ABSTRACT

EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY IN TURKEY
(A Quantitative Approach)

BY

Nurettin Fidan

The Problem
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prac-
tices of providing equal educational opportunities to the
(fluldren at primary and secondary levels during the decade

Of 1960. The study focused on quantitative expansion of

the educational opportunities. More specifically the

answers were sought for the following questions:

1. What are the differences or inequalities in
'Umaavailability of school opportunities at primary and
secondary levels among the provinces of Turkey?

2. What are the differences in the growth of school

opportunities between the years 1960 and 1970 among the

gnovinces, and what factors seem to account for these dif-

ferences?

3. .Among the regions of the country what are the

differences in the socio-economic backgrounds of students

who had access to schools above primary level?

 

-
..'

 

 

 

 

Nurettin Fidan

By seeking answers to those questions it was aimed
mapmovide more accurate and systematic data on the differ-
ences in school opportunities so that better criteria for
afllocations of resources and more realistic policy decisions

flnrprovision of equal opportunities to all could be devel-

oped.

The Design of Study

The data for the analysis of differences of school
opportunities at primary and secondary level among the
provinces and for the explanation of the differences in
terms of socio-economic variables were taken from the pub-
lications of the State Statistical Institute. Educational
statistics for the year 1970 were obtained from the files
of several general directorates of the Ministry of Education”
The data related to population characteristics were obtained
from the Census Reports for the years 1960 and 1965. The
data on student background characteristics were obtained
from questionnaires distributed to nationwide samples of
sandents in the lower and upper secondary schools of Turkey.

The samples contained 203 lower secondary and 125
upper secondary schools. Data were collected successfully
in March 1971. The return rates for questionnaires was 88.8%
for both upper and lower secondary schools. The data were
processed in an IBM 1620 computer in the Planning, Research
and Coordination Department of Ministry.

In the analysis the differences among the provinces

were presented.in terms of school participation ratios and

Nurettin Fidan

development categories based on the average values in
school participation in 1960, 1965, and 1970.

In order to explain the differences in growth of
educational opportunities in the context of demographic
changes, of educational attainment levels of population,
and of socio-economic level of the provinces, the technique
of multiple-regression analysis was employed. In the analy-
ses the school participation ratios for 1960, 1965, and 1970
in terms of number of students per thousand school age
population were taken as dependent variables, and urban
population, population with maximum primary education, pop-
ulation with minimum lower secondary education, male popula-
tion engaged in agriculture and density of population per
unit<xfarea in respective years were taken as independent

variables.

Findings of the Study

 

The analyses of data revealed the following results:

1. In the 19605, the greater increases in enrollments in
primary education occurred in educationally less
developed provinces of the country.

2. Accelerating progress toward full participation at
primary school levels will be dependent upon increasing
the portion of girls in total enrollments.

3. Increases in school participation ratios at lower
secondary school levels also did not substantially
change the positions of provinces relative to the

national averages over the ten years 1960-1970.

10.

ll.

Nurettin Fidan

Provinces which had low rates of growth at primary
levels tended also to have low rates of growth at

lower secondary level.

Inequalities in school participation ratios were more
acute in southeastern sections of the country at all
levels of schools throughout the 19605.

Differences in primary participation ratios were best
explained by differences in educational attainment
levels (population with maximum primary education).
Primary school participation ratios varied independently
from measures of urbanness,population density, agricul-
ture as economic activity, and volume of population.

At lower secondary levels, school participation rates
did not associate substantially with differences in
socio-economic factors.

Urban and socio-economically developed provinces
benefited more between 1960-1970 from the expansion

of educational opportunities at upper secondary levels.
The children of urban areas and economic centers of the
regions have better chances for further schooling than
the children of the areas where agriculture is the main
economic activity and the population is widely distri-
buted.

In addition to the few most populous and developed
provinces of Turkey, those provinces where there was

a relative population concentration and which served

as economic service-centers to surrounding areas

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

Nurettin Fidan

benefited most from and dominated the increases in
school participation at both lower and upper secondary
schools.

In lower secondary and upper secondary schools one-
third of the students were those with parents residing
in villages.

Relatively more students from rural residential origin
were enrolled in primary teachers' training schools.
In the regions where rural population exceeds the
national average, children of rural families have
relatively greater access to lower secondary schools.
The share of girl students with village origin is low
when compared to boys with rural origin.

The children of fathers who are administrators or
professional men are over-represented in the secondary
schools.

Private 1ycees attract the children of persons who are
in professional occupations, in business, or in admin-

istrative occupations.

EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY IN TURKEY

(A Quantitative Approach)

BY

Nurettin Fidan

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1972

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

‘\
I'

The author wishes to express his deep appreciation
to members of his Doctorate Committee: to Professor Carl
H. Gross, who served as Chairman of the Committee and to
Professors C. Brembeck and M. McSweeney, for their time,
professional advice, and valuable suggestions.

Grateful acknowledgment is extended to Professor
W. Brookover, who travelled all the way from East Lansing,
Michigan to Ankara, Turkey, to preside over the author's
oral examination.

The author is also grateful and wishes to acknowl-
edge with sincere appreciation, the continuous assistance,
constant inspiration and professional guidance given to him
during the completion of this study in Turkey, by Professor
B. Bohnhorst and by Professor K. Neff, members of the
Michigan State University field team in Ankara of the
National Education Research and Planning Project in Turkey.

The author wishes to express his appreciation to
the officials of the Ministry of Education in Turkey,
especially Mr. Nusret Karcioglu, Undersecretary, and the
personnel of Planning, Research and Coordination Department.

The opportunity to carry out this study was made

possible by funds granted by the United States Agency for

ii

International Development, for which the author wishes to
express his appreciation.

Finally, the author is grateful to his wife Emel
for her assistance, encouragement and understanding during

his years of graduate study.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Chapter

I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . 1
Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . 2
The Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . 5
Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . 5
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . 6
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . 7
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . 11
IntrOduction O O O O O O O I C O 0 1]-
Studies Related to Central Issues . . . . 11

Development of the Concept of Equal
Educational Opportunity . . . . . . 31

Research on Opportunities for Schooling

in Turkey . . . . . . . . . . 49
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . 69

Methods and Procedures for Gathering
the Data . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Measured Techniques of Analysis . . . . 77
IV. ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Introduction . . . . . . . . . 80

SECTION A: Differences in Educational
Opportunities in Public Primary
and Secondary Schools . . . . . . 81
Differences in Primary Schools . . . . . 81

iv

Chapter

Differences in School Opportunities
Among Secondary Schools . . .

Differences in Student-Science Teacher
Ratios in General Secondary Schools

Summary . . . . . . . . .

SECTION B: Explanatory Factors of the

Differences in School Opportunities

Explanation of the Differences in School

Participation Ratios at the Primary

Level . . . . . . . . .
Explanation of Differences in School
Participation Ratios in Lower

Secondary Schools . . . . .
Explanation of Differences in School
Participation Ratios in Upper

Secondary Levels . . . . .

Explanation of Differences in Increases

in Total Enrollments Between

1965 and 1970 . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . .
SECTION C: Student Characteristics
The Location of Primary and Lower

Secondary Schools Finished by the

Students at Upper Secondary .

The Location of Primary Schools Finished
by Students at Lower Secondary Schools .

Summary of Characteristics . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . .

V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF

THE FINDINGS . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . .
Socio- Economic Factors Related to

Differences in School Participation

Socio—Economic Background Characteristics

of Secondary Level Students .
Conclusions . . . . . . . .
Implications and Suggestions . .
Summary . . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY o o o 0 Q 0 Q o o 0 Q o

APPENDICES

A. Sampling Procedure and Instruments for

Data.

Page

97

109
112

115

120

123

125

128
130
132
146
151
152
173
176

176
177

184
191
197
201
205

213

219

10.

LIST OF TABLES

Average Scores for Lycees on the University

Entrance Examination by Region . . . . .

Expected and Actual Success on Science Lycee

The

The

Entrance Examinations by Regions-Average
of 1964, 1965, 1966 . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Provinces by Primary
School Participation Ratios in 1960,
1965 and 1970 . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of the Provinces by Development
Categories in Primary School Participation
in 1960 and 1970 . . . . . . . . .

Portion of Girls in Total Enrollments in 1960

and 1970 Primary Schools (figures in paren-
theses show increase 1960-1970 in index
value) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pupil-Teacher Ratios for Provinces with School

Participation Ratios Above 80% in 1960 . .

Pupil-Teacher Ratios for Provinces Which had

The

School Participation Ratios Below 40%
in 1960 O O I O O I O O O O O 0

Distribution of the Provinces by Develop-
mental Levels in Lower Secondary School
Participation in 1960 and 1970 . . . . .

Distribution of the Provinces in Developmental

Categories--Upper Secondary Schools, 1970 .

Distribution of Provinces by Students per

Science Teacher with University Training
at Upper Secondary Lycee 1970-71 . . . .

vi

Page

60

62

87

89

93

96

96

103

108

110

Table Page

11. Distribution of Provinces by Student-Science
Teacher Ratios in Total General Secondary
Schools (Middle Lycee) . . . . . . . 111

12. Multiple Regression Analysis for 1960 Primary
Schools (N=67) . . . . . . . . . . 121
13. Intercorrelation Among Variables for 1960 . . 121
14. Multiple Regression Analysis for 1970 at Lower
Secondary Level (N—67) . . . . . . . 124
15. Intercorrelations Among the Variables . . . . 125
16. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for

1960 School Participation Ratios . . . . 126
17. Intercorrelations Among Variables . . . . . 126
18. Summary of Regression Analysis of Increase in

Enrollments 1965-1970 and Increase in
Urbanization and Educational Attainment

1960-1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
19. Intercorrelations Among Variables . . . . . 130
20. The Distribution of Total Students in First

and Third Classes of Upper Secondary
Schools by Birth Place and Type of
School (in percentages) . . . . . . . 135

21. The Distribution of Students at Upper Secondary
Schools (Total of First and Third Classes)
by Birth Place and Current Family Residence
by Types of School (in percentages) . . . 137

22. Distribution of Public Upper Secondary Students
with Village Parental Residence and
Percentages of Total Village Populations
by Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

23. Distribution of Lower Secondary Students by
Birth Place by Grades (1970-1971) in
percentages (N=15,937) . . . . . . . . 141

24. Comparison of Percentage of Students at Lower

and Upper Secondary Schools by Birth
Place and by Current Family Residence . . . 141

vii

Table

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

The Distribution of the Students at the
Public Lower Secondary by Family
Residence and Birth Place and the
Location of the Primary School
Completed . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Midele School Students by
Family Residence and by Location of
Primary School Finished . . . . . . .

Residential Characteristics of Students in
Secondary Schools (in percentages) . . .

"Ruralness" and Rural Participation in
Secondary Schools . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Students in Secondary Schools
by Sex and by Residential Characteristics
(in percentage) . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Students by Fathers' Occupations
by Type of School 1970-1971 . . . . . .

Distribution of Fathers' Occupations of
Secondary Students in 1971 and the
Occupational Distribution of the Male
Population in 1965 in Percentages . . . .

Distribution of Students in Secondary Schools
by Fathers' Educational Level . . . . .

Educational Attainment Level of Population
1965, and Educational Attainment Level
of the Fathers of Students at Secondary
School . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Parental Occupation of Lycee Students . . . .

Parental Occupation of the Students and
Occupations of Turkish Male Population . .

viii

Page

143

150

153

155

158

159

161

164

167

169

172

Figure

Primary Schools
Primary Schools
Primary Schools
Lower Secondary
Lower Secondary
Lower Secondary
Upper Secondary
Upper Secondary

Upper Secondary

LIST OF FIGURES

- 1960

- 1965 .
- 1970

Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools

Schools

ix

1960
1965
1970
1960
1965

1970

Page
83
84
85
99

100
101
105
106

107

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Statement of the Problem

 

Turkey is a developing nation committed to a
democratic way of life and to accelerating its economic
and social development, with special emphasis on the
realization of social justice throughout the country. The
realization of social justice has been the main target
of the national development plan, which aims to create
equilibrium between income groups and to provide social
services to all.

Education plays an important role in the processes
of democratization and economic and social development.

In the first place, the important responsibilities of an
educational system are considered to consist of preparing
the manpower required for the economy and developing basic
skills, knowledge and attitudes required for the nation as
a whole. Second the development process requires a
balanced interregional planning of the sectors of agricul-
ture, industry, and educational services. From this

point of view, education needs to be integrated into

balanced interregional planning. Third, education provides
the necessary knowledge and skills which increase the
employment opportunities of individuals. For these reasons,
the education system, in providing equal opportunities to
all, contributes significantly to the realization of "social
justice" throughout the country.

With this end in view, this study attempts to find
out just what are the differences or inequalities in the
provision of educational opportunities at both the primary-
and secondary levels of schooling between the years 1960
and 1970 in the provinces of the country, and the differ-
ences in socio-economic background of students who had
access to schools above primary level in the regions of

Turkey in 1970.

Need for the Study

 

The problem in this study has come out of the experi—
ence of the investigator in the Department of Planning,
Research and Coordination of the Ministry of Education in
Turkey (in Turkish this department bears the initials PAKDH-
"Planning, Arastirma ve Koordinasyon Dairesi"). Over
recent years, the need for evaluation of educational prac-
tices in order to establish investment priorities among
the provinces has been one of the important issues faced
in this relatively newly established department. Past
practices for allocating resources dealt with only one or

two indicators of educational development, such as increase

in enrollments, pupils per classroom, or pupils per
teacher. There is a pressing need for the establishment
of more objective criteria which may provide better infor-
mation on educational growth and the educational needs of
the provinces. Also, the distribution of resources is
closely related to the problem of providing equal oppor-
tunity to all. A need for a comprehensive study has long
been felt, to assess what is provided in the provinces and
what the differences are in terms of educational develop-
ments among the provinces.

In the last decade, through efforts of planned
development, special attention has been given to the elim-
ination of disparities among the regions of the country.
For that purpose several studies, descriptive in nature
as described in detail in Chapter II, have been conducted
between the years 1960 and 1970. Almost all of the
studies revealed that there were marked differences among
the provinces in terms of enrollment ratios and age group
participation ratios, especially between those in the
Western and those in the Eastern part of the country.

The findings of these studies were based mostly on
data collected for a specific year, such as 1963, 1964 or
1970. There was no study which dealt with progress in
education over a period of time. However, there has been
a strong need for establishing the educational growth
patterns of the past, in order to foresee the growth in

the future and to plan ahead over the long range.

In this study an attempt is made partially to meet
these needs by investigating growth patterns in provinces
in five year intervals between 1960 and 1965 and between
1965 and 1970.

Another important issue is the evaluation of educa-
tional practices among the regions in a socio-economic
development context. Growth in education is never fully
explained by the amount of investment. Besides material
resources, sociological, geographical, cultural, and other
factors also play important roles in the expansion of
school opportunities. In order to understand better the
nature of differences in educational growth, socio-economic
factors need to be observed and the relationships between
these and educational development need to be specified.

By doing so, a better understanding of the inequalities

or differences between provinces may be reached. Past
studies do not provide uniform explanations because of
differences in methodologies and measures employed. In

the present study, a great deal of emphasis has been placed
on socio-economic correlates and other explanatory vari-
ables of educational development.

During recent years, a great deal of expansion has
been achieved in primary and secondary school enrollments
in Turkey. Who benefitted the most from this expansion?
This is a question with wide policy implications. Is the
expansion still in favor of children from urban areas or

still in favor of those children who come from the upper

.u-

 
 

strata of the society or from well-to-do families? This
study takes a further step by studying differences in
terms of socio-economic backgrounds of students who had

access to school above the primary level.

The Purpose of the Study
In the light of needs specified above, the purpose

of this study is to seek answers to the following main

questions:

1. What are the differences or inequalities in
the availability of school opportunities at primary and
secondary levels among the provinces of Turkey?‘

2. What are the differences in the growth of
school opportunities between the years of 1960 and 1970

among the provinces, and what factors account for these

differences?

3. Among the regions of the country what are the
differences in the socio—economic backgrounds of students

who had access to schools above primary level?

Objectives of the Study

The study attempts to achieve the following

objectives:

1. To provide more accurate and reliable data on

(iifferences in educational opportunities among the provinces

o f Turkey .

2. To provide better criteria for allocation of

.resxources to eliminate disparities among the provinces.

3. To provide systematic evidence on factors which
influence differences in educational opportunities.

4. To examine possible relationships among educa-
tional and socio-economic factors so that this knowledge

may have beneficial impacts upon educational policy deci—

sions.

Limitations of the Study

The first part of the study attempts to explain
differences of educational growth and expansion in terms
of increase in enrollments, increase in age cohorts
enrolled in school, girls' share in the composition of
enrollments, and teacher expansion in the provinces of
Turkey, for 1960, 1965 and 1970. With respect to quali-
tative growth in schooling, pupil per teacher ratios at
primary levels and science teachers per one hundred students
at secondary levels, are taken as indicators of quality.

The three levels of schooling—-primary, lower secondary,

and upper secondary—-constitute the scope of study. For
this part of the study, data were gathered from the official
publications of the State Statistical Institute and from

the official files of the Ministry of Education.

Secondly, in order to examine socio-economic back—
ground characteristics of students, two samples of students
were drawn from the populations of the first and third grade
students of lower secondary schools and from first and third

grade students of upper secondary schools.

 

The present study is descriptive in nature.
Educational develOpment or growth in school opportunities
are studied in quantitative terms. The State Statistical
Institute's documents are the main source for the part of
the study which deals with increase in enrollments and
numbers of teachers. Reliability of the data of the
State Statistical Institute was Checked where possible
against the files of the Ministry of Education, but in some
cases the State Statistical Institute's data were the only
data available, and it was not possible to check them
against Ministry of Education information. 1970 data, on
the other hand, are based only on the files and publications
of the Ministry of Education. However, these data also
were checked subsequently against the data published by
the State Statistical Institute for the 1970-71 school
year. Both sources of data were found comparable to each
other, and substitutable. Nevertheless, the reliability
of the findings of this study is subject to all of the
limitations inherent in the reliability of official sta—

tistics.

Definition of Terms

 

The following are terms which are extensively used
and need to be specifically defined for this study. In
order to give an understanding of the Turkish educational
system to a foreign reader, a few terms relating to the

J

'hukish educational system also are given.

Primary School: This is the school which provides education

 

for children between 6 and 14 years of age. Primary
education is compulsory for all children. It lasts for
five years.

PrimaryiSchool Leaving Certificate: A certificate awarded

 

at the end of the fifth year, through a leaving exami—
nation before a board.

Secondary Education: The level of education which starts

 

after primary. It is comprised of both lower and upper
secondary education cycles.

Lower Secondary School (The Middle School): A three-year

 

general school, which accepts those who have success-
fully completed the primary school.

Lygee: This is one of the types of upper secondary schools.
The middle school graduates are accepted into it and
its course lasts for three years. At the end of the
first class, courses are divided into science and art
sections.

Teacher's Training School (for primary school teachers):

 

This is one type of upper secondary school. It aims
at training teachers for the primary level of education.
It is a boarding school, free of charge. This school
accepts graduates from middle schools, subject to an
entrance examination.

Imam-Hatip Okullari (Theological Schools): This is a two-
1evel school. The first level, now abolished, was for

three years and accepted primary school graduates. The

second level, which became three years in length effec-
tive 1971, now accepts graduates directly from the
middle school.

Commercial Lycee: This is a three-year vocational school.
These schools accept the graduates of lower secondary
school. The students specialize in commercial subjects.

Boys' Vocational School: This is a three-year trade school.

 

These schools accept the graduates of lower secondary
schools. They aim to train their students as skilled
workers to meet the needs of the economy.

Girls' Vocational Institute: This is an establishment pro-
viding, in addition to general education, instruction
in home economics. The course lasts 3 years and is
open to the graduates of lower secondary school.

School Enrollment: In this study enrollment is defined as

 

the figure which shows the number of the students who
are listed on the schools' records prepared at the
beginning of the school year in 1960, 1965 and 1970.

School Participation Ratios: This is the ratio of enroll-

 

ment over the related age cohort which is specified as

the age group for the type of school given. For pri-

mary education the normal age group is 7 - 12; for
middle school 13 - 15; and for upper secondary school
16 - 18.

Egpansion: Expansion is defined as the amount of increase

 

in total student population over n years. In this study

the year 1960 is taken as the base year, and the

10

difference between 1960-1965, 1965-1970 and 1960-1970
givestflmameasures of expansion in primary and secondary
school enrollments.

Girls' Share in Student Composition: This measure is
obtained from the ratio of girls' enrollments over
total enrollments.

Pupil Teacher Ratio: This measure is taken as one of the

indicators of the quality of schooling. It is obtained
for a given province by dividing the number of students
enrolled in the province's primary schools by the number

of the primary teachers employed in the province.

Educational Development: This expression is used synony-

mously with the meaning of development of schooling
opportunities which are studied quantitatively in this
study. Increases in school participation ratios over
the years are taken as the main indicators of

development in education.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter presents (1) basic theoretical and
practical issues related to the concept of equality of
educational opportunity; (2) the evolution of the meaning
of the concept; and (3) a review of research dealing with
practices in the United States, in Europe, and in Turkey.

First, discussions of moral, socio-psychological
and economic issues related to the concept of "equality of
educational opportunity" are reviewed. Second, the evolu-
tion of the operational definition of the concept in the
United States, in Europe and in Turkish society is described
in historical perspective. The last part of the chapter
presents a discussion of the cultural and legal foundations
of equality of educational opportunity in Turkish society

and a review of recent related research.

Studies Related to Central Issues

Moral Considerations

The concept of equality of educational opportunity

Ems gained importance through debates and practices of

11

12

democratic political life, upon the establishment of nation-
wide public instruction departments, and upon the concept
of education as a means toward social and economic develop-
ment. Parallel to these, the rise of communism, with its
claim to create a classless society, has brought the issue
more into international focus. The principle of the
equality of individuals in a democratic society, and the
principle of equality of all individuals before the power
of the State, have been the main sources from which democra-
tic laws, policy decisions, and practices in relation to
social welfare have been derived and implemented.

Today, in the western world where democracy has
been practiced, and in those nations in which there exists
a clear, definite orientation and a determined direction
toward the establishment of a democratic society, the rights
of the individual, and the claims of individuals to be
afforded an opportunity for the attainment of their full
stature, has become a moral right universally conceded.l

In the second half of the Twentieth Century, educa-
tion is seen as the principal means of self-development,
and the idea has grown up that the rights of citizens should
include the right to be educated. The 26th article of the
Ibolaration of Human Rights expresses the point very

Clearly:

1A. H. Halsey, Ability and Educational Opportunity,

0.E.C.D., 1961, p. 16.

13

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall
be free at least in elementary and fundamental stages.
Elementary education shall be compulsory; technical
and professional education shall be made generally
available and higher education shall be equally
accessible to all on the basis of merit, without
regard to race, sex, or any economic or social dis—
tinctions.

The same idea reflects itself in the constitutions of
democratic nations.
Not only in a democratic society, say Anderson and

Bowman:

Equality of educational Opportunity has been widely
proclaimed as a universal human right. At least in
form, this faith is set forth in societies with the
most diverse political systems. The task of press-
ing towards the ideal of an 'educative society'
offering to all citizens every possible access to
the cultural heritage is one which now engages the
imagination of all nations.

Contemporary national and international policy makers have
engaged in, and have felt responsible for, the realization
of equality of formal educational opportunities. In addi-
tion to efforts of the United Nations, the efforts of
O.E.C.D. need also to be mentioned here. At the Kunglav
Conference sponsored by O.E.C.D., and later in special
study groups on the issue of "Social Objectives of Educa-
tional Planning," the equality of educational opportunities
was studied more extensively. The main burden of the con-

ference papers was their conclusion that in the developed

¥

lTnsan Haklari Evrensel Beyannamensi, Resmi
Gazete, Vol. 30, Basbakanlik Matbadsi, Ankara, 1949, p. 1019.

2C. Anderson Arnold and Mary Jean Bowman, Educa-
tional Planning, edited by Don Adams (Syracuse: Syracuse
University, 1964), p. 14.

14

countries of O.E.C.D. educational opportunity had not yet
followed recognized ability within the population. Instead,
the educational systems in these countries continued to
leave large reserves of the population's ability under-
developed. As expressed by the Swedish Ministry of Educa-
tion, the Kunglav Conference elicited a great concern for
fostering the self development of the individual:

If we are really bent on fostering individual ability,

we must first organize the compulsory school in such

a way as will give everyone the same right and oppor-

tunity to an education regardless of socio—economic

background and geographic location.

At the follow-up conferences in 1965, it was
expressed that the Twentieth Century opinion, in most coun-
tries, had coverged toward a consensus in accepting the
principle of equality of formal educational opportunity.
As interpreted by Henning Friis:

This moral conception of education in the Twentieth
Century, furthermore, is matched by a new under—
standing of the nature of ability which leads to
abandonment of the idea of a fixed 'pool of ability'
in the population. It is increasingly recognized
that economic and social development, which includes
educational input, actually constitutes a process of
creating ability among a population. The limits of
this ability reserve, if such limit exists, have for

practical purposes not yet been reached in any
country.

§gcio—Psychological Considerations

 

Up until today, equality of educational opportunity

has been interpreted in the context of social class,

¥

lHalsey, op. cit., p. 17.

2 . .. . - . . . .
Henn1ng Fr1is, Soc1al Objectives 1n EducatIOnal
Planning, O.E.C.D., 1967, p. 8.

 

I

15

socio-economic status, sex, race, and other distinctions.
The allocation of educational opportunities had been based
upon the concept of a pool of ability, which was understood
to be fixed in the population. The O.E.C.D. Conference in
1965, where American, English, Swedish, and other European
scholars brought this issue into focus, opened up two
general challenges for the sociology of education:

1. There is a challenge to applying general know-
ledge concerning obstacles to the release of
human ability through educational opportunity.
Every country can see education as a means
towards a richer and more just life for its
members, but every country has its own special
history of education and its own constellation
of social forces making up a unique set of
conditions in terms of which social and educa-
tional policy should be formulated.

2. There is a challenge to develop a workable theory
of relationships between education and social
structure. The notions of a technological society
and the centrality of the educational process need
to be worked out, not only in relation to such
economic considerations as the return to invest-
ment, but also in terms of the social determinants
of educability, the sociology of school, the pro-
fessionalization of new sectors of the labor force,
and the problems of cohesion and consensus in a
differentiated society.

The ability to profit from education is itself
increasingly seen to be a result of social experience. As
a result of sociological and psychological studies, the
influence of social factors upon measured intelligence and
Lmon educational achievement are such that a moral conclu-
sion may be drawn--that the concept of equality of educational

opportunity must be radically redefined to include also the

lIbid., p. 8.

16

opportunity to overcome such obstacles to the development

of one's ability.1

The close connection between measured ability and
social background is one of the major discoveries of the
Twentieth Century, and it is a discovery with a universal
application.

In every country people who live in towns get more
education and are more successful in education than
are the people in the country. In every country
children from homes where the parents have profes-
sional or white collar jobs succeed more in education
than do children from homes where the parents are
manual workers. Consequently, in most countries,
educational reform, to a considerable extent, depends
upon bringing the opportunities which are available
to the more favored sections of the community within
reach of all children.

Studies in several countries3 revealed occupational
structure to be the variable providing the best explanation
of differences in access to school and in participation in
schooling. Regional inequalities in terms of access or
participation seemed merely to reflect other social
inequalities.

Among these O.E.C.D. countries, studies seeking
explanatory factors for regional disparities in school
participation rendered largely similar results. Explanatory

factors included: distance from school to home as a function

¥

lHalsey, op. cit., p. 17.

2John Vaizey, Education in the Modern World (New

York: McGraw Hill, 1967), p. 166.

3O.E.C.D. Conference on Policies for Educational
§£pwth, Background Study No. 8: Educational Planning
Methods (O.E.C.D., 1970): P. 8.

 

 

 
 

17

of the country's degree of urbanization, availability of
‘the material resources of families, employment possibilities
for young people with low level education and the child's
past achievement in school.

In France, at the level of first cycle secondary
schooling, the distance between home and school was held to
be the primary factor in explaining participation of some
categories of children. In the Netherlands, a region's
occupational structure appeared to be the factor exercising
the greatest influence on gymnasium participation rates.

In one of the O.E.C.D. papers it was concluded that
all these factors are also closely interrelated, so that
it is not possible statistically to separate their respec-
tive effects on enrollment ratios. Occupational structure
changes largely as a function of economic variables (per
capita income, industrialization) all of which are linked
'to enrollments. In this regard, the problem of cause and
effect is fundamental. The only way for progress to be
made in this area may be to remove the obstacles to enroll-
Hmnts one by one. It may be fruitless to disguise the fact
that some of the obstacles are deeply rooted in the society.
A.policy designed to iron out inequalities, if unaccompanied
(by social reform, would appear to be illusory.

Torsten Husenl in his study of the effect of school

Structure upon utilization of ability, points out that

1T. Husen, "The Effect of School Structure upon
Utilization of Ability," Social Objectives of Educational

Planning (O.E.C.D., 1965), p. 54.

18

pupils from working class families and agricultural families
are greatly under-represented in secondary academic schools

in all countries of Europe, and that social factors play an

important role in competitive examination. In his words:

Ability and school achievements admittedly carry
great weight but they are far from being the sole
determinant of study careers.

In competitive selection wide latitutde is allowed
to social factors, perhaps not first and foremost
the economic status of parents, but rather their
own level of education and social aspirations.
This turns out to be surprisingly true even in
societies like Sweden where economically based
class differences are fairly small. The home's
cultural standard ranked with scholastic ability
as a crucial determinant of success in school.

Recent Socio-economic Studies in
the United States

 

 

Extensive studies were recently conducted in the
U. S. in relation to assessment of the provision of equal
<opportunities to all. In the decade of the 19605 the
(definition of the concept and explanations of the differ-
ences in educational opportunity shifted from investigation
of the differences in participation rates and from differ—
ences in the material and human resources provided to the
School over to investigations of differences in the
effects of the school and to outcomes in terms of pupil
growth and achievement. The survey conducted by Coleman
and his associates brought this issue into focus and led
to wider considerations of more complex ways of measuring

educational opportunity.

19

In their nation-wide study, Coleman and his asso-
ciates administered standardized achievement tests measur-
ing students' skill in reading, writing, and problem
solving, to some 645,000 children in grades 1, 3, 6, 9
and 12 in 4,000 schools in all fifty states and the Wash-
ington, D. C. area. On all the tests administered, students
from minority groups (Indian American, Mexican American,
Puerto Rican and Blacks) scored substantially below the
White students. The average Black's score, for example,
tended to be about one standard deviation below the White
average. About 85 per cent of the Blacks scored below
the White average. In terms of grade level achievement,
the disparity between achievement of minority and majority
groups widens as they go through school. For example, in
the third grade the average Black in the metropolitan
northeast is almost one year behind the average White student
in reading ability; by grade six he is behind more than one
and a half years; by grade nine he is more than two and a
lmlf years behind; and by the 12th year he is almost three
years behind the average white in reading ability.1

For Blacks in the rural south, the most disadvan-
taged group, the gap widens even more as they go through
school: by 12th grade they are almost two years behind the

Blacks in the metrOpolitan northeast.

1James 8. Coleman, and others, Egyalipy of Educa-
tional Opportunity (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1965), p. 224.

 

20

The most important finding of the Coleman Report is
that the wide disparities in academic achievement referred
to above could not be attributed to differences in the
qualities of the school which the minority group attended.
Coleman and his associates expected to find inequalities
in the quality of the schools, as measured by such factors
as age of school buildings, number of textbooks, library
facilities, average class size, teacher's education and
background, etc. They assumed that these inequalities
would help explain inequalities in academic achievement.
This assumption also had been the principal basis for U.S.
federal policies and educational programs--that the differ-
ences in school inputs largely explained the differences in
output. The main idea had been to equalize the inputs by
providing resources and programs necessary to bring the
school up to the level of the best.

Surprisingly, the Coleman study revealed nothing
of this sort. It was found that black schools did not
spend significantly less money per pupil than white schools,
did not have substantially larger classes, did not operate
in older and more crowded buildings, and so on.

Coleman and his associates found that differences
in school quality were not closely related to differences
in school achievement and inadequate educational input that
they expected to find simply did not materialize. On the

contrary, neither black, nor white, nor Mexican American,

21

nor Puerto Rican, nor Indian American children from a given
socio-economic background did significantly better in
schools with high per-pupil expenditure, new plants, large
libraries, or up—to-date curricula, than they did in
schools with low expenditure, outdated plants and curriculum,
or small libraries. Schools appeared to be remarkably
uniform in their effects on students' learning. Differ-
ences in students' achievements from school to school
seemed to be due more to differences in the students' own
family background and in the backgrounds of their fellow
students than to differences in the quality of the schools
themselves.

The social origin and aspirations of school chil-
dren appear to condition their achievement to a very large
extent. Interestingly enough, it was pointed out that
the relationship between social origin and achievement
does not change during the course of the school career.

In other words, schooling does not appear to have the
cmrrective effects on inequalities that one might be
entitled to expect.

In the words of the investigators, the overall find-
ings of the study stated as such:

That schools bring little influence to bear on a
child's achievement that is independent of his
background and general social context, and that
this very lack of an independent effect means

that the inequalities imposed on children by their
home, neighbourhood, and peer environment are
carried along to become the inequalities with which
they confront adult life at the end of school. For

equality of educational opportunity through the
school must imply a strong effect of the schools

22

that is independent of the child's immediate social

environment, and that strong independent effect is

not present in American schools.

There have been some strong objections to Coleman's

findings on both methodological and theoretical grounds.
It has been asserted that there were shortcomings in his
method of survey research due to the inability of surveys
to explain complex processes and causes of educational
achievement. Secondly, it has been claimed that some of
his generalizations, such as "schools don't matter" and
"schooling does not have corrective effects on inequali-
ties," have been misstated in view of only a few significant
associations between measured school resources and pupil
achievement, and that teacher expectations also may heavily
influence pupil learning. Another important issue is that
Coleman's findings do not provide adequate answers con-
cerning the interaction effects of various configurations
of teachers, pupils and setting, which interactions are
likely to produce the most significant differential effects
(an student achievement. Grant,2 for instance, points out
that other research shows that children with similar
background and ability in the same school setting achieve

at different levels in different classrooms. Another

important criticism deals with the statistical distinction

 

lIbid., p. 325.

2Gerald Grant, "Review of Equality of Educational
Opportunity," papers deriving from the Harvard University
Faculty Seminar on the Coleman Report, Harvard Educational
Review, Vol. 42, No. 11 (1972), p. 114.

 

23

between causation and association, which makes interpre-
tation of the findings of the Coleman Report less definite.
However, Coleman's major findings were confirmed in later
studies. These are:

Black and white school children generally enjoy
comparable school resources.

Family background factors may be even more strongly
related to pupil achievement than Coleman originally
asserted.

The average achievement of children who are poor or
who are members of minority groups is lower at

every level gf schooling than that of the average
white pupil.

Economic factors do not seem to play a more
important role than do the attitudinal ones. The attitudes
of children toward their school work are deeply affected
by the degree of encouragement from their parents, by the
social composition of the schools, and by their self con—
ception of ability. Intelligence and other human capaci-
ties have to be seen less as the property of individuals
and more as the properties of social and cultural forces.
In this respect, Brookover and Erickson2 assert that the
belief in a fixed intelligence has dominated the American
school:

Over the years, evidence contrary to the belief

in a fixed learning ability has been ignored . . . .
The emphasis on the identification of people with
various learning abilities or 'talents' and through

this the selection of people for various types of
education and training, have overshadowed any

 

lIbid., p. 110.

2W. B. Brookover and Edsel L. Erickson, Society,
Schools, and Learning (New York: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
1969). P. 5.

 

24

efforts in American schools to cultivate the
appropriate social climates or environments which
would develop the academic abilities of school
children in the appropriate fields.

They suggested that the task immediately ahead for
American education is the mobilization of resources to
develop an educational environment in which higher and
higher levels of learning will occur. The creation of
social environments, with both new norms and beliefs about
human behaviour, and also new organizational patterns
which will foster maximum learning, must occur. New
horizons for an ever-expanding human educability must
provide the foundation for the Twenty—First Century, and

new challenges to the definitions of equality of educa-

tional opportunity.

Economic Considerations

 

In recent years, there have been encouraging attempts
to establish quantitatively the interwoven relationships
between economics and education. It has been maintained
that one of the functions of education is to adapt the human
resources of a society to the requirements of its production
processes.

As expressed by Parnes:l

One of the functions of an educational system is to

provide the society work force with the skills and
know-how required for productive activity. It

1H. S. Parnes, "Assessing the Educational Needs
of a Nation," in Educational Planning, edited by Don
Adams (Syracuse: Syracuse University, 1964), p. 55.

 

25

follows that the system must be reasonably well

geared to the production requirements of the

economy.
It has become an established belief that education has an
effect upon the technical process and upon the general
advance of knowledge, as well as upon the productive
efficiency of the labor force. In all of the developed
and underdeveloped countries, the direction of social
change is toward a technological society, in which human
material welfare is continuously increased by the applica—
tion of science to the production process. A technologi—
cally oriented society places education in a central
institutional position, as both a source of technological
and cultural change, as well as a vast training apparatus
for the highly diversified manpower requirements of a
technological economy.

Some claim that the approach to education as a
means for manpower requirements contradicts the ideals of
the equality of educational opportunity. In order to
develop a nation, priorities should be recognized for
economic development. Otherwise, equality of opportunity
could never be realized. Accordingly, equality without
economic well-being has no meaning at all. However,
some, on the contrary, see that investment in education as
a means to satisfy manpower requirements is not simply a

one-way process. Instead, this economic necessity makes

26

it possible to mobilize new reserves of talent. As

expressed by Wolfe:l
The democratic ideals of equality of educational
opportunity are now reinforced by economic necessity.
Countries may not be able to sustain economic growth
unless all the reserves of talent in the population
are actively sought out and attracted into needed
educational channels. This applies particularly to
science and technology where the need for talented
individuals is expanding more rapidly than in most
other sectors. Thus the importance of fully
developing the talents of young peOple, which is
important in its own right, quite apart from economic

needs, is reinforced by the imperatives of economic
development.

Several countries have sought to determine the size
of the intellectual reserve that is being neither fully
educated nor utilized. The intellectual reserve of a
nation is not a fixed quantity which the nation can use
or neglect. Rather, it is a variable that can be increased
or decreased, a variable that depends upon the customs and
policies of the nation, its system of education, and the
manner in which young people are encouraged and motivated
to improve themselves.

The idea, even when derived from economic consid-
erations, contributes to the interpretation of the concept
of equality of educational opportunity: intellectual
reserves may be manipulated through the customs and econo-
nuc policies of the nation.

Another point of view is that an advanced industrial

economy requires a well-educated, adaptable, and

¥

lDael Wolfe, "Reserve of Ability," in Halsey,
Op. cit., p. 49.

O I

 

 

27

geographically-occupationally mobile labor force. This
view is not contradictory to the concept of equality of
opportunity, since, with a high rate of social mobility,
it is possible to minimize and even eliminate social

factors which create imbalances and inequalities.1

Social and Economic Constraints to
Eguality of Educational Opportunity

Scholars engaged in studies of social stratification
believe that the equality of educational opportunity is a
very idealistic concept, and that its realization is
impossible-~especially in developing nations. They tend
to claim that in every society duties and privileges are
allocated in different kinds and amounts. Certain indivi-
duals and certain numbers of groups are granted or excluded
from designated privileges, either by custom, by legislative
or judicial act, or by administrative decision.

Every educational system involves differential
treatment. In all societies there are vertical status
gradients. In educational attainment, a country's overall
economic level and its occupational structure are manifest
in the basic educational structure and in the general level
of educational opportunity. In a differentiated modern

society, it seems extremely difficult to eliminate or

¥

1A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson,

Education, Economy and Society (New York: Free Press,
1964) I p. 4.

28

minimize the influence of the social factors.l A5 also
expressed by John Vaizey:

There is considerable evidence to suggest that the
inherent advantages given to students, particularly
in their early years, by a favorable human environ-
ment (possibly aided by genetic factors) will cer-
tainly always be likely to lead to the greater
academic success of those children coming from high
income homes, however passionately egalitarian the
administrators of education may be.

Vaizey also draws attention to the single factor of
unequal distribution of income by arguing that:
When social and economic aspects of education are
considered during a period of rapid change, it
seems likely that any egalitarian doctrine embodied
in a social service like education is unlikely to be
operationally feasible as long as the income dis-
tribution is unequal and it is held that this source
of inequality is probably ineradicable. No nation—
wide social service can easily be more egalitarian
than the income distribution.
He suggests that equality needs to be evaluated in a
broad socio-economic context.
Bowman and Andersonfldealing with the dilemmas of

social democratization, put the criterion of efficiency

against the criterion of equality or equity. Their ideas

 

lC. Arnold Anderson and Foster Philips, "Discrim-

ination and Inequality in Education,” Sociology of Educa-
tion, American Sociological Association, Vol. 38, No. l,

p. 5.

 

2John Vaizey, ”Some Dynamic Aspects of Inequality,"

§9cial Objectives in Educational Planning (O.E.C.D.,
1951).

 

3Ibid., p. 49.

4Bowman and Anderson, op. cit., pp. 14-18.

29

and criticism of the concept of equality of educational
opportunity may be summarized as follows:

In a developing nation, equity is an aim, but quick
economic returns are an equally pressing aim. It forces
more considered choices about where to make expenditures,
and it directs attention to the relations between education
and economic multipliers. Invest in education where the
expected ratio of gains in economic output costs are
highest and extend these investments-~50 long as the
economic benefit cost ratios exceed the ratios in the
alternative use of resources. To distribute schools and
school places proportionately among a population, if the
resources are scarce, would cause a great wastage. Bowman
and Anderson conclude that it is only in the more advanced
societies that equity can be regarded as essential to,
or even consistent with, economic efficiency.

Gerald Read,1 in a mimeographed article, reacts
to the idea of schooling as the great social leveller.

He points out that excessive hopes have been followed by
excessive reactions in the USSR and USA. In the USA, a
backlash has built up against such programs as "Headstart,"
"Busing of Black Students" and Compensatory Education. A
similar backlash to polytechnical labor education and
boarding schools has been experienced in the USSR. He

also quotes the words of John Vaizey saying that schooling

 

lGerald H. Read, "Secondary Educational Trends in
Europe and the United States of America? (Kent, Ohio:
Kent State University, undated). (Mimeographed.)

.-

lb

30

is something that very rich countries spend their money on
to keep their adolescents occupied because of technological
development, rather than being a basic cause of their
wealth and development. On this basis, Read attacks the
conventionally accepted assumptions that more can be
learned in school than elsewhere and that the best way to
compensate for social and economic inequality is to provide
compulsory schooling for all. He claims it is more and
more evident that this will not work, beyond a certain
level of education, simply because schoOling of children
merely tends to be an extension of the family and social

environments.

In Summary

 

Discussions of equality of educational opportunity
are largely loaded with moral considerations. Both equality,
being one of the ideals of democracy, and the great
emphasis which democracy places upon individual's rights
and the need for the realization of these rights, urge
nations to take necessary actions. Education has been con-
ceived as the most important sphere for the realization of
individual rights and self-development.

Recent studies of the relationships between educa-
tion, social stratification, and economy urge policy makers
to create environments in which everybody should have a
chance to develop his capacities in full. The new concept
of ability as a variable, determined largely by environ—

mental factors, has had strong implication for the

31

definition and provision of equality of educational oppor—
tunities.

But many of the obstacles in providing educational
opportunity to all are deeply rooted in the society.
Realization of equal educational opportunity may best be
achieved in cooperation with equalization efforts in other
social sectors of the society. Educational reforms for
achieving equality have to be accompanied by social reforms.

Development of the Concept of Equal
EducatIonal Opportunity

 

 

Definition and Indicators of Educational
Opportunity in the UnIted States

 

 

In the words of Coleman, the concept of equality of
educational opportunity has had an evolving character.l

Historically speaking, according to the child's
position in society, the concept of educational opportunity
either had no relevance, was relevant only with respect
to its connection to the structure of the economy and
social stratification, or was broadly relevant to the
society's basic philosophy or way of life. Coleman states
that where the family carried the responsibility for its
members' welfare "from cradle to grave," where the mobility
of productive labor among the family's economic units was
low, and where the family functioned as a unit of economic

production and provided an appropriate context in which the

 

1James S. Coleman, "Equality of Educational Oppor—

tunity," Harvard Educational Review (Winter, 1968).

 

32

child could learn the things he needed to know, the concept
had no significance at all. The real emergence of the
concept of the equality of educational opportunity started
within the period of the industrial revolution. During

and following the industrial revolution, changes occurred
within both the family's functions as well as in the func-
tions of organizations developed outside the household.
Children began to be occupationally mobile outside their
families. The training that a child received became the
interest of all the community. Families lost their economic
production function, lost their welfare function, and the
poor, ill, or incapacitated became more nearly a community
responsibility. These changes paved the way for public
education.

Coleman points out that the emergence of public
tax-supported education was not solely a function of the
stage of industrial development. It was also a function
of the class structure in the society. In most of the
countries of the world where European systems of education
were followed, school opportunities were differentiated
according to the social class structure of the society;
whereas, in the United States, without a strong traditional
class structure, the idea of universal education became
widespread.

In the United States, at the beginning, the focus of

educational opportunity was upon equality--a problem of

33

democracy. According to Coleman, the meaning of educational

opportunity has meant:

1.

Providing a free education up to a given level,
which constitutes the principal entry to the
labor force.

Providing a common curriculum for all children,
regardless of background.

Providing that children from diverse backgrounds
attend the same school, partly by design and
partly because of low population density.

Providing equality within the given locality,
since local taxes provided the source of support
for schools.1

Coleman states that this conception of equality of

opportunity is still held by many persons. In a histori-

cal context, he interprets five stages of development in

the meaning of the concept:

1.

2.

3.

4.

In the

All children must be exposed to the same
curriculum.

All children should be exposed to differing
curricula.

All children must have access to separate,
but equal facilities.

Equality is regarded as the opportunity to
attend the same school.

fourth stage, it was maintained that the effects of

separate schools were likely to be different; therefore,

the concept of the equality of opportunity shifted to a

focus upon the effect of schooling.

5.

The next stage of the evolution reflected itself
in the Survey of Equality of Educational Oppor—
tunity, as conducted by the Office of Education.

 

lIbid., pp. 11-12.

21bid., pp. 7-14.

34

One type of inequality may be defined in
terms of the differences of the community's
input to the school, such as per pupil
expenditures, school plants, libraries, and
quality of teachers.

A second type of inequality may be defined
in terms of the racial composition of the
school.

A third type of inequality includes those
intangible characteristics of the school,
as well as the factors directly traceable
to the community's input to the school--
teachers' morale, teachers' expectations of
the students, and the level of interest of
the academically active student body.

A fourth type of inequality may be defined
in the terms of the consequences of school-
ing for individuals possessing equal back-
grounds and abilities. (Equality of educa-
tional opportunity is equality of results
given by the same individual input.)

A fifth type of inequality may be defined

in terms of the consequences of the school
upon individuals of unequal background and
abilities. (In this definition, equality

of educational opportunity is the equality

of result given a different individual input.2

 

1.

1Such a definition-—as in item (d) especially gen-
erates an inequality that might arise from the differences
in school input, and/or from racial composition, and/or
from more tangible things than described above. Such
definitions would require that two steps be taken in the
determination of inequality.

It would be necessary to determine the effects of
these various factors upon the educational results.
(This requires various measures of the schools'

quality in terms of its effect upon its students.)

It would be necessary to take these measures of

quality once determined and to determine the dif-

ferential exposure of Negroids, Caucasoids, or

2

other groups to schools of high and low quality.

Ibid., pp. 16-17.

35

The first three definitions are concerned with input
resources. The fourth and fifth definitions are concerned
with the effect of schooling.

Definitions, Assumptions, and
Practices in Europe

 

 

In Europe, the issue of the provision of educational
opportunity to all dates back in France to the French
Revolution and further back in England. Today the movement
has been led mostly by English and Swedish scholars and
educators. The meaning of the equality of formal educa-
tional opportunities, and the practices for the realization
of this goal, have differed somewhat from those in the
United States.

Traditionally in Europe, the social class structure
has had a great impact upon the provision of educational
opportunities. There has been a significant difference
in the availability and quality of schools provided for
the different social strata. Furthermore, two main assump-
tions regarding the scarcity of educational resources and
a belief in the "pool of ability" had a great impact upon
the meaning given to the concept. It has been maintained
that:1

1. Educational resources will always be scarce,
so that a choice must be made between the children of any

age group as to those who should be adequately educated

and those who should receive second best.

 

lJohn Vaizey, Education for Tomorrow (New York:

McGraw Hill, 1962), p. 68.

 

 

...~

 

36

2. Ability is a fixed quantum, which can be
identified, and which to all intents and purposes remains
constant throughout life. The metaphor of the "pool of
ability," which suggests the idea of genetic qualities
in a population, sets limits to the amount of human energy
and intelligence that could be liberated by a program of
education.

These two assumptions had underscored the ways in
which the European system functioned for years. The system
of selectivity, which correlates with the values of a social
class system, became prominent; and the definition of the
equality of educational opportunity took the following
expressions:

1. All children of equal measured ability should
have roughly the same start in life.

2. All the people of equal ability should have an
equal opportunity to attend school.

In more specific terms, it is defined as:

. . . equal access to non-compulsory education for
all youngsters of equivalent measured ability--
regardless of sex, race, place of reiidence, social
class, or other 1rrelevant cr1ter1a.

In Europe, practices concerning who should be
permitted to a higher level of educational opportunity were

based upon criteria of academic success and scores of

academic aptitude. The educational system was so organized

 

. lVeila Susman, "Summary Review," Social Objectives
in Educational Planning (O.E.C.D., 1967), p. 15.

 

~\.

‘ n

37

that one consequence of the system resulted in a denial to
many pupils from the lowest social classes, as compared to
those from more privileged environments, of opportunities
provided at higher levels of the educational system.

After World War II, the main stress was placed upon
the rate of participation in schooling by social class.
Meanwhile, the concept of the "pool of ability" had been
challenged by scholars of social psychology. It was
demonstrated that there was a close connection between the
social class system and the distribution of academic ability.
In this line, the meaning of equality of educational oppor-
tunity shifted to the provision of educational opportunity
to social classes on the basis of equal rates of partici-
pation. This definition, "equal rates of participation in
non-compulsory education by members of all classes,"
leaves out of account the unequal social class distribution
of academic ability.

In the light of psychological and sociological
studies, the "ability to profit" from education is itself
increasingly seen to be a result of social experience. In
this line, there has been a shift in interest toward the
effects of schooling, and away from the availability of
schooling, as in recent U.S. definitions of the concept
of equality of educational opportunity.

Thus equality comes to mean "equal opportunity to

acquire academic skills and enrichment for youngsters of

38

all social classes." This is in accordance with the
definitions of Coleman regarding the effects of schooling.

In summary, as evidenced by the discussions cited
above, equality of educational opportunity has been con-
ceived for a long time in terms of the availability of
schools. The concerns were with where schools should be
located, and who should have access to higher levels of
education. Studies which have accompanied and observed
the rapid expansion of schools in recent years have
revealed that upper levels of the socio-economic class
scale of urban population and children of "white collar"
or non-"blue collar" workers have dominated the higher
levels of the educational ladder. Expansion of the educa-
tional system had not produced the results expected in
terms of equality. Anderson demonstrated that educational
expansion has not led automatically to a more equal par-
ticipation among social strata. The demand of the upper
strata for higher education has usually been fully met
before further expansion has produced a lessening of class
differences.

The Coleman study as summarized in previous pages
indicated that availabilities and characteristics of
schools were not closely correlated with the achievement
of students. The social composition of schools, the
aspirations of students, and the students' self—conception

i
of their ability seemed more significantly related.

 

1Ibid., p. 26.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

Today, the concern for providing equality of educa-
tional opportunity has shifted, not only to expanding the
availability of schools to all children, but also to
creating in schools more productive social environments
based on new norms and beliefs about human behaviour, to
developing organizational patterns which will foster
maximum learning, and to directing attention to the effects
of schooling.

Foundation for Equality of Educational
Opportunity in Turkey

 

The Turkish people have reached the end of a long
path, evolving from a medievalistic, authoritarian com-
munity to a modernistic, democratic society.1 During
the Ottoman Empire, society consisted of two major
classes. The first included those to whom the Sultan
delegated his religious and executive power—officers of
courts, army and civil servants, and religiously learned
men. The second class included the remaining population
governed by the Sultans and by his ruling elite. The
Ottoman society of the time was socially differentiated,
but it was not marked by the existence of a closed aris-
tocracy based only upon wealth and birth, as were the
western societies of that time. Inequalities existed in
the distribution of wealth and power, and a bifurcation

prevailed between the ruler and the subject masses.

 

lNuri Eren, Turkey Today and Tomorrow (New York:
Frederick A. Praeger, 1965), p. 31.

 

40

However, the Ottoman system, unlike the West, maintained

a comparatively fluid system of recruitment of talent.1
Recruitment and advancement operated in a fairly cpen
system. It was possible that a poor child, regardless of
his ethnic and social background, could, through education,
become Grand Vizier—-the highest position next to the
Sultan.

As in Ottoman society, so today also education
provides a basic social distinction within the Turkish
society. However, in the period of the decline of the
Ottoman Empire, educational opportunities were circumscribed
by social and economic factors.

The Ottoman Empire was an Islamic society. Islam
rejects social classes and social privileges and insists
upon the theoretical equality of all believers. From this
point of view, the society is a community of people without
any privileged social classes—-with the exception of "One
Commentator." A strong belief in the equality of birth
stressed "achievement" as a criterion for social, political,
and economic differentiation.

During the Ottoman Empire, the freedom to be
educated took its place legally in the 1850 Statute of
Reform. There it was mentioned that all the communities

had to provide schools for their youngsters. The first

 

lAndreas Kazamias and Byron G. Massialas, Tradition
and Change in Education (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice
Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 31.

 

41

regulations were laid down in 1869, in the General Regula-
tion for Education. The 1876 Constitution first set down
the right of the individual for education.1

With the establishment in 1923 of a new Turkish
Republic, a democratic way of life was introduced into
the society. Equality was one of the cardinal tenets of
the revolution. The founder of the Republic claimed that
the new nation was a populistic state, governed by the
people and for the people--the voice of the people was
the voice of their God. In other words, populism meant
equality of all citizens before the law.

In the 1924 Constitution, the provision for educa-
tion in Article 80 reads: "Under the supervision of the
state all kinds of education are free. Primary education
is compulsory and it is free in public schools."2

During the Republic's initial period, and into
the period of social democratization, the rights of the
individual have been stressed. The Constitution of the
Republic of 1961 is based upon human rights and the welfare
of the individual and society. The Constitution denies
special privileges to any individual or social group.

The 1961 Constitution spells out the right of

individuals to learn. Article 21 reads:

 

lSevim Tunc, Turkiyede Egitim Esitligi (Basnur
Matbasi, Ankara, 1969), pp. 29-30.

 

21924 Turkish Constitution.

nl~

4.

I...

1

42

Everyone has the right to learn, teach, explain
diffuse and study science and art. Training in
education is free under the supervision and control
of the government. No training or educational
institutions can be opened contrary to contemporary
scientific and educational principles.

The 1961 Constitution makes the provision of
education one of the duties of the state. In that respect,
Article 50 reads: "It is the primary task of government
to meet the educational and training needs of the people."

By so stating, the 1961 Constitution not only
accepts the right to be educated as a legal entity, but
makes the right to be educated a social right as well as
a legal right of the individual.1 The year 1960 was a
turning point in the history of Turkey. The May 27 Revolu-
tion brought a new constitution wherein education was seen
as a legal and social right for individuals.

The Commission for the Preparation of an Educational
Plan in 1960 stressed the importance of equality of educa-
tion. In the Constitution's words, equality meant:

Equality in education is to give to every citizen,
at any age, the education which fits his capabili-
ties and his needs and to provide different educa-
tional opportunities for compensation to those who
did not finish a proper school. In order to
realize equality in education, to open the schools
is not enough. Complementary aid to citizens
(books, scholarships, etc.) have to be made. Paral-
lel. to these, ability and achievement have to be
measured by objective means. The schools are the
mechanisms of selections; they are bound to develop

abilities, to create new interests and to educate
according to needs and capabilities.2

 

11961 Turkish Constitution.

2Report of the CommiSsion for Preparation of an
Educational Plan (Ministry of Education, Printing Office,
1960), p. 2.

43

All the political parties' programs are in accord-
ance with the idea of dedication to freedom and equality.
Historically, equality among individuals has been one of
the characteristic ideals of the Turkish society.

In recent years, through planned efforts or
development, special attention has been given to the
elimination of inequalities in the provinces, to balancing
the distribution of income, and to extending employment
and social services rendered to the people and regions of
the country. This also affects policy decisions as they
are related to the educational system. In the national
development plan, the realization of social justice, by
creating an equilibrium between income groups, by providing
equal opportunity for employment, and by providing social
services to all, has been the main target of the planning
efforts.

As stated in the plan by the Prime Minister:

The first five year development plan has been
prepared for the Turkish people who have definitely
chosen the democratic way of life, which makes it
possible to guarantee individual rights and welfare
and prosperity of both individual and community.

The plan accords with the will and resolution
expressed clearly in the Constitution to direct
economic and social life to the pursuit of standards
of living which are compatible with human dignity on
the basis of equity and full employment and, in so

doing, to end, at once and for all, attempts at
unplanned and arbitrary conducts.

 

1Development Plan, 1963-67, pt. 11 (Ankara:
State Planning Organization, 1964).

44

In the plan, the real aim is stated as social wel-
fare. It is for that reason that "social justice" is
emphasized in the objectives and strategy. Highlights of
the plan on this point may be summarized as follows:1

1. One of the social justice targets of the plan
is to eliminate disparities between income groups by
eliminating the factors causing disparities in the distri-
bution of income.

2. Equality of opportunity and social mobility
will be assured with a viewpoint toward encouraging the
individual to develop his own ability.

It was believed that "to provide a job with a
minimum income for every person who wants to work" is the
first condition for realizing equality of opportunity.
Full employment at adequate wage rates cannot be provided
unless the social structure of the country is strengthened
and educational as well as other services are promoted.
The plan states that the first condition for equality of
opportunity is to strengthen the industrial structure of
the country, together with such public serviées as educa-
tion, health, and social security.

In the first five year plan, it was accepted that
there were great differences among regions, from the
standpoint of the volume of social services and facilities.
Several measures were proposed for eliminating the

differences in those regions.

 

1Ibid., p. 49.

45

l. Investments will be distributed among the
geographic regions in compliance with the principle of
balanced interregional development.

2. Priority will be given to the backward regions.

The second five-year plan is a continuation of the
ideas, objectives, and strategies of the first five-year
plan.1 The points stressed in relation to social justice
are:

1. To realize economic and social development
through democratic ways within a mixed economic system; to
secure a standard of living based upon the principles of
justice and full employment compatible with human dignity.

2. To achieve a balanced development between
various regions and income brackets, to secure possibili—
ties of employment for a greater number of people, and to
share the benefits and burdens of development-—with equity
and within principles of social justice.

3. To interpret social justice not as to reach
an equity in poverty, but rather, as to raise the standard
of living by providing a just share for all from rising
income and increasing welfare.

4. To utilize as its principal tools for social
justice policies oriented to increasing employment possi-
bilities; progressive taxes, balanced distribution of

public services, equality in education and in-training

 

lSecond Five Year Development Plan (Ankara: State
Planning Organization, 1967), pp. 676-682.

 

46

Opportunities for individuals, and other policies to reduce
income disparities.

Special attention is given to the elimination of
disparities among the regions. To determine interregional
inequalities and polarization centers, several researches
have been conducted. The research revealed that the East
Anatolian region is less improved than that of the West
Anatolian region. The less-developed regions have a
potential for development. It is concluded that from a
developmental point of view it is not enough to bridge
the existing disparities between eastern and western
Anatolian regions.

In order to provide an equilibrium among the
regions, investments need to be concentrated in those urban
centers which will accelerate the country's modernization
processes.

The development plan, both in its first and second
five years, has special provisions and directions for
education in terms of equality of educational opportunity.
The first plan stressed that in order to achieve social
justice the educational sector should arrange itself so
that individuals will be able to benefit from employment
opportunities which require a basic education and trained
skills.l

Targets in education, one Of the fundamental

elements of human welfare, are to raise educa-
tional standards, to train individuals in

 

lIbid., pp. 676-682.

47

conformity with the needs and conditions of the
Turkish society, and to enable individuals to
take advantage of educational opportunities
according to their abilities.

In this line, the directions are as follows:

1. Those possessing certain abilities and talents
will benefit from the educational facilities--regardless
of their social or economic status.

2. An extensive scholarship program will be
established to enable promising students with limited
financial means to attend the higher educational institu-
tions.

The second five—year plan reflects the new trend,
stated also in terms of ability. Education is considered
to be the process of development of the student's ability:

The possibility to take advantage of the state
provided educational facilities beyond the
primary level will be secured according to the
principle of the equality of opportunity.
Accordingly, with the aid of scholarships and
of boarding schools, the capable students will
be allowed to obtain the highest levels of
education without being hindered by economic
difficulties and unfavorable environmental

conditions. Changes in policies and practices
will be made.1

The plan anticipates that there will be a decrease
in differences between rural and urban people who continue
at higher levels of education. The plan also grants
persons who do not continue to higher levels of education
an opportunity to develop certain other skills and

abilities. 1

!

 

lIbid., p. 75.

48

The brief descriptions above may serve to summarize
how equality and the equality of educational opportunity
are interpreted in contemporary Turkish society. Equality
has traditionally been one of the ideals of the society.
This ideal has been realized to some extent through the
efforts of Ataturk reforms. In this line the most signi-
ficant steps and measures have been taken since 1960
through planned development. Equality in educational
opportunity is conceived as one of the requirements for
the establishment of social justice within the Turkish
democratic society. In this respect, Turkey is one of the
countries of the democratic world in which the requirements
of a democratic society underlie all the objectives and
policies of the development efforts.

The Development Plan, especially in the second five
years, interprets equality of educational opportunity in
terms of the outcome of schools, as well as in terms of
availability of teaching environments. A regional balance
within the educational system attempts to cope with over-
all economic and social development balance among regions.
Starting with the Republic of Turkey the aim has been to
realize equality of educational opportunity through a
program of school expansion. Today a rapid expansion of
schools continues, but a new direction has been taken in
terms of providing learning environments in which the

opportunity to deveIOp abilities and skills for higher

~a~

cit

.p,.
-

yn'4

u.-

.-
l".

“Vu

....

 

me...

~ ‘

.

.1
$

‘-

'. i
»

 

 

 

 

 

49

levels of schools are extended to children of the rural
sector and children of unfavorable or disadvantaged
environments.

Research on Opportunities for
SchoOling in Turkey'

 

During the last decade, several studies have been
made related to the distribution of school opportunities
in Turkey. Most of them were conducted by outsiders.

One doctoral thesis was presented to the Faculty of Educa-
tion at Ankara University. Other studies especially dealt
with the distribution of school opportunities with special
attention to regional differences. All of these studies

revealed interesting results, and pointed out the need for

more refined work.

Kazamias' Study

 

In his book Education and the Quest for Modernity

 

in Turkey,1 Andreas Kazamias studied the expansion of
school opportunities and examined the school as a social
agency for change. After the establishment of the new
Turkish Republic, Ataturk stressed the importance of
science and scientific knowledge. In his words, the most
important real guide to life, success, and civilization
was science and knowledge. As Kazamias interpreted it,

this meant school had to play an important role in

‘

lAndreas M. Kazamias, Education and the Quest for
bbdernity in Turkey (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1966).

50

realization of this policy or ideal. Since the establish—
ment of the Republic there has been a permanent commitment
to the spread of education and to the expansion of educa—
tional opportunities for all parts of the country and all
segments of the population.

In order to evaluate to what extent the policy of
expansion of education has been achieved, Kazamias studied
growth in education in terms of amount and level of
schooling available for the relevant age cohorts, and the
extent to which certain traditional, geographical, and
socio-economic factors continued to play an important part
in educational attainment and in opportunities available
for the population. In order to assess more fully the
progress in expansion of education, his investigation was
based on indicators of comparative growth of girls' and
boys' education, of the geographical distribution of these
in a rural and urban dichotomy, and of the socio—economic
background of the pupils who attended the schools in the
school year of 1962-63. He found the following:1

1. School attendance on the part of girls had
consistently lagged behind that of boys. In the school
year 1923-24, there were 63,000 girls attending public and
private elementary schools, but in 1961-62 the number rose
to over 1,200,000. According to figures available in
1963, in only nine provinces was the female pupil enroll-

ment in rural elementary schools 45 per cent or over. In

 

11bid., pp. 159-206.

51

23 provinces the percentages of girls was 30 per cent or
less, and in three provinces it was less than 20 per cent
(Adiyaman, Hakkari, Mardin). The average for Turkey as a
whole was estimated to be 36 per cent.

2. The sharpest rural-urban disparities were
evident in post primary levels of schooling (orta school
and 1ycees). Almost all these schools were located in
towns and cities and the students enrolled in them were
predominantly urban in origin.

In the study of 1ycees, 76 per cent of the boys
and 92.5 per cent of the girls described themselves as
from an urban origin. On another index, 91 per cent of
the boys and 98 per cent of the girls indicated cities
and towns as parental place of residence. The majority of
lycee students came from localities of over 20,000
inhabitants, which represented only 18 per cent of the
total population of Turkey. The dominant urban character
of the 1ycees student population was further evidenced by
the fact that in the 1962—63 school year about 38 per cent
of total enrollments in public lycee were in three
provinces which were mainly urban——Istanbul, Ankara,
Izmir.

3. On the question of social origins of lycee
students, it was found that lycee students were overwhelm-
ing urban in origin, and even within the "urban" category

they were recruited from relatively large towns and cities.

52

4. About 40 per cent of students in public 1ycees
and about 32 per cent in the private Turkish 1ycees had
fathers classified as professional, high technical and
managerial, and high and low administrative and clerical,
and yet these occupational categories constituted only
5-6 per cent of the male population of Turkey. This
shows that the lycee group was not only urban, it was also
a socially select group. Only 30 per cent of the students
in all four types of 1ycees were drawn from categories of
private traders, small businessmen and the like, who con-
stituted over 70 per cent of the male labor force.

5. In the sample of lycee students, three major
occupational categories were most heavily represented
(23.6 per cent official, 23 per cent trade, and 22 per
cent professional). Combining official and professional,
44 per cent of the students were drawn from white collar
occupations, in comparison to 17.5 per cent who were
drawn from the ranks of skilled and unskilled workers and
trade and small business.

All these figures become more meaningful if they
were interpreted against the background of the distribution
of occupation in Turkey as a whole. It was clear that the
professional and official occupational groups were over
represented, the agricultural category under represented.
The farmers, fishermen and related groups constituted over
60 per cent of the entire male population, but less than

10 per cent in the sample indicated that their fathers

53

were engaged in such occupations. On the other hand, 44
per cent of the students indicated that their fathers
belonged to official and professional groups, yet such
occupations constituted only 5.5 per cent of the male
population of the country. From these findings Kazamias
concluded that there were inequalities of access into the
academic 1ycees in Turkey. In his terms, "although lycee
is a socially selective instiution it is by no means
exclusively an elite school." Yet taken in conjunction
with the urban-rural variable, it also shows that the
children of urban traders, small business people and such,
had greater chances for a lycee education than their rural

counterparts.l

Eastmond's Studies2

 

In 1964, N. J. Eastmond studied the distribution
of educational opportunities on the basis of data collected
by the Ministry of Education and by the State Statistical
Institute in terms of distribution of enrollments, teaching
force, and financial resources in the 67 provinces. His
analysis revealed significant differences between geograph-

ical regions and especially between the provinces of West

 

1Ibid., p. 174.

2N. J. Eastmond, Educational Opportunity in Turkey
1964. A Source Book of Facts on EducatIOn and Analysis
(Ankara: M.O.E., Test and Measurement Bureau, 1964).

54

and East. In the light of his findings he concluded

that:1

While progress has been dramatic in the recent
history of Turkey, not all Turks shared in this
progress. In fact, the nation can be roughly
divided in half geographically and the western
half can be shown as highly favored educationally
while the eastern half suffers from a widespread
denial of educational opportunity. It is with

the peasant, low—income people in sparsely settled
areas that Turkey's cultural revolution is pro-
ceeding most slowly. Conversely in the more
densely settled urban and wealthy areas of western
Turkey, conditions for educational opportunity are
greatest.

Eastmond estimated that if trends and conditions
of 1964 continue until 1970 or 1975, an even more marked
division will be apparent between the eastern and western
parts of the nation. He further concluded that in widening
these differences the proportions may become such that
national unity and possibilities for further national
progress may be seriously impeded. In his findings the
nature of the differences are quite striking:

It should be shocking indeed to realize that in
modern Turkey ones geographical place of birth
can still make such a profound difference in his
opportunities for being educated. That a citizen
of Turkey may most likely be consigned to a life
of ignorance because of his place of birth is a
fact that should be hard to face by Turks in the
1960s.2

As can be seen from the statements above, Eastmond

took a rather caustic view of an education system which

operates in favor of the Western provinces. Specific

 

1Ibid., p. 20.

2Ibid., p. 20.

.-
«H

I

v
,..

 

55

findings of the study and the results of his indicators
of educational opportunity are as follows:

1. In 1962-63 schools were not readily available
to a large segment of the children and youth in Turkey. Of
the 35,537 villages in the country, one in every three had
no school of any kind.

2. At the time of the census in 1960, only two
elementary school-age children out of every three were
enrolled in school, only one middle school-age child out
of every eight was enrolled in school, and only one lycee
age child out of every fourteen was enrolled in school.
These enrollment percentages were judged to be intolerably
low by standards of any modern nation.

3. Of the relatively few youngsters who attended
school in Turkey, the great majority were boys. Of every
four students in the middle schools and 1ycees only one
was a girl. The rural elementary schools enrolled approxi-
mately two boys for every girl, and in the urban elemen-
tary schools there were 15 per cent more boys enrolled
than girls. In Eastmond's terms, these findings revealed
a gross denial of educational opportunity on the basis of
sex.

4. As far as holding power is concerned, schools
of Turkey were very inefficient, having approximately
one beginning student in every two drop out of middle
school before graduation.

5. Teachers in 1ycees and middle schools, as is

generally recognized, should be university graduates or

56

have equivalent preparation. The finding of his study
disclosed that only 23.8 per cent of teachers in Turkey
had this level of preparation during the 1963-64 school
year. In ten provinces fewer than 10 per cent of the
teachers were adequately prepared, and in three of these
provinces not a single secondary teacher was a university
graduate. There appeared to be some tendency for higher
percentages of university graduates to be found in the
northwestern provinces.

6. In 1964, most secondary school teachers (63.5%)
were pedagogical institute graduates with the equivalent
of about two years of university training. About one
fourth of these teachers (23.8%) were university graduates,
and one-tenth (10.3%) had only a secondary school education.
Nearly 92.7 per cent of the elementary school teachers in
Turkey had in 1960 completed a senior secondary level
education. Eastmond weighed the provinces in terms of the
indicators of facilitators of good schools (urbanness,
semantic advantages, lightness of educational load, lack
of pressure from increase in population). Overall ranking
of the provinces showed that eastern Turkey was markedly
handicapped in comparison with western Turkey on a
composite index of the various facilitators of good schools.
Moreover, the eleven provinces most "endowed" with these
facilitators lay exclusively in the northwest sector of the
country. The eleven provinces least "endowed" or most

severely handicapped on theSe factors lay exclusively in

.A

I.

 

p..

"v.

..'R

U‘d,
.0

-'.~-
-

'h“

. .

" v.1.

 

'7‘ A

5\

 

 

57

the far eastern provinces and tended to be concentrated
in the extreme southeastern sector of the nation.

Tunc's Study of Equalipy of
EducatiOnal Opportunipyf’

In this study, the investigator tried to find the
differences between what was intended by the 1961 Consti-
tution to be provided in equalization of educational
opportunities and what was realized in that respect in
practice. In the study a great deal of documentation
and interpretation of the related articles of the Consti-
tution are presented. According to the author, freedom
for education meant the right of the individual to fulfill
his potentialities and his capacities in full, and this
freedom is given to all citizens by the 1961 Constitution.
For that reason, freedom to have education is one of the
basic rights of every Turkish citizen. To recognize
freedom for every individual meant that each individual
has the right to enjoy that freedom equally, and freedom
could only be realized through equality. In the 1961
Turkish Constitution equality as a legal entity meant that
there will be no discrimination in realization of indivi-
dual freedom on the basis of religion, language, sex,
ethnic background, political thought and philosophical
beliefs. The author is of the opinion that one cannot

rmeaningfully discuss educational rights and freedom without

 

lTunc, op. cit.

a.

'I

r--

n.-

V.

"A

.vu

--

'x.‘

: .;
:‘n.“

..‘
‘5

 

58

considering the means provided to implement those rights.
She asserts that to leave it to the people to get their
own education is an abstract phenomenon. Individuals
alone cannot utilize all the opportunities which to a
large extent call for substantial financial and material
resources. To fulfill himself through education an indi-
vidual has to demand it from the state. The 50th article
of the Constitution makes the State responsible for
realization of educational freedom for each individual.
The 215t article lifts all the legal barriers, and Article
50, the financial and material ones. However, the State's
duty in providing opportunities is limited to the suffi-
cient capacity of the nation's economic and financial
resources.

In her study, she stated the following as discre-
pancies between what is intended by the Constitution and
what is realized in practice:

1. Compulsory and free education was realized in
3/4 of the primary school-age population, 17 per cent
middle school age children were in school, and at upper
secondary level only 10.4 per cent of the school age pOpu-
lation hadthe opportunity of being in school. A great
majority of the school age population did not have oppor-
tunities to fulfill the right to have education because

schools and.teachers had not been provided sufficiently.

 

lIbid., pp. 212-214.

59

2. The stages where educational opportunities
were very limited were those above primary levels. Fewer
than 50 per cent of primary school leavers could continue
their education.

3. Even though the State was supposed to provide
scholarships and other means for those who did not have
financial and economic capability, it seems that the State
had failed to do so.

4. Political, geographical, social and economical
barriers, and sex, were seen as the constraints against
enlarging the opportunities at the primary level, and

these constraints became increasingly strong after 1960.

Other Studies

Other studies have dealt with regional differences
in origins of students taking entrance examinations to the
university and to the science lycee. From a study by
Cemol Mihcioglu, the following table provides data on
average scores for 1ycees by regions on the University
Entrance Examination in the 1965-1966 school year.1

As can be seen from Table l, in those regions which
stand ahead of other regions socially and economically, and
in regions where the most populous cities of Turkey are

located (Marmara, Ege, IcAnadolu), it is apparent that

the numbers of students, the ratios of successful students,

 

lCemil Mihcioglu, Entrance to University and Our
Lycees (Ankara: Ankara University, Publication of the
School of Political Science, No. 278, 1969), p. 144.

 

 

 

 

 

a~¥
..

.4"

60

TABLE l.--Average Scores for Lycees on the University
Entrance Examination by Region.

 

 

Egéezf No. of Success
, No. of Successful per Average
Region Graduates
Lycees . Students Thousand Score
tak1ng
the Exam on Exam
Marmara 81 9,157 2,893 315 360.7
Ege 32 4,264 1,175 275 356.2
Ic Anadolu 37 9,124 2,712 297 255.5
Karadeniz 21 3,889 782
Akdeniz 23 4,583 .754 164 330.3
Guney Dogu
Anadolu 8 1,622 271 167 328.5
Dogu Anadolu 14 2,567 350 136 311.0

 

and the average scores on the test were higher than in other
regions. Furthermore it was found that the most successful
1ycees on the University Entrance Examination were located
in Ankara, Istanbul and Izmir and were all in the western,
more developed part of Turkey. The least successful 1ycees
were in the eastern part of Turkey. The study also revealed
that in general the foreign private 1ycees were the most
successful.1

Another study conducted by the Test and Measurement
Bureau of the Ministry of Education provided an evaluation
of the entrance examination scores for the Science Lycee

in the years 1964, 1965, 1966.2

 

lIbid., p. 144.

2The Characteristics and Success of Students Who
Took Science Lycee Entrance Examination in 1964, 1965,
1966 (Ankara: M.O.E. Test and Measurement Bureau, 1968).

61

In the study, the investigators developed a measure
of expected success on the entrance examinations based on
the aggregate average of the number of students who entered
the examination over total students in the last grades of
middle schools. The Science Lycee entrance examination
consists of a sequence of two "elimination" or "screening"
tests.

The study showed that a number of students who
succeeded in the first elimination tests exceeded the
expected number of successes in the provinces of Ankara,
Istanbul, Izmir, Bursa, Eskisehir and Manisa; whereas in
Agri, Bingol, and Gumushane no student was ever successful.
The former provinces constitute the most populous and
developed ones in Turkey.

In the three provinces of Ankara, Istanbul and
Izmir, where the populations constituted 25 per cent of-
the total third grade middle school population, 44 per
cent of the students took the tests.

On the second screening examinations, 53 per cent
of those who succeeded came from the three provinces of
Ankara, Istanbul and Izmir.

Over the three year period, 63 per cent of the
students who entered the Science Lycee also came from those
same cities, even though they enrolled only 25 per cent of
the total last year students in middle schools. In terms

of regional differences, averages for 1964, 1965 and 1966

62

were in favor of the regions of Ankara, Istanbul and

Izmir, as can be seen from Table 2.

TABLE 2.—-Expected and Actual Success on Science Lycee
Entrance Examinations by Regions-Average of 1964,
1965, 1966.

 

 

 

Expected Taking Success on Exam
. to take Exam (in percentages)
Regions .
Exam (1n %)
(%) Level I Level II
Ankara (Middle
Northwest) 17.9 26.1 30.5 31.0
Ege (West) 16.1 19.2 22.5 22 0
Marmara (Northern
West) 18.9 15.0 22.0 33.5
Akdeniz (South) 11.7 9.0 6.7 4.0
Northern East 5.1 3.3 1.5 0.7
Southern East 3.8 4.1 2.0 1.3
Black Sea 10.5 8.0 5.5 2.7
Middle East 8.3 8.1 4.2 1.3
Middle West 7.7 8.0 5.1 3.0

 

The Ankara, Ege, (Izmir—Aegean) and Marmara
(Istanbul) regions had the largest shares in number of
successful students, appreciably exceeding the expected
averages. The ratios for the rest of the regions were
below the expected figures. This means that students of
middle schools of the most populated and develOped areas
were better equipped for passing the Science Lycee Entrance
Examination. On the basis of the findings of the study, it
was concluded that educational opportunities were not the
same and differences were large in the quality characteris—

tics of the school leavers and the schools among the

63

provinces and the regions. As a matter of fact, in some

of the schools in eastern provinces there were no science
teachers whatsoever. As a result, it would be natural to
expect that the graduates of those schools would fail on

tests loaded heavily with science matters.

Another interesting finding is that those who score
higher on the Science Lycee entrance examinations come from
families at higher socio-economic levels. Forty seven per
cent of qualified entrants came from private and foreign
private schools, where in most cases the school program
extends to a four year inclusion of the one-year prepara-
tion class, whereas public middle school is of three year

duration only.l

Bohnhorst's Study2

 

Bohnhorst's study intended to show in general how
the distribution of primary and secondary level services
are differently distributed among the sixty-seven provinces
of Turkey. He provided several map charts showing how
geography and population characteristics combined with
distribution of enrollments and services. His data were
based on population distributions in the 1965 census and
school statistics of the 1968-69 school year from the files

of Ministry of Education. Bohnhorst was concerned with a

1 .

Ibid., pp. 21-24.

2Ben A. Bohnhorst, "Profiles of Distribution of
Eflucational Services in Turkey," in 6th Semi-Annual Report,
Impendix E, National Educational Research and Planning
Project (Ankara: USAID, 1970).

 

 

64

question which has important implications for educational
policy:
In achieving universal primary education there
has been effective progress since 1963 toward this
goal. Are the efforts equally distributed over the
nation as a whole? Are there problems in one
region more acute than in another? Are there dif-
ferences in opportunity at primary and secondary
levels? Differences among regions may pose real
conflicts between the twin goals of rapid expansion
and equalization of opportunity. Where best spend
limited funds?
Dealing with accomplishments at the primary level he found
the following:1
The nine provinces with lowest primary enrollment
rates are all contiguously clustered in the
southeast corner of Turkey. The next five lowest
provinces are also contiguous to them and lie
immediately adjacent.
In his conclusion he states that both geographical
and social conditions may combine to retard growth of
primary school enrollment rates in the south and in the

east.

Regarding orta and lise level enrollments the three
most populous provinces (Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir) have
the highest level enrollments. Southeastern provinces tend
to have the lowest ratios. In his overall findings, he
found that the profiles of enrollments, school buildings,
school classrooms, size of schools, and students per
population show basic differences between patterns of
development for primary and for secondary education. At

the primary level, in order to achieve the goal of universal

k

i

lIbid., Appendix E.

65

primary education, a strong effort to distribute the ser-
vices to relatively less densely populated areas is
observed.

In this respect, he sees that increased migration
to urban centers, and extending services into the south-
east provinces with difficult terrain and climate and
lower levels of concern for social development, are prob-
lems which will continue to confront efforts for achieving
universal primary education. Dealing with development at
secondary levels, he observed that numbers of centers or
districts are emerging which appear to serve "as spear
heads." According to his findings, these centers tend to
be associated with population concentration.

On this point he further hypothesizes that these
centers may function as "service areas," or that the
emergence of these areas of concentrated secondary—level
development may be a function of a general pattern of
population migration in Turkey, or that development of
secondary schools in a particular area may possibly serve

as a kind of lodestone attracting immigrants to that area.

Summar
Discussions of equality or educational opportunity
are largely loaded with moral considerations. Both
equality, being one of the ideals of democracy, and the
great emphasis which democracy places on the individual's

rights and the need for the realization of these rights,

66

urge nations to take necessary actions. Education has
been conceived as the most important sphere for the reali-
zation of these rights and of the individual's self
develOpment.

Education also plays an important role in democrati-
zation and in economic and social developmental processes.
Preparation of manpower required for the economy, and
development of basic skills, knowledge, and attitudes of a
nation are considered to comprise the important respon-
sibilities of an educational system. Some see that an
approach to education as a means for manpower requirements
contradicts the ideals of equality of educational oppor-
tunity. Some, on the contrary, claim that investment in
education as a means to satisfy manpower requirements is
not a one-way process, instead, this economic necessity
makes it possible to mobilize new reserves of talent.

The importance of fully developing the talents of young
people, which is important in its own right, quite apart
from economic needs, is reinforced by the imperatives of
economic development. However the discussions of equality
versus efficiency in a system may proceed, there is clear
evidence that education is one of the determinants of
social mobility and of social justice.

Increasing demand for education in developed and
developing countries makes the realization of equality of
educational opportunity an important issue. Another

important point in this line is that some of the obstacles

67

to providing educational opportunity to all are deeply
rooted in the society. Realization of equal educational
opportunity should be achieved in cooperation with equali-
zation efforts in other social sectors of the society.
Educational reforms for achieving equality have to be
accompanied by social reforms.

Recent studies of the relationship between educa-
tion, social stratification and the economy urge policy
makers to create environments in which everybody should
have a chance to develop his capacities in full. The new
concept of ability as a variable, determined largely by
environmental factors, has had strong implications for the
definition and provision of equality of educational
opportunities.

The meaning of the concept of equality of educa-
tional opportunity has changed from (a) opportunity to
attend the same school to (b) provision of schools with
same quality characteristics for all, to (c) assuring that
people of equal ability should have an equal opportunity
to attend school, to (d) the provision of opportunity to
acquire academic skills and enrichment for children of
all social classes, to (e) providing equality in effects
of schooling.

In the Turkish society, education has been the
basic social distinction. To be educated is established
in Turkey as a local right as well as a social right. In

the national development plans, realization of social

68

justice is stated as the real aim. The plans have given
special directions and provisions for education in terms
of equality of educational opportunity. Assessments of
the realization of equal opportunities throughout the
country have revealed great differences between western
and eastern regions of the country. The secondary schools
are dominated by children of urban areas and children of
professional families.

Political, geographical, social and economic
barriers, and sex are the chief constraints against
enlarging school opportunities. On entrance examinations
to university and the science lycee, students from the
most populous provinces scored higher.

Regions in the more developed sections of Turkey
had the largest shares in the number of successful students

who had access to universities and the Science Lycee.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The present study is descriptive in nature. Growth
of and differences in educational Opportunities among the
provinces between 1960 and 1970 are studied in quantitative
terms. In light of the main questions specified in
Chapter I, this chapter indicates the types of data
gathered, the methods and procedures for collecting the

data, and the techniques of analysis employed.

Methods and Procedures for Gathering the Data

 

Sources of Data

 

In this study geographical regions and provinces
were considered the units for observation and analysis.
For the first and second main questions (see Chapter I,
page 4), all provinces were included in the study. For
the third main question, which is related to student back-
ground characteristics, fifteen geographic regions of the
country were taken as the units of analysis.

The data for the analysis of differences of school

opportunities at primary and secondary level among the

69

 

 

 

70

provinces and for the explanation of the differences in
terms of socio-economic variables were taken from the
publications of the State Statistical Institute. Educa-
tional statistics for the year 1970 were obtained from the
files of several general directorates of the Ministry of
Education.

The data related to population characteristics
were obtained from the Census Reports for the years 1960
and 1965.

The data on student background characteristics
were obtained from questionnaires distributed to nationwide
samples of students in the lower and upper secondary
schools of Turkey.

The educational publications of the State Statisti—
cal Institute are based on reports sent by school directors
at the beginning and end of each school year. All educa-
tional data presented here was based on data for the
beginning of the school years 1960, 1965 and 1970. The
reliability of the data is largely dependent upon the
efficiency of the reporting system of each school and the
honesty of the school directors. Data obtained from the
publications of the State Statistical Institute were checked
against the data and files of the Ministry of Education.
There were no major discrepancies between these two sources.

1970 data from files of the Ministry of Education

similarly were checked against the latest publication of

71

the State Statistical Institute on 1970-71 school statistics
and were found to be comparable.

The processing of the data was done on desk calcu-
lators and on the 1620 IBM computer in the PAKD. The raw
data were transformed into percentages and ratios by PAKD
personnel. Two groups, working separately, checked the
data; the first group's calculations were rechecked by the
second group. All the calculated national averages were
also checked with the averages of the original data. Only
small differences and errors due to the rounding of the
figures were allowed. The reliability of official statis-
tics is limited by the efficiency and quality of the
reporting system from schools into the central offices in
the capital of Turkey. The data presented were gathered

from the only legal sources available.

Sampling

The data on socio-economic background characteris-
tics of lower and upper secondary school students were
obtained from questionnaires administered to two independent
samples: one for the lower secondary school population,
and the other for the upper secondary school population.

The school was the unit for drawing the samples. The
design of the sample and the sampling procedures were as
follows:

1. The samples were taken so as to be representa-

tive of lower and upper secondary school populations of

 

72

the country as a whole and of the fifteen geographic regions
defined in Appendix A.

2. Schools in each geographic region were strati-
fied according to the type of school locations: schools in
the capital city of the province; schools at the adminis-
trative centers of townships (Kaza); and schools in the
villages. Students enrolled in those schools would be
represented in the sample proportionately.

3. The school (lower secondary or upper secondary)
was the basic sampling unit. From each school, one first
grade and one third grade was included in the sample.

Fifty students was arbitrarily set as the maximum class
size.

4. A stratified proportionate cluster sampling
procedure was employed in drawing the sample.

On the basis of the points specified above, the
following steps were taken:

1. Taking into consideration the available time
and the capacity of the data processing facilities, it was
decided that arbitrary sample sizes of 2% per cent for the
lower secondary student population and 5 per cent for
upper secondary would be large enough. The maximum size
of the sample for lower secondary was 20,300 students, and
12,500 for upper secondary (figures based on 1969-1970
enrollment data of the Ministry of Education).

2. Turkey was divided into fifteen regions, and

each region's share in percentage of total students was

73

calculated. Thus the number of students to be included in
the sample for each region was determined. (See Appendix
A.)

3. The student population in the regions was
stratified in terms of the location of the schools, and
.the proportion of the students for each school location was
then calculated, multiplying the percentage proportions of
school locations by the total number of the students who
would be drawn from each school location. (See Appendix
A.)

4. In order to find the number of schools from
which students would be drawn, the number of students
included in the sample for each school location for a
particular region was divided by 100. By doing so, the
number of schools for each type of school location and
the total number of schools to be included in the sample
for a region were determined. (See Appendix A.)

5. After determination of the number of schools,
the lists of the schools for each school location of a
region were prepared. In that list each school was given
a number. From those lists, by using the table of random
numbers, the particular schools were selected. The list
of the schools included in the sample are shown in Appendix
A.

Finally, 203 schools were selected randomly from

lower secondary schools, and 125 from upper secondary schools.

 

 

74

Instruments of Data Collection

 

Two questionnaires--one for lower secondary students,
the other for upper secondary students--were prepared. The
questionnaires asked information about birth place, charac-
teristics of family residence, educational level of parents,
father's occupational status, and previous schools attended
by the students. The two questionnaires were parallel
except that the questions related to previous educational
experience of the students necessarily differed for lower
and upper secondary students. In the process of construction
of the questionnaires, the following procedures were
employed:

1. A first draft of each questionnaire was sub—
mitted for criticism to ten persons who had previous
teaching experience in secondary schools. They commented
on the way the questions were presented and on clarity of
meaning and style of wording. Two test construction experts
from PAKD also checked the questionnaires from a technical
point of view. The questionnaires were revised in the
light of the constructive criticisms received.

2. The second draft questionnaires were administered
in first and third classes of five middle schools and five
1ycees in Ankara. During the administration of the ques-
tionnaires, the students were instructed to raise questions
with regard to ambiguity of statements, miswordings, or
style of writing. Both questionnaires appeared to work very
vell. Therefore, final drafts of the questionnaires were

gmepared. (See Appendix A).

75

Collection of the Questionnaire Data

One hundred questionnaires were sent by mail to
samples of schools selected randomly as described above.

A formal official letter from the Undersecretary of the
Ministry of Education accompanied the questionnaires.

The latter requested school directors to be
responsible for the administration of the questionnaire
according to instructions given on the first page.
Administration was to take place in the classroom under
the supervision of teachers.

The size of the sample required that 20,300 ques-
tionnaires be sent to 203 lower secondary schools and
12,500 questionnaires to 125 upper secondary schools.

The returns were 180 out of 203 for lower secondary

schools and 111 out of 125 for upper secondary schools.

A few schools returned their questionnaires after the dead-
line of April 15, 1971, but these were not included in the
data. The rate of return was considered to be satisfactory.

A few questions were included in the questionnaires
to check the consistency and reliability of the reporting
of the students. The location of the school reported by
the student was checked by means of coded information on
the locations of the schools which had been developed by
the investigator. In the case of middle school students,
11.32 per cent of the students reported villages as the
location of their schools, whereas schools actually in the
villages constituted 9.17 per cent, according to the pre-

pared code.

 

76

At the lycee level, 6 per cent of the students
reported the village as the location of their schools,
whereas in the sample there is no upper secondary school
coded as having its location in a village. These differ-
ences arose mainly in the urban areas of Istanbul and
Izmir, where the locations probably had village status
but in coding were accepted as towns. The data were
corrected and the differences reduced to .007 per cent--
i.e., almost to zero.

Two other questions which checked each other were
in the location of the primary school from which the

student had graduated and the number of teachers in that

 

primary school. Twenty seven and twelve one-hundreds per
cent (27.12%) reported that they had finished a village
primary school, and 27.28 per cent also reported that
their primary school had fewer than five teachers (which
meant that they were graduates of a village primary school).
This difference was a very minor one. On the basis of
these observations therefore it was accepted that very
insignificant factual discrepancies might have occurred in
the students' reporting, and that any which did occur
might have been due to coding or other incidental errors.
The sample averages were also checked against the
population averages with respect both to girls' portion in
total enrollments and to portions of students at different
school locations. The differences were insignificant. They

varied from 1 per cent to 1.5 per cent.

77
Measured Techniques of Analysis

Growth Index

In order to point out the differences in growth in
school opportunities, the provinces were put into cate-
gories in terms of level of development in school partici-
pation in 1960, 1965, and 1970 where the 1960 national
average was given an index value of 100. Since all the
index values for the provinces for 1960, 1965 and 1970
were based on the index value of 1960 (which is equal to

100) they were comparable to each other.

Multiple Regression Analysis

In order to explain the differences in growth of
educational opportunities in the context of demographic
changes, of educational attainment levels of population,
and of socio-economic level of the provinces, the technique
of multiple-regression analysis was employed.1 The purpose
for using multiple-regression analysis was to provide more
refined measures for explanation of differences in educa-
tional growth among provinces by utilizing more than one
variable at the same time, and to see the factors and
combination oflfluifactors which best explain the variance.

In the analysis the school participation ratios for 1960,

 

1The computer program used for multiple-regression
analysis was based on the formulation by M. A. Efroymison
in Mathematical Methods for Digital Computers, edited by
Anthony Relston and Herkest S. Wilf (New York: John Wiley
& Sons” 1965), pp. 191-203-

78

1965 and 1970 in terms of number of students per thousand
school age population were taken as dependent variables,
and urban population, population with maximum primary
education, population with minimum lower secondary educa-
tion, male population engaged in agriculture per thousand
population, and density of population per unit of area were
taken as independent variables.

Measures for 67 provinces were included in the
analyses. A fixed arbitrary F-Ratio was used for adding
and eliminating variables, based on 65 degrees of freedom
for the denominator and the number of variables in the
regression minus one for the numerator, for stepwise

multiple-regression analysis.

Study of Student Characteristics by Region

Finally, a study of student characteristics employed
two special measures. First, a classification of father's
occupation was developed, based mainly on the classifica-
tion used in the 1965 Census. Secondly, a classification
of regions was developed, based on one developed by the
State Planning Organization. The SPO's classification
provides 19 sub-regions, but the number of regions in this
study was reduced to fifteen by combining four of the SPO's
sub-regions with other regions. The reason for this was
that the teacher training schools draw their students from
surrounding areas and regions. In order to adjust the sub-

regions to the surrounding areas of teacher training schools,

 

 

79

the Marmara region, which is constituted of three sub—
regions, was treated as a single region; the Sivas region
was combined with Kayseri; and Kenya was combined with

Ankara. (See Appendix A.)

 

 

 

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS

Introduction

 

The analysis of the data is presented in two parts
in this study. In the first part, here in Chapter IV,
the findings are reported in line with the three main
questions of the study as stated in Chapter I; in the
second part in Chapter V below, the findings are discussed
and the main conclusions of the study are drawn.

In the following sections of this chapter the
findings related to the three main questions of the study
are presented.

In Section A the differences in availability of
school opportunities and the differences in growth of
school opportunities are analyzed. In Section B the
explanation of those differences by socio—economic factors
are presented. Section C mainly deals with socio-economic
background characteristics of the students in the

secondary school in 1970.

80

81

SECTION A

Differences in Educational Opportunities
in Public Primary and Secondary Schools

 

 

This section mainly deals with the analysis of the
data related to the first and second main questions of the
study. In more specific terms, answers are sought and
analyzed for the following questions:

1. Are there differences in school participation

ratios among the provinces in 1960, 1965 and
1970?

2. Are there differences in the share of girls'
in total enrollments among the provinces in
1960, 1965 and 1970?

3. Are there differences in average number of
pupils per primary school teacher and per
secondary science teacher among the provinces
in 1960, 1965 and 1970?

4. Are there differences in growth of school
participation ratios, in girls' share in total
enrollments and in student-teacher ratios
among the provinces between 1960 and 1970?

The differences in school Opportunities are first pre-

sented for primary schools and then for secondary schools.

Differences in Primary Schools
School Participation
"School participation ratio" is operationally

defined as the percentage of the relevant

82

age group of children enrolled in schools (age 7-12 for
primary schooling).l This is an overall index officially
used for establishing investment priorities and specifying
long term targets in the developmental plans for all
levels of schooling. It is a powerful index in practice,
with wide policy implications. For that reason the
analysis concentrates on this measure.

In order to point out differences in school
participation (among the provinces), they were grouped into
four school participation categories. Their geographical
positions are shown at the same time on the attached chart-
maps for 1960, 1965 and 1970 (see Figures 1, 2 and 3).
Since there was no province with a ratio as low as 20%
or below, the first category constitutes those provinces
with participation ratios of 40% or below. The second
group included the provinces with ratios between 40% and
60%; the third group includes those with ratios between
60% and 80%; and the provinces with ratios of 80% or more

constitute the fourth group.

 

1Even though the ages of 7 and of 12 are accepted
officially as the lower and upper limits of the relevant
age group for primary schools, in practice children over 12
years of age could attend the schools. Today there are over-
aged children in primary due to the repetition of grades by
pupils and to the fact that in villages some children enter
school at late ages. The enrollment figures utilized here
are not adjusted for over-aged children because of the lack
of accurate information on the distribution of pupils by
actual ages. For that reason, the relevant age group is
simply herein defined to cover six single ages, even though
primary school is of five years duration.

83

+38 DU
woomlwaop nuuu
weepumaoa nuuu
33168 I

ZOHBflmHUHBmdm
AOOmUm .mO mmHMOOMB<U

.omma I mHoorom massaumuu.a mmDon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Io

 

 

 

84

+38 HH—
woomiwaom “flu
woomlwaov Eu
woovnwoom l

.onsamHoHemam
aoomom mo mmHmoomeao

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mema I maooaom sumsapmuu.~ mmoon

 

.onma I waoonom mumEHHmII.m mmoon

+38 flu
woomeSw m.
80:84 nEE
FIIU

30738 E
ZOHB<QHUHBM<Q

ROOmUm m0 mmHmome<U

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

86

Comparison of the chart maps for 1960, 1965 and
1970 reveals the following results:

In 1960 (see Figure l), nearly one-third of the
provinces had ratios above 80%. The provinces in this
group--with exceptions of Artvin, Nevsehir and Icel--were
all located in the western part of the country, whereas
another one-third of the provinces which had ratios below
60% were all located in the eastern part of the country.

In 1965 (see Figure 2), eight provinces in the
lowest category had moved to the next higher group (40%-60%),
and ten provinces from the third group (60%-80%) had moved
up to the fourth group; but the same differences between
the provinces in the west and in the east remained.

By 1970 (see Figure 3), substantial increases
occurred in school participation ratios for those provinces
which had had ratios 60% or below in 1965. Four-fifths of
the total provinces in 1970 had ratios above 80%. However,
ratios for the 13 provinces which constituted the south-
eastern section of the country remained in one of the two
bottom categories.

The overall summary for changes in school participa-
tion ratios is given in Table 3. In 1960 the range of
ciifferences was greater than for either 1965 or 1970. In

teen years (1960-1970), differences in ratios of participa-

tilon were reduced to relatively small proportions in 80%

 

87

TABLE 3.--The Distribution of Provinces by Primary School
Participation Ratios in 1960, 1965 and 1970.

 

 

 

 

 

School Participation 1960 1965 1970
Ratio Groups

N % N % N %
80% or more ‘ 20 30 30 45 54 81
Between 60%-80% 24 31 25 37 4 6
Between 40%-60% 13 19 10 15 9 13
40% or less 10 20 2 3 — -
TOTAL 67 100 67 100 67 100

 

of the provinces, but the differences between the
provinces of the southeastern section of the country and

the rest remained great even in 1970.

Categories of DevelOpment

 

In order to throw more light on differences in
patterns of growth in school participation ratios, and to
reflect better the overall changes in the provinces between
1960 and 1970, another grouping of the provinces was
developed. The provinces were put into categories in terms
of level of develOpment in school participation for 1960
and 1970, wherein the national average of 1960 was used
as the base and given an index value of 100. Four levels

of development in school participation were then defined:

88

1. First Level: school participation equal to or

below the 1960 national average.

2. Second Level: between the 1960 and 1965

national averages.

3. Third Level: between the 1965 and 1970

national averages.

4. Fourth Level: equal to or above the 1970

national average.
Since all the index values for provinces in 1960, 1965
and 1970 were based on the index value of 100 for 1960,
all categories thus became comparable to each other.
Thus, in 1960, though some provinces were below average,
some were already high enough above average to surpass
the 1970 level. Conversely, in 1970 some provinces were
still low enough to continue to fall below the 1960 average.

The distribution of the provinces in developmental
categories in the decade 1960-1970 is shown in the follow-
ing table, which reveals the following results:

1. In 1960 there were 31 provinces (almost half
of the 67 provinces) below the 1960 national average. Ten
of them were still below the 1960 national average in 1970
and they remained at the first level of development. By
1970 two of the 31 which were below average in 1960 had
moved into the second level, ten to the third level and

the remaining nine to the fourth level. Each of these

5...

~

\

\....

853

.onmalooma mosam> xwpcw no mEuwu a“ susoum m.woc«>oum comm 303m mammsucmnmm cw mumnabc 0:90

.m>onm uo mmmuo>m osma .HO>OH cannon .mmmmuo>m ohmH paw moma cmwzuwn
.HO>OH ouflnu .mwmmum>m moma cow ooma cwm3umn .HO>OH ocoowm “30Hmn no mmmuo>m oomH ucoemon>wo HO>OH umuflm

n

.sam>auomamwu mma .HHH .ooa mum
mmsHm> xmt:w “wa.moIIOan “wmhuumoma new “wa.ho mmz ooma “Ow oflumu cofluMQAOHuHMQ Hoozom omnum>m accoflumc open

 

 

no ow ma N Aéeoe
Ha Ammvxm:
Am camH Ammvzma
imavxmm Aaevzom
w . w>o M NO use
Annexes is Vszo i H mm b a me
Am me9 Am exam unmEQon>mo
Am qum Ao COD: Hm>mq cannon
ma Awmv>mz Ammvmza
Aocvqam Amavomm
Amvvo>< Ammvxzm Awa.om
AHNVPmH Ammvm>x tam wmh :mo3ummv
AHNVAOH Amavmmm ucmEQon>mQ
Aomvax AvHVemd Am vmzz HT>TA phage
He Ammeon
Ammvuox Ammvmxu Awmhuwa.ho cmw3uwmv
Avvv>Hm Ammvzox AoNVNHm Amavwmd ucwEQOHm>mQ
onvdzm Av VZNH AoHvez< Aoszoa Ho>mq Ucoomm
mm Amvvmex Amvvzex Amvvomo AvvvaU Ammvmoz Avavsz Awa.co
Avmvmoo Aavvexe Lowestm Ammvmaz Ammvz¢> Aavvmm: 3oaon no Hmoomv
lvvoaom Ammvoms imVVZNo iomommx Ammcomz Asmcmem
Acmosem Akmcea: immizao xpmczse ismvmpm immvmoa reevaem unmadoaw>mo
onvzom Ammvzom imvvams Acmcaem Amvv>o< Apmvseo oxmecmx: Hm>wa umuam
acme oomH
mwoca>oua Hmpos unmadoam>ma unmea0am>po Ideam>mo nucmsaoaw>mo
Hm>mq cannon Hm>mq Osage Ho>wq Hw>mq umuflm
ocoomm ocma

 

M.OFOH 0C0 OO®H Ca... COMUMQflOfiUHMQ HOOSUW bflEflhm Gun mOHHOOUUMU UCQEQOH0>UQ >n~ WOUCMKVOHQ OLU NO COHUDQflHUmHQ QSPIIoG mgmflh.

9O

latter nine provinces had achieved in ten years an
increase in participation greater than the national
average increase.

2. There were 11 provinces in the second level in
1960. Four of those had moved to the third level by 1970.
The rate of increase in those provinces was less than the
national average increase in ten years. The other seven
at the second level in 1960 had moved up to fourth level
by 1970.

3. Twelve of the 13 provinces in the third
category in 1960 had moved up to fourth level by 1970.

One province (Manisa) remained in the third category where
it had been in 1960, representing little or no growth in
school participation.

4. The provinces which were already at the fourth
level in 1960 kept the same category in 1970 also (that is,
none of them experienced a decrease in school participation).

5. According to these index values, a 28-point
increase occurred in the national average (19% increase
in per cent terms) from 1960 to 1970. With exceptions of
four provinces (Hakkari, Bitlis, Bingol and Van) all the
provinces which were in the first level in 1960 achieved
an increase in school participation more than the national

average .

91

The highest increases occurred in the first level
provinces which moved up to the fourth category in 1970.
These increases ranged from 33 to 54 index points. The
second largest set of substantial increases occurred in
the provinces which moved from the first up to the third
level of development. These increases ranged from 30 to
53. In the provinces which were still in the first level
of development category in 1970, increases in index values
ranged from 12 to 41. The most substantial increases (more
than 40 index points) occurred in Adiyaman, Trabzon, Ordu,
Giresun, Gaziantep, Samsun, Tokat, Kastamonu, Zonguldak,
Hatay, Bolu and Corum. With two exceptions all these
provinces moved up to third level at least. Of the large
gainers, only Urfa and Adiyaman remained in first and
second levels of development respectively.

Differences in Girls' Share
in Total Enrollments

 

 

The portion of the girls in total enrollments is
directly related to the level of school participation
ratios. This index provides substantial information fOr
understanding the nature of develOpment in school participa-
tion. In Turkey, to attract more girls to schools, where
traditional parents may be reluctant to send their
daughters, has been one of the more important tasks con-

fronting the educational system.

92

In 1960, 37.1% of the pupils in public primary
schools were girls. This percentage was 39.2% in 1965 and
42% in 1970. In Table 5 the provinces are put into cate-
gories according to their respective index values for
1960, 1965 and 1970, all of which are based on an index
value of 100 given to the 1960 national average of girls'
enrollments. These are the same developmental categories
used above in the case of school participation. Results
obtained from investigation of the data in Table 5 are as
follows:

1. In 1960 there were 40 provinces below the
national average and in the first level of development.

By 1970, 16 of the 40 still remained in the first category;
nine had moved to the second level; another nine had

moved to the third level of development; and only six out
of the 40 had moved up to above the national average of
1970.

2. There were 14 provinces either in the second
or third level of development in 1960. By 1970 all of them
had moved up to the fourth level of development.

3. Thirteen out of 67 provinces (approximately one-
fifth of the total) were already in the fourth category in
1960, and remained in the same category in 1970.

4. In 1960, 13 provinces were at the fourth level,
23 at the third level and 27 at the second level of
development. However, in 1970 the number of provinces in

the fourth level and the third level more than doubled

923

 

 

wmv u onma mm.mm u moma »H.>m n ooma
MHH n ohma moH u moma ooa u ooma
no mm m a ma mmoce>oum mo HOQESZ
ma AH meu
3 V van. 8 vxmm
Amavxmex an ozom lama
AHHV owc Am vmmm m>onm mm Hmaqmv
xo . ewe in con:
Ao v Adm Am Vomm ucmEQOHo>wo
Av V ZNH Am qum Hm>mq cannom
OH Amev m2: Am VamH
Ahav zma Agavuox Awmvlwm.mm
Away xz¢ Amfivxmm cmosuomv
AmHVAmOH Ahavxmo unmEQOHw>mo
Aoav Bm< Aovaex Hm>mq cnflse
Awm.mm
v Aomvm£¢ Aomvzox Iwa.hm cm03uwmv
Ammvez¢ Amavdz< ucmEQon>mQ
HO>OA ocooom
ov Amav cam
Aamvzam Ammvm>m ismoomo Ammvzmo in e exam Ape.nm
reason» Apavzso rm exam Acmvowm rpmvmaz la csuo lame mom onOm so appamo
Ammvmex “mavzmoa Amavemx leavexe lmHvNHm Ammvse: rvIveHm leavsz Am e um:
Ammv>mz Anal mxo Aamcon Aomvzou Ahmvzos xqmcmmx xv Vz¢> Aaaoozz xv V mo< ucmsmon>mo
xm~o>m< Ammo msx Amevaom onomoo lemceaz lvmvao imevmaz romvame Ammo sax Hm>ma umuam
Coma Ga COHuuom
mwocfl>oum ucmEmOHw>mo ucmEQoHo>wo ucmEQon>mQ c a mauflo
mo .02 Hm>ma SDHDOh Hm>mq @uflnb Hw>mq pcoomm u TE Oaw>mo H®>oq umnflm

osma
ca coauuom mango

 

. AOSHMKV XQCCH. CH
OF®HIOO0H OWMQHUCfi 303m mOWQSUCQHMQ Cfl mmusmflwv mHOOSOm \nhgfihnm ONOH UCM OOOH CH mHCMEHHOHCW H0008 CH MHHflU H0 COfluHOnmllom m4m<fi

94

reaching 33 in the fourth level and 42 at least in the
third level.

5. Changes in index values ranged from 4 to 37
points. The average increase for the nation as a whole
was 13 index points. Even though some provinces achieved
increases twice as great as the national average increase,
they remained in the same developmental levels from 1960
to 1970.

Among the provinces which were in the first level
of develOpment, increases ranged from -4 to 37. Ten
provinces in that category had increases lower than the
national average. Most of the provinces in the second
level and in the third level experienced substantial
increases in ten years of time and moved upward to higher
categories. Bitlis was the only province to suffer a
decrease (-4 index points) in portion of girls' enrollments,

and it was still in the first level of development in 1970.

Differences in Pupil-Teacher Ratio

Pupil-teacher ratio--the number of pupils per
primary school teacher--is taken here as one of the indi-
cators of educational opportunity. The existence of the
teacher is a crucial factor in provision of primary school
Opportunities, since in most of the schools the single
method of instruction is by pupil-teacher interaction.

Availability of a teacher is seen also as the minimum basic
-l

95

requirement for providing school Opportunities. On the
average, the pupil teacher ratio was 50 in 1960 and 42 in
1970. Both averages seem high when compared against
international standards. The aim of the State is to

lower this ratio to 35 or 30 in the long run. Nevertheless
in the ten years 1960-1970 the initially very high ratios
were lowered considerably throughout the country.

When the pupil-teacher ratios were analyzed in
terms of school participation ratios it was found that in
twenty provinces which had school participation ratios
above 80% in 1960, pupil-teacher ratios were also high,
higher than the national average in most of the cases. On
the other hand, in the ten provinces which had school
participation ratios lower than 40% in 1960, for all cases
(with the exception of one province--Adiyaman) the pupil-
teacher ratios were lower than the national average.

These facts are given in Tables 6 and 7 below.

Comparison of the two tables shows that in the
provinces where school participation ratios were 80% or
more in 1960, the pupil-teacher ratios lowered considerably
in ten years time; but on the contrary in provinces with
low participation in 1960 the pupil-teacher ratios went up
between 1960 and 1970. In general it was observed that
in provinces where the school participation ratios

increased considerably during the 19605, pupil-teacher

96

TABLE 6.--Pupil-Teacher Ratios for Provinces with School
Participation Ratios Above 80% in 1960.

 

 

Provinces Pupil-Teacher Pupil-Teacher
Ratio for 1960 Ratio for 1970
Denizli 79 44
Edirne 63 35
Burdur 60 42
Nevsehir 58 49
Usak 57 42
Tekirdag 57 39
Kirklareli 53 35
Isparta 52 32
Balikesir 52 39
Izmir 50 38
Aydin 50 36
Icel 49 38
Eskisehir 48 34
Sakarya 47 41
Mugla 45 39
Bingol 47 36
Bilecik 44 38
Canakkale 42 34
Artvin 41 33
Istanbul 39 42

 

TABLE 7.--Pupil-Teacher Ratios for Provinces Which had
School Participation Ratios Below 40% in 1960.

 

 

Provinces Pupil-Teacher Pupil-Teacher
Ratio for 1960 Ratio for 1970

Agri 48 44

Adiyaman 52 57

Bitlis 33 42

,Mus 45 48

Mardrn 46 4 8

Van 36 48

Urfa 41 53

Siirt 40 44

fiakkari 25 33

y

97

ratios also had gone up. On the other hand in provinces
where quantitative expansion had already been realized
before 1960, the pupil-teacher ratios of the 19605

tended to reduce in the decade.

Differences in School Opportunities
Among Secondary Schools

Lower Secondary Schools

 

Differences in school opportunities among the
secondary schools were analyzed in terms of school partici-
pation ratios and average number of students per science
teacher. Lower secondary schools in this study included
the students of middle schools, of girls' middle school and
of the first level of theological schools. The students
who were at the first level of teachers' training school
were not included, since those students are not usually
the residents of a particular province.1 In the analysis
the same methodological approaches were used as for

primary schools in the pages above.

 

1Primary Teachers' Training schools are mostly free
boarding schools. The students in those schools are
selected on the basis of Entrance Examinations. In most
cases they are not residents of the province where the
school is located. For that reason the student population
for both lower and upper levels of these schools were not
included in the student pOpulation of the study referred
to in this section.

98

School Participation

 

In 1960 18.9% of the relevant age group (ages 13
to 15) were reported to be in the public lower secondary
schools. This ratio was 20% in 1965 and 31.0% in 1970.

Greater increases occurred on the average between
the year of 1965 and 1970 than between 1960-1965. The
increase in terms of per cent ratios was 1.1 in the first
half of the decade and 10.1 in the second half.

The relative position of the provinces on the
ratio scale and geographical locations are shown in the
chart-maps for 1960, 1965 and 1970 (see Figures 4, 5 and
6). The following results may be drawn from investigation
of the charts:

1. In 1960, in the most populous and developed
provinces where the largest cities are located, the school
participation ratios were above 30%. Only one—fifth of
the provinces had ratios between 20%-30%.

2. The ten provinces of the southeastern section
of the country had the lowest ratios. Provinces with high
ratios were concentrated mainly in the western part of
Turkey. However, in contrast to the development at primary
school levels, there were provinces in each of the various
sections of the country which had considerably higher
school participation ratios, such as Elazig and Artvin of
the east, Adana and Hatay of the south, and Bilecik,

Ankara and Usak of the central sections of Turkey.

.opaa I maooaom sumpaoomm szoaII.a mmpme

twaom D
mooning m
woomleOH E

 

   

       

‘\

. . . U...“ __.... \, 1.x. u
. y as

\I\ \NWTNS sanss\\%
s. . x.

n... . . .. \NWN\. . x s I... \ .II .. . .
. \\ Sam 4%

miss

        

_

oooooooooooooooo

 

I.
\ ..
, o o o
0 . , “u 0 re: ..
m nun“... .. Ha . I\\ 1 a \ o
. I \\\o \\.| -
a o l.
o 9.3.- O M J .

\\.

\\
w \o\ a
V

\\

  

_ I . ~nn. I .. Arum!

....\.. . \.\.Aww\.\\\\x\\\\s\x m\|mr§.¢ \. \f. \..\\....H1NI\...¢. \ \x . \. .

\%R$SA§IQ
QCxK§

«Inn.

      

      

     

   
 

(:8

   

.1.
an. . v
-

\\\\\\\\

  

"uh.

I'll", lililIl

 

.onma I mHoonom anabcoomm HmsoqII.m mmouHm

:38 D
82.28 In“;
1.83:: ENE

wooalwo I

ZOHBANmHUHBm<m
Aoomum m0 mmHmowmfikU

       

 

 

 

 

 

I _. 5.x WR®§.

\m \. 36......
\

x \ .
\x\\x \ \.\\\\ 1v? 1 LP
\\\\\\x\ . - . -
(T ”I I...

 

 

 

 

 

102

In 1970 the number of provinces which had
achieved ratios equal to or above 30% had increased con-
siderably and in several sections of the country there
were provinces which dominated their surrounding areas in
achieving increases in school participation ratios. The
relative number of high-ratio provinces increased in the
eastern section of Turkey: Artvin, Elazig, Tunceli and
Malatya in the east; Trabzon, Giresun and Rize in the
north; Ankara, Kirehir, Usak and Kayseri in central
Anatolia. Each of these provinces had more increase than
the provinces in their surrounding areas.

When the provinces were compared in terms of their
developmental levels, it was found that in 1960 two-thirds
of the provinces (46 in number) were in the first level of
development. In ten years of time two—thirds of these had
moved up either to the third or the fourth levels of
development. The provinces of the southeastern section of
the country all remained in the first level of develOpment
in 1970. With exceptions of Balikesir and Sakarya, all
the provinces which had been at second and third develop-
ment levels in 1960 had moved up to fourth level by 1970.

During the decade, the highest increases occurred
in Trabzon, Tunceli, Giresun, Kutahya, Nevsehir, Amasya,
.Malatya, Rize, Burdur, Kocaeli, Artvin, Denizli, Usak,
Eskisehir, Hatay, Icel and Ankara. There was no dominance
<3f a particular section or sections of the country in the

iJncrease of lower secondary school enrollments.

1(33

mood som3umn Hw>ma omega «mommnm>m HMGOfiumc moma.ocm ooma cmmzumn HO>OH ocoomm .3oHon no mmmum>m oomH Hm>mH umuwm

.guzoum ca mmsHm> xmpcw 3osm mononucmumm cw Hones: echo

.m>onm Ho wmmum>m onma .HO>OH nunsow madm>wuommmwu mommuo>m HMGOHumc osma cam

n

.va «moa “ooa muoB mmaam> wooed “Hm mmz ohma «o.omtlmoma How um.ma was omma How moHumH cofiummfloqunmm Hoonom ones

 

 

no mm mm a 44909
N Awam c>onm no Hmswmv
xvpvsme Ammvxza unwedon>mo Hm>ma ransom
ma AaquoH Amoavzmo
AmovmmH immeaHm “moosez
.movo>< Asmoxmm Amaecsxa
Ammvxmx Aamavxmo Ammvzod AmeIMH.ON cmmzummv
AHvOzNH Ashoaem Ammooox Acmvxam Hm>ma usage
a iomome Awa.o~Iwm.ma cmmsumm.
Amnvm>x Avmvamm Aoqu<m ucmEmon>mQ Hm>wq pcooom
we Acmvzam Ampvmmx
Aamvomo Acnvzso Aapcmxo
AHmOOHz Ammvao Aoovxzo
xamc>mz revvzwo Ammvmmm
recoup: Ammvzam Amnvaom Aemcxxx
Amooxaz Aeocomm Avmcez< Ammoz<> Aameseo Amm.me
Aavomaz Amsozom Ampvsma Ammvmx: Aemveam zoamn uo Hmsvm.
AomVNHx Apmvmex Aeovxme Aspvm>m Ammvmzm Asmosz
leased: Apmosxs rmmvzpe immense Ammvmam Amecxoa pawsmoaw>mo
imoHOmza iavooms Aavvzom ivmvzox imposes Aomvms: oxnvvsoa Hm>wa umuam
ucmfi
amuOB ucmEQOH0>wD Hm>mq Launch acmEQon>mo w>mq Ha IQOH0>OQ quEQOHm>mQ coma
a o .ne Hw>mq QHm>mq umufim
vcoowm

OhmH

aOFmH 0% COOH Gun COflUGQHOHUHMQ HOOSUM fiHMUCOUme HO301H Cw WHO>MYH HMHVCOEQOHOKVUQ >Q mOUCflerHnm TL“ MO GOHUSQflHHMflQ wfifillom mammdh.

104

Upper SecondarygSchools

For comparison of differences in upper secondary
schools, all types of public secondary schools are included
in the student pOpulation referred to here, with exception
of the students at primary teachers' training schools.

In 1960, 6.6% of the relevant age group (between
ages 16 and 18) were reported to be enrolled in upper
secondary schools. This ratio was 7.5% for 1965 and 13.2%
for 1970. The average participation ratio was doubled in
ten years and the highest increase occurred between 1965
and 1970. The relative position of the provinces on the
ratio scale in geographical location are given in the
chart maps for 1960, 1965 and 1970 (see Figures 7, 8 and 9).

As may be seen from comparison of the chart maps,
in 1960 only two provinces were above 15%. By 1970 almost
one-third of the 67 provinces moved up above 15%. The
number above 10% rose from two to 27 provinces between 1960
and 1970. In almost all provinces substantial increases
occurred. In Artvin, Denizli, Kirsehir, Kocaeli, Usak,
Zonguldak, Hatay, Icel, Adana, Elazig, Eskisehir, and
Kayseri, the increases were the highest in the country.

Clearly increases in secondary school participation
occurred throughout Turkey. Provinces which were in more
central positions and were more develOped with respect to
'their surrounding provinces dominated the increases.

Tfliese were Elazig and Maltya of the east, Trabzon and

+33 U
881:3 fl.
”8733 RES
8313... E
womlwo l

ZOHB/NmHUHBmANm

aoomom mo mmHmoomeao

.ommH

I maOObom humocoomm Hemmoll.h

 
     

o
a
o

\
0

(fl

musmflm

1\\

o

\ v.7

\ w
I .I.. .. In. . ...\\_\ 4 .. OE \Hrrllh.‘ .
O ..... 0% O .0 O‘FFO.V‘~OAV\\K\\\§ , ‘\
, 1. . 4..WIId‘.\

O 5%.
\.

+38 fl
moomIfima n
331:3 on!
231.3. E

mom Iwo I
onsamHoHemam
‘
,0

Hoomom .mO mMHMOUmE’NU

 

 

.osaa I maoorom sumpcoomm HOEEDII.m mmDon

+mao~ nnnu
woomlmama fl
womHIwHoH EU
wooalwam lxxxs
onammHoHBmdm

AOOEU m .mO mm HmOOMBflo

 

 

 

 

108

.m>onm no mmmuw>m onma Hm>oa buMDOM uncommo>m Hmcoflumc onma cam moma Hm>mH ouflsu “mommum>m

Hmcofiumc momH paw ooma cmmzumn Hw>ma ocoowm “30Hmn Ho mmmum>m coma ucwEmon>wo Ho>ma umuflmn

.oom “vHH “ooa mum3 mosam> xoocH
.wm.ma mp3 Ohma “mm.h .moma How “wo.o wumB ooma now moflumn cofiummflofiuumm Hoonom mnem

 

no om av H m A4909
H Awm.ma m>onm Ho
Hmsqmv ucmEQon>mQ
BmH Hm>mq cannon
m xz<
mmH
owe xmm Aam.maIwm.nv
m>x dam ucmEmoHo>mo
ZNH zed Hm>ma phage
o ere
94:
40H Awm.hlmo.o :wc3ummv
we: ZNO ucmEQOHm>mo
mmm ~m>mq Ucoowm
mm 23m mxu 0N» NHm

xxx MZU Z<> QmO
20m 0mm kmD 0H2
29x 40m ZDB >mz
mmx BHm 9&9 ODE

 

xmo zoo qu Mme Om: dzm
00x mHo qcm m>m ad: mo: Awo.o
me Now eza mew m2: me: seems no Hmsvmv
zmo wHQ mzm Edm 39x sz ucmemon>mo
Bm< moo wmd Mam 20x Hmo< >o< Hm>mq umufim
amuOB acmEQon>mo unmEQon>wo ucmEmon>mo ucmEmon>mo coma
Hm>mq nunsom Hw>mq thank Hm>mq pcoomm Ho>wq umuflm

Ohma

.onma .mHoocom unaccoomm
uwmmolnmmeuomwumo HmucmEmon>mo be mmocfl>oum ecu mo coflusnfluumfloll.m mqmfie

109

Artvin of the north, Adana and Icel of the south and
Kayseri and Eskisehir of the central part of the country.

When the provinces were compared in terms of
develOpmental levels in school participation it was found
that:

1. In 1960 there were 52 provinces in the first
level of development. Ninety per cent of those moved up
to the third level by 1970, but the provinces of the
southeastern section of the country remained at the first
level.

2. Provinces which were at the second and third
levels of develOpment in 1960 (with the exceptions of one--
Gaziantep) all moved up to the fourth level, and the
highest increases occurred among these provinces. These
provinces occupied central position in their regions or
sections of the country. They were the more urban, more
commercial and more industrially oriented provinces.

This evidence indicates that upper secondary school
development occurred largely in central cities of the
provinces of Turkey.

Differences in Student-Science Teacher
Ratios in General Secondary Schools

 

 

Student-science teacher ratios are taken as quality
indicators at lower and upper level general secondary
schools. At the present time in Turkey the shortage of

(qualified science teachers is an acute problem. It has

llO

been very difficult to attract the graduates of science
faculties to teaching jobs and to hold on to those who
have already been teaching in the profession.

Science teachers vary in their educational qualifi-
cations. Some are graduates of the universities. Most of
them were trained at secondary teachers' training institu—
tions. Science teachers with university education are
usually assigned to posts at upper secondary schools. The
others with education from teachers' training institutes
(so called institutes of education) are assigned both to

lower secondary and upper secondary schools.

Upper Secondary Schools (Lycees)

 

In Table H)the student-science teacher ratios for

teachers with university education1 are presented:

TABLE Ml--Distribution of Provinces by Students per
Science Teacher with University Training at
Upper Secondary Lycee 1970-71.

 

V

 

Student-Science Number of Provinces
Teacher Ratio (N=67)

Equal to or less than 100 9

101=125 24

126-150 23

151 or above 11

AVERAGE for Turkey = 125

 

 

1The teachers in this category include teachers

xvith subject matters of mathematics, physics, chemistry
and biology .

111

The best student—science teacher ratio was 67 in
the 1970-71 school year. Only nine provinces had ratios
under 100. In more than 50% of the provinces the ratios
were above 125-—the national average. In one province

(Bitlis) the ratio was 530.

Total Secondary Schools

 

A second ratio was examined, based upon the
number of the science teachers regardless of their educa-
tional background and total number of secondary students
including both the middle and upper secondary levels. The

classification of ratios are shown in Table 11.

TABLE LL--Distribution of Provinces by Student-Science
Teacher Ratios in Total General Secondary
Schools (Middle Lycee).

 

Student-Science

Teacher Ratio Number of Prov1nces

 

Equal to or less than 100 1
101-150 19
151-200 20
201-250 ' 12
250 + 15

AVERAGE for Turkey = 171

 

The best student-science teacher ratio was 100, and in only
<one province. In 19 provinces ratios ranged from 101 to
150. In more than two-thirds of the provinces ratios were

above 250 .

112

The best ratios relative to the national average
were in Hakkari, Cankiri, Sinop, Aydin, Mugla, Izmir, and
Canakkale. The worst ones were in Bitlis, Kars, Van,
Amasya, Tunceli, Adana, Elazig, Rize, Urga and Hatay.

In upper secondary schools the worst ratios were
in Kocaeli, Nevsehir, Van, Trabzon, Bingol, Malatya,
Erzurum, Rize and Adana. The best ratios relative to the
national average happened to be in Edirne, Hakkari, Manisa,
Izmir, Ordu and Cankiri.

In more Specific terms, there were no teachers
with university training for physics, chemistry and
biology in three provinces (Bingol, Bitlis, Bilecik). In
1970 in seven provinces such teachers were lacking for
two or three subjects and in 20 provinces one of the three

subjects.

Summary

In Section A of the preceeding analysis, the dif-
ferences in school Opportunities and the differences in
increase of school opportunities in terms of school
participation ratios were analyzed for both primary and
secondary schools in 1960, 1965 and 1970. For the compari-
son of the differences two types of categorization were
utilized. First, the differences in school participation
ratios were analyzed in categories of actual percentage

Iooints. Second, they were analyzed in developmental

113

categories based on the national averages of 1960, 1965 and
1970, where the 1960 national average was given an index
value of 100, and four develOpmental categories were
defined. The first level included provinces which were
below the 1960 national average participation ratio; the
second level included provinces with ratios between 1960
and 1965 national averages; the third contained those
between the 1965 and 1970 national averages; and the fourth
level included provinces with participation ratios above
the 1970 national average. The comparisons in terms of
categorization of the provinces revealed the following
results:

1. There were inequalities in school participation
ratios and in girls' share in total enrollments among the
primary schools. Those inequalities, even though reduced
to a great extent between 1960 and 1970, remained sub-'
stantial throughout the decade.

2. The gap between the provinces in the fourth
level of develOpment and the first level of development
remained almost the same from 1960 to 1970. The provinces
with lowest school participation ratios were found in the
southeastern section of the country.

3. The share of the girls in total enrollments was
closely associated with the differences in school participa-

tion ratios.

114

4. The western provinces seemed to develop
first, and then development moved into the eastern sections
of the country.

5. Increase in school participation ratios in
less developed provinces were not equal. Some profited
more from the expansion of school opportunities.

6. A determined effort for leveling off the dif-
ferences among the provinces was evident throughout the
decade. The highest increase generally occurred in those
provinces which were below the 1960 average in 1960.

7. It seemed that low participation ratios in the
provinces of the southeastern section of the country was
not largely due to a shortage of teacheTs. Factors other
than availability seemed to inhibit growth in that
particular area. Almost all the provinces with low ratios
in school participation also had low rates of pupil-teacher.

8. At the lower secondary school the difference
in school participation ratios between the most populous
provinces and the rest of the country was great. This
pattern of inequality was even more apparent in the case
of upper secondary schools.

9. At the secondary level these provinces which
stood in central positions economically with respect to
their surrounding areas tended to have higher participation

ratios in comparison with other provinces.

115

10. There was a scarcity of qualified science
teachers in almost all provinces of Turkey. There were
some provinces which had no qualified teacher of physics,
chemistry or mathematics in the upper secondary schools.

The inequalities observed in 1960 for the country
as a whole levelled off by 1970 to a considerable extent

at primary and secondary levels.

SECTION B

Explanatory Factors of the Differences
in School Opportunities

 

 

Introduction

 

This section is devoted to providing answers to
the second main question of the study, dealing with socio-
economic factors related to differences in school
Opportunities.

As described in the preceding section, there were
substantial differences in school Opportunities among the
provinces in 1960, 1965 and 1970. The inequalities in
school participation ratios were more apparent at secondary
school levels. During the 19605, secondary enrollments
doubled and tripled in many cases. The increases in
enrollments were not evenly distributed throughout the
country. There were provinces which profited greatly
from what had been provided. At the primary level, 1960

differences in school participation ratios leveled off to a

116

considerable extent by 1970. At the secondary level, on
the other hand, certain provinces persistently benefited
more from participation increases. In short, the patterns
of develOpment in terms of school participation ratios had
unique forms at both primary and secondary levels.

In order to provide better than "common sense"
answers to the question of which factors are most closely
related to the observed differences, special attention has
been paid in this study to socio-economic factors, by
examining them through means of statistical analysis.

Socio-economic factors, as conventionally believed,
are the factors which either may inhibit or foster rapid
increase in school opportunities. In the case of Turkey,
there has been a determined policy of leveling off the
differences throughout the country. In the era of planned
development "the principle of creation of equal opportuni—
ties to all" had considerable weight in establishing the
investment priorities.

In this line, the following proposition may be put
forward: "If a determined policy of leveling of the dif-
ferences or creating equal schooling Opportunities did
eexist and was in fact implemented fully in the decade of
tflie 19605, then the association between socio—economic
factors and school participation ratios would be less

apparent by 1970, in comparison with 1960."

117

A second proposition would be that through time
socio-economic factors would have decreasing explanatory
values for the differences in school opportunities. In
other words, if the differences existed among the provinces,
these differences could better be explained by factors
which are not socio-economical but attitudinal or socio-
psychological, such as desire and need of people for
education.

In this line of thought it was intended to see
whether the socio—economic factors which tended to asso-
ciate with school participation ratios in 1960 would still
tend to associate to the same degree in 1965 and 1970.

Also it was intended to see whether the differences in

school participation would associate more with urbaniza-

tion, density, economic activity, and educational attain-
ment level of the pOpulation; or whether on the contrary,
these factors would have no substantial relation with the
differences because of the determined efforts of the
government in leveling off the differences among the
provinces. In this connection the following hypotheses
were formulated:

Hypothesis 1: In the more socio—economically developed
provinces of the country, school participation
ratios will be higher relative to the school
participation ratios of the other provinces
in 1960, 1965 and 1970. Conversely, in the
relatively less developed provinces of the
country, where the population is more rural
and scattered and the educational attain-

ment level of the population is low, the
school participation ratios would tend to

 

Hypothesis 2:

Hypothesis 3:

118

be low. If this proposition is correct
then the most of the variance in school
participation ratios would be explained
by socio-economic variables.

If the policy of leveling off the differ-
ences in school Opportunities has been
realized in terms of investment and in terms
«mfotherneasures throughout the country, then
the association between the differences in
school participation ratios and socio-
economic variables will tend to diminish
from 1960 to 1970. (This pattern should

be especially strong at primary school
levels where a more determined policy of
leveling off the differences has existed.)
If this proposition is correct, then the
school participation differences among
provinces would be relatively independent

of socio-economic factors.

If socio-economic factors do tend to explain
considerable amounts of variation in school
participation ratios, the ones among those
factors which have to do with the desire of
the peOple for education and the need for
education would have more explanatory value.
In this connection it was hypothesized that
the educational attainment level of the
population would have more explanatory

value than the other socio—economic variables.

In order to test these hypotheses, multiple

regression analysis was employed. The results of the

analyses are a function of the definition of the variables.

The following independent variables were utilized in the

analysis.

119

Independent Variables

 

Variable Urbaneness: Urbaneness is defined as the
No. 1 number of persons per thousand pOpulation
living in urban areas.1

 

Variable Density: This is a measure of scatterness

 

 

No. 2 based on the number of persons per square km.

Variable Educational Attainment, Level I: This variable

No. 3 is defined as the number of educated persons
with maximum primary education per thousand
population.

Variable Educational Attainment, Level II: This is

No. 4 defined as the number of educated persons per

thousand population with minimum lower
secondary education.

Variable Volume of Population: This variable is
No. 5 defined as the portion of total population
of Turkey in each province.

 

Variable Economic Activity in Agriculture: This is

No. 6 defined as the number of males over 15 years
of age engaged in agriculture per thousand
pOpulation.

 

Dependent Variables

 

Variable School Participation Ratio: This is defined

No. 7 as the number of children enrolled in school
per thousand school age children in relevant
age groups.

 

For each school level and for each year, a dif-
ferent school participation ratio as dependent variable
was utilized.

In the multiple-regression analysis, as was noted

in Chapter III, the step-wise multiple—regression analysis

 

For the criterion of urban area, the definition
of the State Statistical Institute was used . The
definition includes those living in the capital centers
of the provinces and those living in the district centers.

 

120

technique was utilized. In this technique, the variable
which had the highest correlation with the dependent
variable automatically entered first into the regression
analysis. In the following steps, the entrance of a
variable into the regression was based on the partial

multiple regressions among the variables.1

Explanation of the Differences in
School Participation Ratios at
the Primary Level

 

 

 

In line with the main propositions and hypotheses
formulated above, more specifically the following
hypotheses were formulated and tested for the differences
at primary level.

Hypothesis 1: The association between the school
participation ratios and socio-economic

variables will tend to decrease from 1960
to 1970.

 

Hypothesis 2: The educational attainment level of the
people in provinces will explain more of
the variance in school participation than
the other variables, but its effects will
tend to decrease from 1960 to 1965 and
from 1965 to 1970.

 

In order to test these hypotheses step-wise
regression analyses were executed for 1960, 1965 and 1970,
‘where the school participation ratios for each respective

year acted as the dependent variable along with the

 

1For more complete information on methodology,
see Appendix

121

independent variables specified above. The analysis

produced the following results:

TABLE 12.--Multiple Regression Analysis for 1960 Primary
Schools (N=67).

 

 

No. of the Per cent Additional
Steps in Variable Variance Accounted R2 P Value
Analysis Entered.in for by the Variable
Regression Entered
I 3 86.1 .86
II 6 5.1 .91
III 2 .5 .92

 

Minimum F Value: 2.37 at .05 level for 5,65 degrees of
freedom.

TABLE 13.--Intercorrelation Among Variables for 1960.

 

 

Variable l 2 3 4 5 6 7
Urbanness 1.00 .61 .53 .68 .72 -.91 .33
Density 1.00 .40 .60 .69 -.65 .20
Educational Att. I 1.00 .55 .37 -.61 .93
Educational Att. II 1.00 .59 -.67 .39
Vol. Population 1.00 -.69 .19
Agriculture 1.00 -.39
School. Part. 1960 1.00

 

As indicated in Table 12, in 1960 Variable 3
(Educational Attainment, Level I) accounted for more than
85% of variance in primary school participation ratios.
In some cases 5% additional variance was accounted for by
Variable 6 (Economic Activity in Agriculture). The

investigation of the correlation matrix indicates that

122

educational attainment had a very close association with
the dependent variable. The correlation coefficient for
that association was .93, which was the highest among all.
The differences in school participation ratios neither
associated with urbaneness, nor With agriculture as
economic activity. Only the level of educational attain-
ment had a large and substantial explanation of the
variance in school participation in 1960. In the same
analysis executed for 1965, with the 1965 figures, the
same variable (Educational Attainment, Level I) entered
into regression and accounted for 62% of the variance due
in school participation ratios for 1965. None of the
remaining independent variables entered into the regression,
i.e., the variance remained unexplained, was 38%, and in
all the correlation coefficients decreases were observed1
in comparison with the 1960 coefficients.

In the same sort of regression analyses for 1970,
it was also found that educational attainment entered the
regression alone, but this time explained only 49% of the
variance in school participation ratios for 1970. None
of the other variables entered into the regression.

The findings confirmed the hypotheses that only

the educational attainment level of the population would

 

1For additional statistical information see
.Appendix C, where additional tables of correlation
coefficients are included.

123

associate with the differences in school participation

ratios for 1960, 1965 and 1970, and it explained much of

the variance in those ratios. Nevertheless the association

between educational attainment and school participation

ratios, and the amount of variance explained by that

variable reduced considerably between 1960 and 1970.
Explanation of Differences in School

Participation Ratios in Lower
Secondary Schools

 

 

 

In the case of differences in school participation
ratios among lower secondary schools, it was hypothesized
that even though substantial increases in enrollments
occurred throughout the country, the differences in school
participation ratios would tend to associate with urbanness,
density, and agriculture as economic activity. In this
line it was hypothesized that the differences in lower
secondary school participation ratios for 1960, 1965 and
1970 would be mainly due to the differences in urbanness,
or in those factors related to urbanness, such as density
or agriculture as economic activity.

The step-wise regression analysis revealed the
following results:

1. For 1960, the correlation coefficients between
independent variables and dependent variable ranged from
.33 to -.56; for 1965 from .22 to .41; for 1970 from .16

to -.40.

124

2. In the step-wise multiple regression analysis
for 1960, only agriculture as economic activity entered
into the regression and accounted for only 31% of variance.
For 1965 only population with minimum secondary education
entered into the regression and accounted for 17% of
variance. In 1970, as shown in Table 14, agriculture as
economic activity, urbanness, educational attainment, and
volume of population, in combination in that respective
order, accounted for 44% of variance in school participa-
tion ratios, but the larger part of the variance still

remained unexplained.

TABLE 14.--Multiple Regression Analysis for 1970 at Lower
Secondary Level (N=67).

 

 

No. of the Per cent Additional Multiple
Step Variable Variance Explained Regression F1
Entered in by the Variable Coefficient
. 2 Value
Regre551on Entered R
I 6 16 .16 12.03
II 1 12 .38 22.3
III 4 4 .42 4.5
IV 5 2 .44 2.6

 

Minimum F Value 2.37 at .05 level for 5,65 d.f.

This evidence suggests that socio-economic
variables in combination had accounted more variance than
in 1960 and 1965. But noneIaf the variables accounted for

an explanation of variance in very considerable amounts

125

TABLE 15.--Intercorrelations Among the Variables.

 

 

Variable l 2 3 4 5 6 7

Urbanness 1.00 .59 .43 .85 .73 -.90 .16
DenSity 1.00 .25 .74 .72 -.65 .19
Educational Att. I 1.00 .50 .26 —.56 .21
Educational Att. II 1.00 .82 -.89 .22
Vol. Population 1.00 -.70 .18
Agriculture 1.00 -.40
School. Part. 1960 1.00

 

and the hypotheses were not substantiated at the lower
secondary level.
Explanation of Differences in School

Participation Ratios at Upper
Secondary Levels

 

 

 

At the upper secondary levels, in line with the
main hypotheses, it was specifically hypothesized that
the differences in school participation ratios would tend
to associate more closely with socio-economic variables,
and that among those independent variables, urbanness or
agriculture as economic activity would account for most
of the variance due to the differences in school participa-
tion ratios.

Secondly, it was hypothesized that the eXplanatory
value of the socio-economic variables would tend to
decrease from 1960 to 1970.

The summary of the step—wise regression analysis

for upper secondary in 1960 is given below:

126

TABLE l6.--Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for
1960 School Participation Ratios.

 

 

No. of the Per cent Additional
Variable Variance Accounted 2
Steps Entered in for by the Variable R P Value
Regression Entered
I 6 54 .54 77.08
II 3 3 6 .57 5.07
III 2 3.0 .60 4.91
IV 4 2.1 .62 3.46
V l 1.8 .64 3.15
VI leaving 6 -.8 .64 1.47
VII 5 1.7 .65 2.97

 

Minimum F Value: 2.37 at .05 level for 5,65 d.f.

TABLE l7.--Intercorrelations Among Variables.

 

 

Variable l 2 3 4 5 6 7

Urbanness - .61 .53 .68 .72 -.90 .71
Density .40 .61 .69 -.65 .61
Educational Att. I .55 .37 -.61 .59
Educational Att. II .59 -.67 .47
Vol. Population -.69 .48
Agriculture -.73

School Part. 1960 -

 

As may be seen from the table of intercorrelations,
‘Variable 6 (agriculture as economic activity 1960) and
‘Variable 1 (urbanness 1960) had a common correlation
coefficient of -.90. They each correlated with the

dependent variable at values above .70. (The correlation

127

coefficient between Variable 6 and the dependent variable
was a negative one). In the step-wise regression analysis,
Variable 6 entered first and accounted for 54% of the
variance. An additional 3.6% of variance was explained by
educational attainment, 2% by density, etc. All the
variables together accounted for 65% of variance, so 35%
remained unexplained. In Step VI, agriculture as economic
activity was replaced by urbanness, each of which had
accounted for almost the same amount of variance. Any of
two were more explanatory of the variance in school
participation ratios for 1960, since nearly all the
independent variables were well correlated with each other.

For 1965, the same factors as in 1960 analysis
(Agriculture as economic activity, Density, and Educational
Attainment, Level I) in combination accounted for 66% of
the variance of the differences in school participation
ratios for 1965.

In 1970, Variable 6 (agriculture as economic activity)
and Variable 2 (density) in combination and in that order
accounted for 47% of the school participation variance for
1970. The other factors (Educational Attainment, Levels
I and II, and Volume of Population) did not enter the
regression. A decrease was observed in the amount of

variance accounted for by the independent variables.

128

The hypotheses at upper secondary levels tended to
be confirmed. Differences in school participation ratios
for 1960, 1965 and 1970 tended to associate with socio-
economic variables. Closer association was observed
between urbanness or agriculture as economic activity in
1960, 1965 and 1970. The variance accounted for by the
socio—economic variables remained relatively constant for
1960 and 1965, and tended to decrease by 1970.

Explanation of Differences in Increases

in Total Enrollments Between
1965 and 1970

 

 

 

Throughout the analysis in Section A, it was found
that increases in secondary school participation rates
between 1965 and 1970 were greater than those between
1960—1965. The last half of the decade was the era of
greater expansions of enrollments. For the present study,
it was hypothesized that the great expansion between
1965—1970, in addition to efforts of the government to
provide more school Opportunities to all, was also related
to socio-economic changes in the first half of the decade
between 1960-1965. In more specific terms it was proposed
that during the first half of the decade of 1960, the
educational attainment level of the population increased
so that education created its own demand and this con-
tributed to the rapid increases in enrollments in 1965-

1970.

129

In this line, it was hypothesized that the increase
in enrollments at upper secondary schools between 1965 and
1970 would be associated with increases in educational
attainment levels of the population between 1960 and 1965.

In order to test this hypothesis a step—wise
multiple-regression analysis among the following variables

was executed:

Independent Variables

 

Variable Increase in urban pOpulation 1960-1965

No. 1

Variable Increase in population with primary education
No. 2 1960-1965

Variable Increase in population with lower secondary
No. 3 education 1960-1965

Dependent Variable

 

Variable Increase in total enrollments at upper
No. 4 secondary school 1965-1970

The analysis revealed the following results:

TABLE l8.--Summary of Regression Analysis of Increase in
Enrollments 1965-1970 and Increase in
Urbanization and Educational Attainment

 

 

1960-1965.
No. of the Per cent Additional
$223.1. :::l::C:.:C::::::i. .2 F
Regression Entered
I 1 79.4 .79 25.0

 

ruinimum F Value 3.15 at .05 level for 2,65 d.f.

130

TABLE 19.--Intercorrelations Among Variables.

 

 

Variable l 2 3 4
1. Urban 1.00 .34 .23 .89
2. Primary Education 1.00 -.11 -.40
3. Lower Sec. Educ. 1.00 .26
4. Total Enrollment 1.00

 

The increase in upper secondary enrollments between
1965-1970 associated with increases in urban population
1960-1965, much more strongly than with the educational
attainment variables. Increase in urbanization accounted
for four-fifths of the total variance. None of the
educational attainment variables entered into the
regression because of the small values of the correlation
coefficients. It seems clear that urbanization explained
more of the variance in increase in enrollments at upper

secondary school than educational attainment variables did.

Summary

In Section B of the analysis, the differences in
school participation ratios were analyzed in the context
of socio-economic changes in the provinces. Urbanness,
density, educational attainment levels of the population
“portion of the population with maximum primary education,
puirtion of the pOpulation with minimum lower secondary

edincation, volume of pOpulation, and agriculture as

 

 

131

economic activity by males were taken as indicators of
socio-economic develOpment of the provinces). The associa-
tion and explanation of the variance in school participation
ratios and the independent variables were analyzed by the
technique of step-wise multiple-regression analysis.

At the primary level only the educational attain-
ment level of the provinces (number of persons with maximum
primary education per thousand population) explained 86% of
the variance in 1960. The same variable alone eXplained
65% of variance in 1965 and 47% of variance in 1970. None
of the other socio-economic variables had close association
with the dependent variable.

At lower secondary levels, in 1960 and 1965, socio-
economic variables explained small portions of the variance
in school participation ratios, and by 1970 the socio-
economic variables in combination could explain only 44%
of the variance.

At upper secondary levels, however, two-thirds of
the variance was explained by socio—economic variables in
both 1960 and 1965.

The variable of agriculture as economic activity
was the variable which accounted for most of the explained
\hariance. This variable had a correlation coefficient
111th urbanness of -.90, and both also correlated highly

With the dependent variable.

132

In 1970, the explanatory value of agriculture as
economic activity dropped to 47%.

The variables of urbanness, agriculture as
economic activity, and number of persons with minimum lower
secondary education per thousand population, were the three
of the six independent variables which had the better
associations with the dependent variables.

Differences in secondary level school participation
ratios were accounted for to a substantial extent by socio-

economic variables.

SECTION C

Student Characteristics

 

Introduction

 

In this section the analyses of the socio-economic
background characteristics of the students at upper and
lower secondary schools are presented in line with the
third main question of the study. The socio-economic
background characteristics of the students were studies in
terms of the following indicators:

1. Residential Background Characteristics--in

 

terms of birth place of the student, current family
residence, and the location of the primary and lower

secondary school finished by the students.

133

All of these three indicators were identified by
the type of administrative settlement: capital city of

the province, district center, sub-district center, and

village.1

2. _The Occupation of the Fathers of Students--
For this purpose a classification of fathers occupations
based on the classification of the Census Bureau was

utilized (see Appendix A).

3. The Educational Attainment Level of the Fathers

of Students—-Here the classification of educational attain-

 

ment levels developed by the Census Bureau is also
utilized (see Questionnaires in Appendix A).

These indicators are treated in the analysis
separately. Throughout the analysis it was intended to see
whether substantial differences existed in access to further
schooling after primary between the children of urban and
rural families, of high level occupations and workers and
farmers, and how these differences were distributed

throughout the country.

 

1Turkey is administratively divided into 67 provinces,
and each province is divided into districts, districts into
sub-districts, and sub-districts into villages. For each
unit, administrative offices of the government and sub-
branches of these offices are located in one of the cities,
towns or villages. The capital city of the province and
the district center usually constitute settlements which
sflnow the character of a city or large town. The sub-
ciistrict center and village usually have village character
or rural character. Those villages which are situated as
suburbs of the big cities of Turkey are given town status
131 this study.

* 134

In the last part of the analysis, the results of
a study done by Kazamias eight years ago were compared with
the findings of this study in terms of the occupations of
fathers of the students at public and private lycee, in
order to see whether the occupational background character-
istics of the fathers of students had changed in the eight
years of time.

Residential Characteristics
of Students

 

 

Upper Secondary Schools.--Residential character-
istics of the students were identified in terms of type
of the community where the students were born and where
the parents of the students resided at the time when the
questionnaires were administered. In the following table,
the distribution of the students is given by birth places.

As may be observed from Table 20, 43% of the total
public upper secondary students (totaling village and sub-
district centers)l reported villages as their birth places.

There are differences in the birth places of
students at different types of upper secondary schools.
The most apparent difference is between public and private
1ycees. In the former, 37.4% of the students (totaling
village and sub-district center) reported village as their

kxirth places whereas 7.5% of the students at private

‘

1In the analysis village figures are the total of

‘Village and sub—district center.

135

.>Uflo Ho S30» mo Hmuomumso man m>mn Amocw>oum on»

no Hmuflmmo .Hmucmo uowupmflpv o3u nonuo on» “umuomumso mmMHHw> 303m Aumucmo unfiuumwounsm can
mmmaafi>v o3» umufim one .muficz m>wumuumwcflavm Hmfiofimmo ca pmcwmmu ma huficsseoo mo mmhsm

 

 

moa.a ¢0H.m mmm mum boo.H hm~.m nonfizz
o.ooH 0.00H o.ooa 0.00H 0.00H o.ooa ucmo Mom
N. v. H. I m. H. Hm3mcm oz
H.o> m.mm m.m~ m.mm m.mH H.~m Asufloucgouv
mocfi>oum mo auflo HMUHQMU
N.mH m.mm m.oa m.mH m.mm v.mm Ahufiu .c3ou .230»
Hamfimv Hmucmo uoauumwo
o.a H.v m.v m.h o.v m.m Axmosmv Hmucmo uoflnumflpnndm
m.o m.mm m.mm o.mm H.mm m.mm Amaze mmmHHfl>
humocoomm maoosom mcwcfimua
mmmohq momma HMUflcnomB mmwo>q uwcomme mmmo>q
wum>flum Deanna .maom HwflonmEEoo wumsflum Deanna
H38. 0385 335m 335m zuwggoo No we?

 

Hoonom mo mm>9

m
en woman nuuum

 

.Ammmmucwonmm

may Hoonom mo mama can momam nunwm an mHoonom unaccoomm momma
mo mommmau omens can umuflm cw mucmosum Hmuoa mo :oflunnfluumfla msaal.om mqm<9

F. 1
L»)
O\

1ycees did so. In the p“ lic upper secondary schools,
62.1% of the students in primary teachers' training, 58.1%
in boys' technical schools, 45.5% in commercial 1ycees,

and 37.4% in general lycee

U)
H
f((
O
H
H
m
m
<
Fl
F.)
FJ
Q)
m
m
U)
Q)
w
W
:T
m
*1
H

birth places. Among the fifteen regions of tie country,
differences in the percentaces of students wno reported
villages as their birth places ranged from 30% to 72%.

In the regions where the largCSt cities of the country are

\/

located, Izmir (Aegean , Ankara, and Istanbul, the per-

centages of the students with village origin (rural
origin) were 39.6%, 32.7% and 30.3% respectively. In
Antalya, Gaziantep and Samsun regions, approximately 50%

H

ozon,

m

of the students were from vii'ace origins. In Tr
Erzurum, Van, Zonguldak and Elazig regions, more than 50%

of the students (the hichtst was Trabzon with 72.1%)

' 'i
.. A

-.- h~-~' A --.
Current :amilv Residence

 

J

m

- nfi-tr: —. -~, “~4—
one Vailu lDCiCanr O

m

a. w w - ' ~"\_‘- A ‘ “
Although birth iuC‘ i

r.

origin, there also has been throughout the country con—
si ra i ‘ at'on mic ation I‘ m ill es 0 n .

de b‘e popul 1 1Jr rro v ‘ag to t w 5
Children born in rural areas might have moved to towns or
cities along with their parents. For that reason, birth
place also was analyzed against the current residence of

the parents of students. In the following table Table 21)

137

 

wocwpwmmu maflamm

.wmoo. ou 00.0 Eoum
H0 apnea nemxu “Mommy

Umwum> mmnsmem mmone
uoc new 0:3 mucmpsum

.manmu may CH c30£m no: me
man m0 ucwo Mom one

 

 

moH.H ewa.m mmm mum noo.a 5mm.o uwnesz ameoe
o.vm 0.00 m.vm m.a> v.0w 0.ve wocopemom maeEmm
CBOB
m.mm 0.0m m.mv m.vm w.>m m.mo momHm cuuflm
m.m o.Hm H.mv m.mm o.mm m.mm mocmeflmmm seesaw _
mmmaafl>
m.m 0.mv H.0m m.mv H.No v.mm womam zuuflm
mmomq mumpcoomm Hoocom moomq maecfimue mwomq
w m>HH momma Hmowccome mmoumEEo muonomme 0a
a u m owaflsm Hmuoe .mxom H . U mumeflum .Hnsm mocopemmm mfiflfiwm

 

mHoonom mo momme

cam woman cunflm

 

.Ammmmucoonwm CH0 Hoocom Mo momma an
mocmpwmmm maeEmm unmmuso cam momam nuuflm ma AmmmmmHU chase tam umuflm
mo Hmuoev mHoozom mumpcoomw momma um mucmpsum we coflgsnfinumfio mnBII.Hm mqmde

138

the current family residence and birth places of the
student at upper secondary schools are presented together.

Village percentages for students' family residence
are lower than the percentages for birth places. In the
case of towns, just the reverse is true. The table
clearly demonstrates that the families of some of the
students who reported villages as their birth places had
already moved into the towns and cities. In terms of
family residence, the students with village family residence
constitute the larger part of the student population in the
primary teachers' training schools. In the boys' technical
schools 45% and in general lycees one-fourth of the
students are from rural family residential backgrounds.
Private lycees draw 94.6% of their students from those with
urban family residential backgrounds.

In Table 22, percentages of students with Village
family residence are given along with the per cent of
total population who reside in the villages for each region.

According to tentative census figures for 1970,1
62% of the total population reside in villages. However,
only 31% of the students at upper secondary schools
reported villages as the family residence. This percentage

goes down to 26 in the first and third classes of public

lycees.

—__

1This ratio is based on the tentative report by
time Census Bureau in 1970. The final Census report had
rurt.been published yet (in 1972).

139

TABLE 22.--Distribution of Public Upper Secondary Students
with Village Parental Residence and Percentages
of Total Village Populations by Regions.

 

Village as Parental Residence

 

Percentage of Total Upper

Regions

Lycee

Lycee

 

Population Secondary
. . . I III

Re51ding in Class Class Schools

Village (Public)
I Adana 53 29 28 32
II Ankara 54 l4 13 15
III Antalya 68 28 38 31
IV Diyarbakir 65 21 9 24
V Aegean-Izmir 61 27 17 27
VI Elazig 7O 4O 59 36
VII Erzurum 73 41 43 42
VIII Eskisehir 66 28 16 36
IX Gaziantep 61 24 31 28
X Istanbul-Marmara 44 17 21 22
XI Kayseri 7O 27 22 33
XII Samsun 76 3O 4O 34
XIII Trabzon 8O 65 53 65
XIV Van 74 41 32 46
XV Zonguldak 76 20 29 38
TURKEY 62 26 26 31

 

the distribution of the population in rural areas.

There are variations in the regions with regard to

The

share of the students from village parental residence is

higher in the regions where the rural population ratio is

higher than the national average. But in the most urbanized
regions (Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir) the shares of students
.from village family residential origin are very low. For
irnstance, in the Izmir region 61% of the population reside

i1} rural areas, but only 27% of the students at upper

140

secondary schools come from rural residential origin.

These figures are 54% and 15% in the Ankara region, and

44% and 22% in the Istanbul region. In all three cases,
the larger portion of the students reported urban areas as
parental residence. The closest ratios of rural pOpulation
and rural parental residence is found in the Trabzon
region, where the rural population is 80%, and rural area
reported as the student's parental residence is 65%.

Great variation between these two indicators are observed
in the regions of Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Gaziantep, and

Diyarbakir.

Lower Secondary Schools.--One point in this analysis
which should be taken into account is the degree of depen-
dency of upper secondary enrollments upon middle (lower
secondary) school enrollments. Low ratios for children
from rural areas in upper secondary school might be due to
non-availability of middle schools. The residential
characteristics of the students of lower secondary schools
were examined because participation rates in upper
secondary may be determined to a great extent by the
amount of output of lower secondary schools. In Tables
:23 and 24 the residential backgrounds of students at lower
seecondary schools are presented.

In the 1970-1971 school year, more than 45% of the

ttrtal students at first and third grades of lower

141

 

0.Hm 0.mv unaccoomm HmmmD

n.mm H.mw mnwpcoomm Hmaoq

 

Awe va
mmmaafl> cfl mmpfimmm mfiflfiwm . mmmHHfi>.ce :Hom Hoosom mo mmme

 

.mocmpflmmm mHHEmm bcmnnsu he can momHm cpnem an mHoonom
mumpcooom Momma 0cm Hmzoq em mpcwpsum mo mmmucmonmm wo COmMHmmEOUII.¢N qdeoe

 

 

e. m.em 9.0m m.mm H.me m.e m.oe qaeoe

N. ~.om m.Hm e.e~ o.me m.e m.mm HHH memuo
e. e.mm e.mm e.mm o.oe m.e m.av H mango

Ammmfiflfl>v

.HMpOB umucwu

HmBmcd muau £309 mmmaaa>

c309 . . uoegnmfla mmmaafl> memuo

oz mane Amunamo HHmEm Hmnoe ommHHe>

 

.Aemm.mfiuzc mmmmucmonma an Anemauoeaav
mmpmuu an momam nuuem an wucwpsum humocoomm umBOq mo sceusnenumeonn.mm mqmde

142

secondary school reported villages as their birth places,
and 34% of them reported villages as their parental
residence. When these figures are compared with those of
upper secondary schools, the percentages are higher in all
cases for students from rural areas in lower secondary
schools.

The prOportion of lower secondary school students
with village origin is higher than for upper secondary
students.

In Table 25, distributions are presented for
lower level students by parental residence, by birth places
and by the location of the primary school completed. The
table reveals interesting variations among the regions:

1. In the regions of Adana, Ankara, Antalya,
Eskisehir, Istanbul, and Zonguldak, the difference between
villages as birth place and as parental residence is 10%
or more. Since the population movement basically is from
the villages to urban areas, this means that after the
birth of children some of the families moved into urban
areas. This tendency of movement is present in all
regions, Ankara being the highest with a percentage dif-
ference of 20%.

2. Though there is a considerable variation in the
percentage differences between birth place and parental
residence of the students, one-third of the students

reported village as the parental residence. This

143

TABLE 25.--The Distribution of the Students at the Public
Lower Secondary by Family Residence and Birth
Place and the Location of the Primary School

 

 

 

 

 

Completed.
. Birth Place Current Family Primary Finished

Region
Village Town Village Town Village Town
I Adana 45.9 54.3 34.1 65.8 37.0 62.8
II Ankara 48.2 51.5 28.7 71.0 32.5 67.5
III Antalya 46.5 52.8 34.8 65.0 36.8 53.0
IV Diyarbakir 28.4 71.5 21.3 78.4 22.8 77.0
V Aegean 45.7 53.8 39.3 60.6 40.5 59.4
VI Elazig 57.4 42.3 50.0 50.0 52.4 47.5
VII Erzurum 53.7 45.8 46.6 53.1 48.5 51.2
VIII Eskisehir 45.8 53.7 36.3 63.5 38.3 60.4
IX Gaziantep 38.1 61.8 31.5 68.4 35.0 64.6
X Istanbul 34.7 64.5 22.3 77.4 25.4 74.3
XI Kayseri 49.8 49.7 40.4 59.2 41.8 57.8
XII Samsun 48.7 51.1 35.0 64.8 36.3 63.5
XIII Trabzon 61.3 38.6 54.0 45.9 53.3 46.3
XIV Van 25.0 75.0 15.0 84.6 14.6 85.0
XV Zonguldak 54.0 45.7 37.9 61.9 40.1 59.1
TURKEY 45.1 54.5 33.7 66.0 36.1 63.7

 

percentage varies up to 50% in Elazig, 54% in Trabzon,
46.6% in Erzurum, and 40.4% in Kayseri.

3. When the distribution of lower secondary
students' birth places was cross-tabulated with parental
residence, it was found that 31% of the students were born
in villages and the family still resides in a village; 14%
were born in villages but the family resides in town; 53%
were born in town and the family resides in town; and only
2% were born in town but the family resides in a village.

In the regions of Ankara, Zonguldak, and Istanbul, the

144

percentages of those students born in the villages but
where family resides in town are 21, 18 and 15%. These
are the highest ratios. In the remaining twelve regions
these ratios range from 8 to 14%.

4. If the percentage of family residence in
village is compared with the percentage of primary school
finished in village, in all cases (with the exception of
Trabzon region) percentages of primary finished at village
are slightly higher than parental residence as village
(approximately 2-3%). In terms of the cross-tabulations
of birth place and the place of primary school completed,
32% were born in villages and finished primary also in
villages; 13% were born in villages but finished in towns;
and only 3% were born in towns but finished primary in
villages.

In order to throw further light on the residential
characteristics of the students, the residence of the
student while attending the school is also obtained. In
the lower secondary school, 79% of the students reported
that they resided with their families and 2% were free
boarders.l The remaining 19% of the students lived either
by renting a house or with their relatives or family friends.
In the region of Erzurum 33%, in Trabzon 25% and in Sasum

26% of the lower secondary students reported that they did

lFree boarder is a student whose total expenses are
met by the State in the boarding schools.

145

not reside with their families while attending school.
This percentage is also close to 25% in the regions of
Elazig and Antalya.

In the case of the upper secondary students, only
61.3% of the students reported that they resided with
their families while attending the schools; 9.7% of the
students were free boarders. The remaining 28.7% were away
from the place where the family resided; 20.8% out of the
28.7% lived in rented houses or paid their own housing
expenses. In the regions of Elazig, Gaziantep, Trabzon,
Van, and Erzurum, one-third of the students at the upper
secondary schools attended schools away from their family
residence and paid their housing expenses. In regions
located in the eastern and southeastern parts of the
country, the ratios of the students living away from family
and paying their own housing expenses were higher than for
the students in regions located in the western parts of the
country: in the Trabzon region 47%, in the Elazig region
43%, in the Kayseri region 42%, in the Antalya region 40%,
in the Gaziantep region 38%, in the Erzurum region 34%, and
in the Samsun region 30% of the students at the upper
secondary school reported that they went to school away
from residences of their families and paid their own

housing expenses or lived with relatives or friends.

146

The Location of Primary and Lower
Secondary Schools Finished by the
Students at Upper Secondary

The distance to school is one of the crucial con—
straints for further schooling, especially for village
primary school leavers. In this regard, information
obtained from the students revealed the following results:

1. In total public upper secondary schools, 35.5%
of the students hold village primary school diplomas.

This percentage is 5.5% in the private lycees. Among the
public schools, teacher training schools and technical and
vocational schools draw a higher proportion of village
primary school diploma holders. The percentage is 56.5%
for the former, and 49% for the latter. In the general
lycees and commercial 1ycees this percentage goes down to
29.3% and 31.4%, respectively. This feature of the teacher
training schools could be predicted, since it is required
by official regulations that 75.8% of the first enroll-
ments in these schools should consist of village primary
school leavers. But the high ratio for technical voca-
tional is worth noting.

Cross tabulations of the locations of primary and
lower secondary schools completed by students at upper
secondary reveal the following results:

2. Only 8.4% of the total upper secondary students
reported they finished both their lower secondary and

primary schools in villages, 87.2% finished them in

147

towns or cities, and 4.2% did not report the location of
either their primary or lower secondary school.

3. Of those who finished primary in the villages,
18.3% finished lower secondary in the villages also
(N=2,730). (Of those who finished primary school in towns
and cities, 0.9% finished lower secondary schools in
villages. Of those who finished primary school in the
cities or towns, 99% also finished lower secondary school
in towns or cities.

4. A great majority of upper secondary students
had their lower secondary schooling in towns and cities;
39.1% of the students who finished lower secondary at
district centers (towns), and approximately 24% of those
who finished the lower secondary in capital cities of the
provinces were village primary school leavers. Only 8%
of the total student village primary school leavers
finished lower secondary in villages.

5. In terms of the birth places, 30% of all the
students had been born in villages and finished primary in
villages; 14% were born in villages but finished primary
in the district centers; 7% of all upper secondary students
who were born in villages finished lower secondary in
villages; 33% of all students were born in villages but
finished lower secondary in towns and cities.

Of those who finished primary at a town school,

94% also finished lower secondary in towns. More than 99%

148

of those who finished primary in cities (capital city of
the province) finished lower secondary also in towns and
cities.

6. In summary, % of all upper secondary students
finished both lower schools in villages; 24% finished
primary in village but secondary in towns; 62.9% finished
both schools in town and cities; 0.9% of all students
finished primary in town but lower secondary in villages
(4.1% of the students did not report one of two school
locations).

The regional distribution of the location of
primary and secondary schools completed revealed the
following results:

1. For the general lycees, the average for those
who finished the primary school in villages was 28.7% in
the first class, 30.0% in the third class, and 29.3% in
the total of first and third classes. This percentage
was 34.5% for the total upper secondary schools. In seven
out of fifteen regions of the country the portion of
village primary school leavers in the third class was
greater than in the first class.

2. Another interesting observation is that in the
regions which include the most pOpulous cities of Turkey,
the share of students with village primary school diplomas
is smaller than in other regions of the country. It is

smallest in the Ankara region (16.7% in the first class

149

of lycee, and 18.1% in the third class). The percentages
of the Istanbul region were 19.3% and 23.7%. The regions
with ratios lower than the national average were:
Diyarbakir (20.5%), Zonguldak (23.3%), and Samsun (28.7%).
The other regions have ratios greater than the national
average. The region of Trabzon is the highest (63.4%),
Erzurum is second highest (49.4%), and Van is the third
highest (47.2%).

In terms of the location of the lower secondary
schools completed, the differences were as follows:

Seven per cent of the students finished lower
secondary in villages and their families lived also in
villages; 21% finished primary in towns but their families
lived in villages; and 65% finished primary in towns or
cities and their families lived also in towns or cities.
sizable deviations from the national average are observed
in the regions of Erzurum, Eskisehir, Diyarbakir, Samsun,
Ankara, Trabzon and Van.

In Erzurum, Eskisehir, Trabzon and Van regions, the
ratios for village as the location of both middle school
finished and family residence were 13%, 21%, 10% and 20%
respectively, considerably higher than the national
average. In Ankara, Diyarbakir and Samsun regions, the
ratios were far below the national average: 3%, 1% and 2%
respectively. The same pattern is observed in the category
of village as family residence and lower secondary finished

in towns.

150

 

 

va on 0 sm m vm xmcHsmaom >x
oom we m om m OH cm> >Hx
mom om m Hv m me counmue HHHx
mvo.H on m om v Hm camemm HHx
eeo.H on m mm H mm Hummamm Hx
oov.m vq v me H Hm HancmumH x
omo Ho m mm H Hm mmucmflumo xH
5H5 mm m om H em Hermmflxmm HHH>
mom me 0 53 q me asusunm HH>
Hom.H Ho v em m om AuHsNHV mmm H>
mme on v we m mv mHNmHm >
ohm mm m be H mH Hflxmnummflo >H
mew me q me H mm mmHmuca HHH
mHm.m em m mo H mm mumxce HH
mvm.H mm m Ho m mm acmwa H
emm.mH No v mm m mm smxuse
mmmHHfl> pm c303 um

.33 3.3.

mo .02 ucwo umm :309 CM Luom mmmaaw> cfl Luom .
mocmpflmmm wocmpflmmm

 

.pmanCwm Hoocom humfiflum wo :oflumooq
mg was mesmeflmmm >HMEmm ma mucmnsam Hoonom wHecfiz mo :oHusnfluumfiau-.mm mamas

151

The Location of Primary Schools Finished
bnytudents at Lower Secondary Schools

 

 

Table 26 gives cross tabulations of the distribu-
tions of students at lower secondary schools by parental
residence, by location of primary school finished, and by
regions.

An average 32% of all students had the village as
the location of both the primary school and the family
residence. Two per cent of the students had their
families residing in villages but finished primary school
in towns, 62% had family and primary school in town, and
only 4% of the students from town or city residential
origin finished primary school in villages. In the
regions of Adana, Ankara, Antalya, Aegean, Gaziantep,
Samsun, and Zonguldak, patterns similar to the average for
the whole country were observed. The regions of Elazig,
Erzurum and Trabzon had larger than average shares of
students from village schools and village family resi-
dential backgrounds. By contrast, in the regions of
Diyarbakir, Van and Istanbul, the ratios were considerably
below the national average. In these same three regions,
the percentages of those who had family residence in
village but finished primary school in towns were still
below the national average: 19% for Diyarbakir, 15% for

‘Van and 21% for Istanbul.

152

The case of Istanbul may be explained in terms of
the high proportion of urban pOpulation. In Van and
Diyarbakir, village primary school leavers appear to have
had less chance for further schooling than students in
other regions of the country. When the figures are
evaluated against the per cent of population who reside
in villages, it is seen that none of the percentages in
the category of current residence village and primary
finished at village equal the percentages of the population

who reside in villages.

Summary of Characteristics

 

A summary of residential characteristics of students
at both lower and upper secondary school is given in
Table 27.

1. Lower secondary schools include more students
with village origins than upper secondary schools. In
public 1ycees the share of village students (in terms of
birth place and parental residence) is lower than for total
upper secondary and lower secondary schools. Private
1ycees enroll 9% of their students with village origin.

2. The share of students with village origins
does not differ between first and third classes of the
lycee, but it differs in the lower secondary schools. The
percentages are higher in the first than in the third

grade in terms of village birth place, village parental

 

153

m0H.H hwm.o omm.m Hmm.m voH.m bma.v hoo.m hm0.mfi vvm.h mmo.w Hmnfidz A4908

o.m q.m e.~ v.m 0H m HH H.m v.~ H mcflenmon mmum

mm mm om mm mm om em mH mH oH mcHeHmon new
mmmm Ho wmson m mucmm

on on we we Ho Ho No me he Hm mHflamm nuH3 mmeHmmm

m o o s m 5 HH . u : mmmHHH> cH cmzmflcflw
mumpcoomm umBOA

m mm om mm mm qm «m mm mm mm meonflc
mumEHHm mmMHHH> odor

 

 

 

 

0 ON 0m 0m Hm 0m mm vm Hm om womaafl> c3 mmpfimwu maefimm
0 mm mm mm mv me me mv we sq momHHfl> c3 :uom
Hmuoe HmuOB HHH H Hmuoe HHH H HMpoe HHH H
mmo>A mmpmuo mmomg mmpmuu unaccoomm mmpmuo mumpcoomm mofiumfluwuomumnu
mum>fium Ofiandm memD Hmuoe HmBOA

 

.Amwmmucmonmm
may maoorom mumpcoomm :3 mwcmpsuw mo moHumeuw#omumru Hmflucmpwmwmls.mm mqm<e

154

residence, and village as location of primary school
finished.

3. In lower secondary schools the larger percentage
of students reside with their families. In total upper
secondary schools and lycees, approximately one—third of
the students live away from family residence and pay their
own residential expenses. On the average, free boarders
constitute one per cent of the students in the first class
and 3.4% in the third class of lower secondary, 11% in the
first class and 9% in the third class of upper secondary,

and 2.4% in the lycee classes.

Residential Participation Index

 

In order to compare what had been achieved in
terms of providing opportunity to youngsters of the
village population, a residential participation index was
proposed. Hypothetically, the share of students from
village origin (village as parental resident) should be
equal to the portion of the population who live in rural
areas. In the table below participation indexes are
computed and the provinces are compared to each other
‘with respect to "ruralness" and rural participation in
lower and upper secondary schools.

Table 28 provides a measure for comparison of
Imagions in terms of access to schools above primary for

vi llage chi ldren .

155

 

 

no Hm vm mo 00 connmua
0m 0m mm mm on xmcaschN
0v vv mm vm on camfimm
0m 0v ma 0m vb cm>
«0 mm nv me me sausmum
as am 0m 0m 05 mwnmam
em 53 0v mm on flumm>mx
mm hv mm Hm mo whfimuc<
Nv Nv 0m 0m 00 Hfinmmflxmm
mm nm em vm m0 Hflxmnummflo
mm om vm Hm mo mmxnse
mm mm mm mm Ho mmucmHNmo
we we mm em Ho AMHENHV cmmmma
mm mm mm ma mm mumxcm
v0 00 vm mm mm mcmpd
0m 0m mm mm vv thcmumH
Hmuoe Hmuoe Hmuoe Hmnoe H

mumpcoowm humpcoomm >nm©coomm mumpcoowm
um3oq ummmD uw3oq Hmmms mmmud
S S m N Emmy“...

 

chcH :oflummwofiuumm Hmfiucmpwmwm

11‘

mmmmHHfl> cw mucwumm
Sue3 mucmpsum mo ucmo umm

mo ucmo Mom

 

.mHoosom unapcoomm cw :Oflummfioflguwm amusm pcm =mmwchnsm=ll.mm mqmde

156

In the case of upper secondary, Istanbul and Adana

had participation indexes above the average. Trabzon,
Erzurum and Zonguldak are regions where the portions of
rural population are greater, whereas in Istanbul and
Adana the portions of urban population are greater than
the national average. It is interesting that for both
these more urban and more rural areas, the participation
indexes are higher than for ones in between. Ankara, Van
and Samsun, however, are not in this pattern. In Ankara,
where rural population is only 54%, the participation
ratio is the lowest of all fifteen regions. Nevertheless,
in Trabzon where 80% live in the villages, the participa-
tion ratio is the highest among all.

In both cases of lower and upper secondary schools,
Diyarbakir, Elazig, Van, Ankara, Antalya and Gaziantep
are regions where the participation indexes are relatively
low when compared to the index for the whole country and

indexes of the remaining regions.

Girls' Residential Characteristics

 

In upper secondary schools, 23% of the girls were
born in villages whereas only 16% of the girls reported
village as the parental residence. At the same time, the
girls constituted 14.5% of the total student population
knorn in villages, 31.6% of all those born in district
\killages, 36.1% of all who were born in towns, and 43.4%

<1f the total born in cities.

157

Almost 20% of the girls reported villages as the
location of primary school they finished, and only 7% of
the girls reported that they finished secondary school in
villages. Seventy-five per cent of the girls were staying
with family and 15% of them were free boarders. In the
case of lower secondary schools, 25% of the total girls
reported villages as their birth places, while 16% reported
villages as parental residence, and 18% reported they
finished primary in the villages. Ninety—one per cent
were staying with their families. When these figures
are compared to total figures, the relations may be
tabulated as in Table 29.

Male students constitute the larger part of the
students from village origin for both lower and upper
secondary schools. More than half of the male students
were born in the villages for both schools, and approxi-
mately 40% of the male students reported villages as
parental residence. Forty-three per cent of the males at
lower secondary and 36% of the male students in the upper
secondary are village primary school leavers, whereas
only 18% of the girls in lower secondary and 13% of them
in upper secondary finished primary schools in the villages.
Girls constitute only 30% of all the students at lower
secondary, 30% of the upper secondary and 29% of lycee
situdents in the samples. The share of girls with village

cxrigin is rather low in the lycees especially.

158

 

 

mmm.H sov.e mem.o Hme.m oov.o HmH.m sse.q OOH.HH nem.mH mncmesum 30 .02 33309
N m v.m mH o.e OH m.H q.m H.N Hmeumon mmum
mm mo on me pm Ho Ho we as Hoonom :3 mHfln3

maflEmm £ua3 mnemmum

mH mm mm om Hq mm mH me om mmmHHfl> c3

pmzmflcflm Hoonom mumfifium

0H mm mm oH mm Hm oH He mm mmmHHH> :3 meflmmh mncmumm

0H 34 «m mm mm mv mm «m me mmmHHH> c3 :Hom
mHnflu msom Hmuoe .mHnfio mmom Hmuoe mHuflu msom Hence

 

mmoxq ceansm

 

mumpcoowm HmmmD

 

mumpcoomm umzoq

mofiumflumpomnmco

 

.Ammmucmoumm :30 moflumflnmaommmso
Hmwucmpwmmm an pcm xmm he mHoosom mumpcoomm CH mucwpzam mo QOegspHHumfloll.mm mamae

159

Fathers' Occupations

 

In Table 30, the occupations of fathers of the
students at the lower and upper secondary schools are

presented:

TABLE 30.--Distribution of Students by Fathers' Occupations
by Type of School 1970-1971.

 

Upper Lower Private
Occupations in Categories Secondary Secondary Lycee
(N=9,l64) (N-15,937) (N=l,l68)

 

Professional and high level
administrative occupations 10.2 7.6 36.8

Lower administrative and

clerical jobs 15.9 14.2 11.4
Technicians 3.6 2.2 2.1
Business 7.3 5.1 26.5
Small Business 9.5 9.9 6.9
Transportation 3.9 5.6 1.5
Skilled craft workers 5.4 6.8 2.0
Farmers, hunters and unskilled

workers 24.6 23.9 6.3
Semi-skilled and un-skilled

workers 10.3 17.0 2.2
Unknown and non-classified

occupations 9.1 7.5 4.2

TOTAL % 99.9 99.8 99.9

 

The per cent of students in various occupational
categories do not differ much between lower and upper
secondary students, with the exception of percentages in

the professional occupations category, where 10.2% of

160

students in upper secondary were in this category and 7.6%
in lower secondary schools. In broader terms, professionals,
administrators and technicians (those occupations which
require at least an upper secondary level education) con-
stitute 30% of the fathers' occupations for the students
in upper secondary schools. Business constitutes 17%,
farmers 24,6% and workers 10%. These percentages for
lower secondary schools are, respectively, 24%, 15% and
17%. Proportionately more workers' children are in lower
secondary, when compared with upper secondary.

Interesting differences are observed when the
figures for public upper secondary school and for private
1ycees are compared. In private 1ycees more than 50% of
the students are the children of professionals, administra-
tors, clerical workers, and technicians, which is twice
as great as the percentages for public lower secondary'
schools. Business constitutes 33% for private lycees,
while it is 17% and 15% at the public upper and lower
secondary schools respectively.

In order to evaluate and compare differences
between the different types of school, all the percentages
are evaluated against the per cent of the male population
in respective occupations over the total male population
active in the labor force in 1965. These data are given

below:

161

TABLE 31.--Distribution of Fathers' Occupations of Secondary
Students in 1971 and the Occupational Distribu-
tion of the Male Population in 1965 in
Percentages.

 

Per cent of

 

 

Male Popula- Upper Lower Private
Occupations in Categories tion in the Secondary Secondary Lycee
' Occupational
Categories

Professional high

administrators 2.8 10.2 7.6 36.8
Administrators and

clerical 3.6 15.9 14.2 11.4
Business small and large 4.4 16.8 15.0 33.4
Transportation 3.2 3.9 5.6 1.5
Skilled craft workers and

technicians 12.2 9.0 9.0 4.2
Farmers 58.1 24.6 24.9 6.3
Semi-skilled and

unskilled workers 8.8 10.3 17.0 2.2
Unknown, non-classified

occupations 6.7 9.1 7.5 4.2
No answers - - - -

TOTAL 99.8 99.9 99.8 100.0

Professional personnel constitute 2.8% of the

active male population, whereas they are the fathers of

10.2% of the children in upper secondary,

secondary, and 36.8% in private lycees.

of children of professional occupations benefit from

school opportunities.

7.6% in lower

A great majority

Farmers, who constitute more than

half the active labor force, are represented by only 25%

162

of the students in upper secondary and 24% in lower
secondary schools.

In upper secondary, 15% of the girls reported that
their fathers had a professional occupation. This per-
centage was 12% for lower secondary schools. Twenty-nine
per cent of the girls had fathers in administrative jobs
at upper secondary, 22% in lower secondary schools.

Twenty per cent of the girls reported business as
fathers' occupation at upper secondary, 19% at lower
secondary. In both cases, more than 50% of the girls
reported that their fathers either had a professional or
administrative job or a business, whereas close to 11% of
the active male population were engaged in those occupa-
tions.

Regional Differences in
Fathers' Occupations

 

Regional distributions of fathers' occupations
follow national averages, but with some exceptions. These
findings are summarized below:

1. Percentages for students whose fathers were
professional, administrators and clerks, were 33% in
Ankara, 39% in Istanbul, 37% in Zonguldak and 32% in
.Eskisehir, all above the national average. For the upper
secondary school, the portion of the farmers' children

xyas the highest in Van, with a percentage of 47.2%. In

163

Trabzon, Gaziantep, Erzurum and Adana the shares of
farmers' children were 36.1%, 35.4% and 32.8% respectively.

2. In lower secondary schools, the children of
professionals have higher percentages than average (5.5%),
in the regions of Van (11.5%), Ankara (7.8%), Eskisehir
(6.8%), Istanbul (6.2%) and Samsun (6.5%).

Taking professionals, administrators, and adminis-
trative occupations all together, three regions have
higher percentages than national average (22%); these are
Van with 35%, Ankara with 27% and Istanbul with 25%. In
the middle schools, the representation of occupations is
more evenly distributed when compared with upper secondary
schools. The shares of farmers' and workers' children does
not deviate much from the national average (24% for farmers,
17% for workers), with exception of the region of Istanbul,
Van and Trabzon.

At both school levels, the larger share is covered
by the students of professionals, administrators, clerks
and businessmen, but in the middle school, the pattern is
less favorable to these categories when compared with

upper secondary schools.

Fathers' Educational Level

Parallel to the fathers' occupational backgrounds,
educational levels of the fathers were studied and evaluated
against the educational attainment level of the total male
pxnpulation. In the table below, the educationa1.1evels of

the fathers of secondary school students are presented:

164

 

 

 

.mpwumeEoo uoc ugh mumeeum pcwupm @300 mumawum 30H®n :oflumo90m Suez mmocu mpsHoch

0.00H 0.00m 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H Rwy 44909
I 0. m. 0. v. m. m. umamcm oz
H.H v.0 m.H m.m m.v v.m m.m umnuo
m.H m.mm m.H a. m.o m m.m Hmnmflm
o.m «.0m n.v N.m H.MH m.m m.HH Hmcoeuwoo>
0cm mmomq
0.4 m.MH H.e m.o NH m 3.0H sumacoomm umzoa
mm m.ma H.Hm m.mv v.mm m.nv 0.Hv mammaenm
N.mm m.m m.mm N.Hm n.3m mm m.om mceHoogom oz
cofiumfismom wmomq mcflcflmne maecflmue mmo>A mumpcooom mumpcoomm coflumoscm
mHmz Hmuoe mum>wnm Hmoflccome mnmromme oHHhsm um3oq Hmmmo mo Ho>mq
mxom . Hmuoa .mumgumm

.Hm>mq

Hmcofipmospm .mnmnumm ma maoonom mumpcoomm c3

mucwpsum mo coflushfluumflall.mm mqm<e

165

The most interesting result from Table 32 is the
great differences between the pattern of fathers' education
levels in private lycees and in total public upper
secondary schools. In the private lycees more than 59%
of the fathers of students had an education above lycee
level, whereas this percentage was 16.5% in total upper
secondary and 20% in the public lycee. The percentage of
no schooling is 27% in public upper secondary, but it is
3.8% in private lycee.

Private lycees attract greater proportions of the
children of well educated or highly educated persons.

Among the public schools, 1ycees tend to have
students whose fathers had more education on the average
than the fathers of students at the teachers' training
school and technical and vocational schools. Thirty-six
per cent of the lycee students reported that their fathers
had at least lower secondary education, whereas 20% of
the students in teachers' training schools reported the
same educational attainment level. This ratio was 15% for
students in the technical schools. A considerable drop in
ratios from lycee to technical school is observable. In
terms of the fathers with education at least lycee and
above, the percentage for lycee is 24.5%, it is 13% for
teachers' training schools, and 7.5% for technical and
‘vocational schools. Technical and teachers' training

:schools attracted only a very small proportion of students

166

with fathers who had education at lycee level and above.
In the lower secondary schools, 14.3% of students had
fathers with at least lycee education. A large body of
the students had fathers with education at primary and less
than primary level (76.5%). This latter figure is 68.5%
for total upper secondary, 63% for public lycees, 79.5%
for teachers' training schools, and 84.9% for technical
schools. The teachers' training and technical and voca-
tional schools are not popular schools for children of
families where the father had at least secondary education.
When these figures are evaluated in terms of the educa-
tional attainment level of the total male population, the
following observations may be made (see Table 33).
Although percentages were small for students whose
fathers had secondary education or higher, the shares of
such students are higher than the national averages. The
educational attainment levels of the population are not
equally represented in the middle and upper secondary
schools of Turkey. The children of educated persons above
lower secondary were over—represented in all types of
schools in Turkey.
The Comparison of Fathers'

Occupations Between 1963
and 1968

 

 

On the basis of information given in the chapter

entitled "The Lise and Social Change" (plus tabulated

167

 

m.mm v.oe v.mo n.mo e.sv 130 gases

m.mm m.o m ~.m m.H “wamflm
m.om H.MH m.m m.HH o.m Hmcoflnmoo> can mmosq
m.mH NH m 0.0H o.v snmecoomm Hmzoq
m.mH v.mm m.ev o.Hv mm sumeflum

 

uw>o 0cm mummy HH
:ofiumfismom mam: mo Hm>mq
ucwfichuué fianceumospm

mmomq meow mumpcoomm mumpcoomm
mpm>eum A Hmzoq Hmuoe Hmmms Hmuoe

 

.mHoonom mumpcoomm um muchSpm Mo mHmSpmm exp mo Hm>wq unmecflwupd
Hmcoflpmospm 0cm .moma coflumHsmom mo Hm>mq ucmEcflmuué Hmcowumospmal.mm mamme

168

data in his Appendices) in Kazamias' study of Education

 

and the Quest for Modernity in Turkey, his data which were

 

related to fathers' occupations of lycee students were
found to be comparable to the data obtained in this study.
As is shown in Table 34, in the 1962-1963 school
year in Kazamias' study, 11.6% of the students in public
lycees had fathers in high professional and technical
occupations, whereas in the present study this ratio was
8.8%. Higher managerial occupations constituted 5% of
the fathers of students in public lycees in 1963, whereas
this percentage was 3.4% in public lycees in 1971. When
higher professional technical and high level administrative
occupations were taken together into one broad category,
6.6% of the students and 12.4% of the fathers of students
belonged in this category in 1963 and 1971 respectively.
Between 1963 and 1968 a decrease near to 4% was observable.
Minor administrative and clerical occupations constituted
22.3% of the fathers of students at public lycees in 1963.
This percentage for 1971 was 16.9%. It seems that the
occupational categories which require at least an upper
secondary education are higher professional, professional
and higher technical, managerial and high administrative,
ndnor administrative and c1erical--38.9% of the students'
fathers were in these categories in 1963, 29.2% in 1971.

The difference between 1963 and 1971 was 9.7%.

169

 

 

0.00H 0.00H
m.v v.0 0.v 0.0 pmHMfluawpflca
I I I 0.m m.v pmaawxmca
N.m 0.0 v.m 0.0
I I 0. 0. mumxuoz pwHaflmeflEmm
>.0 v.ma v.0 v.ma cmEmummno 0cm mumx303 UmHHexm
m.0 N.HN 0.0 m.mm kucsn .cmEuwgmem .Hmsumm HHmEm
v.mm 0.0H n.mm 0.ma mmocemsn HHmEm .mnepmnp mum>flum
v.HH 0.0H 0.0a m.0m Hmoemmfiu
m.0H m.mm
0.H H.m e>flumuuchHapm Hocflz
0.5 m.m 0.0 o.m m>eumuumflcflaem
30:03: 020 Hmfiummmcmz
0.0m m.NH v.mm v.0 0.0a 0.0 HmoflCQUmu
30:03: 0cm Hmcoflmmmmoum
m.mm m.m o.0H o.m Amumflncmflom .mummchcm
.muouOOGV HmCOHmmmmoum uezmflm
00H.H u z 50m.0 u z Nev.a u z 00m.H u z

mwoxq wum>flum .wwomq veHnsm

 

emomq mum>flum mwomq UMHQDm

 

mpsum ucwmmum

mpsum .mmflEmumx

:oflummsooo

 

.mpchSDm wmomq mo cofiummsooo HmucmnmmII.¢m mqmde

170

In private lycees 25.4% of the students in 1963
had fathers in high professional and technical occupations
whereas this percentage was 29.2% in 1971. The children
of the high level administrators and managers constituted
8% of the students in 1963, and 7.6% in 1971 in private
1ycees.

The share of the children whose fathers were in
minor administrative and clerical jobs drOpped from 18.2%
to 11.4% in 1971. In the category of private traders and
small businessman there was a 10% increase from 23.7% in
1963 to 33.4% in 1971. In 1971, private 1ycees drew most
of their students from higher level professional-administra-
tive occupations. More than 80% of the students belonged
to the broader category which includes high professional,
administrative, and business occupations.

In public lycees between 1963 and 1971, the share
of the students with fathers in professional and high
administrative jobs dropped 4.3% in 1971 (from 16.6% to
12.3%). In minor administrative and clerical jobs the
share of the students with fathers in those occupations had
a decrease of 5.4% in 1970 (from 22.3% in 1963 to 16.9% in
1971).

The portion of the students in the category of
private traders and business increased from 13.5% in 1963
to 18.5% in 1971 (with a net increase of 5%). Another

3.5% increase was observed in the category of semi-skilled

171

and unskilled workers where the ratios in percentages
raised from 5.5% in 1963 to 9.0% in 1971.

In summary, both in the years of 1963 and 1971 the
children of the persons in the high level professional and
administrative positions constituted more than half of
the students in the public lycees. The children of farmers
had almost the same portion in both years. Between 1963
and 1971, 3.5% increase in the portion of the workers'
children was observed in public lycee.

In Table 35, the distribution of students according
to their fathers' occupations in 1963 and 1971 and occupa-
tional distribution of the male population 15 years and
over in 1960 and 1965 are given. In both years (1963 and
1971) the students with fathers in professional-administra-
tive occupations were over-represented in public and private
lycees of Turkey. However, considerable decrease was
observed in the category of "Professional, Technical and
related occupations." Percentage of males in that category
had 1.2% net increase whereas the portion of students with
fathers in that category decreased from 11.6% in 1963 to
8.8% in 1971. Just the reverse trend was observed in the
case of the private lycee.

The farmers'share decreased from 62.3% in 1960 to
58.1% in 1965. The portion of the farmers' children in
public lycee dropped to 21.2% in 1971 from 22.9% in 1963.

IX considerable increase was observed in the share of

172

 

 

0.00H 0.00H 0.00 0.00 H.00 0.00H A00 40909
N.v 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sewummsooo
unocue3 0am pmwmwucmvfico
0.0 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 msowummuomu
A A .uuomm .ucmecflmuumucm .00
0.0 M 0.5 A mmofi>uwm
A M 2033 coeumeoommm .mumxuoz
A 5.m m.~ m.v A H.v mumxuos emHHflxmcs
m.v 0.0 N.NH v.0 v.0H 0.0 mmmooum cofluospoumIIcmEmummuU
0.H 0.0 0.0 5.m mcoflumoflcsfiaoo
paw unommcmuu Ce mnmxuoz
5 . 0 . pmumawu paw muumsw Ce mumxuoz
«.0 N.Hm H.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 Uwumamn 0cm muumwuou
.mnmucss .Cmshmzmflm .mHmEumm
ApmumHmu use mumpmuu mum>flumv n
v.00 0.0a ¢.v 5.00 0.ma 0.v Avmumamu 0cm mumxuo3 mmammv m
0.0a «.00 0.0 0.00 m.5m 0.m pmumHmH 0cm
Hmofluwao .m>flumuumACHEp<
0.0m 0.0 0.0 v.00 0.HA 0.H pmumamu
0cm Hmoflcnowu Hmcoflmmmmomm
00H.H 500.0 000H :3 mvv.H 00m.H 000a Ce
uz nz Hw>o 0cm uz uz uw>o 0:0
wwomq mmomq mummm 0H 00050 $0004 mummm 0H
mum>wum meandm .mom mam: mum>flum oHandm .mom mamz

 

AH5mHIO5mH0 sesum ucmmmum

 

AeomHImoch susum .mmAEMme

 

.coeumasmom

mans nmflxuse mo mcoflummzooo 0cm mucmpsum map mo coflummsooo HmucmummII.0m mqmfie

173

children of small businessmen and private traders. The
percentage of 13.5% in 1963 had gone up to 18.5% in 1971
although the national share of those occupations did not
change between 1960 and 1965.

The portion of children of farmers, who constituted
more than half of the active population, remained almost
the same in the eight years of time. The children of well
educated fathers and of well-to-do families remained over-
represented in the public and private lycees of Turkey

over eight years of time.

Summary

In the analysis in Section C above, socio-economic
background characteristics of first and third classes of
both the upper and lower secondary schools were analyzed
in terms of residential characteristics of students'
families, the location of the primary and lower secondary
schools finished, occupations of the fathers, and educa-
tional attainment levels of the fathers of the students.
In the analysis it was found that 31% of the students
at lower secondary reported the villages as their parental
residence. There were differences in terms of current
family residence of the students in different types of
upper secondary schools. The largest differences were
kxetween public and private schools. The latter constituted
sytudents with overwhelmingly predominantly urban parental

residence.

174

In the public schools, teachers' training schools
and boys' trade schools had the larger shares of students
with villages as parental residence.

In all regions of the country urban children were
over-represented in all types of secondary schools.

Ten per cent of students attending lower secondary
schools and 29% of students in upper secondary schools were
living apart from their families. Most of them lived in
rented houses and paid their own living expenses.

When the girls' share from village origin was
compared with the boys', it was found that the share of
girls with village residential origin was low in both
upper and lower secondary schools.

In terms of fathers' occupations, professionals,
administrators, and technicians constituted 30% of the
fathers' occupations for the students in upper secondary
schools, business 17%, farmers 24.6% and workers 10%.
These percentages for lower secondary schools were,
respectively, 21.8%, 24%, 15% and 17%.

In private lycees more than 50% of the students
were the children of professionals, administrators, clerical
workers and technicians--twice as great as the percentages
for public upper secondary schools. Business constituted
33% for private 1ycees, compared with 17% and 15% at the

public upper and lower secondary schools respectively.

175

When all these percentages were evaluated against
the percentage of the male population in respective person-
nel over the total male pOpulation active in the labor
force in 1965, it was found that professional occupations
constituted 2.8% of the active male population whereas they
were the fathers of 10.2% of the children in upper secondary,
7.6% in lower secondary and 36.8% in private lycees.
Farmers, who constituted more than half of the active
labor force, were represented by only 25% of the students
at upper secondary and 24% in lower secondary schools.

In terms of educational attainment level of
students' fathers, it was found that in private lycees
more than 59% of the fathers of students had an education
above lycee level, whereas this percentage was 16.5% in
total public upper secondary schools and 20% in public
lycees.

When the findings regarding occupational background
of fathers were compared with the findings of a study of
eight years ago, a decrease in the share of students with
fathers in professional and administrative occupations
was observed in the public lycees, whereas the share of

businessmen fathers had tended to increase.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

OF THE FINDINGS

Introduction

 

In this chapter, a discussion of the findings of
the study and some conclusions which might reasonably be
drawn from the analysis of the data are presented, along
with implications of the conclusions which might be useful
in the process of establishing policies for providing equal
educational opportunities to all throughout the country.

The investigator is aware of the risks involved in
drawing conclusions from official data, which data might
not accurately reflect what had happened in the last
decade in reality . The investigator also realizes that
the statistical results produced here are limited to the
definitions of the variables employed and he also realizes
the difficulty of drawing generalizations from combinations
of a limited number of socio-economic variables.

For that reason the following discussions, con-
clusions, and implications drawn here should be taken with

appropriate caution.

176

177

\

Discussion \\

 

Differences in Primary
Education

 

 

The existing differences among the provinces were
analyzed in terms of average school participation ratios
The statistical test of significance was not employed in
the comparisons . The reason for this was that the school
participation ratios will tend to increase until full
realization of the school participation is reached. In
this process, each increment of increase in the ratios
would contribute to the realization of 100% school partici-
pation, therefore employment of test of significance was
not necessary.

In the 1960s, considerable increase in school
participation ratios (more than 25% of 1960) were attained
in most of the provinces of Turkey. More provinces tended
to cluster around the 1970 average than around the 1960
average. The differences in school participation ratios
among the provinces were reduced during the decade. Almost
two-thirds of the provinces had ratios equal to or above
the 1970 national average and most of the greatest
increases occurred in provinces which had had rather low
ratios in 1960. Generally speaking, an effort toward
leveling off the differences was apparent throughout the

decade .

178

But the effort was not altogether successful. As
the analysis indicated, wide differences from the national
average still existed for some provinces and the gap
between the top ten provinces and the bottom ten provinces
of 1960 still were the same in 1970. The primary school
participation ratios had not yet been fully equalized.

The inequalities were most acute in the 13 provinces of
the southeastern region of the country, where in ten years
of time none of the provinces had reached in 1970 the
level of the 1960 national average. Fewer than six
children in ten in the southeast were going to school,
whereas in the other provinces this ratio was at least
eight for every ten children of school age.

When findings from this study are evaluated
against the commitment of the government to achieve full
participation in primary education in 1972, it appears
that if the growth in the 1970s follows the same pattern
of the 19605, it would likely take more than ten years to
achieve full realization of universal primary education.
This means that at least over the next ten years some
inequalities for children in the southeastern region of
the country are likely to remain.

The pattern of growth in primary school participa-
tion had not changed essentially during the decade of the
19605. The western provinces achieved almost full

participation and development moved rapidly into the

179

eastern provinces. However, increases in school participa-
tion rates in ten years did not produce substantial changes
in the relative position of the provinces with respect to
their developmental levels and the range between the top
and bottom provinces remained almost the same. The lagging
position of the southeastern provinces was very dramatic,
even though high investment priorities had been given to
those provinces . It appeared that maintaining a

province's rate of increase so that it would come up to or
surpass the 1970 national average--which is one possible
meaning for "achieving equality in school opportunities"--
was largely dependent upon the province's past achievement
in school participation.

When school participation ratios were evaluated in
the context of girls' share in total enrollments, the
inequalities among the provinces became more meaningful and
the factors which might inhibit or foster the growth were
apparent. The evidence in this line suggests that full
realization of universal primary education is a matter of
getting more girls to the school each year. The findings
in Chapter IV support this notion very firmly. Almost
half of the provinces remained below the 1970 average in
girls' portion in total enrollments. One-fourth of the
total provinces could not surpass the level of 1960 in

1970. These provinces all were located in southeastern

180

and eastern sections of the country and increases in girls'
share in enrollments were lower than that of the national
average increase for the decade.

The girls' share in total enrollments in the
provinces were divided into two parts: West and East. In
almost half of the provinces, drawing more girls into the
primary school seemed very difficult even though schools
and teachers might be available. In conclusion, in the
light of the evidence in Chapter IV, rapid increases in
school participation ratios at primary levels, and full
realization of universal primary education, is greatly
dependent upon rapid increases in the share of the girls
in total enrollments.

If the present growth pattern continues in the next
ten years, the idea of realizing full participation and of
leveling all the inequalities at primary levels by 1980
would appear to be illusory. Unless special measures are
taken for the southeastern provinces, they will remain
some years behind the rest of the country.

When the differences were compared in terms of
pupil-teacher ratios, it was generally found that in
provinces where school participation ratios were lower,
pupil/teacher ratios tended also to be low and in
provinces where the highest participation increases occurred,

:pupil/teacher ratios remained high. These findings indicate

181

that availability of schools and teachers are necessary
conditions for develOpment in school participation but
in Turkey are not always sufficient to the needs of the
1960s.

A further interesting finding was that in provinces
with high participation ratios in 1960, in ten years of
time pupil/teacher ratios lowered considerably. This
might lead one to conclude that qualitative improvement
tends to follow quantitative development. It did so in the
19608. Increases in school participation ratios were not
highly dependent upon increases in the teaching force.

In some of the southeastern provinces where pupil/
teacher ratios were considerably lower than the national
average in 1960, schools and teachers were available but
the school participation ratios did not increase much.

By contrast, in some provinces where teacher/pupil ratios
were low--i.e., fewer teachers were available——school
participation ratios rose substantially. In the latter
provinces there was greater demand for entering school
than in the former provinces. This might indicate that
the demand for education--or the need for education--is
one of the factors which influences the rapid increase

in school participation ratios.

182

Differences at Secondary Schools

 

Even wider differences and inequalities in school
participation ratios among the provinces existed at both
lower and upper secondary schools. The most significant
feature of the decade, in the context of equality of
educational Opportunity, was that substantial increases in
total enrollments as measured by school participation ratios
occurred in the second half of the decade (1965—1970).
However, not all provinces benefited the same from these
expansions. Those provinces profited most which had high
primary school participation ratios in 1960 and which were
more urban and more centrally located in their region's
economic activity. The ratios for both lower and upper
secondary schools remained low in most of the provinces of
eastern and southeastern regions of the country.

The most populous provinces had high ratios con-
tinuously. But the second level provinces which had central
positions in economic activity in commerce and in transporta-
tion of their surrounding areas profited more from the
expansion of secondary school opportunities. In these
provinces the school participation ratios increased per-
sistently throughout the decade. This pattern of growth
‘was more apparent at the upper secondary level than the
lower secondary. In every section of the country, including

the sections of Central Anatolia, there was at least one

183

province which dominated its area's increases. This
pattern of growth may have been manipulated to a great
extent by policies of the government, in which the first
priorities were given to the most populous provinces and
to the capital cities of the provinces, and secondly to
the district centers. Having been born in a big city,

in a capital city, or in a district center still makes an
important difference for a primary school or a lower
secondary school leaver, in terms of access to further
school.

In conclusion, the analysis in Chapter IV indicates
that the inequalities in school participation ratios at
secondary levels were still persistent in 1970. In the
provinces which had central positions socially and
economically, the opportunities at secondary levels for
children in those provinces were much greater than the
Opportunities available to the children in the other
provinces.

This pattern of develOpment as evidenced in this
study confirms the tentative findings of Bohnhorst, which
were reviewed in Chapter II. A number of secondary school
development centers appear to have emerged. These centers
tend to be associated with localized areas of population
concentration, and may also function increasingly as

service-centers for a surrounding service area.

184

The large gap between the top and the bottom
provinces, on the scale of school participation in 1960,
remained almost the same throughout the decade of the
19605.

The lack of qualified science teachers was evident
in almost all provinces of the country. The nation as a
whole suffered from extremely high student/science teacher
ratios.

Socio-Economic Factors Related to

Differences in School
Participation

 

 

 

Primary Schools

 

In Chapter IV the differences in school participa-
tion ratios were analyzed by regression analyses using
socio-economic variables which tend to associate with
develOpment in schooling. The evidence indicated that in
1960, 1965 and 1970, the differences in primary school
participation ratios did not associate with differences in
urbanness, density, or agriculture as economic activity by
male population, but did associate to a considerable extent
with the number of persons with maximum primary education
per thousand population (educational attainment, level I).
The most interesting feature of this finding was that
educational attainment did associate to some extent with
urbanness, density, and agriculture as economic activity

(r = +.53, +.40, and —.65, respectively), which variables

185

in turn were not associated with the dependent variable
closely.

This indicates that the differences in school
participation were to a considerable extent independent of
urbanness, density, and agriculture as economic activity,
but were dependent upon the degree to which the population
went through some sort of schooling. In most of the
provinces, in statistical terms, most of the variance in
school participation ratios was explainable by the dif—
ferences in educational attainment. In provinces where
there was a high proportion of the population who had had
at least some experience with schooling, whether or not
they had completed primary school, school participation
ratios tended to be high in 1960. The same pattern was
observed in 1965 and in 1970, but with a decreasing
association.

This finding confirms the hypothesis that since
the primary schools are compulsory, and since a determined
effort has existed since 1960 aimed at leveling inequali-
ties at primary school levels, then school participation
differences would not be expected to be explained in terms
of urbanness or density of population. Instead the dif-
ferences would be related more to the desire of the
people to send their children to school and to positive

attitudes of the people toward schooling. The evidence

186

supports this notion that the observed differences could
only be largely explained by differences in educational
attainment level of the population.

In this line of thought, the suggestion is that a
person who enters and stays in school for some years
becomes a different person, in that his attitudes toward
schooling become more positive and he becomes more willing
to send his children to school. Communities where the
pOpulation had had relatively more experience in school
carried relatively stronger desires for education for
their children. For that reason educational attainment
had more explanatory value for analyzing the differences
in school participation.

Secondly, the explanatory power of educational
attainment tended to decrease from 1960 to 1965, and again
from 1965 to 1970 (R2 for 1960 was .86, R2 for 1965 was
.66, and R2 for 1970 was .47). This finding confirms the
hypothesis that differences in school participation ratios
should become progressively less apparent and the
dependency of the differences on educational attainment
should gradually disappear. Between 1965 and 1970 the
extent to which differences in primary school participation
among the provinces leveled Off was considerable; but the
gap between the ten top and ten bottom provinces remained
large throughout the decade. The explanatory value of

educational attainment decreased accordingly.

187

It is a fact therefore that a leveling off of the
differences was statistically verified. One important
implication of this finding is that in order to level off
the remaining differences in the southeastern provinces
of Turkey, special attention should be given to the
creation of proper attitudes and desire for education on
the part of the people residing in those provinces.

Another interesting point which tends to confirm
the evidence of a leveling of inequalities is that all the
intercorrelations observed between independent variables
and dependent variables tended to decrease gradually

from 1960 to 1970.

Secondary Schools

 

At the lower secondary level, the socio-economic
variables did not associate closely with the differences
in school participation ratios, contrary to what was
hypothesized. In 1970, only 31% of variance in school
participation was explained by agriculture as economic
activity. In 1965, 17% was explained by educational
attainment (level II--population with minimum lower
secondary education). However, in 1970, a combination
of four variables (agriculture as economic activity,
urbanness, educational attainment at level II, and volume
of population) explained 44% of the variance in lower
secondary school participation. This evidence indicates

that the differences tended to become by 1970 more closely

188

related to socio—economic variables. At lower secondary
levels in 1960 and 1965, differences in school participa-
tion ratios were greater between the most populous
provinces and the rest Of the country. For most of the
provinces, participation in 1960 and 1965 ranged from two
to four per cent, with the exception of four of the more
urbanized provinces in 1960 and ten of the more urbanized
in 1965, where higher rates of participation occurred.
Generally, lower secondary school participation ratios in
the country as a whole were low in 1960 and 1965. But
differences became more evident between urban and rural
provinces in 1970, due to the great increases in enroll-
ments between 1965 and 1970.

These patterns of growth were reflected also in
the results of the multiple-regression analyses. At lower
secondary levels the differences among the provinces in
1960 and 1965 were largely independent of the socio-
economic variables used in this study. In 1970, the dif—
ferences could be at least partly explained by urbanness,
agriculture as economic activity, and educational attain-
ment taken in combination. The hypothesis that more urban
areas would have higher school participation ratios was,
however, not substantiated.

In upper secondary levels, school participation
.ratios did associate more strongly with socio-economic

'variables than lower secondary school participation ratios

189

did. However, among the coefficients of correlation
between dependent and independent variables, a gradual
decrease from 1960 to 1970 also was observed. The variables
of urbanness, agriculture as economic activity, and educa-
tional attainment (level II), tended to associate better
with the dependent variable than the other independent
variables in 1960, 1965, and 1970. In all years, agri-
culture as economic activity was the best explanatory
variable. It correlated with urbanness with coefficients
of -.90 in 1960, 1965 and 1970, and with educational
attainment with coefficients in -.67, -.89, and -.89. The
correlations between urbanness and educational attainment
had coefficients of .68, .85 and .85 for 1960, 1965 and
1970 respectively. In other words, the three variables
which correlated with the dependent variable also corre—
lated among themselves. Agriculture and urbanness had the
highest correlations in the matrix. In one sense they did
measure the same thing. In the light of discussions above,
it might be concluded that upper secondary school partici-
pation ratios were higher in those provinces which were
more urban, less agricultural and populated with more
educated people. This tendency, however, seems gradually
to be decreasing in the face of strong increases in
secondary enrollments occurring throughout the country

since 1965.

190

The results here to a great extent were determined
by which variable entered the regression first. In this
case both agriculture and urbanness correlated with the
dependent variable with correlation coefficients of -.73
and .71, respectively. At the same time they were very
closely correlated with each other (-.90). In this
analysis the automatic step-wise regression analysis pro-
cedure was utilized and the variable which had the highest
correlation coefficient with the dependent variable
entered first, which in this case was agriculture as
economic activity. If urbanness had been allowed to enter
first, then it would certainly have explained almost the
same amount of variance explained by agriculture. They
could be used interchangeably in this analysis, since both
tend strongly to measure the same characteristic.

The evidence in the analysis supports the hypothesis
that differences in school opportunities at upper secondary
level tend to associate positively with urbanness and
negatively with agriculture as economic activity. In the
more socio-economically developed provinces children had
greater chances for upper secondary schooling. Differences
and inequalities in terms Of school participation ratios
continued to be apparent among the provinces throughout
the decade, even though a trend of decreasing strength Of
association might be observed between school participation

ratios and socio-economic variables. Still the differences

191

remained explainable to a large extent by variations in
urbanness, in agriculture as economic activity, and popula-
tions with a minimum of lower secondary education.

At the secondary level, the educational attainment
level of the population had some explanatory value for
school participation, but not so much as was hypothesized.
This might be explained by the migration movement from
villages to big towns and cities. There has been a
significant population movement to urban areas in Turkey
for more than one decade. Rural families with no education
have settled down in cities, where their children might
have more chances of going to school. As is also evident
in Section C of the analysis, the share of students with
uneducated parents and families of workers increased in
the 19605.

Socio-Economic Background Characteristics
of Secondarnyevel Students

 

 

Residential Characteristics

 

In Section C of the analysis, it was found that
43% of the students at upper secondary level and 45% of the
students at lower secondary level reported villages as
their birth places. Percentages of villages as current
family residence, however, were considerably lower than
the percentages for birth place: 31% for upper secondary
and 34% for lower secondary schools. This means that the

families of many of the students who reported villages as

192

their birth places had already moved into towns or cities.
Differences in terms of current family residences were
also Observed among students of different types of upper
secondary schools, with the largest differences between
public and private lycee students.

In the private lycees only five out of every 100
children listed villages as their current family residence,
while among public lycees the percentage was 25%, in teacher
training schools it was more than 50%, and in boys'
technical schools 45% of the students were from families
which resided in villages. The portion of children with
urban parental residence were higher than those with
village parental residence. Village children had fewer
chances of going to the public and private 1ycees which
lead to university education. In lower secondary schools
the percentage of children with village residential origin
was greater than for upper secondary schools. This might
be taken as an indication that increases may be expected
in the proportions of village children in the upper
secondary schools in the years to come.

There are great variations among the regions of
Turkey in terms of the students' parental residence. In
regions where the rural population exceeds 70%, the children
from villages had more chances to attend lower secondary
schools than in other regions. When the percentages of

students from village residential backgrounds were

193

compared to percentages of rural population, it was found
that in all fifteen regions of the country urban children
were over-represented in lower and upper secondary schools.
The closest ratio of rural population and rural parental
residence was found in the Trabzon region. The widest
differences were observed in the regions where the most
pOpulous cities of the country are located.

In lower secondary schools 19% (nearly two our of
every ten students), and in upper secondary schools 29%
(nearly three out of every ten students) were living apart
from their families. Most lived in rented houses and paid
their own living expenses. In the eastern and southeastern
regions of the country, the ratios of the students living
away from family and paying their own housing expenses
were higher than for students in regions located in the
western part Of the country. These data indicate that in
some regions of the country, to attend upper secondary
school is contingent upon not only whether an upper
secondary school exists in the surrounding area but also
whether the families are financially able to send their
children away from home. This has one important policy
implication in providing school opportunities to all: in
the regions where there are not enough upper secondary
schools, local boarding facilities should be provided for
those children who cannot otherwise afford to leave home

for schooling.

194

A great majority Of upper secondary students had
their lower secondary schooling in towns or cities.

Only eight out of every 100 students finished both primary
and lower secondary schools in villages. Twenty-four out
of 100 finished primary school in a village but lower I
secondary in a town or city. It seems that provision of
reserved places for children from village origins in
Primary Teachers' Training Schools did help increase the
overall prOportion of village children in the total upper
public secondary school population. Throughout the
analysis it was observed that village children had more
chances of going to teachers' training schools and boys'
technical schools than to the lycees. To be born in an
urban residential area still represents a great advantage
in terms of having more chances of going to a public
lycee.

When the proportions of girls from village origins
were compared to those of boys, it was found that the share
of girls was rather low, in the lycees especially.

It is a fact that urban children have more chances
of access to schools above primary levels. This was
observed in the analysis of Turkish data. However, in
1970 approximately one-third of the children taking the
opportunity for further schooling beyond primary level
were from village origins. The ratio of children with

village residential origins seemed to be higher in the

195

lower secondary schools. The existing policy of accepting
80% of first enrollments to teachers' training schools
from students with village origins contributes to leveling
off the differences between representation in secondary
schools of urban and rural areas. Ways to provide more
such opportunities to village children in the public lycee
should be sought and realized in the years to come.

Occupational and Educational
Backgrounds of Fathers

 

 

In the analysis of Chapter IV, Section C, it was
found that the percentages of students with fathers in
various occupational categories did not differ much between
lower and upper secondary schools. Exceptions to this
generalization were that (a) ten out of every 100 upper
secondary students had fathers in professional occupations
while only eight out of every 100 middle school students
did so; and (b) more students at lower secondary schools had
fathers in the "workers" category than students of upper
secondary schools had. Sharp differences were observed
when percentages between public and private lycees were
compared. More than 50 out of every 100 private lycee
students had fathers in professional and administrative
occupations, almost twice as many as the percentage of
students in public lycees. A similar difference was

observed in the "business" category.

196

When the occupational distributions of students'
fathers were compared with the nation—wide occupational
distribution of the male population in 1965, it was found
that the occupational categories of professionals, high
administrators, minor administrative occupations, and
business, all were over—represented among secondary students.
The over-representation was greater in private lycees than
in other schools. Whereas farmers constituted more than
half of the male population, the share of their children
attending secondary schools was low relative to other
occupations. This evidence confirms that children of well-
to-do families and professional men had more access to
lower and upper secondary schools.

When these findings were compared with the findings
of Kazamias' study made eight years ago, a decrease in the
share of students with fathers in professional and
administrative occupations was found in the public lycees,
whereas the share of professional and businessman fathers
tended to increase.

This evidence might lead one to conclude that
public lycees had become somewhat more open to other groups
in the society, whereas private schools had tended to
become more exclusively the schools of the intelligentsia
and well-to-do families. Some Of the private schools,
especially those in which some of the instruction is given

in a foreign language, are very pOpular with these latter

197

groups. These schools are growing at a faster rate than
ever before, and becoming even more restricted to children
of well-to-do families and professional men. The children
of farmers still have less chance to attend upper secondary
school than do the children of other occupational categories.

It seems, therefore, that the public lycees may
be becoming more accessible to children of all strata in
the population, while the higher socio-economic classes
of the society establish their own private schools for
their children. It seems that the public lycee is leaving
its role as an elite school to the private lycees.

In the middle and upper private secondary schools,
the children of well-educated fathers also are over-
represented in all categories. This coincides with the
findings of occupational distribution of the fathers.

The public schools necessarily do not restrict children
of less educated parents--they are open to all. On the
other hand, it may be that the private lycees gradually
will restrict themselves to more and more the children of

well-educated families.

Conclusions

 

In the light of the findings discussed above, the
main propositions and conclusions which may reasonably be

drawn from this study may be summarized as follows:

l.

secondary

198

Analysis of differences in primary and
school developments indicate that:

In the 19605, the greater increases in enroll-
ments in primary education occurred in
educationally less developed provinces of the
country.

The gap between the tOp ten and the bottom ten
provinces in school participation and the girls'
portion in total enrollments persisted over the
ten years of time.

If growth in primary education continues at the
rate of the 19605, full realization of universal
primary education is not likely to be accom—
plished during the 19705.

Increases in school participation rates did not
produce substantial improvement in the relative
positions of provinces during the decade.

The provinces which were located in the south—
eastern section of the country remained at the
bottom of develOpment scales, relative to the
national averages between 1960 and 1970.

Accelerating progress toward full participation
at primary school levels will be dependent upon
increasing the portion of girls in total
enrollments.

There is a functional relationship at primary
levels between the ratio of school participation
and of girls' portion in total enrollment.

Where the girls' portion in total enrollments
were low, there the school participation ratios
also were low.

Present school participation figures could be
better qualified when judged against figures on
the portion of the girls in enrollments, since
participation ratios are presently distorted

by inclusion of over-aged pupils over twelve
years of age.

Increases in school participation ratios at lower
secondary school levels also did not substantially
change the positions Of provinces relative to the
national averages over the ten years 1960-1970.

2.

199

Provinces which had low rates of growth at
primary levels tended also to have low rates
of growth at lower secondary level.

Inequalities in school participation ratios were
more acute in southeastern sections of the country
at all levels of schools throughout the 19605.

The inequalities of 1960 at upper secondary
school levels persisted through 1970.

Analysis of socio-economic factors related to

differences in school participation ratios indicated that:

Differences in primary participation ratios were
best explained by differences in educational
attainment levels (population with maximum
primary education).

In provinces where relatively more persons had
been exposed to schooling, primary school
participation ratios tended to be high.

Primary school participation ratios varied
independently from measures of urbanness,
population density, agriculture as economic
activity, and volume of population.

When the differences become less apparent among
the provinces, the association between socio—
economic variables with school participation
ratios tend to decrease.

Differences in school participation appeared not
to be a function of the existence of schools and
teachers but more a function of whether the
population had had experience of schooling.

At lower secondary levels, school participation
rates did not associate substantially with dif-
ferences in socio-economic factors.

At upper secondary levels, where males in the
population were more engaged in agriculture, the
school participation ratios tended to be low.

Urban and socio-economically develOped provinces
benefited more between 1960-1970 from the
expansion of educational opportunities at

upper secondary levels.

3.

200

Provision of equal opportunities was less fully
realized at upper secondary levels than at lower
secondary levels or primary school levels.

The children of urban areas and economic centers
of the regions have better chances for further
schooling than the children of the areas where
agriculture is the main economic activity and
the population is widely distributed.

The lack of qualified science teachers was
evident in almost all provinces of the country
in 1970.

In addition to the few most populous and developed
provinces of Turkey, those provinces where there
was a relative population concentration and which
served as economic service-centers to surrounding
areas benefited most from and dominated the
increases in school participation at both lower
and upper secondary schools.

The responses of secondary students to

questionnaires indicate the following:

In lower secondary and upper secondary schools
one-third of the students were those with parents
residing in villages.

Relatively more students from rural residential
origin were enrolled in primary teachers' training
schools.

In lower secondary schools there are more
students with rural origin than in upper
secondary schools.

Children with urban residential origin are over-
represented in all types of secondary schools
in all regions of the country.

In the regions where rural population exceeds

the national average, children of rural families
have relatively greater access to lower secondary
schools.

In the regions of the eastern part of the country,
relatively more secondary students tend to live
apart from their families than in the western
part of the country.

201

- The share of girl students with village origin
is low when compared to boys with rural origin.

- The children of fathers who are administrators
or professional men are over—represented in the
secondary schools.

— Private lycees attract the children of persons
who are in professional occupations, in business,
or in administrative occupations.

- In eight years of time, a decrease was observed
in the concentrations in public lycees of
children of fathers in professional and
administrative occupations.

- Public 1ycees had become somewhat more open to
children of all occupational categories, whereas
in private lycees the children of well—to—do
families dominated increasingly. Children of
farmers had less access to upper secondary
schools than children whose fathers were in
other occupational categories. The share of
children of workers in the secondary school
enrollments was improved considerably in the
decade of 19605.

Implications and Suggestions

 

In the light of the findings and the conclusions
of the study the following implications were developed.
Some of them deal with research issues and others with

policy.

Research Issues

 

As was demonstrated in the analysis of the study,
the results of the statistical techniques employed were
limited by the variables utilized. More effort should be
devoted to the refinement of growth variables in education.
School participation ratios need to be developed so that

they reflect the actual attendance patterns in enrollments.

202

The refinement of the indicators of educational growth and
socio-economic develOpment and of the research methodologies
seems an important research issue at the present time.

This will provide a basis for the development of more
systematic and scientific approaches to the issues of the
allocation of resources, provision of equal opportunities

to all, and to the preparation of short- and long-term
educational plans.

Another implication which can be derived from this
study is a by-product. It deals with the problems faced
in the utilization of official statistical data. The
reliability and accuracy of official data is a matter of
great concern to administrators as well as to researchers.
The development of a better system for collecting statisti-
cal data seems an imperative issue at the present time.
Unless a systematic way for recording and reporting
educational data is established, it would be illusory to
prepare realistic plans and evaluate practices in the
educational system objectively.

This study dealt mainly with the basic differences
between the provinces. The investigation of the differences
in the provinces (district center ys village; urban ys
rural) is an important one. More research should be
directed toward specifying the differences and inequalities
among the provinces. It is quite probable that even more

striking differences exist in the provinces. These types

203

of investigations could provide substantial information
for planning at regional and provincial levels and for
the policy-decision of providing equal educational
Opportunities to all.

Here, the equality of educational Opportunity has
been studied in quantitative terms and analyzed in the
context of a limited segment of the criteria (school
participation and pupil-teacher ratios) which tends to
restrict the operational definition of the concept Of
equality of educational opportunity. However, in recent
years the definition Of the concept and criteria for
evaluating actual practice in terms of equality have dealt
more with the quality characteristics of the teaching-
learning environment, the interaction Of sociological and
psychological factors in school settings, and the effects
of schooling on students. More weight is given to the
quality of the school output and the differences in it.
For that reason more research should be devoted to this

dimension of equality of schooling Opportunities.

Policy Issues

 

In Turkey, the concept of equality of education
Opportunity has been defined and interpreted in broad
terms. There has been no clear-cut Operational policy in
this line with the exception of primary education which is
compulsory by law. In order to implement and realize

equality of educational opportunity throughout the country,

204

more concrete operational policy of the State needs to be
specified.

Present policy deals with the provision of school
buildings, teachers, facilities, and scholarships. These
are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions. Other
conveniences should be provided in order that every child
have a chance for further schooling. In this line it is
suggested that the following elements be a part of present
day policies related to equality of educational opportunity:

1. The location of the secondary school should be
selected so that children in the vicinity of the school
should have easy access to the school.

2. It is evident that a substantial number of
students live apart from their families and pay their own
living expenses while attending school. For those who
cannot afford to leave their family to attend school,
boarding and school expenses should be met by the state
or by the local community. Local initiative on this matter
should be encouraged and supported by the government.

3. In small settlements where possible, years of
primary schooling should be extended one or two years for
those who want to continue their education, at which time
they can transfer to schools in the towns.

4. Criteria for distributing scholarships and
boarding places in the schools need to be reevaluated.

Children in less develOped areas who cannot afford

205

schooling and children in provinces where schools are
scarce should have high priorities in the distribution of
scholarships and boarding places.

5. It seems that village children have more chance
of entering the teaching profession. Opportunities for
entering other professions need to be enlarged for them.

6. Special attention should be given to literacy
campaigns in areas where development in primary education
is low.

7. A special incentive system for attracting girls
to school should be developed.

8. It seems that private lycees tend to become
selected schools. This develOpment trend should be
evaluated very carefully. More provision should be secured
in the private lycees for children of other segments of the
population.

9. A special effort should be made to expand
science teaching and better distribute science teachers

throughout the country.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the
practices of providing equal educational opportunities to
the children at primary and secondary levels during the
decade of 1960. The study focused on quantitative

expansion of the educational opportunities. More

206

specifically the answers were sought for the following
questions:

1. What are the differences or inequalities in the
availability of school opportunities at primary and
secondary levels among the provinces of Turkey?

2. What are the differences in the growth of
school opportunities between the years of 1960 and 1970
among the provinces, and what factors seem to account for
these differences?

3. Among the regions of the country what are the
differences in the socio-economic backgrounds of students
who had access to schools above primary level?

By seeking answers to those questions it was aimed
to provide more accurate and systematic data on the dif-
ferences in school Opportunities so that better criteria
for allocations of resources and more realistic policy
designs for provision of equal Opportunities to all could
be develOped.

In Chapter II the theoretical and practical issues
underlying the definition of the concept of equality of
educational Opportunity and research in this area were
reviewed. As fully presented in the related chapter,
discussions of equality of educational opportunity are
largely loaded with moral considerations. Both equality,
being one of the ideals of democracy, and the great

emphasis which democracy places on the individual's rights

207

and the need for the realization of these rights, urge
nations to take necessary actions. Education has been
conceived as the most important sphere for the realization
of these rights and of the individual's self development.

Education also plays an important role in democrati-
zation and in economic and social developmental processes.
Preparation of manpower required for the economy, and
development of basic skills, knowledge, and attitudes of
a nation are considered to comprise the important responsi—
bilities of an educational system. Some see that an
approach to education as a means for manpower requirements
contradicts the ideals of equality of educational Oppor—
tunity. Some, on the contrary, claim that investment in
education as a means to satisfy manpower requirements is
not a one-way process; instead, this economic necessity
makes it possible to mobilize new reserves of talent. The
importance of fully developing the talents of young people,
which is important in its own right, quite apart from
economic needs, is reinforced by the imperatives of
economic development. However the discussions of
equality versus efficiency in a system may proceed, there
is clear evidence that education is one of the determinants
of social mobility and of social justice.

Recent studies Of the relationship between educa-
tion, social stratification and the economy urge policy

makers to create environments in which everybody should

208

have a chance to develop his capacities in full. The

new concept of ability as a variable, determined largely
by environmental factors, has had strong implications for
the definition and provision of equality of educational
Opportunities.

The meaning of the concept of equality of educa-
tional Opportunity has changed from (a) opportunity to
attend the same school, to (b) provision of schools with
same quality characteristics for all, to (c) assuring that
people of equal ability should have an equal opportunity
to attend school, to (d) the provision of Opportunity to
acquire academic skills and enrichment for children of all
social classes, to (e) providing equality in effects of
schooling.

In the Turkish society, education has been the
basic social distinction. To be educated is established
in Turkey as a legal right as well as a social right. In
the national development plans, realization of social
justice is stated as the real aim. The plans have given
special directions and provisions for education in terms
of equality of educational opportunity. Assessments of
the realization of equal opportunities throughout the
country have revealed great differences between western
and eastern regions of the country. The secondary schools
are dominated by children of urban areas and children of

professional families.

209

Increasing demand for education in developed and

' develOping countries makes the realization of equality of
educational opportunity an important issue. Another
important point in this line is that some of the Obstacles
to providing educational opportunity to all are deeply
rooted in the society. Realization of equal educational
opportunity should be achieved in cooperation with
equalization efforts in other social sectors of the
society. Educational reforms for achieving equality have
to be accompanied by social reforms.

In Chapter III, the design of the study was pre-
sented. The data for the analysis of differences of school
opportunities at primary and secondary levels among the
provinces and for the explanation of the differences in
terms of socio-economic variables were taken from the
publications of the State Statistical Institute. Educa-
tional statistics for the year 1970 were obtained from the
files of several general directorates of the Ministry of
Education. The data related to population characteristics
were obtained from the Census Reports for the years 1960
and 1965.

The data on student background characteristics
were obtained from questionnaires distributed to nationwide
samples of students in the lower and upper secondary schools
of Turkey. Data obtained from the publications of the

State Statistical Institute were checked against the data

210

and files Of the Ministry of Education. There were no
major discrepancies between these two sources. 1970 data
from files of the Ministry of Education similarly were
checked against the latest publication of the State
Statistical Institute on 1970-1971 school statistics and
were found to be comparable.

The samples contained 203 lower secondary and 125

upper secondary schools. Data were collected successfully
in March 1971. The return rate for questionnaires was
88.8% for both upper and lower secondary schools. The data

were processed in an IBM 1620 computer in the Planning,
Research and Coordination Department of the Ministry Of
Education.

In the analysis the differences among the provinces
were presented in terms of school participation ratios and
development categories based on the average values in
school participation in 1960, 1965 and 1970.

In order to explain the differences in growth of
educational opportunities in the context of demographic
changes, of educational attainment levels of population,
and of socio-economic level of the provinces, the technique
of multiple-regression analysis was employed. In the
analyses the school participation ratios for 1960, 1965 and
1970 in terms of number of students per thousand school age
population were taken as dependent variables, and urban
population, population with maximum primary education,

population with minimum lower secondary education, male

211

population engaged in agriculture per thousand pOpulation,
and density of population per unit of area in respective
years were taken as independent variables. For 1970, 1965
Census figures were utilized.

In the analyses in Chapter IV it was found that:

- In the 19605, the greater increases in enrollments
in primary education occurred in educationally
less developed provinces of the country.

- Accelerating progress toward full participation
at primary school levels will be dependent upon
increasing the portion of girls in total
enrollments.

— Increases in school participation ratios at lower
secondary school levels also did not substantially
change the positions Of provinces relative to the
national averages over the ten years 1960-1970.

- Provinces which had low rates of growth at primary
levels tended also to have low rates of growth at
lower secondary level.

- Inequalities in school participation ratios were
more acute in southeastern sections of the country
at all levels of schools throughout the 19605.

- Differences in primary participation ratios were
best explained by differences in educational
attainment levels (population with maximum primary
education).

- Primary school participation ratios varied inde-
pendently from measures of urbanness, population
density, agriculture as economic activity, and
volume of population.

- At lower secondary levels, school participation
rates did not associate substantially with dif-
ferences in socio-economic factors.

- Urban and socio-economically developed provinces
benefited more between 1960-1970 from the expansion
of educational opportunities at upper secondary
levels.

212

The children of urban areas and economic centers
Of the regions have better chances for further
schooling than the children of the areas where
agriculture is the main economic activity and the
population is widely distributed.

In addition to the few most populous and developed
provinces of Turkey, those provinces where there

was a relative population concentration and which
served as economic service-centers to surrounding
areas benefited most from and dominated the increases
in school participation at both lower and upper
secondary schools.

In lower secondary and upper secondary schools
one-third of the students were those with parents
residing in villages.

Relatively more students from rural residential
origin were enrolled in primary teachers' training
schools.

In the regions where rural population exceeds the
national average children of rural families have
relatively greater access to lower secondary
schools.

In the regions Of the eastern part of the country,
relatively more secondary students tend to live
apart from their families than in the western
part of the country.

The share of girl students with village origin is
low when compared to boys with rural origin.

The children of fathers who are administrators or
professional men are over-represented in the
secondary schools.

Private lycees attract the children of persons
who are in professional occupations, in business,
or in administrative occupations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Don, Ed. Educational Planning. Syracuse, N. Y.:
Syracuse University, 1964.

Adams, Don and Robert M. Bjork. Education in Developing
Areas. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1969.

Anderson, Arnold and Mary Jean Bowman, Eds. Education and
Economic Development. New York: Alding Publishing

Company, 1963.

Anonymous. Census of Population 23 October 1960. State
Institute of Statistics, Publication NO. 452,
Ankara, 1964.

. Census of Population by_Administrative Division
20—10-1965. State Institute of Statistics, Publica-
tion No. 537, Ankara, 1968.

 

. Census of Population, 1965 Social and Economic
Characteristics of Population. State Institute of
Statistics, Ankara, 1969.

. Conference on Policies for Educational Growth.
Background Study NO. 8, Educational Planning Methods.
Paris: O.E.C.D., 1970.

. Dorduncu Milli Egitim Surasi, 22-31 Agustos 1946,
Milli Egitim Bakanligi, Ankara, 1949.

. Illerin Ogrenci, Ogretmen, Okul Durumu, Milli
Egitim Bakanligi Planlama, Arastirma ve Koordinasyon
Dairesi, Ankara, 1971. (Mimeographed.)

. Ilk Ogretim Yilligi, 1969-70, Milli Egitim
Bakanligi, Ilkogretim Genel Mudurlugu, 1970.

. Insan Haklari Evrensel Beyannamesi ve Avrupa

Insan Haklari ye Ana Hurriyetleri Sozlesmesi, Ankara
Universitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakultesi No. 4, Ajans-
Turk Matbaasi, Ankara, 1957.

. Milli Egitim Planinin Hazirlanmasi ile ilgili

Komisyonun Raporu, Milli Egitim Bakanligi Matbaasi
Ankara, 1970.

214

215

Anonymous. Milli Egitim Istatistikleri Ogretim Yili Basi
1970-71, Devlet Istatistik Enstitusu Matbaasi,
Publication No. 635, 1971.

. Milli Egitim Istatistikleri; Mesleki Teknik ve
Yuksck Ogretim 1960-61, pp. 1-318 Devlet Istatistik
Enstitusus Matbaasi, Yayin No. 467, Ankara, 1965.

 

 

. Milli Egitim Istatistikleri; Mesleki Teknik
Ogretim ve Yuksek Ogretim 1961-1965, pp. 11-424
Deviet Istatistik Enstitusu Matbaasi, Yayin No.
542, Ankara, 1968.

 

. Milli Egitim Istatistikleri; Orta Ogretim 1960-
_1, pp. 1-381, Devlet Istatistik Enstitusu Matbaasi,
Ya in No. 466, Ankara, 1965.

 

. Milli Egitim Istatislikleri Orta Ogretim 1961-65,
pp. 1-412, Devlet Istatistik Enstitusu MatbaaSiT
Yayin No. 534, Ankara, 1968.

 

Milli Egitim Istatistikleri Ilk Ogretim 1960-61,
pp. 113-390, Devlet Istatistik Enstitusu Matbaasi,
Yayin No. 465, Ankara, 1965.

 

. Milli Egitim Istatistikleri Ilk Ogretim 1961-65,
pp. 83-372, Devlet Istatistik Enstitusu Matbaasi,
Yayin No. 530, Ankara, 1967.

 

. Ortaogretim 1969-70, Milli Egitim Bakanligi,
Ortaogretim Genel Mudurlugu, Arastirma ve Degerlen-
dirme Burosu, Ankara, 1970.

 

. Social Objectives in Educational Planning.
Organization for Economic, Cooperation and Develop-
ment. Paris: OECD, 1967.

 

Turkish Development Plan, 1963-1967, State Planning
Organization, Ankara, 1964.

Turkish Development Plan, Second Five Year, State
Planning Organization 1968-72, Ankara, 1968.

 

. 1964, 1965, 1966 Yillarinda Fen Lisesi Giris
Sinavlarina Katilan Ogrencilarin Basarilari ve
Ozellikleri, Test ve Olcme Burosu, Ankara, 1968.

 

 

. 1970 Yilina Girerken Bolgelere Genel Bir Bakis,
Cilt I, NO. DPT, 821-SPD, 18, Devlet Planlama
Teskilati, Ankara, 1969.

 

216

Bereday, George Z. F., Ed. Essays on World Education.
London: Oxford University Press, 1969.

 

Bohnhorst, Ben A. "Profiles of Distribution of Educational
Services in Turkey." Sixth Semi-Annual Report,
Appendix E, National Research and Planning Project.
Ankara, USAID, 1970.

 

Brookover, W. B. and Edsel L. Erickson. Society, Schools,

 

 

and Learning. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
1969.

Coleman, James S. "The Concept of Equality of Educational
Opportunity." Harvard Educational Review, vol. 38,

 

no. 1 (Winter, 1968), 7-22.

Coleman, James S., and Others. Equality of Educational
Qpportunity. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1966.

 

 

Draper, N. R. and H. Smith. Applied Regression Analysis.
N. Y.: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966.

 

Eastmond, N. J. Educational Opportunity in Turkey 1964.
A Source Book of Facts on Education and Analysis.
Ankara: M.O.E., Test and Measurement Bureau, 1964.

 

Eren, Nuri. Turkey Today_and Tomorrow. New York: Frederick
A. Praeger, 1963.

 

Grant, Gerald. "Essay Reviews on Equality of Educational
Opportunity." Harvard Educational Review, vol. 42,
no. 1 (1972), 101-126.

 

Halsey, A. H., Ed. Ability and Educational Opportunity.
Paris: OECD, 1961.

 

Halsey, A. H., Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson, Eds.
Education, Economy, and Society. Berkeley, Calif.:
The Free Press, 1961.

 

KazamiaSIAndreas M. Education and the Quest for Modernity_
in Turkey. CHicagO: The University of Chicago
Press, 1966.

 

 

Kazamias, Andreas.M.and Byron G. Masaialas. Tradition and
Change in Education. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.

 

 

Mihcioglu, Cemal. Universiteye Giris ve liselerimiz.
Ankara Universitesi, Siyasal Bilgiler Fakultesi
Yayinlari, No. 278, ANkara, 1969.

 

217

Ralston, Anthony and Herbert S. Wilf, Eds. Mathematical
Methods for Digital Computers. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965.

 

Read, Gerald H. "Secondary Educational Trends in Europe
and the United States of America." Kent State
University, Kent, Ohio. Undated. (Mimeographed.)

Schwebel, Milton. Who Can Be Educated? New York: Grove
Press, Inc., 1968.

 

Tugac, Ahmet; Yurt Ibrahim; Gul Ergil; and Huseyin T. Sevil.
Turk Koyunde Modernlesme Egilimleri Arastirmasi.
DPT, 860-SPD, 198, Devlet Planlama, Teskilati,
Ankara, 1970.

Tuncer, Baran. The Impact of Population Growth on the
Turkish Economy, Hacettepe University, Publicatios,
No. 3, Dogus Matbaasi, Ankara, 1970.

 

 

Tunc, Sevim. Turkiye'de Egitim Esitligi. Basnur Matbaasi,
Ankara, 1969.

 

Unat, Faik Resit. Turkiye Egitim Sisteminin Gelismesine
Tarihi Bir Bakis, Milli Egitim Basimevi, Ankara,
1964.

 

 

Vaizey, John. Education in Modern World. New York: McGraw—
Hill, Inc., 1967.

 

. Education for Tomorrow. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 1962.

 

APPENDICES

218

APPENDIX A
SAMPLING PROCEDURE AND INSTRUMENTS
FOR DATA
1. Sampling Procedures--Upper and
Lower Secondary Schools

2. Questionnaire for Lower Secondary
Students

3. Questionnaire for Upper Secondary
Students

4. Letter from Undersecretary to
Directors of Schools

5. Regions of Turkey

6. Classification of Occupations

219

SAMPLING PROCEDURES

STEP l.--The number of students by regions and prOportions.

 

 

 

 

Lower Upper
Region Secondary % Secondary Lycee %
ADANA 54,388 7.7 19,188 9.5
ANKARA 112,788 16.0 35,588 17.6
ANTALYA 19,809 2.8 5,926 2.9
DIYARBAKIR 19,445 2.7 5,738 2.6
IZMIR 85,527 12.1 24,847 12.3
ELAZIG 27,611 3.9 7,188 3.5
ERZURUM 26,266 3.7 7,454 3.7
ESKISEHIR 29,900 4.2 7,032 3.4
GAZIANTEP 21,203 3.0 6,020 2.9
ISTANBUL 152,569 21.6 45,391 22.5
KAYSERI 39,458 5.4 8,525 4.2
SAMSUN 52,733 7.4 11,985 5.9
TRABZON 30,479 4.3 8,235 4.1
VAN 6,337 0.9 1,550 0.7
ZONGULDAK 26,130 3.7 6,358 3.1
TOTAL 703,643 99.4 201,025 98.0
Source: Secondary Education, 1969—70, General Directorate
for Secondary Education, Ministry of Education of
Turkey, Ankara, 1970, pp. 1-113.

220

221

STEP II.--Upper secondary schools.

 

Number of upper secondary schools to be
included in each region

 

 

No. of schools No. of schools

Portion of selected from returning the

Region students each region1 questionnaires
ADANA 9.5 10 10
ANKARA 17.6 20 16
ANTALYA 2 . 9 4 4
DIYARBAKIR 2.6 4 4
IZMIR 12.3 14 12
ELAZIG 3.5 5 5
ERZURUM 3 . 7 6 6
ESKISEHIR 3.4 5 5
GAZIANTEP 2.9 4 4
ISTANBUL 22.5 25 20
KAYSERI 4.2 6 5
SAMSUN 5.9 7 7
TRABZON 4 . 1 6 5
VAN 7 4 3
ZONGULDAK 3.1 5 5
175 If.

1

100 students

constituted 1 upper secondary school.

 

222

STEP III.-—Distribution of students in the general upper
secondary school (lycees) by type of school location.

 

The number of
students at
schools located

Number of stu-
dents at the
schools in

 

in the Capital District
city of Centers
Regions Province % % Total
ADANA 8,410 43 10,778 56 19,188
ANKARA 27,648 77 7,940 22 35,588
ANTALYA 3,543 59 2,383 40 5,926
DIYARBAKIR 3,476 60 2,262 39 5,738
IZMIR 15,682 63 9,165 36 24,847
ELAZIG 6,674 92 514 8 7,188
ERZURUM 5,022 66 2,432 33 7,454
ESKISEHIR 5,014 71 2,018 28 7,032
GAZIANTEP 3,976 66 2,044 33 6,020
ISTANBUL 37,111 81 8,280 18 45,391
KAYSERI 6,079 70 2,446 28 8,525
SAMSUN 5,923 49 6,062 50 11,985
TRABZON 4,919 59 3,316 40 8,235
VAN 1,277 82 273 17 1,550
ZONGULDAK 2,457 38 3,901 61 6,358
137,211 —_ 63,814 '—— 201,025

 

HHH mNH

 

 

 

223

 

 

 

mm mm ov mm

m N m N Hm mm MéQHDUZON
H N H m 5H Nm z<>
H w N v ow mm ZONm¢MB
m w m v om om ZDmde
H e N v mN on Hmmmwcm
e wH m 0N mH Hm Abmz¢emm
H m H m mm mm mMBH/Zm N6
N m N m mN Hm mwmmmwxmm
N v N v mm ww EDMDNmm
H v H v m om wHN¢Hm
v m m m mm mm mwzmm
H m H m mm ow me4mm<NHQ
H m H m ov mm <NH49¢Z
m MH m mH NN hm <m<xz¢
m m m m mm mv 42404

Hmucmu wuHU umucmu NUHU umpcmo m0H>oum Mo mconmm
uUHHumHo HmuHQmu HUHHumHQ HmuHQmu uoHuumHo huHU
Hmuflmmo
mmuHmccoHummsw mcu coHumooH
pmcusamu Eoum UmuomHmm Hoonom comm um

mHoocom mo .02 mHoocom Mo .02 mucwpsum mo coHuuom

 

.wcusumu mo Honfidc
paw coHumooH Hoocom wo waxy comm Eonm UmpoHocH mHoonom mo quEdzII.>H mmem

I.

II.

III.

IV.

224

The Name of Schools in the Sample
of Upper Secondary Schools

ADANA BOLGESI (ADANA REGION)

icel Erkek Sanat Enstitusu

Adana Karsiyaka Lisesi

Adana Kiz Lisesi

Adana Ticaret Lisesi

Hatay Kiz Ogretmen Okulu

Icel Anamur Lisesi

Icel Tarsus Lisesi

Iskenderun Ticaret Lisesi

Hatay Kirikhan Lisesi

Adana Kakkaniye Duzici Erkek Ogretmen Ok.

O©m\lO\U1-bWNl—‘
O

H

ANKARA BOLGESI (ANKARA REGION)

Ankara Anafartalar Lisesi

Ankara Cumhuriyet Lisesi

Ankara Fen Lisesi

Ankara Gazi Lisesi

Ankara Kecioren Lisesi

Ankara Kurtulus Lisesi

Ankara Yenimahalle Mustafa Kemal Lisesi
Ankara Ticaret Lisesi

Ankara Yildirim Beyazit Erkek Sanat Enstitusu
Cankiri Ticaret Lisesi

Kirsehir Lisesi

12. Yozgat Lisesi

l3. Konya Ataturk Kiz Lisesi

l4. Konya Cumra Lisesi

15. Konya Eregli Lisesi

l6. Konya Aksehir Lisesi

mummpwwr—J
C

FJH
kaoxo

ANTALYA BOLGESI (ANTALYA REGION)

Antalya Erkek Sanat Enstitusu
Burdur Lisesi

Isparta Kiz Ogretmen Okulu
Isparta Yalvac Lisesi

ubbJNI-J
O

DIYARBAKIR BOLGESI (DIYARBAKIR REGION)

Urfa Lisesi

Diyarbakir Ziya GOkalp Lisesi
Urfa Siverek Lisesi

Siirt Batman Lisesi

DWNH
O

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

225

BOLGESI (EGE REGION)

D1
0
[T]

Usak Lisesi

Usak Erkek Sanat Enstitusfi
Manisa Lisesi

Mugla Turgut Reis Lisesi
Izmir Atatfirk Lisesi

Izmir Ticaret Lisesi
Denizli Ticaret Lisesi
Aydin-Aydin Lisesi

Bergama Bergama Lisesi

lO. grla-Urla Lisesi

ll. Odemis-Odemis Erkek Sanat Enstitfisfi
12. Denizli-Tavas Lisesi

\OCDQONUTubWNl-J

ELAZIG BOLGESI (ELAZIG REGION)

Mus Erkek Sanat Enstitfisfi
Elazig Elazig Lisesi

Malatya Malatya Ticaret Lisesi
. Elazig Kiz Ogretmen Okulu
Malatya Hekimhan Lisesi

U'l-bLONH
O.

ERZURUM BOLGESI (ERZURUM REGION)

Erzincan Ticaret Lisesi

Erzurum Erzurum Lisesi

Kars Alpaslan Lisesi

Erzurum Nene Hatun Kiz Ogretmen Okulu
Kars Igdir Lisesi

Erzurum Yavuz Selim Ogretmen Okulu

mmbLUNf-J

ESKISEHIR EOLGESI (ESKISEHIR REGION)

. Eskisehir Atatfirk Lisesi

Eskisehir Eskisehir Koleji

Afyon Afyonkarahisar Lisesi

. Kfitahya Tavsanli Lisesi H

Eskisehir Yunus Emre Erkek Ogretmen Okulu

UlubUJNH
O C

GAZIANTEP BOLGESI (GAZIANTEP REGION)

Gaziantep Gaziantep Lisesi
Maras Maras Lisesi
Adiyaman Adiyaman Lisesi
Maras Elbistan Lisesi

book)?“
0

226

X. ISTANBUL BOLGEsI (ISTANBUL REGION)

\DCDNOU'IbWNF-J

10
ll
12
13
14
15
l6
l7
l8
I9
20

Tekirdag Namik Kemal Lisesi
Kirklareli Erkek Sanat Enstitusu
Edirne Ticaret Lisesi

Canakkale Ticaret Lisesi

Istanbul BakirkOy Lisesi

Istanbul Erenkéy Kiz Lisesi
Istanbul Fenerbahce Lisesi

Istanbul Kabatas Erkek Erkek Lisesi
Istanbul Kandilli Kiz Lisesi
Istanbul Kasimpasa Lisesi

Istanbul Kficfikcekmece Lisesi
Istanbul Sariyer Lisesi

Istanbul Sagmalcilar Lisesi

Bilecik Erkek Sanat Enstitfisfi
Tekirdag Corlu Lisesi

Canakkale Gelibolu Lisesi

Balikesir Edremit Lisesi

Bursa Mudanya Lisesi

Bursa Kiz Lisesi, Sakarya Adapazari Lisesi
Sakarya Ticaret Lisesi

XI. KAYSERI BOLGESI (KAXSERI REGION)

1
2
3
4
5

Sivas Sivas Lisesi

Kayseri Kayseri Lisesi

Kayseri Kayseri Ticaret Lisesi

Nevsehir Nevsehir Erkek Sanat Enstitusfi
Kayseri Pinarbasi Lisesi

XII. SAMSUN BOLGESI (SAMSUN REGION)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Giresun Giresun Lisesi

Samsun Erkek Sanat Enstitfisfi
Ordu Ordu Lisesi

Giresun Kiz Ogretmen Okulu
Amasya Merzifon Ticaret Lisesi
Samsun Bafra Lisesi

Ordu Unye Lisesi

XIII. TRABZON BOLGESI (TRABZON REGION)

UitwaH

Trabzon Erkek Sanat Enstitfisfi

Artvin Artvin Kazim Karabekir Lisesi
Trabzon Besikdfizfi Kiz Ogretmen Okulu
Trabzon Of S.A. Kfirkkfin Lisesi
Gfimfishfine Erkek Sanat Enstitfisfi

227

XIV. VAN BOLGBSI (VAN REGION)

1. Agri Naci GOkce Lisesi
2. Van Atatfirk LIsesi
3. Van Alpaslan IlkOgretmen Okulu

XV. ZONGULDAK BOLGESI (ZONGULDAK REGION

Kastamonu Abdurrahman Pasa Lisesi
Zonguldakum. Celikel Lisesi

Bolu Kiz Ogretmen Okulu

Bolu Erkek Ogretmen Okulu

Bolu Gerede Lisesi

UlwaI-J
O

The name of schools did not return questionnaires on time:

ANKARA REGION

 

Sorgun Lisesi

Mucur Lisesi

Kirsehir Sanat antitfisfi
Konya Erkek Lisesi

IZMIR REGION

 

Alazehir Lisesi
Milas Lisesi

ISTANBUL REGION

 

Eyfip Lisesi

Catalca Lisesi

Tekirdag Sanat Enstitfisfi Davut Pasa Lisesi
Kesan Lisesi

KAYSERI REGION

 

Gemerek Lisesi

TRABZON REGION

 

Rize Lisesi

VAN REGION

 

Van Kiz Ogretmen Okulu

228

The Name of the Private Lycees

Included in the Sample

Questionnaires returned:

\DCOQONU'IubUJNI-J

10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

Seyhan Koleji-Adana

Tfirk

Egtim Dernegi Koleji-Ankara

Yfikselis Koleji—Ankara
Bursa Koleji-Bursa
Camlik Koleji—Denizli

Qzel
Ozel

Iskisehir Koleji-Eskisehir
Gaziantep Koleji- Gaziantep

Amerikan Koleji- -Icel

Qzel
Qzel
Qzel
Qzel
Ozel
Tfirk
Qzel
Ozel

Isik Koleji- -Istanbul

Sisli Koleji- -Istanbul

Alman Lisesi— Istanbul

Karsiyaka Koleji— —Izmir

Buca Erkek Lisesi- ~Izmir

Egitim Dernegi Koleji- Kayseri

Selcuk Koleji—Konya

Tfirk Egitim Dernegi Koleji—Zonguldak

Questionnaire not returned on time

Uldé-UJNH

ézel

Qzel
Qzel
Qzel
Ozel

Antalya Koleji— Antalya
Atatfirk Koleji- Hatay
Istiklal Lisesi- -Istanbul
Moda Koleji- -Istanbul
Amerikan Kiz Koleji— —Izmir

229

STEP II/A.--Lower secondary schools.

 

No. of lower secondary schools to be included
in the sample for lower secondary schools

 

Portion of students No. of school included

 

Regions % in the sample
ADANA 7.7 16
ANKARA 16.0 30
ANTALYA 3.2 6
DIYARBAKIR 2.7 6
IZMIR 12.1 24
ELAZIG 3.9 8
ERZURUM 3.7 8
ESKISEHIR 4.2 8
GAZIANTBP 3.0 6
ISTANBUL 21.6 44
KAYSERI 5.4 12
SAMSUN 7.4 15
TRABZON 4.3 9
VAN 0.9 4
ZONGULDAK 3.7 7

97.2 27)?

 

230

STEP III.--Distribution of the students at general lower
secondary school by school location and regions.

 

 

District Village

Regions .Cap. Cit .Center "
BOLGELER IL MERKEZ % ILCE MER. % BUCAK-KOY % TOPLAM
ADANA 21,831 40 27,782 51 4,784 9 54,397
ANKARA 67,085 59 37,837 33 7,866 8 112,788
ANTALYA 7,117 35 9,821 49 2,871 16 19,809
DIYARBAKIR 8,158 41 10,847 55 450 4 19,445
IZMIR 35,564 41 34,039 39 16,390 20 85,993
ELAZIG 14,155 51 10,868 39 2,588 10 27,611
ERZURUM 10,816 41 13,770 52 1,680 7 26,266
ESKISEHIR 15,078 50 9,768 32 5,054 18 29,900
GAZIANTEP 10,097 47 9,578 45 1,528 8 21,203
ISTANBUL 106,125 76 37,339 24 9,105 6 152,569
KAYSERI 15,070 38 15,370 39 6,531 23 36,971
SAMSUN 17,236 32 30,542 57 4,955 11 52,733
TRABZON 8,533 27 15,331 50 6,615 22 30,479
VAN 3,129 49 3,132 49 76 2 6,337
ZONGULDAK 5,595 21 16,849 64 3,686 15 26,133
345,589 282,873 74,178 702,640

 

 

231

 

 

66H MON

6 H m N N H 6 N 6H 66 HN 666626206
6 o H N 6 o N N N 66 66 26>
N N 6 m m N 6 6 mm 66 NN 2066666
NH 6 6 6 6H N N 6 HH N6 N6 zamz¢m
NH 6 6 6 NH 6 m 6 MN mm 66 «666666
66 H OH NN 66 H NH H6 6 6N 6N Hsmzaemm
6 H N m 6 H m m 6 66 N6 mmeszNNu
6 N m m 6 N m m 6H Nm om mwmmmmxmm
N H 6 N 6 H 6 m N N6 H6 Eamommm
N N H 6 6 N N 6 6H 6m H6 OHNNHN
ON 6 N m 6N 6 m 6H 6N mm H6 mNzNN
6 o m m 6 o m m 6 66 H6 NHNNNNNNNQ
w H m N o H m N oH m6 mm <%H¢824
6N N NH 6H OH 6 NH 6H 6 mm 66 666626
NH H 6 6 6H N 6 6 6 H6 66 <z<o<
.666 .HHH> .6266 >666 .606 .HHH> .6666 N666 .HHH> .6666 N666 mconmm

.66Ha .dmo .6666 .mmo

 

 

oEHp co ouHmccoHp mdmfimm wfip CH
Imosv map wmcnsuou mHoozom Nympcooom
mHoocom No .02 HOBOH No .02

.6666

.mmo

 

coHumOoH Hoonom

mo waxy an mucmcsum

may mo coHuHom

 

.mcusumn mo MODES: pcm mHmEmm 0:6 No“ UwuomHmm mHoonomwo_HmQEdc
.coHuMOOH Hoonom mo mmxp an mHoozom xumpcooom 603OH mo coHusQHuumHQII.>H AMBm

I.

II.

ADANA BOLGESI

\Dmflmm-waI-J
O

NMHFJNJH
ubUJNP-‘O

Names of the Lower Secondary School
Included in Sample

(ADANA REGION)

Icel Icel Lisesi Orta kismi

Icel Atatfirk Ortaokulu

Hatay Merkez Ortaokulu

Adana Karsiyaka Cumhuriyet Ortaokulu
Adana Imam-Hatip Okulu Orta kismi
Adana Yesilevler Ortaokulu

Tarsus Cengiz Topel Lisesi Orta kismi
Icel Erdemli Ortaokulu

Icel Gulnar Ortaokulu

Icel SIlifke Ortaokulu

Hatay Iskenderun Ortaokulu

Adana Bahce Ortaokulu

Adana Karatas Ortaokulu

Adana Kozan Gazi Ortaokulu

ANKARA BOLGESI (ANKARA REGION)

\oooqowmwaH

HF4
F40

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

Ankara
Ankara
Ankara
Ankara
Ankara
Ankara
Ankara
Ankara
Ankara
Ankara
Ankara
Ankara

Anafartalar Lisesi Orta Kismi
Atatfirk Erkek Lisesi Orta Kismi
Mehmet Akif Ortaokulu
Bahcelievler Deneme Lisesi Orta Kismi
Abidinpasa Ortaokulu

Akdere Ortaokulu

Caliskanlar Ortaokulu
Demetevler Ortaokulu

Ayas Ortaokulu

Cubuk Ortaokulu

Kizilcahamam Ortaokulu

Polatli Kiz Sanat Ortaokulu

Cankiri Ilgaz Ortaokulu
Cankiri Cerkes Ortaokulu
Corum OrtakOy Ortaokulu

Yozgat

Sarikaya Ortaokulu

Konya Eregli Ortaokulu
Konya Aksehir Kiz Sanat Ortaokulu

Ankara

Serefli Kochisar Kacarli Ortaokulu

Kirsehir Boztepe Ortaokulu
Konya Cumra AkOren Ortaokulu
Konya Aksehir Reis Ortaokulu

Ankara
Ankara
Ankara

Safaktepe Ortaokulu
Mimar Kemal Ortaokulu
Ulubey Ortaokulu

Kirsehir Kale Ortaokulu

Konya Nefise Sultan Kiz

Ankara

Sanat Ortaokulu

Imam-Hatip Okulu Orta kismi

233

III. ANTALYA BOLGESI (ANTALYA REGION)

Antalya Merkez Ortaokulu

Burdur Lisesi Orta kismi

Antalya Finike Ortaokulu

Antalya Elmali Lisesi Orta Kismi
Isparta Yalvac Ortaokulu

Antalya Akseki Aydinkent Ortaokulu

ONLflubUJNH

IV. DIYARBAKIR BOLGESI (DIYARBAKIR REGION)

Siirt-Siirt Ortaokulu
Mardin-Mardin Lisesi Orta kismi
Ali Emiri Ortaokulu-Diyarbakir
Birecik Lisesi Orta Kismi-Urfa
Sirvan Ortaokulu-Siirt

Gercfis Ortaokulu-Mardin

ONUIAUONH
O

BOLEGESI (EGE REGION)

<
m
C)
m

Atatfirk Ortaokulu-Manisa

Izmir Esrefpasa Ortaokulu

Izmir Gultepe Ortaokulu

Izmir Hurriyet Erkek Ortaokulu
Izmir Biddika RodOpzorta Okulu
Izmir Kiz Lisesi Ortakismi
Denizli Lisesi Ortakismi

Kiz Sanat Ortaokulu, Aydin

Izmir Imam—Hatip Okulu Orta kismi
10. Usak Sivasli Ortaokulu

11. Manisa Soma Ortaokulu

12. Mugla Marmaris Ortaokulu

l3. Bornova Ortaokulu

l4. Izmir Buca Lisesi Orta Kismi

15. Denizli Guney Ortaokulu

l6. Aydin Cine Lisesi Orta Kismi

l7. Usak Esme Yelegen Ortaokulu

l8. Ahmetli ortaokulu Turgutlu Manisa
l9. Aydin Cine Karpuzlu Ortaokulu

20. Izmir Bergama Kozak Ortaokulu

\OCDQO‘UWDUJNH
0

VI. ELAZIG BOLGESI (ELAZIG REGION)

Atatfirk Ortaokulu Malatya

Malatya Kubilay Ortaokulu

Elazig Atatfirk Ortaokulu
BingOl-Bingél Lisesi Orta Kismi
Elézgg Imam-Hatip Okulu Orta Kisim
Tunceli Cemiskezek Orta Okulu

Sfirgfi Ortaokulu, Dogansehir Malatya
Malatya Hekimhan Gfizelyurt Orta Okulu

mummwal—J
O

234

VII. ERZURUM BOLGBSI (ERZURUM REGION)

1.

\lmU1wa

Kars-Kars Lisesi Orta Kisim

Kars 30 Ekim Ortaokulu

Erzurum Cat Ortaokulu

Erzurum Oltu Lisesi Orta Kisim
Erzurum Senkaya Lisesi Orta Kisim
Kars Tuquca Ortaokulu

Erzurum Iliea Orta Okulu

VIII. ESKISEHIR BOLGESI (ESKISEHIR REGION)

1.

mummbwm

Eskisehir l9 Mayis Ortaokulu

Eskisehir Kiz Sanat Ortaokulu

Afyon Imam—Hatip Okulu Orta Kisim

Kfitfihya Tavsanli Lisesi Orta Kisim

Afyon Sultandag Ortaokulu

Afyon Emirdag Lisesi Orta Kismi

Eskisehir Beylikahir Ortaokulu Mihaliccik
Eskisehir Kayman Ortaokulu

IX. GAZIANTEP BOLGESI (GAZIANTEP REGION)

OAU'IubLAJNI-J
O

Gaziantep Kiz Lisesi Orta Kismi
Gaziantep Devrim Ortaokulu
Adiyaman Adiyaman Ortaokulu
Gaziantep Nizip Ortaokulu

Nizip Kiz Sanat Okulu

Gaziantep Burc—Burc Ortaokulu

X. ISTANBUL BOLGESI (ISTANBUL REGION)

1.

Tekirdag Namik Kemal Lisesi Orta Kismi
Karklareli—Merkez Ortaokulu

Edirne Atatfirk Ortaokulu
Canakkale—Merkex Ortaokulu

Raresi Ortaokulu

Istanbul Plevne Ortaokulu

Istanbul Sagmalcilar Ortaokulu
Istanbul Alibekay Ortaokulu
Istanbul Arnavutkoy Ortaokulu
Istanbul BakirkOy Ortaokulu

Istanbul Besiktas Ortaokulu

Istanbul Beykoz Ortaokulu

Istanbul FekikOy Ortaokulu

Tekirdag Cerkeszy Ortaokulu

Edirne Enez Ortaokulu

Edirne Hvsa Ortaokulu

Balikesir, Sehit Mehmet Osman Lisesi
Balikesir Susurluk Lisesi Orta kismi
Balikesir Bigadic Ortaokulu

 

XI.

XII.

20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

235

Bilecik SOgfit Ortaokulu

Bursa Orhaneli Ortaokulu

Sakarya Sapanca Ortaokulu

Kocaeli GOlcfik Ortaokulu

Canakkale Ezine Geyikli Ortaokulu
Istanbul Gelenbevi Erkek Ortaokulu
Istanbul Géztepe Ortaokulu

Istanbul Nisantasi Nilfifer Hatun Ortaokulu
Istanbul Piri Reis Ortaokulu

Istanbul Sultanselim Kiz Sanat Ortaokulu
Istanbul Sariyer Ortaokulu

Bursa Kiz Lisesi Orta Kismi

Bursa Osmangazi Ortaokulu

Kocaeli Izmit Ortaokulu

Kocaeli Mimar Sinan Ortaokulu

Sakarya Merkez Ortaokulu

Sakarya Kiz Sanat Ortaokulu

Bursa Imam-Hatip Okulu orta kismi

KAYSERI BOLGESI (KAYSERI REGION)

\oooqowmwaI—J
O

10.
11.
12.

Sivas Atatfirk Ortaokulu

Sivas 4 Eylfil Ortaokulu

Kayseri A dinlikevler Ortaokulu
Kayseri Sumer Ortaokulu

Nevsehir Imam-Hatip Ortaokulu, orta kismi
Sivas Gemerek Lisesi Orta kismi

Sivas Zara Ortaokulu

Kayseri Sarioglan Ortaokulu

Nevsehir Avanos Ortaokulu

Sivas Cepni Ortaokulu

Kayseri Agirnos Mimar Sinan Ortaokulu
Nigde Helvadere Ortaokulu

SAMSUN BOLGESI (SAMSUN REGION)

(DQONU‘isNF’

9.
10.
11.
12.

Amasya-Amasya Lisesi Orta Kismi
Giresun-Giresun Ortaokulu
Samsun Ataturk Ortaokulu
Tokat-Tokat Ortaokulu

Tokat Kiz Sanat Ortaokulu
Samsun Imam-Hatip Okulu Orta Kismi
Amasya GfimfishacikOy Ortaokulu
Giresun Dereli Ortaokulu

SinOp Gerze Ortaokulu

Samsun Havsa Ortaokulu

Tokat Niksar Ortaokulu

Tokat Zile Ortaokulu

XIII.

XIV.

XV.

236

TRABZON BOLGESI (TARBZON REGION)

1. Trabzon Cumhureyet Ortaokulu
Trabzon Riz Ortaokulu

Trabzon Imam-Hatip Okulu Orta kismi
Trabzon Arakli Ortaokulu

Trabzon Akcakoca Lisesi Orta Kismi
Trabzon Sfirmeme Lisesi Orta kismi
Rize Ardesen Ortaokulu

Trabzon Akcaabat Dfiszy Ortaokulu
Artvin Borcka Muratli Ortaokulu

\DCDQONUIthN

VAN BOLGESI (VAN REGION)

1. Hakkari-Hakkari Lisesi Orta kismi
2. Van Ataturk Lisesi Orta kismi
3. Agri Dogu Beyazit Lisesi Orta kismi

ZONGULDAK BOLGESI (ZONGULDAK REGION)

Kastamonu—Kastamonu Merkez Ortaokulu
Zonguldak Fener Ortaokulu

Kastamonu Daday Ortaokulu

Zonguldak Safranbolu Lisesi Orta kiSim
Zonguldak Karabfik Lisesi Orta Kisim
Bolu Dfizce Gfimfisova Ortaokulu

mmawwl—l

The name of schools did not return questionnaires on time:

ADANA

Milli Mensucat Ortaokulu
Hassa Ortaokulu
SOzme Ortaokulu, Atatfirk Orta Okulu

ANKARA

IZMIR

Gazi Lisesi (No first level school)
Boztepe Ortaokulu

Mehmet Seyfi Ortaokulu (Izmir)
Esrefpasa Lisesi Orta Kismi (Izmir)
Ortaklar Ortaokulu (Aydin)

COzmeli Ortaokulu (Denizli)

 

237

ELAZIG

Bulanik Ortaokulu (Mus)
ERZURUM

Kiz Sanat Ortaokulu (Erzurum)
ISTANBUL

Orhangazi Ortaokulu (Bursa)
Yenisehir Lisesi Orta Kismi
KadikOy Ortaokulu

Kocasinan Ortaokulu

BakirkOy Kiz Orta Sanat Okulu
Celebi Mehmet Ortaokulu (Bursa)

SAMSUN
Alacam Ortaokulu
Gfimfis Ortaokulu

Yesildere Ortaokulu

VAN

 

Eleshit Ortaokulu

ZONGULDAK

 

Kiz Sanat Ortaokulu (Bolu)

5.

238

QUESTIONNAIRE I
For Lower Secondary Students
E X P L A N A T I O N

This questionnaire is being prepared with the aim of E
determining some of the characteristics of the pupils
who attend higher schools after primary school.

There are questions that you will be able to answer in
this questionnaire. Please read carefully before
answering each question.

 

Do not write your name or your surname in any place in
the questionnaire. It will not be known by whom the
answers are given and answers will be kept secret and
they will not influence your school studies.

Please ask any questions that you do not understand to
the instructor and then answer.

Please put the X Sign in the squares for the right
answers

Example: if your family lives in town now, answer this

6.

question as following.

Where does your family live?

(18-1) 1) in village

6.

2) in subdistrict center of villages (village)
X 3) in district center (town)
4) in the capital city of the province (town or
city)

In some of the questions it is necessary to give your
answers in numbers in the squares.

Example: If you are 12 years old, answer the question as

3.

follows:

How old are you? (write in number in the square.)

1 2 (14-15)

239

7. If you are asked to give you answer in writing, write
your answer over the dotted line.

Example: If your father is a primary school teacher answer
the questions follows.

9. What's your father's occupation. (please write) (21-22)
..... ...... .....primary.school.teacher..... .............

8. The numbers in parenthesis have no relation with your
answers.

Do not consider them in your answers.

QUESTIONS
(6-7) Name of the province where your school is located ...
(8-10) Name of your school .................................
(11) Your grade.... ..... ............................ ......
1. Your sex

(21-1) male
(2) female

2. Where were you born?

(13-1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

was born in village

was born in subdistrict center

was born in district center

was born in capital city of the province

H+4N4H

3. How old are you (write in numbers in the squares)

4. Is your father living?

(16-1) Yes
(2) No

5. Is your mother living?

(l7-l) Yes
(2) No

6.

7.

8.

10.

ll.

12.

(18-1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

(19-1)'
(2)

(3)

(4)
(5)
(6)

(7)
(8)
(9)

Live in
Live
Live
Live

in
in

village

in subdistrict center

' district center

capital city of province

240

Where does your family live?

Which school has your father graduated from?

hasn't attended school

graduated
graduated
graduated
graduated
graduated
graduated
graduated
graduated

name of

Which school has

(20—1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

(8)

from
from
from
from
from
from
from
from

primary school

secondary school

lycee

teacher training school
boys' trade institute
commercial lycee

higher education

another school (please write

SChOOl).....ODOIOOOOOOOOOOOI

your mother last graduate from?

hasn't attended school

graduated
graduated
graduated
graduated
graduated
graduated

from
from
from
from
from
from

university

graduated

name of school)...........

from

primary school

secondary school

lycee

teacher training school
girls' trade institute

higher education institute or

another school (please write

What's your father's occupation?

(21-22)(p1ease write)..........

If your mother is working, what's her job?

(23-24)

(please write)......

How many brothers or sisters do you have?

(write in number in the square)

(25)

(If you don't have brothers or sisters; put a zero in
the square)

How many of your brothers and sisters attend school?
(Write in number in square).

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

241

Which of the following is the most suitable to the

income of your family?

(27-1) a. my family is poor
(2) b. my family is income is of in average
(3) c. my family is well to do
(4) d. my family is very rich

Have you ever worked to earn money? Are you still
working?

(28-1) a. I worked in summer vocations
(2) b. I worked on week—ends
(3) c. I work every day after school
(4) d. I work some times
(5) e. I have never worked to earn money

Which of the following is apprOpriate to the savings of
your family or your own savings for school?

(29-1) a. I have all the money I need for my school

expenses.

(2) b. This money can only provide my school
eXpenses.

(3) c. If I were not a boarder student, this money
won't be sufficient.

(4) d. This money isn't sufficient for my school
expenses; I have financial difficulties in
while I am in the school.

Do you have a separate study room in your home?

(30-1) Yes
(2) No

Where did you finish the primary school?

(31-1) in village
(2) in subdistrict center
(3) in district center
(4) in capital city of province

At what age did you start primary school? (Write in
numbers in the square).

(32-33)
Have you ever flunked in primary school?

(34-1) Yes
(2) No

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

242

Were there five or more teachers at the primary school
you attended?

(35-1) There were five or more teachers
(2) There were less than five teachers

After primary school, have you attended any other
school before you registered to the school you are
attending now?

(36—1) Yes
(2) No

After primary school, have you quit education for
sometime?
(37-1) Yes

(2) No

Where is the school you're attending located? now

(38-1) in village
(2) in subdistrict center
(3) in district center
(4) in capital city of province

Have you flunked at the school you have attended after
primary school?

(39-1) Yes
(2) No

Who has influenced you the most to enter the school you
are attending now?

(40-1) a. I wanted to attend the school mostly
(2) b. My father wanted me to attend this school
(3) c. My mother wanted me to attend this school
(4) d. My primary school teacher wanted me to
enter this school
(5) e. Please write any other person who has
influenced you other than any above.. ..... .......

Which of the following statements is the most important
reason for your entrance to the school you're attending
now.

(40-1) a. I have this school because it's located in the
place I live.
(2) b. I have entered this school so that I can start
earning my life in short time.
(3) c. I entered this school because of low expenses.
(4) d. I entered this school because its teaching
quality is better than the others

243

(5) e. I entered this school because it is a pass
school.

(6) f. I entered this school because it leads to
higher education.

(7) g. I entered this school without thinking, just
by coincidence.

27. Where do you stay at while you're attending your school?

(42-1)' a. with my family
(2) b. I am a free boarder at school
(3) c. I stay as a boarder at school dormitory on
my own expenses
(4) d. I stay at private student dormitory

(5) e. I stay at a rented apartment alone or with my
friends.
(6) f. I stay at a house of a relative or at a house
of a family that I know.
(7) g. at somewhere else. (please write)........ .......
28. At where did you live the most? (the place you lived

most of your life).

(43-1) in village
(2) in subdistrict center
(3) in district center
(4) in capital city of province

29. Which of the following is apprOpriate to your future plans?

(44-1) a. I am planning on higher education

(2) b. I am planning on having a job after I finish
school

(3) c. I am planning on staying home after I finish
school

(4) d. I am planning on continuing on my family's
business after I finish this school

(5) e. I am planning on finishing a vocational
school and start earning my life

(6) f. Others (please write)........................

244
QUESTIONNAIRE II
For Upper Secondary Schools
B X P L A N A T I O N

1. This questionnaire is being prepared with the aim of
determining some of the characteristics of the pupils
who attend higher schools after primary school.

2. There are questions that you will be able to answer in
this questionnaire. Please read carefully before
answering each question.

3. Do not write your name or your surname in any place in
the questionnaire. It will not be known by whom the
answers are given and answers will be kept secret and
they will not influence your school studies.

4. Please ask any questions that you do not understand to the
instructor and then answer.

5. Please put the X Sign in the squares for the right
answers

Example: if your family lives in district center now,
answer this question as following.

6. Where does your family live?
(18-1) (1) in village
(2) in subdistrict center

X(3) in district center
(4) in the capital city of the province

6. In some of the questions it is necessary to give your
answers in numbers in the squares.

Example: if you are 12 years old, answer the question as
follows:

3. How old are you? (write in number in the square).
1 2 (l4-15)

7. If you are asked to give your answer in writing, write
your answer over the dotted line.

 

245

Example: If your father is a primary school teacher answer
the question as follows.

9. What's your father's occupation. (Please write) (21-22)

......I.....OO.Pgérp?¥YO§?b9910-O??§gh?¥0O.0.00.00......

8. The numbers in parenthesis have no relation with your

 

answers. Do not consider them in your answers. F“
QUESTIONS
(6-7) Name of the province where your school is located.......
(8-10) Name Of your'SChOOlOO......C...‘O..........00..........
g.
(ll) Your grade.......OOOOOOOOOOC......OOOOOOOCOOOOOOO......

1. Your sex

(12-1) male
(2) female

2. Where were you born?

(13-1) I was born in village
(2) I was born in subdistrict center
(3) I was born in district center
(4) I was born in capital city of the province

3. How old are you (write in numbers in the squares) (14—15)
4. Is your father living?

(16-1) yes
(2) no

5. Is your mother living?

(17-1) yes
(2) no

6. Where does your family live?

(18-1) (1) Live in village
(2) Live in subdistrict center
(3) Live in district center
(4) Live in capital city of province

 

7.

8.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

246

Which school has your father graduated from?

(19-1) hasn't attended school
(2) graduated from primary school
(3) graduated from secondary school
(4) graduated from lycee
(5) graduated from teacher training school
(6) graduated from boys' trade institute

(7)_ graduated from commercial lycee fi‘
(8) graduated from higher education institute or 1
university 2

(9) graduated from school (please write name of
SChOOl)......OOOIOIOOOOOOOOOOOO

Which school has your mother last graduated from?

 

(20-1) hasn't attended school F
(2) graduated from primary school
(3) graduated from secondary school
(4) graduated from lycee
(5) graduated from teacher training school.
(6) graduated from girls' trade institute
(7) graduated from higher education institute or
university
(8) graduated from another school (please write
name of school).....................

What's your father's occupation?

(21-22) please write.............................
If your mother is working, what's her job?

(23—24) please write..............................
How many brothers or sisters do you have?

(Write in number in the square) (25)

(If you don't have brothers or sisters; put a zero in
the square)

How many of brothers and sisters attend school? (Write
in number in square) (26)

Which of the following is the most suitable to the income
of your family?

(27-1) a. my family is poor
(2) b. my family is of average income
(3) c. my family is well to do
(4) d. my family is very rich

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

247

Have you ever worked to earn money? Are you still
working?

(28-l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

worked in summer vocations
worked on week-ends

work every day after school
worked some times

have never worked to earn money

(DCLOU‘DJ
N+HIHF+H

Which Of the following is apprOpriate to the savings
of your family or your own savings for school?

(29-1) a. I have all the money I need for my school

expenses.

(2) b. This money can only provide my school
expenses

(3) c. If I were not a boarder student, this money
won't be sufficient.

(4) d. This money isn't sufficient for my school
expenses; I have financial difficulties
in while I am in the school.

Do you have a separate study room in your home?

(30-1) Yes
(2) No

Can your family support you financially if you go for
higher education?

(3l-l) Yes
(2) No

Where did you finish the primary school?
(32-l) in village

(2) in subdistrict center

(3) in district center

(4) in capital city of province

At what age did you start primary school. (Write in
numbers in the square).

(33—34)
Have you ever flunked in primary school?

(35-1) Yes
(2) No

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

248

Were there five or more teachers at the primary school
you attended?

(36-1) There were five or more teachers
(2) There were less than five teachers

After primary school, have you attended any other
school before you registered to the school you are

 

attending now? r)
(37-1) Yes
(2) No
After primary school, have you quit education for
sometime?
(38‘1) Yes r
(2) No

Which of the schools did you finish after primary?

(39-1) Middle school
(2) Private Middle School
(3) Teachers' training (first level)
(4) Theological (first level)
(5) Other than above......................

Where was the school you finished after primary?

(40-1) In village
(2) in subdistrict center
(3) in district center
(4) in capital city of province

Have you flunked at the school you have attended after
primary school?

(4l—l) Yes
(2) No

Where is the school you're attending located now?

(42-1) in village
(2) in subdistrict center
(3) in district center
(4) in capital city of province

28.

29.

30.

31.

249

Have you flunked at the school you're attending now?

(43-1) Yes
(2) No

Who has influenced you the most to enter the school
you are attending now?

(44-1) a. I wanted to attend the school mostly
(2)' b. My father wanted me to attend this school
(3) c. My mother wanted me to attend this school
(4) d. My primary school teacher wanted me to enter
this school
(5) e. Please write any other person who has

influenced you other than any above...........

Which of the following statements is the most important
reason for your entrance to the school you're attending
now.

(45-l) a. I have this school because it's located in
the place I live
(2) b. I have entered this school so that I can
start earning my life short time

(3) c. I entered this school because of low eXpenses

(4) d. I entered this school because its teaching
quality is better than the others

(5) e. I entered this school because it is a pass
school.

(6) f. I entered this school because it leads to
higher education.

(7) g. I entered this school without thinking, just
by coincidence.

Where do you stay at while you're attending your school?

(46-l) a. with my family

(2) b. I am a free boarder at school

(3) c. I stay as a boarder at school domitory on
my own expenses

(4) d. I stay at private student dormitory

(5) e. I stay at a rented apartment alone or with
my friends.

(6) f. I stay at a house of a relative or at a
house of a family that I know.

(7) g. at somewhere else (please write)............

 

32.

33.

250

At where did you live the most? (the place you lived
most of your life).

(47-l) in village
(2) in subdistrict center
(3) in district center
(4) in capital city of province

Which of the following is apprOpriate to your future
plans?

(48-1) a. I am planning on higher education

(2) b. I am planning on having a job after I finish
school

(3) c. I am planning on staying home after I finish
school

(4) d. I am planning on continuing on my family's
business after I finish this school

(5) e. I am planning on finishing a vocational
school and start earning my life

(6) f. Others (please write).......................

251

REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
PLANNING, RESEARCH AND COORDINATION OFFICE

ANKARA

Number:

Subject:

- ,. .AӴ.r-q

Lycee Directorate

(Middle school Directorate)

A research is being carried out by our Ministry's Planning,
Research and Coordination Office in order to evaluate the nation- I
wide distribution of educational Opportunities, and to bring to
light characteristics of pupils at the general secondary educa-
tion level. Your school has been included in the sample for
this research. I strongly request your sending back the
attached questionnaires to the Planning, Research and Coordi-
nation Office after the filling of the questionnaires by the
pupils according to the explanations below, so that at the
latest they should be in the office on the first of April 1971.

 

 

Signature
For Minister of Education
Undersecretary
Akif Tuncel

EXplanations

 

l. 100 questionnaires have been sent for administering to
the first and third grade pupils of your school.

2. These questionnaires should be administered only to
one section of the first and third grades. In schools
which have more than one section, the section to
which the questionnaires will be administered will be
selected by lot.

3. The questionnaires will be filled out in the school
under the supervision of the teacher.

The completed questionnaires will be sent to the following
address:

Ministry of Education

Planning, Research and Coordination Office,
Technical Schools District,

ANKARA.

ADANA
ANKARA II.
ANTALYA III.
DIYARBAKIR Iv.
AGEAN( v.
ELAZIG VI.
ERZURUM VII.
ESKISEHIR VIII.
GAZIANTEP IX.
MARMARA(Ist.) X.
KAYSERI XI.
SAMSUN XII.
TRABZON XIII.
VAN XIV.
ZONGULBAK xv.

252

B O L G E L E R

The Regions of Turkey

I. Region:

Icel, Adana, Hatay

Konya, Ankara, Kirsehir,
Cankiri Corum

Yozgat,

Antalya, Burdur, Isparta

Urfa, Mardin, Diyarbakir, Siirt,
Bitlis

Izmir, Manisa, Usak, Aydin,
Denizli, Mugla

Malatya, Elazig, Tunceli,
BingOl

Kars, Erzurum,Erzincan, Agri, Mus
Afyon, Eskisehir, Kfitahya
Gaziantep, Maras, Adiyaman
Istanbul, Tekirdag, Kirklareli,
Edirne, Canakkale, Balikesir,
Bursa, Bilecik, Sakarya, Kocaeli

Sivas, Kayseri, Nevsehir, Nigde

Sinop, Samsun, Amasya, Tokat,
Ordu

Giresun, Trabzon, Gfimfishane, Rize,
Artvin

Agri, Van, Hakkari

Zonguldak, Kastamonu, Bolu

 

 

“dab—EON SH
Eb .bn
BONES .HH HM
Ema
Hahn. . . HR

6553. .u
.6853; .5
Seaman .626»
65663666 .6:
BN5" . E

"8
5568656
656.65
:35
:34

 

O» .
.hH
.HHH
.HH .\
.H fi.\ 0

 

 

ollc\l
.‘nl‘
\

.05. I...\.\....... (:3 I
.p.:..... 2.32: .

         

.... .. . ..... I O “W. 12,-O
. 666.33 «to..-
”N 66

- 6.32:...

1.? “14¢: . .-H.....H._..

«<36 .

693

666.: 55521 0

—_ r. 6 ...... ...(Juat
5sz o .. ”Hanna. 0 ....... ... ...
’ ...9

_.U.uoc_2 a . .~_zua....

6g. ...... ......“m.

......ng

 

. OX 66..“ O (I. x O .... u (.........u..>0
... o 1. 7m:.. 0...
... EU .... ¢ zo>u¢ «W36. aflzmi .

.. . . . r... . .. . . ...: . ... ....

Ege. . ...../

otacaum
6 .36. 36......

O
.. 536......
.../69:516....

2:” . .n.....
_v.... D .Zflhmcx...>
no? a

 

MINquJLr Lo ”7.0.de

CODE
No

01

02

03

04

05

O6

07

08

09

10

ll

12

254

CLASSIFICATION OF OCCUPATIONS

 

Professional Occupations:

Engineers, Architects, Professors, Chemists,
Mathematicians, Lawyers, Attorneys, Judges, Public
Prosecuters, Dentists, Officers, Teachers (secondary),
Specialists in various areas, Artists.

High Level Administrative Occupations:
Director General, President, Chief, Director, Section
Directors in Ministries.

Minor Administrative and Clerical Occupations:
Functionnairies in public and semi-public enterprises,
Stenographers, typists (qualified) cashiers,
Accountants, Clerks.

Technicians:
Technicians in electricity, mechanics, chemistry,
machine operators, laborants, Nurses.

Businessman:
Businessmen, wholesalers.

Small Traders:
Grocer, Baker, Cook, Salesman, etc.

Occupations related to Transportation, Cummunications
Drivers, Engine Drivers, Operators.

Handcraft Workers:
Skilled workers in weaving, tailoring, leathering,
Printing, Bakery.

Farm Workers:
Farmers, hunters, workers related to farming.

Workers:
Semi skilled, Unskilled workers.

House—wives.

Workers in unclassified occupations,
Occupations unknown, and unemployed.

 

APPENDIX B

EDUCATION DATA

Total pupils and 7-12 school
age population 1960, 1965 and 1970

The portion of girls in the total
enrollments-primary schools

Pupil-teacher ratios—primary schools
Number of teacher at primary schools

Number of students at lower secondary
schools 1960, 1965, 1970

Number of students at upper secondary
schools

l3-15 age group population

16-18 age group population

255

Code Number and Abbreviations for
Provinces in Turkey

 

 

 

Code Code

No. Abbr Province No. Abbr Province
01 ADN- ADANA 35 IZM IZMIR r”
02 ADY ADIYAMAN 36 KRS KARS

o3 AFY A.KARAHISAR 37 KTM KASTAMONU
04 AGR AGRI 38 KYS KAYSERI .
05 AMS AMASYA 39 KRK KIRKLARELI
06 ANK ANKARA 40 KIR KIRSEHIR
07 ANT ANTALYA 41 KOC KOCAELI

08 ART ARTVIN 42 KON KQNYA

09 AYD AYDIN . 43 KTY KUTAHYA .
10 EAL BALIKESIR 44 MLT MALATYA
11 BIL BILEGIK 45 MNS MANISA

12 BIN BINGOL 46 MAR MARAS

13 BTL BITLIS 47 MDN MARDIN

14 BOL BOLU 48 MUG MUGLA

15 BRD BURDUR 49 MUS MUS

16 BRS BURSA 50 NEV NEVSEHIR
17 CNK CANAKKALE 51 NIG NIGDE

18 CKR CANKIRI 52 0RD ORDU

19 COR CORUM 53 R12 RIZE

20 BEN DENIZLI 54 SAK SAKARYA

21 DIY DIYARBAKIR 55 SAM SAMSUN

22 EDN EDIRNE 56 SIR SIIRT

23 BLA ELAZIG 57 SNP SINOP

24 ECN ERzINCAN 58 SVS SIVAS

25 BUM ERZURUM 59 TEK TEKIRBAG
26 ESK ESKISEHIR 6O TKT TOKAT

27 GZN GAZIANTEP 61 TRA TRABZON

28 GIR GIRESUN 62 TUN TUNCELI

29 GUM GUMUSHANE 63 URF URFA

30 HKR HAKKARI 64 USK USAK

31 HTY HATAY 65 VAN VAN

32 ISP ISPARTA 66 YZG YOZGAT

33 ICL ICEL 67 ZON ZONGULDAK
34 IST ISTANBUL 68 TUR TURKIYE

 

256

257

Total Pupils at Primary School and
7-12 Age Group Population 1960l

 

 

 

11 Total 7-12 age I1 Total 7-12 age

kodu pupils group kodu pupils group

01 92,206 133,031 35 122,780 143,272
02 15,905 41,755 36 55,443 96,615
03 52,350 70,308 37 38,610 61,567
04 14,593 38,616 38 61,132 79,635
05 30,067 37,728 39 35,394 36,282
06 145,177 187,078 40 23,506 30,071
07 50,011 65,492 41 29,905 41,244
08 24,878 30,321 42 119,896 160,607
09 56,082 66,285 43 33,222 51,897
10 77,027 91,637 44 41,984 68,120
11 19,331 20,182 45 73,667 94,935
12 10,032 23,539 46 32,848 71,651
13 8,055 22,737 47 19,580 60,804
14 34,880 52,899 48 40,865 44,058
15 23,271 27,114 49 9,991 30,073
16 78,008 96,488 50 24,421 30,489
17 42,462 47,433 51 40,103 55,452
18 25,535 37,061 52 42,997 79,870
19 41,558 69,247 53 26,254 38,436
20 56,686 65,175 54 49,538 56,502
21 21,639 69,314 55 54,979 107,089
22 36,449 41,885 56 10,633 38,298
23 26,962 47,095 57 26,640 38,407
24 25,688 40,053 58 67,639 112,102
25 43,341 89,795 59 39,243 41,637
26 48,163 54,281 60 42,904 70,046
27 37,077 73,053 61 44,732 88,936
28 32,282 60,714 62 13,932 24,278
29 25,109 40,822 63 21,982 69,748
30 2,892 10,711 64 25,134 28,565
31 42,028 71,803 65 11,846 38,112
32 30,351 35,111 66 43,540 68,236
33 56,481 70,115 67 50,303 85,802
34 168,583 203,636 68 2,870,802 4,275,350

 

lSource: Milli Egitius Istatistikleri, Ilkogretim 1960-61,
Devlet Istatistik Eustitusu Matbaase Yayin No. 465,
ANKAKA, 1965, pp. 113-390.
Unpublished tables of age distribution of pOpulation
by provinces State Statistical Institute.

 

258

Total Pupils at Primary School and
7-12 Age Group Population 1965

 

 

 

 

Code Total 7-12 Age Code Total 7-12 age
No. Pupils group No. Pupils group

01 126,546 165,153 35 151,116 173,973
02 22,829 47,113 36 74,483 114,682
03 64,402 80,646 37 50,147 66,742
04 22,512 47,890 38 75,676 91,492
05 36,568 42,680 39 40,516 40,770
06 206,511 245,622 40 30,677 36,462
07 64,157 79,992 41 41,607 49,704
08 30,787 35,980 42 155,069 186,126
09 72,418 79,762 43 47,125 56,697
10 93,676 100,940 44 56,778 81,064
11 19,475 19,950 45 91,608 111,747
12 14,152 28,575 46 47,510 81,345
13 12,773 30,757 47 29,468 69,504
14 47,516 60,515 48 46,916 51,430
15 27,450 30,725 49 15,167 38,766
16 97,365 110,744 50 29,876 34,121
17 46,085 49,619 51 48,983 61,586
18 32,386 39,904 52 59,652 95,432
19 58,561 76,392 53 36,409 49,572
20 67,454 72,490 54 58,114 67,146
21 32,083 79,725 55 81,025 127,752
22 45,324 48,352 56 17,783 46,273
23 34,120 57,051 57 31,889 41,199
24 32,879 45,144 58 94,247 123,869
25 62,356 103,744 59 44,401 45,233
26 55,836 62,185 60 58,198 79,964
27 61,000 82,256 61 72,725 113,299
28 49,879 79,328 62 19,616 30,134
29 32,625 48,492 63 31,812 78,596
30 4,504 15,185 64 29,510 30,882
31 65,032 89,561 65 19,176 51,333
32 34,496 40,105 66 57,204 75,854
33 71,618 84,051 67 74,582 95,473
34 227,376 276,715 68 3,791,816 5,055,565
Source: Millifgitius Istatistiklen 1961-1965, Devlet

Istatistik Enstitusu Matbaasi, Ankara, 1968,
pp. 83-372.

Total Pupils at Primary School and
7-12 Age Group POpulation 1970

 

 

 

Code Total 7—12 age Code Total 7-12 age
_No. pupils group No. pupils group
01 163,174 196,020 35 178,641 202,148
02 37,829 53,814 36 103,971 127,868
03 74,835 88,480 37 61,588 67,927
04 31,559 54,996 38 95,762 102,360
05 49,243 47,287 39 39,536 43,745
06 287,837 304,977 40 38,793 40,792
07 77,521 93,431 41 51,289 56,012
08 35,572 38,425 42 192,415 212,982
09 80,407 89,647 43 58,410 61,201
10 104,555 106,974 44 78,162 90,948
11 18,954 20,341 45 106,280 127,088
12 19,938 32,596 46 74,769 91,707
13 16,538 36,817 47 44,925 78,305
14 62,860 65,981 48 53,576 57,667
15 32,004 33,449 49 25,313 45,927
16 112,841 120,908 50 39,146 37,058
17 48,449 57,260 51 63,492 67,591
18 37,520 41,387 52 90,678 110,313
19 83,344 82,918 53 47,637 55,869
20 80,596 78,732 54 70,307 74,881
21 52,493 94,676 55 125,545 147,519
22 47,767 51,686 56 27,764 52,858
23 49,858 64,238 57 42,286 43,947
24 41,654 48,144 58 117,427 130,687
25 83,133 114,405 59 43,962 47,191
26 66,640 65,758 60 80,354 90,290
27 77,301 92,485 61 103,631 126,544
28 71,891 86,822 62 26,935 33,094
29 43,923 52,527 63 51,511 87,990
30 7,837 18,816 64 34,056 31,841
31 94,784 102,791 65 29,730 64,812
32 40,507 44,162 66 72,310 82,434
33 91,475 96,449 67 100,319 109,234
34 328,760 343,926 68 4,924,119 5,722,155
Source: Fllerde Ogrenci, Ogretmen ne Olcul Sayilare,

mimeographed, Ministry of Education, Planning

Research and Coordination Department, 1971.

 

260

The Portion of Girls in Total Enrollments
Primary Schools

 

 

Cod Cod

Num Prov 1960 1965 1970 Num Prov 1960 1965 1970
01 ADN 358 395 430 35 IZM 454 460 469
02 ADY 190 231 329 36 KRS 285 319 374
03 AFY 360 387 453 37 KTM 369 381 414
04 AGR 262 263 275 38 KYS 323 360 421
05 AMS 377 402 488 39 KRK 468 482 489
06 ANK 409 436 468 40 KIR 357 400 443
07 ANT 378 403 482 41 KOC 399 408 450
08 ART 417 436 453 42 KON 372 408 447
09 AYD 428 456 470 43 KTH 402 404 441
10 EAL 450 457 451 43 MLT 286 341 376
11 BIL 458 471 486 45 MNS 419 436 467
12 BIN 273 321 326 46 MAR 235 275 333
13 BTL 271 271 259 47 MDN 216 269 257
14 BOL 363 377 405 48 MUG 450 457 462
15 BRD 425 437 458 49 MUS 231 267 278
16 BRS 434 447 467 50 NEV 368 387 472
17 CNK 466 470 470 51 NIG 332 370 409
18 CKR 363 392 426 52 ORD 256 284 359
19 COR 353 377 391 53 RIZ 302 337 374
20 DEN 407 442 470 54 SAK 403 430 447
21 DIY 272 279 276 55 SAM 324 346 403
22 EDN 448 464 474 56 SIR 252 252 259
23 ELA 307 319 363 57 SNP 389 392 443
24 ECN 336 369 409 58 SVS 285 347 388
25 EUM 341 348 371 59 TEK 459 477 479
26 ESK 451 467 479 60 TKT 357 363 399
27 GZN 256 342 351 61 TRA 237 296 368
28 GIR 247 291 374 62 TUN 280 314 382
29 GUM 341 362 400 63 URF 223 254 258
30 HKR 167 215 249 64 USK 398 432 462
31 HTY 289 322 371 65 VAN 276 268 290
32 ISP 417 439 450 66 YZG 300 343 401
33 ICL 404 431 458 67 ZON 325 352 399

34 IST 468 469 471 68 TUR 371 392 420

 

11:.-

 

261

The Number of TeacherSanzPrimary Schools
1960—1965-1970l

 

 

 

Cod Cod

Num Prov 1960 1965 1970 Num Prov 1960 1965 1970
01 ADN 1766 2572 4211 35 IZM 2581 3403 4730
02 ADY 377 506 782 36 KRS 1250 1675 2645
03 AFY 785 1285 2101 37 KTM 914 1161 1619
04 AGR 333 548 795 38 KYS 1475 1651 2447
05 AMS 640 872 1176 39 KRK 797 909 1160
06 ANK 3118 4779 7317 40 KIR 485 610 981
07 ANT 822 1260 2134 41 KOC 612 893 1326
08 ART 655 792 1215 42 KON 2251 2928 4492
09 AYD 1159 1618 2277 43 KTH 685 935 1515
10 BAL 1553 1858 2727 44 MLT 885 1144 1818
11 BIL 513 522 601 45 MNS 1455 1832 3078
12 BIN 263 326 541 46 MAR 689 959 1675
13 BTL 239 322 412 47 MDN 439 734 1117
14 BOL 772 1079 1670 48 MUG 952 982 1462
15 BRD 430 567 820 49 MUS 234 330 582
16 BRS 1766 2380 3220 50 NEV 489 602 924
17 CNK 1089 1177 1627 51 NIG 776 1002 1601
18 CKR 577 686 997 52 ORD 842 1143 1883
19 COR 876 1197 1937 53 RIZ 728 847 1019
20 DEN 936 1379 1922 54 SAK 1128 1395 1816
21 DIY 550 742 1252 55 SAM 1037 1517 2960
22 EDN 665 932 1432 56 SIR 319 397 726
23 ELA 613 747 1447 57 SNP 650 734 1118
24 ECN 583 731 1011 58 SVS 1336 1764 2624
25 EUM 1001 1460 2017 59 TEK 732 952 1174
26 ESK 1026 1377 2016 60 TKT 917 1248 1977
27 GZN 769 1209 1837 61 TRA 830 1457 2681
28 GIR 659 943 1699 62 TUN 391 419 660
29 GUM 543 674 1068 63 URF 569 702 1159
30 HKR 110 124 227 64 USK 503 577 844
31 HTY 883 1379 2380 65 VAN 326 440 791
32 ISP 633 753 1357 66 YZG 817 1187 1860
33 ICL 1166 1512 2481 67 ZON 931 1313 2314
34 IST 4333 5186 8032 68 TUR 61,228 81,336 125,516
lSource: Milli Egitius Istatistiklend, Illcogietum 1960-61,

1961-65,
465,

530, Ankara,

1965.

State Istatistical Institute,

Publications

 

262

 

 

666.N6N 66N.6H6 6N6.6Hm may 66 666.H6 6NN.66 666.66 66H 66
66N.6H 66H.N N66.6 206 N6 Hoo.6H 666.6 N6N.6 HoH mm
66N.N N6N.6 NN6.6 ON» 66 N66.N 666.6 66N.6 66H N6
66H.N 666.H 6No.H 26> 66 666.6H 66N.N 66N.6 >96 Hm
6N6.6 6NN.6 6N6.N 26: 66 666 66 H6 622 66
66N.6 666.N N6N.N mm: 66 666.6 666.N NN6.H 220 6N
66N.6 H66.H 6N6.H 229 N6 666.6 6H6.6 HNo.m mHo 6N
6NN.6H NHN.6 N66.6 «69 H6 666.HH 66N.6 66H.6 260 NN
H66.6H H6N.6 N6H.6 929 66 66H.6H N66.6 666.6 266 6N
666.6 66N.6 66N.N 269 66 666.6 666.6 6HH.6 26m 6N
666.6H 666.6 666.6 6>6 66 66H.6 6HN.N HNH.N 2om 6N
6HN.N 66o.N NN6.H 626 N6 666.6 66H.N 66N.6 «Hm 6N
66N.6 N66.H 666 666 66 666.6 666.6 6HN.N zam NN
66N.6H N6N.6 666.6 266 66 666.6 666.6 N6N.N >Ho HN
N66.6 6H6.6 666.6 266 66 NN6.6H 666.6 666.6 zmo 6N
666.6 666.6 66H.N NH6 66 6H6.6 N66.6 6N6.N moo 6H
HNo.HH 6NH.6 666.6 660 N6 66N.6 N66.N 66N.H 66o 6H
NHH.6 Hoo.6 666.6 6H2 H6 H66.N 666.6 NNH.m 22o NH
66N.6 666.N 6H6.H >62 66 H6H.6H 6HN.N 66o.N mam 6H
66o.N 666.H NON 6:: 66 666.6 666.N 6NH.N 66m 6H
H66.N 66N.6 666.6 022 66 666.6 6N6.6 666.6 606 6H
66N.6 66N.N 666.H 262 N6 666.N 666.H 666 666 NH
NNN.6 6N6.6 6NN.6 262 66 666.H H6N 666 2H6 NH
HH6.6H 666.N HN6.6 622 66 666.N 6N6.H NHN.H HHm HH
H6N.NH 666.6 66N.6 SHE 66 666.6H H66.6 66N.N H46 6H
6NN.N 6H6.m 666.N 292 66 N66.6H Hom.6 666.6 o>< 66
666.6N 6N6.6H 666.6H zox N6 6NN.6 6H6.6 666.N 966 66
NN6.6 666.6 N66.6 oox H6 666.6 6N6.6 NN6.6 926 No
666.6 666.N ONH.N 6H2 66 N66.66 66H.Nm 666.6N 22¢ 66
N66.6 666.6 666.6 266 66 666.6 666.6 N66.6 62¢ 66
NNN.6H 66N.6 66N.6 6>6 66 6NH.6 666.H 666 66¢ 66
N66.6 666.6 666.N 292 N6 Hoo.HH 6No.6 666.6 66¢ 66
666.NH 6NN.N 66H.6 662 66 N6H.m 6NH.H 6H6 >66 No
6H6.66 66N.NN HN6.6H 266 66 N6o.om NHN.6H 666.6H 266 HO
6N6H 666H 666H >066 5:2 6N6H 666H 666H >oum 5:2
woo woo

 

ommHlmmmHlommH
MHoonom xumpcooom H0304 um mucmvsum

60 666852 was

263

 

 

mm¢~m
5mm. om moo.m
6 ma
vhN.N mmm.N 0H66vm
6N6.6 hmm 666.H mas mm
hvm6N mmfi Hmm ZON vm06m
6 6 6 N6 6 6 .
666. 66 66 6» 6H6. 66 6
N 66 N N H6 .
6NN 6HN 6N6 26> 66 666.N 666.N 6 NH
6N6.6 H66 N66 666 66 H6N.6 H66.H 6N6.H 666 66
666.6 66H.N NNN 666 66 66 666.N 666.H 666 66
vmmsfl h®o~H mamsfl 238 No mmH~H Nv vovsH mmH NM
mam.¢ mow H6N de Ho hmH.m 5mm hq $92 Hm
omm 6N6.6 06m 8&9 06 mwa.6 665 new mxm om
©¢M~H NVM MFNsH KmB mm Qm06w wwmsfl F¢® :30 GN
66N.6 6N6 66N 6>6 6‘ 6H6.6 6HN.6 N66.H 666 6N
onm.m NOH.N 0mm mzm hm mmh.a vmhsa owm.m 2N0 5N
666.H NN6.H 6H6.H 6H6 66 6H6.6 666 66N.H 66m 6N
666.6 666 H66.H 266 66 N66.N N66.H NN6 Sam 6N
Now.N mmv.a mmh mam vm H¢o.m moo.a Ono.H 20m vN
mmo.H Ndmsd mHo.H NHm mm Hhmsm ON¢6H 5mm dam MN
N66 060 mmm QmO mm Hmm.N mmv.N 0mm zom mm
Nom6N mvm mow 0H2 Hm moo.H mvh mmmsd MHQ HN
mm®~H NMF HON >mz 0m mNM~N Hom va ZWQ ON
bom.m mom.a omv ODE m6 mno.a Nmn.~ 0mm mxu ma
m006v mmN.N Hmw ZQS 5v mOH6m How mm¢6m x20 NH
666.6 660.6 666.H 662 66 HmN ~66 NN6 666 6H
N6H.6H 666 66N.H 62: 66 6H6 66N 66N 666 6H
HNm.m Hmm.v mom HAS v mao mmH HMH qom @H
666.N 66H.H N66.6 max 66 666.6 6H6 NNH gem 6H
NN6.H 666 HN6.H 202 N6 6N6.6 666.N 666 sz NH
th60 Nom ONQ UOX Hv w¢v~N OHM6N Ndmsfl AHm HH
H66.H H66.m 66N me 66 666.6 66N NN6.H 46m 6H
Noo.¢ 5mm MOO.N xxx v OHm~ hvm6H mmm de
6 . 6 66 66 6 . em 66
m¢m60H mm H 000 NX mm mmmsN NNm6mH Hm H 4 mo
mmm.n man 29x hm omm 6N5 moH.HH 82¢ no
6N6H 6H6.6 666 66 6H6.6 N6N 666 V26 66
666H :6H 66 66N. 66N 626
666H > 666.6 6H6 666 66 66
Cum E: H mmm. mma 6&6
z 6 AH . wad mo
coo 6N6H 6 6 N6
666H 266 H6
0666 >oum
EH:2
coo

 

maooco
m xum Ohm I
UGO a m I
666 umaas6mw mw6H
MO HmEd
2 was

264

 

 

 

N66.666.N 666.66H.
N 66N.66 .
66N.66 H66.H6 6 . 6 H 266666 6N6.66H NNN.6 .
666.N6 666.66 6mw.mm N6 666.N6 666.NMH MN6.N6 66
666.6N 66H.6H 66 66N.6 . 66 6N 66
6N6.6H N 666 6H N66.
6NN.NH N66.NH . 66 6H6.66 . 6H N6
N6 . 6NH HH 66 6N6 66 66N.6N H
N6m.wm 66N H6 NH6.6N 66 H6NH6 666.6 666.6 6m
HN6.66 MMW.6 N66.N N6 www.mm 666.6H 6NN.6H 6N
H6 666.66 H66 6N 6 .
NH6.66 666.66 H6 666. . NN HN 6N
66H.6N N6 66N N6 666.
66N.6N 66N.6H 66 66N.66 . 6N NN
. 66N 6N 666.
6HN.N6 666.66 666 6H 66 66 . . NN 6N
666.6 6 66 666 N6 .
WWW MM 6N6 NH 666.6“ mm 666H6H 6N6.NH www.mm mm
66H.NH 666.NH 66H 6N 666.6N .
N66.N6 N66.66 66 66N. . N6H 6H 6N
666.66 NN 666 HN HH6.
666.N6 6N6.6N 66 NH6. . NH NN
666.NN 66 66N 66 666.
6H6.6N 6H6.NH . 66 6H6.66 . 6N HN
6H6 H6 666.
66N.66 666.6N 666.6H 66 666.N6 . 6N 6N
N66 66 6H .
NHN.66 66N.NN N66 6N N6 66 . . N 6N 6H
666.HN N NH 666 NH N66.
666.6H 666.6H H6 N66. . 6H 6H
. 666.NH 6N HN6 NN 666.
NNN 6H 666.6H . 66 66N.66 . 6H NH
N6H 66 6 .
666.6N NH6.NN NH6 6H 66 66 . 66 66 6H
. 666.NH 6 6H 66N.6H 666.
6H6 66 666.6N 66 6H6.6N . 6H 6H
. 666 6N 6 .
666.66 N66.H6 6NN 6N N6 6 . H6 6N 6H
666.6N 66 6H 66N.HH N .
66N.N6 666.66 66 N . N6 N 6H
6NN.66 N6 NH 6N6.6H 6 .
666.66 NN6.H6 . 66 66H.6 66 N NH
666.6 .
66H.NN 666.6N 666.6N 66 H66.66 6HN 6 HH
N6H.66 N .
NNN.66 66N.66 6H6 6N 66 6N6.H6 H6 66 6H
6H6.N6 .
HNN.6N 666.HN 666 66 N6 666.6H 666 6N 66
. 6N6.6H 6 .
NH6.6H H66.6H HN6 6H H6 666.66 N6 HH 66
666.66 6 .
66H.6H 66N.NH NHN HH 66 66 . 66 6N N6
. 6H6.6H 6 66H NNN.66H 6 .
666 66 666.66 . 66 666.HN . HN 6N 66
H6N 6H 666.
H66.NN 666.NN NH6.66 66 666.6N 6H 66
666.6H .
666.N . 666 6N N6 . N66 6H 66
666.6“ 666.N6 H66.66 66 6N6.66 66N.66 6N6.NN 66
66H 66 . 66N HN 6N6. .
6N6 66 6H 666 6H
66 666.66 . N6
6N6 66N 6N 666.66 H6
H 666H 6
66H 5 o
6 6 6N6H 666H
H6 666H 5606
HH

 

cofiumasmom msouu wm< manna

265

 

 

 

66~.o
Ho.
o>m~ov N mHmNMF N
6NN.6N 6NH. N H 6 .
MO 6 0m vm va~
N 66 NNN.N 66 . H
HNN.6H N66. N 6 6 6N 266666
Hows N NH mmNmH NfiMs
6N 66.6 66 . N6 N6H
N66. 6 6 6 . N.mo.
666 66 66N.6 666.6 66 6N6.6H 666.H6 6H.NHH
66.66 666.6 N6 . H 66 .666.66 6O6.6 666.m 6m
66H. 6 H 6 N . H N
NH OvNN hm 6 no 0N v vmwsh NOBNH mm
666. NN 6 6N 6 N H
6 .66 N66.6H 66H.N N6 66.6H N66.6 6H6.6H N6
NH6.6H 6N6.66 H66.6N H6 NN6.NN NH6.6H 66H.6 H6
66 6H 666.6 N6 . H 66 666.66 HN6.6 666.H 66
66N. H 6 H6 6 . 6 N 6 H
m smm NMHNNH NNWNN mm Hm FN mVNOM MONFH mN
HG mN 5mm; w s H mm m¢h~® NQHs HQFN m
66H. 66 N6 6H 6 6 66 mm m
66 666.6 66 . N6 66.6 666. 66N. N6
@556 N G hm v H mm HN
66 66N.6 66 . 66 66.6 666. N66.6 6
6N6.NH 6N6.6N 66N.NH 66 NNH.6N 66H.6H 66N.NH 6N
mm OH HOBNH mm 6 N mm moNNm vwm. mom. m
HH NON mHMN@ GWONQ Nm FmsmN VFOsz NmmsmH NW
N 6H 6H6.6 N6 . H6 66N.N 666. H6H. H
mN NBN mmshH Ohmsm om mm NN OGMNNH omFNHN ON
HN6.N6 666.6N 66N.6H 66 666.66 NN6.6H N6N.HH 6H
6 6.66 N66.66 666.6H 66 N66.HH 66N.66 666.6H 6H
5N MN M©Vsm MN 6 H 5? momNM mHmN mm¢s 5
m5 mOQsH Gm 6 0V NONG ONO; mm5~ m
H66. N H 6H 6 NN 6 H
00 NHN HMHNmW ©m®~m mv BNNm mmmsb HVHNmH mH
6N6.HH 6H6.6H 66H.HH 66 666.N 66N.N 66N.6 6H
HNNNmH OmHNOH OhH~®m MV mmMNOV mmth mhmsm MH
m mm omNNG Nm 6 H Nv mmmNm NOMN ommN N
6N N6.6 H6 . H6 6H.N 666. N66. H
NN6. 6 6 HH 6 H N6 66 H
66 666.N 66 . 66 N6.N 666. 66N. 6
66 66N.66 666.H 66 66.6NH 666.6N NN6.6H 66
6HN.6N 666. N 66 666.NH N6N.6 666.6 66
6N N6 666. 66 . 6H N6 . N
6N6H 666.66 6H 6 6H 6 6N N6
66 NNH.6 6N6. H6N. 6
H 66 6N6.6H HN6.6N 666.6 66
666H 66.66 MN6HNH MN6HNN 66
6606 NH 66 6M6.6H 66
6H ON6H N 66 mo
666H 66 6
6H
960%
AH

 

c06u6
6:606 @5060 mm
4 6H
IOH

DATA FOR

APPENDIX C

MULTIPLE-REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Procedure for Step—Wise
Multiple-Regression Analysis

Tables for Multiple-Regression
Analyses

266

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

Explanation of the Basic Steps in

Step-Wise Multiple—Regression Analysis
The step—wise procedure starts with the simple correla-
matrix and enters in the regression the X variable most
highly correlated with the resonse (dependent variable).
Let's name it X1.
Using the partial correlation coefficients it now selects,
as the next variable to enter the regression, the X
variable whose partial correlation with response (depen-
dent variable) is highest (name it X2).
Given regression equation Y = f (X1,X2) the method now
examines the contribution X2 would have made if X2 had
been entered first and X1 entered second.
The step-wise method now selects as the next variable
to enter, the one most highly partially correlated with
response. Let say this is seen to be variable X3.
A regression equation of form X = f(Xl,X2,X3) is now
determined by least squares. If the variable X3 enters
with a significant sequential F value (which must exceed
the arbitrary P value previously chosen for adding or
elimination of the variable), at this point partial F
tests for the variables X1 and X2 are made to determine
if they should remain in the regression equation.
If there are more than three variables the same proce-

dures are employed automatically. The regression

terminates with the best combinations of variables.

267

 

268

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

666 N
66. 666 6
66. ON: 606 6
mm. 66: N6. 60.6 6
6N. 66.: 66. om. 606 6
NH. 66.: NN 6N mm 666 N
66. 66: 6N 66 66 66 006 H
N 6 m 6 6 m 6 -
66696666> mnu mcofid COHumHmuuooumucHnl.Hu mqmda
H6>6q 66 66 N6.N 66H6> 6 666H662
m6.N06 m6. m6 6 H
msam> 6 mm uc6606ummou pmumucm 2066666666 :6 66666
coflmmmummm 6696666> 6:9 pououcm manmfium>
mam6uasz an pmcflmamxm may we .02
mocm6um> unmoumm
AN6 ":6 Hm>mq
6668666 pm 6666 606 mflmmHmcd :o6mmmumom mHQHuHsz 6663:6666 map 60 >66E856 6:8

269

 

 

 

am. 6

om. ON.I 6

H6. mm: mm. OCH 6

ON. 6ml. 6N. om. 00H 6

AN. m6.l NN. 6N. mm. OOH N

am. om.l 6N. mm 66 mm oo.H H
N 6 m 6 6 N H

 

.mmanmflum> map mcoE< :oflumamuuooumucHll.mo mqm<B

.m.© m6mm HOm Hm>mq mo um N6.N mDHm> m 8586262 H

 

 

om.m6 m6. m6 6 H
msam> m mm ucmwOHmwmou @mumucm coflmmmummu cfl mmmum
:oflmmmummm anMflum> mge wmumucm magmanm>
mamfluasz wn wwcfimamxm mnu mo .02

mommaum> H.666 usmoumm

 

Hm>mq
mumfiwum gm ONmH HOm mfimmamcm :Oflmmmummm mamfluasz mmflzlmwum mo humEESm mne

270

 

 

66.I I 6

mm. m6.I 6

m6. N6.I am. I 6

66. H6.I N6. 66. I m
66. m6.I m6. H6. 06. I N

am. Hm.I NN. 66. mm. H6. I H
N 6 6 6 N H

 

 

.m.@ 6666 How

.m®HQMHHM> mwfiu. mQOE COHH~MH®HHOOHmn~QHl|omU mqmmme

Hm>mq mo. um N6.N msHm> m Esaflcflz

 

 

~.mm am. am 6 H
mSHw> m. m pamNOAMMmOU Umumpcm coflmmwnmmu :6 mmum
N coflmmmummm mHQMflHm> 0:8 Umumucm manmflum>

mamfluasz an cmcflmamxm mgu 60 .oz

mocmwum> H.664 ucmoumm

 

mHoozom

Numwcoomm Hm304I06mH H06 mflmmamcd coflmmwummmeHmHuHsz wmflzlmmpm mo Numafism was

271

 

00.H N

 

06.I 00.H 6

6N. 0N.I 00.H 6

H6. mm.l N6. 00.H 6

6N. 6m.I 6N. 06. 00.H 6

NN. m6.I NN. 6N. 6N. 00.H N

66. om.I 6N. 66. 66. mm. 00H H
N 6 m 6 6 N H

.mmHQMHHm> macaw mcoHuMHmHHoonmucHII.6u mamme

.6.6 6666 How Hm>mq mo um N6.N msam> m aseflcflz

 

 

Hm.NH NH. 6.6H 6 H
msHm> m Nm ucmHonmmou cmumucm conmwummu CH mmmum
conmwummm mHanum> mph wmnmucm mHQMHHm>
mHmHuHsz ma wmcHMmem may 60 .oz

mOQMflum> H.664 usmoumm

 

mHoocom

mumccoomm HmBOA 666H How mHmmHmcd conmmHmmmImHmHuHsz mezIQmum mo NHmEESm one

 

272

 

 

NNI I

 

 

 

 

 

 

N6 0N.I I
6N m6.I N6 I
66 66.I 6N 06 I
66 66.I NN 6N 6N I
6N 06.I 6N 66 66 66
N 6 6 6 6 N H
.mmHanum> macaw :oHpMHmuHooumucHII.6u mqm<9
.6.6 6666 ~06 Hm>mH mo pm hm.N msflm> m Egeflcflz
66.N 66. H.6 6 HHH
60.6 N6. 6.N N HH
6N.6m 06. 6.66 6 H
msHm> m Nm ucmHOHmmmoo cmumucm conmmHmmH CH mmmum
:onmmHmmm mHQMHHw> $39 wmumwcm mHanum>
mHQHUHSE >3 wmchmem mzp 60 .OZ

QUCMHHMNV H.U©/N UmeUHmm

 

 

AN6nzv Hm>mq Numwcoomm
uwmQD um 666H H06 mHmNHmc< conmmuQmmImHmHuHsz mmHBImwum may 60 NumEESm was

273

 

‘!I|lil\ll[uql|l|llillll‘l:lllilll'li‘llv RI. . . I . d

 

Ou‘.

 

 

 

 

66. I 6
ID”.- ONII .I 1
H6. mmI N6 I 6
N6. 66I 66 06 I .
06. 66I NN. 6N :6 I a
N6. omI 6N .36 66 c: - ~
N. 0 A... n. v. N p
.2; 71.4.25 722:... 74:; 01—...— Zx. 7. Z.— . .....6 ”6.3/......
.6.@ 66am p06 HQ>QH 60 0: N6.N ;:~1> L E:E_:mz
66.6 N6. 6 N __
66.6 66. 66 .6 —
wde> m Nm pcmHUwaoou copagcx :sza;;7za :H nLLVz
. conmwumoz OHQGHHG> 6:5 Usgzuz: L~Lszc>
mHQHUHDZ >2 CozflmHzx: o:a 6C .32
oucmth> H.CC< azaoazg
:6...sz

mHoozom unaccooom Mama: um 0N6H ~06 mHmNHmz< :CHmmsgm;zIonHuHsz 63 >61zszm 2:?

"I7'1!IIIIEII‘ITI'LWM'IWIIJT