1
TURKEY: INNOVATION AND TRADITION
(In Iris Rotberg (ed.) Global Education Reform: Balancing Change and Tradition,
Chapter 7, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 2004, pp. 153-186)
Hasan Simsek
Ali Yildirim
1. Introduction
The 1980s, as Alvin Toffler had predicted in the 1970s, signified the end of Third Wave and
came with important events and developments that are still fresh in the memories of people above
their forties: The Vietnam War, OPEC oil crisis that triggered a worldwide economic recession,
political instability in many parts of the world, ascend of the East Asian economies, birth of a
giant socio-political and economic new block of Europe, emergence of other economic blocks in
other parts of the world such as NAFTA, collapse of communism, free market global economy
that was primarily built on the classical principles of liberal capitalism, information revolution
that has made instant access to information worldwide.
These changes have had immense implications for understanding the past, present and the
future of educational systems and educational reform practices (Simsek, 2002). The last crisis of
the industrial capitalism has brought new lines of thought in education as well. Starting from the
industrialized countries, education has been the center focus of nations to cope with changes
brought by these new realities. Nations have come to understanding of human resources as the
most vital force to prepare themselves for a brand new type of competition at a global scale.
Education is seen as the most essential tool to achieve this task. It is no wonder why renewal of
education of all kinds from pre-school to adult education have been the standard agenda item in
politicians priorities in approaching their public for votes. Along with this, we have accustomed
to hear, write and speak about privatization, decentralization, site-based management, multiple
intelligences, constructivist curriculum, community schools, home schooling, and many other
innovative reform ideas in education.
To cite several examples, the UK school system was radically restructured by the
conservative-neo liberal Thatcher government in the mid 1980s. Traditionally being one of the
world’s most classical Anglo-Saxon schooling systems organized under the principles of local
control of education, the UK educational system was brought under strict control of central
educational authorities. “Standards” became the buzzword of the British educational reform
2
movement. From the content of curriculum to training of teachers, national standards at all
educational levels excluding the postsecondary education now characterize the UK education
system. According to Wilkin (1999), this is clearly a move towards centralization and tighter
government control, a counter trend to much touted decentralization idea espoused in many parts
of the world. A similar trend is also observed in the twin sister of the UK system in terms of its
Anglo-Saxon principles, that is the American case, where there has been more inclination
towards “standards” in K-12 educational levels: “Back to Basics,” state level graduation
standards, higher standards in entry and “exit to teacher training” especially in pre-service teacher
training.
Contrary to these two examples, the French system that is considered to be the primary root
model for many Continental European educational models (including Turkey) has experienced
dramatic reforms. Since the early 1980s, France has engaged in a process of decentralization to
bring greater diversity and more flexible organization to what was once a too uniform — or even
monolithic — educational system:
Greater power is now given to regional and other local authorities placed under the
authority of the National Education Minister. No longer are issues decided only in
Paris or by ministerial private offices. Each year, the recteurs d'académie (cf. Chief
Education Officers in UK or Commissioners of Education in the U.S.), responsible
for schools in each of the 30 education areas (académies), receive from Paris a
single sum of money for each item of expenditure, which they themselves allocate to
the various educational establishments. Since 1999, decentralization of the
management of teachers' careers has given the recteurs the new and important
responsibility of assigning new teaching posts and promoting and moving teachers
between schools within their académie… At the local level, this has also given those
on the ground — and particularly school head teachers — greater freedom and room
to maneuver. Collèges and lycées, but not primary schools, have become local
public education establishments (EPLE - établissements publics locaux
d'enseignement) which are legal entities enjoying financial autonomy. They have
also gradually acquired greater educational autonomy in that each school draws up
an "establishment project" setting out how it is implementing the national objectives
and curricula; this enables them to match their courses more closely to the children
in their school and so better address their specific needs… The 1982 and 1983
Decentralization Acts also significantly increased the role of the elected local
authorities, i.e. regional, departmental and communal assemblies which have
substantial budgets of their own. Today they fund about 20% of the total cost of
education (http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/Education/DF_education2.shtml)
3
With this extensive quotation, we have purposefully focused on the reform of French
educational system for the reason that, as in other Continental European systems, French model
has been the most influential educational model for Turkey since the foundation of the Turkish
Republic in 1923. As we will be extensively discussing in the following pages, the Turkish
system may be viewed as “more French than the French system is” in the world today in the
sense that the root model for the Turkish school system has dramatically changed itself since the
early 1980s. Signs of educational crisis and many ideas to resolve this crisis revolve around a
staunch hold on the principles of France’s classical Napoleonic educational ideals.
The Republic of Turkey was founded on the day of October 29, 1923 following a bloody
Independence War under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal, who was later given the name Ataturk
(meaning “Father of Turks”) by the early Turkish Parliament. It was the first successful
Independence War waged against the giant imperial powers of West including Britain, France
and Italy committed to break apart the crumbling Ottoman Empire. Ataturk’s primary ideal was
to create an independent, modern, secular Turkish state of parliamentary democracy. He
emphasized the critical importance of education in nation building and quest for modernity. In
one instance, he proclaimed that the Turkish nation won the war on battleground, but the job
would not be complete unless the army of teachers and educators win another victory over
ignorance and enslavement of mind.
It is stated in the Constitution that “the Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and
social State governed by the rule of law” (Article 2), that “Sovereignty is vested in the nation
without reservation or condition… The right to exercise sovereignty shall not be delegated to any
individual, group or class. No person or agency shall exercise any State authority which does not
emanate from the Constitution” (Article 6), that “All individuals are equal without any
discrimination before the law, irrespective of language, race, color, sex, political opinion,
philosophical belief, religion and sect, or any such considerations… No privilege shall be granted
to any individual, family, group or class” (Article 10).
The success of the Republic in educational front has been quite impressive at least in
numbers (from 1923 to 2002): From about 5,000 schools to 49,000 schools (9 times increase),
from about 362,000 students to 16 million students (44 times increase), from about 13,000
teachers to 579,000 teachers (45 times increase) (Ministry of National Education, 2003).
However, these numerical indicators spanned over 80 years of Republic’s history do not tells us
4
much about the structure, content, delivery mechanisms, teaching-learning processes, equality,
and other relevant indicators of the educational system. In most of these areas, the Turkish
educational system signals important signs of reform need especially under the pressure of the
country-specific and international trends and developments mentioned earlier. The Turkish
system is in need of serious reform, as widely accepted by scholarly writings, journalistic
accounts and political circles, in such areas as structural configuration of the system, its
pedagogic/philosophical orientation, curriculum content, teacher-centeredness, measurement
mechanisms, teacher training, and access to higher education.
In the remainder of this chapter, following we will present a brief history of the evolution of
the Turkish educational system, provide accounts for the antecedent condition of the current
crisis by focusing on the periods of 1980s to today, a detailed analysis of areas for urgent
reforms, and finally inhibitors and accelerators of reform initiatives.
2. The Turkish Educational System: A Short Historical View
The history of Turkish education can be examined under four major periods: Ottoman period
(prior to 1923), modernization of the society (1923-1950), quest for democracy and turmoil
(1950-1980), and dichotomies in education (1980-present).
Ottoman period (prior to 1923)
Prior to the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, the educational system of the Ottoman
Empire was largely based on religious teachings. A typical elementary school (“sibyan” schools)
curriculum included subjects like Holy Koran, Religious Rules, Religious Readings, Ottoman
History, Arithmetic and Ethics (Akyüz, 1994). Schools at the secondary level (“medrese”)
continued with advanced level of religious teaching. Along with these schools focusing largely
on religious subjects, there were schools (“iptidai” and “idadi” schools) influenced by Western
schools in their emphasis on sciences and humanities. These schools were run by the government
whereas schools with a religious education orientation were financed and governed by education
foundations.
Private schools were mostly established and financed by foundations or
organizations in other countries (e.g., France, the U.S.). Girls and boys were separated at all
levels of education. Education was not a primary concern among many around the country
5
resulting in a very low literacy rate. Only ten percent of men and less than one percent of women
were estimated to be literate (Akyuz, 1994).
Modernization of the society (1923-1950)
Right after the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, a full-scale restructuring of
educational institutions was initiated. Education was perceived as the vehicle for the social,
cultural and economical revolution in the country. The Ottoman Period had created a political
and religious system that was essentially hostile to change and westernization (Yildirim and Ok,
2002). Therefore, the transformation of the society from an illiterate, agrarian and Islamic state
to an educated, civilized and republican was not easy.
Ataturk attached such a critical
significance to education of the society that one of the very first measures he promoted was the
Unification of Education Law, bringing all educational institutions under the control of the
Ministry of National Education. Schools with a religious orientation were closed down. All
public schools were made free of charge for all students.
Primary education was made
compulsory for the age group. Coeducation was initiated at the elementary level in 1924, and it
was extended later to middle school in 1927 and to high school in 1934.
Ataturk stood strong behind all these bold measures to change the face of education in the
country and gave impetus to the efforts in implementing these measures through the speeches he
made around the country. At a teachers convention in 1924, he said: “Teachers! The new
generation will be your product. The Republic requires physically, intellectually and spiritually
strong guardians.” At another occasion he declared, “Science is the most reliable guide in our
life.” This was a major deviation from the earlier educational ideals that upheld the religious
thought and ignored rationalist and positivist principles.
As part of renewal in the educational system, John Dewey was invited to Turkey in 1924
to study the school system and make recommendations. He recommended the Ministry of
National Education (MONE) to establish a Board of Education to examine the educational issues
and make policy recommendations. He also raised the idea of turning the workplace into schools
and schools into workplaces (Guvenc, 1998) so that students would receive on-the-job training
and the problem of insufficient schools could be dealt with in the short term.
In 1927, Ataturk declared laicism (secularism) as one of the fundamental principles of the
Republic and said secularism would be observed in all aspects of social life, government affairs
6
and education. This declaration was soon reflected on other decisive measures that transformed
fundamental elements of the society as well as of the schools. The article stating that Islam is the
state religion was dropped from the Constitution in 1928.
Increasing the literacy rate became the priority for the Republic for national development
and industrialization. The Arabic script then used as the official alphabet was difficult to learn,
and seen as an obstacle to teaching reading and writing to the larger population. The Arabic
script was replaced with Latin through the direct initiative of Ataturk, a step to distance the
Republic from its Ottoman past. Following this move, a full-scale literacy movement (so-called
“Literacy Eradication Project”) was initiated in 1928 in order to increase the literacy rate in the
society.
This project stimulated the flow of a considerable amount of the nation’s scarce
financial resources into education (Guvenc, 1998).
In the early Republican period (the 1920s), the school system was divided into four
stages, each lasting three years: (1) lower elementary, (2) upper elementary, (3) middle, and (4)
high school. Later this was changed into a 5+3+3 system. The first five years were called
primary, the second three years middle and the last three high schools. This system was largely
kept as it is until the mid 1990’s. Primary schools concentrated on 3 R’s, Life Studies, History,
Geography, Science and Civics plus Handiwork, Drawing and Music. The middle and high
schools were considered to be the first and second levels of the new secondary education that
covered sciences, social sciences and humanities in more detail and depth in discipline-oriented
courses (Guvenc, 1998). There was no emphasis on Holy Koran anymore at both primary and
secondary education levels, a reflection of secularist and positivist orientation in schools.
Of course, these dramatic changes in the school system and the curricula brought a new
character into teacher education respectively. Teacher education institutions of the Ottoman
period emphasizing largely Holy Koran and religious subjects were transformed into more
secular institutions concentrating on positive sciences, social sciences and humanities. Teachers
were seen as change agents of the society. Since the majority of the population lived in villages,
Village Institutes were established in 1938 in order to train teachers specifically to serve in
village schools. Their task was not only to educate the children who attended the schools but also
to educate the village men and women in many aspects of life (ranging from agriculture to birth
control) so that they would really serve to educational mobilization of the countrymen for social
change. “Village Institutes were designed as 5-year, coeducational, boarding, work schools, after
7
and above 5 year primary schools” (Guvenc, 1998, p. 56). These institutes seemed to fulfill John
Dewey’s idea of combining work and education, and the teachers became by and large quite
successful both in raising the educational level of the children in villages and in acting as
community leaders where they served.
The 1940s were the years of discontent and upheaval for change in the government.
Although Turkey did not take part in the Second World War, she was greatly affected by the War
economically. Food shortage, high prices and high taxes resulted in a reaction against the
government. The Republican Peoples’ Party that had governed the nation since the foundation of
the Republic lost much of its public support as a result of discontent with the living conditions in
the 1940s. This gave the opposition Democratic Party (established as the second political party
in 1945 as part of the government’s effort to establish a multi-party democracy in the country) the
chance to consolidate public support and win the parliamentary elections in 1950 (Guvenc, 1998).
Quest for democracy and turmoil (1950- 1980)
The education in the period between 1923 and 1950 emphasized gender equality, scientific
positivism and republican ideals like secularism and modernity in schools . The adaptation of
Latin script, restructuring the school system along with the western models (i.e., primary, middle
and high school), adapting coeducation in schools, de-emphasizing religion education were all
signs of this effort. This tone of education went through a large scale change in the 1950s. The
emerging power of the Democratic Party along with the threat of communism had reflections on
many aspects of social life as well as educational institutions. The Village Institutes, labeled as
“leftists,” and disapproved by the village landlords who gained more political power through the
Democratic Party, were closed down in 1954. The teaching of religion was reintroduced in
schools first as elective later compulsory courses. The threat of communism gave way to
nationalist influence on the school curricula and textbooks.
Religious secondary schools
(covering both middle and high school levels) aiming to train prayers and preachers were
reopened and their number increased steadily.
Economic growth and democratization of the society were two priority areas of the
Democratic Party.
The importance of education in the transformation of the society, the
emphasis of the period before 1950, was largely ignored. This was reflected in the lower level of
investment in education, resulting in a halt in increasing schooling rate in the 1950s (Basaran,
8
1999). Along with this ignorance, schools had to deal with another crisis. The internal migration
from villages to cities increased in the 1950s with the promise of a better life. The 70/30 rural to
urban ratio in 1950 were almost reversed to 30/70 toward the end of the 1990s (Guvenc, 1998),
giving a clue to the magnitude of the socio-economic problem Turkey encountered after the
1950s. The schools could not absorb the sudden increase of student population, as a result, first
the two-shift then the three-shift system were created in primary schools to accommodate the
school age children. School hours were shortened, substitute teachers were hired, and classroom
size increased dramatically. Not a surprise, the quality of education suffered heavily. Schools
were expected to provide education to migrant children in getting used to urban life and
socializing well with their urban counterparts, and at the same time, meet the needs of quality
education of all children. But simply they were not well equipped to perform this huge task
arising from a large “demographic transition” from rural to urban within such a short time.
In 1960, the military took over the government as a secularist reaction since the
Democratic Party was seen as a threat to the Republican ideals which Ataturk promoted as the
foundations of the Republic. A National Education Commission was appointed to study the
educational problems the country faced and to come up with recommendations for improvement
(Basaran, 1999). The Seventh Educational Convention recommended that the religious schools
be closed down, and the curricula in schools be improved. The purpose of these efforts was to
reinstate the Republican ideals in schools, and improve the quality of education. This purpose
was achieved only partially. Religion courses were made elective again. Some of the curricula
went through a large-scale change according to the new developments in the disciplines (e.g.
primary school curriculum). On the other hand religious schools were not closed down, and their
number continued to increase in the second part of the 1960s.
The deterioration of education in schools continued in the 1960s. The high inflation rate
decreased the teachers’ salary in real terms, resulting unhappiness among the teachers and
lowering the status of the profession teachers had enjoyed before. Limited education budgets did
not allow building new schools, resulting in 70-80 student classrooms originally designed for 30
students.
In the beginning of the 1970s, there were efforts to increase the five year compulsory
education to eight year and curtail the growth of religious schools. Right after the second
military intervention in 1971, the Ministry of National Education closed down the middle school
9
section (6-8) of religious secondary schools. The Basic Education Law passed in the Parliament
in 1973 ordered the government to take measures to provide all children with an uninterrupted
eight-year compulsory education. However, the 3+4 model in religious schools was reinstated in
1974 (Kaplan 1999) by the coalition government formed by the social democrat Republican
People’s Party and the religious Welfare Party. This policy became a major obstacle for the
eight-year Basic Education Project. Politicians, exploiting religion to gain power argued against
this extension and labeled basic education movement as “an effort to block religious education.”
As a result the extension of basic education to 8 years for all children was not achieved until
1997.
Educational institutions suffered deeply from the violent conflict between “right” and
“left” extremists in the 1970s.
Teachers were divided into rightist and leftist camps, and
secondary schools became places for students who are politically motivated to exercise power.
The turmoil in streets as well as in schools throughout the 1970s prevented the policy makers
from giving attention to the inherent problems of schools such as crowded classrooms, poor
quality educational materials (e.g., textbooks), unmotivated teachers and students.
Dichotomies in education (1980-present)
The Turkish military intervened for the third time in 1980 to end the turmoil resulting from the
clashes between the rightist and leftist extremists in the country. The public supported this
intervention largely since it was seen as the last resort to stop the anarchy in the country (5-10
people had been killed in street shootings almost every day toward the end of the 1970s). This
intervention brought more centralization to the educational system both at lower and higher levels
of education. Higher Education Law passed in 1982 established Higher Education Council to
oversee the universities and coordinate their academic activities. The Ministry of National
Education initiated moves to “nationalize” the school curriculum and rewrite textbooks
accordingly. Under this new policy, courses like History and Geography were relabeled as
National History and National Geography (Kaplan, 1999). Biology curriculum went through a
“Turkish-Islamic revision” that resulted in removal of evolution theory since it was perceived as
an argument against Islamic thought.
The quality of education was once again a major issue in the 1980s. The Ministry of
Education was criticized heavily for giving way to political pressures and not taking the
10
necessary measures to improve the quality of infrastructure in schools, curriculum, textbooks,
teachers, and other aspects of education. Students were under pressure of the university entrance
exam that allowed less than 10% of the students into the universities. Both students and parents
blamed schools for not preparing them for the university entrance exam and not taking their
individual interests and needs. These complaints gave impetus to private schools that claimed to
provide better quality education, and to private courses (called “dershane;” equivalent of “jukus”
in the Japanese system) that promised students better preparation for the university entrance
exam.
In 1991-1992 academic year, in response to growing criticism against schools, course
passing and credit system (in place of grade passing system that had been used before) was
established at high school level to give students more choice and freedom in choosing courses
based on their needs, abilities and interests.
This was a major attempt to transform the
philosophy and the structure of education at high school level. The previous course passing
system was based on an essentialist philosophy assuming that all students had similar needs and
interests, and schools should offer a standard set of essential courses and experiences to prepare
them for the future. The new system was based on a more progressivist philosophy as reflected
in various sets of courses and experiences offered to the students as potential avenues to pursue
their interests and goals. However this new system was abolished in 1995-1996 academic year,
the MONE declared that the new system failed due to various problems it faced in the four year
period. One of these problems was inadequate infrastructure. Classrooms were insufficient in
number to offer a variety of courses for students to choose from.
The qualified guidance
personnel were lacking in schools to guide students in area and course selection. In addition the
teachers and administrators in schools and parents were not oriented to the new system
adequately. There was always some level of confusion as to how the system worked, how to
offer new courses, where to get new materials, how to collaborate with other schools and
institutions, and such. Furthermore the centralized nature of the educational system that created
such a heavy bureaucracy did not allow an effective communication and coordination among
schools and the directorates (Caner, 1999). Finally, the MONE had not realized the difficulty of
transforming a traditional, essentialist system to completely different one, progressivist, assuming
that the change in the structure would change other aspects of education.
This failure in
11
restructuring the educational system damaged the public confidence in the government’s ability
to bring in change in schools.
In 1997, with the pressure from the National Security Council 1, the Turkish Parliament
passed laws enforcing the Basic Education Reform outlined first in 1973 to increase the
education level of the population and to bring it closer to the European Union norms. The
uninterrupted eight-year Basic Education Reform which was long overdue was finally in place.
A nationwide campaign was initiated to open more classrooms and schools, and to decrease the
number of students in classrooms to 30. More students and classrooms meant more pressure on
Faculties of Education to increase their capacity to train more classroom teachers. Accordingly,
in 1998, Higher Education Council restructured the teacher education programs in Faculties of
Education to respond to the teacher shortage problem more effectively, and to train teachers in
line with the new structure introduced by the Basic Education Reform. New departments were
opened in the area of classroom teaching, preschool education, upper primary Turkish,
mathematics, sciences and social studies. (Simsek and Yildirim, 2001).
With Basic Education Reform of 1997, the middle school sections of religious schools
were closed down. The remaining high school sections were given the same status with other
vocational high schools.
Later Higher Education Council initiated a new system in the
calculation of the university entrance exam scores which limited the chances of vocational high
school graduates in entering university departments that were not directly related to their
specialization at high school. This system effectively lowered the number of students seeking
religious education at the high school level.
Along with secular-religious dichotomy, public-private school, and school-private course
(“dershane”) dichotomies in education continues today. The number of private schools continues
to increase as a result of continuing deterioration of education in public schools. Private schools
attract good students from middle and high socio economic background, gain a better ranking in
the university entrance exam than the public schools. The “dershanes” preparing students for the
university entrance exam presents another problem for public schools since both students and
parents believe that the only way to get into the university is through these private courses.
1
Composed of the president, army chiefs of staff, the Prime Minister, interior and foreign relations minister, meets
on a monthly basis and makes policy recommendations to the government. The chiefs of staff have been quite
influential on the decisions the council takes.
12
Currently, increasing basic education from 8 to 12 years is discussed as the second major
step in improving the education level of the young population. This will eliminate all religious
and vocational education at the high school level, an issue that creates sharp divisions among
political parties. This disagreement over the role of public education in teaching of religion once
again appears to be the major obstacle in increasing the basic education to 12 years.
3. The Need for Reform: Areas in Detail
Now opposing party in the current Turkish parliament, the Republican People’s Party, states a
need for fundamental reform in education. The party program proclaims that, in order for raising
a generation who are self-confident, who can critically think and explore, basic principles and
methods of education must be rethought. The Republican People’s Party program lists the areas
as pre-school education, basic (elementary) education, secondary education, higher education,
special education and teacher training. Similarly, now ruling Justice and Prosperity Party also
states a need for fundamental educational reform in its party program. “Turkey experiences a real
chaos in the field of education…, for this, our party will engage in a fundamental reform
movement in education,” the party program states. Almost all political parties have stated similar
ideas about the current state of educational affairs in the country since the mid 1980s. Similar
sentiments are widely shared by the Turkish public. News media and non-profit organizations
have actively involved in to raise the awareness for educational reform and to energize people to
put more pressure on politicians for an all front educational restructuring.
Now, lets divert our attention to deeper aspects of the potential areas of reform for the
Turkish educational system.
3.1. A fundamental issue that could only be dealt with a long-term national strategy: High
birth rate. In 2000, population of Turkey was 67,803,000. It is estimated that the population will
be 83,400,000 in 2015, and 90,488,000 in 2023. Annual population increase rate in Turkey has
been no less than 2.0% excluding 1945 census (which was 1.0%) since the foundation of
Republic in 1923. Annual birth rate peaked between 1955 and 1975 (1955: 2.7%, 1960: 2.8%,
1965: 2.4%, 1970: 2.5%, 1975: 2.5%), and slightly declined since 1980. 2000 census data
indicate that annual birth rate has declined to 1.8%, below 2.0% threshold level for the first time
in the Republic history (State Institute of Statistics, 2003). When the birth rate is taken into
13
consideration, Turkey scores one of the highest birth rates in the world, incomparably high to her
level of industrialization and economic development. When we look at some comparable figures,
birth rate above 2.0% annual is the case for the world’s economically poorest countries such as
South Africa (2.0%), Kenya (2.4%), Pakistan (2.4%), Tanzania (2.7%), and Zambia (2.6%).
Turkey’s birth rate is certainly far above the OECD average. For example, it is 1.2% for the US,
1.1% for Canada, 0.3% for Germany, 1.2% for Australia, 0.5% for Austria, 0.3% for Belgium,
0.4% for Denmark and the UK (State Institute of Statistics, 2003).
What are the educational implications of these figures? It is assumed that there is close
negative association between the population increase and economic development. All above
figures indicate that no industrialized country in the world has a population increase above 1.0%
threshold level. Birth rate figures indicate where the educational priorities should be placed, to
provide educational opportunities for an increasing demand or invest in quality. In the Turkish
case, even the lowest 2000 figures with a birth rate of 1,8% is taken (considered that the
population is 67 million), this means that about 1.2 million children will enter the educational
system every year. These children will stay in the system until the end of compulsory age (from 6
to 14). This high entry number creates the need for opening new classrooms ever year. Between
1994 and 1998, 8.230, 6.282, 7.279, 12.620, 21.620 new classrooms were opened each year
respectively (TUBITAK, 2003), as an effort to meet the increasing infrastructure demand.
By the same token, when the system is not well designed in terms of entry and exit ratios,
the flow will be blocked at various stages. If data based and intelligent policy making is not the
case, this will lead to an enormous amount of waste of national resources and bottlenecks within
the system. Two examples in the Turkish case will suffice this discussion: Since the urbanization
and domestic migration from rural the urban areas were not given much attention, governments
built school buildings for every single village during the 1960s and the 1970s. As a result, 72% of
total school buildings are located in villages, however only 27% of students today live in villages.
What this means is that many of these school buildings are not used today. On the other hand,
because of lack of a good tracking system and underutilization of vocational and technical
systems, and incapacity of the Turkish industry to absorb these young people following their
elementary and secondary education, many of these new entrants to the educational system will
be seeking four-year postsecondary education. The result is far too much demand beyond the
available seats in universities leading to one of the world’s worst “exam fear” for young people in
14
front of universities. This exactly is one of the Turkish system’s serious educational problems
today.
Prospects for Reform: It may really be not proper to call this issue an area for educational
reform. Population dynamics involve many intertwined social, economic, and cultural factors.
Hence, its educational implications especially in the case of Turkey is substantial. The good sign
is that there are sings of downturn of this high population increase. It is estimated that the rate of
increase will be around 1.4% in the year 2023 (State Institute of Statistics, 2003). Urbanization is
one of the important factors that seems to have a negative impact on the high birth rate. Since the
1960s, Turkey has been experiencing domestic migration from rural to urban areas. By
economics terms, the share of agriculture in the value added percentage of GDP has been steadily
declining since then (from about 70% in the 1950s and 1960s to 16% in the year 2000; industry
being %25 and services being %59). It is also estimated that this decline will continue in the
coming years (State Institute of Statistics, 2003).
The critical issue for the Turkish policy-makers is to think about how to accelerate this
natural tendency for decline. No matter what strategy is used, there is no doubt that this will be a
long-term investment because the results would be obtained in a long time frame. In the past,
there have been successful birth control campaigns by both public and non-profit organizations
especially in the rural areas. Perhaps these campaigns should be revitalized at a wider scale as
being a government policy. Although it is seriously objected by the religious camp, for the past 56 years there has been going on a serious debate about whether or not sex education should be
part of formal school curriculum. As a result of intense lobbying of several non-profit
organizations, Ministry of National Education initiated two projects on sexual education to
adolescence. The first project was carried out between 1993 and 1998 and comprised 2 million
girls in a sample of 10,224 schools. The second project targeted boys and girls of grades 6
through 8, and completed in year 2000 (Ministry of National Education, 2000). Similar types of
projects should be extended in the formal schooling and perhaps sexual education should
formally be instituted in the regular school curriculum. Certainly this must be one of the standard
agenda items for adult education programs run by both public and non-profit organizations.
15
3.2. One of the root problems: Memorization-based pedagogy “Everyone, at some level, has a
philosophy of life… a general theory of how the world is put together, what laws regulate the
universe and underlie all knowledge and reality.” Philosophy provides us a lens through which
we observe and interpret reality (Ryan and Cooper, 2000, p. 331). As it is an individual endeavor,
construction of reality also has social and communal aspects. A widely shared world view among
a number of community members may constitute a socially constructed reality that creates a
ground for a common interpretation, communication and coordination patterns among the
community members about the world around. This is somewhat called a “paradigm” through
which a regularity is observed over certain period of time in terms of behavioral patterns,
accepted norms and practices in a certain field, place, system or organization (Simsek and Louis,
1994). We believe the existence of embedded philosophies or paradigms in educational systems
that provides us certain degree of regularity and predictability in teacher, student and
administrator behaviors, sacred educational values, priorities, curriculum content, even the
teaching methods. We believe, the paradigm aspect is highly definitive in the context of Turkish
educational system. Before moving into this, let us provide a brief overview of three mainstream
educational thoughts that we will be using in the analysis of the Turkish educational case.
The three lines of educational thoughts that are important for our purpose of analysis are
Perennialism, Essentialism and Progressivism.
Perennialism views nature and, in particular, human nature, as constant, that is, as
undergoing little change. Beneath the superficial differences from one century or
decade to the next, the rules that govern the world and the characteristics that make
up human nature stay the same. The perennialists, too, is quite comfortable with
Aristotle’s definition of human beings as rational animals. Education is crucial to
perennialists because it develops a person’s rationality… It is the intellect, not body
or emotions or instincts, that sets a person apart from the beasts… Therefore, the
nourishment of the intellect is believed to be the essential role of the school…
Perennialists believe that schools should teach disciplined knowledge through the
traditional subjects of history, language, mathematics, science, and arts (Ryan and
Cooper, 2000, pp. 330-3: emphases added).
The second influential educational theory is Essentialism. According to Ryan and Cooper
(2000), Essentialism has the following characteristics:
…schools should focus on the established disciplines, which are the “containers” of
organized knowledge. The elementary years should concentrate on the basics—the
“three R’s” and the other foundational tools needed to gain access to the disciplined
16
knowledge with which one begins to come in contact in high school… the role of
the student is simply that of learner. The individual child’s interests, motivations,
and psychological states are not given much attention. Nor do essentialists hold fast
to what they would call a “romantic” view of children as being naturally good. They
see the students not as evil but as deficient and needing discipline and pressure to
keep learning. School is viewed as a place where children come to learn what they
need to know. Teachers are not guides but authorities. The student’s job is to listen
and learn… (Ryan and Cooper, 2000, pp. 340-1: emphases added).
The third educational theory that has some degree of relevance to the Turkish case is
Progressivism. Progressivism is relatively young and it is genuinely American in the sense that it
came to prominence in the 1920s through the work of great American philosopher and educator
John Dewey.
Whereas other philosophies see the mind as a jug to be filled with truth, or a muscle
that needs to be exercised and conditioned, the progressive views the mind as a
problem solver. People are naturally exploring, inquiring entities… For the
progressive, education aims to develop this problem-solving ability. The student
should start with simple study projects and gradually learn more systematic ways to
investigate until he or she has finally mastered the scientific method. Method is of
great importance to the progressive. On the other hand, knowledge—formal,
traditional knowledge—is not given the same honored place… Regarding the school
curriculum, progressive believe that a student can learn problem-solving skills from
electronics just as easily as from Latin, from agronomy just as well as geometry.
Progressive teachers often use traditional subject matter, but they use it differently
from the way it is used in a traditional classroom… The focus is on how to think
rather than on what to think… Rather than being a presenter of knowledge or a
taskmaster, the teacher is an intellectual guide, a facilitator in the problem-solving
process (Ryan and Cooper, 2000, pp. 335-6: emphases original).
When we come to the question of which of these educational theories has been more
influential in the Turkish educational system, progressivism had a brief impact during the
Republic’s foundational years. As we presented earlier in the brief history of the Turkish
educational system, a number of Western thinkers of the time were invited to Turkey and
prepared reports on how to build the new system. One of these scholars was John Dewey. He
prepared a report on the system and proposed ways to construct a modern educational system. It
is widely accepted that the Village Institutes experience—a genuinely Turkish educational
innovation—had Dewey’s philosophical imprints. Village Institutes, to some extent, utilized
main principles of progressivist thought. However, its impact was minimal on the system because
17
the Village Institutes idea was a teacher training project and, in itself, did not survive long (just
about ten years). Village Institutes were abolished with the accession of a right wing party,
Democratic Party, to government in the early 1950s.
Except the Village Institutes experience, Sonmez (1996) believes that while written
principles of the Turkish educational system, politicians’ talks and almost all party programs
during the entire history of the Republic eschewed a progressivist tone, real classroom practices
at all levels of the educational system were built on the principles of Perennialism and
Essentialism (p. 155). “In other words,” he continues, “not student but teacher and subject-matter
have become the center focus, instead of raising persons who can use scientific methods, who is
able to think free and flexible, who is democratic and secular, the system has raised individuals
who memorize what the teacher says and what the books write” (p. 155). Other scholars who
have written on the subject generally agree with Sonmez’s analysis (Erturk, 1971; Yedikardesler,
1984). In a qualitative study carried out by Balci (1999), she asked a group of sampled
elementary school teachers to use metaphors to describe their students. The results were
interesting in the sense that majority of these teachers used such metaphors to describe their
students as dough and clay (to be shaped and molded). In the same study, majority of students
described their school administrators and assistant administrators as strict disciplinarians. There
are solid indicators of Perennialist and Essentialist pedagogy in the curriculum and we will be
discussing this under curriculum as separate reform area in the following pages.
Reform prospects: Paradigms and worldviews are intangible side of any system. They are more
like socially constructed realities, the ones we are born into and accept the basics as “taken for
granted.” Their construction takes many years, decades, in some instances, even centuries. As
Kuhn once said, “to switch from one paradigm to another is as hard as to convert from religion to
another.” First, changing such subtle realities require long-term strategies. Second, change of
intangibles may be facilitated through changing of tangibles. What we mean by this is that, as
like any typical organization or system, many variables come together to form a congruent
organizational whole, a systemic pattern. The strategy to modify the subtle paradigm underneath
the Turkish system must be born by the utilization of systemic change in tangible domains of the
system. Changes in organizational and governance patterns, in curricular content, in teaching and
learning methods and techniques, in pre-service and in-service teacher training, in textbooks, we
18
believe, may pave the way for changes in the paradigm of the system in the long run. Simply
stated, successful reform initiatives in other domains of the system (that we will be discussing in
the remainder of this chapter) may end up in major modifications in the Perennialist-Essentialist
paradigms of the Turkish educational system.
When we come to the question of which way to change in terms of underlying theory or
paradigm within the system, the inclination is certainly towards more child-centered education,
decentralized organizational and governance patterns, professional teachers who can understand
the psychology of students, more flexible curriculum content that can take into account the
professional knowledge of teachers and interests and expectations of students, raising of creative
and free-minded individuals certainly demanded by the Turkish economy in global competitive
economic environment. All these indicators point towards more progressivist educational theory
to replace embedded paradigms of Perennialism and Essentialism.
We are obligated at this point to raise a fundamental dichotomous situation in the world
education reform movements departing from the Turkish case. The Turkish reform prospects and
educational reforms in other traditionally centralized systems (such as the French reforms) do
clearly show a tendency towards decentralization and more progressivist pedagogy, the reform
movements in the root models of Anglo-Saxon educational systems (The UK and the US models)
however tend to move in reverse direction. There are strong centralization tendencies within the
American system since the 1980s, e.g., Back to Basics and “standards” movements. The UK
system has already adapted part of these mechanisms much earlier, e.g., national curriculum,
strengthening the role of centralized bodies in the control of education since the Thatcher years.
This situation makes us to put forward the following hypothesis: As the new institutionalists
argue (Ramirez and Boli, 1987; McNeely and Cha, 1994), we may witness less variation in the
world educational systems in the coming years as two competing models (Napoleonic and AngloSaxon) regress towards each other.
3.3. Centralized governance and hierarchical structure: Since the foundation of the Turkish
Republic in 1923, the dominant organizing paradigm that pervades all the public enterprises in
Turkey is in the form of a centralized bureaucracy. Although there has been periodic adjustments
within the systems over eighty years, the underlying administrative principle stayed intact.
Moreover, to keep pace with one of the world's fast growing population, the Ministry has shown
19
a phenomenal growth in structure and functions over the years. After the Turkish Army, it is the
largest single public organization in the country. The end result of this growth and complexity
has been a huge bureaucracy in which the major organizational activities concentrate around
maintaining the machinery which severely inhibits the capacity for innovation and change as well
as the capacity for tackling the educational issues of the country.
There are 17 General Directorates excluding the independent departments and The Board
of Councils. Since 1920 the Ministry has grown dramatically in terms of its size. This, of course,
has caused some coordination and management problems. One major contributing factor to
limited flexibility is size. Generally speaking size and flexibility of an organization are inversely
proportional.
As the organization gets bigger the flexibility of the organization decreases
dramatically. The Turkish MONE has grown progressively since the formation of the Republic
and retained its centralized, hierarchical structure, although Turkey has changed in many ways
since the 1920's. In order for the education system to respond to this ever-changing world it needs
to be flexible enough so that it may adapt to these changes.
In its present state, the MONE does not provide much flexibility to the heads of various
departments. The hierarchical nature of the MONE does not seem to be inclined to innovation
either.
Its centralized nature does not seem to take into account the different needs and
expectations of a diversity of people working within the Ministry. Akarsu (1990) stated that "the
inertia of the centralized system does not allow local administrators or principles to bring
solutions to time/space specific problems."
This lack of flexibility and no room for imagination are typical characteristics in a
mechanistic organization where people feel inhibited by the nature of the organization. In such a
strict structure it is almost impossible for an administrator to take almost any initiative. Common
concerns are that local and building administrators have no say in hiring and firing people, it is all
controlled by the central organs within MONE. Such a structure seems to be the victim of some
influence of mechanization on the imagination of people.
One way that the government assures control over its Ministries is by having the Ministry
of Finance control release of funds. Furthermore the Ministry of Education is able to control its
units and subunits by controlling their finance. The result of such strict control of finances limits
local administrators scattered in cities beyond the borders of Ankara. In that, the nature of the
MONE hinders them from taking the initiative in terms of funding new projects and new
20
applications which could be needed to meet the demands of local needs (Guncer, Simsek and
Yildirim, 1995). Being heavily dependent on the national budgets causes some other political
and bureaucratic problems.
In reference to obtaining resources from the Ministry "which schools get what" is a
political issue. Ideally we would expect allotment of resources to schools should be related to
need first and demand second. However, education is perceived as a powerful resource over
which political groups vie for power. Education is a powerful resource in two ways. First,
education can be very influential in shaping the political orientation on those who go through it.
The government, through the curriculum, can have a potentially major impact on the political and
social direction of the country. Different political groups wanting to influence the direction of
the country may attempt to do it by gaining control of the curriculum.
Since the whole
curriculum is controlled by the MONE there seems to be little autonomy for local administrators
to base the curriculum on the particular needs of the community in which a school is located.
The administrator can not effectively serve the people of the community in which he lives, if he
is not able to base the curriculum on the needs of his community. Instead he is limited to a
curriculum that may be more representative of a political groups interests then the majority of
Turkish mothers', fathers' and children's interests.
Second, education provides many employment opportunities, especially good quality
education. It is not surprising that education can be used as a powerful bargaining chip in
political struggles. Ideally the education system should be designed so that it serves the best
interest of the public not the various political parties. Its highly centralized nature makes the
MONE even more susceptible to abuse through political intervention.
It might be claimed that the Ministry retains its centralized structure so that it may itself
control the direction of the country for the benefit of the populace. However, a centralized
structure leads to maybe not as well intentioned people, whose interests are not in the interest of
the majority of the population, significantly influencing the Ministry of Education. One reason
why the governments would wish to retain such a centralized and hierarchical structure in the
Ministry could be the fact that the politicians do not want to lose control of such a big
organization where approximately 570.000 teachers are employed. This number constitutes two
third of the whole number of public servants in Turkey. Furthermore, being easily influenced by
21
the political process makes Ministry unstable. Many of the upper level employees are political
appointees who change with the change in ruling government administration.
Prospects for Reform: From an organizational perspective, the Turkish national education
system shows many typical characteristics of "mechanistic-stagnant bureaucracy." In his
influential work, Morgan (1986) identifies that, in a mechanistic organization, the chain of
command runs from top to bottom. "From any place at the bottom of the hierarchy there is only
one route to the top, a reflection of the principle that each subordinate should have no more than
one superior." That is, commands come from the top, travel throughout the organization in a
predetermined way. In such a structure subordination of individual for general interest is
common. As a result, mechanistic organizations encourage employees to comply with the rules
rather than encouraging them to take initiative.
According to Morgan (1986), this mechanistic approach to structuring an organization
could work well if the task is straightforward and the environment is stable. However, such an
organization has great difficulty in adapting to new circumstances. Since organizations based on
mechanistic paradigm are designed to achieve predetermined goals, it is very difficult for them to
adapt to new circumstances that may occur as a result of ever-changing economic, social and
international events. This may lead to institutional inertia. On the other hand, since it is designed
for efficiency based on some predetermined rules and regulations, it would easily turn into a
“mindless” bureaucracy. In this environment, employees may frequently feel dehumanized.
When we look at the structure of MONE, we can readily notice the similarities in
structure and governance between the MONE in Turkey and Morgan's description of the
mechanistic organization. As Morgan pointed out, as long as the task is straight forward and the
environment stable mechanistic organizations can work effectively.
However, in a field like
education, where the tasks are never straightforward and the environment is hardly stable, a
mechanistic organization seems inappropriate for providing effective educational services. In
that, the demands of the Turkish society keep changing owing to economic and technological
changes akin to a developing country.
Bolman and Deal (1991, p. 80), by referring to Miller and Friesen's earlier work (1984),
report that many organizations and firms got in trouble because of structural patterns they have
generated. Bolman and Deal identify one of these structural patterns as "stagnant bureaucracies"
22
which exhibits striking similarities to the organizational characteristics of the Turkish educational
system that we discussed earlier:
"These are usually older organizations controlled by past traditions and turning out
obsolete product lines. A predictable and placid environment has lulled the
organizations to sleep, and top management is heavily committed to the old ways.
Information systems are not sophisticated enough to detect the need for change.
Lower-level managers feel ignored and alienated. Many old-line corporations and
public bureaucracies have these characteristics" (Bolman and Deal, 1991, p. 80;
italics added).
The panacea to this stagnant bureaucracy is to change the traditional governance model of
centralization. As we presented earlier, typical decentralization strategies of shifting power from
the central organs located in Ankara to provincial and local, even building levels, would be
effective. Similar strategies have been put into use in many parts of the world, especially in the
ones that are more associated with the Continental European models of centralized governance
such as France, Italy, Spain, Brazil, China. There is general consensus among educators and
politicians on this line of reform. The current education minister (as others did before him) has
recently announced that the Turkish educational system along with the overall scheme of Turkish
governance model must be decentralized.
3.4. Curriculum: The outdated software of the educational system: A uniform curriculum is
carried out in all public and private schools, and is closely monitored by the inspectors of the
MONE. The State Board of Education (BOE), a department of the MONE, has the main
responsibility in curriculum development which may take place directly through its own
commissions or the other bodies or institutions. In any case, the BOE is the final approving body
for any curriculum to be used in schools.
Textbooks can be written by either the commissions formed by the BOE or independent
authors in Turkey. Again, all textbooks have to be examined and approved by the BOE before
they can be used in schools.
The most important criterion in the approval process is the
conformity of the textbooks with the subject matter curriculum guideline produced by the BOE.
Because of this strict approval process, the textbooks are quite similar to each other in terms of
the selection and organization of the content and the treatment of topics (Yildirim, 1999).
23
The standardized curriculum has an immense impact on teaching practices since it
controls the scope and sequence, and does not allow much flexibility to the teacher. All teachers
are required to cover the same content within a standard school year calendar. Teachers act as
technicians mostly since the curriculum does not leave much room for their creativity and
decision making. Students feel that their contextual needs are not taken into consideration, as a
result, their motivation decreases as they move to upper grade levels (Yildirim, 1994).
Teachers’ instructional planning is largely influenced by the curriculum guides. Teacher
planning is closely monitored by the school principal and the provincial inspectors in terms of its
compliance with the curriculum. Within this framework, teachers are required to plan their
lessons through yearly, unit and daily plans. Teachers often complain about the gap between the
curriculum requirements and the realities of their own classrooms. Not being able to reflect the
needs of the students in their plans, teachers feel that they do plans only to satisfy the
administrators and inspectors (Yildirim, in press).
Prospects for Reform: The MONE is changing the way centralized curriculum is designed and
implemented in schools. One of the purposes of the National Education Development Project
which took place between 1991-1999 was to introduce new approaches in curriculum
development and teaching that aim to provide more flexibility to teachers in content coverage,
teaching strategies, and student assessment. Four curriculum guides were developed in line with
this purpose, and introduced to nation’s schools to improve the quality of teaching (Demirel,
2000). They emphasized the critical role teachers have in shaping the teaching and learning
environment, and the significance of the decisions teachers would be making in light of local,
contextual conditions. Teachers were encouraged to look at the curriculum content critically,
plan their own instruction around the overall objectives of the course, and see textbooks as
instructional materials. Student thinking and understanding were highlighted, and active learning
examples were presented in the curriculum. So, these were some hopeful initiatives at the central
level in transforming memorization-based instruction into meaningful learning.
The MONE is also piloting decentralization of curriculum development in five provinces
through the direct initiatives of provincial educational directorates. The purpose is to develop
curriculum based on the regional needs and context. The final curriculum will still have to be
24
approved by the BOE. Nevertheless this may be the beginning of relaxing the tight control and
standardization and giving more responsibility to local bodies in meeting their educational needs.
Finally teachers should be given more flexibility and accountability in curriculum
development and implementation. There can still be a standard, overall scheme for the courses
but the detailed curriculum could be prepared by the teachers in schools based on the local needs
and conditions. This will give more power to teachers and, at the same time, accountability for
creating a meaningful teaching and learning environment in class. This may also bridge the gap
between teachers’ planning and classroom teaching process. As a result teachers may perceive
themselves as more professionals than technicians (Yildirim, 1994).
3.5 Teacher-centered teaching and learning process: Research studies on teaching in Turkey
indicate that classrooms are dominated by teacher-centered activity, mostly through lecturing and
recitation. Teachers often transmit knowledge to students and expect that they produce more or
less the same knowledge in the exams. Students ask questions rarely and student-to-student
interactions through small group activities or group projects are atypical (Yildirim, 1997; Engin
and Yildirim, 1997; Balcı and Yildirim, 1997). There are several reasons for the teacher-oriented
teaching and learning process in schools (Yildirim, 2000):
First, the practice of teaching is geared toward testing which takes place at the end of
basic education and high school. Anatolian high school, science high school, university entrance
exams influence what it is taught and how it is taught in schools today. Even long before they are
close to graduation, students start seeing everything they learn in school in terms of its relevance
to the exams they are going to take. Teachers also see a necessity to cover the content in relation
to potential test questions in their subject area and align instruction towards that end. The
outcome of such instruction becomes memorization without understanding, and development of
test taking skills in students.
Second, the centralized nature of educational system creates a sameness among teachers
in terms of what they teach, and how they teach it. Ministry inspectors are responsible for
supervising teachers in terms of their compliance with central curriculum guides, and how they
translate the curriculum into practice. The sameness in terms of what is covered in the classroom
creates a sense of technician who applies the decisions made elsewhere and who is controlled
closely for his/her conduct.
25
Third, textbooks heavily influence what is covered in the classroom and how the teacher
teaches. Textbooks must be in line with the centrally designed curriculum guides, and they must
be approved by the MONE’s Board of Education in terms of its conformance. So, many teachers
see the textbooks as the actual curriculum since they are aligned with the curriculum guideline.
Teaching through the textbook, most often there is only one for each subject area, gives a
message to the students that there is only one reality, and it is validated through the coverage in
the textbook. Even teachers often do not question the reality presented in the textbooks, and the
way it is presented assuming that the decision about validity and relevance has been made at
upper layers of educational system. Alternative interpretations of the realities and events are
rarely taken into consideration (Yildirim, 1999).
Fourth, developing thinking skills is not given priority in many schools. Right answer is
valued, and both teaching and assessment strategies are geared toward the “right answer.”
Students assume that there is a universally accepted right answer to any question; teachers feel
more comfortable in classrooms where they enjoy the authority of knowledge and where all
students supposedly learn the same thing and in the same way. Questions which have no clear
responses are not considered because they carry a potential risk in systematic teaching. In a
similar way, success at school is generally equated with learning (or memorizing) the curriculum
content. For many students, constructing meaning has nothing to do with success in school. So
knowledge is perceived as absolute, something to keep for a while. Constructing meaning is not
a priority among teachers, nor desired by the requirements of the educational system. Although
there is growing interest in active learning, student-centered learning and learning to learn
approaches in schools, most classrooms discourage the practices based on these approaches. As a
result, the traditional approach to teaching, which is didactic and textbook-based, appears to be
holding strong.
Finally, individual differences are not taken into consideration in organizing the teaching
and learning activities. All students are considered as the same in terms of their interests, and
learning needs and styles. Variation in the content and in the strategies used in the classroom
based on the contextual differences a teacher may have is not common. Curriculum may only be
altered for those students who are categorized as learning disabled or slow learners. Others
supposedly can follow what is prescribed by curriculum designers and what is didactically
actualized in the classroom by the individual teacher.
26
Prospects for Reform: There are hopeful signs of reform efforts to define effective teaching in
Turkish education and to take some steps toward training more qualified teachers. An alternative
view of effective teaching appears to be gaining strength in education circles. Today, views are
expressed often against memory-based education, and test-based instruction. The teacher’s new
role in class is being redefined in light of new theories of learning and approaches highlighting
the significance of more student involvement in the teaching and learning process.
The
buzzwords in these efforts are “student-centered instruction,” “active learning,” and “information
technology.”
One of these efforts is observed in the MONE’s efforts in defining effective teaching
through teacher competencies recently completed and publicized, and taking the necessary
measurements for hiring better prepared teachers as well as improving the ones in schools in line
with their competencies (MONE, 2001). Another effort to define effective teaching is evident in
the recent reform of preservice teacher education programs in the faculties of education (Simsek
and Yildirim, 2001). This reform presents a change in the perception of good teacher as evident
in the new curriculum it initiated.
There are, of course, some obstacles to these initiatives. First of all, a top-down approach
appears to be not working well since the message is not clearly perceived by the teachers in the
schools. In a change effort teachers have to change their often Perennialist, Essentialist teaching
ideologies and then pass on those ideologies through their teaching to their students who also
have to change. This “double demand puts teachers under strain where the changes represent a
major shift in beliefs and practices, and can threaten successful implementation unless necessary
logistical and professional conditions are met” (Kennedy, 1999, p. 13).
A similar situation is apparently the case in the efforts of the MONE in influencing
teaching practice in schools through developing more flexible curriculum guides highlighting a
more student-centered conception of teaching. Teachers are having difficulty in changing the
practice they have long been used to. They have been traditionally very much dependent on
prescribed curriculum, and they have felt more comfortable and safe with an external view of
what is effective. When they are asked to make decisions based on alternatives and the realities
of their own teaching context, and be accountable for these decisions, many would feel that they
are taking a great risk. So they do not appear to be open to change, and may accept the role of
27
technician easily. Although these circumstances appear to be serious obstacles to redefining the
role of teachers, the initiatives at the MONE level toward effective teaching can be seen as
positive steps in this direction.
3.6. Measurement and evaluation practices: Assessment of student performance in individual
courses in schools is largely done by the individual teacher. For this purpose, teachers generally
conduct two exams, one in the middle of the semester and one at the end. The exam questions,
whether they are multiple choice, short-answer or essay, are prepared by the individual teacher.
There is no formal collaboration among teachers in preparing tests, and assessing their results to
either control or inform the teaching and learning process.
Standardized tests are not used often in Turkish schools to measure student performance
in courses.
However, in recent years there have been attempts to prepare and implement
nationwide standardized testing in math and sciences. One of these initiatives came through the
Third Mathematics and Science Achievement Study Project (TIMSS) sponsored by the
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
The
Mathematics and Science achievement tests prepared under this project were given to a
representative group of 8000 eight grade (the last year of compulsory elementary school) students
in 40 provinces from seven geographical regions in 1999. The results showed that Turkey ranked
the 31st in Mathematics and the 33rd in Science among the 38 countries that took part in the study
(TIMSS, 2003). Since Turkish schools were involved in this wide scale project for the first time
the results should be interpreted with caution.
Although the standardized testing is not the mode of assessment of student achievement
in schools, it is what waits every student who would likely to pursue better and further education.
Students who graduate from elementary schools strive for “high status” (e.g., Anatolian High
Schools, Science High Schools), and the only way to get in these schools is through a nationwide
examination. In the year 2002, only 24% of 550,000 students were accepted to these schools
(MONE, 2003).
Those students who would like to pursue university education after they
graduate from high schools must again take a nationwide examination, and this time the
acceptance rate is about only 11% for four year colleges and plus another 8% for 2 year colleges
(OSYM, 2003). So this highly competitive context forces students to take private courses
28
(“dershane”) that focus more on developing students’ test-taking skills, which are not really
developed through the assessment practices used in schools.
Prospects for reform: On the one hand, Turkish schools were lucky since they were not much
influenced by the standardized testing practices. Teachers were able to align their assessment
practices with what and how much they teach. On the other hand, teacher-based assessment may
have suffered from reliability and validity issues since there is no mechanisms in schools to
check whether teachers are able to measure student performance in dependable and accurate ways
(Yildirim, 1999). Therefore one of the areas of attention should be given to studying teachers’
assessment practices and providing them with training based on their needs.
Secondly, the university entrance system should be redesigned since the current exam
presents a huge threat for the teaching and learning process as well as the assessment practices in
schools. Students knowing that the exams they take in schools do not prepare them for the
university entrance exam in any way, they are reluctant to study except for passing the course in
secondary schools. They value the testing practices given to them in “dershanes” and tend to
perceive the knowledge as an item to choose from among alternatives. Similarly the exams for
“high status” high schools present a threat to assessment practices in elementary schools. This
selection system based on standardized testing should be replaced with a system that assesses
students more holistically through not only testing but also other means such as previous school
achievement, teacher recommendations, service to the community and other affective measures.
3.7. A major equity problem: urban-rural disparities and girls’ education: According to year
2000 population census, 59% of total population (67.830.000) reside in urban centers. This
means that rural to urban population flux has been continuing, although at a decreasing rate, since
urban population ratio used to be 51% in 1990 (State Institute of Statistics, 2003:
http://nkg.die.gov.tr/en/goster.asp?aile=1). Geographically speaking, Turkey is one of the
Europe’s largest countries and, along with it, comes a wide variation of population dynamics,
differential socio-economic and cultural levels of development. For instance, the Marmara region
that hosts Istanbul as one of the world’s largest cities (with around 12 million residents) is
Turkey’s most affluent and economically developed region. Generally speaking, west and
southwest part of the country (comprising Marmara, Aegean and Mediterranean regions) host
29
almost half of the population and, again, these regions are more developed economically than the
rest of the country. The most economically disadvantaged regions are northeast, east and
southeast. Overall, these east-west disparities are the source of important social and cultural
variations in the country considering the fact that, generally speaking, while people living in the
western parts do have more liberal views and modern-western life style, whereas people living in
the eastern and southeastern parts are more religiously oriented and conservative. These
variations in economic, cultural and value orientations bring with them corresponding disparities
in educational opportunities. Keeping in mind that bulk of the domestic migration from rural to
urban areas is in the direction from east to west, one of the main motivators underlying this flux
is better educational opportunities available in the western parts of the country.
Within this context, girls’ education is a more serious problem in rural areas of the
country, especially in eastern and southeastern parts. Generally speaking, girls do have less
educational opportunities than the boys. There has been a relative increase in girls’ access to
basic education opportunities with the extension of basic-compulsory education from 5 to 8 years
in 1997. In the 2000-2001 academic year, net schooling ratio for the boys at the age of
compulsory education was 94%, while the same ratio for girls of the same age was 88% (Kavak,
2003, p. 34). According to Kavak (2003), “there is a gap of education opportunity against girls,
but, it seems that girls seem to have more benefited from the extension of basic education from 5
to 8 years since this gap seems to be declining since 1997 with the basic education extension bill”
(p. 35).
Prospects for Reform: As it is evident, compulsory basic education policies seem to have
positive impact on girls’ access to educational opportunities specifically in the rural areas. While
about 2 million children were devoid of basic compulsory education before 1997 (most of these
children being girls), this number declined to 900.000 in the 2000-2001 academic year. Extension
of basic education in 1997 from 5 to 8 years alone contributed to this positive development in
favor of girls (Kavak, 2003, p. 35). It is stated in the Eight 5-Year Development Plan covering
the years 2001-2005 that compulsory education is planned to be extended to 12 years, until the
end of secondary education. The realization of this target will certainly have an impact to further
increase girls’ educational opportunities. Although much has not been done to realize this target
as we are at the middle of the year 2003, it is still one of the central educational priority since
30
many believe that educational indicators occupy a central theme in Turkey’s accession to full
European Union membership.
On the other hand, educational and political elite as well as non-governmental national
and international organizations are well aware of the problem, and we witness periodic
campaigns for eradication of illiteracy among rural women and increasing of girls’ access to
basic education. The latest campaign was launched by the Ministry of National Education and
UNICEF on June 5, 2003 . Hurriyet news media reports that the campaign protocol was signed
by Huseyin Celik, the Minister of Education and by Edmound McLoughney, UNICEF country
representative. The campaign targets parents of girls of basic education age and will initially be
launched in 10 provinces located in eastern and southeastern parts of the country (Agri, Batman,
Bitlis, Diyarbakır, Hakkari, Mus, Siirt, Sanlıurfa, Sirnak and Van). In 2004 and 2005, 20 new
provinces will be added to the campaign each year. Basic strategy of the campaign is to involve
local and national new media, local and national governmental and nongovernmental
organizations in order to raise the awareness level of parents, to sensitize them over the
importance of girls’ education (Hurriyet, June 6, 2003).
4. Educational Reform in Retrospect: It Doesn’t Come Easy
Generally speaking, educational systems and school organizations are found to be resilient to
change and reform. Along with technical difficulties of reform and change efforts, educational
systems are social domains where there exist deeply embedded beliefs, myths and symbols
facilitating root causes for resistance (Weick, 1976). For example, Covaleskie (1994) argues that,
at least within the American education context, systemic educational reform is very hard to
achieve due to some “taken for granted” elements within the system. To Covaleskie, for example,
grade levels, that is, moving in sequence within the school system and corresponding curricular
sequencing of subjects and courses provide an enormous degree of transferability within the
entire educational system. “Curriculums are standard enough so that a child at [grade] L in New
York can move to California and still be in L… In short, there are 15,000 independent school
districts supervised by 50 independent state governments doing essentially the same thing”
(Covaleskie, 1994, p. 3). The author also adds the impact of textbook industry that are also the
main source of standardized achievement tests over the unification of educational systems. He
concludes that:
31
Thus one of the definitional features of the system also makes it so resistant to
change. Note that an individual school could drastically change the nature of the
education it provides, but that would hamper transfer. As long as we use nationally
normed tests and nationally distributed texts to manage education, and as long as
teachers are evaluated by the performance of their students on these tests, and as long
as students are expected to be in grade L at X years of age, there will be a tendency
for education to be based in scope and sequence charts rather than interaction
between children and their teachers. On the other hand, without some force leading
toward such standardization, the system would dissolve into individual units,
disconnected from each other” (Covaleskie, 1994, p. 4).
What Covaleskie talks about is, in a sense, strikingly similar to what Adam Smith said in
the 19th century, the “invisible hand of market,” in educational context, embedded invisible,
“taken for granted” systemic elements making educational systems resilient to reform and
change. Covaleskie’s assessment of resistance to change in a traditionally decentralized
educational system presents itself in a different face in the Turkish educational system where
there is the “visible hand of state monopoly,” organizing Covaleskie’s systemic elements by the
force of state power.
In such a monopoly system, the reform must come from above. However, in such
monopolistic systems education constitutes an arena of legitimate power struggles. As a result of
November 3, 2002 elections, for the first time in recent Republic’s history, Justice and Prosperity
Party won 2/3 of votes as to form single-party majority government in the Turkish Parliament.
The Islamist background of the party founders and existence of some extremist Islamist elements
within the party has created a serious discomfort among the secularist-modernist Turkish
populace. Although the party leadership declared long before the elections and still continues to
say so that their ideological stance is central/moderate right, every move they make still raises
question marks in the minds of educated population, business people, state and military
bureaucracy. Amidst of this confusion, one of the educational reform agendas for the current
government is to decentralize the aforementioned monopolistic, state regulated school system.
Independent from the current government’s ideological stance, decentralization idea has always
created backlash from state and military bureaucracy, certain strong secularist-modernist camps
within the population that decentralization may end up in getting the system out of control, local
religious and separatist fractions may find a golden opportunity of controlling schools, all
eventually leading to disintegration of national identity and indivisibility of the country.
32
Second, another inhibitor of an all-front educational reform is scarcity of resources that
could be deployed for a successful change. For example, the share of education from GNP in
2002 was 2.9% (the same ratio is 7.3% for Canada, 5.3% for the US, 5.9% for France). We must
note that almost 85% of education’s share from GNP is actually comprises the salary payments
for teachers, administrators and other staff, another 10-12% is for investment expenditures.
Economically speaking, there is no luxury within the system to deploy resources to
fundamentally reshuffle the system.
Third, the tradition of reform itself is another factor that severely inhibits system’s
capacity of reform. Akarsu (1990) labels the reform tradition in Turkey a “patchwork.” Many
valuable reform ideas have been put in place, however without careful consideration of potential
impact of these single reform initiatives over other domains of the system, without careful
piloting of ideas and rushing into direct implementation, without paying much attention to
systemic characteristics of an inherently inert, large, bureaucratic system.
In spite of these inhibitors that create difficulties for an attainable educational reform
initiative, for the time being there two sources of potential accelerators. One of these is the
general consensus among a sizable portion of business, intellectual and political elites that our
educational system must be fundamentally restructured if Turkey wants to become a competitive
nation in terms of human resources in a global, competitive world market. The other hopeful
source of accelerator is the candidate status of Turkey for European Union full membership. As
an external force, European Union norms and standards in all domains of society including
education have momentarily paving way for radical changes in social, economic, political and
cultural aspects of the nation, and education is certainly in the top of this list.
REFERENCES
Akarsu, F. (1990). The Turkish educational system. Unpublished report. Ankara: Middle East
Technical University.
Akyuz, Y. (1994). Türk eğitim tarihi (History of Turkish Education). Ankara: Kultur Koleji.
Balcı, A. & Yildirim, A. (1999). Liselerde Sosyoloji Dersinin Öğretimi Üzerine Bir Çalışma (An
Assessment of Sociology Teaching at High School Level). Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(17), 102-117.
33
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Caner, A. (1999). Sisteme radikal müdahale ve fiyasko: Ders geçme ve kredi sistemi uygulaması
(A radical intervention to the system and fiasco: Credit system implementation). In F. Gok
(Ed.), 75 yılda eğitim (Education in the 75th year). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi..
Covaleskie, J.F. (1994). The educational systems and resistance to reform: The limits of policy,
Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 2(4).
Demirel, O. (2000). Türk eğitim sisteminde öğretim programlarının geliştirilmesinde bilimsel
yaklaşım ve 2000’li yıllar için öneriler (Scientific Approach in Curriculum Development in
Turkish Educational System: Recommendations for the Year 2000 and Beyond). Paper
presented at the Turkish Education System Entering 21st Century. Ankara.
Discoverfrance. (2003). http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/Education/DF_education2.shtml
(accessed on 23.6.2003).
Engin, C. & Yıldırım, A. (1999). Liselerdeki Felsefe Dersi Öğretiminin Değerlendirilmesi (An
Assessment of Philosophy Teaching at High School Level). Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(17), 80-94.
Erturk, S. (1971). On yıl öncesine kıyasla öğretmen davranışları (Teacher Behaviors Today and
Ten years Ago). Ankara.
Güncer, B., Simsek, H. and Yildirim, A. (1995). A case study of the Basic Education Project for
the Children of Seasonal Agricultural Workers in the Cukurova Region in Turkey: Middecade review of Progress Towards Education for All. UNESCO: Education for All Forum
Secretariat, Paris, France.
Guvenc, B. (1998). History of Turkish education. Ankara: Turkish Education Association.
Hurriyet Newspaper, June 6, 2003 (http://www.hurriyet.com.tr).
Kaplan, I. (1999). Türkiye’de milli eğitim ideolojisi (National education ideology in Turkey).
Istanbul: Iletisim.
Kavak, Y. (2003). Türk eğitim sisteminin genel görünümü (General outlook of the Turkish
educational system). Paper presented at the conference on “teacher training in modern
educational systems. Sivas, Turkey.
Kennedy, C. (1995). Teachers as agents of change. Paper presented at the 5th International
BUSEL Conference. Bilkent University, Ankara.
McNeely, C.L. and Y. Cha (1994). Worldwide educational convergence through international
organizations: Avenues for research, Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 2(14).
Ministry of National Education (2003). http://www.meb.gov.tr (accessed on 23.6.2003)
Ministry of National Education (2001). Öğretmen yeterlikleri (Teacher competencies). Ankara:
Ministry of National Education.
Morgan, Gareth (1986). Images of organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
OSYM. (2003). http://www.osym.gov.tr. (accessed on 23.6.2003).
34
Ramirez, F.O. and J. Boli (1987). Global patterns of educational institutionalization, in Thomas,
G.W., J.W. Meyer, F.O. Ramirez and J. Boli (Eds.), Institutional structure: Constituting the
state, society and the individual. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ryan, K. and J.M. Copper (2000). Those who can, teach, (9th ed), New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Simsek, H. & Yildirim, A. (2001). The reform of pre-service teacher education in Turkey. In R.
Sultana (Ed.), Challenge and change in the Euro-Mediterranean Region: Case studies in
educational innovation (pp. 411-432). New York: Peter Lang Inc.
Simsek, H. and K.S. Louis (1994). Organizational change as paradigm shift: Analysis of the
change process in a large, public university. Journal of Higher Education, 65(6), 670-695.
Sonmez, V. (1996). Eğitim felsefesi (Educational philosophy) (4th ed), Ankara: PEGEM.
State Institute of Statistics (2003). http://www.die.gov.tr. (accessed on 23.6.2003).
TIMSS. (2003). http://nces.ed.gov/timss. (accessed on 23.6.2003)
TUBITAK (2003). Vizyon 2003: Eğitim ve insane kaynakları paneli (Vision 2003: Panel on
Education and human resources). Ankara: TUBITAK.
Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
Wilkin, M. (1999). The role of higher education in initial teacher education, Universities Council
for the Education of Teachers. Occasional Paper, No. 12, London.
Yedikardesler, M. (1984). Ankara ili ilçelerinde görev yapan ilkokul, ortaokul ve klasik devlet
lisesi öğretmenlerinin meslek deneyimi, cinsiyetleri, bitirdikleri okul ve görev yaptıkları
okul türü ile eğitim felsefesi görüşlerini belirleyen bir araştırma (A study on educational
philosophies of teachers who work in elementary, secondary and high schools in counties of
Ankara province based on their years of experience, gender, the type of school they
graduated and the type of school they currently work), Unpublished MS Thesis, Hacettepe
University, Ankara.
Yildirim, A. & Ok, A. (2002). Alternative teacher certification in Turkey: Problems and issues.
In R. Sultana (Ed.), Teacher education in the Mediterennian Region: Responding to the
challenges of society in transition (pp. 259-276). New York: Peter Lang Inc.
Yildirim, A. (1997). Teaching and learning of middle school social studies in Turkey: An
analysis of curriculum implementation. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies,
2(2), 63-84.
Yildirim, A. (February, 2000). Teachers as constructors of meaning: Changing roles of teachers
and the case in Turkey. Presented as Plenary Speech at the 5th International BUSEL
Conference Excellence in Teaching. Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey.
Yildirim, A. (April, 1994). Temel program geliştirme modelleri ve ülkemizdeki program
geliştirme çalışmalarına etkileri (Curriculum development models and implications for
curriculum development in Turkey). I. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, Adana.
35
Yildirim, A. (April, 1999). Student assessment in high school social studies courses in Turkey:
Teachers' and students' perceptions. Paper presented at the annual conference of American
Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Yildirim, A. (in press). Instructional planning in a centralized school system: An assessment of
teachers’ planning at primary school level in Turkey. International Review of Education.