I have always believed that you should keep what you have at hand if you don’t have a better alternative in mind.

Turkey has one of the highest child poverty rates among the OECD countries. It was not in the top four of the poverty league only in 2008, whereas it was one of the four countries that had the highest increase in child poverty between 1990 and 2008. When I checked the figures years ago I had decided that Turkey had to open a new path for education. Last week, Brookings, the American think-tank,  released a study that revealed that children from poor families can succeed in life if they can go to top-class schools. The study is based on  US data. The US also is a country with high rates of child poverty; in sixth place, following Turkey, which is in fourth place. Turkey has yet to take a step to overcome this unpleasant situation.  It could have designed an education loan system covering private training institutions in which successful students from poor households would compete for admission to top-class schools, for instance. Nothing yet. The 4+4+4 scheme does not have any remedy. The recent decision to close private teaching institutions, on the other hand, is not technical, but political. I have always believed that you should keep what you have at hand if you don’t have a better alternative in mind. And I believe Turkey has a problem in this respect. Let me tell you what I think.

Let me start with child poverty. The OECD statistics suggest that one in every four child in Turkey is poor. One quarter of the children in Turkey are born to poor families. What does this indicate? It clearly indicates that the fertility rate is high across poor families. And both the fertility and poverty rates are higher in rural areas. Rural poverty has remained intact over the last decade. Rural child poverty also has increased. What is more, the rate of children born to poor families climbed from 20 percent in 2008 to 24 percent in 1990 and is increasing.

According to the Brookings’ study, the life chances of children from poor families improve if they can go to top-class schools. The results are so logical that you can easily say, “I knew it.” The Brookings study reviewed thousands of tax statements to reach this conclusion. The criterion for the success of a school is assumed to be how much its graduates earn. So, they reviewed the tax statements to identify the stated income of their graduates. Crosschecking the tax statements of graduates and their parents, they reach conclusions as to whether school makes any difference. According to this, the children of poor families who studied in top-class schools have greater chances at success in life than the children of poor families in the same age group. Poverty is not destiny in the US. Turkey also can ensure upwards mobility for the poor.

What should be done, then? If schools enroll children by place of residence, the children of poor families have no chances for upwards mobility as by definition, successful schools are located near rich neighborhoods. Then, if there is a limited number of successful schools, competition for admission is a good thing. Competitive examination is a good thing when opportunities are limited. This is the only chance for children from poor families, if they are smart – and they usually are. This is the first point I would like to stress.

Second, if you are unable to have more successful schools and if you need time to change the curriculum structure, you should not close down these institutions, but extend loans to poor families to send their children to such institutions so that you can help them make a difference. Third, if to which school you went is such a critical determinant of your chances in life, it is essential to establish a private sector-based and government-guaranteed education system that will cover all levels of education including higher education. Korea has this system. Turkey should review and consider this system. It must start considering the subject for at least fifteen minutes before making any decision.

If you are not strong enough to change the world, you have to settle for the present one. You have to settle with the private teaching system, if you are not able to change the system that reproduces the system.  What does it mean if a country has had five different education ministers in just a decade?

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 29.10.2013