Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Özel Öğretim Kurumlarında Uygulanan Eğitim ve Öğretim Desteği Politikası: Gerekçe ve Sonuçların İncelenmesi (2014-2017)

Year 2020, Volume: 16 Issue: 1, 83 - 98, 30.06.2020
https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.750047

Abstract

Kupon uygulamaları, politika oluşturma, uygulama ve sonuçları açısından dünya üzerinde çeşitli ülke deneyimlerinin olduğu eğitimde özelleştirme mekanizmalarındandır. Türkiye’de eğitimde özel sektörün payının artırılması amacıyla 2014-2015 eğitim-öğretim yılında özel okullara devam edecek öğrencilere yönelik Eğitim ve Öğretim Desteği politikası uygulamaya konulmuştur. Bu çalışmanın amacı, özel okula devam edecek öğrencilere uygulanan Eğitim ve Öğretim Desteği Politikasının ilk dört yıllık uygulama sürecini, amaçları, gerekçeleri ve istenilen sonuçları açısından betimlemek ve değerlendirmektir. Nitel durum çalışması olarak tasarlanan araştırmada veri kaynağı olarak, Eğitim ve Öğretim Desteği Politikasına ilişkin politika belgeleri ve ulusal istatistikler kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre, Türkiye kupon örneğinde kullanılan neoliberal ekonomik gerekçeler, kaynakların etkili kullanımı, dezavantajlı öğrenciler için eşitliğin artırılması ve sınıf mevcutlarının azaltılması ve okullar arası rekabetin artırılmasıyla eğitim kalitesinin artırılmasıdır. Teşvikten yararlanacaklar için belirlenen ölçütlerin düşük-orta gelir grubu ailelerden oluşan bir yararlanıcı profiline yönelik özellik taşıdığı görülmektedir. Diğer taraftan, dershanelerin okula dönüşümü sürecinin, özel öğretimin eğitimdeki payının artmasında önemli katkısının bulunduğu görülmektedir. Ayrıca, devletin eğitim teşviği ile öğrenci başına daha az harcama yaparak, eğitimde kalitenin artırılmasına yönelik yeni yatırım fırsatları yakaladığı söylenebilir. Eğitim-öğretim desteği politikasının sonuçlarının, devlet okullarında niteliği ve yatırımları artırma açısından nasıl etkisi olduğu incelenmesi gerekir.

Supporting Institution

Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinasyon Birimi (BAP)

Project Number

2015/530

References

  • Adamson, F., & Astrand, B. (2016). Privatization or public investment. In F. Adamson, B. Astrand, & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Global education reform: How privatization and public investment influence education outcomes (pp. 1–15). Routledge: Taylor& Francis Group.
  • Adamson, F., Astrand, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (Eds.). (2016). Global education reform: How privatization and public investment influence education outcomes. Routledge: Taylor& Francis Group.
  • Ann, J., & Brewer, D. J. (2009). What do we know about reducing class and school size? In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, D. N. Plank, & T. G. Ford (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 426–437). New York: Routledge.
  • Arenas, A. (2004). Privatization and vouchers in Colombia and Chile. International Review of Education, 50(3), 379–395.
  • Aypay, A., Çekiç, O., & Boyacı, A. (2012). Student retention in higher Education in Turkey: A qualitative study. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 14(1), 91–116.
  • Bickers, K. N., & Williams, J. T. (2001). Public policy analysis: A political economy approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  • Chingos, M. M., & Peterson, P. E. (2012). The effects of school vouchers on college enrollment: Experimental evidence from New York City. The Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings and Harvard's Program on Education Policy and Governance.
  • ERG [Education Reform Initiative]. (2017). Eğitim izleme raporu 2016-2017[Education monitoring report 2016-2017]. İstanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi.
  • Gauri, V., & Vawda, A. (2003). Vouchers for basic education in developing countries: A principal-agent perspective. In Policy Research Working Paper (No. 3005; Issue March). The Word Bank.
  • Gümüş, S., & Gümüş, E. (2013). Achieving gender parity in primary school education in Turkey via the campaign called “Haydi Kızlar Okula” (Girls, Let s Go to School). Education and Science, 38(167), 17–26.
  • Hoxby, C. M. (2000). The effects of class size on student achievement: New evidence from population Variation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(4), 1239–1285.
  • Hürriyet. (2013, November 21). Başbakan Erdoğan’dan gündeme özel açıklamalar. Retrieved from http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/basbakan-erdogandan-gundeme-ozel-aciklamalar-25170065
  • Jones, T. (2013). Understanding education policy: The ‘four education orientations’ framework. New York London: Springer.
  • Kavak, Y. (2010). 2050’ye doğru nüfusbilim ve yönetim: Eğitim sistemine bakış. İstanbul: TÜSİAD.
  • Krueger, A. B., Hanushek, E. A., & Rice, J. K. (2002). The class size debate (L. Mishel & R. Rothstein (Eds.)). Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.
  • Levin, H. M. (2002). A comprehensive framework for evaluating educational vouchers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 159–174.
  • Maya, I. (2013). A comparison of gender inequality in Turkish education system with that of EU countries. Education and Science, 38(168), 69–84.
  • MEB [The Ministry of National Education]. (2009). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Stratejik Plan 2010-2014. https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/Str_yon_planlama_V2/MEBStratejikPlan.pdf
  • MEB [The Ministry of National Education]. (2012). Özel öğretim kurumları yönetmeliği, http://ookgm.meb.gov.tr/www/yonetmelik/icerik/72
  • MEB [The Ministry of National Education]. (2015a). National education statistics: Formal education 2014-2015.
  • MEB [The Ministry of National Education]. (2015b). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Stratejik Plan: 2015-2019. https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/dokumanlar/icerik/30
  • MEB [The Ministry of National Education]. (2016). National education statistics: Formal education 2015-2016.
  • MEB [The Ministry of National Education]. (2017). National education statistics: Formal education 2016-2017.
  • MEB [The Ministry of National Education]. (2018). National education statistics: Formal education 2017-2018.
  • Meriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  • Metcalf, K. K., & Legan, N. A. (2002). Educational vouchers: A primer. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 76(1), 25–29.
  • OECD. (2012). Public and private schools: How management and funding relate to their socio-economic profile. OECD Publishing. www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda
  • OECD. (2016). Education at a Glance 2016. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2016-en
  • OECD. (2017). School choice and school vouchers: an OECD perspective. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/edu/School-choice-and-school-vouchers-an-OECD-perspective.pdf
  • Official Gazzette. (2007). 5580 sayılı özel öğretim kurumları kanunu. Retrieved from http://ookgm.meb.gov.tr/www/kanunlar/icerik/64
  • Official Gazzette. (2014). 6528 Sayılı milli eğitim temel kanunu ile bazı kanun ve kanun hükmünde kararnamelerde değişiklik yapılmasına dair kanun. Retrieved from http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/03/20140314.pdf
  • OOKGM [General Directorate of Private Education Institutions]. (2014). 5580 Sayılı kanun kapsamındaki özel okullarda öğrenim görecek öğrenciler için verilcek eğitim ve öğretim desteği uygulama e-kılavuzu. Retrieved from http://ookgm.meb.gov.tr
  • OOKGM [General Directorate of Private Education Institutions]. (2015). 5580 Sayılı kanun kapsamındaki özel okullarda öğrenim gören/görecek öğrenciler için verilecek eğitim ve öğretim desteği uygulama e-kılavuzu. Retrieved from http://ookgm.meb.gov.tr
  • OOKGM [General Directorate of Private Education Institutions]. (2016). 5580 Sayılı kanun kapsamındaki özel okullarda öğrenim gören/görecek öğrenciler için verilecek eğitim ve öğretim desteği uygulama e-kılavuzu. Retrieved from http://ookgm.meb.gov.tr
  • OOKGM [General Directorate of Private Education Institutions]. (2017). 5580 Sayılı kanun kapsamındaki özel okullarda öğrenim gören/görecek öğrenciler için verilecek eğitim ve öğretim desteği uygulama e-kılavuzu. Retrieved from http://ookgm.meb.gov.tr
  • Özmen, N. (2019). Özel öğretim kurumları eğitim öğretim desteği hakkında veli görüşleri. (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Patrinos, H. A., Barrera-Osorio, F., & Guaqueta, J. (2009). The role and impact of public-private partnerships in education. The World Bank.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). California: SAGE Publications.
  • Peterson, P. E., Campbell, D. E., & West, M. R. (2002). Who chooses? Who uses? Participation in a national school voucher program. In P. T. Hill (Ed.), Choice with equity: An assessment of the Koret Task Force on K–12 education (pp. 51–84). Standford, CA: Hoover Institiution.
  • Sayıştay [Turkish Court of Accounts]. (2017). Mili Eğitim Bakanlığı 2016 Yılı Sayıştay Denetim Raporu. Ankara: T.C. Sayıştay Başkanlığı.
  • Schwartz, A. E., Zabel, J., & Leardo, M. (2017). Class-size and resource allocation (December; ESE Policy Brief). Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/research/reports/2017/12class-size.docx
  • Shakeel, M. D., Anderson, K. P., & Wolf, P. J. (2016). The participant effects of private school vouchers across the globe: A meta-analytic and systematic review. In SSRN Electronic Journal (EDRE Working Paper No. 2016–07) The University of Arkansas, Department of Educaiton Reform.
  • Shires, M., Krop, C., Rydell, C. P., & Carroll, S. J. (1994). The effects of the California voucher initiative on public expenditures for education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute on Education and Training.
  • Spring, J. (2015). Economization of education: Human capital, global corporations, skills-based schooling (1st ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.
  • TEDMEM. (2018). 2017 Eğitim değerlendirme raporu [2017 Education monitoring report]. Türk Eğitim Derneği. Retrieved from https://tedmem.org/download/2017-egitim-degerlendirme-raporu?wpdmdl=2564
  • The Ministry of Development [Kalkınma Bakanlığı]. (2006). Dokuzuncu kalkınma planı 2007-2013. Retrieved from http://www.kalkinma.gov.tr/Pages/KalkinmaPlanlari.aspx
  • The Ministry of Development [Kalkınma Bakanlığı]. (2013). Onuncu kalkınma planı 2014-2018. Retrieved from http://www.kalkinma.gov.tr/Pages/KalkinmaPlanlari.aspx
  • TUIK [Turkish Statistical Institute]. (2016). Eğitim harcamaları istatistikleri - 2016. Retrieved from www.tuik.gov.tr
  • TUIK [Turkish Statistical Institute]. (2017). Eğitim harcamaları istatistikleri - 2017. Retrieved from www.tuik.gov.tr
  • UNDP. (2016). Human development report 2016: Human development for everyone. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf
  • UNESCO. (2015). Rethinking education: Towards a global common good? France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
  • Vawda, A. Y. (2000). Demand-side financing schemes: Mechanisms for improving equity. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
  • Witte, J. F. (2009). Vouchers. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 491–501). New York: Routledge.
  • Woessmann, L., & West, M. R. (2006). Class-size effects in school systems around the world: Evidence from between-grade variation in TIMSS. European Economic Review, 50(3), 695–736.
  • Wolf, P. J. (2012). The comprehensive longitudinal evaluation of the Milwaukee parental choice program: Summary of final reports. (SCDP Milwaukee Evaluation Report No: 36). The University of Arkansas, Department of Educaiton Reform.
  • Wolf, P. J., Gutmann, B., Puma, M., Kisida, B., Rizzo, L., Eissa, N., Carr, M., & Silverberg, M. (2010). Evaluation of the DC opportunity scholarship program: Final report. (NCEE 2010-4018). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
  • Woodhall, M. (1994). Eğitim ekonomisi: Toplu bir bakış. In Y. Kavak & B. Burgaz (Eds.), Eğitim ekonomisi: Seçilmiş yazılar. Ankara: Pegem.
  • Yanow, D. (2007). Qualitative-interpretive methods in policy research. In F. Fisher, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods (pp. 405-416). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
  • Yatmaz, A. (2012). Eğitim hizmetinin sunumunda özel sektör: Türkiye için kupon yaklaşımı. (Yayımlanmamış uzmanlık tezi). Kalkınma Bakanlığı, Ankara.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (8. baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Education Incentive Policy for Private Education Institutions in Turkey: Examining Rationales and Outcomes (2014-2017)

Year 2020, Volume: 16 Issue: 1, 83 - 98, 30.06.2020
https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.750047

Abstract

There are diversified experiences among countries with respect to formulation, implementation and outcomes of voucher policies around the world. Education Incentive Policy (EIP) was introduced as a privatization mechanism in Turkey in the 2014-2015 school year to expand the share of private education. This study aims to describe and evaluate the first four-year implementation period of the EIP applied as a voucher-like scheme for students attending private education institutions. A qualitative case study design was applied to explore the goals, rationales, and the intended outcomes of the EIP through policy documents and national statistics as data sources. The results showed that Turkish voucher case used the neoliberal economic rationales which are efficient use of resources, increasing equity for disadvantaged students, and enhancing quality by class-size reduction and competition among schools. The eligibility criteria to benefit from the incentive had a targeted feature for a beneficiary profile of low-to moderate income families. On the other hand, the transformation process of Private Tutoring Institutions (PTIs) into private schools had significantly contributed to the expansion of the share of private education. Further, since the government paid less money per pupil, opportunities aroused to increase the education quality in public education. The EIP needs to be examined how the policy consequences have affected quality and investments rising in public schools.

Project Number

2015/530

References

  • Adamson, F., & Astrand, B. (2016). Privatization or public investment. In F. Adamson, B. Astrand, & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Global education reform: How privatization and public investment influence education outcomes (pp. 1–15). Routledge: Taylor& Francis Group.
  • Adamson, F., Astrand, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (Eds.). (2016). Global education reform: How privatization and public investment influence education outcomes. Routledge: Taylor& Francis Group.
  • Ann, J., & Brewer, D. J. (2009). What do we know about reducing class and school size? In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, D. N. Plank, & T. G. Ford (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 426–437). New York: Routledge.
  • Arenas, A. (2004). Privatization and vouchers in Colombia and Chile. International Review of Education, 50(3), 379–395.
  • Aypay, A., Çekiç, O., & Boyacı, A. (2012). Student retention in higher Education in Turkey: A qualitative study. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 14(1), 91–116.
  • Bickers, K. N., & Williams, J. T. (2001). Public policy analysis: A political economy approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  • Chingos, M. M., & Peterson, P. E. (2012). The effects of school vouchers on college enrollment: Experimental evidence from New York City. The Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings and Harvard's Program on Education Policy and Governance.
  • ERG [Education Reform Initiative]. (2017). Eğitim izleme raporu 2016-2017[Education monitoring report 2016-2017]. İstanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi.
  • Gauri, V., & Vawda, A. (2003). Vouchers for basic education in developing countries: A principal-agent perspective. In Policy Research Working Paper (No. 3005; Issue March). The Word Bank.
  • Gümüş, S., & Gümüş, E. (2013). Achieving gender parity in primary school education in Turkey via the campaign called “Haydi Kızlar Okula” (Girls, Let s Go to School). Education and Science, 38(167), 17–26.
  • Hoxby, C. M. (2000). The effects of class size on student achievement: New evidence from population Variation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(4), 1239–1285.
  • Hürriyet. (2013, November 21). Başbakan Erdoğan’dan gündeme özel açıklamalar. Retrieved from http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/basbakan-erdogandan-gundeme-ozel-aciklamalar-25170065
  • Jones, T. (2013). Understanding education policy: The ‘four education orientations’ framework. New York London: Springer.
  • Kavak, Y. (2010). 2050’ye doğru nüfusbilim ve yönetim: Eğitim sistemine bakış. İstanbul: TÜSİAD.
  • Krueger, A. B., Hanushek, E. A., & Rice, J. K. (2002). The class size debate (L. Mishel & R. Rothstein (Eds.)). Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.
  • Levin, H. M. (2002). A comprehensive framework for evaluating educational vouchers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 159–174.
  • Maya, I. (2013). A comparison of gender inequality in Turkish education system with that of EU countries. Education and Science, 38(168), 69–84.
  • MEB [The Ministry of National Education]. (2009). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Stratejik Plan 2010-2014. https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/Str_yon_planlama_V2/MEBStratejikPlan.pdf
  • MEB [The Ministry of National Education]. (2012). Özel öğretim kurumları yönetmeliği, http://ookgm.meb.gov.tr/www/yonetmelik/icerik/72
  • MEB [The Ministry of National Education]. (2015a). National education statistics: Formal education 2014-2015.
  • MEB [The Ministry of National Education]. (2015b). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Stratejik Plan: 2015-2019. https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/dokumanlar/icerik/30
  • MEB [The Ministry of National Education]. (2016). National education statistics: Formal education 2015-2016.
  • MEB [The Ministry of National Education]. (2017). National education statistics: Formal education 2016-2017.
  • MEB [The Ministry of National Education]. (2018). National education statistics: Formal education 2017-2018.
  • Meriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  • Metcalf, K. K., & Legan, N. A. (2002). Educational vouchers: A primer. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 76(1), 25–29.
  • OECD. (2012). Public and private schools: How management and funding relate to their socio-economic profile. OECD Publishing. www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda
  • OECD. (2016). Education at a Glance 2016. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2016-en
  • OECD. (2017). School choice and school vouchers: an OECD perspective. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/edu/School-choice-and-school-vouchers-an-OECD-perspective.pdf
  • Official Gazzette. (2007). 5580 sayılı özel öğretim kurumları kanunu. Retrieved from http://ookgm.meb.gov.tr/www/kanunlar/icerik/64
  • Official Gazzette. (2014). 6528 Sayılı milli eğitim temel kanunu ile bazı kanun ve kanun hükmünde kararnamelerde değişiklik yapılmasına dair kanun. Retrieved from http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/03/20140314.pdf
  • OOKGM [General Directorate of Private Education Institutions]. (2014). 5580 Sayılı kanun kapsamındaki özel okullarda öğrenim görecek öğrenciler için verilcek eğitim ve öğretim desteği uygulama e-kılavuzu. Retrieved from http://ookgm.meb.gov.tr
  • OOKGM [General Directorate of Private Education Institutions]. (2015). 5580 Sayılı kanun kapsamındaki özel okullarda öğrenim gören/görecek öğrenciler için verilecek eğitim ve öğretim desteği uygulama e-kılavuzu. Retrieved from http://ookgm.meb.gov.tr
  • OOKGM [General Directorate of Private Education Institutions]. (2016). 5580 Sayılı kanun kapsamındaki özel okullarda öğrenim gören/görecek öğrenciler için verilecek eğitim ve öğretim desteği uygulama e-kılavuzu. Retrieved from http://ookgm.meb.gov.tr
  • OOKGM [General Directorate of Private Education Institutions]. (2017). 5580 Sayılı kanun kapsamındaki özel okullarda öğrenim gören/görecek öğrenciler için verilecek eğitim ve öğretim desteği uygulama e-kılavuzu. Retrieved from http://ookgm.meb.gov.tr
  • Özmen, N. (2019). Özel öğretim kurumları eğitim öğretim desteği hakkında veli görüşleri. (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Patrinos, H. A., Barrera-Osorio, F., & Guaqueta, J. (2009). The role and impact of public-private partnerships in education. The World Bank.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). California: SAGE Publications.
  • Peterson, P. E., Campbell, D. E., & West, M. R. (2002). Who chooses? Who uses? Participation in a national school voucher program. In P. T. Hill (Ed.), Choice with equity: An assessment of the Koret Task Force on K–12 education (pp. 51–84). Standford, CA: Hoover Institiution.
  • Sayıştay [Turkish Court of Accounts]. (2017). Mili Eğitim Bakanlığı 2016 Yılı Sayıştay Denetim Raporu. Ankara: T.C. Sayıştay Başkanlığı.
  • Schwartz, A. E., Zabel, J., & Leardo, M. (2017). Class-size and resource allocation (December; ESE Policy Brief). Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/research/reports/2017/12class-size.docx
  • Shakeel, M. D., Anderson, K. P., & Wolf, P. J. (2016). The participant effects of private school vouchers across the globe: A meta-analytic and systematic review. In SSRN Electronic Journal (EDRE Working Paper No. 2016–07) The University of Arkansas, Department of Educaiton Reform.
  • Shires, M., Krop, C., Rydell, C. P., & Carroll, S. J. (1994). The effects of the California voucher initiative on public expenditures for education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute on Education and Training.
  • Spring, J. (2015). Economization of education: Human capital, global corporations, skills-based schooling (1st ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.
  • TEDMEM. (2018). 2017 Eğitim değerlendirme raporu [2017 Education monitoring report]. Türk Eğitim Derneği. Retrieved from https://tedmem.org/download/2017-egitim-degerlendirme-raporu?wpdmdl=2564
  • The Ministry of Development [Kalkınma Bakanlığı]. (2006). Dokuzuncu kalkınma planı 2007-2013. Retrieved from http://www.kalkinma.gov.tr/Pages/KalkinmaPlanlari.aspx
  • The Ministry of Development [Kalkınma Bakanlığı]. (2013). Onuncu kalkınma planı 2014-2018. Retrieved from http://www.kalkinma.gov.tr/Pages/KalkinmaPlanlari.aspx
  • TUIK [Turkish Statistical Institute]. (2016). Eğitim harcamaları istatistikleri - 2016. Retrieved from www.tuik.gov.tr
  • TUIK [Turkish Statistical Institute]. (2017). Eğitim harcamaları istatistikleri - 2017. Retrieved from www.tuik.gov.tr
  • UNDP. (2016). Human development report 2016: Human development for everyone. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf
  • UNESCO. (2015). Rethinking education: Towards a global common good? France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
  • Vawda, A. Y. (2000). Demand-side financing schemes: Mechanisms for improving equity. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
  • Witte, J. F. (2009). Vouchers. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 491–501). New York: Routledge.
  • Woessmann, L., & West, M. R. (2006). Class-size effects in school systems around the world: Evidence from between-grade variation in TIMSS. European Economic Review, 50(3), 695–736.
  • Wolf, P. J. (2012). The comprehensive longitudinal evaluation of the Milwaukee parental choice program: Summary of final reports. (SCDP Milwaukee Evaluation Report No: 36). The University of Arkansas, Department of Educaiton Reform.
  • Wolf, P. J., Gutmann, B., Puma, M., Kisida, B., Rizzo, L., Eissa, N., Carr, M., & Silverberg, M. (2010). Evaluation of the DC opportunity scholarship program: Final report. (NCEE 2010-4018). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
  • Woodhall, M. (1994). Eğitim ekonomisi: Toplu bir bakış. In Y. Kavak & B. Burgaz (Eds.), Eğitim ekonomisi: Seçilmiş yazılar. Ankara: Pegem.
  • Yanow, D. (2007). Qualitative-interpretive methods in policy research. In F. Fisher, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods (pp. 405-416). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
  • Yatmaz, A. (2012). Eğitim hizmetinin sunumunda özel sektör: Türkiye için kupon yaklaşımı. (Yayımlanmamış uzmanlık tezi). Kalkınma Bakanlığı, Ankara.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (8. baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
There are 61 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Studies on Education
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Halime Öztürk Çalıkoğlu 0000-0003-0121-7124

Osman Çekiç 0000-0002-3600-2855

Project Number 2015/530
Publication Date June 30, 2020
Submission Date June 9, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020 Volume: 16 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Öztürk Çalıkoğlu, H., & Çekiç, O. (2020). Education Incentive Policy for Private Education Institutions in Turkey: Examining Rationales and Outcomes (2014-2017). Eğitimde Kuram Ve Uygulama, 16(1), 83-98. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.750047