Can early childhood education be provided for all children in Türkiye?

Early childhood education, which covers the stage between 36 and 72 months, is one of the fastest learning and development periods for children (Bruce, 2015). During the learning process, the brain completes most of its neurological development (Usakli, 2010). This stage is a critical period not only for the development of the brain but also for the entire development of individuals (Cetin, 2021). Turkish kindergartens were introduced for the first time in the 15th century (Celik and Gundogdu, 2007). However, these schools were not widespread until the 1960s. In 1962, with the National Education Council’s decision to expand preschool education, the rate of schooling began to increase (Altay, 2011). According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) evaluations of the current enrolment rate in early childhood education (2022), the schooling rate of children aged 3-5 in Türkiye was 44%, while the average for 38 OECD member countries was 83%. Although there have been gradual positive changes in enrolment rates in recent years, the desired levels have not yet been reached in Türkiye (Gol-Guven, 2009). Considering that more than half of the children in Türkiye cannot benefit from preschool education and that education in the early years has a significant impact on human life, “reopening of village schools” and “The Head Start programme” may possibly be solutions to this problem. The aim of this study is to critically examine the efficiency of potential solutions within the social, economic, and demographic limitations of early childhood education in Türkiye, and then compare the solutions. Finally, recommendations will be presented.

One of the effective solutions to the problem of low schooling rates in early childhood education in Türkiye is the reopening of village schools. In Türkiye, village schools are educational institutions established to develop rural areas through education (Kapluhan,2012). Due to the school consolidation policy that started in the 1990s and migration from villages to urban areas, the educational activities of more than 17000 village schools were stopped (Kartal, 2008). As of today, only a few village schools are still running. However, when the findings of studies focusing on the school consolidation policy are examined, it is revealed that students and parents are not satisfied with the outcome (Isik and Senturk, 2003). In this respect, the reopening of village schools, which are not currently used, is noteworthy in terms of solving a major part of the problem. Accordingly, reopening these schools as kindergartens may attract migrants, students, and parents into these villages and cause counter-urbanization migration (Nefedova and Pokrovsky, 2018). Moreover, it is believed that this idea can bring solutions to many problems, especially in this period when remote working is widespread, and people are looking for ways to stay away from crowds (Gigi and Sangeetha, 2020). It should also be noted that the use of existing schools will not result in construction costs, and that villages can provide richer learning opportunities and healthier environments for children than that of cities (Dean, 2019). Nevertheless, it is obvious that this solution has some disadvantages as well as the advantages mentioned above. The possible disadvantages of this solution are the underdeveloped infrastructure of the villages, insufficient number of teachers, and current professional qualifications in nature education (Güneş, 2018). Despite these disadvantages, it is supposed that the advantages of this solution are greater by the researcher.

Another proposed solution is the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Head Start programme, which provides comprehensive preschool education, healthcare, food, and parental involvement services to disadvantaged children and families (Arıkan, Fernie and Kantor, 2017). It aims to provide a range of services and resources to help build stable family relationships, improve physical and emotional health, develop strong cognitive and communication skills, and create an environment that prepares students for primary school (Candemir et al., 2022). First launched in 1965 by Bernice H. Fleiss and Jule Sugarman as a catch- up summer course for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds, the programme has grown in popularity over the years (Powell et al., 2010; Hinitz, 2014). Looking at the long-term impact studies of the programme, which is notable for its success in providing equal opportunities in education, it was found that children who participated in the programme were less likely to be involved in crime, there were meaningful positive differences in all areas of development, the rate of further education increased, and family relationships were positively affected (Love et al., 2005; Bauer and Schanzenbach, 2016). In particular, the programme stands out for offering free education, organising schooling based on working hours, emphasising family education, and giving parents the right to take responsibility for their children’s education (Garces, Thomas and Currie, 2002). According to the OECD reports (2022), it is stated that one in three children in Türkiye was poor, and early childhood education was not free or compulsory. Thus, the proposed solution can offer remarkable benefits, particularly for Türkiye. Nevertheless, it is important not to forget limitations, such as the insufficient number of qualified teachers to implement the programme and social attitudes towards preschool education.

In assessing the potentials of the solutions presented to address the problem of low schooling in early childhood education in Türkiye, it is argued that both solutions can contribute significantly to solving this problem. This is because the Head Start approach in lower socioeconomic urban areas and the reopening of village schools in rural areas can help raise enrolment rates. However, comparing the two solutions in terms of practicality, the Head Start programme is more advantageous. The reasons for this include the fact that the approach can be used in existing schools in low-income urban areas without the need for additional infrastructure work, easy access to teacher training content and classroom activities to implement the approach, the organisation of school hours depending on parents’ needs, and free education. The preparation process and cost of the Head Start programme is less, which can facilitate the implementation of the solution. There is no doubt that the resources and time needed for the reopening of village schools are more than the Head Start approach. To implement this solution, the infrastructure of the villages should be renewed, schools and classrooms should be equipped based on today’s needs, families should be encouraged to move to the villages, the villages should be economically strengthened, and adequate teachers should be assigned to the villages. Although it is difficult to implement this solution, the importance of reopening village schools should not be ignored, given the excessive increase in population density in some cities, the spread of remote work, and the development levels of rural areas. In summary, rather than being alternatives to each other, it is believed that a conjunct cooperation of both solutions can contribute significantly to the schooling rate in Türkiye.

To conclude, the aim of this study is to propose two solutions and examine them to provide equal early childhood education for preschoolers in Türkiye. Failure to provide children with appropriate education in early childhood, one of the most critical periods in our lives, increases the likelihood that children will encounter problems both individually and socially (Schütz, Ursprung and Wößmann, 2008; Bruce, 2015). According to the Ministry of National Education (2022, p.22), almost half of the children in Türkiye cannot receive preschool education. Besides, the areas in Türkiye with the lowest kindergarten enrolment rates are socioeconomically lower urban and rural areas (World Bank, 2013). To address this major problem, the Head Start approach is recommended for low-income urban areas, while reopening village schools is suggested for the countryside. Having examined both solutions in detail, it is apparent that they have considerable potential in solving a significant portion of the problem. However, in terms of cost and preparation time, the Head Start programme is more feasible. The primary reason behind this is that the materials, content, and implementation of the approach are clearer and can be easily carried out after being adapted to Türkiye, as existing schools will be used, and free education will be provided in poor urban areas (Ersay, 2015). Since the two solutions focus on different regions, it is obvious that they can contribute to preschool education in Türkiye. However, it should be noted that the proposed solutions also have limitations. Due to the lack of information on why children who do not receive early childhood education do not participate in education, the rationale for the proposed solutions is weak (Batu, 2010). This situation makes it difficult to predict the extent to which the solutions can help solve the problem. In addition, the need for trained teachers, financial resources, and social attitudes towards preschool education are notable limitations of both the solutions. Nonetheless, given that education is a long-term investment, it is obvious that the government, universities, civil society organisations, and researchers have major responsibilities. It is recommended that the government provide financial resources and make the legal arrangements necessary for the solutions, and that universities adapt their teacher training programs to meet the needs of the proposed solutions. Furthermore, non-governmental organisations could be encouraged to organise seminars for parents, create and distribute digital or printed educational resources to positively change society’s attitudes towards preschool education, and researchers could conduct short and long- term studies on the solutions. Consequently, I believe that if these recommendations and solutions are implemented, these limitations can be minimised, and the problem can be solved to a great extent.

References:
Altay, S. (2011) ‘Preschool Period and Its Current State in National Educational Council Since the Foundation of Turkish Republic’, Education Sciences, 6 (1), pp. 660-672. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/nwsaedu/issue/19821/212162 (Accessed: 5 March

2023).

Arıkan, A., Fernie, D. E. and Kantor, R. (2017) ‘Supporting the Professional Development of Early Childhood Teachers in Head Start: A Case of Acquiring Technology Proficiency’, İlköğretim Online, 1(4), pp. 1829-1849. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2017.342996

Batu, E. S. (2010) ‘Factors for the Success of Early Childhood Inclusion & Related Studies in Turkey’, International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 2 (1), pp. 57-71. Available at: https://doi.org/10.20489/intjecse.107958

Bauer, L., and Schanzenbach, D. W. (2016) The long-term impact of the Head Start program, The Hamilton Project Economic Analysis Report. Available at: https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/long_term_impact_of_head_start_progra
m.pdf (Accessed: 2 March 2023).

Bruce, T. (2015) Early childhood education. 5th edition. London: Hodder Education.

Candemir, B. et al. (2022) ‘Alternatif Eğitim Yaklaşimlarinda Değerler Eğitimi’, Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 32 (3), pp. 951-966. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18069/firatsbed.1103296

Celik, M. and Gundogdu, K. (2007) ‘Historical Process of Early Childhood Education in Turkey’, Journal of Kazim Karabekir Education Faculty, 16, pp. 172–190. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/31580 (Accessed: 1 March 2023).

Cetin, S.U. (2021) ‘Early Childhood Teacher Education in Türkiye: Description, Research and Problems’, in W. Boyd and S. Garvis (eds) International Perspectives on Early Childhood Teacher Education in the 21st Century. Springer, Singapore, pp. 199–216. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5739-9_13

Dean, S. (2019) ’Seeing the Forest and the Trees: A Historical and Conceptual Look at Danish Forest Schools’, International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 6(3), pp. 53-63. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1225663.pdf (Accessed: 28
March 2023).

Ersay, E. (2015) ‘Investigating pre-service early childhood teachers’ views on science technology and society issues in Turkey’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, pp. 1397-1402. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.318

Garces, E., Thomas, D. and Currie, J. (2002) ‘Longer-Term Effects of Head Start’, American Economic Review, 92 (4), pp. 999-1012. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260344560

Gigi, G. S. and Sangeetha, J. (2020) ‘Impact of remote working on employees in IT industry’, Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 26(2), pp. 537-544. Available at: https://doi.org/10.47750/cibg.2020.26.02.072

Gol‐Guven, M. (2009) ‘Evaluation of the quality of early childhood classrooms in Türkiye’, Early Child Development and Care, 179(4), pp. 437–451. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430701217639

Güneş, G. (2018) ‘Okul öncesi fen ve doğa eğitimi araştırmalarına ilişkin bir tarama çalışması: Türkiye örneği’, Erken Çocukluk Çalışmaları Dergisi, 2(1), pp. 33–67. Available at: https://doi.org/10.24130/eccd-jecs.196720182150

Hinitz, B. S. F. (2014) ‘Head Start: A Bridge from Past to Future’, YC Young Children, 69(2), pp. 94–97. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/ycyoungchildren.69.2.94 (Accessed: 2

April 2023).

Isik, H. and Senturk, I. (2003) ‘Parents’ View on Bussing of Primary School Students and Its Discontinuity’, Kastamonu Education Journal, 11(2), pp. 285–296. Available at: https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/81171/tasimali-ilkogretim-uygulamasi-ve-bu-
uygulamaya-son-verilmesiyle-ilgili-veli-gorusleri (Accessed: 25 March 2023).

Kapluhan, E. (2012) ‘Atatürk dönemi eğitim seferberliği ve köy enstitüleri’, Marmara cografya dergisi, 26, pp. 172-194. Available at:

https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/marucog/issue/473/3883 (Accessed: 5 March 2023).

Kartal, S. (2008) ‘Toplum Kalkınmasında Farklı Bir Eğitim Kurumu: Köy Enstitüleri’, Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 4(1), pp. 23–36. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/160960 (Accessed: 25 March 2023).

Love, J. M. et al. (2005) ‘The Effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-Year-Old Children and Their Parents: Lessons for Policy and Programs’, Developmental Psychology, 41(6), pp. 885–901. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.885

Ministry of National Education (2022) National Education Statistics Formal Education 2021/’22. Available at:https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2022_09/15142558_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2021_2022.pdf (Accessed: 26 March 2023).

Nefedova T. and Pokrovsky N. (2018) ‘Terra Incognita of the Russian Near North: Counter- Urbanization in Today’s Russia and the Formation of Dacha Communities’. European Countryside, 10 (4), pp. 673-692. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2018-0037

OECD (2022) Improving Early Equity: From Evidence to Action, Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/6eff314c-en (Accessed: 2 March 2023).

Powell, D. R. et al. (2010) ‘Effects of an early literacy professional development intervention on head start teachers and children’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), pp. 299–312. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017763

Schütz, G., Ursprung, H. W., and Wößmann, L. (2008) ‘Education policy and equality of opportunity’, Kyklos, 61(2), pp. 279-308. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2008.00402.x
Usakli, H. (2010) ‘Early childhood education: The case of Türkiye’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11(2), pp. 215–218. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2010.11.2.215

World Bank (2013) Expanding and Improving Early Childhood Education in Turkey. Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/16066/777230ENGLISH 0ECE0EN0july03.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed: 1 March 2023).