Do you realize what has happened to education as a result of the strife? Do you understand what the final draft of the education reform bill the commission has adopted implies?

Do you understand what happened when the MPs started to fight tooth and nail during the commission meeting last week? Do you realize what happened to education as a result of the strife? Do you understand what the final draft of the education reform bill the commission has adopted implies? I have been trying to figure it out for some time. The Turkish press was really amazing when covering the issue. They covered how many people occupied the meeting hall, which MPs prevented which from talking, how many times MPs were kicked, and what was thrown at the Commission Chair’s head. There was, however, no coverage of the bill that the commission passed while all of this was going on. Fortunately, Emin Zararsız, Undersecretary to the Ministry of National Education, sent me a comparative analysis so that I had the chance to read the bill. So, this is what I understand: The bill that the commission approved is substantially different from the bill that was submitted to the commission. The first draft, which was completely irrelevant to education reform as it was prepared purely in line with political motivations, has gone through a remarkable transformation within the legislative process. Let me tell you what has happened.

First, the final draft of the bill aims to increase the number of years of compulsory education to twelve. It proposes education via the 4+4+4 formula, thereby eliminating the requirement of uninterrupted compulsory education. Also, provided that it is indispensible to attend a single school throughout the twelve-year period, the bill allows such option as much as the conditions allow. In other words, finishing compulsory education at more than one school is both possible and not. This is the first point.

And the second one: The final draft of the bill has let go of the option to allow vocational training at the end of the first five years of primary education. The starting age for vocational training has been postponed to the third four-year period. Still, the bill involves provisions that students can take elective courses for vocational guidance during the first four years of compulsory education. The specific procedures will be regulated in time by the Ministry of Education. I stated earlier that it is unfair to start vocational training at the end of the first four years. This mistake in the first proposal was later corrected, which is good.

Third, the bill no longer includes the articles which enabled distance education after the first four years, which seemed like an attempt to prevent girls from leaving home. This should be considered as an advance. This is the third point to state.

This is what made the fight at the end of the commission adventure incomprehensible to me. Upon the work of the commission, the first draft, which looked like a sketch prepared according to political concerns, was turned into an education reform bill as far as possible. This is good. The inability to solve the issue without an uproar, however, signals nothing but an administrative failure. This, obviously, is bad. So, what are the flaws of the proposed draft as an education reform bill? Which issues have been ignored? Let me talk about these.

To begin with, lately, the Ministry of Education has been carrying out a comprehensive operation to reduce the classroom size from 30 to 24 students, in order to improve quality. Now, in order not to double the cost of reform, the project for quality enhancement most probably will be suspended. I recommend you read studies on this issue by TEPAV economists. The first thing that will be foregone because of the twelve-year compulsory education project will be the quality improvement efforts. This is the first point.

Second, neglecting early childhood education in the context of compulsory education is bad, whichever point you read. It is bad for the efforts to increase the rate of female participation in the labor force. Also it is bad for the efforts to improve the skills level of children. An education reform initiative should take care of this issue absolutely.

Third, the tradition of pretension, inherited from the 1950s, continues when it comes to religious education. Nothing has changed in this respect. Everyone goes on with empty talk. When what is called vocational training does not qualify as such, the debate on the options for vocational training will become fruitless and it will be the education system that will be damaged the most. I believe that Turkey’s democracy is mature enough to discuss religious education as a separate context, without reference to the overall education system. This is another observation I made during the Constitution Platform Citizens’ Meetings.

In the end, the need for a comprehensive education reform prevails.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 16.03.2012