Evaluation of an Educational Reform in the Context of Equal Opportunities in Turkey: Policy Recommendations with Evidence from PISA

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 321 - 334, 15.06.2020

Hasan Tabak , Temel Çalık

https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.685893

Cited By: 2

Öz

The purpose of this research is to identify the current situation regarding equality of educational opportunity after the implementation of 12-year compulsory education which serves as a reform in Turkey on the basis of key indicators and to suggest policy recommendations to provide equality of educational opportunity. The research, aiming to define some variables of student academic success in science, reading and mathematics literacy levels according to PISA 2012 and 2015 panel data for ensuring equality of educational opportunity in Turkey, is in survey model. The research revealed that the extension of the compulsory education period in the context of equal opportunities hadn’t increased student success. Delivery of opportunities to the home environment affects the family’s socio-economic and socio-cultural variables, which themselves affect student academic success. In this context, supportive policy proposals such as an independent budget, regional economic index creation and direct assistance to the child were presented to the relevant parties and stakeholders.

Anahtar Kelimeler

educational reform, Equality of educational opportunity, Educational policy recommendations

Kaynakça

• Akkoyunlu-Wigley, A., & Wigley, S. (2008). Basic education and capability development in Turkey. http://wigley.bilkent.edu.tr/akkoyunluwigleyturkey educationcapabilities.pdf
• Ammermuller, A. (2005). Educational opportunities and the role of institutions (No. 05-44). http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/24135/1/dp0544.pdf
• Anderson, E. (2007). Fair Opportunity in Education: A Democratic Equality Perspective. Ethics, 117, 595-622.
• Aristoteles (2013). “Poetika: Politika”, B. Jowett (İngilizceye Çev.), İ.K. Özalp (Ed.), M.Temelli (İngilizceden Çev.), İstanbul: Özgür.
• Bol, T., Witschge, J., Van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Dronkers, J. (2014). Curricular tracking and central examinations: Counterbalancing the impact of social background on student achievement in 36 countries. Social Forces, 92(4), 1545–1572.
• Brandsma, J. (2002). Education, equality and social exclusion. Final synthesis report. Brussels. ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/improving/docs/ser_clusters_education_social_ exclusion_synthesis.pdf
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., & Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Ankara: Pegem.
• Cappellari, L. & Jenkins, S. P. (2007). Summarizing multiple deprivation indicators. In S. P. Jenkins and J. Micklewright (Eds.), Inequality and Poverty Re-Examined (pp. 166-184). NY.: Oxford.
• Carter, I. (2011). Respect and the basis of equality. Ethics, 121(3), 538-571.
• Cemalcilar, Z., & Gökşen, F. (2012). Inequality in social capital: social capital, social risk and drop-out in the Turkish education system. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 35(1), 1–21.
• Coleman, J. (1968). The concept of equality of educational opportunity. Harvard Educational Review, 38(1), 7-22.
• Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı., [State Planning Organization/SPO] (2010). Eğitimde Fırsat Eşitsizliği: Türkiye Örneği [Inequality of opportunity for education: the case of Turkey]. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı ve Dünya Bankası Refah ve Sosyal Politika Analitik Çalışma Programı. http://abdigm.meb.gov.tr/ projeler/ois/egitim/006.pdf
• Dincer, M. A. & Uysal, G. (2010). The determinants of student achievement in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(6), 592-598.
• Durmuş, M. (2008). Kamu Maliyesi (Kamu Harcamaları Ders Notları) [Public Finance (Public Expenditures Lecture Notes)]. Ankara: Gazi.
• Edwards, N. (1946). Problems of equality of opportunity in education. Review of Educational Research, 16(1), 46-49.
• Engin-Demir, C. (2009). Factors influencing the academic achievement of the Turkish urban poor. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(1), 17–29.
• Ferreira, F. H. G., & Gignoux, J. (2010). Inequality of opportunity for education: the case of Turkey (No. 4). Ankara: DPT & World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTURKEY/147254-268836253913/22597335/ InequalityOfOpportunityInEducation.pdf
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
• Gabay-Egozi, L., Shavit, Y., & Yaish, M. (2015). Gender differences in fields of study: the role of significant others and rational choice motivations. European Sociological Review, 31(3), 284–297. doi:10.1093/esr/jcu090
• Gamoran, A., & Long, D. A. (2007). Equality of educational opportunity: a 40-year retrospective. In M. Teese, Richard; Lamb, Stephen; Duru-Bellat (Eds.), International Studies in Educational Inequality, Theory and Policy (pp. 23–47). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Ganzeboom, H., Graaf, P. De, & Treiman, D. (1992). A standard international socioeconomic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 21(1), 1–56.
• Gelbal, S. (2008). The effect of socio-economic status of eighth grade students on their achievement in Turkish. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33(150), 1–13.
• Güven, İ. (2007). Recent initiatives in school effectiveness and improvement: the case of Turkey. In T. Townsend (Ed.). International Handbook of School Effectiveness and Improvement (pp. 363-378). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Hansen, J. S., Chalk, R., & Ladd, H. F. (1999). Equity and adequacy in education finance: issues and perspectives. Washington: National Academies.
• Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The Economics of schooling: production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24(3), 1141-1177.
• Hutmacher, W., Cochrane, D., & Bottani, N. (2001). In pursuit of equity in education: using international indicators to compare equity policies. New York: Kluwer Academic.
• Jencks, C. (1988). Whom must we treat equally for educational opportunity to be equal?. Ethics, 98(3), 518-533.
• Kalkınma Bakanlığı [Ministry of Development/MoD], (2013). Onuncu Kalkınma Planı (2014-2018) [Tenth National Development Plan]. T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı Yükseköğretim Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu. http://www.kalkinma.gov.tr/Lists/Kalknma%20Planlar/Attachments/12/Onuncu% 20Kalk%C4%B1nma%20Plan%C4%B1.pdf
• Kant, I. (1803/2009). “Über Pädagogik”: “Eğitim Üzerine”, (Çev: Ahmet Aydoğan). İstanbul: Say.
• Lynch, K. (2000) Research and theory on equality in education, in M.Hallinan, ed., Handbook of Sociology of Education (pp. 85-105)., New York: Plenum.
• Marks, G. N., Cresswell, J. & Ainley, J. (2006). Explaining socioeconomic inequalities in student achievement: The role of home and school factors, Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(2), 105-128.
• MEB/ÖDSGM, [Ministry of National Education/MoNE] (2015). PISA 2012 araştırması ulusal nihai rapor [PISA 2012 research national final report]. Ankara: Ölçme, Değerlendirme ve Sınav Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
• MEB/ÖDSGM, [Ministry of National Education/MoNE] (2016). PISA 2015 ulusal raporu [PISA 2015 national report]. Ankara: Ölçme, Değerlendirme ve Sınav Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
• MEB., [Ministry of National Education/MoNE]. (2012a). 12 yıllık zorunlu eğitime yönelik uygulamalar genelgesi, http://www.meb.gov.tr/haberler/2012/12YillikZorunluEgitimeYonelikGenelge.pdf
• MEB., [Ministry of National Education/MoNE] (2012b). 12 yıl zorunlu eğitim sorular - cevaplar, Ankara. http://www.meb.gov.tr/duyurular/duyurular2012/12yil_soru_cevaplar.pdf
• Mingat, A., Tan, J. P., & Sosale, S. (2003). Tools for education policy analysis. Washington: World Bank.
• Mohammadi, H., Akkoyunlu, P., & Şeker, M. (2011). School resources family characteristic and student performance: evidence from secondary school entrance exam in Turkey. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(159), 155–164.
• Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloeckner, G. W. ve Barrett, K. C. (2004). SPSS for introductory statistics: Use andinterpretation. NY: Psychology Press.
• O’Dwyer, J., Aksit, N., Sands, M. (2010). Expanding educational access in Eastern Turkey: A new initiative. International Journal of Educational Development, 30, 193–203.
• OECD., (2007). Reviews of national policies for education: basic education in turkey 2007. Paris: OECD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/104824407051
• OECD., (2012a). Equity and quality in education: supporting disadvantaged students and schools, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en
• OECD., (2012b). Education at a glance 2012: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2012-en
• OECD., (2014). PISA 2012 results: what students know and can do – student performance in mathematics, reading and science, OECD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787 /9789264201118-en
• OECD., (2015). Education at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en
• OECD., (2016). PISA 2015 results: excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD. http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/pisa-2015-results-volume-i_9789264266490-en#page4
• OECD., (2017). Education at a glance: OECD indicators 2017. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/edu/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm
• OECD., European Union., & UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2015). ISCED 2011 operational manual guidelines for classifying national education programmes and related qualifications. http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/isced-2011-operational-manual_9789264228368-en#page3
• Peragine, V., & Serlenga, L. (2008). Higher education and equality of opportunity in Italy. Research on Economic Inequality, 16, 67-97.
• Richards, J. R. (1997). Equality of opportunity. Ratio, 10(3), 253-279.
• Risse, M. (2002). What equality of opportunity could not be. Ethics, 112(4), 720-747.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74.
• Smits, J., & Gündüz Hoşgör, A. (2006). Effects of family background characteristics on educational participation in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 26(5), 545–560.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Tansel, A., & Bircan Bodur, F. (2012). Wage inequality and returns to education in Turkey: a quantile regression analysis. Review of Development Economics, 16(1), 107–121.
• Tikly, L., & Barrett, A. M. (2011). Social justice, capabilities and the quality of education in low income countries. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(1), 3–14.
• Tomul, E. (2011). Educational inequality in Turkey: an evaluation by Gini index. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(160), 949–952.
• Turkstat., [TÜİK] (2017). Eğitim harcamaları istatistikleri [Turkstats of education expenditure], 2016. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=24679
• UNICEF., & UNESCO., (2007). A human rights-based approach to Education for All-(A framework for the realization of children’s right to education and rights within education). New york: UNICEF.
• UNESCO. (2009). Overcoming inequality: why governance matters. Oxford: Oxford University.
• White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 461–481.
• Wiseman, A. W. (2010). The impact of international achievement studies on national education policymaking. Washington: Emerald Group.
• World Bank. (2010). Turkey: expanding opportunities for the next generation. A report on life chances. Washington: World Bank.
• World Bank. (2013). Promoting excellence in Turkey’s schools. Washington: The World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/03/18023851/promotingexcellence-turkeys-schools
• Wößmann, L. (2008). Efficiency and equity of European education and training policies. International Tax and Public Finance, 15(2), 199–230.
• Yıldırım, J., Özdemir, S., & Sezgin, F. (2014). A qualitative evaluation of a conditional cash transfer program in turkey: the beneficiaries’ and key informants’ perspectives. Journal of Social Service Research, 40(1), 62-79.