooks in all Turkish schools.21
As in all state and private schools in Turkey, pupils have to begin every school day by citing
the Turkish nationalist “Oath of the Student”.
All minority schools pay close attention to official holiday celebrations and commemorative
events, often above and beyond what is required from the curriculum. Minority schools have
to behave more “correctly” than state and private schools out of fear that any oversight may
be seen as related to their minority identity, for which they may have to pay a heavy price.
It is therefore suggested that:
A decentralised system is adopted for the education system, in which the Provincial and SubProvincial Directorates of National Education would have more initiative-taking authority.
The necessary regulations are introduced in order to ensure that units that contain experts
from minority groups have a voice in decision making processes;
The “nationalist” ideology is removed from education, with an emphasis instead on
democratic citizenship on an equal basis and the respect for human rights. This would need to
be reflected in all relevant legislation, documents and practices concerning education;
Measures are taken, including changes to the curriculum, regarding the teaching of the history
of minorities in minority schools; with lessons also being developed for teaching the history
and cultures of the minorities in other (public and private) schools or existing courses being
designed in order to include these topics;
Language and expressions presenting minorities as enemies or otherwise marginalising them
be removed entirely from all textbooks and recommended source books;
Ending the practice of citing the “student oath” in minority schools and in all other schools;
The pressure on minority schools to celebrate national holidays be alleviated and that
measures are taken to prevent treatment that differs from other schools. An end should be
brought to existing practices that present Armenians and Greeks as enemies during official
celebrations and events.
o. Need for more dialogue with the public authorities
20
Basic Law on National Education,No. 1739, Article: 2.
Seehttp://www.tarihvakfi.org.tr/dkih/ for the findings of the research conducted by History Foundation within
the scope of the “Human Rights in Course Books” project; see “History of Reforms in the Turkish Republic
andAtaturkism”, p. 49-50, a course book for Grade 11 students, for examples of discriminating and hostile
expressions against minorities. This book was approved by the Board of Education and Training in 2011 and
published in 2012.
21
18
The growth of a relatively more democratic and liberal environment in Turkey associated with
the country’s candidacy for full membership of the EU has helped raise discussions
concerning the problems of minority schools and has improved dialogue with the public
authorities. However, it is evident that the contacts and efforts made so far have not resulted
in any significant changes regarding solutions to the problems faced by minority schools.
It has been also mentioned that representatives of minority schools were not consulted when
the recent changes in the national education system were introduced, with a move to the
4+4+4. This new education system, however, imposes new burdens on the minority schools,
with the problem of recruiting of teachers for elective courses added to the curriculum, the
development of new course materials and the opening of new classrooms related to these
changes.
It is suggested that;
The dialogue that has started between minority schools and the government, the MoNE and
other public authorities should be continued and developed;
The administration of the minority schools, rather than the minority institutions or individuals
who may not have any relation or expertise about the issues under discussion, should be
consulted on issues concerning minority schools;
The dialogue established with the administration of minority schools continues within an
organic structure and that a monitoring mechanism be established to ensure that reforms
decided under this structure are implemented;
Administrative and financial measures be taken in order to prevent the new education system
from putting minority schools and the students attending them at a disadvantage.
19