Dershaneler ve Eğitimde Eşitsizlik

Günlerdir özel dershanelerin kapatılması tartışılıyor. Pek çok yorumcu tartışmayı siyasi bir hesaplaşmanın dışavurumu olarak okusa da kanımca meselenin eğitim eşitsizliği boyutunu unutmamak gerek. Dershanelerin kapatılmasını isteyenler bu kurumların ücretini ödeyip oralara gidebilen çocuklara haksız bir avantaj sağladığını, bu haksızlığın ortadan kaldırılması gerektiğini söylüyor. Dershaneleri savunanlar ise eğitim sistemindeki mevcut eşitsizliklere işaret ederek dershanelerin çocuklarını iyi okullara gönderemeyecek ailelere arayı kapatma şansı verdiğini ve fırsat eşitsizliğine deva olduğunu iddia ediyorlar. Yani dershanelerin kapatılması da açık kalması da aynı çıkış noktasından savunuluyor: Türkiye'deki eğitim sistemi çocuklar arasında ayrımcılık yapıyor.

Türkiye'de çocuk yoksulluğu hala önemli bir sorun, gelir dağılımında adaletsizlik sürüyor ve 15 yaş altı çocuklar bundan en fazla etkilenen nüfus grubunu oluşturuyor. Gelir adaletsizliğinin en büyük zararını görenler ise uzun süre kesintisiz yoksulluk yaşayan çocuklar. Yani paylaşımda tam bir adalet sağlayana kadar en azında toplumsal konumun nesilden nesile aktarılmasını, yoksulluğun miras bırakılmasını engellemek zorundayız. Ve bunun en gerçekçi yolu eğitim sisteminde eşitliği sağlamak.

Örgün eğitimin vermediği düdüğü parasını verene satan özel dershanelerin kapatılması 12 Eylül sonrasında da gündeme gelmişti. 1982'de ve günümüzde medyada yeralan tartışmalara baktığımızda epey ortak nokta bulmak mümkün. O dönemde de kullanılan söylemler aynıydı: madem eşitsiz bir düzen var, ya bu eşitsizliğin dışavurumlarını yasaklayacağız (dershaneleri kapatacağız, bodrum katlarda yaşamayı yasaklayacağız, okullara üniforma zorunluluğu getireceğiz) ya da aileleri bedel ödeyebilecek durumda olan çocuklar arasında fırsat eşitliğini sağlamayı hakiki bir eşitlik idealinin önüne koyacağız (daha fazla özel okul, daha fazla dershane açacağız, eğitimde özelleşmeyi hızlandıracağız).

İki kötü arasında bir seçim yapmak istemiyorsak tartışmayı bu iki uç arasına sıkışmaktan kurtarmamız ve içi dolu bir eşitlik talebini dillendirmemiz gerek. Buna sınav sisteminin aslında yönelimi ve yeteneği değil de çocukların toplumsal statüsünü ölçtüğünü söyleyerek başlayabiliriz. Çünkü mevcut eğitim ve sınav sistemi toplumsal mobiliteyi öylesine kısıtlıyor ki bugün hangi çocuğun üniversiteye gideceği, hangisinin meslek lisesine gidip işçi çıkacağı -kaideyi bozmayan istisnalar hariç- daha o çocuklar dünyaya geldiği gün belli oluyor. Beş yaşında girdiği eğitim sisteminde önüne konan seçenekler a. dindar/b. mezun olunca alıp alacağım asgari ücret/c. dershaneye gitmeden kazanamam/d. çok pahalı diye sıralanmışken kaç çocuğun ebeveynlerinden daha iyi bir hayat yaşama ümidi kaldı sahi?

1980'lerdeki tartışmalar ile ilgili yazdıklarım da şurada.

Debate on Education Inequality in the post 1980s

By the 1980s, distinction between children was no longer seen as an unacceptable and outdated practice, but as a hard fact. Then again, many commentators were reluctant when it came to revealing the ugly truth to children themselves. Although they greatly reconciled with inequality and came to terms with a society that favoured some children at the expense of others, many journalists argued that if at all possible, the kids should be spared from recognizing their social statuses. 1977, Tercüman, was already offering its own solution to this problem when it asked the municipalities to banish residency below street level, so that children living in basements would not feel inferior to their peers upstairs.^[1] By the 1980s other newspapers absorbed Tercüman’s approach to the issue, and many commentators agreed that prohibiting and containing symbols of distinction could be a solution. For example, school uniforms were considered to be among the primary means of concealing inequality from children. Thus, when private schools first introduced school-specific uniforms instead of the nation-wide black school aprons, the practice was interpreted as an unnecessary display of status, and Hasan Pulur of Hürriyet asked for strict regulations for students’ dress codes, so that underprivileged friends would not witness their friends who were dressed in fancy outfits for celebrations. ^[2] Similarly, Milliyet asked for the removal of television commercials for luxury goods that targeted children, for they “belittled” parents of slender means in the eyes of their sons and daughters.^[3] Although the angle of perceived inequality was not unsubstantial, newspapers’ approach to symbolic status was problematic insofar as this entailed a covert acceptance of persistent inequality lest it was not visible to the child. Therefore, this desire of maintaining the illusion of social equality could not turn into a plea for a better society but remained an extension of the cautious conservative criticism of Tercüman which concentrated on avoiding the symbolic displays of social distinction instead of narrowing the gap between children.

This timid request to conceal increasing disparities from children’s eyes was nonetheless more egalitarian than the downright defence of distinction that emerged in the 1980s. This sly reinterpretation changed the vocabulary of the equality/inequality debate by detaching it from the viewpoint of the disadvantaged children and approaching it from the perspective of the already advanced groups. From this angle, equality was no longer viewed as a principle but construed as an obstacle that would curb the advancement of already privileged children. This was done by attaching “equality” to “opportunity,” a term used synonymous with “available on the market.”

As the equality concept was reduced to an appendage of “equal opportunity,” it was separated from its social connotations. For, as pointed out by Amartya Sen and others, children’s capability and opportunity were quite different  concepts. Sen defines a child’s capability as “the alternative combinations of functionings that are feasible for her to achieve.”^[4] Therefore, just because something was on the market does not mean that it is an equal and “real opportunity,” not unless children could afford it. The subversion of the equality concept was based on the assertion that it would be unfair to close down privatized escape routes in an unequal system. This twisting and turning of the term emptied it of its meaning as it used evidence of existing inequalities and egalitarian efforts to advocate distinction. 

The pairing of “equality” with “availability” was especially apparent in the privatisation of education debate which used the term “equality of opportunities” as a multi-functional tool. On the other hand, private teaching institutions and private schools were defended as egalitarian instruments that helped close the gap between children.^[5]  For instance, Milliyet’s Mehmet Barlas was among the pioneers to employ the term “equality of opportunity” to suggest that the upper classes should not have to lower their standards to maintain social equality. He argued that since the state was incapable of providing high quality education, it should step out of the way of those who could afford to take care of their children, and should allow them to do so.^[6]  At the same time, the same terminology was used to oppose public high schools that offered foreign language education. Public high schools for special students selected by nation-wide tests were considered to be causing inequality that they offered better opportunities than regular public schools. ^[7] 

This perspective was adopted by journalists and statesmen alike, who used the evidences of dualities to justify elitism and distinction. For instance, Köksal Toptan, who held the title as minister of education between 1991 and 1993, rarely refrained from vocalising his great despair that the state schools were in very bad shape indeed.  Although it was highly unusual for a politician to admit that his ministry had failed its duties, the point of his declarations was clear: the minister stated that since the state simply would not allocate enough resources to enhance the quality of education for everyone, it was time for those of better means to take a stand and look after their own children.^[8] In other words, he used the evidence of inequality to advocate privatisation, and instead of looking for egalitarian measures, offered escape routes for the already advantaged classes.

The equality of opportunities approach became the dominant theme of the equality question by the 1990s, when the priority of a just competitive market over a just society was rarely contested. For example, in 1992, Erol Gönenç interviewed founders of private schools for Hürriyet’s private education file, and conveyed their demands such as tax exemptions, state subsidies and abandonment of compulsory scholarship programs to support the privatization progress. The article defended that private education should be a mass marketing product, and concluded that public schools created an unjust competitive atmosphere which was discriminated against private institutions, and harmed the equality of opportunities for the middle-classes by putting private education beyond their reach.^[9]

---

[1] “Bodrum katlarında oturanlar sinirli ve hırçın oluyorlar” (Those residing below the street level grow up more irritable and ill-tempered)Tercüman, 12 July 1977.

[2] Hasan Pulur, “İlkokul önlükleri üzerine” (On primary school uniforms) Hürriyet, 14 August 1982.

[3] “TV aileleri çaresiz bırakıyor” (TV makes parents desparate) Milliyet,  9 March 1988.

[4] Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. p.75.

[5] Özel dershaneleri kapatma kararının gözden geçirilmesi istendi” (The closure of private teaching institutions was called into reconsideration) Hürriyet, 18 February 1982.  Oktay Apaydın “Özel dershaneler fırsat eşitsizliğini önlüyor “(Private teaching institutions help prevent inequality of opportunities) Tercüman, 11 March 1982. “DPT özel dershanelerin kapatılmasına karşı çıktı” (The state planning organisation is against the closing down of private teaching institutions) Milliyet, 14 March 1992.

[6] Mehmet Barlas, “Yabancı  dil eğitimi” (Foreign language education) Milliyet, 27 January 1982.

[7] “Anadolu liseleri fırsat eşitliğini zedeliyor” (Anatolian high schools are damaging the equality of opportunities) Hürriyet, 2 January 1987. Kemal Önder, “Anadolu Liseleri tartışılıyor” (Debate over Anatolian high schools) Türkiye, 9 December 1992.

[8] “Bakan’dan acı itiraf” (Bitter confessions from the minister) Hürriyet,  27 January 1992. “Milli Eğitim Bakanı’ndan acı itiraflar” (Bitter confessions from the minister of education: report of a public statement from the ministry) Türkiye, 20 August 1992.

[9] Erol Gönenç, “Özel okul dosyası” (File on private schools) Hürriyet, 7-10 June 1992. 

Hello there!

I doubt I'll post regularly, but here goes...