The Financial Management of
Primary Schools: Case Studies from
Turkey
AYŞEN KÖSE and AYTUĞ ŞAŞMAZ
Introduction
In this paper, we investigate the details of the funding system of primary education in Turkey,
and the consequences this mechanism generates especially at the school level. In order to
better explain these consequences, we then turn to the policies of the government shaping this
mechanism especially in the last decade. We find out that failed efforts towards
decentralization, quasi-privatization in schools through parent-teacher associations due to
insufficiency of public funds to cover current expenditures and the preference on the part of
the central government to use public funds for cash transfers to individual students rather than
increasing grants to schools led to the fact that public schools of primary education in Turkey
have become weak institutions which cannot diversify and improve the education services
they provide for their students. We hope that this paper can contribute to the studies of
education finance by showing the links between the policies of remote central governments
and the consequences of them in the level of schools in a clear and comprehensive way.
The Constitution of Turkey states that primary education is compulsory for all girls and boys
and free of charge in public schools. Since the Basic Education Reform in 1997, primary
education begins at the age of 6 and lasts for eight years, covering also the lower secondary
education in international terms (ISCED 2). While there are some exceptions especially in the
rural area, most students are expected to attend the same school for eight years. Although
there are private schools and special education schools, the overwhelming majority of
students in primary education attend public schools. Thus, public primary schools are central
to Turkish education system, hosting 65% of all students in formal K-12 education (see Table
1).
1
Table 1: Number of enrolled students and enrolment ratios in different levels of education in Turkey, 20102011
Number of
enrolled
students
Net
enrolment
ratio
Gross
enrolment
ratio
1,115,818
29.9%
N/A
Public primary schools (incl.
regional boarding primary
schools)
10,289,370
98.41%
107.58%
Public schools for students
with special needs
19,177
Private primary schools
267,294
69.33%
93.34%
Pre-primary education
Primary education
Secondary education
3,970,397
Source: MoNE and Turkstat, Statistics of National Education, Formal Education, 2010-2011.
The sources and mechanisms through which primary education is financed can be important
in many ways. The most important questions may well be whether funds are sufficient to
carry on and improve education services and also whether public and/or private funds are
used to finance primary education. Another set of important questions relevant rather for
those systems which are concerned about the quality of education are related to the division of
roles and responsibilities between different levels of government in using the funds allocated
to primary education. Turkish education system can be hypothesized to be in the middle: The
system still copes with the issues of insufficiency of public funds as the number of students in
the formal education system is high due to the young demographics of the country (public
education spending is 4% of GDP as opposed to 5.7% in OECD countries) (ERI, 2011;
OECD, 2010). At the same time, all stakeholders aim to implement policies to improve the
quality of the system as the country ranked 32nd out of 34 OECD countries in the last cycle of
the PISA in 2009 (OECD, 2011). The quality of education is a concern for both the
government and different segments of the society, as the country aims to sustain its economic
growth.
In short, the structure through which Turkish primary education is financed can be
hypothesized to be coping with twin challenges: First, public funds allocated to education
may be frequently insufficient, and as a result, private spending on education may be quite
high. Secondly, the funding system may not be structured in a way that it can enhance and
support improvement and adaptability of education services provided by schools. Previous
2
work on financing of Turkish primary education overwhelmingly emphasized the former
challenge. There are many studies claiming that public funds are insufficient to cover the
expenses for primary education due to the young demographic structure, internal migration
towards larger cities in the country (Kavak et al., 1997; Altuntaş, 2005) and limitations put by
high amount of expenditures on investment (Koç, 2007). As a result, schools have to raise
revenue using different ways. Studies suggest that there 22 to 60 different sorts of revenue
generated by schools. Donations by parents, incomes generated through hiring out school
facilities such as canteen and school garden (as parking lots) and fees charged for pre-primary
classes make up the three most important sources of revenue (Kavak et al., 1997; Zoraloğlu et
al., 2005; Yolcu and Kurul, 2009). Studies also suggest that the sources of revenue may be
different for schools in different locations in terms of socio-economic status: While schools
located in higher socio-economic status may diversify their sources of revenue as they can
rent out school facilities better, those located in lower socio-economic status are more
dependent on donations by parents (Özdemir, 2011).
This study offers a more comprehensive picture. Thanks to its methodology which includes
review of legislation, review of relevant expenditure data, interviews with bureaucrats from
different public agencies in different levels and interviews with different stakeholders in 15
schools across Turkey, we consider both possibilities, namely the insufficiency of public
funds and inadequacy of the mechanisms to use them. We find out that both are important,
and explain the policies which are put into practice to overcome the insufficiency and also
those that led to the inadequacy, and how they play out in the school level. We conclude by
suggesting that, as one of the most rapidly growing countries in the world, Turkey should
consider to restructure its funding system for primary education to be able to position schools
as powerful institutions so that it can increase the quality of education.
This study was enabled through a Project Cooperation Agreement signed between UNICEF
Turkey Country Office and Education Reform Initiative (ERI), an education policy think-tank
based in Istanbul. Funded jointly, but by a greater extent by UNICEF, two institutions are
collaborating with the DG for Basic Education of the Ministry of National Education of
Turkey (MoNE) to conduct research in three different areas. “Financial Management of
Primary Education” is one of these studies. In each of these areas, research reports are
prepared out of whose findings policy options and recommendations will be presented to
3
MoNE. Research reports and policy notes are soon to be published jointly by MoNE,
UNICEF and ERI.1
Methodology
This is a descriptive research aiming at explaining the current funding system of primary
education in Turkey with its public and private sources. This section explains the
methodology of the research including how the participants are selected and which methods
are used to collect and analyze data.
The study has been carried out using the multiple case study method, which is one of the
qualitative research methods. In this study, the phenomenon examined at the micro (school)
level is the process of raising and spending both monetary and in kind resources flowing from
private contributors to public primary schools. The phenomenon in question is a complex
process since it is not possible to clearly separate this phenomenon from the school itself and
from the other dynamics that affect the school. Therefore, it needs to be thoroughly examined
within its own real life framework. Since the main objective of case studies is to seek for
answers to the questions of "how" and "why" by thorough and on-site examination of a
phenomenon with intricate layers, case study method is considered suitable for this research.
The only difference between a multiple case study and a case study is the examination of the
topic in question not in one site but in multiple sites. This way, gaining insight as to how the
phenomenon changes in similar and different contexts becomes possible and informational
richness of the research, its trustworthiness and reliability increase. By including 15 different
schools to the project, the study aims to benefit from this powerful side of multiple case study
method.
Selection of the Provinces and Schools
In the selection process of the provinces and the schools included in this study, the "maximum
variation sampling" method as one of the "purposeful sampling" methods has been utilized.
The maximum variation sampling method can be defined as the examination of the studied
1
This paper is based solely on the authors’ individual opinions and does not reflect the opinions of the Ministry
of National Education of Turkey, UNICEF Turkey and Education Reform Initiative. The authors are thankful to
staff of all three organizations, and especially to Ayşe Nal and Deniz İlhan for their able assistance during the
data collection and entry periods.
4
topic in sites with different features, qualities, locations, and stata, and the finding of the
common patterns in these various situations (Lindlof &Taylor, 2010). In multiple case studies,
this method is suggested to ensure the richness of the data gathered (Merriam, 2002).
Especially when one considers that there are significant differences among regions in our
country in terms of socio-economic level, the existence of young population and school types,
the use of maximum variation sampling is important in revealing the different dimensions of
the problem. In short, in this study, the objective is to reflect the selected schools'
characteristics related to the study with the highest possible variety. The selection of the
provinces and the schools included in this study has been made by taking this objective into
consideration.
To sum up, the selected provinces were: Şanlıurfa, where public educational expenses per
student and GDP per capita are low; Karaman, where public educational expenses per student
and GDP per capita are high and, at the same time, the student population comprises a large
part of the total population in the; and Istanbul, which has a special status for Turkey in every
way in terms of variety.
The principles of maximum variation sampling method have been decisive in the selection of
the schools as well. Special attention has been paid to include public primary schools with
different features in the scope of the study. Therefore, five different types of primary schools
including regional boarding primary schools (yatılı ilköğretim bölge okulu, YİBO), schools
which operate as centers of transportation, schools with multi-grade classes, and schools
operating double shifts in addition to primary schools operating single shift per day have been
selected for the purposes of the study. Moreover, the number of students in the schools (over
500 and below 500) and the socio-economic status of the region in which they are located
(low socio-economic status and high socio-economic status) have been determined as criteria
and interviews have been made at least in one school that meets these criteria (See
5
Table 2).
6
Table 2: Participant schools in the study
School type
Low SES
High SES
Number of students
Number of students
0-500
500+
0-500
500+
Schools with single shift
İSTANBUL
School N
KARAMAN
School A
KARAMAN
School D
İSTANBUL
School P
İSTANBUL
School R &
School S
Schools with double
shifts
A small school
operating double
shifts does not
exist
ŞANLIURFA
School G
(also operates a
center of
transportation)
ŞANLIURFA
School L
İSTANBUL
School M
A small school
operating double
shifts does not
exist
ŞANLIURFA
School K
YİBO
KARAMAN School E (297 students)
ŞANLIURFA School H (294 students)
Schools with multi-grade
classes
ŞANLIURFA School F (181 students)
Schools operating as
centers of transportation
KARAMAN
School C (452 students)
Shool B (246 students)
Participants
In this study, the participants can be divided into two groups. The participants in the first
group are composed of various bureaucrats working in the agencies of central and local
government. Through the interviews made with these actors, the macro level data of the study
have been collected. The participants in the second group are the actors that affect the process
of raising and spending resources in cash and in kind and are affected by the same process.
Through the interviews made with these actors, the micro level data of the study have been
collected.
Interviews have been made with representatives who have been chosen among all kinds of
stakeholders. This way, the study tries to represent different viewpoints, interests and values,
and this has played a critical role in reaching a point of data saturation.
7
Data Collection Methods
Macro Level Data: Three different methods have been used in collecting the macro level data
of the study: First, all legal documents regulating the funding system in public primary
schools have been examined. This way, the information has been collected about the role
assumed by the public sector in financing the schools and division of this role among the
institutions. These documents have also showed some guidance in the preparation of the
interview questions. Secondly, the expenditure data on financing primary education published
by relevant institutions, but mostly by the Ministry of Finance (MoF) at the national level
have been examined. The data collected have been re-grouped in the context of the definitions
made for the study and analyzed descriptively. Lastly, semi-structured interviews have been
carried out with various actors working for the agencies of central and local government in
Ankara and in three provinces where the study took place. By this way, findings about the
details of the operation of the funding system have been tried to be attained. The interviewees
have been detailed in Table 3.
Micro Level Data: In collecting the micro level data of the study, semi-structured interviews
have been utilized as the basic data collection method. Interview questions have been formed
based on the researchers’ review of the legislation, previous information obtained from the
literature and the pre-interviews carried out with experts. During the field research, interviews
have been made with 138 people. Information about the interviewees has been detailed in the
Table 4.
Document analysis has also been carried out to complement the interviews. The schools'
estimated budgets regarding the 2010-2011 school year and Parent-Teacher Associations'
revenue and expenditure statements regarding the same period, have been examined for the
purposes of this study. Especially the estimated budgets have been an important source in
comparing the schools. Furthermore, the observations the researchers made during the school
visits have been recorded in standardized observation forms.
Finally, surveys have been sent to 1500 parents and 1306 of them turned back. With these
surveys, the opinions of the parents about financing of the school have been investigated.
Frequency and percentage distributions related to each question have been found out and each
question has also been analyzed in terms of socio-economic status and education level of
parents. In this analysis, SPSS statistical software is utilized.
8
Table 3: Participants interviewed for macro level analysis
Ankara
Karaman
Şanlıurfa
İstanbul
State Planning Organization
1
-
-
-
Ministry of Finance
2
-
-
-
MoNE Presidency for Strategy
Development
5
-
-
-
MoNE DG for Basic Education
2
-
-
-
MoNE Unit for Internal Evaluation
1
-
-
-
MoNE Presidency for Coordination of
Projects
1
Provincial Directorates of Education
-
1
1
1
District Directorates of Education
-
1
3
-
Provincial Administrations (PAs)
-
1
1
1
PAs’ Special Units for Providing
Service for Villages
-
1
1
-
Social Assistance Foundations
affiliated to DG for Social Assistance
-
1
-
-
TOTAL
12
5
6
2
Table 4: Participants interviewed for micro level analysis
SCHOOL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
K
L
M
N
P
R
S
Principal
1
-
1
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Vice
Principal
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acting
Vice
Principal
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rep. of
PTA
1
1
1
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
-
3
1
1
Teacher
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
Parent
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
Student
5
2
5
2
4
3
1
4
2
3
2
2
-
3
2
TOTAL
14
8
14
7
11
8
8
10
8
9
8
7
8
10
8
9
Analysis of the Interviews
The research data collected through the interviews have been examined with line-by-line
method in three stages. First of all, all interviews, sound recordings and researcher notes have
been transcribed, and over this transcription, open coding has been initially carried out. In the
process of open coding, a concept in an interview has been listed, in the form of words or
short words, as an important situation, dimension, concept or idea in the framework of the
study. By being marked this way, the important data have been simplified for more detailed
examination, and this way, important points regarding the research question have been put
forward. In short, in this process, a key code list has been formed in order to assist the later
stages of the analysis.
In the second stage of the analysis, axial coding is used. The key code list formed thanks to
the open coding has been examined in detail and the codes thought to have similar meanings
have been combined. Later, the connection and the links between these codes are determined
and the themes that explain this connection and the relations as a whole have been found out.
The themes have been organized under the research questions. At last stage of the analysis,
which is selective coding, the relations between the themes have been determined and a
higher main theme has been developed.
Division of Roles Among Various Public Institutions in Financing
Public Primary Education
In this section, we explain how the public spending for primary education is planned and
executed in Turkey. While doing this, we would like to draw attention to the institutions
involved and the relationships between them, as they would later shed light on how policies
are turned into practice. At the end of the section, we describe various forms of public
spending undertaken by these institutions, which we found out through review of expenditure
data and relevant legislation as well as the semi-structured interviews held with bureaucrats in
various public agencies. We take 2009 as the example year, because the most reliable data is
available for that fiscal year. The amounts are reported in 2010 price level.
Each year, budget-making process in the central government of Turkey starts with a circular
order released by the Ministry of Finance (MoF). For each ministry and agency of the central
government, MoF designates the upper limit of expenditures to be undertaken next year in
10
different categories of spending (such as personnel expenditure, purchasing of goods and
services, investment…). As a result, MoF is a very powerful actor in the budget-making
process, since transcending the upper limits put by MoF at the start of the budget-making is
only an exception. The President for Strategy Development within MoNE, which acts like an
office of budgeting, transfers this circular order to different DGs under MoNE, and requests
them to prepare their budgets for the next fiscal year in line with the norms set by the MoF.
Thus, within MoNE, primary role in budget-making is played by individual DGs, rather than
an office affiliated directly to the Minister.
In Turkey, teachers are directly hired by MoNE and the decision about how many teachers
will be hired in the next fiscal year is up to the Cabinet of Ministers. The salaries and social
security payments of teachers and other personnel in schools are undertaken directly by the
central government, without any interference of local government or outposts of MoNE in
provinces.
The grants for non-personnel current expenditures of public primary schools (except those of
regional boarding schools) are transferred by MoNE to Provincial Administrations (PAs) in
each of 81 provinces of Turkey. PAs in Turkey are constitutionally local governments with
elected councils but the governor who is responsible for executing the decisions taken by the
elected councils are appointed by the central government in Ankara. Thus, PAs can be
classified as a hybrid organization between local government and outpost of central
government. The grants received by PAs from MoNE for non-personnel current expenditures
of schools are mainly used to pay water, electricity, heating and telecommunication bills. PAs
directly pay those bills for schools without transferring any funds to the schools. The grants
transferred by MoNE also includes lines for purchases of materials and equipment and smallscale maintenance and reparation works, but schools we have visited for this study reported
that they very rarely receive such goods or services from PAs. The bureaucrats of PAs we
interviewed openly stated that undertaking current expenditures of public schools increased
the workload and they perceive it as an unnecessary burden. Compared to the provincial
directorates of education (PDEs) they do not see themselves as the “owners” of schools.
Therefore, they do not take spending decisions on the funds transferred from MoNE, without
the written request of PDEs through the governor. This clearly complicates the execution of
spending decisions.
11
When allocating the grants for non-personnel current expenditures to provinces, MoNE uses
different formulae for each line item. For instance, number of students in that province is
taken into account for the allocation of the grant for “Water Purchases”, whereas number of
classrooms is used for the allocation of the grant for “Electricity Purchases”. Each province
has a “point” for climate, which increases as the province gets colder, i.e. its need for
“Purchases of Heating Goods and Services” increases. One can conclude that this complicated
system has been elaborated throughout the years to allocate scarce funds to provinces in the
most efficient way possible.
The grants of investment expenditure are also transferred by MoNE to PAs. PAs are much
more comfortable in taking spending decisions for the grants for investment expenditures. By
the Law on Primary Education they have to allocate 20% of their own budget to primary
education, as well. The bureaucrats we interviewed in PAs stated that they mostly use their
own funds for investment expenditures. The allocation of investment grants from MoNE to
provinces are legally based on the proposals collected from PDEs, but the decisions are
mostly made through bargaining behind closed doors which also involves MPs, as these
grants are mostly used for school building.
The cities and towns in provinces have municipalities as a form of local government whose all
decision-making organs are elected. Municipalities are not obliged to participate in the
expenditures for public education, but they are allowed to cover non-personnel current and
investment expenditures of schools if they are willing to do so.
As opposed to thousands of public primary schools which do not receive any public fund in
cash, regional boarding schools do receive public funds to cover the expenditures of their
dormitories. These are the only schools which have some autonomy on how to spend the
funds they receive from the central government.
The expenditures made for transportation of students in rural areas are undertaken by PDEs
through the funds transferred by MoNE. School meals in Turkey are only provided for those
students who are bussed to schools every day. The funds for school meals are transferred from
the Directorate-General for Social Assistance (DG-SA, which is affiliated directly to the
Office of the Prime Minister) to PDEs.
12
DG-SA is an important public agency in the funding system of primary education because it
mainly provides the funds for the scholarships and aids directly to students. Among the
programs covered by the DG-SA are conditional cash transfers and the aid for educational
materials. These programs are executed by Social Assistance Foundations established as the
outposts of the DG-SA in each province and district of Turkey. DG-SA also supplies the
funds to the central organization of MoNE through which MoNE purchases textbooks for
each public primary school student in Turkey and distributes them to each school. The
increasing role of DG-SA will be discussed in more detail below.
To complicate the picture even more, there are also grants transferred from MoNE to Housing
Development Agency (HDA), another agency directly affiliated to the Office of the Prime
Minister, so that it can build public primary schools.
Table 5 summarizes the categories of public spending in primary education, and the amounts
spent for each category. Briefly, the table suggest that the central government is mainly
involved for undertaking the expenditures for the (teaching) staff and providing aids and
scholarships for students in need. To increase the rates of enrolment especially in rural areas,
important amounts of funds are spent for transportation and current expenditures of regional
boarding schools. Yet, the institution which loses in this environment is the (non-boarding)
public primary school. In order to be able to share the burden of current expenditures of these
schools, central government transfers the grants for these expenditures to PAs and enforces
them by law to make contributions for current expenditures, yet PAs are unwilling to take the
responsibility for public primary schools. The funds are also indeed scarce (400 million TL
for more than 32,000 individual schools) which is hardly enough to pay the regular bills, let
alone undertaking discretionary spending. The gap is covered by the additional funds from the
budget of PAs, most probably only in provinces where there is no more need for more
classrooms and schools and where PA and the PDE can work in harmony. The details of the
flow of funds can be seen in Figure 1 below. The consequences of this funding system
structured around public primary schools will be discussed in the next section through
findings gathered via case studies of 15 different schools.
13
Table 5: Categories of public spending for primary education and expenditures in 2009
Category of spending
Expenditures in
2009 (in 2010 TL)
Expenditures for staff (paid directly by MoNE to the
staff)
Share in total
12.567.161.603
73,2%
1.473.798.839
8,6%
Non-personnel current expenditures for schools
(Grants transferred by MoNE to PAs)
395.775.131
2,3%
Capital expenditures (Grants transferred by MoNE to
PAs)
469.342.540
2,7%
Expenditures undertaken by PAs and municipalities
with own sources (Non-personnel current and
investment) (mostly used by PAs for investment)
496.849.092
2,9%
Non-personnel current expenditures of boarding
schools (Grants transferred by MoNE to boarding
schools)
204.563.015
1,2%
83.197.165
0,5%
Expenditures for transportation of students in rural
areas (bussing and school meal)
682.632.528
4,0%
Aids and scholarships (mainly by DG-SA directly to
students)
730.612.043
4,3%
64.211.960
0,4%
Social security expenditures for staff (paid directly by
MoNE to Social Security Agency)
Transfers for capital expenditures (Grants transferred
by MoNE to HDA)
Other expenditures by the central government
Sources: Authors’ calculations based on Bulletins of Public Accounts available online at the website of Ministry of Finance
Directorate General for Public Accounts; Database on Expenditures of Ministry of National Education, 2005-2009 (shared with
ERI); Expenditures of MoNE in 2010; Annual Report of Directorate General for Social Assistance 2010; Presentation of the
Minister of National Education on 2012 Budget.
Sources and explanations for Figure 1 (next page): Authors’ findings based on review of legislation and interviews with
bureaucrats in public agencies of central and local government. Arrows with dashed line symbolize spending of funds whereas
arrows with flat line symbolize transfer of grants from one agency to another.
Abbreviations in Table 5 and Figure 1: MoNE: Ministry of National Education, DG-SA: Directorate General for Social Assistance,
PA: Provincial Administration, HDA: Housing Development Agency; SPO: State Planning Organization; SAF: Social Assistance
Foundation; PDE: Provincial Directorate of Education.
14
Figure 1: Flow of public funds for primary education from and to various agencies
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DG-SOCIAL
ASSISTANCE
DG-SOCIAL
ASSISTANCE
MoNE / SPO
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL EDUCATION
Contri-bution
of PAs
Contribution of Provincial Administations (PAs)
PROVINCIAL DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION / PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION
PDE / PA
DISTRICT DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION /
OUTPOST OF PA IN DISTRICT
HDA
SAF
PERSONNEL
EXPENDITURES
CURRENT EXPENDITURES: EDUCATIONRELATED
CURRENT EXPENDITURES:
OPERATIONAL
TRANS
-FERS
BUILDING SCHOOLS
LARGE-SCALE
REPAIRMENT
AIDS/SCHOLARSHIPS
SCHOOL MEALS
ACCOMMODATION
TRANSPORTATION
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
WATER/ELECTRICITY/
HEATING
CLEANING
SMALL-SCALE MAINTENANCE
AND REPAIRMENT
EXTRACURRICULAR
ACTIVITIES
PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT OF
TEACHERS
EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS
(Durables for school)
EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS
(Textbooks and stationery)
NON-TEACHING
PERSONNEL
TEACHERS
BOARDING
SCHOOLS
CAPITAL
EXPENDITURES
15
School Level Analysis across 15 Case Studies
As has been explained in detail at the macro level, the salaries of teachers and some
expenditures of schools namely electricity, water, and heating are covered by the central
government in Turkey. There is, however, no budget allocated to the schools for other
expenses. Therefore, schools have to generate their own revenue and depend largely on the
donations made by parents and other contributors. With the Bylaw on Parent-Teacher
Association that entered into force in 2005, the state almost officially approved this situation.
According to the Bylaw, accepting parents' donations, organizing revenue creating activities,
and taking advantage of opportunities for revenues already existing in schools, are legally
defined as the responsibilities of the Parent-Teacher Associations (PTA). According to this
bylaw, every school must have a Parent-Teacher Association that takes on these
responsibilities.
Therefore, the main purpose of this analysis at the school level is to examine both monetary
and in-kind resources raised through PTAs. More specifically, the following three questions
are answered in this field research:

In public primary schools, how does the process of raising monetary and in-kind
revenue from private sources work?

In public primary schools, how does the process of spending of monetary and in-kind
funds from private sources work in practice?

What are the perceptions of stakeholders in primary education with regard to the
practices in financing primary education?
The data set for obtaining findings at the school level were acquired through parent surveys
and face-to-face interviews carried out by 138 interviewees at 15 schools in three different
provinces. In the following section, the findings of the field research carried out in 15 schools
are presented in detail.
The Private Giving Received by Schools
Fully understanding the private giving received by schools is an issue of both policy-making
and equity and also understanding them provides whole picture of funding system of primary
16
education. Therefore, in following, we describe the types of private contributions to public
primary schools. These are emerged as: parents’ donations, donations from out-of-school
people or entities, revenue received from the rental of school property and special activities,
and finally the municipal aids. Although municipal aids should be considered public
spending, we give the details under the heading of “private giving”, since our data revealed
that interpersonal relationships play a significant role in schools obtaining municipal aid.
Parents’ Donation: In Turkey, the eight-year compulsory education is free of charge in public
schools by the Constitution. Therefore, requesting money from parents is illegal. In the
beginning of every school year, the media takes up the issue that legal action will be taken
against the principals who demand money from parents. In the same way, parents cannot be
forced to make donations according to the Bylaw on Parent-Teacher Association. Yet, the
findings of the field research suggest that, despite all the sanctions foreseen in legal
documents, in general meetings of the Parent-Teacher Association, the amount of donations in
cash that will be demanded from parents during the school year, is determined and parents are
asked for donations. These contributions are put on the records of the PTA as “voluntary
donations from parents.” The amount of donations demanded from parents change depending
on the average socio-economic level of parents. For instance, in our sample, schools located
in wealthy neighborhoods demanded 600 TL per student from parents, for schools in poorer
areas, this amount goes down to 5 TL per year.
During the interviews it is stated that since parents are not legally obliged to finance schools,
they refuse to pay these contributions. This finding is confirmed by parent surveys. For
instance, 67% of the parents who identify themselves in the low socio-economic income
group and 55% of the middle and high socio-economic income group do not approve that the
needs of the school are met with the contribution of the parents.
School principals, being otherwise helpless to address this issue, bring forward the issue of
financing the school expenditures, in the environments where more social pressure is exerted
on parents. For instance, parents’ meetings are considered as a way of collecting money from
parents. 42.5% of the parents noted that, in parents' meetings, money is collected for the needs
of the school. Moreover, %17 of the parents expressed that they do not attend parents'
meetings for this reason. In short, parents' meetings go beyond their scope. As for teachers,
they are held responsible by the school administrations for collecting these contributions and
17
informing parents through students about the contributions they have not paid. Teachers
expressed that this situation is not in accordance with occupational ethics, yet they are forced
to do it. 14% of the parents stated that they verbally argue with teachers or school
administration due to this demand for money.
Another type of donation collected from parents is registration fees. In Turkey, parents have
no right to choose the public schools they want. Each student has to go to a school in his/her
own neighborhood. Yet, even if it is limited, schools have a certain quota for students living
in neighborhoods outside their official area. Since it is believed that the quality of education
in wealthy neighborhoods is high, schools in these neighborhoods are in high demand. They
accept students living outside their zone and, despite its being illegal, these schools demand
registration fees as donations. The schools located in areas with a low socio-economic status
are not able to generate revenues this way. This is one of the factors that affect the revenue
difference between the schools in wealthy areas and the schools in areas with a low socioeconomic status.
According to the research findings, in the schools in wealthy neighborhoods, apart from the
registration fee, contributions in cash are expected to be paid throughout the year, and there is
also a demand from parents for furnishing the classrooms. The parents of the students who are
about to start first grade raise money among themselves and purchase technological
appliances such as computers, smart boards and projectors, acquire photocopy papers and
supplementary textbooks, and provide needs such as curtains or air-conditioners. This way,
classrooms equipped with quality instruments are formed.
On the other hand, in the schools in areas with a low socio-economic status visited in the
scope of this study, there are only seats and a board, and even photocopy papers are very
limited. In order to avoid expenditures, the teachers cannot ask for supplementary textbooks
and they even reserve some of their own budget in order to be able to cover the expenses of
the classroom. The students attending primary schools in areas with a low socio-economic
status are already deprived of this type of opportunities in the households they live and in
their social environment. The same deprivation continues at school as well and the schools’
capacity of bridging the social inequality is limited.
Out-of-School Donors: International organizations, non-governmental organizations, national
organizations, local associations and corporations also provide schools with donations in cash
18
and in kind. However, it is found that the donations by these types of organizations are made
according to the viewpoint or the organizational vision and agenda of the organization that
provides the donation.
The most important finding about acquiring these types of donations is that an individual's
relations, personal initiative, activeness, and assertiveness all play an important role. The
relationship with the donors depends not on the relationship between institutions, but on
individual's relations, the skill or the will of the individuals to take initiative. On the other
hand, this means that, in the event that the school stakeholder who sets up the connections
with the donors and the institutions leaves the school, the revenues coming from these donors
will stop. Therefore, it is not possible in the current situation to talk about a sustainable
relationship between donors and schools. For this reason, the more successful the school
stakeholders are in their initiatives to generate revenues for the schools’ needs, the more
opportunities the schools have. And according to stakeholders this creates the perception that
a principal who obtains funds for the school is a successful one, whereas a principal who
cannot achieve this is an unsuccessful one. Principals state that what matters now is not how
good an educational leader they are but whether they can raise revenues for the school. For
this reason, principals spend most of their time to collect funds from potential donors and they
expressed that their effort to find monetary and in-kind resources for the school is taking up
the time they could have spent on being an educational leader.
When the situation is examined in terms of revenues provided by external donors, it is
possible to say that schools do not have a foreseeable revenue flow. More importantly, that
some schools are more fortunate in terms of external donors while other schools are not is a
factor that deepens the inequality gap between the schools.
Revenue received from the rental of school property: In the research, it has been determined
that some primary schools have operating revenues from three different sources: rental
revenues acquired from renting of the canteen, the sports hall and the parking area. The main
finding related to the operating revenues is that, although operating revenue is important
revenue for schools, not every school has the opportunity to benefit from this type of revenue.
For instance, the schools in poor neighborhoods do not have canteen rental revenues or the
revenues is lesser compared to the schools in wealthy neighborhoods. Since the potential total
student spending in a canteen is an important criterion in determining the monthly rental value
19
of a canteen, the schools in areas with low socio-economic status cannot benefit from canteen
revenues as much as the schools in areas with high socio-economic status. The reason why
there is no canteen in some schools is that in these schools, the canteen does not bring much
income and so there is no one willing to run the canteen.
In the same way, some schools can get revenues from renting of the parking area, the sports
hall or the conference halls. Yet, it has been found out that only the schools in richer
neighborhoods can benefit from these types of revenues. In the schools located in poor
neighborhoods, there are either no such spaces or they are not adequately equipped for rentals.
In schools where there are no sports hall and conference hall, the students are already
deprived of many opportunities due to the lack of such spaces. On the other hand, schools
with such facilities can both offer their students various opportunities and obtain revenues by
renting these places outside educational hours. Therefore, it is possible to talk about a two
dimensional inequality here.
Special Events: The Bylaw on PTAs designates that schools can raise revenues through social,
cultural and sport activities, courses, projects, campaigns and such. Among the schools
examined only four of them expressed that they organize fairs, dinners for parents, trips and
theatre plays, and raise a certain amount of revenues from these activities. When the schools
that have institutionalized these organizations are examined, it is observable that these schools
are the schools with the highest socio-economic status.
This type of activities requires pre-planning, a serious organization -especially in crowded
schools-, volunteers for the organization and financial contribution of parents. When the
situation in question is evaluated with the fact that, in the schools in areas with a low socioeconomic status, Parent-Teacher Associations are not working as projected, the connection
between parents and the school is not established and the income profile of the parents are
low, it is understandable that raising funds through these types of special activities does not
appear as a viable alternative for the schools in areas with a low socio-economic status.
Among the activities the school carries out to generate revenues is issuing a school magazine.
Thanks to the ads published in the school magazine, the school can have some revenue. The
sales of these ads are made through the teachers. However, teacher participants of this study
20
believe that it is not appropriate to force them to perform a task that is outside their job
definition for generating revenues.
Municipal aids: It has been determined that all the schools in the scope of this study have
been receiving similar type of aids from municipalities. All the principals expressed that they
receive assistance from the municipalities in issues such as asphalting the school garden,
pouring of sand to the playground, placing benches inside the school, putting up the school
wall and maintenance of the school wall, cleaning of the sewer system, and maintenance of
the trees in the garden.
Although municipalities provide the above-mentioned services, there is no continuity in their
services. In other words, municipalities do not maintain school gardens periodically but
provide this service only upon the request of the schools. The personal relationship of the
principal or the other members in the school to the municipal or the role of the parents who
work at municipality play in making this task easier, are important factors determining
whether the services the school demanded will be provided and/or, if they are provided,
whether they will be provided on time.
On the other hand, some municipalities provide the schools with their services without any
demand. Some of the schools in the study described these municipalities as "school-friendly"
municipalities because of their attitude. For example, one municipality provided the school
with a full-time security guard and regular services for the cleaning of the school garden.
Another municipality takes the students and the teachers to theatre and cinema regularly, and
renews the school library. These are good examples of "school friendly" municipalities.
The findings related to the municipality-school relations prove that the services the
municipalities provide for the schools and their general policy related to the issue, create a
difference in terms of facilities offered to the students.
The Role of Parent-Teacher Association
So far, the ways the schools raise their own revenues have been discussed in detail. As
mentioned above, the executive board of PTAs is responsible for obtaining and spending
these revenues, and principals are members of this board. For this reason, the operation of
PTAs is examined closely to be able to understand the issue under investigation. With the
21
Bylaw on Parent-Teacher Association that entered into force in 2005, PTAs became the sole
responsible body in raising and spending revenues, operating the places belonging to the
school. According to the Bylaw, the parents who will preside over the association and the
parents who will take part in the executive board of the association shall be assigned by
election.
According to the findings of the field research, various difficulties are experienced in forming
and operating of PTAs in the way defined in the Bylaw. The greatest of these difficulties is
the problems experienced during the election of the members of the board. It has been
observed that, in practice, in the schools located in poorer areas, parents are reluctant to take
an active part in parent-teacher associations.
Faced with this situation the principals persistently request to take an active part in the PTA,
especially those parents who are personally too close to reject them, or those parents who
have personal connections with potential donors. Therefore, taking part in the parent-teacher
association has become a chore done as a favor instead of depending on choice and
willingness.
This forced formation of the PTAs results in an association that cannot perform its functions.
According to the statements of the principals, the president of the PTA only visits the school
on demand of the school administration when there is a document to be signed. Therefore, it
is not possible to say that they take part in the decision-making process about school budget
or that they perform the duties stated in the Bylaw.
For this reason, principals and vice principals take on the duties and responsibilities PTAs are
supposed to take. Apart from increasing the workload for the school administration, this also
raises questions about the existence of parent-teachers associations. Moreover, due to the
weakness of parent-teachers associations, principals have become the person with the most
influence over decisions about how to spend monetary donations.
According to the school stakeholders, the primary reason why difficulties are experienced in
forming the boards of PTAs and that they are units that cannot perform their functions, is the
weak connection between the schools and the parents in Turkey. On the other hand, since
taking an active part in PTA includes such chores as collecting donations, signing purchasing
22
decisions, and taking money out of the bank even for minor purchasing decisions, the parents
tend to avoid this.
As can be inferred from the findings above, it is possible to say that, in Turkey, elementary
schools differ a lot in terms of the revenue they get. Expenditures per student change as well.
For instance, among the 15 schools in the study, one school spends 11 TL per student
annually, while this number rises as high as 457 TL in another school. Considering that in
Turkey 1.780 TL is spent by the public agencies per student annually in 2009 (in 2010 prices)
by public funds at elementary school level, the significance of this difference can be better
understood.
When we also look at school-district relationship in terms of financial issues, it is seen that
school districts (provincial and/or district directorates of education) also have very limited
amount of resources and since this fact is known by the schools, principals do not even
attempt to ask any monetary or in kind help from the districts. Even if schools ask any
financial help such as contribution to small-scale repair and maintenance, school districts do
not respond timely to the request. Stated by the school administrators, it might take directorate
years to meet these requests. Neither is there a transparent approach to the prioritization of
these requests.
Moreover, schools are required to pay 20% percent of their own revenue to provincial/district
directorates, assuming that they can play a regulatory role to compensate disadvantaged
schools by using the money collected from individual schools. However, it is indicated during
the interviews with both school administrations and officials from district directorates, that in
practice this does not happen: the money collected by directorates is spent on the needs of the
directorate since the government also does not allocate any budget for district use.
In short, public primary schools become fully dependant on private giving. As the result of the
situation detailed above, the schools that can raise private revenues have richer opportunities
in terms of the variety of extracurricular activities, while the schools with no revenue lack this
type of opportunities. In the same vein, the schools with revenues can employ cleaning and
security personnel, diversify their educational materials and provide high-tech classrooms and
a more hygienic school environment. In schools with low revenues, even the most urgent
needs such as repair of school toilets or a broken classroom window are hardly covered.
23
Consequences of Which Policies? Policies Leading to the Current
Funding system of Primary Schools in Turkey
Previous sections of this article focused on how the funding system of primary education in
Turkey worked, and which consequences this mechanism generates especially at the school
level. In this section, we will focus on the policies shaping this mechanism, as they are very
important to the basic question of this article, namely whether public funds are insufficient to
meet the needs of primary schools in Turkey and/or the funding system is inadequate. The
policies we focus on are the increasing role of the Provincial Administrations (PAs) without
accompanying accountability mechanism, the acknowledgement of the importance of private
contributions for current expenditures through the renewal of the Bylaw on PTAs which can
be deemed as quasi-privatization and increased spending on transfers to individual students
while transfers for school expenditures stagnate. We witness that all of these policy
inclinations strengthened in the last decade.
Decentralization to Provincial Administrations
As we mentioned before, PAs are responsible for undertaking the non-personnel current
expenditures for public primary schools’ needs without the transferring the funds to school
administration. Since 1960s, PAs were responsible for undertaking capital expenditures for
primary education as they had to contribute to public spending for primary education with
20% of their own budgets. Throughout the years, PAs began to undertake the procurement
and purchasing work for current expenditures for primary schools as well, in collaboration
with provincial directorates for education (PDEs). In 2005, the law regulating PAs changed to
strengthen the local character and capacity of PAs. As a result of this process, PAs undertook
all non-personnel current expenditures of public primary schools except regional boarding
schools which receive public funds in cash from central government directly (Türkoğlu,
2004).
In 2003, the government started a process towards decentralization by passing a series of laws
on public administration in Turkey through the Parliament. It was the plan of the government
to abolish the local organization and outposts of MoNE in provinces, namely PDEs, and
transfer them to the control of the PAs entirely. Yet, the basic pieces of laws towards
decentralization were subject to intense public discussion and also to the veto of the president,
and the abolition of PDEs never came into effect. On the other hand, the law on PAs changed
24
successfully and they were strengthened in terms of both local character and capacity: The
elected council’s decision-making power and human resources to be employed by PAs
increased (Çiftepınar, 2006).
The reflection of this change in primary education sector was the increase of the role of PAs
in undertaking current expenditures of primary education schools. MoNE began to transfer all
grants for current expenditures of public primary schools to PAs. Although the grants were
earmarked, i.e. MoNE had designated for which purposes the grants were to be used, it was
up to the local discretion which districts of the province and which schools will be prioritized,
especially for the grants for small-scale maintenance and repairs and for purchasing school
durables. Yet, PAs were unwilling to decide on how to use these grants, although the
decision-making capacity of the elected council of the PA was increased by law. In practice,
PAs wait for the written requests of PDEs to use these grants. When we asked why this is the
case, bureaucrats at both PDEs and PAs told that the schools still belong to the MoNE and
PAs are not in a position to decide which schools’ needs should be prioritized. Moreover, in
line with the findings of Türkoğlu (2004) PAs still lack sufficient human resources to run the
whole operation for non-personnel current expenditures of schools and they require the
support of the personnel of PDEs. In two of three provinces we visited, members of the staff
of PDEs were in practice working full-time at the offices of the PA.
This situation, in practice, leaves PAs in a position in which they are not held accountable for
the decisions they make. Using the accountability framework introduced in World
Development Report 2004 (World Bank, 2004), the lack of accountability on the part of PAs
can be shown in a clear way. According to the WDR, “where the state and the public sector
are involved, voice (the accountability mechanism citizens exert on policymakers) and
compacts (the accountability mechanism policymakers exert on providers of public services)
make up the main control mechanism available to the citizen in the long route of
accountability” (Devarajan et al., 2007) (see Figure 2). Yet, PAs in the Turkish funding
system for primary education are exempt from both of these accountability mechanisms.
Many citizens do not even know that they have a role in the financing of education in Turkey
and they cannot be held accountable by the MoNE whose grants they use because they are
institutions of local government not to be held accountable by the agencies of the central
government. This leaves PAs in a strange position as shown in Figure 3.
25
Figure 2: The accountability framework of World Development Report 2004
Source: Devarajan et al., 2007.
Figure 3: The long accountability route in funding system of Turkish primary education and the place of
Provincial Administrations
Central government / Ministry
of National Education
COMPACT
COM
PACT
Provincial
administrations
VOI
CE
Provincial
Directorate of
Ed.
(Outpost of
MoNE)
VOICE
CO
MP
ACT
Citizens
Providers
Source: Authors’ evaluations and findings using the framework of Devarajan et al. (2007).
Cognizant of this strange situation, PAs require the requests of PDEs to use the grants for
primary education. Yet, this clearly complicates the procedure for spending public funds
especially for the grants in which discretion of an accountable decision-maker (such as
prioritization of some schools for the use of the grants for small-scale repairs and
26
maintenance) is required. This situation, which can be labelled as “partial decentralization” in
which citizens do not hold local governments accountable for the decisions the make and in
turn local governments do not try to increase their capacity to allocate budgetary resources
optimally across competing needs (Devarajan, 2007), increases the dependency of schools on
private contributions coming through PTAs.
Quasi-Privatization
Both the macro and micro level analysis of this current study revealed that public resources
are mainly used to pay teacher salaries, and public elementary schools receive any public fund
in cash from the government. Therefore, public primary schools are dependent on private
sources to run the schools. It is important to note that in current situation it is not possible to
examine the size and distribution of voluntary contributions to public primary schools at the
national level. This is due to the fact that there is no such mechanism that tracks how much
revenue individual schools receive from private entities. Even though there is no way to
investigate the whole picture on revenue, our school-level investigation shows that since
primary schools are short on money for everything from basic classroom needs to cleaning
personnel, public schools across the nation are seeking donors, grants and ways to utilize their
gyms, canteens and conference rooms to obtain some rental income for the school.
We argue that, in this sense, Turkish primary education is not purely public. It is much more
like a quasi-public. Although there is not enough research about school funding in Turkey, in
two recent articles, it was also indicated that since school funding relies heavily on private
contributions and no regulatory monitoring by the state means on how the schools use private
revenues they raise there is “quasi-privatization” in primary education in Turkey (Yolcu &
Kurul, 2009; Candaş et al., 2011).
The government has been reinforcing this quasi-public funding system formally since 2005 by
renewing the Bylaw on Parent Teacher Associations. Even though private funds supporting
public primary schools were known before this, in 2005 the Turkish government legitimized
the need for pursuing private support to finance education with the constitution of the bylaw.
Moreover, this bylaw required each school to pay 20% of their revenue to province/district
directorates of education, assuming that school districts can play a regulatory role to
compensate disadvantaged schools by using the money collected from individual schools.
However, as this study revealed, in practice this does not happen: the money collected by
27
PDEs is spent on the needs of that particular PDE, since the government does not allocate any
budget for the use of PDE, either. In short, public elementary schools become fully dependant
on the PTAs’ revenue.
When this bylaw is looked at closely, creating a PTA becomes mandatory in every public
primary school and there are many financial duties defined for the executive board, including
organising fundraising activities, accepting in kind and in cash supports and operating or
renting of the school’s gym, canteen, etc. By the hand of the government, they are becoming
liable for funding some activities and equipment, such as repair and maintenance of the
school, renewing facilities in common areas (labs, library), building extra classrooms,
providing teaching materials, and supporting school-wide special events.
Furthermore, with the PTA becoming the only organ that is responsible for funding schools
there is no governmental vehicle to monitor schools in terms of how much money an
individual school is raising and how school money is being spent. This paper supports the
idea that this system leads to a quasi-public financing system and it creates two unintended
consequences.
First of all, in the case of Turkey, the school-level data analyses suggest that, except the grants
for regional boarding schools and bussing in the rural area, there is no funding which could
have compensated for the inequalities between schools. Schools in affluent areas have an
advantage in obtaining financial support from parents and municipalities, finding private
donors and obtaining diverse revenues. All these factors exacerbate inequities in the
classroom. It is also possible to expand this argument and say that the current school funding
system exacerbates inequities in Turkish society since the state does not play any regulatory
role to compensate the disadvantages of poor schools. Although there are many concerns
stated in the literature about private donation increasing the inequalities between schools,
Zimmer, Krop, Kaganoff, Ross and Brewer (2001) found in their study conducted in Los
Angeles County that despite schools in poor communities not getting as much monetary and
in kind contributions from parents as those in wealthy communities, they attract more
philanthropists and corporations, hence they are able to close the financial gap. However, our
study shows that, due to the amount of money a school gets from private donors mostly
depending upon personal contacts and school principals’ assertiveness, wealthy schools can
still benefit more from donations from philanthropists and corporations.
28
Second, a micro-level case analysis of 15 schools shows that even though the PTA board is
described as the main decision making organ on spending of the school budget, in reality,
since PTAs are so weak, school principals become the only decision-makers on how to spend
the school budget. The principals assume full authority and have full autonomy over the
money, without any accountability to the local government or parents. As a result, how
efficient the school uses the money has become totally person-dependant. Although in the
literature it is indicated that the contribution of parents and community to the school budget
leads to stronger governance and management and fiscal discipline in schools since
philanthropists insist on results after making donations (Colvin, 2005), in our investigation we
could not find any evidence that donors or PTAs have active, hands-on involvement in
decision-making processes.
Preferring Transfers to Individuals Over Grants to Schools
The fact that public primary schools in Turkey experience a great deal of problems of
financing and have to resort private contributions from parents and other donors through
PTAs may lead one to think that public spending on primary education in Turkey is
decreasing, or at least, stagnating. Yet, the figures in Table 6 suggest the opposite: From 2006
to 2010, public spending for primary education increased (in fixed prices) from 13.9 billion
TL to 18.3 billion TL, and per student spending rose from 1,359 TL to 1,780 TL. So where
did the money go?
First of all, it is remarkable that the expenditures for personnel have went up. Indeed, the
student/teacher ration in primary education went down from 27 in 2005-2006 to 22 in 20092010 (ERI, 2011), which seems to be a reasonable way to increase spending as the average in
OECD countries was 16 in 2008 in the same level of education (OECD, 2008).
Other remarkable category of spending in Table 6 is the aids and scholarships mainly
undertaken by Directorate General for Social Assistance (DG-SA), which is not part of MoNE
and directly affiliated to the Office of Prime Minister. DG-SA uses a special fund which is not
under the control of the Ministry of Finance. The revenues of this fund come from various
sources of direct and indirect taxation and the percentages transferred from categories of taxes
to the fund is up to the discretion of Council of Ministers. The DG has also a special way to
spend the fund: In each province and district of Turkey a “Foundation of Social Assistance” is
established by law whose executive board is composed of the directors of outposts of central
29
government agencies in that district. This board decides how to use the funds granted by the
DG-SA in Ankara and which families and children should receive aid and scholarship.
As seen in Table 6, the spending from the sources of DG-SA for public primary education
increased fast. This spending mainly takes three forms: (1) Each year, DG-SA transfers
approximately one-third of its contribution to primary education to MoNE, so that MoNE can
purchase textbooks for each student in primary education and distributes these textbooks to
schools on the first day of the school year. (2) Another one-third of spending goes to
foundations of social assistance under the heading of “Aid for Education Materials”. This aid
is awarded by the foundation in cash or in kind to families which is deemed by the foundation
as in need of support for purchasing education materials in the beginning of the school year.
(3) Approximately one-third of spending goes to “conditional cash transfers” in primary
education. This is a program which was recommended to Turkey by World Bank during the
2001 financial crisis to ensure school attendance. Accordingly, the mothers of children in the
poorest segment of the society who regularly attend schools receive monthly payments.
Again, who will receive the payment is up to the decision of the board of foundation, but
conditional cash transfers are subject to much more detailed and objective conditions.
We do not claim that spending on transfers to individual students is unnecessary and only
populist. We just suggest that the government in Turkey has had the tools to increase
spending on public primary education in Turkey, and it preferred to do that by increasing in
cash or in kind transfers to individual students rather than increasing the grants awarded to
provinces or schools. Coinciding with other policies of the government around 2004 and
2005, this led to further weakening of schools as education institutions. The government
assumed that schools should be able to raise revenue to meet their needs, while it provides the
teachers and ensures that children are attending schools through various forms of individual
transfers.
30
Table 6: Public spending on primary education in Turkey from 2006 to 2010 (in Turkish Lira, in 2010 prices)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Expenditures for staff
9.813.410.494
10.961.316.334
11.297.061.742
12.567.161.603
13.018.929.485
Social security expenditures for staff
1.198.845.963
1.322.638.452
1.346.919.327
1.473.798.839
2.242.980.638
Non-personnel current expenditures for schools (Grants
transferred by MoNE to SPAs)
337.826.159
340.748.546
345.494.030
395.775.131
351.996.701
Capital expenditures (Grants transferred by MoNE to SPAs)
748.174.229
847.936.570
580.460.744
469.342.540
537.800.745
Expenditures undertaken by SPAs and municipalities with
own sources (Non-personnel current and investment)
261.701.761
314.424.599
399.333.808
496.849.092
399.933.554
Non-personnel current and capital expenditures of boarding
schools (Grants transferred by MoNE to boarding schools)
250.188.746
260.522.426
225.111.518
204.563.015
224.922.110
Transfers for capital expenditures (Grants transferred by
MoNE to HDA)
-
-
28.403.318
83.197.165
150.000.000
Expenditures for transportation of students in rural areas
(bussing and school meal)
619.969.181
622.703.876
615.418.897
682.632.528
668.500.000
Aids and scholarships (mainly by DG-SA directly to
students)
598.044.107
605.073.071
643.097.411
730.612.043
603.232.753
Other expenditures by the central government
47.118.632
51.063.843
67.089.891
64.211.960
57.150.016
TOTAL PUBLIC SPENDING
13.875.279.274
15.326.427.718
15.548.390.685
17.168.143.915
18.255.446.002
Number of students in public primary education
10.209.844
10.330.690
10.316.056
10.107.614
10.257.169
Per student spending in public primary education
1.359
1.484
1.507
1.699
1.780
Sources: Authors’ calculations based on various sources (see Table 5).
31
Conclusion
In this study the financing of primary education was examined at both policy and school
levels and the process was taken as a whole. This holistic nature will help actors playing key
roles in policy and strategy development to address the issue from a wide angle. Going
through the relevant literature we came across no other comprehensive study on the financing
of primary education in Turkey as the present one does. Thus, we hope the study also fills an
important gap in literature.
Although Turkish government define its responsibility to fund public education, current
funding system is not positioned to maximize equality of opportunity for all. We conclude
that, some government policies worsen this situation. These are decentralization policies
which failed due to lack of functioning accountability mechanisms, spending decisions
preferring transfers to individual students over grants to schools, and the funding system
which is at least partially privatized.
Relying on private contributions to close budget deficits in funding public schools and on
transfers to students is not a panacea for improvement of education system. In addition to
preferences of the central government, nearly all of the private contributions are spent for
“lower leverage” activities such as buying additional resources and equipments offering no
pedagogical or curricular innovation (Hansen, 2007). Those lower leverage spending do not
bring any systematic improvement to the whole education system. What we rather need is
investment on research and advocacy to foster educational quality (Hansen, 2007). Otherwise,
it would be violating the basic right of our children to receive a quality education.
Turning back to one of the basic questions of this article, namely whether Turkish education
system suffers from insufficiency of public funds on primary education or rather from
inadequacy of the funding mechanism, we can claim that we have evidence for both. First,
1,600-1,700 TL public spending per student/year, especially taking into consideration that 40
TL for non-personnel current expenditures per student/year, cannot be deemed as sufficient.
In addition, the place of PAs in the funding system exempt from any kind of accountability,
the increasing role of DG-SA and the non-existence of schools in making decisions on
spending public funds, suggest that the funding system is not as rational as it could have been.
Thus, the system needs a complete overhauls from both aspects.
32
References
Altuntaş, S. Y. (2005). İlköğretim Okullarının Finansman İhtiyaçlarını Karşılama Düzeyleri.
Unpublished master’s thesis. Yüzüncü Yıl University.
Candaş, A., Ekim-Akkan, B., Günseli, S., and Deniz, M. B. (2011). Devlet İlköğretim Okullarında
Ücretsiz Öğle Yemeği Sağlamak Mümkün mü?. İstanbul: Open Society Foundation.
Çiftepınar, R. (2006). “Yeni İl Özel İdaresi Yasası’na Eleştirel Bir Bakış”. Yasama, 2, 123-145.
Colvin, R. L. (2005). “A New Generation of Philanthropist and Their Great Ambitions” in Frederick M.
Hess, ed., With the Best Intentions: How Philanthropy is Reshaping K-12 Education, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Devarajan, S., Khemani, S. and Shah, S. (2007). The Politics of Partial Decentralization. The World
Bank.
ERI (Education Reform Initiative) (2011). Education Monitoring Report 2010 Executive Summary.
Istanbul: Education Reform Initiative.
Hansen, J.S. (2007). “The role of nongovernmental organizations in financing public schools.” In E.
Fiske & H. Ladd (Eds.), Handbook of research in education and policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kavak, Y., Ekinci, E. and Gökçe, F. (1997). “İlköğretimde Kaynak Arayışları”. Eğitim Yönetimi, 3 (3),
309-320.
Koç, H. (2007). “Eğitim Sisteminin Finansmanı”. Gazi Üniversitesi Endüstriyel Sanatlar Eğitimi
Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 39-50.
Lindlof, T.R, and Taylor, B.C (2010). Qualitative Communication. Research Methods (Third Edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. and associates (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and
analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
OECD (2008). Education at a Glance 2008. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2010). Education at a Glance 2010. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2011). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Özdemir, N. (2011). İlköğretim Finansmanında Bir Araç: Okul-Aile Birliği Bütçe Analizi (Ankara
Örneği). Unpublished master’s thesis. Hacettepe University.
Türkoğlu, R. (2004). “Eğitimde Yerelleşme Sorununa Kamu Yönetimi Temel Kanunu Tasarısı ve Yerel
Yönetim Yasa Tasarısının Getirdiği Çözümler Konusunda Yerel Yöneticilerin Görüşleri”. İnönü
Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5 (8).
Yolcu, H. and Kurul, N. (2009). “Evaluating the Finance of Primary Education in Turkey within the
Context of Neo-Liberal Policies”. International Journal of Educational Policies, 3 (2), 24-45.
Zimmer, R. W., Krop, C., Brewer, D. J., (2003). “Private Resources in Public Schools: Evidence from a
Pilot Study”. Journal of Education Finance, 28, Spring, 485-522.
Zoraloğlu, Y. R., Şahin, İ. and Fırat, N. S. (2004). “İlköğretim Okullarının Finansal Kaynak Bulmada
Karşılaştıkları Güçlükler”. Eğitim Bilim Toplum, 2 (8), 4-17.
33