The Matthew Effect in Turkish Education System

Abstract

Over the past 20 years, Türkiye has transitioned its education system to the massification phase, and schooling rates have reached over 99% at all levels of education, from primary to secondary levels. In addition to increasing the accessibility of education to those from disadvantaged socioeconomic status and facilitating the access of girls to education, this important transformation has also increased the effectiveness of the education system. Furthermore, the period was also characterized by free distribution of textbooks and teaching materials to all students in an effort to increase the equality of education opportunities. The provision of free meals, transportation to school, scholarships, accommodation assistance for students in need, as well as conditional financial support based upon the continuation of education was provided to students. The implementation of many social policies has continued over the past two decades in a consistent manner. With such a large system with approximately 19 million students, it is evident that this approach focuses on increasing equality of opportunity in education as opposed to simply increasing educational access. The achievement gap between schools persists despite all these supportive mechanisms, some of which are rooted in the past, some of which have arisen from massification of education. This study discusses the areas or instruments that prevent all students accessing education from receiving the same quality of education, regardless of their socioeconomic status, and areas of higher "Matthew effect" severity. The Matthew effect is particularly strong in four areas, in particular, in the Turkish educational system: access to early childhood education, socioeconomic status, school tracking, and access to senior teachers. The study also provides suggestions for reducing the severity of the Matthew effect in these four areas.

Keywords

• Matthew effect
• education
• massification
• Türkiye
• school tracking
• socioeconomic status

Türk Eğitim Sisteminde Matta Etkisi

Abstract

Türkiye, son 20 yılda eğitim sisteminin kitleselleşme evresine geçişini sağlayarak temel eğitimden ortaöğretime kadar tüm eğitim kademelerinde okullaşma oranlarını %99’un üzerine çıkartmıştır. Eğitim sistemini büyüterek ve genişleterek yapılan bu önemli dönüşüm, özellikle dezavantajlı sosyoekonomik düzeyden gelen kesimlerin erişimini artırmış ve kız çocuklarının eğitime erişimlerini kolaylaştırmıştır. Bu atılan adımların yanı sıra dönemin en önemli karakteristiği, eğitimde fırsat eşitliğini artırmak için ders kitaplarının ve öğretim materyallerinin tüm öğrencilere ücretsiz dağıtılmasından, ihtiyacı olan öğrencilere ücretsiz yemek, okula taşıma, burs desteği, konaklama desteği sağlanmasına ve çocukların eğitime devam etmesi koşulu ile şartlı eğitim yardımı sunulması gibi çok sayıda sosyal politikanın son 20 yılda istikrarlı bir şekilde uygulanmaya devam etmesidir. Yaklaşık 19 milyon öğrencinin yer aldığı böylesi devasa bir sistemde sadece bu sosyal politikaları uygulamanın doğurduğu yıllık maliyet göz önüne alındığında, bu yaklaşımın eğitime erişimi artırmanın ötesinde eğitimde fırsat eşitliğini de artırmaya odaklandığı görülecektir. Tüm bu destek mekanizmalarına rağmen bir kısmı geçmişten kök alan, bir kısmı da eğitimde kitleselleşme ile birlikte gelen sorunlar, okullar arası başarı farklarının varlığını sürdürmesine yol açmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, eğitime erişen tüm öğrencilerin sosyoekonomik seviyelerinden bağımsız olarak aynı nitelikte eğitime erişememelerine yol açan alanlar veya enstrümanlar “Matta etkisi” şiddetinin arttığı alanlar olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Bu bağlamda Türk Eğitim Sistemi’nde özellikle dört alan Matta etkisinin en şiddetli görüldüğü alanlar olarak değerlendirilmektedir: okul öncesi eğitime erişim, sosyoekonomik seviye, okul ayrıştırması ve mesleki kıdem yılı yüksek öğretmene erişim. Çalışmada ayrıca bu dört alanda Matta etkisi şiddetini azaltmaya yönelik önerilerde bulunulmaktadır.

Keywords

• Matta etkisi
• eğitim
• evrenselleşme
• Türkiye
• okul ayrıştırması
• sosyoekonomik düzey

References

1. Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. K. Brown (Ed.) Knowledge, educational and cultural change (pp. 71–112). Tavistock .
2. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology education (pp. 258-241). Greenwood Press.
3. Bourdieu , P., & Passeron , J. C. (2000). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage Publication.
4. Coleman , J. S., Campbell , E. Q., Hobson , C. J., McPartland , J., Mood , A. M., Weinfeld , F. D., & York, R.L. (1966). Equality of education opportunity. US Office of Education. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED012275 .
5. Erdi, P (2020). Ranking: The unwritten rules of the social game we all play. Oxford University Press.
6. ERG & AÇEV (2016). Her çocuğa eşit fırsat: Türkiye’de erken çocukluk eğitiminin durumu ve öneriler [Equal opportunity for every child: The status of early childhood education in Türkiye and recommendations]. Retrieved from https://www.acev.org/ directory/her-cocuga-esit-firsat-turkiyede-erken-cocuklukegitiminin-durumu-ve-oneriler/.
7. Gür, B. S., Özturk, A., Özer, M., & Suna, H. E. (2021). The effect of changes in the transition to secondary education systems on mathematics achievement. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 50(2), 1437-1463.
8. Hirsch, E. D. (2007). The knowledge deficit: Closing the shocking education gap for American children. Mariner Books.

9. Kerchoff, A. C., & Glennie, E. (1999). The Matthew effect in American education. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 12, 35-66.
10. Morgan, H. (2021). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27(1), 64-77.
11. OECD (2023). Taking stock of education reforms for access and quality in Türkiye. OECD Education policy Perspectives No. 68. OECD Publishing
12. Özer, M., & Suna, H. E. (2023). Revolutionizing education in Türkiye: A year of multi-faceted improvements by the Ministry of National Education in 2022. Discussion Paper from TRT WORLD Research Centre.
13. Özer, M., & Suna, H. E. (2022). The relationship between school socioeconomic composition and academic achievement in Türkiye. Journal of Economics Culture and Society, 66, 17–27.
14. Özer, M., & Perc, M. (2020). Dreams and realities of school tracking and vocational education. Palgrave Communications, 6, 34.
15. Özer, M., & Perc, M. (2022). Improving equality in the education system of Türkiye. Istanbul University Journal of Sociology, 42, 325-334.
16. Özer, M., Gençoglu , C., & Suna, H. E. (2020). Policies implemented to reduce inequalities in education in Türkiye. OMU Faculty of Education Journal, 39(2), 294-312.
17. Özer, M. (2021). A new step towards narrowing the achievement gap in Türkiye: “1,000 schools in vocational education and training” project. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 10(1), 97-108.
18. Özer, M. (2022). School-based improvement in VET: “The 1,000 schools in vocational education and training project”. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 11(2), 268-279
19. Özer, M. (2023a). An evaluation of the transformation of the education system in Türkiye over the last 20 years based on the latest OECD report “Taking Stock of Education Reforms for Access and Quality in Türkiye”. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 13(2), 148-163.
20. Özer, M. (2023b). Türkiye’de eğitimin geleceği: Eşit, kapsayıcı ve kaliteli [The future of education in Türkiye: Equal, inclusive and of high quality]. VakıfBank Cultural Publications.
21. Özoglu, M., & Gür, B. S. (2023). Extensive academic grouping at the secondary school placement and reproduction of inequalities. The Journal of Humanity and Society, 13(2), 185-216.
22. Reschly, A. (2010). Reading and school completion: Critical connections and Matthew effects. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26, 67-90.
23. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-407.
24. Stanovich, K. E. (1998). Matthew effect in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in acquisition of literacy. Journal of Education, 189:23-55.
25. Suna, H. E. & Özer, M. (2022). The relationship of preschool attendance with academic achievement and socioeconomic status in Türkiye. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 13(1), 54-68.
26. Suna, H. E., & Özer, M. (2021). The impact of school tracking on secondary vocational education and training in Türkiye. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 36(4), 855-870.
27. Suna, H. E., Özer, M., Şensoy, S., Gür , B. S., Gelbal , S., & Askar , P. (2021). Determinants of academic achievement in Türkiye. Journal of Economics Culture and Society, 64, 143-162.
28. Suna, H. E., Gür, B. S., Gelbal , S., & Özer, M. (2020). Socioeconomic background of science high school students and their preferences in transition to higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 10(3), 356–370.
29. Suna, H. E., Tanberkan, H., Gür , B.S., Perc, M., & Özer, M. (2020). Socioeconomic status and school type as predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Economics culture and Society, 61, 41-64.
30. Walberg, H. J., & Tsai , S. L. (1983). Matthew effects in Education, American Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 359-373.
31. Van Lancker, W. (2021). The Matthew effect in early childhood education and care: How family policies may amplify inequalities. SPSW Working Paper No.CeSo /SPSW/2021-01. Center for Sociological Research, KU Leuven.
32. Zuckerman, H. (1989). Accumulation of advantage and disadvantage: The theory and its intellectual biography. In C. Mongardini and S. Tabboni (Eds). Robert K. Merton and contemporary sociology (pp.153-176). New Brunswick.